University of Virginia Library

The Printers and the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647: Section 1 (Thomas Warren's)
by
Robert K. Turner, Jr.

I. The Printer of Section 1

In the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647, Section 1, in fours collating B-K4 L2 and containing The Mad Lover, The Spanish Curate, and The Little French Lawyer, and Quire b, four leaves in the preliminary section containing commendatory poems, were printed by Thomas Warren senior. His identification depends primarily upon a block which appears in the Folio on sigs. E1 and b2v as well as in A collection of all the publicke Orders Ordinances and Declarations of both Houses of Parliament . . . by T. W. for Ed: Husband, 1646 and in Dugdale's History of St Paul's Cathedral . . . Printed by Tho. Warren, MDCLVIII; in addition, two ornamental initials from Section 1 are found in books printed by T. W. in 1649 and 1651.[1]

Warren had been granted his freedom on 2 April 1638 and had registered his first book for publication on 1 August of the same year, having set up as a stationer in partnership with Joshua Kirton. [2] Over the next seven years his name appeared as bookseller of some twenty items, but in 1645 twenty-two titles appeared as printed by T. W., fifteen of which issued Parliamentary ordinances for Edward Husband, who styled himself Printer to the House of Commons.[3] T. W., as the

imprint of the Collection of publicke Orders suggests, was Warren, the only known member of the Stationers' Company at the time whose name corresponds with the initials; he seems to have acquired a printing business by marrying Alice, the daughter of Matthew Law and the widow of a Norton, who had been operating a press in her own right in 1641 and 1642.[4] In 1646 and 1647 T. W. printed the following works: If, as Bald believed (p. 30), most of the Folio work was done in the autumn and winter of 1646, it seems likely that several of these books would have been in production concurrently with Section 1.

I have seen five of them. Three (A 10, C 1214, and F 461) are of modest size, but one (H 3808) is a folio in fours running to 943 pages of text and a 24-page appendix. Its manufacture may have begun soon after it was ordered printed by Parliament on 5 August 1644, but, as it concludes with an ordinance of 17 November 1646, it apparently was in press along with Section 1.[5] The book is printed in a variety of founts, including, I believe, the Folio fount. Warren's work on Aglaura (S 6126) is a subject to which we shall return.

There is no evidence to indicate how many presses Warren operated or how many workmen he usually employed, but at the time of his engagement on Section 1 he clearly was equipped to undertake printing jobs of substantial size. The fact that at least one of his books evidently was produced over a period of some two years, during which other works bearing his imprint were published, is indication enough that he did not throw all the resources of his shop into the manufacture of one book, completing it before commencing another. None of

the Beaumont and Fletcher plays assigned to Warren appears to have been reallocated to another shop, but the brevity of Section 1 suggests that he was unwilling or unable to commit himself to as much work for the volume as the other printers engaged by Moseley.[6] What exigencies of scheduling or other circumstances led Warren to assign at particular times compositors or presses to this or another job cannot be known, but we must approach an analysis of the printing of Section 1 with the initial assumption that other books perhaps requiring the Folio workmen and their equipment were in simultaneous production.

II. Analytical Techniques

The techniques available for the kind of analysis undertaken here will be familiar to those acquainted with Professor Hinman's work on the Shakespeare First Folio or with earlier studies of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio's printing.[7] Generally speaking, the reliability of the analysis depends upon the correlation within a temporal framework of three kinds of evidence: that pertaining to the order of the printing (derived usually from an examination of skeleton formes and related typographical matter), to the identity of the compositors (from spelling evidence), and to the order of composition and distribution (from type recurrence data). There are several conditions which may substantially aid the cause, the most important being (1) the exhibition of pronounced and contrasting spelling preferences by all the compositors, (2) the reappearance within quires of enough recognizable type to establish that a distribution was made, (3) the continued association of types with the typecases whence they originate, and (4) the devotion of the compositors and their equipment to the uninterrupted production of only one book at a time. Fortunately, all these conditions need not obtain for the analysis to succeed: (1) Although their spelling characteristics barely distinguished them, Hinman was able to show in certain parts of the Shakespeare Folio that because

