 | |  |
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
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
- 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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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 |
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
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
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,
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 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 |
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
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 |
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
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
For a general description of the publication, see R. K. Turner, "The Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647," in The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, ed. Fredson Bowers, I (1966), xxvii-xxxv, which is based on W. W. Greg, "The Printing of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647," The Library, 4th ser., II (1921-22), 109-115; R. C. Bald, Bibliographical Studies in the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647 (1938); the Carl H. Pforzheimer Library's Catalogue of English Books and Manuscripts 1475-1700 (1940); Johan Gerritsen, "The Printing of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647," The Library, 5th ser., III (1949), 233-264; and W. W. Greg, A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration, III (1957), 1013-1018 (which takes account of the unpublished investigations of Allan H. Stevenson).
The evidence is too extensive for complete publication here. A typescript of the entire study of this section has been deposited with University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107, from whom xerographic copies may be obtained.
The UWM copy was brought to the U. S. by Dr. Hoy and obtained from him by the Library Associates of the University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee, to whom I am much obliged. To Dr. Hoy himself I owe thanks not only for lending me his own copy but also for patiently tolerating my keeping it a great deal longer than I had originally contracted to do.
Evidence of this kind has long been in use by bibliographers. Its particular applicability to the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio was noticed by Bald, op. cit.; Guy A. Battle, "A Bibliographical Note From the Beaumont and Fletcher First Folio," Studies in Bibliography, I (1948-49), 187-188; and James S. Steck, ibid., pp. 188-191. Steck observes (p. 188) that "the center rule cannot be considered an integral part of the skeleton forme," citing as proof the migration from forme to forme of center rules in Section 5, where they move independently of the box rules. For a more elaborate discussion of such evidence and its relevance to the Shakespeare Folio, see Hinman, I, 150-180.
See Kenneth Povey, "The Optical Identification of First Formes," Studies in Bibliography, XIII (1960), 189-190.
Presumably if the edition were very large and the press run consequently long, only one compositor would have been necessary. There is no reason to think, however, that many more copies of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio would have been printed than of the Shakespeare Folio, for the composition of which two workmen at a time were necessary unless one was setting another job while the other set Folio matter (Hinman, II, 513-529).
Hinman, I, 52-150. The method of recording types on cards described by Hinman was used in this study as well.
As a rule, the reliability of type identification increases with the number of copies examined, and in this case only two copies of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio were available. Both were scrutinized with care at least three times and some troublesome pages many more. I located and recorded the types that I could find in one copy; then I examined the other to confirm the identifications and to add more, checking these against the first copy; and finally my assistant, using either copy, confirmed all the identifications once again. Thus each type recorded was seen by two people, but I am confident that a third pair of eyes could see some types that were missed and would disagree with some identifications, though I hope not many.
See Hinman, I, 126-138, where the causes of anomalous reappearances are discussed under the heads Stripping Accident, Centre-rule Accident, Distribution Accident, Imposition Accident, Presswork Accident, and Types Used as Quads.
". . . Whenever practicable, wrought-off material was distributed by the compositor who set it" but ". . . a compositor would ordinarily distribute pages which he had himself set before he distributed material set by someone else" (Hinman, I, 98 and 124). Thus Hinman is able to speak of Cases x, y, and z, out of which specific types proceeded and into which they returned. Retention of their own types seems also to have been the practice of the compositors of Albumazar Q1 (1615), described in Turner, "Reappearing Types as Bibliographical Evidence," Studies in Bibliography, XIX (1966), 198-209.
Hinman, I, 138, following which there is a useful discussion of the employment of center rules in printing and their value as bibliographical evidence.
Bald (p. 30) denies that the The's of the running-titles of The Coxcombe carry over to The False One, but three of them do (see Appendix A, Quires P and Q particularly). I think that his remarks on the failure of act heads used earlier to reappear in The False One (p. 31) are also mistaken.
An account of his career is given by C. William Miller, "A London Ornament Stock, 1598-1683," Studies in Bibliography, VII (1955), 136-138.
W. A. Jackson, ed., Records of the Court of the Stationers' Company 1602 to 1640 (1957), pp. 75 and 158.
Bald, p. 28. Bald's subsequent discussion of Wilson's work on Buc's Richard III is partially invalidated by his belief that Wilson was the printer of Section 3 rather than Section 2. See Gerritsen, pp. 241 ff.
| | |