THE COMPOSITION AND PRINTING OF MIDDLETON'S A MAD
WORLD, MY MASTERS
[*]
by
Gerald J. Eberle
In a paper read before the Bibliographical Evidence group at the meeting of the Modern
Language Association in Chicago in 1945 I made the point that careful bibliographical
analysis of the text of Thomas Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters,[1] 1608, along with a study of Middleton's scribal habits, might afford a
more generally satisfactory explanation of the aberrations in the quarto than the
previously held theory of revision.
The publication since then of F. T. Bowers' article, "An Examination of the Method of
Proof Correction in Lear,"[2]
has led me to believe that the analysis of the composition and printing of A Mad World might be interesting in its own right, apart from its
application to the editorial problem; for the first five sheets of the play were printed
with three skeletons used in a pattern somewhat different from that in Lear. To complicate matters a bit, no variant formes in
these
sheets appear in the nine copies of the first edition which I have collated.
Incidentally, the two compositors of the first five sheets were accomplished workmen,
one of whom set almost all the type for these first sheets—all but D1-4 and E3v-4.
The point is significant because apparently a single compositor was not pressed for time
in setting all the type for sheets A, B, and C.
Some of the phenomena to be detailed here are sufficiently similar to those in Lear to recommend comparison, and sufficiently different to prove
puzzling and perhaps enlightening. To facilitate comparison, I have used in the
following table the same system of indicating running-title transfers that was used by
Bowers.
Several oddities deserve special comment, if only as a warning to future students of
running-titles used as bibliographical evidence. As indicated in the above table two
slightly different titles are used on A4v. Printing starts with
title IIIa, found in copies of the play in the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Bodleian,
the Folger, the Huntington, and the New York Public Library.
After a
considerable number of copies had been printed the broken initial A was replaced by a
better one, but the rest of the running-title was not changed. The title in its improved
form, IIIb, appears on A4
v in the copies of the play in the
British Museum, Harvard, the Library of Congress, and the Boston Public Library.
Thereafter title IIIb appears in all copies on B3
v and C3
v, after which it is rejected.
Meanwhile what is apparently the rejected initial A from IIIa re-appears in a new title
on B4v, labeled now IXa, which is used again on C4v and then set aside temporarily. It appears again on E4v
but its broken initial A is replaced almost immediately, quite by chance by what is
apparently the same initial A which had replaced it in title III. Title IXa is found
only in the British Museum copy.
The notable fact, it seems to me, is that these pages are invariant except for the
changed letter in the running-titles. If these pages were proofed, as their general
excellence suggests, what sort of proofing before printing might allow the broken
running-title to escape notice? That there was ample time for proofing in the first five
sheets of the play is obvious when we study the probable order of the formes through the
press.
The cumulative effect of admittedly inconclusive evidence leads me to believe that the
outer formes of both sheet A and sheet B preceded their inner formes through the press.
If inner B had been imposed and run before outer B, we should be obliged to account for
the delay occasioned by the use in inner B of running-titles from both formes of A. This
demands the assumption that sheet A was completed at the end of a working day, in which
event both skeletons should have been ready for normal transfer to their respective
quarters in the formes of B.
Instead we find new running-titles used in outer B, one of them with the previously
discarded broken A. Apparently outer B was imposed before either skeleton of A was ready
for transfer. Then while outer B printed white paper, the running-titles and furniture
from both formes of A were used in inner B.
Similarly, if inner A had been first run, its running-titles would presumably have been
first ready for transfer to inner B, in which case normal transfer of running-titles
would have placed title IV on B3v instead of on B1v, and title V on B4 instead of on B2. But if outer A was first run, first
rinsed, and first stripped, normal transfer would place title II on B4 and title IIIb on
B3v, which is precisely where they are used. This conjecture,
unfortunately, leaves the puzzle of why title I from A2v was not
used. I suspect that by the time the workman was ready to impose B1v and B2 he had available the running-titles from the two adjacent type pages of
inner A, which he preferred to use rather than the single remaining running-title from
outer A plus another odd one.
It seems likely, then, that the order of formes through the press thus far was outer A,
inner A, outer B, inner B; and the pattern of running-title transfers
could be indicated as follows: set X, set Y, set Z, set XY, or three different sets plus
a fourth composed of parts of the first two.