two typecases were simultaneously in use two compositors must have been setting type.[8] (2) By progressive deformation of components of the skeleton formes and by alteration in the components' disposition, we can frequently establish the order in which the formes imposed in a particular skeleton were printed. But if more than one skeleton was employed, we cannot tell without other evidence the order of the skeletons with respect to each other. An assumption of the regular alternation of the skeletons will not do, particularly if there were cessations in the printing of the book under study during which other work was accomplished. The other evidence most commonly available is that arising from distribution. For example, let us assume that the evidence from the skeleton formes establishes the printing order I and I' and II and II'; if type from I reappears in I' and II' and type from II reappears in II' but not in I', we may conclude, other evidence agreeing, that the order of printing and of composition as well was I-II-I'-II'. The actual situation may be more complicated, but the principle is capable of extension. Even if no types reappear within the quire, we may be able to deduce the correct sequence of the formes on embossing or other evidence, although under these conditions the relationship between composition and presswork can be extremely difficult or, if the evidence is elusive, impossible to ascertain.[9] (3) Hinman found that in Jaggard's shop, as a general rule, a type set from a certain case would later be distributed into that case. In William Wilson's shop, however, this practice seems not to have been followed consistently; there a compositor who needed type for new work distributed into the case at which he intended to set whatever wrought-off type was at hand, regardless of the case from which it originated. Thus types could migrate from case to case, and if they do, the only way to identify the case from which the new work was set is to discover among its types some from the same source as other types known to have been distributed into a particular case. If we can demonstrate, as happens to be true of Section 1, that type used to set B3 was distributed and then used again to set B4 from a case we will call Case B and if we then find B3 types on C2v, it follows that C2v was also set from Case B, assuming the page to have been the unit of distribution. In other words, in order to know from which case any new quire was set, we must have a linkage with the preceding quire of the same sort as the linkage within quires which permits us to say that any new page was set from the same case as a preceding one.[10] If there is no linkage between quires, however, we may seem to be in a desperate situation, for we cannot be sure that the new material is not being set from a hitherto unemployed case into which old types have been distributed. Faced with this difficulty, we must appeal to probability: if it can be shown that generally two and no more clusters appear on the graphs and that generally linkages associate one cluster with Case A and the other with Case B, we can assume that any new cluster should be associated with one of the known cases rather than a third. Thus, at Quire E, for example, since E1-3v are linked with each other and with Case A, we should not be unduly concerned that E4-4v are not definitely linked with Case B.[11] The matter is not crucial in any event, provided that spelling evidence makes the compositors' division of labor sufficiently clear.

(4) Obviously some relationship must hold between the order of a book's printing and the order of its composition. As Hinman demonstrated, the type distributed into a certain case from a wrought-off forme will necessarily be the type used to compose the next material set from that case, for the types last distributed will lie on top of those previously distributed. This fact establishes a temporal connection between printing and composition, which is extended by the practical necessity for newly set material at some point to be printed off not only because that was the main object but because the number of types in the fount was finite and some had to be recaptured through distribution in order that composition continue. The general rule governing the significance of type recurrences is that "no forme has type in common with either the forme immediately preceding or that immediately following it" (Hinman, I, 81). This is a general rule, however, and it is subject to the same exceptions as the general rule that skeleton formes alternate. Types do sometimes appear in consecutive formes, an indication of the fact that the printing of the book has

been discontinued for a time.[12] In fact, if we see the same types in consecutive formes, we know that an interruption must have occurred, and it is difficult to conceive of work being suspended on one book, the types being used to print some other matter, and then these same types reappearing in subsequent pages of the book under study in such an orderly way that we never suspect the suspension to have occurred. The odds would seem to favor there being some trace of the interruption, such as a spate of damaged types hitherto unobserved or, more likely, a failure of the type recurrence data to correlate with the testimony given by the skeleton formes as to the order of printing. Moreover, the intervening employment of the type will confuse the relationship between the witness of the graph with which we are immediately concerned and that of the graph for the quire preceding, for the source of the newly reappearing types will not be the columns of the earlier quire but the pages of some unknown book. When the intervening work has employed the Folio types, the evidence upon which we ground our analysis is likely to go in some measure haywire, and, although we can probably detect the suspension, we must be cautious in interpreting the disturbed data.

