:: :: University of Virginia Library

Skeleton I imposed E1v:4 and E2v:3; II imposed E1:4v and E2:3v. E1v, properly page 26, bears the page number 28 which also appears correctly and set in the same type on E2v, the numerals evidently having been carried with the running-title from the latter page to the former. In addition, a bend at 16.05 in Rule 20 is more pronounced on E4 and subsequently than on E3. These details show that E2v:3 was printed before E1v:4. A nick in Rule 28 at 1.20 appearing on E4v but not on E3v indicates that E1:4v followed E2:3v. E3, page 29, is misnumbered 27, but because the types are different from those appearing on E2, the true page 27, this fact has no significance for the order of printing.

153

Composition and Distribution

Within Quire E some types are found on both E1v and E2 (line 11) and since E2:3v was printed early and E1v:4 late, the following order is implied:

Skeleton:	II	I	II	I
Forme:	E2:3v	E2v:3	E1:4v	E1v:4
Center-rule:	35 29	36 33	-- 31	34 32

Because in previous quires the first forme set and machined was $2v:3, this sequence seems quite odd; moreover, part of the typographical evidence in Quire E is garbled in such a way as to suggest that the ordinary affinity between presswork and composition was lacking. Two graphs are shown, the first constructed on the assumption that for some reason not apparent E2:3v was set first and the second constructed on the assumption that, as usual, E2v:3 preceded. Since E2b type appears only on E1v, E1v:4 is shown in both as the last forme, although the only obvious advantage accruing from the prior composition of E1:4v would have been the temporary gain of a little time, for E1 bears a head-title and only about two-thirds the text found on full pages.

Both graphs indicate that E1-3v were set from Case A by Compositor A and that E4-4v were the work of a new man, Compositor C, who in this quire is most readily distinguished from his fellow by a preference for

154

I'l(l) and an aversion to the short forms do-go which A sometimes admits. That Compositor C was working at Case B is not demonstrable, although for the reasons given above (p. 141) it seems likely that he was. The one D1a type on E4va (line 16) probably must be regarded as aberrant and discounted. It is thus troublesome to find no link between E4v and E4 established by D1v:4 types carrying over into E4 (lines 12-14) because the possibility is thereby opened that E4 was set from a third case to which Compositor C would have moved after the completion of E4v. This is not impossible, but it is simpler to suppose that no D1v:4 types appear in E4 because they were thoroughly covered by new types from D1. We discover next to no evidence for the distribution of D4a (line 15) because that column contains only two identified types in its sixteen lines of text.

If we take it that E2:3v was first composed and machined, it would follow that since D1:4v was imposed in Skeleton II some time would have elapsed between its printing and the imposition of E2:3v in the same skeleton. During this interval D3, C4v, and D2:3v could have been distributed, so that our first graph shows types from these sources reappearing in a way that suggests no very pronounced relationship with the sequence in which the pages were printed, except that D3va would have been last distributed (lines 1 and 2). The intermingling of these types might have occurred if they were used in intermediate work, but three other anomalies remain difficult to account for: the apparent distribution of C4v after D3v (lines 3 and 4), the very early reappearance of aberrant types from D1v and D1 (lines 13 and 17), and the absence from E1 of all previously recognized types but one (line 4).

The assumption that E2v:3 was first composed and machined has different consequences. In this event the order of printing would have been

Skeleton:	I	II	II	I
Forme:	E2v:3	E2:3v	E1:4v	E1v:4
Center-rule:	36 33	35 29	-- 31	34 32

Here the discontinuation falls between E2:3v and E1:4v, and at least one of our earlier anomalies subsides. E1 in fact contains a good many types which show up later in the section; their initial appearance on E1 suggests that non-Folio matter was distributed into Case A just before that page was set, an assumption that accords with the presumed interval at that point. In addition, as the second graph shows, the aberrants from D1v and D1 fall in a more acceptable place, and the distributions of D3 (lines 1 and 3) and D2 (lines 5 and 6) appear in the sequence of their machining. C4v (lines 2 and 9) remains rather awkward unless we suppose that most of its distribution was delayed until E3va, but on the whole the second graph tells a more orderly and more reasonable story than the first. What seems to have happened, then, is that Compositor A, having completed Quire D, continued with E2v:3 and E2:3v. At this point work was interrupted. Before it resumed, A distributed some non-Folio material in preference to E2v:3,

155

which was to remain standing until Quire F's composition, and then fell to work on E1 and E1v as Compositor C set E4v and E4. By the time E1v was reached, E2v:3 and E2:3v were equally available for distribution, and A happened to choose E2b first.