University of Virginia Library

John Oldham's second collection of poems, Some New Pieces, 1681, was 'printed by M. C. for Jo. Hindmarsh.'[1] M. C. is Mary Clark, successor of Andrew Clark. No other possible printer using these initials at this time is known to Plomer or to Wing.[2] Thanks to the Wing Index, it is now an easy matter to trace other books from the same printing-house in the years 1678 to 1684, and so to locate in Mary Clark's possession ornaments, initial capitals, and damaged letters employed in this and in the other four textually-significant volumes by Oldham published under Hindmarsh's imprint, and in the unauthorised Saytr Against Vertue, 1679.[3]

A table, with its appended key, will spell out the evidence which assigns the printing of that piracy, followed by Satyrs Upon The Jesuits . . . And

some other Pieces, 1681, (and its 'Second Edition more Corrected,' 1682), Some New Pieces, 1681, Poems, And Translations, 1683, and Remains of Mr. John Oldham, 1684,[4] all to Mary Clark's establishment.[5]

Key.

The Oldham editions, designated by initials and date (or as Works 84), are those already mentioned, with Some New Pieces, 1684, and Poems, And Translations, 1684, (Oldham, Bibliography Nos. II.9, 11) subjoined. The seven other volumes are:

• Ambroise Paré, The Works Of That Famous Chirurgeon, Ambrose Parey, translated . . . By Th. Johnson, 1678, Printed by Mary Clark for John Clark.
• Francis Bacon, Essays, 1680, Printed by Mary Clark for Samuel Mearne, John Martyn and Henry Herringman.
• Peter Heylyn, KEIMH^IA EKK^HΣTIKA. The Historical and Miscellaneous Tracts of Peter Heylyn, 1681, Printed by M. Clark for Charles Harper.
• Antoine Le Grand, Apologia Pro Renato Des-Cartes, 1679, Typis M. Clark impensis Jo. Martyn.
• Roger L'Estrange, The Case Put, Concerning the Succession Of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, 1679, Printed by M. Clark for Henry Brome.
• Paul Lathom, The Power of Kings from God, 1683, Printed by M. Clark for Joanna Brome.
• Izaak Walton, Love and Truth, 1680, Printed by M. C. for Henry Brome.

The name or initials of Mary Clark, when given in brackets after the sigla, are taken from the imprints. In horizontal line with each volume are noted, either by signature or by 'Tp' for title-page, the places where items of evidence appear.

In the vertical columns:

The bowl of flowers is an elaborate ornament used on title-pages. The triangle of foliage (suitable for a tailpiece) occurs on internal title-pages. The minor ornament recorded in the third column looks like the bottom part of a medallion. The sprig of flowers (column four) is an unimpressive one on a small oblong, failing at the left-hand end to print sharply. It has, however, a special importance, because it enables one to distinguish at sight, from this true first edition, another edition, with a crowned rose on the title-page, which also bears the date 1683, but is in fact subsequent to the second edition, of 1684.[6]

• N1 may be seen as the initial capital to the text in A Saytr Against Vertue, 1679.
• N2 may be seen as the initial capital to the text of 'A Satyr Against Vertue,' in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681.

---

190




• R1 is an R with damage at the foot of the upright: see the last letter of READER on H1v of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681.
• R2 is an R with damage at the foot of the upright and a gap at the top of the loop: see HORACE in the drop-title on A2r of Some New Pieces, 1684.
• R3 is an R damaged where the loop should join the upright, both at the top and at the centre of the letter, so that there are only faint traces of ink between upright and loop at these points. It can be seen in SATYR on H1r of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681. In Heylyn's Tracts what may be R3 appears in DECLARATION on 3S2r and 3T1r. The types were evidently lifted from the first of these pages for use in the second. If this is R3, then it has made a somewhat less defective impression.
• R4 is an R with damage at the top of the loop, and midway down the outside of the upright, opposite the point where the bottom of the loop joins it. This R is found in drop-titles; for example on D8v of Some New Pieces, 1681.
• S1 is damaged or malformed at the top: see the first S of SATYRS on the title-page of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682.
• S2, the first S of JESUITS on that title-page, has damage to the central curve.
• P is damaged a little above the foot of the upright; see POEM in the drop-title of 'A Satyr Against Vertue' on H2r of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681.

To exemplify the use of the Table, one may consider Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681. Here it records an ornament, an initial N (N2), two different damaged R's (R1 and R3) and a damaged P. It further shows the ornament, the initial, and R3, in volumes with 'Mary Clark', 'M. Clark', or 'M. C.' in the imprint. R1 is shown in Poems, and Translations, 1684, which in turn shares R3 with Parey's Works, 1678 ('by Mary Clark'), Heylyn's Tracts, 1681 ('by M. Clark'), and Walton's Love and Truth, 1680 ('by M. C.'), and yet another damaged R (R2) with Some New Pieces, 1684 ('by M. C.') and Lathom's Power of Kings from God, 1683 ('by M. Clark'). The P is shown in Poems, And Translations, 1683, which shares an ornament with L'Estrange's The Case Put, 1679 ('by M. Clark'), and a fourth damaged R (R4) with Some New Pieces, 1681 ('by M. C.'), Some New Pieces, 1684 ('by M. C.'), and with Lathom and Walton's volumes ('by M. Clark' and 'by M. C.'). Thus, directly or with one intervening link, five independent pieces of evidence indicate the printing of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, in Mary Clark's shop. A single piece might be explained away; five, of three different kinds, are irresistible.

Satyrs Upon The Jesuits was Oldham's first collection of poems. Though the title-page is dated 1681, it was probably first issued by Joseph Hindmarsh in November or December, 1680.[7] It was advertised in the Term Catalogues for November, 1680; and its internal title-page for 'A Satyr Against Vertue, is dated 1680. That poem was set up from the pirated quarto of 1679: by Christmas 1680 Oldham is satirising Hindmarsh because in perpetuating the bad text he has 'exposed' the author—rendered him liable to public contempt. There were three isues of the edition: the copies described in my Bibliography or examined for it are or may be of the third issue, those which are perfect collating A4 B-L8. It was not until

1971, while extending (in search of variant formes) my collation of copies,[8] that I discovered two of a first issue, which has no sheet L, and instead of including 'A Satyr Upon A Woman' ends with 'The Passion of Byblis', completed on the last page of sheet K. This issue is represented by the copy in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, and by one which I bought of the Bristol bookseller, A. R. Heath (it has the bookplate of Walter Wilson). Both are perfect, and in the original binding. Even before they were observed, the existence of a first issue might have been suspected from two features in the other copies of the first edition, which it explains. In his 'Advertisement', in all copies, Oldham writes of 'Byblis' as the last poem and does not go on to mention 'A Satyr Upon A Woman'; and in those which conclude with that satire, 'FINIS' appears twice: at the end of the full text, and after 'Byblis' where, as we now know, it originally ended.

The next step was to add 'A Satyr Upon A Woman', which occupies the first six leaves of a new sheet, sheet L. The augmented volume was issued with the last two leaves, L7 and L8, blank. This second issue is represented by the copies in the Guildhall Library in London, and the W. A. Clark Memorial Library, Los Angeles. The Birkbeck, British Museum, and New-berry copies, which lack these leaves, may belong to this issue, since leaves are more likely to be lost when blank.

Oldham then became aware that in this authorised volume, the bookseller, Hindmarsh, who employed the printer, had used for the text of 'A Satyr Against Vertue' the 1679 piracy, so that it remained riddled with corruptions. The pirated quarto (as we have seen) was printed by Mary Clark; a fact which, with the sequel, strongly suggests that Hindsmarsh was the publisher concerned in the piracy. If this were so, and Oldham knew it, his grievance against Hindmarsh was now double. In his 'Advertisement', or preface, to the 1681 volume, he had declared as his reason for including this 'Satyr' the provision of a correct text: it was

Yet the text thus introduced, he discovered, was little better than a perpetuation of the one stigmatised, repeating or miscorrecting all but half-a-dozen of its bad readings. Little wonder that he composed a vitriolic satire (dated 'Christmas 1680 Rygate', and running to nearly a hundred lines) 'Upon a Bookseller that expos'd him by Printing a Piece of his grosly mangled and faulty.' When this was published in the second issue of Some New Pieces, 1681, 'Bookseller' was changed to 'Printer'.[9] Just conceivably, I suppose, Hindmarsh in the interim had convinced the satirist that the responsibility for taking the bad quarto as copy-text lay in Mary Clark's shop. But more probably, since Hindmarsh was the publisher of the book in which the satire appeared, the change in the title was made in order to shield him.[10] The printer was a convenient scapegoat: his reputation was not, like the bookseller's, exposed face-to-face with the reading public.

The further consequence of Oldham's indignant discovery was a third issue of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, in which L7r, formerly blank, carries a list of errata. Fifty out of the sixty-seven pertain to 'A Satyr Against Vertue'; the remainder to 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits'. To this third issue belong the two copies in the Bodleian (Antiq.e.E.1681/3 and Godwyn Pamph. 1618(10)), one each in the Cambridge University Library (CCD.3. 3) and the Huntington Library, the two at Austin (Texas), and one of my two copies. The errata are of major textual, as well as of bibliographical, importance, for they are undoubtedly authorial. If they were not, their source would have to be editorial guesswork, or an earlier printed edition, or a MS. deriving from private circulation. Apart from the bad quarto, where nearly all the corruptions in the 1681 Satyrs Upon The Jesuits themselves originate, the only previous publication of 'A Satyr Against Vertue' was in the unauthorised Poems on Several Occasions by the E. of R. (which I shall refer to as Rochester, 1680).[11] Though this is not without correct readings where the bad quarto, and (following it) the text in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, are astray, it would not have made possible the corrections in at least eleven of the errata: those for p. 97, l. 7; p. 99, l. 14; p. 104, l. 6; p. 105, ll. 4 and 13; p. 109, l. 10; p. 112, ll.8 and 11; p. 113, ll. 2 and 18; and p. 119, l. 1.[12] Evidently some of the MSS. in circulation were better than the one from which the 1679 quarto was printed, and further evidence of that is supplied by B. M. Additional MS. 14047 (which I shall call MS.A), and the MS. formerly H. M. Margoliouth's, which he

