I.
In June 1920, Thomas Satchell announced the discovery of two
distinct spelling patterns which indicated the presence of two identifiable
compositors involved in the setting of type for Macbeth in the
First Folio Shakespeare. Satchell named these compositors A and B and
outlined their significant spelling patterns based on his researches in
Macbeth. Compositor A was recognized principally by the
spellings doe, goe, and here;
Compositor B, by do, go, heere.[1]
E. E. Willoughby extended Satchell's identification of A and B to
other parts of the Folio and suggested the hypothesis that "since in the
portion we have investigated there are many passages that are not
characteristic of either of them [A and B], it seems probable that there was
also another pair of compositors at work."[2]
Alice Walker attempted a start at assessing the quality of the work of
A and B with special reference to I Henry IV, but little real
progress was made at refining compositorial study in the Folio until
Charlton Hinman undertook his exhaustive study of the many copies of the
Folio at the Folger Shakespeare Library.[3] Hinman's use of type and case
identification added a new dimension to compositor study in the Folio. In
1957 he was able to announce the discovery and isolation of a fifth,
apprentice, Compositor E, whose work had clouded the picture in the
Tragedies.[4] Until Hinman was able
to demonstrate the presence of this fifth compositor on the basis of
indisputable physical evidence, the similarity of E's most important spelling
habits to those of B had caused investigators to assign E's work to B. The
coincidence that do, go, and
heere were
both B's and E's preferred spellings of these
words delayed the separation of their work until Hinman's new approach
was applied to the problem.
Publication of Hinman's completed study of the printing of the Folio
provides the first step toward a complete investigation of all five Jaggard
compositors involved in setting type for the Folio.[5] His findings in respect to the three
key
words for compositor identification can be summarized as follows:
- Compositor A — doe, goe, here
- Compositor B — do, go, heere
- Compositor C — doe, goe, heere
- Compositor D — doe, goe (with tolerance for
do
and go found in copy), here
- Compositor E — do, go, heere (with early tolerance for
copy
spellings)
With the exception of E, who joined Jaggard's staff only in the later stages
of work on the Folio, Compositors A, B, C and D make up a four-man
staff which could be expected to carry out the composition in Jaggard's
shop under normal conditions. Much work still remains to be done to
produce an exact basis for identifying C and D in the Folio, and qualitative
evaluation of all five compositors is needed. The above listing of
do,
go,
here habits does,
however, give
the basic means of identifying those workmen who can be hypothesized to
have made up Jaggard's compositorial staff during the setting of most of the
Folio,
and that listing can be used as a provisional limit to Jaggard's compositorial
staff.
[6]
The ten Shakespearean and pseudo-Shakespearean plays which make
up the group called the Pavier quartos were stumbling blocks to
bibliographical and textual researchers before the discovery and
demonstration in 1908-1910 that they are all simple page-for-page reprints
produced in Isaac Jaggard's shop for Thomas Pavier in 1619.[7] Several of these reprints had even
been
incorrectly identified as the true first editions of their texts on the basis of
substantive variants. The following table lists the Pavier titles and the copy
from which they were set. The printers' names are appended to the list of
copy to show the diversity of copy which served for the Paviers.[8]
Pavier Texts
|
Greg # |
Copy
|
Printed by:
|
2 Henry VI |
119(c) |
Q1(1594) |
Thomas Creede |
3 Henry VI |
138(c) |
O1(1595) |
Peter Short |
Pericles |
284(d) |
Q3(1611) |
Simon Stafford |
A Yorkshire Tragedy |
272(b) |
Q1(1608) |
Richard Bradock |
The Merchant of Venice |
172(b) |
Q1(1600) |
James Roberts |
Merry Wives of Windsor |
187(b) |
Q1(1602) |
Thomas Creede |
King Lear |
265(b) |
Q1(1608) |
Nicholas Okes |
Henry V |
165(c) |
Q1(1600) |
Thomas Creede |
Sir John Oldcastle |
166(b) |
Q1(1600) |
Valentine Simmes |
Midsummer Night's Dream |
170(b) |
Q1(1600) |
Richard Bradock(?) |
After the initial argumentative flurry over the identification of the true
nature of the Pavier quartos, Shakespearean bibliographical and textual
study has in general ignored them or, at best, hastily dismissed them as
simple reprints. It is true that there is little chance that the Paviers will
produce any startlingly new substantive witness to the Shakespeare text, but
since these ten reprints are all products of Jaggard's printing house just a
few years before the production of the all-important Folio in that very shop,
they offer an excellent opportunity
to see Jaggard's workmen dealing with dramatic texts. This opportunity is
made all the more significant by the fact that all ten plays are reprints from
earlier editions which are extant. The exact copy and the resulting Jaggard
text can be compared side by side.
