The Printers and The Beaumont and Fletcher Folio
of 1647,
Section 2
by
Robert K. Turner,
Jr.
I. Introduction
From the textual scholar's point of view, the Beaumont and Fletcher
Folio of 1647 is in some ways as interesting a book as its more famous
predecessor, the Shakespeare Folio. In it Humphrey Moseley, the publisher,
gathered, in addition to Beaumont's Masque of the Inner
Temple, his verse letter to Ben Jonson, and a suitably copious
amount
of preliminary material, thirty-three "Beaumont and Fletcher" plays
previously unprinted. The book thus preserves the copy-texts of most of the
works in the Beaumont and Fletcher canon. Of a different order of interest
is the fact that Moseley, evidently to speed production, had the volume
manufactured in sections, bibliographically independent for the most part,
by perhaps as many as seven different printers, the shares of five of which
have been identified.[1] Because
within its covers the bibliographer sees eight moreor-less separate books,
the Folio is an ideal ground for a comparison of the methods
adopted in several contemporary houses for the printing of similar material
in the same format. This article reports the results of a study of the printing
of Section 2, which, it is hoped, will lead to
a more extensive investigation of the work of the other printers who
contributed to the volume.
[2]
II. Evidence
All evidence was obtained from examination of two copies of the
Folio, the one belonging to the library of the University of Wisconsin
—
Milwaukee (of unknown provenience, but purchased from Heffer,
Cambridge, in 1952) and the one belonging to Dr. Cyrus Hoy (formerly the
Fairfax of Cameron copy).[3] The
kind of evidence used, the terminology adopted for it, the means contrived
to display it, and the interpretations put on it have been influenced, as the
reader will recognize, by Dr. Charlton Hinman's Printing and
Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare (1963), although
there are some divergences from Hinman's methods chiefly because of
technical differences between the Shakespeare and the Beaumont and
Fletcher Folios. Yet the general similarities between these books and the
kinds of evidence available from both are so strong that it has been possible
to refer the reader often to Hinman's study, where he will find many
matters
relevant to this investigation discussed admirably and at length.
It seemed convenient to work through the section quire-by-quire and
page-by-page, considering in turn evidence relating to presswork, to the
identity of compositors and the scope of their work, and to the method of
composition they employed. The evidence used and the nature of the
inference from it are governed by the relationship between the three distinct
stages in the cyclical journey of pieces of type from the type cases into the
formes (composition), through the press (presswork), and from the
wrought-off formes into the cases again (distribution).
Presswork
Because information about presswork, specifically the order of the
formes through the press, is relatively easy to obtain and is based on
evidence that is the least controvertible, the analysis of each quire
began with proof of the order of the formes, which was made on these
grounds:
- 1. Evidence from the components of the skeleton-forme,
such
as running-titles and rules, and from center rules, taking into account the
testimony of priority given by disfigurations, dislocations, and other
peculiarities.[4] It was
assumed,
in the absence of indications to the contrary, that two skeleton-formes
would have been used alternately.
- 2. Evidence from type matter reappearing within the
quire. When a piece of type, a scene head, an ornament, or a rule
not
a part of the skeleton-forme appears twice within the same quire, it is
apparent that one of the formes of the quire was printed and distributed (at
least in part) before composition of the entire quire was completed. It was
assumed, lacking contrary evidence, that two formes containing the same
piece of type matter would not have been machined concurrently, for had
they been, a delay in presswork would have resulted.
- 3. Evidence from embossing. The priority of the
formes printing and perfecting a single sheet can be determined from the
embossing of the inked paper by the type of the perfecting forme,[4a] but because embossing resulted
largely
from the pressure exerted by the pressman's pull, there are nearly always
differences in the degree of embossing in different examples of the same
sheet. Because one of the copies of the Folio used for this study is not
generally accessible, the evidence from embossing is not reported. It may
be understood, however, that the implications of this kind of evidence as it
appeared in the copies examined never contradicted the conclusions drawn
from other evidence.
The Order of Composition and
Distribution
It is reasonable to assume that a temporal relationship held between
composition, presswork, and distribution — that, in general, the first
forme set was the first forme machined and the first distributed. As soon
as this is said, however, qualification must be made. If the press
was temporarily out of commission, printing other material, or otherwise
unavailable for work on the Folio, two or even more formes might be
machined later in any convenient order. Yet when operation proceeded
smoothly, "the order in which the various formes were printed was
ordinarily the the same as that in which they were set."
[5] Thus, to prove the order of
printing is
usually to prove the order of the composition of the formes. Such a firm
relationship did not, however, exist between presswork and distribution, for
if two wrought-off formes were available for distribution nothing seems to
have compelled the compositor to distribute first the one that was machined
first.
