| ||
For students of renaissance dramatic texts, Valentine Simmes is a particularly important printer because he produced numerous quartos, both substantive texts and reprints. Among the substantive texts which Simmes produced are Richard II (1597), Richard III (1597), A Warning for Fair Women (1599), An Humorous Day's Mirth (1599), The Shoemakers' Holiday (1600), Much Ado about Nothing (1600), Henry IV, Part 2 (1600), Sir John Oldcastle (1600), Hamlet (1603), The Malcontent (Q1 and Q3, both 1604),
Two reprints in which Simmes's Compositor A had a hand provide the data for the present study. Q2 The First Part of the Contention (1600), a page for page reprint of the first quarto, was set entirely by Compositor A.[3] The other quarto, Q3 Henry IV, Part I (1604), a page for page reprint of the second quarto, was set into type by Compositor A and a second compositor.
Certain pages of Q3 Henry IV, Part I contain a number of striking compositorial characteristics, particularly the heavy use of unabbreviated speech-prefixes which are not stopped, a characteristic first used by W. Craig Ferguson to identify Compositor A's work. These pages also contain abbreviated speech-prefixes punctuated with a colon, italic names in the (roman) body of the text (the copy for Q3 containing less than two dozen instances of contrasting italic for names or foreign words, almost all of which are found in the first sheet of Q2), and speech-prefixes which are expanded from an abbreviation to the full name (and, of course, regularly unstopped), as well as certain spelling preferences. On the basis of these and other kinds of evidence, the following 16 pages in Q3 can be assigned to Compositor A: C1v, 3v, 4, D2, 2v, 3v, E1v-4, G3v, 4, I1, and K1. The remainder of the quarto—62 pages—can be assigned to Compositor B.[4] (I regard three of the pages assigned to A—E1v, G3v, and 4—and two of the pages assigned to B—H4 and K1v—as doubtful.)
The principal evidence can be summarized for the sake of convenience as follows.
Unabbreviated speech-prefixes not stopped:
Abbreviated speech-prefixes punctuated with a colon:
Contrasting italic for proper names in body (replacing roman in Q2):
Abbreviated speech-prefixes expanded to full:
Collation of a reprint and the copy from which it was set can provide an index to both the number and the particular kinds of changes to which a compositor was habitually subject. Disregarding obvious typographical errors and variants in accidentals (spelling, punctuation, and capitalization), we can record the substantive changes which Compositor A introduced into the two reprints. A substantive change always affects meaning. Although most substantive variants indicate a textual corruption, a compositor's correction of an obvious error in his copy must be regarded as substantive, whether the reading produced is right or wrong.
In the following table of variant readings between Q1 and Q2 of The Contention, set entirely by Compositor A, the first column shows the page and line number in Q2 and the second and third columns give the readings in the two editions.[6] The changes are classified as follows: substitutions, omissions, interpolations, transpositions, and corrections of obvious errors.
Page/Line | QI | Q2 |
Substitutions | ||
A3.1 | can reade no | can see no |
A3v.3 | That dares presume | That dare presume |
A3v.36 | I seene this | I heard this |
A4.23 | I meant Maine | I meane Maine |
B1v.29 | to rise. | to rise: |
B2v.10 | your petitions to | your petition to |
B3.26 | be old inough | be bold enough |
B3v.21 | spake the words, | spake these words, |
B4.1 | take them hence | take him hence |
B4.27 | Armourer should speake, | Armourer doth speake, |
C1.2 | But him | Yet him |
C1v.1 | the Earles of | the Earle of |
Page/Line | Q1 | Q2 |
C4v.33 | proudest Lord of | proudest lords of |
D1v.30 | all the mony | all my mony |
D2.2 | Armour. Heres to | Arm. Here to |
D3v.15 | were their King. | were a King: |
E1.30 | my Lords, is | my lord is |
E3.15 | in his face, | in the face, |
F1v.14 | must saue thy | must haue thy |
