University of Virginia Library

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.