[6] Once more, though, there was
a tendency to distribute material in the order of its machining; and,
regardless of its implications for priority, evidence of distribution indicates
at least that composition and machining had taken place. Such
evidence is, therefore, not irrelevant to problems of composition, although
it has to be used circumspectly.
Composition (in which term I include all the compositor's duties)
seems, in fact, to have been governed by presswork. When the press stood
idle, the printer could not profit; hence, when local conditions permitted it,
an effort evidently was made so to regulate the speed of composition that
the press would be supplied with a steady flow of material to be printed off.
The rate of printing was chiefly a function of the size of the edition, and the
rate of composition was chiefly a function of the nature and amount of the
text to be set up for each forme. The speed of printing was a constant, but
the speed of composition could be varied by several means, a favorite
among them being the employment of more than one compositor to set type
for a single forme or some other kind of collaboration to accomplish the
same purpose, such as the composition by one workman of a complete
forme while his companion set another forme or the employment of one
workman in distributing and performing
other chores while his companion set type. Flexibility was desirable, of
course, and these basic techniques may have been modified in many
different ways in order to adjust for the effect that particular circumstances
had upon the progress of a specific printing job. However, because a folio
forme contained a considerable amount of material and because a folio
forme could be machined in about the same time as one containing much
less (say a quarto forme) if the same number of copies of both were to be
made, it seems generally true that two compositors were required to work
simultaneously in folio printing.[7]
When two compositors collaborated
in setting a forme or some other subdivision of a quire, they would divide
the work to be done according to a more-or-less rational scheme consistent,
one supposes, with either the bibliographical structure of the book or the
physical characteristics of the copy. The actual division could, of course,
be affected by many things — the availability of workmen, their
speed
in composing relative to each other and relative to the speed of the press,
their competence, and so on — and the rationality of the scheme
adopted
may have been more apparent at the time than it seems now. Nevertheless,
the manner of dividing the copy is a factor that must be taken into account
when there are indications that more than one compositor was at
work.
Proof of the order in which the pages of a particular quire were set
can usually be made on the following evidence:
1. Reappearing types. As Hinman has shown in detail,
it
is possible to identify individual pieces of type which are distinctively
broken, bent, or otherwise marked and to trace their reappearances in quire
after quire.[8] There are, to be sure,
differences in the reliability of the identifications. Some types are battered
in so readily discernible a way that they can be recognized with no
difficulty. Others, however, are so deformed that the characteristic which
makes them distinctive can be obscured by variations in inking, in the
surface of the paper, or in the force of the impression. Still others are
virtually worthless as evidence because either through accident or through
some weakness inherent in the design of the letter two or more types will
have been damaged in such a way as to make them practically
indistinguishable; the ascenders of d's and the descenders of p's, for
instance, were very often bent or broken in almost exactly the
same way. Sometimes a letter which can be recognized in one copy of the
Folio cannot be recognized in another, and sometimes a pattern of
recurrences will indicate that a type must have been used on a certain page
on which it cannot be found.[9]
Furthermore, a compositor was rarely obliged to use
again immediately any type which was returned to his case; he may not
have needed it, or it may have become temporarily unavailable by being put
accidentally in an out-of-the-way place or simply by sifting down into the
box. Thus some types, as it were, go underground for several, sometimes
many, quires. On the whole, however, types were reused regularly; and,
when recognized, they provide very solid bibliographical evidence, although
the reliability of this evidence decreases, as will be seen, the smaller the
number of types giving testimony.
To find in Quire Y a type which had earlier appeared in Quire X is
generally to find that the part of Quire X containing the type had been
distributed in the ordinary way. But this conclusion is not always correct,
for some types moved into new positions not as a result of distribution but
as a consequence of an accident or irregularity, having been pulled during
inking, separated from other types when the skeleton was stripped from the
wrought-off forme or the center rule removed, or dropped during
distribution.[10] If one finds ten types
from X3a in Y4b, it is clear that X3a was distributed before the Y-column
was set and that Y4b was composed at the case[11] into which X3a type was
distributed, if
the column rather than the part-column was the unit of distribution. If,
however, one finds one type from X3a in Y4b, these matters are by no
means so clear; the one X3a type may be aberrant, having made its way
into the case
from which Y4b was set through accident rather than regular distribution,
or it may be quite genuine, being merely the only recognizable type from
X3a that happens to appear in Y4b. Thus when recognizable types are few,
it is necessary to use the evidence they provide with caution, and, if
possible, to confirm it by evaluating its consistency with other evidence.
Nevertheless, in spite of minor ambiguities, distribution is usually not hard
to prove, and it then follows that "whenever a number of types are
distributed into a certain case these types will necessarily next be used in
material set from that case."[12]
Evidence of case in conjunction with spelling evidence, as Hinman has
shown, is of major importance in establishing the limits of a compositor's
work in a particular forme,
the identity of the workman, and the relationship borne by composition to
presswork at any particular time.