F4.5 | Oh hes | Oh he has |
F4v.18 | that my puissance | that the puissance |
G1v.25 | hence forward, it | henceforth, it |
G1v.33 | bridge a fire, | bridge on fire: |
G2.9 | all things shall | al thing shal |
G3.36 | neckes vnder their | neckes vnto their |
G3v.14 | there want no | there wants no |
G4.28 | into my ground | into the ground |
G4v.2 | thou doest not hew | thou hewst not |
G4v.4 | turnd to hobnailes. | turnd into hobnailes. |
G4v.12 | sword ile honour | sword I honor |
H1v.14 | loyall to my | loyall vnto my |
H11v.35 | in dispight of | in spight of |
H2.14 | Why doth not | Why do not |
H2.16 | his baile. | his suertie. |
Omissions | ||
A2v.15 | now her speech | now speech |
A3v.30 | Come then let | come let |
B1v.16 | resolue vs of | resolue of |
B2.2 | good Duke Humphries | good Humphries |
B2.35 | take in this | take this |
C1.7 | plaines, then where | plaines, where |
C2v.25 | And yet I | And I |
D1.32 | My staffe, I yeeld as willing to be thine, [whole line dropped--9 words] | |
D2.4 | of my mans | of mans |
D3v.12 | not how the | not the |
E1v.5 | That France should | That should |
E2v.33 | good Duke Humphreys | good Humphreys |
E3.10 | this thrise famous | this famous |
E4.35 | Come good Warwicke | Come Warwicke, |
F4.29 | Well, and Adam | VVell, Adam |
F4v.4 | And that was | And was |
G1v.26 | me any othervvise | me otherwise |
G4v.36 | And not farre | And farre |
H3v.16 | thee yet. | thee. |
Interpolations | ||
B1.6 | Where Kings | Where the Kings |
B1v.7 | from depth | from the depth |
C1.24 | haue notice | haue a notice |
C3.35 | and halt | and the halt |
D3v.35 | Lord, all | Lord, and all |
E2.1 | of Iohn | of sir Iohn |
E3v.9 | be still, | be ye still |
Page/Line | Q1 | Q2 |
F2.10 | doest feare | doest thou feare |
F3v.16 | be king, | be the King, |
H1v.9 | yeare to | yeere for to |
Transpositions | ||
C1.4 | water shall he | water he shall |
C4v.3 | as both you | as you both |
C4v.30 | it, will I | it. I wil |
E1v.33 | canst it not | canst not it |
E4.24 | them all for | them for all |
E4.25 | had I not | had not I |
G2v.9 | but bona, terra. | but terra bona. |
G3v.26 | so must it | so it must |
Corrections | ||
B1.26 | with vs vs | with vs |
B2.4 | cannot get | can get |
B2v.2 | sir what yours? | sir whats yours? |
B2v.7 | me, me, I | mee, I |
B3v.14 | the the law | the law |
C1.3 | fate awayt the | fate awaits the |
C1.23 | That your are | That you are |
C1v.17 | Hawke done towre | hawke doe towre |
D2v.27 | idle rascald follower. | idle rascall follower. |
E1.32 | Doth plant | Do plant |
E1.33 | [Line on E1, misplaced in Q1, moved in Q2 to proper position and two additional changes made] | |
E4v.9 | As leaue fast enuy | As leane facde Enuy [two words corrected] |
G1.16 | Letter one againe. | letter once againe: |
G3.6 | and and entred | and entred |
G3.23 | rebellions, | rebellion, |
The following substantive variants between Q1 and Q2 occur in the stage directions.[7]
Substitutions | ||
D2.8 | Alarmes, and | Alarme: and |
H2.24 | the Earles of | the Earle of |
Omissions | ||
C2.21 | miracle, a miracle. | myracle. [two words omitted] |
D3v.2 | and the Queene | and Queene, |
E4.4 | And then enter | And enter |
F4v.37 | to the battaile, | to battaile, |
G1.1 | Then enter Iacke | Then Iacke |
G3v.21 | Exet omnes. | ------[two words omitted] |
H2v.15 | fighting, and Richard | fighting, Richard |
Page/Line | Q1 | Q2 |
Interpolations | ||
H2v.25 | and enter | and then enter |
The collation of the two editions of The Contention, then, yields the following results: 86 substantive variants in the dialogue and 10 in the stage directions for a total of 96 throughout the text. In the 2187 lines of the play, Compositor A thus averaged one substantive change in every 23 lines. (All line counts given in this paper are the actual number of lines of type in the quarto. When two speeches stand in the same line, the line is counted twice. Stage directions which occupy a separate line of type are counted, but the single word exit (or exeunt) has been excluded from the count. Turnovers are not counted.)
