University of Virginia Library

John Beale's Compositors in A King and No King Q1(1619)
by
Hans Walter Gabler

In "The Printing of A King and No King Q1" (SB XVIII, [1965], 255-261), Robert K. Turner Jr. established from evidence of running-titles, type reappearances, and type substitutions that the quarto (1619) was set seriatim, and set from one case of type only; and that it was imposed and printed in one skeleton-forme from the beginning of work at B(i/o) through G(i), and thereafter — from G(o) to A(i/o) — in two skeleton-formes in alternation. The demonstrable facts about the printing lead Turner to infer the work of two compositors in the setting of the text. In close vicinity to the point where the second skeleton was introduced he observed a change in the manner of signing: while in sheets B through G only leaves 1 to 3 of a gathering are signed, in sheets H through L and sheet A each fourth leaf in the gathering carries a signature also. This one typographical mark of distinction was offered as the only piece of tangible evidence for a shift of workmen at the type-cases. Turner discovered no other clearly divergent habits of orthography or typography to support the compositorial division. However, as the inference of the presence of two compositors was drawn from the facts established about the printing of the quarto, it appears perfectly sound by all commonly accepted standards of bibliographical analysis. Nevertheless, we shall attempt to show that there is evidence which suggests that not two, but altogether no fewer than four compositors were at work on A King and No King Q1.

It is true, as Turner said in a footnote, that there is a great likeness in compositorial habits throughout the book. The spellings observed appear at first sight to be no more diverse than one might expect them from even just one single workman. It is in the hope of establishing something like statistical evidence, therefore, that one is lead to scrutinize the spellings in some of the most common locations of orthographical variation, in the -e/ee of pronouns and the verb (be), and in the -y/ie endings of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. In doing so, however, one must guard against the possibility that the observable patterns may result from, and consequently be obscured by, complex and diverging compositorial habits. In the matter of final -y/ie, for example, it is known that a compositor may vary his treatment according to the preceding vowel, consonant, or group of consonants. In addition, it also seems fair to assume that while exercising his personal preference within a large and divers group of words ending in -y or -ie whenever, by the singular occurrence of each word, he felt invited to do so, a compositor might yet be indifferent to the spellings,

say, of the adverbial ending -ly, or of such common forms as very, any, many, euery. It is on an assumption of such variation that we have established more than one column for possible -y/ie endings in our analytical table. The numbers in the -ly/lie and very etc./verie etc. columns are given merely for the sake of information and comparison, and only the counts in the main -y/ie column form the basis of one section of our spelling test. Included in this column are the occurrences of specific test words (Maiesty/ Maiestie, body/bodie, pitty/pittie, Countrey/countrie, thirty/thirtie, twenty/twentie, beauty/beautie) which are supplied by the text in sufficient quantities, or stand in positions significant enough for them to be singled out as evidence. In the other section of our test, the -e/ee spellings, a grouping together of (me, he, we, be) in their -e and -ee variants, and a singling out of she/shee for (she), is a division prompted by the very results of the spelling tests for this play themselves.

Beginning our analysis where, according to Turner, the work on the quarto began, we find:

At D1v, characteristics change. We assume that a new workman, Compositor III, took over at D1 or D1v. He cannot have been Compositor I, as there is no recurrence of the exclusive -y preference, nor of the even mixture of -e/ee. Neither can he have been Compositor II; for the almost exclusive -ie preference which characterized sheet C is now also broken. The -y/ie spellings become mixed, according to no readily discernible pattern. There is a small surplus of -y spellings (the y:ie ratio is 71:64), although the balance seems to be shifting from a -y preference at the beginning to an -ie preference towards the end of the section which — on the basis of the she/shee spellings, as will be explained below — we take to extend from D1v through H2. In test words, there is one Maiesty on D2 against ten Maiestie between D4v and G3; three body (D1v, D4, E4v) against four bodie (three on F3, one on F4). This shift might reveal features of the copy; it is at least a possibility that the copy had a decided -ie preference.[1] On the

strength of the noted increase in -ie spellings in what we take to be Compositor III's work, one would then assume that he, although relatively indifferent to -y/ie, began with a slight preference for -y, but became gradually more influenced by his copy's -ie spellings, until his work, on the evidence of the -y/ie spellings, can no more be distinguished from the composition of the remainder of the book from H2v to A4v where the -y/ie ratio is in favour of -ie (30:91).

