:: :: University of Virginia Library

A Midsummer Night's Dream Q1, printed "probably by Richard Bradock"[1] for Thomas Fisher in 1600, is a book of thirty-two unnumbered leaves. It collates A-H4. A1 is the title page, A1v is a blank; A2 bears the head title. The text, commencing on A2, is completed fourteen lines down on H4v, the remaining white space on that page being partially filled by a circular ornament. All leaves are signed with the conventional roman cap and arabic numeral, except F2 where an italic cap and H4 where a small cap are used. The speech-prefixes, which are indented, are set in italic caps and lower case, with some substitutions of small caps, and the stage-directions in italics with personae usually, but not always, in roman. Entrance directions are usually centered (exceptions occur on D2v, F1v, and H1v) and exit and other subordinate directions are placed in the margin unless they are fairly elaborate as they are on F4v and H1. There is nothing very striking about the typography; on cursory examination the book seems to be a run-of-the-mine Elizabethan dramatic quarto. Neither variations in spelling nor typographical abnornalities indicate that it was set up by more than one compositor.

A close look at the running-titles, however, gives us our first hint that the procedure adopted for printing was not so straightforward as may at first appear. Separately signed preliminaries, we have long known, were often printed after the text,[2] but when the preliminaries and the beginning of the text share sheet A we have some right to expect that sheet to have been set up and machined before the rest of the text. The running-titles, however, show us that sheet A of MND Q1 was the last sheet to go through the press. The book was worked in two skeleton-formes, one regularly imposing the inner and the other the outer formes.[3] The running-titles read on both recto and verso "A Midsommer nightes dreame." except on H3v where we find "A Midsommer nights dreame." Significant changes were made in two titles during the course of printing: (1) The "g" appearing in the title used on B3 and C3 (IV in the diagram below) was replaced at D4v, and the new type appears on E4v, F4v, G4v, H3, and A4v. (2) The title used on B4v and C4v (VII) is characterized by a broken "r" and a defective "e" in "dreame." At D3 a break in the "M" also appears, and the three defects are found together on E2v and F3 (where the two "e's" of "dreame" were exchanged in position). At G2v the "r" seems to have been replaced, and the "e" prints somewhat better than usual. When the title appears on H1, only the break in the "M" and the new "r" are evident, and only these two characteristics can be observed in the title as it appears on A3v.

It is then clear that sheet A was printed after sheet H, and with the aid of the following diagram, in which the running-titles are represented by roman numerals, we can understand why running-title IV, which is normally found in the same forme with VII and VIII, happened to be dissociated from them in sheet A:[4]

H(o), which, as I shall show below, must have been the first-printed forme of its sheet, evidently came from the press about the time the type pages of A(i) were ready for imposition, and it was thus convenient to impose A(i) in the H(o) skeleton. However, because A(i) contained a blank (A1v) and the head-title (A2), two of the H(o) running-titles, IV and V, were displaced. When the skeleton for A(o) was later made up, running-title IV, being available, was used together with two running-titles from the H(i) skeleton, that forme having been machined and its skeleton freed. Knowing that H(o) was sent to press before H(i) and that earlier in the book all the outer formes were imposed in the same skeleton used for H(o), and all the inner formes in the same one used for H(i), we can infer that outer formes of all sheets but A regularly preceded inner formes through the press.

An examination of the reappearances in various parts of the book of certain recognizable types shows that composition was by formes.[5] Let us first consider the implications of type reappearances in the first two sheets to be set. Type from B(o) is found in both formes of sheet C:

d B1,18-C1v,8
F B1,27-C1v,34
k B2v,1-C1,8(?)
b B2v,23-C4,26(?)
f B2v,33-C3,33
y B3,7-C2v, 7
h B3,10-C1,1
ſt B3,10-C2v,15
B B3,sig.-C1v-23
N B4v,7-C3,16
ſſ B4v,24-C1v,5

whereas in C type from B(i) is found only in part of C(i):

d B2,2-C3v,7
f B2,14-C3v,16
h B2,25-C3v,11
y B2,27-C3v,34
W B4,8-C4,7

Similarly, type from C(o) is found in both formes of D:

d C1,7-D3,24
g C1,9-D3,24
d C1,28-D2v,31
p C1,29-D4v,23
y C2v,7-D4v,22
y C2v,18-D3,17
w C2v,24-D2v,30
m C3,5-D2,14
m C3,6-D2,14
N C3,16-D1v,5
u C4v,12-D1v,32
k C4v,30-D1v,20
u C4v,32-D1v,24

and type from C(i) in D only in D(i):

