University of Virginia Library

Two Compositors in Heywood's Londons Ius Honorarium (1631)
by
David M. Bergeron

In 1631, Thomas Heywood, already well established as a man of letters, turned his hand to civic pageantry. In fact, this decade of pageantry in a sense belongs to him, for by 1639 he had produced some seven Lord Mayor's Shows (1631-33, 1635, 1637-39), a number exceeded only by the indefatigable Anthony Munday earlier in the century. This first show by Heywood, Londons Ius Honorarium (STC 13351; Greg, Bibliography, no. 448), was printed by Nicholas Okes, as were many of Heywood's other works. For example, Okes printed three of Heywood's pageants (1631-33); and after his death, his son John Okes printed three more (1637-39), making a total of six of the seven mayoralty entertainments. The quarto edition of the 1631 show survives in four extant copies preserved in the Huntington, Yale, Harvard, and Bodleian libraries.

Though the quarto pamphlet which describes the 1631 pageant is brief (it collates sigs. A1-C4v), it shows evidence of two compositors setting the type; this is demonstrated by peculiarities of spelling and running-titles. The habits of one of these compositors seem to be unique among the workmen in Nicholas Okes' print shop. The evidence of press correction suggests much attention given to the section set by one compositor and very little paid to the sheets set by the second compositor. I will offer a tentative reason for this.

The most obvious distinction between the two possible compositors is found in the running titles. The first title appears on sig. A4v, is set in italic type, and reads Londons Ius Honorarium. Throughout sheet B the running titles are again in italics, but the I of Ius is swash italic. But sheet C abandons the swash italic I and returns to the regular italic I as seen in sig. A4v. Thus sheet B differs in its running titles from sheets A and C. Of interest too is the title of sig. C2 which misspells Honorarium as Honorariuus, an error apparently corrected in the outer forme of sheet C, for there seems to be only one skeleton. The running titles of sig. C1v and C2v both contain the same broken o in the first o of Honorarium, which lends support to the likelihood of one skeleton forme.

In addition to the running titles one may look throughout the pamphlet to see if the distinction between normal and swash italic capital I holds; by and large it does. In sheet A the swash I is not used at all (cf. the running title on sig. A4v), and the normal italic I is used seven times. Sheet B contains four examples of the normal italic I, but the swash I appears some twenty-six times, which of course corresponds to the sheet's running titles. Sheet C returns to the pattern of sheet A— there are two swash italic I's and fifteen instances of normal italic capital I. I believe we can tentatively conclude on the evidence of the running titles and the distinctive use of the italic I that sheets A and C were set by the same compositor — let us call him Compositor X — and sheet B was set by a different compositor, designated Y.

Other spelling tests corroborate this conclusion. The word chief, for example, appears in each sheet, and in A and C it is spelled cheife (sigs. A3, A4, C1v, C2, and C4). But in sheet B the spelling is chiefe (sigs. B2, B3, and B4). Thus the lines are again drawn between Compositor X who set sheets A and C and Compositor Y who apparently set B. Another distinction is seen in that Compositor X does not use the letter j; instead, he follows the traditional pattern of using the initial and medial i for j as in iniured (sig. A3) and iurisdiction (sig. A4). But Compositor Y uses j in justice (sig. B1v), just and rejoyce (sig. B3), Majestie (sig. B3v), which represent all the possibilities for using j, and he has used the letter both initially and medially.

What is perhaps the most conclusive evidence for two compositors comes in the use of u and v. Generally, Compositor X, setting sheets A and C, follows what was the traditional printing pattern of using initial v for u and medial u for v. But Y modernizes the practice to use u and v as we do now. In every instance in sheet A (and there are quite a few) the compositor follows the usual u-v substitution. In sheet C this same compositor out of fifty-five possibiliites uses the traditional substitution fifty-three times, the exceptions being governed (C1) and descoveryes (C3). The situation in sheet B is quite different. Out of sixty possibilities the compositor uses the modern pattern of u-v forty-nine times. Nine of the eleven exceptions in sheet B are found in the use of the initial capital

V for capital U as in Vpon (once), Vlisses (four times), Vnity (twice), and Vnicorne (twice). The habit of using capital V for initial capital U seems to have persisted for some time after the other u-v patterns were modernized. One of the exceptions here in sheet B results from an error in proofing. In the copy of the Huntington Library line 17 on sig. B4 reads: "If to behold above you. . . .," an example of the modern usage of v. But the same line in the Yale, Harvard, and Bodleian copies reads: "Ist to behold abovt you. . . ." I believe the latter is the corrected state of the line and that the compositor has either failed to note the difference in the meaning and spelling of the word or has made the simplest correction, simply replacing one letter in above rather than two. At any rate, the evidence clearly points to two compositors who set the type for this 1631 quarto pamphlet.

