| ||
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
Wing A 10, C 1214, E 3443, F 2355, G 488, H 3808, and S 6126 (Aglaura only)
1647
Wing A 1391, B 1071, E 1180, F 461, G 254, H 3096, M 355, S 2355, and S 5198.
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
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
(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
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
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:
(1) Latent types are not taken into account. If we suspect that Folio types during the course of the work were sometimes being used to set non-Folio material and that distributions were made without regard for the case from which the distributed types were last drawn, latent types become especially suspect. By "latent" I mean types not immediately reused after distribution but remaining in the case after the opportunity for reemployment passed only to appear in a later quire. Let us say that a32 was observed in H2vb and K3va and that both H2vb and K3va were set from Case A, the demonstration of this not depending on a32. We may believe that a32 was distributed into Case A with other H2vb types, remained unused through the setting of
(2) The spelling data displayed on each graph are an abstract of what appear to be the most significant forms for the identification of the compositors of the quire rather than a complete summary of all spellings tested.
(3) Evidence of type shortage is not reported, although many substitutions were made throughout the section. These were investigated and found to correlate only feebly with information produced by the type recurrences, substitutions either having been sporadic or the boxes of type in inadequate supply having been fouled with replacement types.
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:
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:
Case: | A | A | A | A | A |
Compositor A: | B2v | B2 | B1v | B1 | B4v |
Case: | B | B | B | ||
Compositor B: | B3 | B3v | B4 |
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 -- |
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
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. |
While Compositor A set: | B1 | B4v | C2 | |
Compositor B set: | X | C2v | C3 | C3v. |
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 -- |
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 |
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
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 |
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:
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 ? |
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
Edward Arber (ed.), A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London 1554-1640 (1875-94), III, 688 and IV, 426 and Henry R. Plomer, A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers . . . 1641 to 1667 (1907), p. 189.
Two similar publications (Wing E 1854 and E 1873) are imprinted for T. W. for Edw. Husband. In 1646 Bussy D'Ambois appeared as 'Printed by T. W. for Robert Lunne' (C 1943), but the title-leaf is a cancel, the rest of the book being sheets of Alice Norton's 1641 edition (W. W. Greg, A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama . . . [1962], I, 378-379).
See W. W. Greg, "Alice and the Stationers," The Library, 4th ser., 15 (1935), 499-500. Because several Nortons were active in the period, the identity of Alice's first husband cannot be determined, but a family connection with John Norton jr. may explain why McKerrow's device no. 267, which belonged to Norton in 1639, appears in two of T. W.'s books of 1648 (R. B. McKerrow, Printers' and Publishers' Devices, 1485-1640 [1949], p. 103).
Bald remarks, ". . . No doubt Warren was willing to suspend work on it in response to more urgent requests" (p. 27), but I know of no evidence to support this notion. H 3808 is the Collection of publicke Orders mentioned above.
Section 4 also contains only three plays, but its printer manufactured one more play in another section (Four Plays in One, sigs. 8D1-8F4v). Section 7, which comprises two plays, may have been printed in the same shop as Section 3. See The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, F. Bowers genl. ed., I (1966), xxix.
Charlton Hinman, The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare, 2 vols. (1963). The adaptation of Hinman's methods to the requirements of the later book is described by Turner, The Printers and the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647. Part I: Introduction and Section 2 (William Wilson's) (University Microfilms, 1966), summarized in Studies in Bibliography 20 (1967), 35-59. Standish Henning extended the work in Section 4 and Sigs. 8D-F (University Microfilms, 1968), summarized in SB, 22 (1969), 165-178.
See, for example, the discrimination of Compositors B and E (Printing and Proof-Reading, I, 200-214).
At least a few types from C2v or C3, the last type pages distributed into Case B before the setting of C1 and C4v, the last pages of the quire to be composed (Quire C graph, lines 14-15) ought by rights to show up in E4 or E4v. That they do not may be accidental—that is, there may be such types on E4-4v but they were not recognized. On the other hand, there are strong signs of a suspension of Folio printing during Quire E, in which event all the recognizable type from C2v and C3 (as well as that from the pages of B distributed into Case B) may have been standing in non-Folio formes at the time E4-4v were composed. The problem is further complicated by the fact that most of the Case B type used to compose Quire C was distributed into Case A for the composition of Quire D. Of this, more below.
In Quires A-E of the Shakespeare Folio, for example, "the same distinctive types are . . . very frequently found in consecutive formes . . . . Between the setting of one forme and the setting of its successor there must more or less regularly have been an interval during which the first forme had its run at the press . . . . [During this interval the Folio compositors must] have been occupied with other work" (Hinman, I, 342-3).
See T. H. Howard-Hill, "Spelling and the Bibliographer," The Library, 5th ser., 18 (1963), 4-8.
Greg, Bibliography, II, 680-681. See also The Works of Sir John Suckling: The Plays, ed. L. A. Beaurline (1971), p. xv.
Beaurline, pp. xv-xvi. See also The Works of Sir John Suckling: The Non-Dramatic Works, ed. Thomas Clayton (1971), pp. xcvi-xcvii.
A typescript of the entire study has been deposited with University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, from whom xerographic copies may be obtained. The order number is OP 25,821.
For the designations of skeletons, running-titles, and center-rules, see Appendix A, Table I, p. 156
| ||