III. Problems with Spellings

The reluctance of some compositors unequivocally to identify themselves or, once identified, their obstinate refusal to persist in the habits that earlier characterized their work is a woeful reality in bibliographical analysis. In Section 1 ambiguity in the spelling evidence is a particular problem, part of which may arise from inadequacy of method. Although we are warned that all spellings in the work under investigation may be significant,[13] without a computer we cannot deal in a practical way with the complete data of three plays, and we are compelled instead to work with a sample of spellings that seem significant. If the sample is too small or if it contains the wrong words, it will yield uncertain results, and it may be that one more skilfully drawn would permit finer discriminations than can be made here. Yet the collateral evidence is not very encouraging.

Suckling's Aglaura was reprinted in octavo by Warren as a bibliographically independent part of the edition of Fragmenta Aurea of 1646.[14] The copy was the folio edition of 1638. A comparison of the two versions reveals that 1646, in addition to introducing next to no substantive changes, followed the accidentals of 1638 with considerable fidelity. There were, to be sure, some alterations in spelling: terminal -ee (in hee, mee, etc.) is sometimes reduced to -e but the copy's -ee is about as likely to be retained; terminal -ie occasionally becomes -y (especially in verie and everie) but many -ie endings were accepted; the copy's beene is pretty consistently spelled been (I count eighteen changes to been and three retentions of the form as opposed to three retentions of beene). The treatment accorded some other words (all of which may be significant in parts of Section 1) gives an idea of the character of the whole:

                         

	Changed	Retained
again	3	2
againe	--	20
agen	--	24
agin	--	1
do-go	7	1
doe-goe	1	132
I'le-i'le	6	1
Ile-ile	--	9
neare	1	2
neere	2	7
neer	--	1
nere	3	--

Two years later Warren was again engaged upon Fragmenta Aurea, this time reprinting the non-dramatic works from a partially annotated copy of 1646.[15] His contribution to the 1648 edition included the poems as well as Suckling's letters and his Account of Religion, the first because of rhyme words and the two last because of full lines offering rather less opportunity for spelling variation than dramatic poetry. And indeed alterations in spelling are so near nil as not to

require summary. I made no attempt to seek compositors by typographical investigation, but from the spellings of the 1646 Aglaura and the 1648 Poems, etc. we may conclude that in Warren's shop there was at least one workman who followed copy in a fairly docile way, either because he was not very assertive about his own preferences or because, in these two instances, the characteristics of the copy were much in accord with them. We have reason to think, of course, that some compositors were more energetic in styling material set from manuscript than from printed copy, and we will see that in The Mad Lover contrasting spelling patterns are manifested. In the two subsequent plays, however, the spelling evidence becomes more tenuous, as we might predict from the performance of Warren's compositors in the Suckling editions.

IV. Analysis of Quires

In what follows I offer as a sample analyses of four quires, B through E, excluding for lack of space much of the data upon which the examination is based.[16] Each quire is examined in turn except Quires C and D which, for reasons that will be obvious, are taken together. Evidence pertaining to presswork and revealing information about the order of printing is first considered, then evidence from types recurrences and spelling, which bears on the way in which type was composed and distributed and the identity of the compositors doing the work. For each quire but B, the first, it has been convenient to summarize the type recurrence data and the spelling evidence on graphs organized like those in previous sections of this study, but with these differences:

One last matter pertaining to the evidence deserves mention: the effect of proof-correction upon the pattern of type recurrences. As Hinman discovered and as has been found in previous sections of this study, most recognizable types reappear because they have been distributed and reset in routine fashion, but a few do not, having become dissociated from their fellows in some extraordinary manner. These are aberrant types. One way in which a type can become aberrant is through press-correction. Collation of fifteen copies of the Folio has turned up press-variants on two dozen pages of Section 1, some of which were heavily altered in as many as three rounds of correction. None or these variants involves any of the types represented on the graphs, but some may have become aberrant through press-corrections that have not been discovered.