designated 'm'.[13] But each of these has errors where the 1681 errata restores readings authenticated by Oldham's autograph fair copy.[14] At p. 112, l. 8 ('Satyr', l. 231), 'Examples', the erratum, is shared only by the autograph: 'example,' common to MSS.m and A, and to Rochester, 1680, the 1679 quarto, and Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, does not announce itself as wrong, and would not be suspected by a corrector unless he was collating with authentic copy, or was the author. Similarly at p. 105, l. 13 ('Satyr', l. 137), though there the bad quarto has the obvious corruption 'claim' for 'calm', neither 'Her quiet calm and peace', in the other two printed texts and MS.m., nor, in MS.A, 'For calm and quiet peace' would be suspicious in itself; but the erratum restores the awkward reading of the autograph: 'Her Quiet and Calm and Peace'. It is possible that from 'Bards', p. 104, l. 6 ('Satyr', l. 113), the nonsensical reading of the 1679 and 1681 editions, 'Beards', might have been guessed. Yet Oldham's word had defeated those responsible for the texts of Rochester, 1680, MS.m, and MS.A: the first with 'Birds', has a shot at the look of it, the second and third, with 'Lawes' and 'Morals', try to deduce the meaning from the context. The correct word is again shared only by the errata-list and the autograph. Forty-six of the errata to 'A Satyr Against Vertue' restore the original reading of the autograph fair copy: a result no editorial guesswork, whether at the bookseller's or the printer's, would have achieved. Three of the remaining four[15] are particularly clear revelations of the author at work. In the 'Apology' for 'A Satyr Against Vertue' on p. 72 (Apology, p. 119, l. 1), the 1679 and 1681 editions, instead of an epithet for 'Wit', have a hiatus, the result of a copyist's inability to recognise the rare word 'tuant', Oldham's first choice of epithet as the autograph shows.[16] Equally baffled, the copyist of Rochester, 1680, has 'angry wit', and MS.m (quite desperately) 'curse'. The erratum, 'pointed', is, however, not yet another effort in the dark: it is Oldham's revised reading, which he wrote in the margin of the autograph copy. As here for p. 119, l. 1, so also for p. 113, l. 2, (Apology, l. 260), the erratum introduces a revision made in the margin of the autograph, where 'down' is marked for insertion. This time both the revised and the unrevised phrase had got into circulation. MS.A and Rochester, 1680, have 'Plantations below', the 1679 and 1681 editions (corruptly) 'Plantation below'; but MS.m, like the erratum, 'Plantations down below'. In the erratum for p. 112, l. 11 (l. 254), we find Oldham, it seems, in the very act of revising. The autograph reads: 'Unthought, unknown, unpattern'd', and so do the 1679 and 1681 editions, Rochester, 1680, and MS.m (for 'unpattern'd, MS.A has 'unpractic'd', probably an authentic, still earlier, reading). But though there is no error in this reading, the erratum changes it to 'Unknown, unheard, unthought of'—something that in a list of errata no one but the author would do.

The errata to the 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' are equally authoritative. Some restore a harder reading: 'made' for 'make', 'write' for 'writ', 'shamelessness' for 'shamefulness' (p. 49, ll. 2, 8, 14).[17] The obvious 'there' for 'these' (p. 2, l. 19)[18] agrees with an autograph draft (MS.R, p. 174). In two instances (p. 25, l. 3, p. 30, l. 2)[19] the word in the Errata gives the true sense, indicated in a draft, and is yet so near in form to the wrong reading in the text as to make the misprint easy to understand. For 'plagues' and 'name', Oldham's first thoughts (MS.R, pp. 188, 191), he must have substituted, in the MS. he sent to press, 'curse' and 'Title', which were misprinted as 'cure' and 'little': the errata evidently restore the reading of that MS. Finally, no one correcting by the mere light of nature would have suspected corruption in l. 18 on p. 35: 'Than Bullies common Oaths and canting Lies?'[20] Yet 'canting' is changed to 'bant'ring' in the Errata, and 'bantring' is also the word in two autograph drafts (MS.R, pp. 193, 281). It is possible that both readings are Oldham's: he was evidently dissatisfied with his epithet; among his revisions in the second edition, Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, his alteration of this line gets rid of it: 'Than a Town-Bullie common Oaths, and Lies?'.

The 1682 edition incorporates in its text the errata from the third issue of the 1681; and since fresh revision shows Oldham still at work in that text,[21] the adoption of the errata is a further confirmation of their authenticity.

As set up for the first issue, Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, was the work of two compositors, readily distinguishable by their different habits

in the use of italics. One, because he is lavish with them, I designate compositor L; the other, who had the major share of the book, compositor M. Being familiar with Oldham's orthography in his fair copies, I have always attributed to the printing-house the style of italicisation, very different from his, in portions of the book, though I did not in the 1930's recognise them as distinctive of a particular compositor who had set only certain sections. Not only does L italicise words which M would not; he has a distinctive trick of italicising phrases. The same style is observable in L'Estrange, The Case Put, (first edition) 1679, printed, we remember, by M. Clark for Henry Brome. A characteristic example from Satyrs Upon The Jesuits runs: with the unexpected and apparently capricious italics of 'mention'd', and of 'Boast' when 'Priviledge' is in roman; and with the italicised phrase, 'poching Hereticks resort'. One can compare, from p. 4, of The Case Put: 'he very fairly, and for brevity sake, sweeps all together. By the Character of the First Publisher, we may Imagine the Intent of That Publication'; and from p. 3, 'Presidents, ready made to your hand (like Cloaths in a wholesale Shop) of all Sizes and Colours'. Similar italicisation is seen in Paul Lathom's The Power of Kings from God, printed by M. Clark for Joanna Brome, 1683. Two samples will suffice: from p. 23, 'So that it appears that changing the Bed will not give ease to the sick person, nor will the change of Government please those that are resolved not to be pleased'; and from p. 39, 'Which should move us rather to assist them with our Prayers . . . than to suggest in sly and slanderous whispers to the Rabble, that they are always erring'. It looks as though Compositor L of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits were Mary Clark's compositor who set the pieces by Lathom and L'Estrange.[23]

The second, or main compositor, M, reserves italics for proper names, and a few other emphatic words, often of religious connotation: 'begging Friers', 'Hereticks', 'The Birth and Passion', for example.[24] Italicised

phrases of three or four words together, not being proper names, are absent from his work. 'Pernicious Knowledge gets', 'Cordials to prolong their gasping Life', 'Capricious, Headlong, Fickle, Vain', and the like, are frequent in L's: thirty and more italicised words on a page are not beyond him.[25] Once the distinction between him and M has been noticed, his pages leap to the eye. They are all in 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits', comprising the whole of sheets B and C, and sections of D and E: the other poems were set entirely by Compositor M. Besides the contrast in the italics, a further typographical feature differentiates him from L, though this additional evidence is less simple. In the stints assigned by the italic test to L, verselines too long for the compositor's measure are dealt with, twenty times out of thirty, by a turn-up or a turn-down. In the stints similarly assigned to M, this method is used only seven times out of forty-one; and those seven are all in the first six pages he set.[26] After that, in his share of the 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits', normally he gives the overflow a line to itself, spaced out with leading above and below. The change probably marks the point at which he saw he must spread out his matter if 'Satyr IV' were to stretch to G8v. But while this explains his giving his overflows the same spacing as complete verse-lines, that is not the whole story. When, locally, on E5r, he is not anxious to lose space[27] he still uses an overflow, but without leading; and outside his allotment for 'Satyrs Upon the Jesuits', he uses not turn-overs, but what I take to be his normal preference, an overflow with no leading above, between it and the line it belongs to, but with leading between it and the next line below. Significantly, in setting from A Satyr Against Vertue, 1679, he changes its turn-overs into overflows of this form. It occupies, of course, a line less than the form he had been using in the 'Satyrs upon the Jesuits', but perhaps at this stage his need to lose space was fully met by the inner title-leaves (for which see below) without extra contribution from the overflows. The contrast of M's practices with L's is all the stronger because at least four out of L's ten instances of overflows, instead of his customary turn-overs, are accounted for by special circumstances.[28]

It was the 'Satyrs upon the Jesuits' themselves, as we noted, that were shared between the two compositors.[29] They occupy the first six sheets of

the text (excluding the preliminaries). Four of the sheets present no problem: Compositor L set B and C; Compositor M set F and G. Sheets D and E, however, each divided between the two workmen, demand more analysis.

L's characteristic italics appear in the first six pages of Sheet D—D1r to D3v; and in ten pages of E—E2r to E4v, and E6v to E8r (the last five pages of the sheet). They appear, too, (and with a turn-down) in the first five lines of E5r, but not in the remainder of the page. In sheet D, it is clear that L continued his setting of Satyr II, begun in sheet C, for the six pages needed to finish it, and that M began at the beginning of 'SATYR III. Loyola's Will'., and continued with it to the end of the sheet. In this sheet, one's eye is caught by the headlines, which differ from those in sheets B, C, F, and G, and exhibit anomalies among themselves.

In the other four sheets, apart from the headline to the Prologue, the versos are all headed 'SATYR I.' (or II, III, or IV as the case may be), and the rectos 'upon the Jesuits.' Now we have, in a larger swash italic, 'SATYR II.' on D1v, D2v, D3v, D4v; 'SATYR III.' on D5v, D6v, D7v, D8v. With the exception of D4r, which bears the drop-title of 'SATYR III. Loyola's Will.', the recto headlines run: D1r 'upon the Jesuits.'; D2r, D3r 'upon the Jesuites.'; D5r, D7r and D8r 'Loyola's Will.' The headline on D4v, 'SATYR II.', is wrong: the text below is part of Satyr III. On D6r, 'upon the Jesuits.' is not wrong, but it is anomalous, because all other recto headlines to this satire appear as 'Loyola's Will.' The anomalous headline is the first that compositor M had to set for a recto of the Inner forme. Presumably he had begun by composing the two whole sheets allotted to him, F and G, and now continued with the wording he had used there, before changing on D8r to 'Loyola's Will.' The 'Loyola's Will.' of D5r, though in the perfected and folded sheet it precedes the anomalous headline, belongs, of course, to the Outer forme. Provided the Inner forme was printed before the Outer, the 'Loyola's Will.' headlines, once begun, follow each other in unbroken series so far as the order of composition and printing are concerned. That the Inner did precede the Outer forme, there is yet stronger evidence in the headline of D4v: 'SATYR II.' The text on that page is part of Satyr III: the headline is wrong. Evidently it was let stand from D1v of the Inner forme. Significant also is the variation in spelling from 'upon the Jesuits.' on D1r and D6r, to 'upon the Jesuites.' on D2r and D3r. If one compositor set the whole skeleton for either forme, or if compositor L set all the headlines for all the pages of which he composed the text, then without assignable reason he varied between Jesuites and Jesuits. But

if each compositor set, in the Inner forme, the headlines for his own type-pages, and the skeleton thus produced for the Inner was then used with the minimum of change for the Outer forme, all the anomalies are accounted for. As a hypothesis which fits the facts we have, I therefore suggest that for the Inner forme compositor L set 'SATYR II.' on D1v; 'upon the Jesuites.' on D2r and 'SATYR II.' on D3v; while compositor M set the drop-title, 'SATYR III: Loyola's Will.' on D4r, 'SATYR III.' on D5v, 'upon the Jesuites.' on D6r, 'SATYR III.' on D7v, and 'Loyola's Will.' on D8r. Tabulating the impositions for the two formes, we can see how every headline but two could be left standing as a skeleton for D Outer.

TABLE II. Imposition of Skeletons for Sheet D of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681.

                   

D Inner	D Outer	Originally set by
D2r upon the Jesuites.	D3r upon the Jesuites.	L
D7v SATYR III.	D6v SATYR III.	M
D8r Loyola's Will.	D5r Loyola's Will.	M
D1v SATYR II.	D4v SATYR II.	L
D3v SATYR II.	D2v SATYR II.	L
D6r upon the Jesuits.	D7r Loyola's Will.	M
D5v SATYR III.	D8v SATYR III.	M
D4r Drop-title:	D1r upon the Jesuits.	M
SATYR III: Loyola's Will.

All that was necessary was to transfer 'upon the Jesuits.' from D6r to D1r, and to supply the gap with 'Loyola's Will.', either set afresh, or more likely taken from the drop-title on D4r. The D1v headline was wrongly left standing for D4v, probably by oversight, or if not, from a resolve to get the whole of the Outer skeleton from the Inner one.