D. F. McKenzie pointed the way to the significance of the Pavier
quartos in a preliminary study of "Compositor B's Role in The
Merchant of Venice Q2 (1619)."[9] Although his spelling tests were
based on
the word list of Alice Walker, who in turn compiled her list before
Compositor E had been distinguished from B, McKenzie's statistics capably
demonstrated that Jaggard's Compositor B as recognized in the Folio had
in fact set the entire Pavier quarto of The Merchant of
Venice.
It must be remembered that E, the only compositor who could easily be
confused with B, did not enter the shop until 1622. McKenzie was then able
to observe exactly what B did with his copy, Merchant Q1
(1600). His study was divided between the few substantive alterations which
B gratuitously introduced into the text and a brief discussion of B's
"alteration of accidentals."
McKenzie did not, however, suggest another important use which can
be made of the Pavier reprints and the controls which exist for the study of
these texts. In the past, compositorial identification has concentrated on the
peculiarities of the workman, on the individual mark which he leaves on the
copy he sets. Jaggard's Compositor B, for example, is known primarily for
his strong spelling habits, do, go, and
heere. Texts set by B are noted for the virtual invariability
of
these spellings. There is another aspect, however, to compositor study
which has been neglected in the concentration on the features of a
workman's habits which are his badge and serve to identify him from his
fellows. After the bibliographer has determined with assurance that a given
compositor did in fact set a given portion of text, the value of the
identifying spellings is exhausted. A do, go, or
heere in a Folio text may be of use in assigning that text to
Compositor B, but its value ends there.
In many instances, it would be useful to be able to penetrate the layer
of compositorial spellings and go behind the workman to the features of his
copy. The study of a new class of words in relation to individual
compositors may enable the textual investigator to do just that. These words
are those for which the compositor's spelling treatment is recognizable but
not so pronounced as to be called an invariable habit. For example, a
do in a B text can represent any form of the
word (
do,
doe,
doo) in his copy.
B's
strong habit virtually blocks out any trace of the copy spellings for this
word. If, however, a new group of words can be discovered for which the
compositor does not have an invariable habit, but rather a weak preference
or even indifference, these words can then be used, not as identifying marks
showing the presence of the compositor, but as a means of seeing through
that compositor to his copy. If the compositor has no set preferential
spelling for a given word but varies his spellings in some relation to the
variations in his copy, the forms of that word in his texts will directly
reflect the forms which were in the copy. If the compositor does have some
preferential spelling for a given word but is influenced by his copy to set
another form from time to time, these occasional occurrences of the
non-preferential form(s) will again reveal copy spellings. Once a group of
such words can be established for a given compositor,
certain projections of expected copy spellings can then be made using the
spellings in this new group. Such a projection could be of the greatest
possible utility in situations where the copy is unknown, lost, or
disputed.
The Pavier quartos provide just the controlled situation necessary to
make it possible to discover whether this hypothetical group of words does
in fact exist within a compositor's total spelling pattern and to establish a
broader picture of the nature of compositorial spelling habits, including
weak preferences and the cases of relative indifference. First, however, it
is necessary to identify the compositor(s) at work in the Paviers.