It seems somewhat strange that for such a small printing job two compositors should have been utilized; apparently the shop was pressed for time, and it was a busy shop. But there is something seemingly unique about the printing of this quarto by Nicholas Okes. It is generally recognized that the 1630's is more or less the transitional period in which the u-v substitution was eventually abandoned in favor of our modern usage. We are perhaps witnessing in the printing of Heywood's 1631 pageant a clear example of the transition — Compositor X sticks to the old pattern, but Compositor Y employs the modern practice. What is puzzling is that Compositor Y's habit does not re-appear in other material printed by Nicholas Okes during this period. I have now examined something like 2,375 pages issued from Okes' shop during the three years 1630-1632, most of it centered in the year 1631. (This, incidentally, represents the vast majority of Okes' work during the prescribed period.) I have found no other consistent example of the modern usage of u-v, which is the only problem which I explored. Not even Heywood's pageants of 1632 and 1633, printed by Okes, contain the modern practice. Thus Compositor Y either disappeared, changed his habits, or was borrowed from some other shop. The other Heywood pageant quartos, 1635 (printed by Raworth), 1637, 1638, and 1639 (all three printed by John Okes), consistently follow the modern u-v pattern.

The press correction of the pamphlet also suggests particular attention given to the work of Compositor Y and sheet B. A study of the press variants indicates that with two exceptions of errors corrected in the outer forme of C all the other corrections are made in sheet B, both formes. This in no way means that A and C are devoid of error — there are a number of manifest errors — it suggests only that the proof correction was for some reason focused on sheet B. Also the corrections in B generally suggest a check against the manuscript — again special care. For example, the Huntington copy on line 6 of sig. B1v reads: ". . . ther's way to scape"; but the corrected forme found in the other extant copies, Yale, Harvard, and Bodleian, reads: ". . . ther's a way to scape" — compositor justification of

the line is not a question here. Again on line 11 of sig. B4 the Huntington copy reads: "May these my two each Ladies ever smile"; but the other corrected copies read: "May these my two Coacht Ladies ever smile." The misprint on sig. B4v destrsy appears in both the Huntington and Yale copies but is properly spelled destroy in the Harvard and Bodleian copies, which may suggest a second round of correction. For with this one exception the Yale, Harvard, and Bodleian copies agree with one another and contain the corrected formes and the Huntington the uncorrected. At any rate, the point is clear: with only two exceptions all press correction is found in sheet B, and the printed text seems to have been checked against the manuscript for the purpose of proofing. Thus Compositor Y, already distinguished for peculiar habits — i.e., not found elsewhere in the work of Nicholas Okes' shop — is also singled out for special care in the process of press correction while obvious errors in sheets A and C go largely unnoticed.

One possible explanation for the interesting facts about Compositor Y's work is that he was an apprentice. This might easily explain the care taken with sheet B in press correction, and it might possibly explain his unusual, at least in Okes' shop of the time, modern usage of u-v. In fact, external evidence shows that on 15 March 1631 Nicholas Okes did acquire a new apprentice by the name of John Howarden, from Somerset.[1] He was bound for a term of eight years; there is no record as to when he gained his freedom. One can at least speculate that perhaps this new apprentice was the Compositor Y of the 1631 pamphlet describing Heywood's pageant.

It is certainly not impossible for an apprentice who joined the firm in March to be setting type by late October or early November, the probable time for the printing of the Heywood quarto. Professor Charlton Hinman in his monumental work on the printing of Shakespeare's First Folio has suggested that the Compositor E whom he identifies was very likely an apprentice, "apparently the first apprentice taken on by Jaggard in something over eight years, . . . a certain John Leason, the son of a Hampshire yeoman. Leason was bound on 4 November 1622, approximately five months before Compositor E began setting type for the First Folio."[2]

For whatever the reason, two compositors were used in setting the type for Heywood's 1631 pageant, Londons Ius Honorarium, despite the brevity of the quarto (two compositors do not seem to have been used in the printing of the other Heywood pageants). Whether one of the compositors was an apprentice named Howarden must remain reasonable conjecture, no matter how fascinating.

Notes