Inner D would be ready a page ahead of Outer D, the pages within each of the two stints being set in the order of the text. This was not the order in which Sheet E was set. The evidence consists of a shortage of capital W's, and consequent recourse to VV's[30] in the later pages of each compositor's work, taken together with the indication that the two men met on E5r. Since in Sheet D six pages (to finish Satyr II) were given to L, and ten to M, it is not surprising that these figures were reversed in Sheet E. Two stints of three pages each were evidently expected from Compositor M, and two, of five each, from Compositor L. For his first stint, M had only to continue straight ahead with the text of Satyr III, as he had been doing in Sheet D. He set E1r, E1v, and E2r, without any

lack of W's. Compositor L had two runs, E2v-E4v, and E6v-E8v. The latter shows no shortage of W's until the final page; there is shortage on three pages of the former. I suggest that L began with the last five pages of the sheet: the shortage developed at the end of this stint and continued in the other: though while he was composing that, a few more W's became available. The hypothesis receives support when we look at the distribution of his W's and VV's in detail: one can form a consistent explanation of it.

He used his last W, and resorted to one VV, on E8v. On his next page, however, he required no VV's, and was able to set three W's. This cleaned him out again; on E3r he has no W's and four VV's. For E3v a solitary W was again to hand, supplemented by one VV. He must then have acquired three W's more, since two (and no VV's) appear on E4r, and one remained over for E4v, where a VV was needed in addition. The fresh W's came no doubt from type-pages distributed on three occasions during the shortage. No combination out of L's six in Sheet D would have released W's in the sequence (three, one, and three) which is necessary in order to explain the facts. Outer D, indeed, would still be on the press. But distribution of the last three pages from Outer C would yield exactly what the compositor obtained: C8v providing three, C7r one, and C6v a further three.

Meanwhile M, too, in his second stint, ran out of W's. Assuming that he started with the page before the five already set at the end of the sheet, by L, and worked backwards, all becomes clear. On E6r he needed only one W, which he had. This left him with one and no more for E5v, where he followed it with three VV's. Reaching E5r, he took over from Compositor L, whose italics and turn-down are seen in the first five lines (probably a stick-full); and having no W's he was obliged to use two VV's in his share of the page. One can tabulate the work of the compositors on the two sheets so as to give a rough idea of their simultaneous progress, and how they could come together on E5r.

Three of the formes they set are known in an uncorrected and a corrected state. In Outer D, 'Call', 'Impluicit', 'thousand' (D3r, p. 37), 'Genevah's' (D4v, p. 40), 'Cononical' (D7r, p. 45), 'ro' (D8v, p. 48) are changed to 'tale', 'Implicit', 'thousands', 'Geneva's', 'Canonical', 'to'. The uncorrected readings are found in B.M. 11632.aaa.28, Bodley Antiq.e.E. 1681/3, and my second copy; the corrected, in my copy of the first issue, and ten others: Bodley G.Pamph. 1618 (10), Cambridge University Library CCD.3.3, Trinity College Cambridge, Birkbeck College (London), the Guildhall (London), Yale, Huntington, Newberry, W. A. Clark (Los Angeles) and Austin (Texas). In Outer E, 'may' (E1r, p. 49) is changed to 'make'. Five of the copies examined have the corrected state: Bodley

G.Pamph.1618 (10), Cambridge University Library CCD.3., Birkbeck College, Yale, and my second copy. The uncorrected state is represented by my copy of the first issue, and by BM.11632.aaa.28, Bodley Antiq.e.E. 1681/3, Trinity College Cambridge, Guildhall, Huntington, Newberry, and W. A. Clark. I have seen only one copy, Newberry, with the uncorrected state of Outer G, which on G2v has two turned letters: in the twelve other copies examined, 'wight', 'aud' have been corrected to 'might', 'and'. Throughout this series of uncorrected readings, error or abnormality and the required correction are obvious in all but two; their detection and correction do not raise the question of reference to copy, still less of proofs submitted to the author. 'Call' is more interesting. It yields a sort of sense, and might have escaped notice had attention not been drawn to it because Compositor L had omitted the space between it and the preceding word. It is evidently his misreading of 'Tale' in the MS., which may have been consulted for the correction, though a good guess may have sufficed. Certainly 'make' for 'may' (p. 49) is a guess, showing that the MS. copy was not consulted by the proof-reader at that point. Oldham's phrasing, vouched for by an erratum,[31] was somewhat difficult: with a distinct pause after 'did', and 'Founders' as the subject of 'made' ('This was what Rome's and Mecca's first great founders did—they made their churches spread by wise methods of this kind'). This construction, it seems, was more than Compositor M could follow; intending to reduce the second line to sense, he reduced the argument to nonsense: Noticing the absurdity, the proof-reader miscorrected it by a guess which restored the author's meaning, but not his syntax; he emended 'may' to 'make', assuming it depended upon 'did':

After the first issue we have been examining, the next step was to add 'A Satyr Upon A Woman'. The addition of Sheet L, with that satire occupying its first six leaves, is what constitutes the second issue. Typographically, the new piece is identical in style with 'Byblis', which it immediately follows, and may be presumed the work of Compositor M; certainly Compositor L's characteristics nowhere appear in it.

'A Satyr Upon A Woman' was written 'Whitsuntide 1678,'[32] and so was available for inclusion in the first issue of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681,

had it been so decided. When Oldham wrote his 'Advertisement', as we have seen, he envisaged no poem to follow 'Byblis'. But the title-page, in the first as well as in the other issues, did imply at least one. For it announced, besides 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' and 'A Satyr Against Vertue', 'Some other PIECES by the same HAND'; pieces, not merely the one piece, 'Byblis'. Probaby, then, to include 'A Satyr Upon A Woman' was not an afterthought; rather, the intention was waived in order to delay the publication of the topical satires on the Jesuits. This would explain why Compositor M, who set the whole of the last five sheets of the book, seems, in the four which belong to the first issue, short of copy to fill what was no doubt his allotted space. I suspect the problem was realised by the time he began to set the fourth of the 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits', which by comparison with its predecessors is anomalously treated. 'Satyr III' ends on F5r, and if the parallel instance of the end of 'Satyr I' were followed, 'Satyr IV' would begin on the verso. That, however, is left blank, and F6r devoted to a half-title, such as none of the other 'Satyrs' has, with the verso again blank; so that three pages are deliberately lost. This, it is true, enables the 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' to finish on the last page of sheet G, and that may be the only reason why it was done. But though, in sheets H, I, and K there is nothing obviously anomalous, space is treated in similarly lavish fashion. Both the poems concerned, 'A Satyr Against Vertue' and 'The Passion of Byblis', are begun after leaving a verso blank, and each is given a title-leaf. Again this fits them exactly into the three sheets. Yet one cannot help thinking that the compositor's policy here and at the start of the fourth 'Satyr Upon The Jesuits' might have been different if he had had all the copy he expected. On his blank leaves, half-title, and internal titles, he has expended nine pages; nine pages, before the end of sheet K, which would have been saved if he had set the Fourth Satyr Upon The Jesuits, 'A Satyr Against Vertue', and 'The Passion of Byblis' without blanks and with drop-titles only. These pages approximate very fairly to the space 'Upon a Woman' would have occupied in sheet K had it been set in that same style; for the drop-title and text of it, when eventually printed on L2r to L6r for the second issue, occupied nine pages and five lines. The additional lines could have been accommodated without difficulty in the space available in the first issue, if on G4v to G6v, and G7v, in the Fourth Satyr Upon The Jesuits, Compositor M had dropped the use of leading between an overspill and the line it continued; and adopted, saving a line each time, the practice he follows in the succeeding poems, in sheets H-K (see above).

One conclusion, at least, important to the editor and biographer of Oldham, is plain: the anomaly of the half-title to the fourth 'Satyr Upon The Jesuits' was initiated in the printing-house and not before. It does not reflect any peculiarity either in the MS. from which the 'Satyr' was printed, or in the circumstances of its delivery to the publisher: it does not, for instance, as I once inclined to think, point to Oldham's having supplied it later than the MS. of the other three.

After Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, in the four further volumes of Oldham printed by Mary Clark (namely Some New Pieces, 1681, Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, Poems, And Translations, 1683, and Remains, 1684), Compositor L's style of italicisation does not recur. Nor can I establish that any of them was divided between different workmen. In Remains, 1684, it is true, there are some signs, at bibliographically significant points, that this might be so. One copy (Works, Together with . . . Remains, 1684, Bodleian 12 θ 1868) has an early state of G Outer which shows error where the text is divided between that forme and G Inner and H Outer.[33] G Inner ends correctly on G8r with the catchword 'III. Hence': the number of the stanza which should follow, and the first word of its first line. But instead of beginning, as would be correct and consistent, with 'III.', then a line of leads, and the first line of the stanza, G8v begins with the stanza's second line. This gain of space, by omission, is matched at the foot of the page by the inclusion of three lines which are also set at the top of H1r. As a result, the G8v catchword, correct for the line which should follow the three at the foot of that page, corresponds not with the first but with the fourth line on H1r. The mistake in the division of the text is most simply explained if it occurred by simple omission at the top of G8v. The compositor would then get three lines more on the page than had been allowed for, and if the new sheet, H, were begun at the point predetermined by casting-off, the duplication of those three lines would be the outcome. If we were forced to envisage a compositor, having set three lines a first time, immediately setting them again, in circumstances which rule out mere dittography, we might think such an error improbable, and seek to attribute the second setting to a second workman. But at the completion of a forme, and especially of a sheet, it would be normal for setting to be interrupted by other tasks: imposition, locking-up, perhaps distribution of type; and the error of duplication would be easy enough for the original compositor returning to the copy after an interval. I have failed to find in the orthography or typography of the sheets, formes, and pages in question anything that might reflect a change of compositor. Two other sheets, B and C, do contrast in a single typographical feature with the rest of the book, including G and H. Except twice (on F1v, G4v) only B and C have turn-overs: the remaining sheets have overflows, unleaded above, leaded below (like those of sheets H-L in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681). In sheet B such overflows are a minority, and in sheet C there are none. Instead, there are turn-downs, and one turn-up. The turn-up is of the regular space-saving kind, tucked in at the end of the preceding line of print. But the turn-downs are of a form not found in Mary Clark's substantive editions of Oldham apart from this one. They require exactly the same amount

of space as the overflows just described, for each is given a line to itself, unleaded above, but leaded below. This peculiarity of Sheets B and C is not supported, however, by any other. The orthography appears consistent throughout the Remains. The two turn-downs in the later sheets are of the same rather odd sort as those in B and C. I can see no signs of adjustment which might mark the end of a stint, except in G8v, where that does not appear the likeliest explanation. In short, even for the two sheets B and C, it is hard to believe that a second compositor was employed in Remains, 1684, though the possibility cannot be altogether discounted.

Nowhere else in the editions under consideration—nowhere in Some New Pieces, 1681, Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, or Poems, And Translations, 1683—is there (so far as I can detect) a peculiarity correlated with one or more of the constituent bibliographical units, such as would suggest that the task of setting-up had been divided.

