![]() | | ![]() |
To date, three theories of the composition of the second (Pavier) quarto edition of Shakespeare's King Lear have been proposed. William S. Kable, following the example of D. F. McKenzie,[1] has argued from spelling changes between Q1 (1608) and Q2 (1619) of Lr. that the whole play was set by Compositor B of the First Folio.[2] In his dissertation of 1971[3] John F. Andrews, also arguing largely from spelling evidence, has revived Madeleine Doran's suggestion[4] that the first eight sheets were set by one compositor and the last three by another; he calls the first man Compositor F (but later G)[5] and identifies the second as Folio Compositor B. Subsequently Peter W. M. Blayney has questioned the reliability of Kable's spelling analyses and has hypothesized, partly on the basis of patterns of skeleton alternations, that all of the Pavier editions except Sir John Oldcastle were set by two compositors working concurrently throughout.[6] On the grounds of additional evidence of the recurrence and migration of distinctive types,[7] I wish to propose a still different theory: that the second quarto of Lr. was set from two type cases by two compositors working concurrently throughout sheets A to H, and thereafter from one of these type cases by a third compositor who by himself set the last three sheets, I to L.
New evidence that Q2 plays some part in determining the Folio text of Lr. makes such a proposal as this potentially more useful than it would have
![Click to Enlarge Page 192](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912254/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
Thomas Pavier's quarto of Lr. was printed in Jaggard's shop in 1619, from many of the same types used some three to four years later to set F1.[10] It was evidently set by formes from a copy of Q1 in which sheets D, G, and H were in the uncorrected state and formes E(o) and K(o) were corrected (Doran, p. 3). Though Q2 is not a page-for-page reprint of Q1, accurate casting-off of Q1 copy must have been relatively easy. The collation of Q1 is A2 B-L4 the text begins on B1 and ends on L4, and it is printed 38 lines to a page. The collation of Q2 is A-L4; its text begins on A2 and ends on L4, and it is printed 37 lines to a page. Thus 79 pages of text in Q1 are stretched into 85 pages in Q2. Printing of one fewer lines per page in Q2 achieves a little more than a third of the stretching; the rest is accomplished through the style of the setting. A line of white space is added before most entrance directions; stage directions in the margin and stage directions or speeches doubled up in the same line with another speech or part-line in Q1 are usually lined separately in Q2; a few turnovers and turnunders are carried down and indented to make a separate part-line; and there is some deliberate relining.[11]
The result of such clean copy and a regular house style was very accurate casting-off for Q2. Despite occasional inconsistencies, all three compositors were able to adhere fairly closely to style and needed to make few adjustments in spacing and lining. Only one page is a little short, and a small handful of
![Click to Enlarge Page 193](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912255/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
As the following chart shows, two skeletons were used in printing Q2 Lr.
- Skeleton I
- Running title I: A2v, A3v, C1, C2, E1, E2, G1, G2, I1, I2
- R-t II: A3, A4, C2v, C1v, E2v, E1v, G2v, G1v, I2v, I1v
- R-t III: C3, C4, E3, E4, G3, G4, I3, I4
- R-t IV: A4v, C4v, C3v, E4v, E3v, G4v, G3v, I4v, I3v
- Skeleton II
- R-t V: B1, B2, D2v, D1v, F2v, F1v, H2v, H1v, K2v, K1v, L2v, L1v
- R-t VI: B2v, B1v, D1, D2, F1, F2, H1, H2, K1, K2, L1, L2
- R-t VII: B3, B4, D3, D4, F3, F4, H3, H4, K3, K4, L3, L4
- R-t VIII: B4v, B3v, D4v, D3v, F4v, F3v, H4v, H3v, K4v, K3v, L4v, L3v
![Click to Enlarge Page 194](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912256/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
Of the eight running titles in Q2 Lr., all of which read The History of King Lear, four suffered damage in the course of printing. The f in title V is whole in B1, damaged in B2; in some copies (e.g., Folger copy 2, British Library copy C.34.K19, Newberry Library copy) its top is just beginning to bend backward in B2, in all other copies that I have seen it is bent sharply up and back, and in all its appearances in D, F, H, K, and L the top has been imperfectly bent back into its original shape. The letter f also degenerates in titles I (whole in G1, topless in G2 and in both formes of I) and VI (whole in H1, topless in H2 and in K and L). The final r of title VII is whole in K3 but lacks part of its curl in K4 and in L. Titles V and VI exchange places between B and D and remain reversed in F, H, K, and L. All of this skeleton evidence indicates two things: since the type breakage always appears in the inner forme, it suggests that here, as apparently elsewhere in the Pavier quartos, the outer forme was normally printed first; and since the type breakage and reversed titles reappear in normal sequence in eight of the eleven sheets, one may safely assume that all of the sheets were printed in alphabetical succession.