ſſ C1v,5-D3v,23
d C1v,7-D4,4
n C1v,33-D4,28
A C2,21-D3v,4
n C2,24-D3v,3
d C2,31-D4,10

When type reappears in this manner, composition cannot have been seriatim. Had it been so, B(o), to consider the forme which must have been distributed before the composition of sheet C had got very far along, could not have been made ready for the press until B4v had been set. The workman would then have started on sheet C, but we have evidence that B(o) had been worked off and distributed before he reached line 5 of C1v, that is, after he had set only a page of the new forme. Presumably B(i) would then have perfected its sheet, but this forme too was distributed during the setting of sheet C. The press, then, would have been delayed for at least the length of time required to set C3v and C4 before the first forme of C could have been imposed. We know, of course, that press delays sometimes occurred, but, if we examine the reappearances of sheet C type in sheet D, we will find that there too a delay would have resulted from seriatim setting and so through the rest of the book. It seems clear, then, that B(o) was completely set and sent to the press before B(i), that it was machined and ready for distribution before the composition of C(o) was begun, that B(i) was off the press and distributed during the setting of C(i) — in short, that the book generally was set by formes. But, as we shall see when we examine the type shortage evidence, this is not the whole story.

The same pattern of reappearances can be seen in most of the subsequent sheets. D(o) type is found in both formes of E:

m D1,13-E3v,8(?)
k D1,14-E4v,24
k D1,21-E4v,23
I D1,23-E4,10
r D2v,12-E4,27
W D2v,14-E1v,31
k D2v,17-E1v,24
m D4v,1-E2,13(?)

and D(i) type in E only in E(i):

N D1v,5-E1v,35(?)
k D1v,20-E2,8
u D1v,24-E3v,23
ſt D1v,25-E3v,31
m D2,14-E3v,24
y D2,27-E2,1
B D2,32-E1v,7
S D4,27-E4,30

E(o) type in both formes of F:

d E1,5-F1v,27
o E1,18-F2,14
n E1,29-F2,26
B E1,31-F1v,29
d E2v,32-F2,10
y E3,12-F4v,33
m E3,17-F4v,23
u E3,26-F4v,3
b E3,29-F4v,21
ſh E4v,25-F1v,7

and E(i) type in part of F(i):

B E1v,7-F3v,26
f E1v,13-F3v,16
k E1v,24-F3v,25
W E1v,31-F4,33

F(o) type in both formes of G:

I F1,7-G1v,27
M F1,13-G4v,9(?)
ſh F1,18-G4v,10
m F2v,5-G2,13(?)
d F2v,28-G2,29
b F3,6-G2,3
W F3,7-G4v,8
ſſ F3,16,G1v,29
u F4v,3-G2,11
M F4v,17-G1v,29

and F(i) type in G(i) [and also in H (o); see fn.11]:

W F1v,2-G3v,3
d F1v,27-G3v,5
B F1v,29-G3v,21
g F2,8-G3v,5
d F2,10-G4,30

G(o) type, however, is found only in H(i) rather than in both formes of that sheet:

u G1,5-H3v,8
h G1,11-H1v,18
ſt G1,12-H1v,32
m G1,14-H2,3
m G1,16-H2,1
r G2v,19-H2,28
ſi G2v,26-H2,15
ſt G3,11-H4,14(?)
m G4v,24-H4,22
A G4v,26-H1v,13
L G4v,27-H1v,31
y G4v,31-H2,32

and G(i) type does not reappear before sheet A:

y G1v,17-A2,13
S G1v,26-A2v,5(?)
B G1v,32-A2v,34(?)
d G2,26-A3v,17
w G3v,2-A2v,10(?)
ſſ G4,2-A4,28(?)
h G4,4-A2v,8(?)
k G4,12-A3,26
d G4,15-A3v,18
ſ G4,22-A2v,10(?)
d G4,30-A3,23(?)