This last point may seem unduly labored; the reason for the insistence lies in the odd
repetition of that same pattern in sheets C and D, though of course the running-titles
used in inner and outer C are not newly set.
The outer forme of C uses the titles from outer B, and is presumably first printed, to
be followed by inner C, which uses three titles from inner B plus one new one. The new
title can be plausibly accounted for if we assume that imposition of outer C was begun
after outer B had been rinsed and stripped. But when the imposition of inner C was
begun, the skeleton of inner B was not quite ready for transfer. Overlooking the
set-aside running-title from A2v, the compositor set a new one and
imposed C1v. By the time he had completed that task the inner
forme of B had been rinsed and stripped and its running-titles were available for normal
transfer.
The situation in sheet D is similar. Outer D, like outer B, uses in effect a new
skeleton, though two running-titles previously set aside from A2v
and B1v form part of the skeleton. Composition is again far ahead
of presswork; the outer forme of D is imposed with a new skeleton, and the inner forme
of D is being imposed shortly before the outer forme of C has been rinsed. Rejecting the
broken title IXa, the compositor imposes three quarters of the inner forme of D, making
two normal transfers from C3 to D4 and from C1 to D2, and one unusual transfer from
C2v to D3v instead of to D1v. By this time the inner forme of C has been rinsed and is
available. The normal transfer of running-title from C1v to D1v completes the imposition of the inner forme of D.
It will be noted that inner D might have been imposed entirely with the skeleton from
outer C, had the broken running-title not been rejected. It remains a fact,
nevertheless, that the inner forme of D uses running-titles from both formes of C, thus
completing the cycle of four sets as in sheets A and B with the same pattern, X, Y, Z,
XY.
Laboring the point may be wasted effort, especially when one cannot explain exactly why
the pattern exists; the point is made because it suggests that sheets B and D were
completed at the end of a working day and immediately calls attention to a somewhat
similar pattern in Lear.[3]
In any case, composition was well ahead of presswork, the new compositor at work in D
is not needed to relieve any pressure, and the compositor evidently had sufficient type
for sixteen standing pages. As a corollary it seems clear that the resources of the shop
were fully utilized in the printing of these sheets.
If both formes of D marked the end of a working day, both skeletons might have been
available for the imposition of either forme of E. As a matter of fact, both formes of E
use running-titles from D. In sheet E, however, it is
rather difficult
to determine which forme was first imposed and printed because the outer forme of E uses
two running-titles from inner D and in addition a single running-title from each of two
other formes, outer C and inner C.
The problem is not insoluble, however, if we can correctly interpret the following
facts:
- 1. Title X from C1v is used on D1v
and E2v.
- 2. Title V from C2 is used on E1.
- 3. Titles IIIb and II from the other two pages of inner C were probably
distributed before outer E was machined, for we note that the initial A from title
IIIb is used to replace the rejected A in the previously set aside title IXa that
now appears on E4v.
- 4. The use of title X on E2v and VIII on E3 is the normal
pattern of running-title transfers from an inner to an outer forme; and the only
sensible reason why the other two titles from inner D were not used must be that the
other quarters, E1 and E4v, were already imposed.
In short, the compositor went back to earlier set-aside running-titles because neither
skeleton of D was available, but by the time he had imposed E1 and E4v, side-by-side on the stone, the skeletons of D had been rinsed and were
available. The needed two running-titles were taken from the quarters of inner D which
are appropriate to normal transfer from inner to outer formes, D1v
to E2v and D4 to E3.
Finally the entire skeleton of the outer forme of D was transferred in normal order to
the inner forme of E. And that concluded the printing of the first five sheets of the
play.
With sheet F a wholly new situation arises. All running-titles from the first five
sheets are discarded; they are replaced in sheet F by four new running-titles, one of
which has a comma instead of a period after the word "Masters."
These four are used in both formes of F and G and in the inner forme of H. Four other
running-titles, one of which has a badly broken upper case W in
the word "World", were used in outer H, and three of these in the
final three pages of the play, I1-2.