We have now to investigate the patterns of compositorial preferences in these four texts, and, necessarily, to bring into the comparison Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, and A Satyr Against Vertue, 1679. For the patterns have to be compared not only with each other, but with Compositor M's; and in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, M can be studied as he sets from the Satyr, 1679. From the comparisons we may form some opinion about the presence or absence, in the four later volumes, of M or other workmen. We have two great advantages. We can follow the compositor of the Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, in precise detail, as he sets from the first edition, merely incorporating a number of authorial corrections (some from the 1681 errata). And with one exception,[34] wherever the texts are being set from MS. we can observe the features that coincide with the practice of the author, which is known from about a hundred-and-thirty pages of rough drafts, and about ninety of holograph fair copies, in the Rawlinson MS.[35] None of the features is so idiosyncratic as to prove beyond a pedant's cavil that the printer's copy was autograph, but there is not the least reasonable doubt that it was. The notion of Oldham, never prosperous, and capable of handsome fair copy, deciding instead to employ a scribe (who must, if he existed, have had the same pattern of spelling as Oldham himself) is patently ridiculous. 'A Satyr Against Vertue' was never printed from autograph, because the 1679 edition was pirated from a corrupt MS. in circulation, and the reprints in 1681 and 1682 (the first, with errata in the third issue of the book; and the second with a corrected text) were each set up from the previous edition. Everywhere else in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, and everywhere in Some New Pieces, 1681, Poems, And Translations, 1683, and, I believe, in Remains, 1684, we are safe in assuming autograph copy, and examining compositorial practice by the help of a general comparison

with Oldham's. For six poems, distributed among the first three of these volumes, the comparison can be more specific; for although we do not possess the MSS. actually sent to the printer, these are unlikely to have departed much in accidentals from the autograph fair copies extant in the Rawlinson MS.[36]

The first step is to note those details of Oldham's spelling and punctuation which will be needed for our comparisons. His fair copies are punctuated carefully but not heavily. He is fond of such doublets as 'Life & name,' 'remote & wide,' 'Pollute & soil,' and rarely divides them by a comma. He seldom fails to mark metrical elision, but occasionally uses a notation of Cowley's and Jonson's, retaining 'e' along with the apostrophe in a slurred syllable: 'Reve'rence', 'Praye'rs'. Though I have found 'Anathema's' and 'Hero's', the apostrophe hardly ever occurs in plurals: it is regular in possessive singulars, among which, however 'Churches' appears for 'Church's'. Hyphenation is not profuse; in particular, prefixes like 'out-', 'over-', 'un-', 'off-', and suffixes like '-men', '-boys', denoting classes of people, are not hyphenated. Oldham writes 'outgo', 'overlay', 'overan', 'offspring', 'unnumber'd', 'Statesmen', 'Linkboys'. Among his spellings, the most evidential are those from which he never varies, and those for which he has a very strong preference. These are listed in Table III, where I give (except for the hyphenations and apostrophe plurals) the number of instances observed.[37]

Table III. Oldham's Autograph Spellings

                             

Uniform Practice		Strong Preferences
In MS R.	Never found	Majority	Minority
outgo	out-go etc.
overlay
oreran
offspring
unnumber'd
Statesmen
Linkboys
		Ecchos (plural), etc.	Anathema's (plural, 1)
			Hero's (plural, 1)
chast 7	chaste
hast 6	haste
wast 5	waste
tast 3	taste

                                                                                       

dy 22	die	destiny 8	destinie 1
dye 5		defy 3	defie 1
easy 9	easie	glory 17	glorie 2
		ey 8	eye 1
		eys 21	eyes 2
		els 11	else 1
		aw 4
		ow 6	owe 1
ere 38	e'er
e're 3
honour 18	honor
honour'd 1	honor'd
honourable 1	honorable
honourably 1	honorably
human 9	humane
inhuman 1	inhumane
judgement 9	judgment
judge 3	judg
budge 1	budg
drudge 1	drudg
badge 3	badg
edge 1	edg
pledge 1	pledg
alledge 1	alledg
knowledge 3	knowledge
priviledge 1	priviledg
sacriledge 1	sacriledg[38]
lest 15	least	brest 16	breast 4
loth'd 8	loath'd
rhime 12	rhyme
rhimer 3	rhymer
rhiming 1	rhyming
sence 41	sense	shew 18	show 2
soveraign 4	sovereign	shew'd 5
soverain 2	soverein	shewn 3	shown 1
		spite 28	spight 1
		spiteful 3
		strait 39	straight 2
tho 25	though
tho' 15
thô 1
thro 27	through
thro' 14
thrô 1

Some other spellings also are in a majority: but either the numbers are small for demonstrating a fixed habit, or the minority is a substantial one. There are only seven instances of 'chuse' (6) or 'choose' (1); and against 'miter' (3), 'theater' (3), 'scepter' (1), 'meager' (1), the alternatives 'metre' (2), 'theatre' (1), do occur, and 'centre' (1) is to be noted. Even apart from the invariable 'loth'd', an inclination towards 'o' rather than 'oa' is reflected in 'yoke' (3), 'choke' (3), 'bode' (3), 'boding' (1) and 'doting' (2), but the minority, 'choak' (2), 'doating' (1), 'boad' (1) is not negligible. Out of some seventy words in 'or' or 'our', leaving aside the invariable 'honour' and its derivatives (Table III), 'our' predominates, but only in the proportion of four to three. Several are spelt both ways: 'emperour' (3 vs. 1.), 'favour'd', 'favourites' (3 vs. 3), 'conquerour' (1 vs. 2), 'assertours' (1 vs. 1), for example; others—'labour' (6), 'terrour' (4), 'valour' (2), but, contrariwise, 'horror' (4) —are spelt in one way only. Besides 'ey', 'ow', 'aw' (Table IV), 'som', 'becom', 'welcom', 'troublesom', 'palat', 'doctrin', 'achiev' and the like show Oldham's fondness for spelling without final e mute; but he also writes 'some', 'become', 'doctrine', 'atchieve', and indeed on occasion, 'Jesuite', 'toile', 'girle', 'undoe', 'assassine' and so forth. The pattern of his double or single consonants, medial and final, is even more complex, and it is probably as well that they are not indispensable evidence. Examples out of many words spelt either way are 'wickedness' (16), 'wickednes' (6), 'Address' (2), 'addressing' (3), 'adress' (1), 'adressing' (1). Such forms as 'marr', 'interr', 'shamm', like 'thorowout' and 'throwout', are striking when reproduced by a compositor. The spelling of one word is exceptionally various: 'forein' (2), 'forrein' (2), 'forreign' (3), and 'foreign'. Finally, although 'e'er' is conspicuous by its absence, 'ne'er' (18) balances 'ne're' (13) and 'nere' (5); six of the eighteen instances, however, are in the fair copy of a single poem.[39]

Passing from the autographs to the editions, it will be best to begin with Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, where the data for the compositor's practices are virtually complete. I shall call him SJ82. Setting as he is from the first edition, 1681, on the whole he follows copy closely, so that he does little to obscure the contrast between the sections of text there set by L and M; indeed, many of the author's spellings still come through.[40] In both sections, he inserts new hyphens. Though he retains 'Statesmen', 'Henchboys', his inclination is to change 'outdo' and its fellows to 'out-do', 'out-face', 'o're-ran', 're-spread', 'non-sence'; he also, less strikingly, hyphenates pairs of words unhyphenated in his copy: 'Priest-guelder', 'Chimny-Tales', 'all-pow'rful', 'Hot-House', 'Passion-Nails', 'Powder-Plot', 'Saddle-Pomel', 'Wiping-Paper', 'Church-Dispensatories', 'Country-Saints'. Apostrophes, too, are inserted: for metrical elision, and sometimes to mark possessive singulars; but no new ones for plurals, though 'Anathema's', 'Molucco's', 'Grotto's', 'Chimaera's', 'Limbo's' are retained. The elisions (and the possessive 'Church's' for 'Churches') often required the dropping of 'e' when the apostrophe was introduced, and the resulting habit produces a number of abnormal spellings: 'Fraterniti's', 'Mari's', 'Agu's', 'Candl's'.

'Vertu's' (p. 130), however, may be an expedient to save space in a full line. So strong are the habits of marking possessives, and elisions before 'd' in past participles, that the compositor intrudes an apostrophe once in 'her's' and once in 'baw'd'. On fifty-four of the occasions when the verseline is too long to print undivided, he departs from the methods of division there used by L and M. On six he uses a turn-over opposite the space between the lines instead of opposite the preceding or succeeding line of print; on forty-eight, a form of overflow thus exemplified on p. 67 (F 2r): —a form in which he also follows M a hundred and twenty-seven times in sheets H to L. Above all he peppers the text with additional commas, including (out of a total of almost three hundred) two hundred before 'and', 'or', and the like. His substitutions of his own spellings for those of his copy are listed in Table IV. I give the spellings, by L and M, from which the alterations were made. Cross-reference to Table III will supply comparison with Oldham's usage: if it is not recorded there, I indicate relevant forms from his MS, (designated R).

TABLE IV. Compositor SJ82 Alterations from the Spellings of his Copy

                                   

SJ82	Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681	SJ82	Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681
out-do	outdo (cp.R outgo etc.)	sovereign	soveraign L
out-face	outface	forein	foreign L[41]
o're-ran	o'reran	show	shew
o're-spread	or'espread	show'd	shew'd
non-sence	nonsence	shown	shew'n
Chimny-Tales etc.	Chimny Tales etc.	spight	spite M
haste	hast M	spightful	spiteful M
waste	wast M	through	thro' L
taste	tast M	ne'er	ne're L (R 18 vs. 15)[42]
easie	easy	Emperor	Emperour L (R 3 vs. 1)
lousie	lousy (cp.R defy)	Emperors	Emperours L
Heresie	Heresy (cp.R destiny)	Successors	Successours L }
			R, as 4 to 3.
mortifie	mortify (cp.R. glory)	Ancestors	ancestours }
Cries	Crys M (cp.R Eys)	Horror	Horrour L (R horror, 4 vs. 0)
Eyes	Eys L	Soldiers	Souldiers M ( R)
lye	ly (cp.R Ey)	Soldier's	Souldier's M

                         

awe	aw M	Relicks	Reliques M (cp.R, Poetique)
owe	ow M	Masks	Masques M
Jesuit	Jesuite M (R, seldom)	phantastick	phantastic M (R, phantastick)
welcom	welcome M (R, welcom, 1)	uncontroul'd	uncontroulld M
judg	judge M	unsetled	unsettled M
grudg	grudge M (cp.R, drudge)	hazards	hazzards M
badg	badge L	until	untill
edg	edge L	Remorse	Remorss L
Knowledg	Knowledge L	pity	pitty L
priviledg	priviledge L,M	Indulgence	Indullgence L
Sacriledg	Sacriledge M	forbiden	forbidden L[43]
least	lest M
breast	brest M

Of these changes, a number, no doubt, are in the direction of general printing-house usage or at least of house-style. Some check is provided, however, by the work of L, who is certainly not SJ82. Where their practices differ, a common house-style was evidently not in force. L's work does show some of the same features as SJ82's. He has 'sense', 'forein', 'eyes' (p. 29, beside 'Eys', p. 60); the 'e' mute in 'haste', 'waste', and similarly in 'else'; some mistaken elisions of 'e' with the apostrophe: 'who're' (for 'whoe're'), 'plac't', 'mak't; and two or three apostrophes in plurals: 'Anathema's', 'Molucco's' and 'Prayer's'—which last, however, is probably the misintepretation of an autograph 'Praye'rs'. Clearly one cannot rely on these forms in the attempt to distinguish among and identify Mary Clark's compositors, though in the full picture of a compositor's practice they have their place. Fortunately, L's is far from suggesting that all SJ82's departures from copy should be referred to house-style or general usage. L's hyphenations are not much more frequent than they are likely to have been in his copy: some of those which link pairs of words may be his own, but he seldom divides words, and almost never hyphenates prefix or suffix in the manner of SJ82. The exceptions are 'Play-house', 'Fly-flap', 'Church-yards', and one suffix, 'Fisher-men'. Faced with verse-lines too long for his measure, his methods of division agree only three times with SJ82's. On p. 33 he uses the same type of overflow, and twice on p. 54 the same type of turn-over. His commonest method (seventeen instances) is a turn-over tucked in at the end of the previous or the next line of print. On the remaining nine occasions he has a line of leading before as well as after the overflow; on at least three this is in order to lose space. Though he has 'Judgments', he never uses the '-dg' ending, but always spells 'badge' (3), 'Bridge', 'Knowledge', 'edge', 'Priviledge'. Nor does he divagate from Oldham's practice in

'loth'd', 'yoke', 'spite', 'spiteful', 'easy', 'tho'' or 'tho', all of which occur once each: 'loath'd', 'yoak', 'spight', 'spightfull', 'easie' and 'though' do not appear. Finally, there is no sign of a mania for commas before 'and'; Oldham's paired words are left without them.