[13]
Whether type drawn from one case was distributed into the same case
by the man who set it is a matter of some consequence. What little
information there is about this aspect of Elizabethan printing practice
indicates that sometimes, perhaps generally, compositors may be said to
have "owned" their types, so that if Compositor A set X3a from a certain
case, the reappearance of X3a type on Y4b will indicate that Compositor
A set that column as well from the same case.[14] In William Wilson's section of the
Folio,
however, this practice was not followed with any consistency; hence, the
concept of case as a category of bibliographical evidence is severely
restricted. It is not, however, invalidated. If one observes that X3a type
reappears in Y4b, Y4va, and Y4vb, it is
evident that the three
Y-columns were set from the same case regardless of which compositor set
or distributed X3a. But it does become necessary when there is a likelihood
of one
workman distributing another's type to distinguish between the testimony
of types which reappear immediately and those which do not —
which
are, so to speak, latent — the former being much more trustworthy
as
evidence than the latter. Suppose that a type found in Y4b was last seen in
W2a, a column known to have been distributed during the composition of
Quire X into Compositor B's case. The implication would be that the Y4b
type in question was not used in Quire X and that its appearance on Y4b is
evidence for the setting of that column by Compositor B. It is always
possible, however, that the type actually was used in Quire X but was
unobserved there, and if it happened to be used in an X-column that was
distributed into Compositor A's case, its appearance on Y4b means that that
column was set by A, not B. The special treatment accorded latent types
(discussed more fully below) is thus a protective measure adopted to guard
against one's inability always to see or to
recognize the types being used as evidence. The chief value of latent types
lies in the confirmation they can lend to the implications of other
evidence.
2. Reappearing rules, display types, heads, and other
typographical matter not a part of the skeleton forme. In the
Shakespeare Folio it was
found that center rules were associated "with the type-page proper and with
the types used to set it. In fact they were treated very much as if they were
themselves only
types belonging to a special 'sort' . . . ."
[15] In Wilson's section of the
Beaumont and
Fletcher Folio, it seems that center rules were, in general, handled not as
types but as components of the skeleton-forme, which, of course, they
actually are not. This difference perhaps arises from the fact that in
Jaggard's shop the page was usually the unit of distribution and in Wilson's
the column, but the point is that in Wilson's work the center rules cannot
be used to prove the identity of the compositor, nor can other miscellaneous
typographical matter not a part of the skeleton forme. Initials, act and scene
heads kept standing, short rules inserted horizontally to set off heads,
ornaments, and display types seem to have been returned after use to a
central location from which any
workman could draw them subsequently. Thus the reappearance in Y4b of,
for instance, a short rule previously observed on X3a, Compositor A's
work, does not mean that Compositor A set Y4b; it means only that X3a
was off the press at the time Y4b was set.
3. Type shortages. Because double-column folio formes
contained a relatively large amount of type and because the repetition of
proper names or abbreviations of them demanded the same letter again and
again, type shortages sometimes occurred, particularly in the italics used for
speech-prefixes and stage-directions. These shortages caused the
compositors to substitute letter of a different sort, usually roman for the
customary italic, so that a speech-prefix for the character Zenocia in
The Custome of the Countrey, for example, sometimes
appears
as Zen. rather than as Zen. Deliberate
substitutions
of this kind can be distinguished from errors arising from such causes as
foul case by the frequency and consistency of the occurrence of the
wrong-font letter. It seems reasonable to suppose that, in general, the
compositor would use up his supply of regular type before he would begin
to substitute and would continue to substitute until his supply of regular
type was renewed by the distribution of a wrought-off forme containing
type of the required sort. On this supposition inferences can be made about
the priority of composition of certain columns or pages within a
compositor's stint. But workmen apparently did not always wait until their
regular supply was completely exhausted before they began to substitute,
and perhaps they occasionally raided other cases or broke new supplies out
of storage rather than obtaining types from distribution.
Moreover, it appears sometimes that during distribution the boxes
containing a depleted sort were deliberately fouled, a crude but efficacious
answer to the shortage and one which creates the impression of deliberate
substitution which did not take place. As a rule, the testimony of type
shortages is reasonably reliable when the shortage first comes into being,
but it tends to degenerate in worth beyond a quire or two.