QUIRE B The Mad Lover I.i-II.ii

Presswork

In Skeleton I Rule 14 was replaced by Rule 15, which continues into subsequent quires, an indication that B2v:3 preceded B1v:4.[17]

Composition and Distribution

The following types and rules appear in B2v and B4v:

and the following in B3 and B4: The reappearance of type from both pages of B2v:3 implies that this forme was printed and distributed before either B4 or B4v was set and hence before either B1v:4 or B1:4v was machined. That it shares no types with B2:3v suggests that B2:3v was run either immediately before or immediately after B2v:3 and the fact that B2:3v was not distributed until Quires C and D were in progress (C graph, lines 3, 4, and 6; D graph, line 4) indicates that B2:3v followed B2v:3 through the press. There is no way to prove that it was not composed before B2v:3, but its later machining clearly suggests that its composition also followed. Since B4 type reappears before B1 type (C graph, lines 5, 9, and 11), B1v:4 must have preceded B1:4v. The order of printing was thus:      

Skeleton:	I	II	I	II
Forme:	B2v:3	B2:3v	B1v:4	B1:4v
Center-rule:	29 28	30 36	32 28	-- 29

Because B2v type is found only in B4v and B3 type only in B4, it is unlikely that both type pages of the forme were distributed into the same type case, and spelling evidence indicates that two compositors were at work in the quire, Compositor A setting B1-B2v and B4v and Compositor B setting B3-B4. The two runs of pages are distinguished by the following variant spellings:

We may conclude that the quire was set from two typecases by two compositors, their division of labor pretty certainly indicating that they worked more-or-less simultaneously for most of the quire:        

Case:	A	A	A	A	A
Compositor A:	B2v	B2	B1v	B1	B4v
Case:	B	B	B
Compositor B:	B3	B3v	B4

The fact that Compositor B left A alone to set B1:4v suggests that he was temporarily off the job, and there are signs in Quire C that his attention may have been given briefly to other work.

QUIRES C AND D The Mad Lover II.ii-V.iv

Presswork

In Skeleton I the foot of the T in RT I is nicked on C1, D4 and subsequently but is whole on C3 and C4; Rule 18 is bent at 5.90 cm. on C4v and subsequently but not so bent on C1v and C2v; Rule 12, which appears on C3 and C4, is replaced by Rule 13 on C1 and D4. These details show C2v:3 and C1v:4 to have been machined before C1:4v and D1v:4. Rule 24 is bent on C1 and C4 but not so bent on C3; Rule 16, which appears on C3, is replaced by Rule 17 on C1 and C4. Thus C2v:3 was machined before C1v:4 and C1:4v. In D1v:4 the The of RT III is reset at D1v and Rule 24 is bent out at 1.30 on D4. D1v:4, then, must have been machined after all the formes of C imposed in Skeleton I; and the evidence, taken together, proves that these formes were worked in the order

     

Skeleton:	I	I	I	I
Forme:	C2v:3	C1v:4	C1:4v	D1v:4
Center-rule:	28 36	33 28	28 36	32 --

In Skeleton II Rule 3 is nicked at 7.80 throughout D but not so nicked on C2, and Rule 4 is bent left on D1 but not so bent on C2. C2:3v was thus first printed. Rules 7 (nicked at 14.85), 8 (nicked at 15.40), and 9 (bent right at the top) all appear damaged on D3v but not on D2v, showing that D2v:3 preceded D2:3v. The appearance on D2 and D3 of Rule 5 (which may be the imprint of the foot of another rule) suggests, though it does not prove, that D2:3v was run directly after D2v:3. The order of printing of these formes was either

     

Skeleton:	II	II	II	II
Forme:	C2:3v	D2v:3	D2:3v	D1:4v
Center-rule:	32 29	29 32	33 29	28 --

or      

Skeleton:	II	II	II	II
Forme:	C2:3v	D1:4v	D2v:3	D2:3v
Center-rule:	32 29	28 --	29 32	33 29

Composition and Distribution

As shown by the graphs, types reappearing in Quires C and D fall into two quite distinct clusters. One embraces all Quire C but C2 and is linked by B3 type (C graph, lines 1 and 2) with the typecase from which Compositor B set his pages of Quire B. The other embraces C2 and Quire D (where D4 is a part-page and D4v a blank) and is linked by B2v types (D graph, line 1) with Compositor A's previous work. That all the aberrant types discovered in Quire C (that is, types that should be found in material set from Case A rather than Case B) are C's suggests the borrowing of some

of these italic letters from Case A, and that all the aberrant types in the Case A pages come from C3a may indicate that the column was distributed primarily into Case A rather than into Case B as indicated on the Quire C graph (line 14), although if this were true the C3a types, unless covered by C2:3v types simultaneously distributed, would be expected to reappear in D2v rather than D3.

