 | |  |
IV
The reconstruction of the production schedule demonstrates that the printing of A Hundreth extended through at least eight months with long delays between Bynneman's three sections (B-X, 2T-Cc, 2Dd-Ii, A) as distinguished by the transformations in Bynneman-Y1 and the times required for printing the intervening books. In general, delays raise an obvious question about the temporal relationship between the delivery of printer's copy and the printing of the sections of a book. Although presswork ultimately defined the rate of production, the delivery of copy was an overriding factor since printing could only proceed with copy in hand. Hence, no problem occurred if all copy was delivered at the commencement of printing or if parts of copy arrived before copy was exhausted. A delay in printing thus may indicate belated delivery of copy in segments. A second factor must also be recognised. Even if completed segments of printer's copy for A Hundreth were in hand from the start, the assortment of vain ephemera represented by the texts of A Hundreth could easily have been set aside, if occasion demanded, to make way for high-priority theological, political, historical, and learned texts such as were printed during the eight-month period.
Three temporal components related to printer's copy must be defined in the context of the sharing situation: (1) when the division of copy occurred in the primary printer's production schedule; (2) whether the shared sections were printed serially or concurrently; and (3), whether the resort to sharing points to a preplanned time-saving strategy. The transformation evidence absolutely eliminates the possibility that Bynneman's three sections were printed concurrently. However, since concurrent shared printing obviously requires that completed copy be in-hand for casting-off, division, and transportation, the printing location of Middleton's section 2A-S is the critical issue in the overall relationship between printer's copy and the evolution of Gascoigne's sequence of texts. If Bynneman actually divided copy after sheet B, producing nearly equal sections of nineteen and eighteen sheets and the distinct possibility of concurrent printing from completed printer's copy of the two plays, "F.J.", and "The Devises", these texts had to have been composed, revised, and fair-copied by early February, and nearly so by the fictitious date "xx January 1572[/73]." Since typographical and watermark evidence for dating Middleton's section is lacking, it is necessary to generate
Several considerations eliminate any likelihood that Middleton's section 2A-S was printed during Group I along with STC11635a. First, the absence of internal bibliographical and textual anomalies reveals that Bynneman's first section, containing the texts of Supposes and Iocasta, was treated as a single production unit printed from manuscript fair copies. Both texts were in a final, stable state since no significant revisions or modifications (except for a very few changes in words) are found in the second edition. Furthermore, the extant manuscript copy of Iocasta agrees almost exactly with the text found in A Hundreth and pre-dates the printing of the book.[25] Gascoigne inserted the date "1566" and the identification "of Grayes Inn Esquire" into the titles of the texts in The Posies, details which correspond to known facts about this period of his life. Second, the interruption of printing at F-G (and possibly E-F) bears no relationship either to internal textual divisions or to a probable sharing situation. Moreover, the transition between the two texts at K1v-K2 is perfectly normal: printer's copy presented no difficulty to the compositor. Third, running-title analysis reveals that the single-skeleton method of imposition was employed throughout Bynneman's sections of the book. Given his three presses, Bynneman's choice of this slowest method of production is definite evidence that he saw no need for haste in printing the twenty-sheet unit either before or after the interruption at F-G. In short, the printing of B-X proceeded normally despite the interruption. Hence it is impossible to argue for the sharing of A Hundreth 2A-S during the printing of B-X.
In contrast, Bynneman's employment of the sharing strategy is very plausible in terms of the production circumstances of Group III. The sharing strategy was primarily motivated by the delivery of copy rather than the usual time-related factors. First, the division of copy into Middleton's section 2A-S and Bynneman's section 2T-Cc indicates serial rather than concurrent printing of the sections. The conclusion of the "F.J." narrative in 2M3 presented a perfectly logical textual boundary for the division of copy into nearly equal segments for concurrent shared printing: the maximum time-saving would result from sections of twelve and thirteen sheets (2A-M, N-Cc). Hence, the sharing was not based upon a preplanned, time-saving strategy since the actual division produced sections of eighteen and seven sheets. Second, the possibility that the sharing was intended to offset lost production time can also be rejected. At least two months passed between the printing of STC11635a and the transformation into Bynneman-Y1c. The sharing of 2A-S could in no way compensate for this amount of time. Nor is it reasonable to assume that Bynneman would tolerate a two-month delay before
In short, the evidence indicates clearly that Middleton's section was printed during Group III along with STC11635b. The delays in printing resulted from the staggered delivery of printer's copy in segments in late January and mid-May. Taken alone, this fact very strongly implies that the composition of "F.J." and "The devises" occupied Gascoigne during most of the intervening period since the preparation of printer's copy required a week or two at the most. The probability that composition delayed the delivery of copy and printing is further suggested by evidence that these two texts were delivered in separate manuscript segments. In general, setting from such copy could cause compositorial confusion about the appropriate setting style and thus produce anomalies at the junction of contiguous sections of copy. The potential significance of graphic layout and typographical conventions as evidence of compositorial interpretation of copy has not received much attention although bibliographers are familiar with these matters. The setting anomalies at the junction of manuscripts containing "F.J." and "The devises" are identifiable in the context of the shop practice of employing (1) a hierarchical titling convention to graphically indicate the relationships among sub-texts in a book, and (2) a particular setting format to mark the end of such a textual unit.