Although the type breakage in the running titles suggests that the outer forme was normally printed first, it is impossible to know that for certain except for the four sheets (B, G, H, and K) where such type damage occurs. Neither with scanning light and loupe nor with a three-dimensional microscope (kindly made available by Mr. John Aubrey, Supervisor of Special Collections) was I able to find type impressions in the pages of the Newberry copy of Q2 Lr. which could decide the question. Since in all known instances here and elsewhere in the Pavier quartos the outer forme is printed first, I simply assume it to be the usual practice, lacking any evidence to the contrary.
The recurrences and migrations of distinctive types show very clearly that the first nine sheets of Q2 Lr. were set from two cases of type, which for the sake of convenience and custom I call case x and case y.[13] Types from case x appear in sheets A, C, E(o), F(o), G(o), H(o), and I(o), and those from case y in sheets B, D, E(i), F(i), G(i), H(i), and I(i); a few types from case x also appear in G(i). In the last two sheets, K and L, types from both cases appear, but it is evident from the distribution patterns and from residual or linking types from earlier pages that the single compositor now completing the book is working from case x. The flow chart in Figure 1 indicates the chief and most immediate sources of the types in each forme; individual linking types, which show up in a later forme after having lain in the case during the setting of intervening formes, are not represented in this chart, important though they are as confirming evidence. As is usually the case in this kind of analysis, I have had to discount a few appearances of individual types in the wrong
![Click to Enlarge Page 195](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912257/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
The distinctive types also establish the place of Q2 Lr. in the whole series of Pavier quartos. When William Neidig of the University of Wisconsin proved in 1910 that the ten Pavier title pages, despite their different dates, had all been printed in 1619, he also established their order through the press: The Whole Contention (two plays), A Yorkshire Tragedy, Pericles, The Merchant of Venice, The Merry Wives of Windsor, King Lear, Henry V, and Sir John Oldcastle; the place of A Midsummer Night's Dream was left in doubt. It has generally been accepted that the plays themselves were printed in this same order.[14] On the evidence of watermarks Peter Blayney has recently placed MND just prior to Lr. (pp. 196-197). Although its title page was printed immediately before that of Lr., the body of Wiv. bears no typographical relation to Q2 Lr., being printed in a larger and different font, while on the other hand a number of distinctive types in the first three sheets of Lr. appear in the last three sheets of MND.[15] The pattern of migration of types from one book to the other is somewhat complicated, and the model of it that I have constructed in Figure 1 will require confirmation from a study of the types in the whole of Q2 MND. For case y at least there is an unmistakable link: a large number of types from MND H(i) reappear in Lr. B(o). The complication is that types from both formes of MND sheets G are found in both case x and case y. That fact might suggest that the printing of MND was interrupted after sheet G was printed and the two cases of type used on another job, where they became mixed; but the fact that only one sheet of MND remained to be printed and that forme E(i) seems to have remained as standing type until the printing of that last sheet seems to argue against an interruption at this point. It is also possible that F(i) and G(i) should reverse places with their forme-mates F(o) and G(o) in the chart, as having been set at the opposite cases; but I think the patterns of distribution suggest otherwise. I have assumed that most of G(i) was originally set from and mostly distributed back into case x because about twice as many recognizable types from MND G(i) reappear in Lr. A(o) (set at case x) as show up in B(i) (set at case y), and similarly that G(o) was originally set from and mostly distributed back into case y because about three times as many recognizable types from MND G(o) reappear in H(i) (set at case y) as in Lr. A(o) (set at case x). I assume, that is, that most of the types were distributed back into the cases that they originally came from, and that the total number of types distributed into each case will be roughly in proportion to the number of individual types
![Click to Enlarge Page 196](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912258/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
![illustration](http://static.lib.virginia.edu/legacy/S/sb351961.jpg)
On these facts and assumptions one may tentatively advance a hypothetical explanation of the typographical relations of Q2 MND and Q2 Lr. Since the last three sheets of MND seem to have been set from two type cases