The two clusters of reappearing types accord well with the two spelling patterns which in Quire B served to distinguish Compositor B's work from Compositor A's, making it generally clear that Compositor B set all Quire C but C2 and that Compositor A set C2 and Quire D. The two near(e) spellings in C4a, where five unusual dye spellings also occur, are found in the song, set in italics, on that page; they could possibly indicate another hand but are, I think, more likely to be an uncharacteristic response on Compositor B's part to copy of a different nature from that of the text. The one B1b type appearing on C4a (C graph, line 9) is in the song; if it is correctly identified, the song would at least have been set from Case B.

Although there are a few inevitable obscurities, the Quire C graph allows us to follow Compositor B's work with some precision. If we suppose that B began work on C2v immediately after he completed B4, we can roughly represent the temporal relationship between the activities of the two workmen as follows:

   

While Compositor A set:	B1	B4v	C2
Compositor B set:	C2v	C3	C3v.

The graph, however, clearly implies that B4va was distributed into Case B between the composition of C3va and C3vb (line 7). Because the sequence given above would have B4v on the press while C3v was composed, it is probable that the relationship was more like the following, where X represents an interval in Folio composition:    

While Compositor A set:		B1	B4v	C2
Compositor B set:	X	C2v	C3	C3v.

Since B3 types reappear in C2v (lines 1 and 2), work must have begun with this page, perhaps after the partial distribution of B3v (lines 3 and 4). The B3v types reappear in a peculiar way. When types were distributed and reused immediately to set the material under scrutiny, we most often find a spate of recognizable letters followed by the occasional and rather isolated reappearance of other letters from the same source (as in lines 5, 6, and 7). Types from B3v, however, reappear sporadically from the first, even though of the sixteen types recognized on B3v fourteen reappear somewhere in Quire C. Had the B3v types gone into non-Folio matter whence they were later distributed for reemployment in Section 1, we would expect a group of them to show up in a subsequent quire. Here it seems instead that the distribution of B3v began and was suspended, an insufficient number having been returned to the case to cover up the layer of B3 types already in the boxes. Why much of B3v was left standing for a while is not apparent, but it looks as though the remainder was not returned to the case until after C2v was completed and before C3 started, whereupon the types were blanketed by the further distribution of B4 (lines 5 and 10).[18] The composition of C3 ensued, following which the forme was imposed in Skeleton II with CRs 28 (from B4) and 36 (from B3v) and sent to press. While Compositor B was engaged with C3 or C3v, Compositor A set C2, so

that C2:3v was the second forme ready for the press. From this point on, Compositor B seems to have set C1v:4 and C1:4v without significant irregularity, the priority of C1v:4 being indicated by the fact that C2va types only reappear on C4b (line 12) whereas C1 and C4v contain types from C2va as well as types from C2vb and C3 (lines 13-15). So far the evidence points to the following order of printing:      

Skeleton:	I	II	I
Forme:	C2v:3	C2:3v	C1v:4
Center-rule:	28 36	32 29	33 28

When other evidence relating to the order of printing was examined earlier, it was concluded that of the formes imposed in Skeleton II either D2v:3 or D1:4v must have followed C2:3v through the press. Because D2v type reappears in Quire D (D graph, lines 13 and 14) but D1:4v type does not[19], we may be sure that the first of the two possible orders is correct and that D2v:3 was the next forme after C2:3v to be machined in Skeleton II. Moreover, the reappearance of D2v type later in Quire D indicates that it was the first forme of the quire to be printed, and the earlier reappearance of its type than type from C1 (lines 15 and 16) shows that D2v:3 preceded C1:4v through the press. Thus the scheme for the order of the printing may be continued as follows:

     

Skeleton:	I	II	I	II	I	II
Forme:	C1v:4	D2v:3	C1:4v	D2:3v	D1v:4	D1:4v
Center-rule:	33 28	29 32	28 36	33 29	32 --	28 --

Insofar as composition is concerned, however, it is obvious from the reappearance of the C2:3v CRs (32 and 29) and C2 types (lines 7 and 8) in D2v:3 that Compositor A did not begin setting Quire D material immediately after he completed C2. Although the text contained in the two quires was divided between the workmen more-or-less evenly, Compositor B being responsible for seven pages and Compositor A seven and roughly a half (D4, on which the play ends, contains thirty-one lines of text followed by a prologue and an epilogue, both brief), it seems that composition was rarely simultaneous. Compositor A probably set C2 at about the same time that B set C3v, but the compositors' singlehanded work on so many formes must have been necessary because both were from time to time engaged in other pursuits, returning to Quires C and D as occasion permitted.