Compositor A's work in Q2 The Contention can be compared with that in the other reprint, the third quarto of Henry IV, Part I, printed four years later in 1604. Compositor A, it will be remembered, set 16 pages (C1v, 3v, 4, D2, 2v, 3v, E1v, 2, 2v, 3, 3v, 4, G3v, 4, I1, K1) of the 78-page quarto; Compositor B set the remaining 62 pages. The table below records substantive changes made by Compositor A in setting his 16 pages of Q3.[8]
Page/Line | Q2 | Q3 |
Substitutions | ||
C4.8 | Well, we leaue | Well, weele leaue |
C4.26 | ye faith. | yee yfaith. |
D3v.30 | matter? there be | matter? here be |
E1v.34 | and that sprightly | and the sprightie |
E1v.37 | with his pistol | with a pistol |
E2v.13 | growes: so youth | growes: yet youth |
K1.21 | triumpht vpon a | triumpht ouer a |
Omissions | ||
C2v.25 | on you all | on all |
C3v.37 | Prin. Sirs, you | Prince You |
D3v.30 | vs here haue | vs haue |
D3v.31 | this day morning. | this morning. |
E2.14 | Prin. Why then, | Prince Then |
E2v.14 | weares: that thou | weares: thou |
E2v.15 | my owne opinion | my opinion |
I1.37 | what with Owen | what Owen |
Interpolations | ||
C3v.24 | Fals. Hang | Fals. Go hang |
G4.11 | Peto. How | Peto: But how |
C4.2 | thou loue | thou doe loue |
E2.25 | how he | how how he |
E2v.5 | but man | but a man |
Page/Line | Q1 | Q2 |
Transpositions | ||
E2.21 | art thou not | art not thou |
In Compositor A's work in Q3, then, a total of 21 substantive changes were made in 16 pages of text, 617 lines—an average of one change in every 29 lines. The changes introduced by Compositor A in the two quartos can be summarized thus:
Q2 The Contention | Q3 Henry IV, Part I | |
Substitutions | 36 (38%) | 7 (33%) |
Omissions | 26 (27%) | 8 (38%) |
Interpolations | 11 (11%) | 5 (24%) |
Transpositions | 8 (8%) | 1 (5%) |
Corrections | 15 (16%) | 0 (0%) |
--- | --- | |
96 | 21 |
By comparison, Compositor B's work in his part of Q3 Henry IV, Part I reveals the following substantive changes.
Substitutions | 17 (41%) |
Omissions | 9 (22%) |
Interpolations | 6 (15%) |
Transpositions | o (0%) |
Corrections | 9 (22%) |
-- | |
41 |
Detailed comparison of the work of Compositor A with that of the other Simmes compositors lies outside the scope of this study. Yet Compositor B's work in Q3 Henry IV, Part I calls to mind preliminary estimates of the accuracy of the compositors who shared the typesetting of dramatic quartos. These estimates suggest that Compositor A was far more prone to alter copy-readings; he appears to have made about three times as many changes as Compositor S or Compositor B.[9] Additional qualitative studies of these
Disregarding for our purposes the work of other Simmes compositors, let us turn our attention to the incidence of change in the work of Compositor A. His performance in the two quartos can be compared with that in another reprint, the second quarto of Richard II, 1598.[10]
Q2 Richard II | |
Substitutions | 82 (59%) |
Omissions | 30 (21%) |
Interpolations | 14 (10%) |
Transpositions | 8 (6%) |
Corrections | 6 (4%) |
--- | |
140 |
Edition | Lines | Changes | Rate of Change |
Q2 Richard II (1598) | 2628 | 140 | 19 |
Q2 The Contention (1600) | 2187 | 96 | 23 |
Q3 I Henry IV (1604) | 617 | 21 | 29 |
Although the body of evidence is drawn from only three texts, it is sufficiently broad to allow the conclusion that Compositor A in setting from printed copy was prone to making frequent substantive changes. It seems safe to assume that a compositor's accuracy in setting a reprint can provide a rough index to his accuracy in setting a substantive text and that the kinds of errors which occur in a reprint can suggest those likely to be found in the same compositor's work in a substantive text. We can infer that Compositor A probably also made frequent changes when setting from manuscript, but we should guard against the assumption that the rate of change was necessarily the same. The corruptions in the reprints cannot have resulted, in general, from misreadings of copy but, as we shall see, are for the most part memorial in origin. In setting from manuscript, he could have worked more slowly, taking less material into his head, and consequently have reproduced
