Compositor Determination and the Compositor's Role in Q2 Merchant of Venice

Abstract

There are perhaps two main reasons why we should study the compositors of the Shakespeare First Folio. First, there is the general question of their accuracy. The manner in which Jaggard's compositors altered their copy is obviously a matter of great importance to the editor of any Folio text. Second, there is the question of the nature of the copy itself. An editor with a detailed knowledge of the Folio compositors' preferences in spelling and typography might be better able to postulate a copy-text by tracing departures from those preferences. In either case, the editorial implications are clearly important. The following study is an attempt then to determine, first, the general accuracy and, second, the orthographical and typographical preferences of one of the Folio compositors. Any such study presupposes of course identification of the compositors concerned and in one instance at least knowledge of the exact nature of the copy which they were required to set. Unfortunately no Folio play appears to meet both conditions. Either the compositors may be identified but the precise nature of the copy remains far from certain, or the nature of the copy is known but there is some difficulty in identifying the compositors. However, the second quarto of The Merchant of Venice (1619) is a fairly direct reprint of the first quarto (1600) and appears moreover to have been set by a compositor who was also responsible for setting a large portion of the Folio. It is the work of this compositor on the l619 quarto which I propose in the main to consider, although portions of the Folio text also are examined for comparative purposes.