The following tables represent the results of a count of the
do, go, here spellings throughout
the
Paviers.
|
2H6 |
3H6 |
PER |
YT |
MV |
MW |
KL |
H5 |
SJO |
MND |
Total |
Do |
45 |
47 |
76 |
15 |
101 |
55 |
98 |
48 |
89 |
102 |
676 |
Doe |
2 |
0 |
11 |
1 |
12 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
36 |
|
2H6 |
3H6 |
PER |
YT |
MV |
MW |
KL |
H5 |
SJO |
MND |
Total |
Go |
56 |
16 |
10 |
3 |
41 |
29 |
37 |
20 |
38 |
21 |
271 |
Goe |
5 |
3 |
11 |
5 |
16 |
23 |
21 |
1 |
3 |
17 |
105 |
|
2H6 |
3H6 |
PER |
YT |
MV |
MW |
KL |
H5 |
SJO |
MND |
Total |
Heere |
57 |
38 |
48 |
11 |
62 |
29 |
38 |
16 |
58 |
32 |
389 |
Here |
22 |
11 |
21 |
3 |
15 |
24 |
33 |
8 |
25 |
29 |
191 |
Although the strength of do and the more or less strong
preferences for go and heere seem to point to
Compositor B, the real value of these tables lies in demonstrating the
dangerous invalidity of overly simplified
statistical compilations of spelling evidence. Two important factors have
been completely omitted from this set of tables, factors without which no
really significant spelling analysis can be made of the Pavier quartos.
First, there is no recognition of the copy spellings which lie behind
these statistics. For example, the evidence for do (101
occurrences) as opposed to doe (twelve occurrences) in
The Merchant of Venice seems at first to conflict with
Compositor B's almost invariable do habit. A closer look at
this
group of spellings with the additional evidence of the spellings of the copy
text, however, makes an extremely strong case in favor of Compositor B's
having set The Merchant. Of the twelve doe
spellings in the Pavier, all twelve reproduce B's non-habitual
doe as found in copy, Q1 (1600). Of the 101
do
spellings in the Pavier, only five were found in copy and ninety-six
represent gratuitous changes of doe to do on the
part
of the compositor. To state these facts yet another way, the compositor of
Pavier Merchant found the word do spelled
doe 108 times and do five times in his copy.
He
reproduced all five do spellings and changed ninety-six of the
108 doe to do leaving only twelve
doe
forms found in his copy. This additional evidence of the copy spellings
overwhelmingly shows the strength of the do spelling in the
habits of the compositor who set the Pavier Merchant even
though the raw statistics point to a partial use of the doe
spelling.
This distinction between the raw numerical totals in the first case and
the weighted strength provided by the evidence of copy spellings is
essentially similar to that between quantitative and qualitative
evidence.[10] The quantities of
spellings, do (101) and doe (twelve), did in fact
point in the general direction of B's habit, but the quality of the evidence
only becomes apparent after a review of the copy spellings reveals that
ninety-six changes of doe to do are hidden in
the
raw statistics. Given the relative value of any one change over any one
instance of following copy, the quality of the evidence makes the case for
B one of certainty. Failure to consider the copy spellings greatly weakens
and obscures the genuine evidence. From this example, an important
principle governing the study of compositorial habits can be formulated. In
compositorial analysis of texts for which the copy is known and available,
all
consideration of variant spellings must include an examination of the copy
spellings.
The second factor which was omitted from the first group of tables
is that of the influence of justification on a compositor's spellings. It
has long been recognized that, as McKerrow said, early compositors "had
. . . a means of justifying the lines of type which is denied to modern
compositors, namely, by varying the spelling of words."
[11] If this is true, and one of the
overall
results of the examination of the Pavier spellings is to demonstrate
graphically the truth of McKerrow's axiom, evidence of spellings in
justified lines must be carefully separated from the evidence in short
lines.