What has not been fully appreciated about the quarto plays printed by Simmes—at least those in which Compositor A had a hand—is that they contain numerous substantive errors. McKerrow's oft-quoted statement that Much Ado was "one of the few Shakespeare play books that was decently printed" has suggested that Simmes's dramatic quartos were also accurately printed. It is true, of course, that the quartos are generally uncluttered and neat in appearance; few turned letters, obvious misprints, or mechanical errors are evident. It has been pointed out in a discussion of Simmes's proof-correction that "when copies of Simmes books are collated, variations are seldom found, and the texts are reasonably correct."[12] But, of course, absence of textual variants proves nothing about the scope or quality of proofcorrection. Indeed, as I have tried to show elsewhere, Simmes's proof-correction appears to have been far from thorough, to have varied widely from quarto to quarto, and to have been more concerned with the appearance of the page than with textual fidelity.[13]
Because Compositor A did so often alter copy-readings in setting dramatic quartos, it is important to investigate the specific ways in which he violated the integrity of his text, as an indication of the kinds of corruption that we might expect to find in substantive editions.
SUBSTITUTIONS. Compositor A was especially prone to errors of substitution. In Q2 Richard II the percentage of substitutions is very high. It seems reasonable to suppose that A worked more rapidly when setting verse —particularly verse from printed copy—taking whole lines of material into his head rather than phrases and thus sometimes misrepresented his copy. The errors of substitution in Q2 Richard II, a text entirely in verse, suggest that Compositor A was more likely to substitute words when setting verse than when setting prose. In substantive texts set by Compositor A we should perhaps expect these verbal substitutions to occur more frequently in verse passages than in prose.
In all three reprints, whether in verse passages or prose, certain characteristic substitutions can be observed. When Compositor A substituted verbs or nouns, the substituted word was usually close enough in meaning to the original to keep the general sense of the passage, as the following examples (drawn from all three reprints) show: sayd for speake, drop for fall, see for reade, heard for seene; smoke for shocke, prison for person, slaughter for slaunder, suertie for baile. Substituted words were, however, not usually nouns and verbs, but instead were connectives and qualifiers (conjunctions,
Not all of the substitutions introduced by Compositor A, of course, were memorial in origin. Some substitutions can be classified as orthographic in that they involve, usually, the addition or omission of a single letter or the transposition of two letters. Errors of this type are more likely to have resulted from misreading the copy. Final -s, as we should expect, is the letter most often added or dropped. Twenty-two of the 82 verbal substitutions in Q2 Richard II are orthographic, 12 of the 36 in Q2 The Contention, and 2 of the 7 in Q3 Henry IV, Part I. It would seem, then, that only about onefourth of the substitutions introduced by Compositor A in the reprints were caused by misreading; the great majority were probably memorial. But whatever the cause of error, readings corrupted by substitution are almost always plausible; rarely is a reading self-evidently corrupt.
OMISSIONS. Omissions of a word or words occur frequently in Compositor A's work. In two of the reprints it is the second most frequent type of error. In Q3 Henry IV, Part I the percentage of omissions is higher than that of substitutions, but the body of data is small and may be atypical. In the reprints the omitted words were usually connectives and qualifiers; pronouns thus affected were ones used adjectivally rather than as subjects or objects, and nouns and verbs were seldom omitted. The resulting readings almost never appear manifestly corrupt, although they inexactly reproduce what stood in the copy. In Q2 Richard II only one of 30 omissions produced an obviously corrupt reading, in Q2 The Contention only two of 26 omissions, and in Q3 Henry IV, Part I none of the eight omissions. In only three instances was syntax—and sense—seriously affected, twice when a noun and once when a pronoun was omitted. The faulty memory of Compositor A thus produced numerous omissions that subtly falsified his copy.