The Identity of Compositors
The identity of compositors can be proved on the basis of their
habitual and occasional preferences or lack of preferences in spelling,
typography, punctuation, abbreviation, and so on, although the detection
of these preferences can be complicated by several factors, among them
the alteration of spelling to "justify" a full line of type, the
adoption of non-preferential spellings for visual rhyme, and, most
enigmatic of all, the influence of copy spellings on the compositor's
normal habits. A high degree of consistency in spelling evidence seems,
unfortunately, to be rare, and it is conceivable that two compositors in
the same shop could have preferences so nearly alike that their work is
for practical purposes indistinguishable. Yet very considerable aid and
comfort in the solution of problems of identity is available from
evidence of case and order, applied on the reasonable assumption that
two compositors could not set simultanously from the same case. If one
finds, for example, that Quire X was set from one case, it follows that
it was set by one compositor, unless it can be shown by variation in
spelling that he was relieved at the same case by another workman during
the course of composition. If one finds that Quire X was machined in the
order 2v:3-2:3v-1v:4-1:4v
and that X1-2v were set from one case and X3-4v
from another, it usually follows that two compositors were setting
simultaneously, barring once again the chance that either man was
relieved at his case. Even with the help thus provided, conflicts in
spelling evidence occasionally create uncertainties; but by and large
one finds that evidence of case and order accords with spelling evidence
in such
a way that the identity of the compositor is reasonably clear.[16]
III. The Printer of Section 2
Because the presentation of evidence hinges on the procedure
followed in the printing, it is convenient to turn first to a brief account of
the work of William Wilson and of the special features of the part
of the Folio for which he was responsible. Section 2 as originally planned
was to contain five plays:
The Custome of the Countrey
(A1-D1
v, D1
v blank),
The Noble
Gentleman
(D2-F3
v),
The Captaine
(F4-K1
v, K1
v blank),
Beggars Bush (K2-M4
v), and
The
Coxcombe
(N1-P4
v, P4
v blank). To these, however,
The False
One (Q1-S4
v, S4
v blank) was
added very late in the printing
of
The Coxcombe, evidently after the prologue
(P3
v) and
the epilogue (P4) of that play, which had been violently spaced out to fill
up as much of the end of Quire P as possible, had been set, but soon
enough for the same skeleton-formes as had been in use to be employed
further.
[17] An additional indication of
the late assignment of
The False One to Wilson is the
presence
on P4, the last page of
The Coxcombe containing letterpress,
of the catchword
The Chances, this play being the first in
Section 3. As for the preliminary sub-sections, A contains the title-page
(A1), a blank (A1
v), the players' dedication
(A2-A2
v), Shirley's
address (A3-A3
v), Moseley's address
(A4-A4
v); e (actually signed
E) short poems by Corbett, Jonson, and Herrick (e1) and a
long
one by Birkenhead (e1
v-e2
v); and f
poems by Powell (f1), Hills
(f1
v), Howe (f2), Palmer (f2
v), Brome
(f3), Harris
(f3
v-f4
v), and Harrington
(f4
v). Because the preliminary
material was set, for the most part, from fonts different from those
employed in printing the plays and because the skeletons in which it was
imposed cannot be identified, it is excluded from further
consideration.
About the printer not much is known that is relevant.[18] Wilson was bound in 1618 and
gained his
freedom in 1626. For twenty years thereafter he worked as a journeyman,
but in 1645 he won, along with the hand of Mary Okes, control of the shop
previously run successfully by her former husband John and before John by
his father Nicholas. During the earlier years of the history of this printing
house, the number of presses had been restricted to one, as specified by
orders of the Stationers' Company recorded under the dates of 9 May 1615
and 15 July 1623.[19] Even during the
time of Nicholas Okes's temporary and rather unhappy partnership with
John Norton, which seems to have lasted from 1628 to about 1636, a
second press apparently was not put into operation.[20] Yet after he took over management
of the
shop, Wilson printed a great many titles in a relatively short span of years,
a fact which suggests that he may have erected the second press which the
1668 survey of London printing houses credits to his step-son and successor
Edward Okes.
[21] Miller (p. 136)
thinks it likely that he did so, but not until 1653, when he applied to the
Company for a loan of £50. What historical information there is, then,
suggests that Wilson was printing on only one press at the time he worked
his part of the Folio, and the fact that his section was machined in two
skeleton-formes and no more tends to bear this out.
Moseley's entry of the Beaumont and Fletcher copies in September,
1646, and his dating of "The Stationer to the Readers" as 14 February,
1646, indicate that the 1647 of the Folio title-page is a calendar-year date
and that publication took place shortly before or after 25 March 1647. The
allusions to the printing of the volume in Moseley's address further suggest
that the body of the volume was completed, or nearly so, by 14 February.
Hence, "the bulk of the printing was done in the autumn and winter of
1646."[22] The year 1646 was a busy
one for Wilson. The STC lists eighteen titles, including
broadsides, which were issued from his press in that year, and there may
have been more to which his name was not added. He completed Francis
Hawkins' Youths Behavior by 5 October and the first edition
of
Thomas Fuller's Andronicus by 9 October, following this
with
a second edition evidently shortly thereafter, for it, like the first
edition, is dated 1646. During the winter he must have been occupied with
his part of Shirley's Poems of 1646, entered 31 October; his
part of Sir George Buc's large Historie of the Life and Reigne of
King
Richard III, 1646 in some copies, 1647 in others, entered 12
October; and some minor work.[23]
His compositors and his one press could not have been devoted exclusively
to printing Folio material during this time, and thus one can understand the
interruptions in the Folio printing indicated, as will be shown, by
bibliographical evidence.