Graphic conventions vary according to format.[26] In quarto settings, the main titles of independent texts such as Supposes, Iocasta, and A Hundreth are set in 7mm roman capitals and/or lower-case, with additional lines of title text set in smaller sizes of type in descending order, ending usually with the pica roman in the imprint. Preliminaries (e.g., "The Printer to the Reader"), components (e.g., "The Prologue or argument", "Epilogue") and sections of the text are headed by sub-titles in either roman or italic (compositorial preference) double-pica (5mm capitals). The running-titles are usually set in double-pica but sometimes in pica; however, the same size of type is used consistently in the running-titles throughout a book.
Two significant titling anomalies occur in A Hundreth 2A-Ii which indicate
G. T.'s link between "F.J." and "The devises" unequivocally implies continuous copy with a transition directly to the Ariosto translation: "I will begin with this translation as followeth." However, the compositor's end-of-text setting of this link is extremely improbable for continuous unbroken manuscript copy which included "The devises" as well as "F.J." The link is about evenly divided between 2M2v-3 (292-293) and if set at full measure, the carry-over text would occupy a third of the page. After the first ten lines on M3, the compositor narrowed the measure with each successive line and centered the lines so that the text converged in a "V" to a final line 20mm in width (see Prouty's setting); the "G.T." signature occurs at mid-page. He then vertically centered a rectangular setting of printer's flowers measuring approximately 26mm x 52mm between the "G.T." and the signature and catchword. In terms of standard practice for prose texts in Middleton's shop (and Bynneman's as well), this setting format is reserved for the end of an independent text or a sub-text with no textual relationship to the subsequent text.[27]
It is unlikely that the compositor was responsible for the insertion of the flowers at this point. Such layout details probably were marked in copy by the printer. In one rare manuscript, the printer Richard Field marked the copy of Sir John Harrington's Orlando Furioso to instruct the compositor to
In short, the transitional link's implication of continuous manuscript copy is simply unacceptable in view of the end-of-text setting anomaly and
Bynneman's compositor responded similarly at the junction between the manuscripts containing "Dan Bartholmew" and the correction notice for insertion of the misplaced editorial link. Two setting features at the end of this text in Hh4v clearly imply an end of the "Dan" manuscript: a rectangular tail-piece (9mm x 43mm) fills the empty space (lines 26-35) and no catchword appears. The absence of a catchword for Ii1 indicates that Hh was printed before the final manuscript arrived: otherwise the catchword would have been included as a matter of course. The considerable amount of space remaining in Hh4v could easily have accommodated the correction notice set in pica roman (as it should have been) and several lines of the first stanza of the misplaced editorial link. That Bynneman expected more material is clear from the absence of an end-of-book imprint. Moreover, the manuscript sheet headed by the correction notice was interpreted by the compositor as a new text and not as a sub-section of "Dan Bartholmew". First, the running-title changes to "The Reporter.", corresponding to the entry "Last of all the reporter." (without page reference) in "The contents". Had the compositor (or corrector) checked against the printed sheet where the correction notice locates the misplaced editorial link, the correct running-title "Dan Bartholmew | of Bathe." would have been used. Second, the correction notice itself rather than "The Reporter." is set in Ii1r as a sub-title. "This should have bin placed in the" appears in double-pica italic on the running-title line (with page "441"), followed by a line in 96mm roman and then a line in pica roman. The actual sub-title of the misplaced narrative link ("The Reporter.") is set normally in the Guyot pica roman and probably was the source of the running title in Ii1v, Ii2v-3. "The reporters conclusion unfinished." likewise is set in double-pica italic on the running-title line of Ii2 and the correct catchword appears in Ii1v, indicating that copy was in-hand. (The absence of a page reference in "The contents" is perhaps attributable to the fact that no page number appears alongside the "conclusion unfinished.": whoever supplied page references probably searched for a doublepica sub-title corresponding to that in "The contents", so the page number 441 in Ii1 alongside the correction notice was irrelevant.) The setting of the two headings strongly suggests separate manuscript sheets rather than a single (probably) bifolium containing both texts. The final link is set in 96mm roman (a concluding flourish) in the "V" format, followed by the "FINIS" and the end-of-book imprint.