It seems reasonable to suppose that compositorial omissions occur less frequently in the setting of verse, where meter should assist the compositor. In Q2 Richard II, a play entirely in verse, the 27 omissions which occurred in the text account for 21% of the total number of text variants. The percentage of omissions in the dialogue of Q3 Henry IV, Part I is far higher—38%—probably because Compositor A in 14 of 16 pages was setting prose. Although the sample is small—only 617 lines of text—we can conclude cautiously that
INTERPOLATIONS. Like omissions, interpolations are almost always memorial in origin. Because Compositor A's interpolations are usually confined to the less significant parts of speech, corruption is almost never selfevident. In the three reprints, 16 of the 30 interpolations involve one of three words: the, a, or and. It is just such interpolations that we should expect of a compositor who seemed characteristically to take more material into his head than he could deal with.
The percentage of interpolations in Compositor A's pages of Q3 Henry IV, Part I, principally prose, is unusually high. Although one cannot speak with complete assurance of the compositor's relative reliability in setting prose, it is difficult to avoid concluding that A seems to have interpolated and omitted words more frequently when setting prose but substituted words more frequently when setting verse. Like omissions, interpolations in verse almost always affect meter.
TRANSPOSITIONS. Compositor A in the three reprints was not particularly prone to errors of transposition. The percentage of transpositions is remarkably similar in the three texts. Transpositions often involved a pronoun—6 of 8 in Q2 The Contention, 5 of 8 in Q2 Richard II, and 1 of 1 in Q3 Henry IV, Part I. In many of these instances the words transposed were pronoun and verb (or the reverse). All transpositions produce readings that make reasonably good sense.
CORRECTIONS OF OBVIOUS ERRORS. Although Compositor A frequently falsified his text by introducing inadvertent errors, he rarely corrected unsatisfactory readings in his text. In only one of the three reprints is a significant number of corrections to be found, Q2 The Contention. In addition to the 15 instances in which he corrected obvious errors, he also corrected faulty Latin in stage directions on 21 occasions, although none of these changes has been included in the statistics.
Analysis of the three reprints set wholly or in part by Compositor A suggests that his substantative texts were affected by frequent errors of omission and substitution which resulted in plausible but unauthoritative readings. The only effective check against Compositor A's characteristic errors would have been regular and careful consultation of copy by a proofreader, but all of the available evidence suggests that Simmes's proofreading was superficial and desultory. The specific information about this compositor—his reliability and his characteristic types of errors—has important implications for editors of Simmes's plays. Unquestionably, the dramatic quartos set by Compositor A present a less satisfactory reproduction of what stood in the copy than has hitherto been supposed.
Page/Line | QI | Q2 |
B2.19 | hath stole away | hath stolne away |
B2v.11 | get you gone | get ye gone |
B4v.12 | Wherein is writ | Wherein s writ |
E1v.15 | fortune against those | fortune gainst those |
E2.23 | hees dead | he is dead |
E2v.15 | in thine eye-bals | in thy eie-balls |
E3v.25 | selfe was borne | selfe wast borne |
F2v.22 | kist thy hand | kist thine hand |
F3v.3 | am honourably borne. | am honorable borne. |
G4v.26 | What comes thou | What comest thou |
There are, in addition, twenty-nine instances in Q2 of the interjection I (i.e., aye) having been changed to yea.
Page/Line | Q2 | Q3 |
C3v.34 | lie, ye rogue | lie you rogue |
D2v.6 | Five yeere, berlady | Five yeeres, berlady |
D2v.24 | Frances, a Thursday | Frances, on thurseday: |
D3v.27 | All is one | All's one |
E2.14 | then, it is | Then tis |
E2.18 | thou horrible afeard? | thou horribly afeard? |
E2.36 | my eyes | mine eyes |
E2v.17 | here lies the | heere lieth the |
E2v.34 | hee deceiueth me. | he deceiues me. |
I1.16 | shall mine vnkle | shall my vnckle |
| ||