H(o) type reappears in A(o), but I find no H(i) type in sheet A:

k H1,1-A2v,17(?)
f H1,5-A4v,8
y H2v,17-A2v,20(?)
y H2v,18-A2v,6
h H2v,24-A3,21
k H3,21-A2v,34
L H3,31-A2v,5(?)

We can confirm, on this evidence, the inference drawn from our examination of the running-titles. It appears that B(o) was first composed and was machined while composition continued on B(i). The reappearance of B(o) type in both formes of C shows that B(o) was distributed before the composition of C(o) had gotten very far along; if we trust the identification of the "y" at C2v,7, we can say that it must have been distributed before that line was set. B(i), it is seen, was distributed after C(o) was completed but before the compositor had gotten more than half way through C(i).

This relationship between composition, presswork, and distribution seems to hold good throughout most of the book, but at sheet G certain abnormalities begin to appear: G(o), which should have been distributed before or early in the compostion of H (o), was apparently not distributed until the setting of that forme was completed, G(i) until after H(i) was composed,[6] and H(o) until after G(i) was completed. We thus have evidence that during the composition of sheet G the time relationship which had existed between the compositor and the press was disturbed, but we cannot without further examination tell what the cause of this disturbance was.

Of the evidence examined so far, two completely different interpretations

seem possible. The compositor may have finished the setting of the material cast off for G and H(o) so fast that he was able to impose H(o) before the press had worked off G(o). On the other hand, he may have been so delayed in setting that, although G(o) was returned from the press and available for distribution at the proper time, he deliberately put off its distribution until he could get a new forme, H(o), ready for imposition, thus avoiding or reducing a press delay. Sheet G does contain a little less material than other sheets; throughout the book the usual line count per page is thirty-five, and so it is in G except for G1, G1v, and G2v, which contain thirty-four lines and G2, which contains only thirty-two. The sheet as a whole contains six fewer lines than others, but this reduction, it seems to me, is more than balanced by prose passages on G1v, G2, and G2v. Thus we cannot account for an increase in the speed of composition on the grounds that the material in sheet G would have been easier to set than that in the earlier sheets.

To this point I have suggested that there were only two methods of composition—seriatim and by formes—available to the workman who set the type, and I have argued that the latter method was employed in MND Q1. Yet we must realize that when a compositor set a quarto by formes he did not necessarily have to set the type-pages in numerical sequence within the formes, although it is my distinct impression that this order was usually adopted. Nor did the compositor necessarily have to set either by formes or seriatim; he could, if he chose, combine the two methods. Although we can be reasonably sure that MND Q1 was in general set outer forme first, we might now see what we can tell about the order in which the pages of each forme were composed and whether the compositor ever deviated from strict adherence to the method which he generally followed.

In order to do this we must use type-shortage evidence in combination with the evidence of type reappearances. By itself the testimony of shortages is, I believe, less reliable than that of any other bibliographical technique. We generally assume that when a compositor ran short of type of a certain kind, say roman capital A, he substituted for it another appropriate kind of type, say italic capital A or small capital a, and that he continued his deliberate use of wrong-font letters until his supply of proper types was replenished by distribution. There is no doubt that compositors substituted in this manner: we can in some instances determine exactly how many types of a particular kind were in the case; we can see these types being used up, substitutions for them

being made, the original supply being reused after distribution, and then the cycle repeating itself.[7]

What sometimes complicates matters is that compositors apparently did not always wait until the supply of regular type was completely exhausted before they began to substitute, and then when distributing they did not always separate the substituted from the regular type but evidently distributed both into the same box in such a way that the two sorts later appear in a more-or-less random mixture. Even when attempts seem to have been made to keep the two sorts separated, once substituting began compositors seem occasionally to have substituted when they had plenty of the regular type on hand, probably because the supply of regular type became fouled during distribution. However, the reliability of type shortage evidence can be increased when we evaluate it in the light of type reappearances, but even here we can be forced away from the most desirable position by occasionally having to take into account the evidence of only one or two reappearing types and sometimes having to argue from the non-reappearance of type. Both are bad policies because mistakes in individual type identifications are easy to make and reappearances are easy to miss.