IV. Presentation of Evidence
The analysis of individual quires was based on evidence from several
sources:
1. Skeleton-formes and center rules. Appendix A
summarizes information about the components of the two skeleton-formes
employed in Section 2, rules being identified by arbitrarily chosen arabic
numerals and running-titles by arbitrarily chosen Roman numerals. The four
rules which enclose the page are referred to as the "Top Box," the "Bottom
Box," the "Left Box," and the "Right Box." The "Head Rule" separates the
running-title from the text. "HT" means head-title; head-titles appear
instead of running-titles on pages upon which plays commence, and they do
not recur. Running-titles were, of course, reset for each new play, but
because the
The of the old title was usually retained, the
numeral borne by the old describes the reset title as well. The listing is by
formes, so that, considering forme A1:4
v, one sees
indicated for page
A1 Rule 1 as the Top Box, Rule 4 as the Bottom Box, Rule 5 as the Left
Box, and so on; and for page A4
v Rule 7 as the Top Box,
Rule 9 as
the Bottom Box, Rule 10 as the Left Box, and so on. It was convenient to
include a listing of center rules here, although
they are not, properly speaking, parts of the skeleton-formes.
2. Identified types and rules. Although not included
here,
tables were prepared in which were listed by an identifying number all
recurring types and rules not a part of the skeleton-forme (excluding center
rules) and their locations by page, column, and line. A total of 562 types
and 37 independent rules were found to recur, some as few as two times,
some as many as eighteen — that is, in nearly every quire and
sometimes
twice within a single quire.[24]
3. Graphs and supporting lists. For each quire of
Section
2 except the first a graph was prepared to show the sources within the Folio
of the recognizable types which reappear within the quire and consequently
the case or cases from which various parts of the quire were set. The basic
idea of such an array was Hinman's (as was the term "graph" to name it),
but these graphs differ in a number of particulars from his because of
several technical differences between Jaggard's and Wilson's work and
because of the different formats of the two books, the Shakespeare Folio
being in sixes and the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio in fours. The identity
of the types and rules represented in each graph was indicated in a
supporting list.
The graph for Quire G is fairly typical and may serve as an example.
Before it was prepared, the evidence relating to presswork was considered.
Skeleton I imposed G2v:3 and G1v:4;
Skeleton II imposed
G2:3v and G1:4v. In Skeleton I Rule 10
bends left at 16.2 cm.
(from the top) on G1v and subsequently but not on
G2v, showing
that G2v:3 was machined before G1v:4.
In Skeleton II Rule 15 is
turned on G1, Rule 17 bends left at 23.7 cm. on G1 and H1 but not on G2,
Rule 18 bends slightly right at 2.9 cm. on G1 and H1 but not on G2 (from
the left or top, as appropriate), all of which indicates that
G2:3v was
run before G1:4v. G1 and G3, as will be shown in a
moment, have
types in common. Thus the order of printing was probably:
Skeleton: |
I |
II |
I |
II |
Forme: |
2v:3 |
2:3v
|
1v:4 |
1:4v
|
By this means an indication was obtained of the probable order of
composition of the pages of the quire and hence a clue to the proper
arrangement of the material to be included in the graph.
Because the unit of distribution and sometimes of composition seems
to have been the column, the graph was organized according to columns,
the horizontal headings indicating columns of Quire G and the vertical
headings indicating the sources, by columns, of the recognizable types
found in Quire G. In the body of the graph one sees on line 5, for instance,
that types previously observed in F3a are found in three columns of G
—
two in G3va, four in G3vb, and two in
G4a. Just which types these
are is revealed in a supporting list, omitted here. Lines 1 through 19 of the
graph for Quire G display what may be thought of as the primary
typographical evidence, types from material undistributed when the
composition of Quire G began. There are two exceptions.
F3va and
F3vb (lines 1 and 2) were distributed before Quire F was
completely
composed; their types reappear in F1b, the last column of Compositor A's
stint in that quire. That other types from these sources were found
in Quire G is of considerable significance because of the assurance they
provide that the parts of Quire G containing them were set from the same
case as the part of Quire F already attributed to Compositor A. The fact
that F3va and F3vb were distributed
before work started on Quire
G is indicated by the notation (d).
The linkage seen here between a part of Quire F and parts of Quire
G operates on a slightly different basis throughout Quire G.