![Click to Enlarge Page 197](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912259/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
As I have already suggested above, the evidence from types in Q2 Lr. indicates that the composition of that play was at first divided between two typesetters, each working at his own case, until at some point in sheet I or K the work was assumed and completed by one compositor at one case. Although not proven absolutely from the evidence of types alone, this hypothesis is far more likely than the alternative supposition of Kable and Andrews that one compositor working alone set the first eight sheets, for it is hard to imagine why throughout most of a book one compositor should shuttle from one case to another as he set each new sheet or forme. Such a method of working is contrary to the normal procedures in Jaggard's shop during the printing of the Folio, if not indeed hitherto unknown in any shop. It may be barely
![Click to Enlarge Page 198](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912260/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
Furthermore, the distribution patterns and sequence of formes in the first four sheets seem clearly to indicate two men rather than one. Between the printing of the white-paper and perfecting formes of sheets A, B, and D there was clearly a period of time long enough for the white-paper forme to be machined and for its types to be washed, unlocked, and distributed before the next forme was set at the same case. If during these interims the supposed single compositor continued to work on Q2 Lr. rather than on another book, he would in all probability have begun work on the perfecting forme of the same sheet. What we find instead, if we accept the premise that one compositor is shuttling from case to case, is a sequence of formes that makes no sense: A(o)—B(o)—A(i)—B(i)—C(o)—D(o)—C(i)—D(i). Such a sequence would double the number of sheets being worked at one time and multiply the possibilities for confusion, delay, and error without any evident compensations. The hypothesis of one compositor working alternately at two cases would imply, for Q2 Lr., a pattern of composition that is unaccountable, disadvantageous, and hitherto unknown. Far preferable is the conclusion more obviously indicated by the evidence, that in setting the first four and probably the first eight sheets two compositors worked concurrently, each following the normal practice of working at his own case and distributing his own types, and each, in sheets A through D, setting the perfecting forme for his own sheet.
Once each of these two compositors had set two initial sheets and had disposed of all the standing type from MND, they seem to have settled down
![Click to Enlarge Page 199](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912261/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
Two generalizations can be made about the work of the two compositors in the first eight sheets of Q2 Lr. The first is that they seem to be working together: for the first four sheets they work in parallel, each setting both formes of two sheets at his own case and using his own skeleton; then for the next four sheets they work in close collaboration, one man setting the white-paper and the other man the perfecting forme of each sheet, sharing both skeletons between them; and then finally, as we shall presently see, they are both taken off the job together. In the transition between MND and Lr., a quantity of types borrowed by one man is immediately reclaimed by the other. Although D. F. McKenzie has forcefully taught us to doubt that apparently regular patterns in a book's physical features necessarily imply a regular method of work,[18] such parallelism as we find here is strong temptation to invoke Mill's inductive method of concomitant variation. When each
![Click to Enlarge Page 200](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912262/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
At sheet I the typesetting of Q2 Lr. is taken over by a third compositor and becomes a one-man operation. That this compositor is a different person from either of the two previous compositors is a certainty. Madeleine Doran (pp. 36-38) noted fifty years ago that from sheet I(o) to the end of Q2 Lr. there is a marked change to more carefully lined verse, more freely emended readings, more careless mistakes, heavier punctuation, and a sudden change from the spellings Glo(u)cester and Glost. to Gloster and Glo. John Andrews's studies of prose and verse alignment, substantive and metrical alterations, punctuation, and preferred spellings have further confirmed that the habits of the compositor of the last three sheets of Q2 Lr. are markedly unlike those evident in the first eight sheets. I have applied one further test, the frequency of spaced commas in short lines, introduced by Trevor Howard-Hill (op. cit., 1973). The average percentage of spaced commas in the first eight sheets is 9%; in the last three sheets the average is 41.5%, a significant difference.