With these precautions in mind, let us examine the type substitution in MND Q1. In sheet B we find that a shortage of roman capital A was made good by the substitution of small capital A, as follows (here and subsequently, numbers to the left of the stroke represent types of the proper kind and those to the right substituted types):[8]

		B(o)				B(i)
	1	2v	3	4v	1v	2	3v	4
A/a	5/0	2/0	5/0	10/0	6/0	8/1	8/5	4/1

Here it seems evident that in order to stretch a dwindling supply of A's the workman began to substitute occasionally on B2 and continued to do so through the rest of the sheet. The pattern is consistent with our earlier conclusion that B(o) was first completed, and we can say that

B2, B3v, and B4 of B(i) were probably composed after the rest of the type-pages in the sheet. It is a safe guess that all of B(o) was set before work began on B(i), but we cannot absolutely rule out such an order as B1-B1v-B2v-B3-B4v-B2, etc.

If this seems a borrowing of trouble, we might look at the next sheet, where once again the A's run short:

		C(o)				C(i)
	1	2v	3	4v	1v	2	3v	4
A/a	10/0	0/4	0/2	0/4	9/0	6/0	4/0	2/0

Type reappearances tell us that B(o) was almost certainly distributed by the time C2v was set and possibly before much of C1 was set (on the dubious evidence of the "k" at C1,8). The type substitution pattern indicates that the earlier point is the correct one. But B(o) contained twenty-two A's. Why, then, did the compositor begin to substitute on C2v when he should have had twelve A's available even if he had completely exhausted his supply in completing B(i)? Evidently he did not set in the sequence indicated above, but as follows:

				C
	1	1v	2	2v	3	4v	3v	4
A/a	10/0	9/0	6/0	0/4	0/2	0/4	4/0	2/0

Here twenty-five A's are used before substitution begins at C2v, a reasonable number if twenty-two came from B(o) and a few remained after B(i) was completed. Moreover, we found no B(i) types in any pages of C(o) or on C1v or C2. Apparently the compositor's intention was to set the sheet seriatim, but, upon completing C3 and realizing that he could not get the inner forme completed in time to avoid a press delay, he set C4v, thus completing the outer forme first. The supply of A's was replenished by the distribution of B(i) after C4v was set and before work started on C3v.

The evidence in sheet D is weaker, but the best indications are that the compositor did not try to revert to seriatim setting:

		D(o)			D(i)
	1	2v	3	4v	1v	2	3v	4
A/a	7/0	5/0	8/0	5/0	--	6/1	5/0	7/0

Twenty-six A's were returned to the case with the distribution of B(i); six were required for C3v and C4 and seven for D1, at which point, according to the type reappearances, C(o), containing ten A's, was distributed. There were, then, at least twenty-three A's in the case when work started on D2v. By the time the single A was introduced on

the next-to-last line of D2, twenty-four A's had been used, a close enough tally. As type reappearances indicate, C(i) was distributed at this point. We can thus be reasonably sure that, since D2, D3v, and D4 were set after the other pages of the sheet, the order shown is correct.

In sheet E two new shortages are found:

			E(o)			E(i)
	1	2v	3	4v	1v	2	3v	4
A/a	7/6	0/2	3/2	4/0	3/0	5/0	2/0	6/0
H/h	1/1	2/1	0/3	1/1	3/0	1/0	1/0	2/3
H/h	3/0	9/0	4/0	11/0	4/0	7/1	3/6	0/7

Type reappearances tell us that D(o) was distributed before or during the setting of E4v: as we have noted above, one D(o) type appears at E4v,23 and another at E4v,24. Since the first A on that page occurs at line 14 and since the small cap H for roman capital H occurs at line 11 and the one roman capital H (used incorrectly for an H) at line 24, we can probably believe that the compositor stopped work temporarily at line 12 or 13 to distribute D(o). The number of types used is close to the number that we can estimate to have been available. The distribution of C(i) had returned twenty-one A's and nine H's to the case, and we have reason to think that the supply of A's, at least, was low at the time of distribution. Nineteen A's were used on D3v, D4, and E1, where the substitution commences, and three more on E3, just before the next distribution. Seven H's were consumed in D3v and D4 and four more used before the supply was replenished.