QUIRE E The Spanish Curate I.i-II.ii

Presswork

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.

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

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, 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.

V. Summary

The analysis continues after the same fashion. From Quire E on, there are further dislocations in the typographical evidence caused, I am convinced, by the occasional use of the Folio types to set other material; because of failures in linkage, some additional suspicions arise in certain quires about the employment of a third case, and hence the presence of a third compositor; and the spelling patterns are neither as pronounced nor as consistent as one could wish. On the whole, the evidence is stronger in The Mad Lover than in The Spanish Curate or The Little French Lawyer, but even in those texts (where further investigation may be warranted) I believe the analysis establishes in outline if not always in detail the history of the printing. In the following, where (b) represents a blank page, the order of printing and the workmen responsible for composing Section 1 are given:

Summary of Printing
Section 1

             

A B B2v:3	A B B2:3v	A B B1v:4	A A B1:4v	B B C2v:3	A B C2:3v	B B C1v:4	A A D2v:3
B B C1:4v	A A D2:3v	A A D1v:4	A (b) D1:4v	A A E2:3v	A A E2:v:3	A C E1:4v	A C E1v:4
C C F2v:3	C A F2:3v	C A F1v:4	C A F1:4va	A C 4vb1 4vb2	C C G2v:3	D C G2:3v
D C G1v:4	D C G1:4v	D D H2v:3	D A H2:3v	A C H1v:4	A C H1:4v	D D I2v:3	A D I2:3v
A D I1v:4	A A I1:4v	A C K2v:3	A C K2:3v	A C K1v:4	A C K1:4v	A (b) L1:2v
A ? L1va 1vb1	A ? 1vb2:2
Divided columns: F4vb1 to line 41; L1vb1 to ?

APPENDIX A
Table I
Skeleton Formes and Center-Rules

                                                                             

Skeleton	Forme	Top Box	Bottom Box	Left Box	Right Box	Head Rule	Run. Title	Center Rule
I	B3:2v	12,21	14,23	18,24	19?,25	20,27	III,I	28,29
II	B2:3v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	II,IV	30,36
I	B4:1v	12,21	15,23	18,24	19?,25	20,27	III,I	28,32
II	B1:4v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	-- ,IV	-- ,29
I	C3:2v	12,22	16,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	36,28
II	C2:3v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	II,IV	32,29
I	C4:1v	12,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	28,33
I	C1:4v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	28,36
II	D3:2v	1,7	2,8	3,9	5,10	6,11	II,IV	32,29
II	D2:3v	1,7	2,8	3,9	5,10	6,11	II,IV	33,29
I	D4:1v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	-- ,32
II	D1:4v	1,--	2,--	3,--	4,--	6,--	II,--	28,--
I	E3:2v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	33,36
II	E2:3v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	II,IV	35,29
I	E4:1v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	32,34
II	E1:4v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	-- ,IV	-- ,31
II	F3:2v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	II,IV	36,29
I	F2:3v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	31,34
II	F4:1v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	II,IV	32,33
I	F1:4v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	29,36
II	G3:2v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	II,IV	31,33
I	G2:3v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	34,32
I	G4:1v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	38,29
II	G1:4v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	II,IV	34,36
I	H3:2v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,III	31,32
II	H2:3v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	-- ,IV	-- ,33
I	H4:1v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,VI	38,--
II	H1:4v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	V,IV	29,36
II	I3:2v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	V,IV	32,34
I	I2:3v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,VI	33,31
II	I4:1v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	V,IV	36,29
I	I1:4v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,VI	34,32
II	K3:2v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	V,IV	38,31
I	K2:3v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,VI	29,33
II	K4:1v	1,7	2,8	3,9	4,10	6,11	V,IV	36,32
I	K1:4v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,VI	31,38
I	L2:1v	13,22	17,15	24,18	26,19	27,20	I,VI	-- ,32
II	L1:2v	1,--	2,--	3,--	4,--	6,--	V,--	29,--

Notes