This new compositor phases out case y by distributing its two standing formes of type and setting only one more forme at that case. After setting I(o) at case x he distributes G(i), from case y, into case x and uses its skeleton to impose I(o). He appears also to have unlocked and distributed parts of three pages of H(i) at about this time, but since so few of its types—only four that I can identify with any degree of certainty—reappear in I(i), and since its skeleton is not used until after K(o) is set, H(i) seems to have passed mainly into the hands of another compositor, perhaps distributing it into another case for use on another job. Compositor 3 abandons case y after setting I(i) there, whose types and Skeleton I disappear from Q2 Lr. after its printing. Linking types from case x appear in all of the remaining formes, making it clear that Compositor 3 is working at that case from now on.
I do not automatically assume that because K(o) was printed before K(i)
![Click to Enlarge Page 201](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912263/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
As well as I can determine from microfilm, types from both K(o) and L(o) appear in sheet A of Henry V, apparently the next quarto printed in the Pavier series. I had expected that types from case y would reappear in sheet B of H5, but it seems rather to contain a mixture of types from both case x and case y as well as a large number of new and unfamiliar types. Perhaps case y had been involved in another job in the meantime or had been replenished from some standing type. How the case x types got there must be answered by study of a live copy of H5; a likely place would be sheet L(i) of Lr.
The pattern of printing and distribution described above clearly implies, contrary to all previous views, that two men set sheets A through H and a single man set sheets I through L. One large question remaining is whether either of the compositors of the first eight sheets is the man who set the last three. To test this possibility I reclassified all of the data in John Andrews's dissertation about lineation, substantive and metrical alteration, and spelling in the first eight sheets, dividing it between the two men implied by the pattern of types. The result is a picture of two compositors so similar in their habits that much further study will be needed to distinguish one confidently from the other. The composite picture of both of them that Andrews gives in describing a hypothetical "Compositor G" applies very closely to either of them and distinguishes them both from the third compositor of sheets I to L. My own test of spaced periods implies the same thing: Compositors 1 and 2
![Click to Enlarge Page 202](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912264/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
The main consequence of the foregoing analysis, then, is that all previous opinions of the compositors of Q2 Lr. will have to be revised. Kable's theory of one compositor is clearly untenable, Blayney's conjecture of two men working throughout is closer to the mark, and Andrews's distinction of a new compositor in sheets I to L holds up while his Compositor G turns out to be a composite of two men. Who these compositors were is a question that needs further study. Andrews's and Kable's identification of (at least) one of them as Folio Compositor B has been called into serious question by S. W. Reid: "The spelling practices of B in F1 are like those of Andrews' 'G' as much as they are like those of his 'B,' and B's spellings are more often like the spellings of both, combined, than they are like those of either."[19]
Causing still further doubts is Blayney's series of caveats about compositor identification: that two or more apprentices trained by the same printer or schooled by the same master might show almost identical spelling habits; that a compositor's habits in 1619 might not be those of 1622; that our knowledge that Jaggard bound no apprentices between 1614 and 1622[20] helps us not at all to know how many of the four apprentices that he freed (in 1607, 1614, 1617, and 1619) stayed with him, how many men he employed who were apprenticed elsewhere, or how many men he might sometimes have hired temporarily (as for such a project as the Pavier series of quartos). Blayney concludes, "The assumption that a Jaggard book of 1619 necessarily contains a single type set by any member of the Folio team" is "unsound" (p. 182). One further specific reason he gives for doubting that Compositor B had a hand in Q2 Lr. is that there the name of Lear's counterpart is spelled Gloster or Glocester, whereas in Compositor B's share of the Folio Lr. Glocester is never used, Gloster appears only five times, while in 21 other occurrences the name contains a u (Glouster 14, Gloucester 7).[21] The spaced comma test also casts some doubt: the highest percentage of spaced commas set by any compositor in Q2 Lr. is 41.5%, but Howard-Hill attests that Compositor B regularly prefers a space after commas and that in his work unspaced commas are relatively rare (op. cit., 1973, p. 67). The whole question of the Pavier quarto compositors needs further work; and if Q2 Lr. is any measure, that work will have to include the slow and laborious task of types analysis to determine whether and when two compositors of very similar habits are at work simultaneously.
