 | |  |
Quires A-F
Thus far this article has concentrated on quires G-I; evidence has been drawn from quires K-Q only to confirm the three-case hypothesis as it applies to quires G-I. There is no need to search beyond quire Q for evidence of the three-case pattern, for during composition of quire R cases x and z were liquidated (Hinman, II, 441). However, study of the composition of quires G-I has implications for an understanding of work on the first six quires of the Folio, quires A-F. Since case z was not set up de novo during the setting of quire K, as Hinman believed, but was already in use for quire G, there remains a question about when case z was set up. In dealing with this question, we cannot rely as much on the kind of type-recurrence evidence used heretofore in case and compositor identification. Almost midway through the first six quires of the Comedies section—just after composition of page D4v, to be precise—type recurrence no longer yields patterns useful for case identification. Such patterns do not emerge again until quire G.
In spite of this breakdown in type-recurrence evidence for quires D through F, one fact is evident: case z was not set up de novo for composition of quire G, but was already in use before work on this quire began. The pages and columns of quires G through Q set from case z contain no fewer than nine distinctive types last seen in pages of quires C, E, and F which were distributed before Jaggard's compositors turned to quire G.[13] If it is granted that so many appearances of distinctive types cannot all be dismissed as anomalous, we must search for evidence of the use of case z in Folio quires set before quire G. The search is frustrated to some extent by the hiatus in intelligible type-recurrence evidence that extends from quire D to quire F. Since study of the type recurrences in these quires has yielded no case identifications, there must remain a theoretical possibility that case z may have been set up de novo at any point during composition of these Folio quires or during composition of non-Folio material that was being printed concurrently with these Folio quires—probably Wilson's Christian Dictionary, according to type-batter evidence Hinman discovered in both works. Although such uncertainty cannot be entirely dismissed, there are, however, intelligible patterns of type-recurrence evidence in quires A-D4v that bear on the question about when case z was set up.
According to Hinman, quires A-D4v (in printing order) were set from only two cases. Compositor B set pages of the first four formes of quire A from case y and then, according to Hinman, yielded the case to Compositor C who worked on pages of the last two formes of quire A, as well as pages of quires B, C, and D. Both compositors were aided by Compositor A (now called F) who stood at a second case designated case x by Hinman.[14] Hinman's argument for this interpretation of the available evidence can be divided into two stages, the first successful, the second unsuccessful. In the first stage he used type-recurrence evidence to differentiate the case used by Compositor A(F) in quires A-D4v from the single other case Hinman thought was used first by Compositor B and then by Compositor C. Hinman found a pattern of 116 distinctive-type appearances in quire A, none of which is rendered anomalous by his two-case hypothesis for the quire (Hinman, II, 351). Quire B offers another 162 appearances, only two of which Hinman was forced to dismiss as anomalous. The first distinctive type to recur anomalously is u23, common to A4b48 (distributed by By) and to B5vb61 (set by A[F]); the second is distinctive type B30, common to A1va10 (distributed by By) and to B4vb42 (set by A[F]), but this distinctive type appears, in the earlier of the two pages, immediately adjacent to the centre rule where it would be vulnerable to a stripping accident (II, 358). Since these anomalous appearances scarcely constitute
Hinman was, in my view, much less successful in the second stage of his argument when he attempted to demonstrate that only two cases, and not three, were used in quires A-D4v, that is, when he argued that the case used by Compositor C to finish quire A and to compose pages of quires B-D4v was the same case used by Compositor B to set pages of the first four formes of quire A. The only support for this stage of Hinman's argument can be found in the recurrence of just two distinctive types common to quire-A pages distributed by Compositor B into case y and to pages set by Compositor C in quires A and B.[15] Distinctive type h30 is common to A6va53 (distributed by By) and to B2va33 (set by C); distinctive type W22 is common to A4b6 (distributed by By) and to A2b45 (set by C). Since W22 is, in the earlier of the two pages, immediately adjacent to the centre rule where it would be especially vulnerable to a stripping accident, Hinman's identification of Compositor C's case for quires A-D4v as case y depends entirely on the recurrence of a single distinctive type distributed from a non-peripheral position. It will be recalled that Hinman dismissed as anomalous the recurrence, in a quire-B page set by Compositor A(F), of a single distinctive type (u23) which had been distributed from a non-peripheral position into case y by Compositor B during composition of quire A. By analogy, it would also be necessary to dismiss as anomalous the recurrence, in a quire-B page set by Compositor C, of this single distinctive type (h30), which had been distributed in exactly the same way by Compositor B.[16] Dismissing the recurrence of h30 as anomalous, in turn, entails rejecting Hinman's argument that Compositor C succeeded Compositor B at case y. It would then follow that Compositor C stood at a third case to set his stints on quires A-D4v. Thus from the beginning of Folio production with quire A, three cases—not two—were used by the Folio compositors. Since type-recurrence evidence breaks down in quire D and does not again become useful until quire G, it is impossible to be certain whether the three cases used to set quire A (two of which, as Hinman was able to demonstrate in the first stage of his argument, remained in use for quires B-D4v) were the same three cases used for quires G-Q. I thus merely follow Hinman's example in using the same case designators for quires A-D4v as for quires G-Q: Compositor B at case y worked on seven of the first
Thus far differentiation of Compositor C's case, now called case x, from Compositor B's case y has proceeded in entirely negative terms; Hinman's failure to demonstrate that Compositor C used case y indicates that Compositor C used a separate case. Yet it is also possible to differentiate the two cases, x and y, in positive terms on the basis of type-recurrence evidence. Setting aside the two anomalous type recurrences (h30 and W22) already discussed, we can observe that pages A1, 6v, 1v, 6, and 4 supply some thirty-six distinctive types to quire-A pages set by Compositor B (see Hinman, II, 344, ll. 1-5, 7-11, 15, 16), but none to any page set by Compositor C; pages A3, 3v, and 2v and column A2b supply some thirty-seven distinctive types to pages of quires A, B and C set by Compositor C (see Hinman, II, 344, ll. 1, 7, 11, 13, 17; 352, ll. 7, 8, 17, 20-22; 360, ll. 1, 3, 5, 29, 31; and I,480), but none to quire-A pages set by Compositor B. Therefore seventy-three type recurrences demonstrate that while Compositor B worked from case y for quire A, Compositor C worked from his own case, case x.
