APPENDIX 1
The text of Allâs Well
That Ends Well
Some of the problems that have puzzled readers and audiences of Allâs Well over the centuries are bound up with the history of its text. The story is a complicated one; this account does not seek to answer all those problems but to draw attention to their existence and to indicate some of the explanations that have been offered for them. There are two main and inter-related issues to look at: the nature of the manuscript copy for the play that was printed in the Folio and its treatment by those who set the playâs text.
THE FOLIO
The only substantive text for Allâs Well is the one first printed and preserved in the First Folio (F) of Shakespeareâs plays, published in 1623. The title âAllâs well that ends wellâ was listed in the Stationersâ Register for 8 November 1623 as the sixth of the sixteen plays to be included in F that were ânot formerly entred to other menâ â that is, not previously registered for publication.1 In F, it appears in the first section of the book containing the Comedies, coming between The Taming of the Shrew and Twelfth Night. F is a book made up of gatherings of six leaves, consisting of three sheets of paper folded in half and nested within one another. Each sheet was printed on both sides; when folded in half, the sheet consisted of two leaves or four pages; the first page is known as the recto and the second as the verso â abbreviated as a raised r (r) and a raised v (v). Each page was made up of two columns: the left-hand one is usually called âaâ and the right-hand one âbâ.
The first and fourth pages of each sheet are known as the outer forme and the second and third as the inner; pages sharing the same forme are known as forme-mates (when they are listed together they have a colon between them). To understand the nature of the text of the play that F preserves it is necessary to understand how the play was set in type in William Jaggardâs printing office. This was examined at great length by Charlton Hinman; his findings were based on attribution of work to individual compositors and the order in which formes were set. He achieved this through such techniques as the analysis of brass rules used to produce the box frames around each page; the identification of individual types and of which types were kept in which type-case; the spelling habits of the compositors; and other observable typographical features. His findings have been modified in the light of further research, but are still fundamentally accepted by most scholars.2
The three gatherings in which Allâs Well appears have signatures (letters of the alphabet, accompanied in F by the numbers 1, 2 or 3) at the foot of each of their first three rectos indicating that they belong to gatherings V, X and Y (W was not used). More specifically, the playâs 25 pages in F occupy signatures V1v to Y1v and are numbered from 230 to 254. Because of the way the sheets are nested, V1v was set as part of an inner forme along with V6r; V2r was set as part of the outer forme of the following sheet along with V5v; V2v was set as part of an inner forme along with V5r; and so on. The last page of The Taming of the Shrew, V1r, occupies the same outer forme as V6v of Allâs Well that contains the end of 2.4 and the start of 3.1. Similarly, Y1v, the last page of Allâs Well, occupies the same inner forme as Y6r, containing parts of Twelfth Night 2.4 and 2.5.
The individual pages were not set in the order in which they are to be read. Instead, the manuscript copy from which they were printed was cast off â divided into portions, more or less accurately, at the point at which new pages would be expected to begin. This would have allowed the compositor to set, say, the first and twelfth pages of a gathering together in the outer forme without having to set any other part of that gathering. The compositors tended not to start with the outer sheet of the gathering and work their way in order through the text to be set, but to begin at its middle (pages 6 and 7) and then regularly proceed outwards (pages 5 and 8, 4 and 9, 3 and 10, 2 and 11), finishing with pages 1 and 12. Thus the first parts of Allâs Well to be set in type were the pages V3v and V4r, containing the end of Act 1 and the opening of Act 2. This regular setting order was used in gatherings X and Y; but in the first gathering, V, after the first two formes had been set in the expected order, V2r:V5v was set before V2v:V5r and V1v:V6r was set before V1r:V6v.
Hinman and other textual scholars have established that two compositors, designated C and D, worked together on the last four formes of The Taming of the Shrew, C setting the left-hand pages of the formes and D the right-hand ones. Working in this way, two compositors could theoretically set the forme in half the time it would take one compositor alone. When they began work on Allâs Well, they started, as we have seen, at what would be the centre of the gathering (V3v:V4r), followed by V3r:V4v but, for some reason, with these two formes, they reversed their roles, with D setting the left-hand page and C the right-hand one. Having only got so far into the setting of the play (TLN 346â863),3 work on it stopped: âthere was a delayâ of âSomething between ⌠a few weeks and two or three monthsâ; it was âa major interruption, in all likelihood the most extended one that was suffered throughout the whole course of the printingâ of F. The cause of the delay was âEither some smaller book or a large piece of jobworkâ; William Burtonâs The description of Leicestershire is implicated.4
When work on the play began again after this interruption, a new compositor, called B, worked alone â and so at a slower rate than C and D â on the next twelve formes, finishing gathering V and the whole of X (TLN 1â345, 864â2913).5 In V, when B picked up work after C and D, he changed the regular order of setting the formes, but he returned to it in X. There is evidence that Bâs work on X was interrupted after he had set the first forme or possibly the first two formes, when he worked on the preliminaries to Augustine Vincentâs A discovery of errors.6 Having completed X, there was another interruption in the setting of Allâs Well, this time to work on the Histories. Compositor B was put to work with Compositor C on gatherings a and b, containing the whole of King John and the opening of Richard II. When these two gatherings were completed, B returned to Allâs Well and set the small remaining final part of the play (TLN 2914â3078), along with the opening of Twelfth Night. Hinman says that âno substantial delay is in evidenceâ in the switch from gathering X to a and b and that âno delay is in evidenceâ in the âjump backâ to gathering Y after work on a and b.7 The significance of the first interruption to the other project and of the switch to and from the Histories is worth pausing over; the first âwas probably the only occasion on which the printing of the book was suspended for any considerable periodâ.8 Both had the effect of taking Jaggardâs compositorsâ eyes off Allâs Well for some time.
The copy for F
For most of the twentieth century, it was generally agreed that Allâs Well was set from Shakespeareâs working autograph manuscript of the play; this sort of copy is often called his âfoul papersâ to distinguish it from an authorial or scribal fair copy.9 The indicators for such an authorial manuscript are generally taken to be inconsistent speech prefixes; characters who are mentioned but do not appear (âghostsâ); literary or permissive stage directions; and characteristic authorial spellings and punctuation. There is plentiful evidence of the first three in the F text of Allâs Well that has usually been taken to show â in the words of Fredson Bowers, one of the greatest textual scholars of the last century â âShakespeare at Workâ.
This view has been challenged by Paul Werstine in the course of his work on dramatic manuscripts.10 Rejecting the belief that a text used in the theatre for performance had to be internally consistent in its dramatic features (notably speech prefixes and stage directions), Werstine examined the roles of the two Lords against the received view that âno scribe can have intervened between Shakespeare and the Folio printersâ and that âShakespeareâs latest and rather untidy draft of the play lies just behind its surviving printed versionâ. Fâs âambiguousâ speech prefixes and stage directions, he maintains, âcannot be used as evidence that printerâs copy for it must have been authorâs foul papers, not a scribal transcriptâ; rather, they (âthe confusing and contradictoryâ speech prefixes and stage directions) âmay be assumed possibly to have been produced by a variety of handsâ.11
Werstineâs argument that the F text of Allâs Well need not have been set from authorial copy may well explain the relative absence in it of characteristic Shakespearean spellings. Although scholars have detected a few of these in F and noted that its aberrant punctuation (as...