F1v types
(lines 3 and 4) are found in conjunction with F3v types in
G3a but by
themselves in G3b. The inference is clear, however, that
G3b was set from the same case as F1b and G3a, the case into which
F3
v and F1
v types were distributed. The
conjunction of F1
va
types with F3 types (lines 5 and 6) in G3
vb and G4a
shows that F3 was
also distributed into this case and that G3
vb and G4a, and
by extension
G3
va, were set from it. And so the linkage continues, the
important
point being that the types represented on the graph fall into two distinct
clusters, the one incorporating types listed on lines 1 through 9 and
testifying that G3, G3
v, G4, and G1 were set from one
case (designated
Case A because it was the case from which Compositor A set his part of
Quire F and because, as shall be shown in a moment, these pages of G are
characterized by Compositor A's spellings) and the other incorporating
types listed on lines 10 through 19 and testifying that G2
v,
G2,
G1
v, and G4
v were set from another case
(designated Case
B).
The clusters, however, are not entirely distinct: one
F1vb type
(line 4) is found in G1va and one F1a type (line 7) is
found in
G4vb. According to the graph, F1vb and
F1a were distributed into
Case A but G1va and G4vb were set from
Case B, and these two
types in theory have no business being where they are. Both are anomalous,
having actually made their way into Case B through an accident or having
apparently done so because of an error in identification, and they are not
the only types represented that have gone astray. F4vb
(line 18) was,
according to evidence to be discussed shortly, distributed before the setting
of G1v, but one of its types appears earlier, on G2a, in the
right cluster
but at the wrong time. Similarly, G3a (line 19) was apparently not
distributed until after the composition of Quire H was underway, but one
of its types appears in G4va. Such anomalies, as it has
been pointed
out, are more the rule than the exception, and since many
are inexplicable no special effort was made to account for them. The chance
of one's being thrown off by their appearance is always present but usually
of little concern, for, as is the case in Quire G, the numerical weight of the
evidence forces a certain conclusion, and anomalies can be recognized as
such by their small number and their lack of accord. Small numbers,
however, do not always signify stray types. There is only one F4b type to
mark the distribution of that column at G2b (line 16), yet here, because F4a
was clearly distributed at this point, the inference is that the single F4b type
gives quite genuine testimony of distribution.
The order in which the columns of Quire G are listed at the head of
the graph is the order of composition from each case as indicated by the
order of printing and the order of distribution. It is to the second
of these matters that the numerals entered in each line to the right of the
distributed-column designation have relevance. A "1" indicates that the
particular column was a part of the first forme of its quire to be machined,
a "2" that it was a part of the second forme, and so on. One sees that all
the columns of Quire F distributed into Case A were distributed in the order
of their machining and this is the usual expectation; however, the
distributions made into Case B were not so regular. First comes a
previously undistributed column of Quire E (E1b, line 10), then a page of
the first forme of Quire F (F2a, line 11, and F2b, line 12), but then a page
of the third forme of Quire F (F2
v, lines 13 and 14)
before a page of
the second (F4, lines 15 and 16). As has been noted, this is not very
unusual, for the compositor would have been under no compulsion to
distribute F4 before F2
v provided that both were equally
available, and
sometimes, perhaps because the later material
contained certain sorts which he needed, it may have been to his advantage
to reverse the usual order. In this instance, one supposes that
F2
v was
first distributed because it was a full page and the compositor was about to
set a full page, G2, and the distribution of F4 followed because it was a
part page. The only occasions upon which such irregularities in the order
of distribution become of more than casual interest are those which signal
a delay in composition or an error in one's idea of the order of composition
as indicated by the order of printing, as would be the case if type from the
fourth forme of Quire F appeared in what one supposed to be the first
column of Quire G to be set. Anomalous types also serve in this way as
indicators. However aberrant it may be, the one F4
vb type
on G2a, if
correctly identified, would indicate a delay in composition if other evidence
showed G2a to be the first rather than the third column of Quire G to be set
from Case B.
Because latent types are less reliable than the others, they are treated
as secondary evidence and given separate listing. Lines 20 through 22 show
latent types previously found in material known to have been distributed
into Case A, and lines 23 through 26 latent types previously found in
material known to have been distributed into Case B (hence the "A" and
"B" designations to the right of the indications of source). When
convenient, pages rather than columns are given as sources; thus on line 20
types from E2a and E2b are listed, because both of these columns were
distributed into Case A during the composition of Quire F. There are in
Quire G fewer anomalies among the latent types than were often
encountered — only two, in fact. The two E1v (A)
types which
appear on G2 should not be there,
as other evidence shows G2 to have been set from Case B. They probably
do appear on G2 aberrantly because they were used in
F2
v, a page set
from Case A but distributed into Case B, where they escaped notice.
Failure to find types which were passed from one case to the other is the
probable cause of most anomalies among the latents in Section 2 (that is,
they are not actually latent in that they have lain unused during at least one
quire's composition, but only seem so). Because proper identification of the
immediate source of all types used as evidence is important, latents
originating more than two quires earlier than the quire under consideration
were not listed. Thus types noticed first in Quires A, B, C, or D which
reappear in G are not shown on the graph. The reappearance of rules and
act and scene heads has a bearing on the time of distribution, but because
they do not seem to be related to case they are not noted among the latent
types. None, in any event, reappears in
Quire G.