We can now marshal the evidence which favours the hypothesis of Some New Pieces, 1681, Poems, And Translations, 1683, and Remains, 1684, having been set by Compositor SJ82. Whoever set them, one man or several, certainly shared many of the characteristics displayed in the 1682 volume. The evidence pointing to SJ82 consists in the first place of features common to all four texts, with secondary support from features common to two or three. In Some New Pieces and Poems, And Translations, we can test compositorial preferences more closely, by collating the printed text of five poems with the autograph fair copies in the Rawlinson MS. The autographs actually printed from are unlikely to have differed much in their accidentals from these, which are therefore fairly good guides to the compositor's probable departures from copy in the poems concerned: 'Upon A Printer' and the paraphrases on Psalm 137 and the Hymn of S. Ambrose in Some New Pieces; the ode on Jonson and the 'Dithyrambique' in Poems, And Translations.[44] As regards divergent spellings of significant words, Table V records the results of this collation.

TABLE V. Spellings of Five Poems in Some New Pieces, 1681, Poems, And Translations, 1683, and the autograph fair copies.

                                                 

SNP	Autograph	P&T	easy
out-done (2)	outdone	Link-boys	Poesy
Off-spring	Offspring		whimsy
Bell-men	Belmen		defy
Echo's (plural)	Ecchos
Heroes	Hero's (plural)
easie (2)	easy	easie (2)
vie	vy	Poesie
out-vie	outvy	whimsie	Autograph
defie	defy	defie	Linkboys
(and 'defy' retained)
Honor (3)	Honour (3)	Honor	lest
Badg	Badge	Judg	soverain
Knowledg	Knowledge		forreign
breast	brest	least	Honour
sovereign	soveraign	sovereign	Judge
		forein
through and through
Center	Centre		ne're
Conqu'rours	Conqu'rors	Conqueror	dost
		Actors	rigour
		Vapor
		rigor	Conquerour
ne'er	ne're	ne'er	Actours
do'st (5)	dost (5)	do'st	Vapour

Extending the review to Remains, 1684, and to the whole of the text in Some New Pieces, 1681, and Poems, And Translations, 1683, Table VI is designed to assist comparison between spellings favoured in each, and by Compositor SJ82. The spellings listed are compositorial or most probably so, none likely to come from the copy. Where the number of occurrences is given, it includes those in Table V.

TABLE VI. Spellings, For Comparison of Compositorial Practice in Some New Pieces, 1681, Poems, And Translations, 1683, Remains, 1684, and that of SJ82.

                                                                             

SNP	P&T	Remains	SJ82
out-done (2)	out-rages	out-done	out-do
			out-face
o're-run	o're-run	o'er-charg'd	o're-ran
			o're spread
Bell-men	Bell-men's	Gown-men	non-sence
Off-spring	Link-boys	Woman-kind
Echo's (plural)	Chimaera's (plural)	Chimaeras' (plural)	Chimaera's (plural)
	Pulvilio's "	Regalio's "	Limbo's
	Virtuoso's "	Capricio's "	Molucco's
	Huzza's "	Idaea's "	Anathema's
	Hero's "	Grotto's "	Grotto's
	Inquistor's "	Scaevola's "
easie	easie	easie	easie
defie	defie
vie	Poesie
out-vie	whimsie
Honor (9 vs. 6)	Honor
Judg (5)	Judg (2)	Judg	judg
Budg	trudg (2)
	grudg (2)		grudg
Badg	drudg		badg
pledg	pledg		edg
knowledg (2)	knowledg	knowledg	knowledg
acknowledg (2)			priviledg
alledg			Sacriledg
	Bridg
	Pordidg
	Stourbridg
	least	least	least
breast (7 vs. 0)	breast (15)	breast (9 vs. 2)	breast
sovereign	sovereign	sovereign	sovereign
forein (3 vs. 0)	forein (5 vs. 0)	forein	forein
spight (7)	spight (3)
	spightful
through (15)	through (6)
Center	Center
Choire (1)	Choire (1)
	fewel (1)	fewd (1)

These last two spellings, linking Poems, And Translations with Some

New Pieces on the one hand and Remains on the other, are without parallel in our whole series of editions, and are certainly compositorial. Oldham's spellings are 'feud', and regularly time after time, 'Quire'. Oldham does have 'forein'; the point here is that, except for 'foreigners' once in Poems, And Translations, the prints never reproduce any of Oldham's other three spellings, 'foreign', 'forreign', and 'forrein'. Since, however, L too has 'forein', this may be house-style. The hyphenated prefixes and suffixes given in Table VI represent only a fraction of the compositorial hyphenations in compound words which I have noted in Some New Pieces (16), Poems, And Translations (43), and Remains (29). The spellings 'sovereign' and 'easie' are invariable throughout the four volumes; 'ie' spellings moreover, are in a big majority in Some New Pieces and Poems, And Translations. Numerous 'yd' endings show Remains keeping closer to copy, as it does also with 'Judge' (2), 'knowledge' (4), 'Badge', Priviledge', 'Sacriledge', and 'Colledge', even while compositorial habit breaks through in 'Judg' (1) and 'knowledg' (1). Copy again is reflected in 'brest' (2), contrasting with the compositorial 'breast' (9). The comparisons concerning 'Honor' and other '-or' spellings require special comment. Compositor SJ82 usually retains 'Honour' from his copy, Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, but on one occasion alters it to 'Honor'. Some New Pieces, besides 'Honor' nine times, has 'Honour' six, and 'Dishonour' once, no doubt from copy. 'Honor' in Poems, And Translations occurs once, where the corresponding autograph fair copy has 'Honour'. In both these volumes, and in Remains also, many further '-or' spellings must be compositorial, even though the complexity of Oldham's practice forbids comparisons of particular words. What is evident, however, is that from being a minority, as three is to four, in the whole body of Oldham's autographs, the 'or' spellings have become a majority in these printed texts, though the majority varies: twenty against six in Remains; as low as twenty-six against twenty-two in Poems, And Translations. With 'ne'er' and 'ne're', Oldham's usage, if we count 'ne're' and 'nere' together, is evenly balanced. Compositor SJ82 shows a large majority for 'ne're' and so does Some New Pieces. Yet the real compositorial preference may be for 'ne'er'; SJ82 in one place alters the copy-spelling 'ne're' to 'ne'er'; and similarly a 'ne'er' in Some New Pieces corresponds to a 'ne're' in the autograph. When we come to Poems, And Translations, 'ne'er' preponderates very decidedly; and in the proportion of ten to one in Remains.

Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another. In 'Choire', 'fewd', and 'fewel', we have already had example of the resemblances in accidentals which, without running through all four of the texts we are considering, form cross-links between them. One of the most salient is the intruded apostrophe in 'do'st', connecting Poems, And Translations with Some New Pieces, where in the 'Hymn of St Ambrose' it recurs five times (the autograph fair copy reading 'dost'). This abnormal spelling is found twice more in Some New Pieces, and four times in Poems, And

Translations (once contrary to the fair copy). Another abnormal form, 'ne'r', probably resulting from mistaken omission of the 'e' when inserting the apostrophe, occurs three times in Some New Pieces and twice in Poems, and Translations (though once in a full line). Recollecting that 'spite', with one exception, is Oldham's form, and that SJ82 changes it three times out of four, the seven instances of 'spight' in Some New Pieces, with the three of 'spight' and one of 'spightful' in Poems, And Translations, constitute an important link, all the more as two of these readings, one in each volume, can be contrasted with their counterparts in the autograph fair copies. The apostrophe plural is very rare with Oldham: and so the number found in Remains and in Poems, And Translations, six in each, connects them strongly. Like SJ82, the compositor of Remains can wrongly drop an 'e' at the adding of an apostrophe ('wer't', 'plac't'); but this happens also with L, and at least once with Oldham himself, who writes 'los't' for 'lose't'.

To conclude this examination of continuity in the workmanship between Compositor SJ82 and Some New Pieces, 1681, Poems And Translations, 1683, and Remains, 1684, one orthographical and one specifically bibliographical feature should be considered. Matching the spate of commas added by SJ82, the printed texts of the Jonson ode and the 'Dithrambique' in Poems, And Translations, compared with the autographs, have a hundred fresh commas before 'and'. For the three poems in Some New Pieces where the like comparison can be made, the figure is forty-seven, still a very high one. For Remains, we have only Oldham's general habit to go on. Despite the closer following of copy, some twenty of the commas before 'and', occurring in such doublets as 'Cells, and Grotto's', are almost certainly the compositor's; and there are about fifty more that I should hesitate to ascribe to the author. In all three volumes (except for sheets B and C of Remains), when a verse-line is too long to print undivided, the solution overwhelmingly preferred is an overflow of the type unleaded above and leaded below. This is the type adopted by SJ82 forty-eight times out of the fifty-four when he departs from copy, and one hundred and twenty-eight out of the one hundred and forty-three when he follows it. Poems, And Translations has no turn-overs at all, and one double-leaded overflow against two hundred and twenty-five of the usual type. Some New Pieces has seventy-four of these, two of them in pages where a turnover, tucked in at the end of a line of print, is also employed: four turnovers of this kind, all but one quite early in the compositor's work, are his only deviations from his regular method. In Remains, outside sheets B and C (the first to be set), only two of the fifty long lines are differently dealt with. Even in the exceptional sheets there are eleven of the customary overflows. That makes fifty-nine in the whole volume, against twenty-four of the turn-overs peculiar to it.

For these many similarities in the setting-up of text in the four volumes, the simplest explanation would be that Compositor SJ82 set them all. If this is too much to believe, then (it must be supposed) they were set by

two or more workmen of remarkably similar habits, with little if anything to differentiate them. The question now arises whether Compositor M presents a different picture: whether he is Compositor SJ82, or at least one of the same hypothetical pair or group; or else, like L, someone quite distinct. The best evidence of his practice is his version of 'A Satyr Against Vertue', where his copy-text, the 1679 edition, is available. Further, in 'Upon a Woman', the forms in front of him can be inferred, with probability, from the autograph fair copy; and in some passages of the 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' they can be inferred, with somewhat less assurance, from the corresponding passages of the autograph drafts.