One more problem remains to be touched on: the pattern of skeleton alternation in Q2 Lr., in which the same skeleton appears in both formes of
![Click to Enlarge Page 203](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912265/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
Skeleton | I | I | II | II | I | I |
Forme | E(o) | E(i) | F(o) | F(i) | G(o) | G(i) |
Skeleton | I | II | I | II | etc. |
Forme | E(o) | F(o) | E(i) | F(i) |
The distribution evidence in Fig. 1 suggests the most likely explanation: that by the time Compositor 1 came to impose F(o), he had pulled ahead of Compositor 2 by about a forme. He could easily have done so, since his formes A(o) and A(i) together contain only five full pages, a short first page, and a title page as against the eight full pages of sheet B set by Compositor 2, and since he could have set C(i) or F(o) or both immediately after imposing the previous formes whereas Compositor 2 always waited for the previous forme to come back from the press before composing the next one. The distribution evidence shows that no types from E(o) appear in F(o), and therefore that E(o) may still have been locked up in Skeleton I. Skeleton II, however, was now or would soon be vacant, since Compositor 2 distributed D(i) before setting E(i). Compositor 1 would then quite naturally have taken Skeleton II to impose the pages of F(o); and we know that he distributed E(o) before setting G(o), thus freeing Skeleton I for Compositor 2 to claim
![Click to Enlarge Page 204](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912266/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
What results is a pattern that is regular but complicated because of the
need to adapt an order of setting to a different order of printing of the
formes. Assuming that Compositor 1 stayed about one forme ahead of his
mate, the order of setting would be as follows:
- F(o) is imposed in vacant Skeleton II. Compositor 1 distributes E(o), freeing Skeleton I, and begins to set G(o).
- E(i) is completed and imposed in Skeleton I. It is printed before the already imposed F(o) in order to perfect sheet E before a new sheet is begun.
- F(o) is now printed. Compositor 2 distributes E(i), freeing Skeleton I, and begins to set F(i).
- G(o) is completed and imposed in vacant Skeleton I.
- F(i) is completed, and must be printed before the already imposed G(o) in order to perfect sheet F before a new sheet is begun. In order to vacate Skeleton II, both compositors strip and distribute F(o), sharing its types. F(i) is imposed in Skeleton II and is printed, while Compositor 2 begins to set G(i).
- G(o) is printed, and Compositor 1 strips and distributes its four pages before setting pages 3 and 4v of H(o), thus freeing Skeleton I.
- G(i) is completed and must be printed next whether or not H(o) has been completely set. Evidently Skeleton I is still available to impose G(i). Compositor 2 unlocks and begins to distribute F(i), vacating Skeleton II. H(o) is imposed in Skeleton II and printed, and Compositor 2 begins to set H(i).
This ends the collaboration of Compositors 1 and 2. At about this point
![Click to Enlarge Page 205](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912267/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
This explanation of the pattern of skeleton sharing in Q2 Lr. is consistent with all of the facts of the distribution of types. Though it may seem complex when presented in all its detail, it all follows logically from the simple premise that Compositor 1 got ahead of Compositor 2 fairly early on. Thereafter each man keeps borrowing the other's skeleton simply because it is the only one vacant or is the one that can soonest be vacated. The one obvious objection to be raised against such a scheme is that, having finished setting F(o) before his mate had finished E(i), Compositor 1 might logically have proceeded to the next forme that would be printed, F(i), rather than start a new sheet with G(o) and so continue a forme ahead. That is certainly a possibility, but not a necessity; the two men may have simply decided to stick to their agreement to share the setting of each sheet from E onwards, one man setting all the outer formes and the other all the inners, perhaps in the expectation that Compositor 2 would catch up before long.
Nonetheless, it may be prudent to consider two alternative possibilities, both suggested to me by Professor Robert K. Turner. The simpler is that the two skeletons had some difference, such as gutter sticks of different widths, that necessitated each skeleton's backing itself if inner and outer formes were to register. The Newberry copy of Q2 Lr. is too tightly bound to test this theory with certainty, but a thin slip inserted down to the fold between conjugate pages of several sheets reveals no apparent differences in the gutter widths of the two skeletons.[22]
The other possibility is that Q2 Lr. was printed simultaneously on two presses. It is in fact possible to work out a pattern whereby two presses might have printed this book, one press printing all the outer formes and the other all the inners. Despite the changes in the number of compositors and in the ways they shared the work, if press 1 is continually one forme ahead of press 2, the two skeletons will alternate back and forth between the two presses with absolute regularity. One might be tempted, therefore, to think that the
![Click to Enlarge Page 206](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:912268/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
![]() | | ![]() |