4. Spelling charts. By "spelling" is meant not only the
usual sense of the term but all characteristics, including such features as
abbreviations, spacing, and so on, which serve to distinguish the work of
one compositor from that of another. A spelling chart was prepared for
each quire and was represented with the graph for the same quire. A basic
list of variants was tested throughout Section 2; the absence from any chart
of one of these forms indicates that it does not occur in the quire. The basic
variants are
A Forms
|
B Forms
|
Remarks
|
again |
agen |
"againe" not distinctive |
— |
bin |
"been (e)" not distinctive |
heart(ily) |
hart(ily) |
B tolerates "heart" |
hour(e) |
hower/howre |
B tolerates "hour(e)" |
money |
mony |
B tolerates "money" |
near(e) |
neer(e) |
A tolerates "neere" and B has only slight preference |
murther |
— |
"murder" not distinctive |
only |
onely |
— |
peice/peece |
"piece" not distinctive |
— |
pre'thee |
"prethee" not distinctive |
— |
stirr |
"stir(re)" not distinctive |
sweet |
sweete |
B tolerates "sweet" |
warre |
warr |
A Forms
|
B Forms
|
Remarks
|
short-form contractions |
long-form contractions |
e.g., "wee'l", "we'll", "we'le", "hee'l", "he'l", "shee'l', etc as
against "weele", "weel'e", "weell", "shee'll", etc. Chart rubrics "short
pro." and "long pro." |
periods lacking after numerals preceding nouns |
periods used |
e.g., "2 Merchant" as against "2. Merchant." Stage directions and
speech-prefixes only; not distinctive in text. Chart rubrics "2 noun" and "2.
noun" ("2" indicating any numeral). A tolerates "2. noun." |
|
S.D.'s with internal periods |
e.g., Enter Cozen. his Wife.
[E3vb].
Normal stage directions not distinctive. Chart rubric "odd s.d." |
In addition, there are a few variants in nearly every play which are peculiar
to that play alone. They are
In The Custome of the Countrey: |
Manuel |
Mannuel(l) |
Duart |
Duarte |
Arn. |
Ar. |
speech-prefix |
In The Noble Gentleman: |
Cous. |
Co. |
speech-prefix |
Duch. |
Dutch. |
speech-prefix |
In The Captaine: |
Fath. |
Fa. |
speech-prefix |
scene heads |
scene heads |
i.e., with reference to the |
set close |
set open |
amount of white space above and below the head |
In Beggars Bush: |
Florez |
Floriz |
Hemskirk(e) |
Hemskir(i)ck |
In The False One: |
Ægypt |
Egypt |
In the case of some variants, particularly speech-prefixes and
stage-directions, the number of occurrences does not matter, and the fact
of occurrence was indicated on charts only by "x." Spellings which occur
in full lines are marked with an asterisk; such a notation as "3**" means
that two of the three spellings recorded were found in full lines.
As the listing indicates, two more-or-less distinct patterns were
discerned. The validity of these patterns will be discussed under
"Conclusions"; it need be remarked here only that the function of the
spelling charts is to permit identification of the compositors working at the
cases previously indicated by typographical evidence. Returning
to Quire G, one may compare the graph with the spelling chart to see that
B-forms cluster in the pages set from Case B and the A-forms cluster,
somewhat less neatly, in those set from Case A, leading to the conclusion
that Compositor B set the former and Compositor A the latter.