Like SJ82, M was on the whole remarkably faithful to the accidentals of printed copy. In three hundred and seventy lines he departs only in seventy details from the 1679 Satyr Against Vertue. Table VII indicates his significant changes of spelling compared with that edition, with the fair copy of 'Upon A Woman', and with parallel drafts for 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits'.

TABLE VII Compositor M. Alterations from spellings or probable spellings of copy-text.

                                                           

M	SV79	M	'Woman', or SJ draft
Car-men	Carmen	States-men	Statesmen W
over-living	over living	out-go	outgo W
ill-digesting	ill digesting	out-strip	outstrip W
vain-glorious	vain glorious	Close-stool	Closestool W
well-built	well built	Death-bed-Pray'r	Death-bed Prayer W
first-born	first born	Common-shore	Commonshore SJ
Her self	Herself
to th' (2)	toth'
*at one	a Tone
		sense	sense W
Prophesie	Prophecy	rallied	rally'd W
		Jealousie	Jealousy SJ
		Fraternities	Fraternity's SJ
spoil'd	spoyld	die	dy (2) W
		lyes	Lies W
		lye	ly W
		eye	ey W
		Eye-balls	Ey-balls SJ
humane	Human	Humane	human W
welcome	welcom	welcom	welcom SJ
		ruine	ruin
		else	els
		judgment	judgment W
judg	judg	judg	judge W
(viz. from copy)
alledge	alledg
Sacriledge	Sacriledg
		Though (7)	Tho W
		through	thro' W

                             

humor	humour	favourites	Favorites W
		Successor	Successour SJ
		Ne'er (2)	Ne're (2) W
Catars	Catarrhs
sniveling	snivelling
unpitied	unpittied
		complete	compleat W
profane	prophane
Ptisick	Tissick
stomachs	stomacks	W='A Satyr Upon A Woman' (auto-graph fair copy)
Stagyrite	Stagarite	SJ='Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' (drafts)
Idiots	Ideots	*Deliberate 'correction' (erroneous)
raze	rase
nauseous	Nasceous
preceding	preceeding.

The most characteristic of the hyphenations, as with SJ82, concern prefixes and suffixes 'over-', 'out-', (2), '-men' (2). The additions of mute 'e'; the 'ie' or 'oi' for 'y' or 'oy', (though cp., once each, 'lyes' for 'Lies' and 'Apology' for 'Apologie'); the 'or' for 'our' (though once, 'favourites' for 'Favorites');[45] the 'dg', especially in 'judg', for 'dge' (though the reverse change in 'alledge', 'Sacriledge' has to be noted); 'Ne'er' for 'Ne're'; the single for double consonants; the unabbreviated 'through';—these changes all have their parallels in those made by Compositor SJ82.

One can extend the scrutiny of M's performances to that part of it where comparison with Oldham's autographs becomes general instead of particular: a comparison with his prevailing usage. Table VIII assembles spellings in which M departs from it; though where (as with 'our' and 'or', and with double or single consonants) there is a strong minority form besides the prevailing one, we have to remember that the copy may have had the minority-form, and M may simply have reproduced it. He does reproduce many authorial spellings, contrary to some in Table VIII.

TABLE VIII Compositor M (in 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' and 'Byblis') Spellings contrary to Oldham's prevailing usage

• Off-spring
• States-men
• Bank-rupt
• Common-shore (2)
• Paste-board
• Chimaera's (plural)
• Limbo's "
• Grotto's "
• Beautie's (sing.)
• easie
• busie
• massie
• Heresie
• Palsie
• Dropsie
• Secresie
• allied
• denied (2)
• envied
• sanctified
• died
• dies
• Jointers
• plaid
• eye (s) (8)
• haste
• unchaste
• owe (2)
• humane
• strangly
• sense (s) (3)
• feast
• Breast (s) (6)
• sovereign
• Emperors
• Confessors
• Successors
• unsetled
• compeld
• Recals

Like SJ82, M thus shows a strong predilection for hyphens, and for 'ie' spellings in final syllables. His 'died', meaning 'dyed', and especially 'plaid' for 'play'd', are striking examples of the addiction to 'i' forms; 'Jointers' may be contrasted with 'joynt', an Oldham spelling; 'easie' compares with 'easie' and 'easy' in the autographs. 'Sovereign', not exemplified in Table VII, affords a new parallel with SJ82, who in resetting from L once substitutes that spelling for 'soveraign'. M has 'Soveraign' on p. 41, 'Sovereign' on p. 83, the second no doubt his alteration, for the autographs have 'Soveraign' in four places and 'soverain' in two, but never 'Sovereign'. To support M's two solitary instances of 'judg' and 'judgment' where they are contrary to copy, his 'strangly', meaning 'strangely', exemplifies the dropping of 'e' after 'g', so conspicuous in the 'dg' endings everywhere found in the printed texts we are examining. Oldham's strong preference for 'brest' (16) over 'breast' (4) is reversed by M (4 against 8); SJ82 has 'brest' only twice (retained from copy) and 'breast' twelve times, including three alterations from copy. In Some New Pieces and Poems, And Translations, 'breast' is invariable; in Remains 'brest' occurs on two occasions, but 'breast' on nine. M has 'lest', Oldham's form, besides 'least', which is that of SJ82 (2, once against copy), Some New Pieces (2), Poems, And Translations (8), and Remains (4). With twelve instances of 'spite', Oldham's almost invariable spelling, M seems always to follow copy in that word, but at least does not reject the two occurrences of 'spight' in the 1679 Satyr Against Vertue. His tolerance of 'spight', and SJ82's preference for it, are paralleled in Some New Pieces and Poems, And Translations (see Table VI). Remains, where the word appears twice, each time (no doubt from copy) has Oldham's spelling, 'spite'.

As regards turn-overs and overflows, except in his share of 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits', where the thirty-eight double-leaded overflows are a means adopted to lose space, M invariably employs for his overflows the style so general with SJ82 and in the other three volumes, with leading below and not above. In A Satyr Against Vertue, 1679, the verse of each stanza is set solid and without overflows, so that the twelve turn-overs required for lines which even the quarto page will not take undivided are of the kind tucked-in at the end of the next or the previous line of print. M changes all these to overflows unleaded above and leaded below, and (his page being octavo) introduces sixty-five new overflows of the same pattern. With fifty more in 'The Passion of Byblis' and 'Upon A Woman', his total reaches a hundred and twenty-seven. It may be significant that when in M's assignment or in the three subsequent first editions there are exceptions to the usual practice, these exceptions come, for the most part, early in the compositor's work. M's seven turn-overs are in the first six pages he set. Three of the four in Some New Pieces (the same kind as M's) are in the first sheet and the first page of the second; the sole double-leaded overflow in Poems, And Translations is on B4v, where A was evidently reserved for the preliminaries. Similarly, all but two of the twenty-four turn-overs

peculiar to the Remains are in B and C, the earliest sheets. Compositor SJ82, setting-up a second edition from a copy of the first, is in a different situation; and yet he too is perhaps less decided at the beginning than later on. After 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' he has, in any event, no problems: there, M consistently uses the normal overflows, unleaded above and leaded below, and with equal consistency SJ82 follows him. This is the form of division most congenial to SJ82 as well as M, for in 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits' he substitutes it, on forty-two occasions, for other forms in his copy, including all the double-leaded overflows M adopted to lose space. At the beginning of his work, however, he was faced with L's tucked-in turn-overs. He follows the first one, changes the next five to his accustomed overflows, then follows eleven of L's next thirteen, changing only two to the overflow. But now, on pp. 33-35, he has four of the overflows, and another on p. 56. On p. 54 he has followed L again, when for the only time L puts the turn-overs not at the end of a line of type, but at the end of the space between the lines. Having adopted this form from L, he employs it also when he meets the first of M's seven exceptional tucked-in turn-overs. He repeats it with the next five of these, but keeps as it stands, perhaps inadvertently, the seventh and last. His treatment of turn-overs, changing only twelve of them to the normal overflows, may be influenced by the fact that he is setting page for page with his copy-text: the overflows take up more room.

So far, investigation has yielded little or nothing that militates against Compositor SJ82 being M himself. Indeed it supports the hypothesis that the whole run of texts, from M's share of Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, to Remains, 1684, are the work of a single compositor, or else of a pair or group with habits so much in common that it is impossible to distinguish one man from another. There are, however, a few features in one or other of the texts which may give us pause.

Against the identification of Compositor SJ82 with M, four objections might be brought. First, if he is M, why is he much more lavish with commas, especially before 'and', introducing many even when setting from M's work itself? An answer is not hard to find. The difference is not flat contrast, but a progression. For M shows the same inclination though in a much less extreme degree. Comparing his print of 'A Satyr Upon A Woman' with the autograph fair copy, we find twelve additional commas before 'and', and twenty-three in all. As we have noted, Oldham rarely has a comma before the 'and' in a doublet, such as 'Life & name' (though there are three instances in the fair copy of 'Upon A Woman'). Probably most of the commas in such doublets set by M are the compositor's additions. I have counted forty-eight. As with commas, so to a lesser extent with apostrophes. M does not make a point of inserting them for elisions and possessive singulars, but his 'Church's' for 'Churches' probably, and his 'watch'd' for 'watcht' certainly, represent divergences from copy. The five apostrophe plurals set by SJ82 (all following copy) are matched by M's 'Grotto's,' 'Chimaera's,' and 'Limbo's'. In 1681 M had no doubt to work

under pressure. Otherwise, why was the work divided, and why was a first issue hastened out, lacking a poem of which the title-page implied the presence? In 1682, the compositor is at his ease, setting line-by-line from a text recently produced in his own printing-house, and supposing he is M, the greater part of it by himself. Small wonder if he has leisure to indulge his penchant for inserting commas, especially before 'and'. Thus in the different circumstances of composition, even the large increase in this practice does not constrain us to postulate a new compositor in 1682.

A like explanation is available for the second difference in compositorial procedure, though this difference is a plain contrast: it, too, may exhibit the same man composing under different conditions. Whatever the explanation, SJ82 capitalises more freely than his copy, whereas M, when checked against his copy in A Satyr Against Vertue, 1679, and against the autograph of 'Upon a Woman', is found to do the opposite. On this point, Some New Pieces, 1681, and Poems, And Translations, 1683, yield evidence against referring the two practices to two compositors. In Poems, And Translations, if we collate 'A Dithyrambique' with the autograph it appears that in every stanza but one, the compositor, like M, must have considerably reduced the capitalisation of his copy. Yet in stanza II, and (as a corresponding collation indicates) in the Jonson ode, he seems to have increased it exactly as it is increased by SJ82. Both phenomena are revealed also in Some New Pieces by a collation of the three poems for which we possess autograph fair copies. 'The Hymn of S. Ambrose' shows a marked increase of capitals, along with a sizeable minority of alterations in the reverse direction. The paraphrase on Psalm 137, on the other hand, has a very few capitals not in the autograph, and a large number of changes to lower-case initial letters. These are also the majority, but by a fairly narrow margin over the new capitals, in 'Upon a Printer'. I can see no reason to believe that these three poems in Some New Pieces, or the two in Poems, And Translations, belonged to stints of different compositors. So I conclude that the same man could treat capitals now like M and now like SJ82, who therefore, despite the contrast in capitalisation, need not be two distinct people.