Given the fact that two compositors in different shops mis-interpreted the beginning of separate manuscript segments in the same manner, it seems likely that Gascoigne's style of heading a new manuscript or new sheet was
(1) The delay in printing evidenced by the shift from Bynneman-Y1c in Cc4v to Y1d in Dd1r implies segmented copy although no unquestionable setting anomalies occur. The text in Cc4v ends with the first line of the third stanza of poem No. 72; copy for the remainder of Nos. 72-73 that was carried to Dd1r was in hand so that the correct catchword ("If") could be set. However, the transformation evidence categorically excludes the possibility that the letterpress for Dd1r was set and left standing at the time Cc was printed. A minor anomaly occurs. The compositor set the final "poem" (a single line, not given a number by Prouty) following No. 73, "Quoniam etiam humiliatos; am[oe]na | delectant", in 96mm roman type. The turn-under was unnecessary and "delectant" is atypically off-centered to the left. The significance of this setting must remain a matter of opinion. The standard practice of setting foreign language quotations in emphasis type called for a shift from black letter, and given the pica roman links before and after the "poem," the only logical option was pica italic. If, however, the Latin quotation ended a manuscript, a compositor might be tempted to shift to the larger font size (as in the concluding editorial link). Further, it seems likely that the Latin verse marks the end of this compositor's stint. The titles for Nos. 72-73 are set in Bynneman-Y1d while the title of "Gascoignes voyage into Hollande" initiates the use of the Guyot 76mm pica in A Hundreth; it is used in the rest of the book for emphasis, poem titles, and editorial links except for a Y1d stint at Ff2v-Hh2v. Overall, the botched setting and the shift in poem title fonts suggest that the first compositor finished the copy carried over from Cc4v, but a second compositor was given the new manuscript and set to Ff2v.
(2) The absence of anomalies at the transition to "Dan Bartholmew" (Ee2v:8) suggests continuous copy extending from "Gascoynes voyage" (Dd1) to the end of "Dan" in Hh4v. The 76mm Guyot transitional narrative link in Ee2v is set normally with diminishing line lengths, and the running-title correctly shifts to "Dan Bartholmew | of Bathe.".
(3) Several factors raise suspicions of a manuscript junction at 2S-T but the evidence is ambiguous. First, the editorial source of the text and location for new running-titles is unclear. "The contents" indicates that a new subtext "certayne deuises of master Gascoyne" begins in S4v (repeat alphabet assumed) but the running-title is unchanged, the only such anomaly in the book. The transitional link begins "I will now deliuer vnto you so many more of Master Gascoignes Poems," an obvious source of a new recto element for T1. However, Middleton's compositor set the transitional link and the first twelve lines of "Gascoigns Anatomie" before Bynneman's compositor continued setting on T1. The oversight seems more probable if two separate manuscripts passed at different times between Bynneman and Middleton. Conversely, it seems more likely that Smith or Bynneman would have indicated the new recto element if copy was continuous, provided that the "so
(4) Finally, a major textual omission occurs in 2Y3 (373). The sub-title of "Gascoignes De profundis" (No. 65) appears at the bottom of 2Y2v (not anomalous, see 2O2v, P2v, R1v) along with the catchword for the editorial link in 2Y3 instead of the psalm: the sonnet which introduces the psalm follows the link. The link begins "The occasion of the vvrighting hereof . . ." in the editor's standard reflexive mode of commenting upon the previous composition. Compositorial omission can be ruled out: the setting sequence of prose editorial link, poem title, then another prose editorial link is an inherent contradiction to a compositor who has been interpreting copy for shifts from 67mm roman in the links to pica roman poem titles to black letter poem texts. Moreover, 2Y2v-3 would have been set seriatim regardless of the overall method of setting. The setting format for the links is normal as well. In short, the only reasonable conclusion is that the psalm was not in the manuscript copy and, moreover, the omission is not attributable to a manuscript junction. Prouty's collational data ("Critical Notes," pp. 277-290) reveal a dramatic rise at this point in errors later corrected in The Posies that clearly points to a deterioration in the quality of printer's copy. According to the chronological sequence of the poems detected by Prouty, a chronological division occurs here: Nos. 66-67 can be assigned to early 1572 prior to Gascoigne's first departure to Holland in May 1572. It seems likely that the omission and subsequent errors are attributable to Gascoigne's attempt to compose the links and to revise the recent poems during the faircopying process.
In summary, the bibliographical evidence reveals that copy was delivered to Bynneman in at least six separate manuscript segments: (1) Supposes (B3-K1v), (2) Iocasta (K2-X4v), (3) "The adventures of Master F.I." (2A-M3), (4) "The devises" (2M3v-Dd1r) (5) "Gascoignes voyage" and "Dan Bartholmew"
| | |