Type reappearances also indicate that D(i) was distributed very shortly after D(o), the first type from this forme reappearing on E1v. Before the composition of E started, the case was resupplied with eighteen A's, enough to finish out the forme with no substitutions, but only eight H's and no H's. Thus small-cap h's were introduced in place of both these letters late in the forme. Once again it looks as though composition must have gone in normal sequential order within the formes.

The situation in sheet F is not quite so clear. Here another series of substitution begins:

		F(o)			F(i)
	1	2v	3	4v	1v	2	3v	4
A/a	7/0	5/0	3/0	2/0	8/0	4/0	5/1	0/5
H/h	1/0	3/0	2/0	1/0	2/0	1/2	2/0	1/0
H/h	0/4	0/1	--	4/1	--	1/0	--	0/1
T/t	--	--	4/0	6/1	--	--	2/1	3/4

Type reappearances tell us that E(o) was distributed between the setting of F3 and F4v, testimony that is confirmed by the reappearance of H's on that page. The substitution for T after F3 is to be expected because E(o) had contained but one piece of this type. Yet, twenty-seven H's would have been returned from E(o) and there should have been no substitution for this letter on F4v or F4. The h on F4v, however, is found in line 1 and may have been set before the distribution was made, and that on F4 is found in the catchword, a fact which may somehow make a difference. These two aberrant substitutions we may be able to accept, but the presence of H's on F1, F2v, and F3 also creates a problem, since substitutions for this letter had begun on E4v and the resumption of the exclusive use of H suggests that the distribution may have occurred at F1. The whole affair is rather unsatisfactory, but I would rather believe that the compositor, perhaps influenced by the genuine shortage of H's, unnecessarily set a few h's for H on E4 (he had, after all, at least thirteen H's in the case when he began E (i)—six from D(o) and eight from D(i) less one used on E4v) than that, if E(o) had been distributed before F1, he would continue to substitute unnecessarily for H through two pages and that no recognizable types from E(o) could be found until F4v. I believe, then, that the order shown for F(o) is probably correct.[9]

Upon the completion of this forme, the workman seems to have gone ahead with F(i), setting F1v, F2, and perhaps part of F3v, and then suspending composition to distribute E1v, as type reappearances suggest. From this single type page only three A's, three H's, and no T's were returned to the case, thus necessitating substitution for the A's and T's required by F3v and F4. The rest of the standing type seems to have been distributed after F(i) was imposed.[10]

Sheet G too seems to have been set in regular order within the formes:

		G(o)			G(i)
	1	2v	3	4v	1v	2	3v	4
A/a	4/0	5/0	4/0	8/0	7/0	1/0	7/0	4/2
H/h	2/0	1/0	2/4	1/3	1/0	3/0	2/0	1/0
H/h	4/1	1/1	1/1	1/0	6/0	--	--	2/0
T/t	--	2/1	1/4	3/4	--	4/0	3/3	0/3

When E2, E3v, and E4 were distributed just before the setting of G1 began, the supply of A's, H's, and T's seems to have been nearly exhausted. The distribution returned to the case thirteen A's, four H's, ten H's, and two T's. Type reappearances indicate that at least two pages of F(o)—F1 and F3—were distributed between the setting of G3 and G4v. In the composition of the first three pages of G(o), exactly thirteen A's were used, but the newly provided H's and T's were inadequate and substitutions were required for both letters. The occasional use of h's for H's throughout G1, G2v, and G3 was unnecessary since there were about thirty-six of the italic pieces in the case when the composition of G(o) began, and I can account for their appearance only on the supposition that some small caps had accidentally been mixed with the italic. Because the distribution of F1 and F3 provided ten A's but only three H's and four T's, we find no substitution on F4v in the A's but continued substitution in the H's and T's. The distribution of the other two pages of F(o) apparently took place after G(o) was imposed and brought in seven A's, four H's, four H's, and six T's, which type supplied the demands of the pages of G(i) until, as type reappearances suggest, F1v and F2 were distributed between the setting of G2 and G3v. These two pages of F(i) returned to the case twelve A's, of which eleven were consumed before a's were introduced near the bottom of G4; three H's and one H, enough to hold good through the rest of the sheet; but no T's, thus causing substitution for this letter to begin on G3v. The remaining pages of F(i) were distributed after the imposition of G(i).[11]