This significant alteration in the ratio of -y/ie endings can now indeed be added to the typographical evidence of the changing signature pattern, as adduced by Turner, to strengthen the assumption that yet another man, Compositor IV, began to work on A King and No King Q1 in sheet H. He did not enter with the beginning of the sheet at H1; for of the five test words within the -y/ie group which we find signalizing the shift of compositors, at least two, Countrey and pitty, appear in their -y forms as late as H1 and H1v.[2] The dividing line between Compositor III's and Compositor IV's stints should, according to our observations, be drawn at H2/H2v. For, in addition to a continued preference for -e in (me, he, we, be) which has remained the same since Compositor II took over at C1 (and therefore helps to set off only Compositor I's work from what follows), we find in H2v a sudden switch from shee to she. It is a puzzling fact about this play that the spelling she does not occur a single time before H2v, and the form shee is painstakingly observed by compositors I, II, and III alike (if our assumption about the number of workmen is correct). From H2v onwards, however, there is a very definite preference for the short she, interspersed with only a few shee. This holds true up to the pages L4v and M1; they together suddenly again have 24 shee, and no she. M1v, M2, and M2v revert to she (7 she, 1 shee). In the pages of sheet A, the pronoun does not occur until A4v, but there it is found four times exclusively as shee. This latter evidence cannot be conclusively interpreted, but — rather than making copy spelling responsible — the bibliographical divisions by which the changes between she and shee occur would point to a collaboration of workmen on the last sheets. While Compositor IV may have set the majority of the last pages from M1v to A4 — and his hand is certainly in evidence in the signature on A4 — the sudden preponderance of -y endings in A4v would suggest Compositor III for this page (or even, in combination

with the two -ee in verse lines, Compositor I); for L4v and M1 the evidence is inconclusive, or would suggest Compositor II.

In conclusion: it is precisely the bibliographical divisions by which the observable patterns alter which are the main strengthening factor for this entire proposition of four compositors for A King and No King Q1. No more than a bibliographical note on the evidence is intended. What we have presented, therefore, raises more questions than it answers. In the first place, it seems absolutely extraordinary that the work of four compositors should be so similar. Indeed, the identification is not so much based on clear divergences of habits in the compositors as on different combinations of similarities. Turner explained the likeness of his assumed two compositors as faithfulness to copy. Where four compositors are concerned, there is no choice but to make the copy responsible to an even larger degree for the homogeneity in appearance of its printed derivative; and it must have been a very careful, clear, and consistent copy, at that, which elicited from four workmen such even composition. But whether they worked so alike out of convenience in this one instance, or habitually, perhaps because of similar training, or even as a consequence of effective supervision, we do not know. It would take an extensive study of John Beale's printing-house and its compositors to find the answers.[2a]

Furthermore, the demonstrated presence — if in fact we have satisfactorily demonstrated it — of four compositors in a quarto where the inferences from an analysis of the printing process allowed for only two, could be taken as a case in point, however minor, concurring with the basic critique, as formulated by D. F. McKenzie,[3] of some of the commonly accepted standards of bibliographical analysis by which those inferences were drawn. It may, of course, be just an isolated case, with no strength to support generalizations; we are in no position to tell, just as we are in no

position to generalize at all from Turner's and our own findings in A King and No King. On the contrary: with the addition of new evidence, we are actually less able than before to relate the known facts about the composition and printing of this play conclusively to each other. Although, for example, Turner has shown that the text was set from one case of type with a regular reappearance throughout of previously used type, we cannot now say whether the production was continuous or not, for this quarto by itself gives us no clue as to the significance of the multiple shifts of compositors at the one case. That all four should have worked from the same case, however, is of course in itself quite remarkable.[4] Moreover, since we have established stints of composition which do not necessarily tally with the number and the use of skeleton-formes, we are also at a loss to explain just why the change from one-skeleton to two-skeleton printing took place at sheet G. And, although the four men we have identified could hardly have worked simultaneously at or from the same case for any length of time, but must indeed have succeeded each other in composition and distribution, the employment of four compositors does, nevertheless, make it far less easy to assume a clear and self-contained time scheme in the compositor:press relation for this quarto, but rather prepares us to consider concurrent production[5] as a possible mode of book production in John Beale's shop at the time A King and No King Q1 was printed. Yet when so much has been said, it cannot, on the other hand, be emphasized too strongly that, while the identification of four compositors in this quarto may open up the possibility of seeing in A King and No King a case to corroborate D. F. McKenzie's assumptions about conditions of printing in an early seventeenth-century printing-house, our findings have essentially also proved the relevance of the facts presented in R. K. Turner's original study. The methods by which a shift from one- to two-skeleton printing and a change in the signature pattern of the printed sheets were established and related to the presence of a new compositor from sheet H onwards have not been invalidated.[6] Only the options for correlating and interpreting the accumulated bibliographical evidence have been increased and taken to a point where the conclusive answers can only come from a study of much wider scope than the present one. Here, therefore, we must rest content within the limits of a compositorial analysis and leave the questions it raises wide open.

Notes