I come now to the third and fourth objections. The liking for 'dg' endings, so prominent with SJ82, and in Some New Pieces and Poems, And Translations, is seen, if M does share it, only twice in his work; and one of these occurrences is hardly evidential: his 'judg' in 'A Satyr Against Vertue' follows copy, and moreover he may have retained it only because the line was full. Further, in two successive lines where A Satyr Against Vertue, 1679, has the '-dg', M departs from it, with 'alledge' and 'Sacriledge'. As to this, it may be answered, somewhat lamely, that to add final 'e' mutes is a habit with both M and SJ82. There can be no doubt that M's copy for 'Upon a Woman' read 'judge', Oldham's only form; and that there M did substitute 'judg'. The absence of 'dg' endings elsewhere is not a serious

difficulty: we need only presume that in three places, with 'Judge', 'judge', and 'grudge', he followed copy.

Finally, there are the spellings 'human', 'humane.' Here SJ82 is the odd man out, while Some New Pieces and Remains are linked with M. Oldham always writes 'human'. Re-setting 'A Satyr Against Vertue', M once retains 'Human' and once alters it to 'humane'. In 'Upon a Woman', contrary to the autograph, he has 'humane', and 'humane' too, the only other time the word recurs. Some New Pieces never spells otherwise than 'humane' (6), 'inhumane' (3); Remains has 'humane' four times, against 'human' once. Poems, And Translations, on the other hand, with 'human' (9) and 'inhuman' (2) never diverges from Oldham's spelling, which of course must have stood in its copy. SJ82, re-setting from L's work, keeps 'inhuman'; and from M's, the one instance of 'human'. That need occasion even less surprise than the absence, in Poems, And Translations, of even one alteration out of eleven possible opportunities. What is remarkable is that SJ82 changes M's three instances of 'humane' into 'human', the opposite change to M's. However, if this contrast is taken as decisive against identifying him with M, it must decisively separate him from Some New Pieces also: such a verdict has to contend with the similarities of workmanship not only between him and M, but likewise between him and Some New Pieces.

The contrast between Poems, And Translations, 1683, and Some New Pieces, 1681, in their treatment of Oldham's 'human' is one of a very few facts which, taken by themselves, would suggest the participation, in these two volumes and the Remains, of distinct compositors. Some New Pieces differs again from Poems, And Translations and also from Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, in having 'Rhyme' (3), 'Rhymers' (1), alongside 'Rhime' (3) and 'rhiming' (1), which represent Oldham's form. (The words do not occur in Remains 1684). Remains alone exhibits an obvious preference for 'e'er' (13), which Oldham never uses, against 'e're' (2). A latent preference for it is, however, perhaps indicated by single instances in Some New Pieces (p. 132), contrary to the autograph fair copy, and in Poems, And Translations (p. 194). As for 'ne'er', where the copy was autograph, any given occurrence may simply follow the author's spelling, since he has 'ne'er' and 'ne're' (or 'nere') in something like equal numbers. But the overwhelming majority for 'ne'er' in Remains (10 vs. 1) and Poems, And Translations (16 vs. 4) is unlikely to reflect copy throughout. Compositor SJ82, setting from print, reproduces the copy-spelling 'ne're' eighteen times, but once (p. 8) significantly changes it to 'ne'er'. M has no 'ne'er'; out of his ten instances of 'ne're', five follow printed copy, one agrees with the spelling in a draft, for two there is no MS. version extant. If on these last two occasions, or any of the other three where he was setting from MS., M did alter 'ne'er' to 'ne're', he might have been seeking consistency. Postulating a compositor with this desire, combined with the strong inclination (as shown by SJ82) to follow copy, and a personal preference for

'e'er' and 'ne'er' which eventually gained the upper hand, one could attribute to him all the observed procedures. That would include those of Poems, And Translations, where the standard forms are 'ne're' (10 vs. 1), as in the earlier volumes, and 'e'er' (13 vs. 2), as in Remains. Here, if one is maintaining the theory of a single compositor (except L) for all the texts, one can suggest that he has at length begun to follow his own preference for 'e'er', and has done his best to do so consistently, while between the no doubt varying 'ne're' and 'ne'er' of his copy, he also attempts a consistent practice, in line with what he had done before, though in Remains he will change it in accordance with the preference he had for the most part suppressed, and will achieve consistency between 'ne'er' and 'e'er'. The treatment of Oldham's compounds 'whoe're', 'whate're', 'wheresoe'r' and the like, on the whole helps to support the idea that we are watching the same workman throughout. Until the Remains, these are regularly spelt with 'e're'; but, more important, they are nearly always divided. We have 'what e're' by M (5, one from printed copy), by SJ82 (5, all from M), and in Some New Pieces (4); 'where e're' in Some New Pieces (1) and Poems, And Translations (1); 'when e're' in Some New Pieces (1); 'How e're' by M (1, from printed copy) and SJ82 (1, from M); 'whom e're' by M (1) and SJ82 (1, from M). The exceptions are 'whoe're' once (but in a full line, to save space) by M and thence by SJ82, and 'whate're' twice by M, twice thence by SJ82, and twice in Poems, and Translations. In Remains, which has 'whate'er' (1), 'Howe'er' (1), 'whatsoe'er' (3), the habit of dividing shows itself once, in 'whom soe're' (p. 66).

Poems, And Translations, 1683, shows the largest number of exceptional forms. 'Vertue' is not found; and besides fourteen occurrences of 'Virtue', there are 'Mistrisses' (3), 'ghest' (2), 'ghastly' (1) and 'ghastliest' (1). Were these spellings distributed in some pattern of bibliographical units, one would suspect the presence of a second compositor; if from these units the characteristics found elsewhere in the volume and the series were absent, one would be practically certain of it. When these tests are applied, the most that can be said is that eight of the unusual spellings come in L Outer and L Inner, three in B Outer, and three in K Inner. But the remaining eitht are scattered elsewhere; and in each of these formes the accustomed hyphens and commas before 'and' make their appearance. And the man who set 'virtue' in each is capable of setting not only 'non-sense' or 'down-right', but also 'Knowledg', on the same page. Moreover, the spelling 'virtue' is not wholly peculiar to Poems, And Translations: M has it (p. 84), where, as in Poems, And Translations, it is practically certain to be an alteration of the copy-spelling.[46]

To sum up the discussion of the five texts, from M's part in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, to Remains, 1684, one can now attempt to sketch a profile that would delineate a single compositor responsible for them all, bearing in mind that if there was in fact more than one, the profile will be a composite, representative of a pair or group. Either way, it may be helpful at this point to bring together the characteristics of this figure.

He is responsive to the accidentals of his copy, particularly when composing from print. He is lavish with commas, especially before 'and'. In italicisation he is moderate and logical; in capitalisation, somewhat inconsistent, now increasing and now diminishing it from similar copy. He has a strong preference for overflows rather than turn-overs, and normally sets them with leading below but not above, though of course he will double-lead them to lose space, or not lead them at all in a passage set solid. Nor does he eschew turn-overs altogether, but on occasion uses three different varieties: tucked-in before or after the neighboring line of print; placed at the end of the leading between the lines; or in the same position with a further line of leading below. He introduces hyphens, sometimes to join separate words but more often to divide compounds, and especially for prefixes and suffixes. Without a hyphen, he commonly divides Oldham's 'whoe're' and the like. From time to time he inserts an apostrophe before the plural 's'—but L does the same. In two of his most striking spelling preferences he is not invariably consistent; 'humane' and the 'dg' ending as in 'Judg'. In numerous instances he substitutes these for the spellings in his copy; but in one place he alters two 'dg's to 'dge's, and in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, thrice alters 'humane' to 'human'. Further preferences are for 'least', 'breast', 'sovereign', 'forein', 'spight', 'spightfull', 'sense' (shared with L),[47] 'jealousie', and other 'ie' or 'i' spellings instead of 'y'; 'honor' and other 'or' endings, and 'through' without abbreviation. The preferences do not result in a majority for each of the favoured forms; they are discernible by contrast with the forms we can attribute to the copy. 'Ne'er', especially when it does predominate, must sometimes witness to a preference. Another, previously latent, seems to emerge in the 'e'er' of Remains, and even 'virtue' in Poems, And Translations may have the same explanation.[48] In 'do'st', undoubtedly, and also most likely in 'Choire', 'fewd', 'fewel', we have occasional spellings of our compositor's, or compositor-figure's. Whether it was he or Oldham who veered into 'Rhyme', 'rhymers', 'Ghest', 'ghastly', 'mistrisses', I am not able to give an opinion.

The remaining text that concerns us, A Satyr Against Vertue, 1679,

although pirated, certainly came from Mary Clark's printing-house.[49] I am inclined to think that it was set by M. The evidence, however, is not all one might wish for. Partly this is because A Satyr consists of only two sheets, quarto; and partly, again, because the copy will not have been in Oldham's autograph, so that we have no independent key to the probable forms of its accidentals. But in addition, doubt must arise when we cannot point to M's customary overflows, or to more than a few possible signs of his propensity to add commas. The stanzas are set solid, unlike most of the verse in the subsequent volumes. In Some New Pieces, however, 'Upon a Printer' is set in this way, and so are the memorial verses to Oldham in the Remains. In these places, overflows (unleaded) are employed; but in A Satyr Against Vertue turn-overs, tucked-in after the previous or the next line of print. M, it will be remembered, did begin with this last method in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681; and if he is indeed the compositor of Some New Pieces, used it four times there.[50] Of the commas in A Satyr Against Vertue, twenty-four are superfluous, if we judge by Oldham's carefully-punctuated fair copy;[51] but since the pirate's copy was a MS. in circulation, we cannot tell how many of these were compositorial and how many scribal in origin. M's spelling 'humane' does not occur; the word appears twice as 'Human'. Other spellings, however, do suggest M as the workman: 'alledg', 'Sacriledg', 'breast', 'Sovereign', 'spight' (2); 'easie', 'busie', 'Apologie', 'die', with support from 'dye', 'lye' (which M prefers to 'dy', 'ly'); 'Republick' and three other 'ick' endings; and perhaps 'virtue' beside 'vertue' (5) and 'vertuous'.[52] The error 'Stagarite' is one which M corrects in the next edition (Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681): but if he is SJ82, he then re-introduces it, contrary to copy. The divisions of 'How ere', 'Who ere' (2), and particularly the hyphenations 'out-do', 'out-grown', 'O're-power'd', 'brain-sick', 'green-sickness' are characteristic of M's work.

Our final task is to examine the self-evident or demonstrable errors of the compositors, both to discover any kinds to which they may show themselves prone, and to compare the incidence of error in the different volumes, or, for Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, in the bibliographically-distinct parts of the volume. Some variations in the incidence of error may tentatively be ascribed to differing conditions in which the work was done.

On the incidence of error, I offer my findings with diffidence. The mistakes are often sparse for statistical treatment, while the suggested differences in the haste of composition are more hypothetical than I should like, and in part inferred from the very rates of error they are invoked to explain. At least, however, I was able to follow SJ82 as he set from print, L's or M's—and M's may well be his own former handiwork. Everywhere else, moreover, it was safe to assume that the compositors were setting from Oldham's autograph fair copy, the characteristics of which are known.