In the two remaining sheets, H and A, I can see no indication that the type pages were not set in sequential order within the formes, although the type-shortage evidence is not so clear as it might be. It would seem that by this time all of the regular boxes were becoming fouled with the small caps and that substitutions were sometimes made accidentally. In sheet H a new shortage appears:

		H(o)				H(i)
	1	2v	3	4v	1v	2	3v	4
A/a	4/0	3/0	2/6	1/2	5/0	4/0	4/0	5/0
H/h	2/0	--	2/1	--	1/0	5/0	--	1/2
H/h	--	--	--	--	1/0	1/0	1/0	--
T/t	7/1	0/2	0/4	--	1/8	1/1	1/0	0/1
P/p	3/0	4/0	1/2	--	2/6	--	2/0	--

		A(i)				A(o)
	1v	2	3v	4	1	2v	3	4v
A/a	--	6/0	5/3	2/3	--	5/1	1/0	4/0
H/h	--	4/0	--	1/1	--	--	--	1/0
H/h	--	2/1	6/0	6/0	--	2/2	4/0	6/2
T/t	--	1/2	0/1	--	1/0	1/1	3/0	1/0
P/p	--	1/0	--	--	--	--	--	--

Type reappearances testify that F3v and F4 (containing five A's, three H's, no H's, five T's, and one P) were distributed at H1, G(o) (twenty-one A's, six H's, seven H's, six T's, and six P's) at H1v, G(i) (nineteen A's, seven H's, eight H's, seven T's, and fourteen P's) at A2, and H(o) (ten A's, four H's, no H's, and seven T's) at A1 or A2v. The substitutions throughout H(o) bear out the time of distribution of G(o), but after this the substitutions seem to occur rather erratically. It is possible that some pages within the formes may have been set out of order (e.g., A3-A4v-A2v-A1), but I can see no evidence strong enough to determine the matter. The occasional substitution in the text of t for T on H3, H4v, H2, H3v, H4, and A3 suggests that these pages may have been the last set within their respective formes.

With the information we have thus gained, we can with some confidence chart the progress of composition as follows:

From this we can draw several inferences. It seems likely that the compositor, working on the assumption that composition and presswork could stay more-or-less in balance, originally intended to follow the conventional procedure for setting by formes—to compose two formes, distribute the first, set the third, distribute the second, and so on. That B(o) was machined in the time required to set the four type pages of B(i) or perhaps even a little less time is indicated by its distribution before the composition of C began. Thus the speed of the press, which barring accidents would have remained fairly constant, is established as the rate at which about four type pages could be composed. The compositor could alter this time relationship in his own favor by increasing his normal rate of work or by setting quick pages—pages with short lines or plenty of white space—but I doubt that in setting normal material he could gain more than a page in a forme, if that much. His attempt to shift to seriatim setting in sheet C caused him to delay the distribution of B(i) until he could get B(o) ready for the press, for that forme was probably returned to him while he was setting C2v or C3. The distribution of C(o) only three type-pages after B(i) is a further indication that the press was working at something like its original rate and that the compositor deliberately delayed the distribution of B(i).

Thus we have reason to believe that throughout the book certain formes may have been distributed later than they should have been, not because the compositor had gained on the press, but because he wanted to get a new forme imposed or get within a page or so of imposition before he temporarily stopped composing to distribute. Further, we can understand the nearly simultaneous distribution of the two formes of D; the piecemeal distribution of E(i), F(o), and F(i), attempts to get some type on hand during the composition of a forme without using any more time than necessary; and the distribution of G(o), H(o), and G(i) four type pages late in each instance.