[12]
In any given line, the possible influence of justification on the
spellings is a matter for debate. The possibility of such influence must,
however, cause one to segregate the spelling evidence which could be
contaminated by the need for justification. Take, for example, the statistics
for go/goe in King Lear. The simple counts
record
thirty-seven go and twenty-one goe spellings.
When
the possible effects of justification are taken into consideration, these
statistics become go thirty-one times plus six justified
occurrences and goe seven times plus fourteen justified
occurrences. The original ratio of thirty-seven go to
twenty-one
goe spellings is rather questionable evidence for B's
go as a preferential spelling. When the justified and,
therefore,
possibly deceptive spellings are taken away, the ratio of thirty-one
go to seven goe becomes much more
convincing.
When this allowance for justification is
combined with a consideration of the copy spellings, the total strength of
the evidence emerges. Go was found ten times in
Lear Q1 (1608), seven times in short lines and three times in
justified lines. All ten of these go spellings are retained in the
Pavier Lear. On the other hand, Lear Q1 contained thirty-one
goe spellings in short lines and seventeen in justified lines.
Of
the thirty-one long spellings, twenty-four were changed to go.
Apparently, therefore, the factor of justification caused the compositor's
preference for the short go spelling to be obscured in the
justified occurrences of this word. A second principle to govern spelling
analysis is that the possible influence of justification on variant spellings
must be acknowledged, and spellings in long lines must be separated from
other spellings in any statistical compilation.
The following set of tables represents a restatement of the evidence
for do, go, and here in the light of these two
principles. Note that the words are recorded only in relation to copy
spellings and that evidence in justified lines is separated from the general
statistics. In these tables, J stands for justified, or at least
long
line, occurrences.
Copy→ |
1619 |
2H6 |
3H6 |
PER |
YT |
MV |
MW |
KL |
H5 |
SJO |
MND |
Totals |
Do→Do |
41 |
12 |
15 |
3 |
3 |
45 |
22 |
48 |
57 |
24 |
270 |
|
J4 |
|
J6 |
J4 |
J2 |
J10 |
J5 |
|
J15 |
J5 |
J51 |
Do→ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
3 |
Doe |
|
|
J2 |
J1 |
|
J1 |
J1 |
|
|
|
J5 |
Doe→ |
|
35 |
34 |
6 |
87 |
|
59 |
|
13 |
69 |
303 |
Do |
|
|
J21 |
J2 |
J9 |
|
J12 |
|
J4 |
J4 |
J52 |
Doe→ |
|
|
2 |
|
8 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
12 |
Doe |
|
|
J7 |
|
J4 |
|
J2 |
|
|
J3 |
J16 |
Copy→ |
1619 |
2H6 |
3H6 |
PER |
YT |
MV |
MW |
KL |
H5 |
SJO |
MND |
Totals |
Go→ |
49 |
13 |
|
3 |
|
15 |
7 |
18 |
20 |
4 |
129 |
Go |
J3 |
|
J1 |
|
|
J4 |
J3 |
|
J10 |
|
J21 |
Go→ |
2 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
5 |
Goe |
|
|
J1 |
|
|
J3 |
|
|
J2 |
|
J6 |
Goe→ |
4 |
3 |
5 |
|
34 |
9 |
24 |
2 |
5 |
16 |
102 |
Go |
|
|
J4 |
|
J17 |
J1 |
J3 |
|
J3 |
J1 |
J19 |
Goe→ |
3 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
13 |
16 |
7 |
1 |
|
17 |
68 |
Goe |
|
|
J6 |
|
J2 |
J3 |
J14 |
|
J1 |
|
J26 |
Copy→ |
1619 |
2H6 |
3H6 |
PER |
YT |
MV |
MW |
KL |
H5 |
SJO |
MND |
Totals |
Heere→ |
2 |
19 |
23 |
7 |
51 |
5 |
7 |
1 |
8 |
11 |
134 |
Heere |
|
|
J7 |
J2 |
J5 |
J2 |
|
|
J2 |
|
J18 |
Heere→ |
|
3 |
2 |
|
6 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
13 |
Here |
|
J1 |
J1 |
J1 |
J3 |
J2 |
|
|
J1 |
|
J9 |
Here→ |
51 |
19 |
14 |
1 |
6 |
19 |
25 |
15 |
42 |
19 |
211 |
Heere |
J4 |
|
J4 |
J1 |
|
J3 |
J6 |
|
J6 |
J2 |
J26 |
Here→ |
19 |
7 |
16 |
2 |
6 |
21 |
18 |
8 |
17 |
23 |
137 |
Here |
J3 |
|
J2 |
|
|
J1 |
J14 |
|
J7 |
J5 |
J32 |
Only in these complete tables which take the copy spellings and