Apparently the outer forme of H was imposed and printed before the inner forme, a
second skeleton being introduced to speed up completion of the job. It is likely that
the order of the formes through the press was inner F, outer F, inner G, outer G, outer
H, inner H. There is obviously nothing to prevent simultaneous imposition of both formes
of I. In fact half-sheet imposition seems likely, the running-titles from outer H being
transferred as follows: H1 to I1, H2v to I1v, and H3 to I2.
Signatures F-I differ from the earlier sheets of the play in another important
respect—composition. The two efficient compositors of sheets A-E were replaced by
one compositor who is not an accomplished workman. His work is easily distinguished from
that of the other two by his spelling, by his handling
of contractions
and apostrophes, and by his sometimes stupid blunders, which are noticeable chiefly in
sheet H. Evidently, sheets F and G underwent some sort of correction, for we find only
three variants in these two sheets, two on F1
v and one on G3
v. When we find numerous errors throughout sheet H, the comparative
absence of errors in F and G strongly suggests that F and G underwent some sort of
proofing earlier.
Sheet H is truly amazing, exhibiting as it does both formes variant in wildly erratic
fashion. For instance we find in outer H in the uncorrected state these flaws: on H1
seven stupid blunders; on H2v a generally good page with one
nonsense line at the bottom; on H3 a faulty speech-tag, An.c
later changed to Anc.; on H4v a good
invariant page.
In inner H the situation is much the same; on H1v there are five
stupid blunders limited to the upper half of the page; signature H2 is invariant and
good, and shows signs of having been set or extensively corrected by the compositor of
the greater part of the first five sheets; on H3v one word is
wrong and one speech-tag is changed from Short. to Short.R.; signature H4 exists in three states. The wholly
uncorrected state,[4] found
only in the British Museum copy, has the incorrect catchword Short. All other copies properly read Mast Pan. The third
from the last line of text in this copy reads in part "ſhall I intreat a
cuteſy?" All other copies properly add the missing r in
"curteſy" and omit one of the l's in "ſhall", probably to avoid the
necessity of spacing out the line anew; it was certainly not lack of room in the line.
The British Museum copy uses Short. as a speech-tag five times.
The partially corrected states remove all the errors listed above except the use of Short., which is hardly an error. The twice corrected states change
Short. to Short.R. twice near the top of
the page, but leave it unexpanded the other three times it occurs. Here surely is
haphazard correction!
To complete the discussion of composition we may add that the three pages of sheet I
exist in two states. Signature I1 is uncorrected in the Dyce copy of the play in the
Victoria and Albert Museum. The variants in I1v and I2 seem to me
to be the result not of correction strictly speaking but of an accident in the course of
printing. In those copies of the play that do not lack the FINIS
the upper part of signatures I1v and I2 near their common margin
show signs of badly justified lines with type slipping from side to side. I assume that
the type in this area pied locally and necessitated re-adjustment. In those copies that
lack the FINIS these badly justified lines have been tightened
up, but in those areas mistakes have crept in; for instance the i from
"ſeriouſly" slips down into the next line with this result:
ſerouſly
ainother
When we add to all this evidence of careless work the significant fact that the badly
damaged running-titles in the last sheets of the book were not replaced, as were those
in the first sheets, we get a picture the cumulative force of which demonstrates beyond
a doubt that the two bibliographically distinguishable sections of A
Mad World were composed and printed in quite different ways.
Sheets A-E were carefully composed and printed with all the resources of Ballard's shop
directed toward turning out a reasonably good piece of work. Then for some reason the
printing of A Mad World was stopped. The distribution of
running-titles as outlined in step number three above suggests that the decision to set
aside this play was reached before sheet E was in the press, but after its type had been
set at least in part. When the printing was resumed, a wholly different attitude
prevailed. Composition was done by one man in the main, probably an apprentice,
certainly not a good compositor.
For, as I demonstrated before the Bibliographical Evidence group of the Modern Language
Association in Chicago, the entire play shows signs of having been set from Middleton's
holograph manuscript, and Middleton's handwriting is very easy to read, unlikely to
prove troublesome to a good compositor. Even the printing did not make use of all the
facilities of Ballard's shop, presumably because his accomplished workmen were busy with
some other job.
This entire analysis undoubtedly introduces more questions than answers, but it may
prove helpful to some other student with a similar bibliographical problem.