5. Tables of substituted types. In most quires
substitutions
were made for certain types whose numbers were unequal to the demands
of the material being composed. As has been mentioned, substitutions do
not always provide very reliable evidence, but sometimes their testimony
allows one to adjust or confirm inferences drawn from other evidence. In
Quire G, F's were substituted for F's (because many
F's were needed for the speech-prefixes of
Franke,
Father, Fabricio, and Fredericke)
and
VV's for W's. It happens that the shortages occurred only in the material
set by Compositor A, in the following pattern, in which the numbers in
brackets represent the types returned to the case by distribution. No attempt
is made here to show the order in the column in which one finds the regular
and the substituted type:
Distributed: |
[F1v] |
|
|
[F3] |
|
|
|
[F1] |
|
|
[G3b] |
|
|
G3a |
G3b |
|
G3va |
G3vb |
G4a |
|
G4b |
G1a |
|
G1b |
F/F: |
[0] |
7/0 |
10/0 |
[1] |
7/0 |
6/2 |
1/19 |
[0] |
1/16 |
0/5 |
[10] |
8/1 |
W/VV: |
[11] |
9/0 |
8/0 |
[11] |
9/0 |
— |
9/0 |
[3] |
4/6 |
3/7 |
[8] |
3/0 |
Evidently A's case contained only slightly more than thirty
F's;
these were steadily used until at G3
vb the substitution of
F in
speech-prefixes commenced, a few
F's being held in reserve
for
such special uses as the composition of a stage-direction in G4a and a song
in G4a and G4b. Because only one
F was returned to the case
by the distribution of the type of Quire F, the supply remained low until it
was replenished at G1b by the distribution of G3b. To the W's in
Compositor A's case when the composition of Quire G began, the
distribution of F-formes added twenty-five pieces during the composition of
G3, G3
v, and G4a, but thirty-nine were used by the point
at mid-G4b
where VV's were introduced. The substituted character was used through
G4b and to a point near the foot of G1a, where three W's seem to have
been discovered or obtained from G3b, which provided enough of this letter
to complete G1b without further substitution. Evidence from substitutions,
as
far as it goes, thus supports the conclusions previously drawn about the
composition of Quire G, which may be summarized as follows:
V. Conclusions
Quire G was selected for discussion here in part because it illustrates
how the evidence reveals variations on what was actually the fundamental
method of composition. When unencumbered by special circumstances, the
compositors seem to have divided the work evenly as they did in Quire G,
but while one set 2v-2-1v-1, in that order,
the other set
3-3v-4-4v, in that order, thus producing
the formes in the order
2v:3-2:3v:4-1:4v. This
routine technique may be seen, for
example, in the graph and spelling chart for Quire H. ("H" and "R" here
represent recurring heads and rules.) One notable feature of this array is the
proof it gives of the value of the typographical evidence. On the basis of
spellings alone, it would seem that H3a had been set by Compositor A, but
the clear indication that the column was composed at Case B shows that it
was probably set by Compositor B, even though none of his preferred
spellings is found there. It also may be noted that heads and
non-skeleton rules were not treated like types; B used a head that previously
appeared in material distributed into A's case, and he removed rules from
G4va for reemployment in H3va before
he distributed G4v
type.
The normal method of composition illustrated in Quire H did not
emerge until Quire C, and after that it was often modified either to gain
some fairly obvious technical advantages or in response, presumably, to
some more obscure exigency. Quires A and B were divided in a rather
complicated fashion to which the nature of the copy, the commitment of the
compositors to other work, or both may have given rise. In Quire D,
1v:4 seems to have been the first forme set to the press
because
D1v is a blank, a fact which permitted the forme to be
made ready for
imposition with half the usual expenditure of effort; yet again the unusual
nature of the copy for D1 (prologues and epilogues which probably
occupied separate manuscript sheets) and Compositor B's assignment to
some task other than typesetting (which involved him as long as the setting
of E2v:3) evidently had an effect. Similar causes seem to
have affected
the order of Quire F, in which F3v is a short page, but it
is not
clear why the compositors, after collaborating on F2:3v
(if B set F2),
found it convenient or necessary each to set a forme independently, unless
the fact that The Captaine, another unit of copy, begins on
F4
had something to do with it. Nor is it clear why they departed in Quire G
from the usual sequence (which would have required Compositor A to set
G4v and Compositor B G1). It is usually true, however,
that alterations
in the basic technique of composition are associated with some peculiar
feature of the copy to
be got in the quire, as at Quires M and P, where short pages or blanks
occur (M4
v and P3-4
v). Here lies the
limitation of the kind of
evidence employed: although it commonly tells what happened, it cannot
tell why; to seek the reasons for the bibliographical oddities revealed by the
analysis, one must go to the text, changing his role from bibliographical
analyst to textual critic.
The evidence, however, is not always unequivocal. In a few
instances, most notably in Quire N, it was impossible definitely to decide
how the material was composed or by whom. One suspects that the pattern
of type reappearances in these instances was disturbed by the intervening
composition and distribution of non-Folio matter, but since the investigation
did not range into Wilson's other books, it is impossible to say more on this
point. In addition, while one of the compositors, A, had sufficiently
pronounced preferences in spelling to permit identification of his work with
tolerable certainty, the other, B, was less steady in his preferences, perhaps
being more responsive to copy spellings. Although this characteristic helps
sometimes to distinguish his work from A's, it more often makes
identification difficult, and it creates the possibility that Compositor B was
actually two men rather than one. No means was discovered, however, to
show that a Compositor C occasionally
had a hand in the material now attributed to Compositor B, and the
evidence indicates, on the whole, that Section 2 was set up by no more than
a pair of compositors, one of whom was somewhat erratic in his spelling.
Of the two, Compositor A set substantially more type than B.
The following scheme represents the order of printing and shows the
compositors responsible for the various parts of Section 2. A notation like
"B2a1" or "D11" represents a
part-column or part-page, the extent
of which is indicated below the main listing; (b) represents a blank.
Notes