justification into consideration does the overwhelming evidence for
Compositor B as the man who set type for the entire set of the Paviers
become apparent. The already small total of thirty-six spellings in the first,
overly simplified, tables becomes even more insignificant when it
can be observed that of these thirty-six occurrences of
doe,
twenty-eight (and of that twenty-eight, sixteen justified) reproduce copy
spellings. In all ten plays, there are only three non-copy, non-justified
doe spellings as opposed to 303 such
do
forms.
The go/goe evidence was not at all clear-cut in the first
table but here is shown to be significantly in favor of Compositor B's
go. Of the 105 goe spellings in the Paviers,
ninety-four (and of that ninety-four, twenty-six justified) reproduce copy
spellings. There are only five non-justified, non-copy goe
spellings while there are 101 similar go forms.
The here/heere ratio was also not clear-cut in the
simplified table. With the additional factors considered, however, 169 of the
191 here spellings turn out to derive from the copy used for
the
Paviers. Of that 169, thirty-two were in justified lines. The thirteen
non-copy, non-justified here spellings must be compared with
211 similar heere forms.
The total number of B spellings gratuitously introduced into the
Paviers is 615. In view of the token number of twenty-one changes in the
opposite direction, the presence of B's hand throughout the Paviers is
evident. It is also important to note that the few aberrant non-B changes are
not significantly grouped, and in no instance do they suggest the presence
of another compositor.
The examination of the do, go,
here spellings in the Pavier quartos shows the special
significance of change, that is, the altering of copy in contrast to the
following of copy. The spelling pattern of go/goe in A
Midsummer Night's Dream is an excellent example of the relative
importance of spelling change. The raw evidence in the Paviers is almost
evenly divided between twenty go and seventeen
goe. The direction of the changes from copy which produced
this result tells a far different story. Of the four go spellings
in
copy, there is not one instance of change to goe. Of the
thirty-three goe spellings in copy, however, almost half,
sixteen,
were changed to go. On the surface, the sixteen changes in
thirty-three occurrences of goe might appear to express a
certain
degree of compositorial indifference to the spelling of this word. When
viewed as a part of the overall pattern of B's spellings and in
relation to the four go forms, all of which remain unchanged,
this change of sixteen out of thirty-three goe to
go
is far from expressing indifference. Rather, it indicates as strongly as
possible the compositor's preference for the go form. A
single
change is of much more significance in assessing a compositor's preferences
than is a single case of his following copy. The sixteen changes of
goe to go tell a great deal more about the
compositor's preference than do the seventeen instances of following
copy.
This examination of do, go,
here
spellings in the Paviers has accomplished two things. First, it has shown the
care which must be employed in avoiding over-simplification in the
expression of statistical spelling evidence. Spelling analysis must be done
in conjunction with an examination, where possible, of copy spellings, and
the possible influence of justification on variant spellings must be
considered at all times. Secondly, the introduction of these refinements into
the analysis of do, go, here
spellings has
brought convincing strength to the demonstration of the hypothesis that
Jaggard's Compositor B did in fact set the whole of the text of the Pavier
quartos.