In 'Satyrs Upon The Jesuits', neither compositor seems hurried until he reaches the sheets divided between them. Among the mistakes in L's 592 lines on sheets B and C, I classify only one as a 'literal' misprint; and in M's 481 on F and G, only one again. Here (excluding punctuation) L's errors almost treble M's: one in every forty-two lines against one in every hundred-and-twenty, approximately. But in sheets D and E, M's superiority drops sharply. As half-a-dozen 'literals' bear witness, M is hardest pressed in sheet D, where he has ten pages to L's six. In sheet E, with the allotment of pages reversed, L in turn has six 'literals' (in 202 lines), compared with two (in 109 lines) in sheet D. At his worst, in sheet E, L has one error to 13.5 lines; while M, at his in sheet D, has one in 15.3. Under less pressure, M, in sheet E, has no 'literals', and a total of three errors in 116 lines (one in 38.17). Comparably, L in sheet D has five, or one to 21.8—nearly double his rates in B and C.

In the rest of the book M is on his own, setting 'A Satyr Against Vertue' from the pirated quarto, and 'Byblis' and 'Upon A Woman' from autograph; 'Upon a Woman' for the second issue. Only in this third poem, occupying the last five pages of the extended text, does his rate of error rise high: to an average of one in twenty lines. Here he may be hastening, to enable the new issue to be brought out quickly. If we take 'Byblis' with sheets F and G of 'Satyrs Upon the Jesuits', because together they constitute the sections he set, from autograph, without marks of haste, they yield one error to 92.3 lines. This is practically identical with his average, one to 92.75, in setting 'A Satyr Against Vertue' from print that was more likely than not his own work in the first place.

The averages for Some New Pieces, and for Remains, are close to these. For Poems, And Translations, the figure is better, but not so much so as to be anomalous in the series. Taking all three together, the distribution whether of their errors in general, or of their 'literal' misprints in particular, does not seem to indicate special pressure at any point. Some New Pieces, with twenty-five errors in 2376 lines, averages one in 95: Remains, in verse, with sixteen in 1608, averages one in 100.5; and in prose, with six in 614, one in 102.3. Poems, And Translations has twenty-six in its 3807 lines, an average of one in 146.4.

In Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1682, it will be remembered, the compositor introduced a host of new commas. We took this as meaning that he was composing at his ease; yet compared with what seems to be unhurried compositorial performance elsewhere in these Oldham editions, he is much less accurate than one might expect. The two phenomena are perhaps not irreconcilable. Without any sense of being hurried—so that he could indulge his passion for commas—he was no doubt working a good deal more rapidly from print than the rate at which the comparable texts, from MS., were set. His 'literals' are twenty-five in 2583 lines, and his errors average one for every 47. The suggested explanation gains some support from a drop both in 'literals' and in the ratio of error while he is setting

'A Satyr Against Vertue', where the exceptional number of changes to be made in order to rectify the bad 1681 text would no doubt slow him up, and induce more care. Here he has only four 'literals' in 374 lines, and an error ratio of one in 53.4, against 48.4 when re-setting M's pages (which may well have been his own), and 38.2 when re-setting L's.

Throughout the five volumes, from Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, onward, all these errors, including L's, belong to the regular kinds one can expect of a compositor. Reverting to our profile of a single workman (for everything except L's stints), whether he corresponds to one, a pair, or several in actuality, we can proceed to classify his errors. The most numerous are his wrong letters (35) as in 'Ptophet', some of which may result from foul case. One may take his turned letters (2) with these. To omit single letters (19) is another of his besetting sins, and his omissions extend to single words (8). Only once does he intrude a word: 'the crafty' for 'crafty'. His corruptions often result from misreading MS. (16), or even print (2); or from the vulgarisations typical of copyists. The misreadings come chiefly from f/long s or y/th confusions, or from minims (particularly Oldham's r); and t and T also contribute. Thus we get 'Persecution', 'there', 'Natures', 'show'd', 'shove', 'Frier', 'Todelet', for 'Perfection', 'your', 'Natives', 'strow'd', 'strove', 'Fircu', 'Jodelet'. Almost half the vulgarisations reduce a rarer grammatical form, usually the subjunctive, to a common one. Similarly, the unfamiliar ecclesiastical term 'Maniples' gives place to the less unfamiliar 'Manciples'; 'thoughts . . . well directed be' is re-set as 'thoughts . . . will directed be', obliterating the reference to 'direction of the intention'; 'St André' becomes 'St Andrew', and Guillim, Guilliam, though this last name was corrected in the course of printing.[53] A few deliberate emendations are also made, half-a-dozen of them wrong, as when 'a Tone' is miscorrected to 'at one' instead of 'attone'; and once the compositor appears to have misinterpreted what was no doubt an authentic revision in the autograph from which he was setting.[54] In five places his misjudgement of elisions injures the metre. Not unnaturally, proper names give him trouble: besides the four mentioned already, he disfigures at least seven others, though only by aberrant spellings. Two of the three words in which he transposes letters are Gordobuc (for Gorboduc) and Baigno (for the somewhat exotic Bagnio). Twice he inadvertently transposes words, and almost certainly on a third occasion also, where the change makes

sense, and might conceivably be claimed as authorial revision.[55] The single haplography I have noticed is an obvious one; but his dittographies (5) range from the simple 'say say' to the corruption in where 'sleep' has evidently been repeated instead of 'seem', and we should read: He is apt, we remember, to extrude 'e' when he inserts an apostrophe, as in 'don't' for 'done't'. His taste for hyphens produces the absurd 'How-goodly', and one really bad reading: 'taught her Cradle-like the Pulpit to reclaim' instead of 'taught her Cradle, like the Pulpit, to reclaim.'[57] He does not escape the commonplace confusion of singulars and plurals (12), nor the substitution of one minor word for another (11). Add a sprinkling of ordinary oversights: a failure to italicise, or to indent; to supply a quotation-mark, or a triplet-bracket; with half-a-dozen mis-spacings and as many misplaced apostrophes—and his tally of error is not far from complete.

He shares with L a propensity to mispunctuate, especially by introducing premature full-stops, which no appeal to rhetorical principles of punctuation will justify. Once each, he and L add an unwanted 's' to the possessive of a classical name: 'Vitellius's', 'Daphnis's'. In L's assignment, so brief by comparison, one does not expect to find the whole varied assortment of errors seen in the rest of the compositorial work. All the same, the virtual absence of wrong letters, and of vulgarisation, are more likely to be characteristic of L than accidental. Since his rate of error is nevertheless higher than M's, and much higher when both are at their best, one's impression (fanciful, it may be) is of a less experienced but more cautious workman, with a clean case. He sometimes intrudes letters (as in 'poision', or, with transposition, 'preseverse' for 'persevere'), a fault, except for one or two additions of final 's', not found outside his stints. Like M, he misreads Oldham's 'T', with 'little' for 'Title', and 'Call' for 'tale' (the second mistake corrected during the printing).[58] In Mac-quire (2) he

misreads Oldham's 'g' (attested by an autograph draft), as 'q'.[59] For the rest, his chief errors parallel some of those we have seen recurring throughout: omission of 'e' on inserting apostrophes; confusion between singulars and plurals, and between different parts of the verb; transposed letters, and once an omitted word.

It would not be right to claim the foregoing bibliographical essay as a complete analysis. Nevertheless, it does go beyond a brief list of test words and their spellings, and has had the benefit of some kinds of evidence not always available: re-settings from known copy, and above all a sure knowledge of the author's orthography, established from extensive autograph MS., and not, as so often, dependent upon inference from the printed texts. With these advantages, it is perhaps disappointing that in the later volumes a fully confident identification of one or more compositors has not resulted. Such an identification was possible for Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, and there enables an editor to proceed in the certainty that the differences in orthography within the book do not indicate any change in the character of the copy. He can, indeed, strip from the text the peculiar italicisation introduced by Compositor L, which contrasts so oddly with Compositor M's, and violently distorts the author's practice, seen in the autograph fair copies of other poems. For he knows that that italicisation has no origin beyond the habit of the compositor. What, however, does the editor stand to gain from the analysis of Oldham's four subsequent volumes? Negatively, his gains are important. He is no longer in the dark, ignorant of how the copy was treated in the printing-house. It is unlikely that bibliographical evidence, of a kind that should govern editorial policy on the text or on units of text, is still lurking undiscovered. There are no bibliographical contrasts such as would suggest copy of more than one sort; in particular nothing to suggest that the posthumous Remains, 1684, was printed from a transcript and not from autograph. Autograph copy is, in any case, overwhelmingly probable for all the authorised first editions, but we can add that the bibliographical evidence favours it. Another positive outcome is the help given the editor when he faces the infrequent textual cruces. His judgments must have regard to the habits of the compositor or compositors; and since these, apart from some minor and ascertained variation, are remarkably constant from M's workmanship in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, to that of the Remains, 1684, it is all the easier to take account of them. Further, should he support a decision or conjecture about a crux by a parallel from elsewhere in these texts, he can be confident that the parallel is drawn if not from the work of the same compositor, at least from that of a man very similar in his habits. Workmen otherwise very similar might differ in fidelity to copy, as indeed might the same man at different times. But except in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681,

we have found no wide fluctuations in the rates of manifest error. Such fluctuation, so far as it can serve as an index of latent errors, would logically have encouraged freer emendation of suspicious readings in some places than in others. In Oldham, however, the issue hardly arises. For suspicious readings are few; editorial changes are for the most part either unnecessary, or obviously requisite, or rest upon actual evidence.

In examining the books concerned, and interpreting the features they present, I have lacked the extensive experience of comparable volumes which a specialist in bibliography could bring to bear. I hope, however, that my article may make some contribution to bibliographical studies, especially if it leads to further investigation of the material on which it is based. Two lines of enquiry might start from our familiarity with Oldham's actual spellings and the like. I have noted but not explored their survival, in part, after two settings of type. The rate of their disappearance with each reprint would be worth investigating, and coupled with it the progressive obliteration of the differences between what were originally Compositor L's and Compositor M's stints in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits. Again, in studying the autographs and the editions, I was visited by the doubt whether, if I had had only the editions and had had to deduce Oldham's orthography from them, I should not have arrived at conclusions contrary at times to the facts of the autographs. Where Oldham uses two spellings without a strong preference for either, should I have been safe from attributing one to him and one to the compositor? And should I not have assigned to him the spellings 'fewel', 'fewd', and 'Choire', quite exceptional in the editions? To frame hypotheses from the editions alone, and then to compare them with the facts of the autographs, might be a good control-experiment for attempts to identify authorial spellings when there is only the evidence of print to go on, and might suggest some caveats. A question raised by the divergences of compositorial practice we have observed in certain places, combined with its close similarity, otherwise, throughout the editions, is how far consistency is to be expected of one and the same workman, and how far inconsistencies are to be accepted before we postulate a different one. Meanwhile, students of bibliography will, I hope, find some things in the article to reinforce their own researches. I have in mind the observation of compositors under varying conditions, of pressure or absence of pressure, of setting from MS., or from print, or when many corrections have to be made in reprinting. Then there is the endeavour to apply evidence from shortage of W's, from anomalous headlines, and from overflows and turn-overs. The responsibility of a compositor for the exceptional italics in Satyrs Upon The Jesuits, 1681, may make a point outside some first-class bibliographers' experience: for a distinguished specialist, while not doubting the fact, has told me his surprise that the contrasting italicisation does not signify difference in the copy.