:: :: University of Virginia Library

This text collates [A]2 B-K4 L2. Jackson's analysis of the headlines revealed ("by careful inspection and measurement") that for B—K the inner and outer formes of each sheet were imposed by the same skeleton, but that several skeletons were recycled through the gatherings as follows: #1 for B and H; #2 for C, F and I; #3 for D and G; and #4 for E.[11] Overlay collation verifies these findings quickly. However, the real problems with the headlines of the quarto have not been touched: the headline changes from 'Shakespeares Sonnets' to 'A Lovers Complaint' in K; and L exhibits variation in the headline, as L2v reads 'The Lovers'.[12] To understand the complete picture of the imposition of formes we need to consider bibliographic, not textual, units.

As the solutions to the problems of K and L will prove to be interconnected, let me describe the problems of L briefly, and then proceed directly to K. Since signatures [A] and L contain only four pages each, we may suspect half-sheet imposition. The two common methods of such imposition either work-and-turn all of [A] in one forme, all of L in another; or work half of [A] and half of L together in each forme. Can we determine which method was used? To answer this question we need only remember that if headline material is shared between L(o) and L(i) we have positive proof that L was imposed by the second method.[13]

Overlay collation and base-line mirror-image comparison quickly reveal decisive information to show that inner and outer L were imposed separately in two different formes. First, the headline 'Complaint' in L1r and L2r is identical. Second, the letterpress 'Lovers' is identical in both headlines L1v and L2v. Unmistakable are the large o and the slight misalignments of the letters. However, as noted before, the wording of the headline is changed, one headline having 'A', the other 'The'. In addition, the spacing between these different articles and the following word 'Lovers' is also different (see top Pl. 7). In any case, common types in L(o) and L(i) indicate that L was printed by twin half-sheet imposition (likely with [A]), using, as did the other sheets of the edition analyzed thus far, the same skeleton for inner and outer formes. The next question, simplified now that we know the imposition of L, deals with the provenance of its skeleton. Should we suspect derivation from that used in K, the only other setting of the same headline text? (If this suspicion proves true it would be an atypical practice, for alphabetically sequential formes elsewhere in Q do not use the same skeleton.) Let us enquire, then, about K.

207

K(i) and K(o), reports Jackson, use the same skeleton. More accurately the skeleton of one is derived from the other, for as the following figure shows, only 50% of its headlining is textually the same. Overlay collation quickly reveals that the headlines common to both formes, whichever way the derivation went, are the non-conjugate pairs on the right side of the diagram of each forme. The headlines to the left of each forme do not contain common text, and so naturally we find no correspondence here.

Now, if the imposition of L began when the latter forme of K had been machined, rinsed and unlocked, the compositor would have found his two required headlines for L ready-made in the conjugates K2v-K3r or K3v-K2r. But examination shows that this easy course of imposition was not followed. Let us assume, then, that one forme of L was imposed while the latter forme of K was not yet available for unlocking, and ask, Which forme of K was machined first? If K(i) were machined first, then the 'Complaint' of K2r would be freed for use in L, as it would be replaced by 'Sonnets' in K1r. If K(o) were machined first, then 'A Lovers' in K2v would be released for use in L, its place being taken by non-printing types, spaces or furniture in K1v. But obviously a complete running title could not be freed for use in L while either forme of K was locked up.

Overlay collation and base-line mirror-image comparison of the letterpress of 'Complaint', common to L1r and L2r, show that it at least does not derive from K. The other headline presents a different and more complicated story. Collation of K2v and L1v shows immediately that, first, the word 'Lovers' in K2v has all the characteristics that we saw in L1v (and L2v). Most noticeable is the large o; second, the 'A' of 'A Lovers' in K2v does not correspond with that of L1v; and third, the spacing between 'A' and 'Lovers', and also between 'Lovers' and the left margin differs between formes. This is all shown in Plate 7, which begins with the comparison of common letterpress from headlines in L(o) and L(i), and ends with comparison of the same letterpress in L(i) and K(o).

208

We now have enough information to conjecture securely on the sequence of imposition of these formes and the provenance of the headline error in L2v. Let us construct two hypothetical paths of the headline from K through L. The type of the headline in question must follow one of two paths: Path 1, K2v→L1v→L2v, or Path 2, K2v→L2v→L1v. Each hypothetical path contains two re-impositions. The evidence does not allow complete certainty, but the second path is much more likely. The first hypothesis strains credulity with its train of loss, accurate correction and subsequent miscorrection of the same part of the headline. The second hypothesis necessitates only one loss, erroneously reset, and then a subsequent correction, and thus does away with the awkward miscorrection.

The following represents a probable reconstruction of events. The compositor unlocks K(o) and sets aside the headline from K2v ('A Lovers'), or perhaps only part of it, as it is incomplete when we see it again. K(i) is then imposed and sent to press, where it remains when the compositor goes to impose L(o). The only headline already set and available that can be used in L(o) is that from K2v, now incomplete. The compositor takes the remainder ('Lovers') and sets spacing and 'The' to go with it. We see in the choice of the article, perhaps, an easy confusion of the singular possessive with a plural form, an easy error, as the contemporary spelling "louers" does not distinguish them. The mistake is easy to set in this forme, as there is no setting of the correct title elsewhere in the skeleton. The proofreader can miss the error for

209

the same reason. (The compositor also sets a new headline, 'Complaint', for the conjugate (L1r).) By L(i), however, the mistake in L2v is noticed and corrected. Thus we can assert confidently that the order of formes through the press is likely K(o), K(i), L(o) and L(i).[14] This sequence argues strongly for cast-off copy in "A Louers Complaint."[15] Another source of information, recurrence of distinctive types in the text, can be utilized to show the probability of cast-off copy throughout Sonnets.[16]

It remains to enquire whether Jackson is correct when he states, "naturally a new skeleton was constructed for Sheet K." By "naturally" I assume he means that as seven of the eight headlines in the two formes of K are different textually from any preceding headlines, those parts of the skeleton must have been newly composed. But could not a chase and part of its skeleton used in the printing of some earlier forme have been reemployed in K? There has been labor-saving recycling of skeletons between sheets ever since F, and one of the headlines in K does read 'Sonnets'. When applied to this problem, overlay collation shows that the headline of K1r seems identical to that of E1r. Normally when we compare recycled quarto skeleton formes we have four repetitions of identical letterpress, and uncertainty of identification of any one headline can be overcome by the corroboration of the other three. Nevertheless, the evidence of overlay collation calls in doubt Jackson's ascription, and suggests the recycling of skeleton #4 from E to K, whence it derived to L (see Plate 8).

The argument has necessarily been preoccupied with the specific text analyzed. In conclusion let me stress the main interest, the general technique of analysis. The means of collation described in this paper is inexpensive and rapid. Its photographic format provides durable information ready for

210

double-checking results and reporting evidence. Its reconstitution of the forme restores relevant spatial relationships of imposition that are lost in binding and cutting. Conveniently the use of photocopiers means that illustrations of bibliographic analysis, as in the present article, can be assembled rapidly and inexpensively from research materials. The method should be of use to anyone engaged in headline analysis. Finally, as the collation of the title pages of Shakespeares Sonnets demonstrates, it can double in a pinch for a mechanical collator.