Type-recurrence evidence also indicates when, after quire A, case y next supplied types for Folio composition. In the five pages Compositor B distributed during his labours in quire A, there are forty-four appearances of distinctive types. As already noted, in thirty-six of these possible forty-four instances, the distinctive types distributed into case y re-appear in the y-case pages of quire A set by Compositor B; four more identifiable types, as we have seen, recur anomalously in pages of quires A and B set from the two other cases, x and z, by Compositors C and A(F); and one (A31) is never found again in the Folio. The three remaining distinctive types do recur in the Folio, but are not to be seen until quire F, two in column F4b, one in column F5a (see Hinman, II, 376, ll. 6 and 19).[17] The extended delay in the recurrence of these three distinctive types deserves emphasis. In contrast, recurrences of the seventy-two distinctive types distributed into cases x and z from wrought-off pages of quire A by Compositors C and A(F) can all be located in quires A-D, with the exception of four distinctive types which do not recur at all
To summarize: from the outset Jaggard's printing of the First Folio seems to have demanded the labours of three compositors, each standing at a separate case. Compositor B occupied case y, Compositor C case x, and Compositor F case z. Yet all three men never worked simultaneously on the Folio during composition of the first five quires (A-E). Sometimes a single compositor worked alone or sometimes a pair of compositors shared a forme of the Folio, probably because, as Hinman observed, Jaggard's shop still had composition of Wilson's Christian Dictionary in hand. This pattern of composition remained unchanged even after Compositor D had succeeded Compositor F with the beginning of work on quire F (Howard-Hill, pp. 78-82; O'Connor, pp. 101-110). By the middle of Folio quire F, however, Wilson's volume apparently no longer drew upon the time of Jaggard's compositors or the stock of types in their cases, and three workmen—Compositors B, C, and D—began to devote their time exclusively to the Folio. This new pattern of composition by three type-setters was to continue until work on quire I began, even though Compositor F took over from Compositor D again for quire G, only to be displaced again immediately after this quire by Compositor D who then occupied case z until it was liquidated for composition of quire R. When three compositors—B, C, and F—distributed types from the last half of quire F in order to set G, their work produced clear patterns of type recurrence so that their cases can be identified with some confidence for the first time since early in the composition of Folio quire D. These type-recurrence patterns indicate that complex distribution practices persisted throughout composition of quires G and H, with different compositors often co-operating to distribute types from the same wrought-off pages and columns. Yet there is nothing to indicate that the availability of three compositors and cases sowed confusion in the production of the Folio. Instead, the compositors followed essentially the same routine in dividing the labour of composition for both quires G and H. A similar routine can be observed in the method used to compose parts of quires N and Q, when again different compositors sometimes worked on successive formes at the same time. Not until quire R do we begin to find evidence of the two-compositor, two-case pattern of composition that was sustained throughout most of the last two sections of the Folio, the Histories and the Tragedies.
This purely bibliographical investigation has at least two major implications for editors and textual critics of the early Folio Comedies. The first deals with cast-off copy for quires G and H. Ordinarily, as Hinman observed, when a quire was set in normal Folio printing order, there was need to cast off copy only for the first half of the quire, since the pages of the second half were set in their reading sequence: 4, 4v, 5, 5v, 6, 6v (II, 505-506). However, simultaneous composition of successive formes of a quire—possible for quire G, probable for quire H—would have necessitated casting off copy for both halves of the quire so that compositors could work concurrently from separate blocks of copy to set pages of the second half of the quire. Thus editors must be wary of compositorial attempts to stretch or squeeze the texts of MM and Err. into the space available. One such attempt is evident in the last half of quire H at the bottom of column H5vb, set by Compositor C, and the top of H6a, set simultaneously by Compositor B, where verse is compressed into prose. Second, identification of cases x, y, and z in quires G-I confirms attribution of pages in these quires to Compositors B, C, D, and F. Editors of the Folio Comedies may then have greater confidence in using the available studies of compositorial accuracy in arriving at judgments about when and how to emend.
| | |