University of Virginia Library

V

The process of font analysis aims at detecting discriminants which differentiate two or more fonts. Since White-M and Stafford-EF combine extensive S-face bases with an alternate-face (Y-face, EF-face subset), they contain far more discriminants than typical same-face fonts, a situation which, in combination with their worn condition and the poor printing quality in Fools, makes them ideal for illustrating the problems encountered in the typical search process which employs reproductions for the initial stage of comparative analysis. Font analysis, as a method, benefits from a comparison of perceived stylistic variants in a font with similar variants in other fonts in order to establish that they are genuine and historically demonstrable rather than transient effects of wear, damage, inking and printing. Ideally, variants could be verified by reference to an extant founder's specimen of a typeface so that any transformations in composition could be easily detected.[36] In practice, the appearance of a typeface in other books usually is the only kind of specimen available for comparative analysis, although these can reflect a different state of the typeface occasioned by practical circumstances.[37] Although neither White-M nor Stafford-EF correspond to any extant specimen, a preliminary examination of the two fonts in Fools CD, I, and EF reveals capitals, lowercase letters, and ligatures that obviously combine an S-font with smaller alternate-faces quite similar to the Y-face, suggesting that specimens of the two faces in other books (or other sections of the book) be used as a reference point during analysis. Similarly, Guyot-style letters ('G', short second-stem 'w', 'g k p q z fi') call for reference to the Guyot pica specimen in Low Countries (Fig. 203, p. 268) or books by Henry Bynneman or George Bishop. Previous study of fonts in other books can also suggest reference specimens; in this instance, similar fonts had been noted in Whore EF (Simmes as primary printer, others unidentified), Monsieur d'Olive EF (Creede, sharing unnoted), The Seven Deadly Sins (STC6522, 1606, Edward Allde), Every Man in his Humour (STC 14766, 1601, Simon Stafford) and Lymbo-Mastix (STC19295, 1607, George Eld).

The analytical process progresses through three stages that vary in scope and precision: (1) an initial seriatim survey of the book for discriminants consisting of obvious wrong-face and stylistically variant letters and punctuation; (2) a more complete and precise survey of each possible section of a book aimed at detecting subtle stylistic variants and devising font composite(s); and (3) a comparison of variants in the two fonts to isolate both stylistic and quantitative discriminants. The analysis must proceed in an orderly fashion from gathering to gathering, first focusing upon the capitals, then ligatures, punctuation and lower-case groups. The seriatim order is essential because the divisions of labor in shared books follow no logical pattern; moreover,

time pressure is a practical factor that invites such haste and must be resisted in font analysis.[38] The assumption that a shared book was printed in halves is valid in The Fawne Q1-2; however, Windet-S and Windet-F alternate in an anomalous pattern within his section (E-I). Likewise, the "two gatherings per printer" assumption is frequently valid in shared books. However, if either assumption led to a hasty survey of Pericles (STC22335, 1609, White and Creede), for example, by jumping from A to C, the presence of Creede-5 in B could be overlooked. Similarly, Fools was divided in an illogical order, with Eld doing AB, GH, K, printer #2 doing CD and then I between Eld's H and K, and printer #3 doing EF. d'Olive is an even more devious case. The shift from Creede-4 on A4v to a Y-font on B1 is obvious and presents a temptation to skip to B4v and C1, where an obvious shift from the Y-font to a mixed S-font occurs; however, yielding to the temptation would occasion the oversight that inner-B is also printed in an S-font (Creede-4 again) and then the B-outer Y-font reappears in G-H3v. Admittedly, this instance of one printer perfecting a sheet begun in another shop is almost unique but emphasizes the fact that books were printed forme by forme. As an illustration of the process, the results of the first and third stages of analysis of Fools are summarized here. While the possibility of distinct fonts in CD, I, and EF is hinted at in the first stage, the evidence that emerges at this stage usually is too general and includes potential discriminants that eventually are discarded as insignificant in the final stage of comparative analysis. In general, it can be assumed that replenishment introduces quantities of wrong-face letters that can be detected in the initial survey, while low-density foul-case letters will usually be overlooked.

First Stage

Capitals. Uniform Y-face capitals appear in Eld's section (AB, GH, K) except for a few foul-case S-face capitals. The presence of both S-face and alternate-face capitals in C-F, I, approximates the pattern of extensive replenishment in Purfoot-Y, and at first glance suggests a single font. The single major discriminant occurs in the oversized (height: 2.9mm, 96mm letter), awkward, right-leaning 'W' in EF, but its cogency is undercut by four appearances (F1:16, F4:12,32, F4v:20) of the normal 'W' found in CD, I, which raises the possibility of two sets of cross-contaminated cases rather than two independent fonts. Similarly, the few alternate-face symmetrical 'M' cut across the possible CD, I, and EF boundaries (C3v:18, E1v:19, E4:21, E4v:14, I2:32). However, two anomalies are limited to CD, I: three appearances of a Guyot 'G' (C2v:14, D2v:21, I3:18) and the 76mm 'Y' in D and I (D2:34, D4v:15,16,17, I1:21, I2v:25, I3v:2), which could be interpreted as transient fouling (see later discussion) of one of two cases. Alternate-face letters 'E K R V Z' are lacking in CD, I, and 'O S V Z' do not appear in EF, but these omissions must be viewed cautiously as supplemental evidence, since non-appearance does not prove non-existence. Both S-face and alternate 'I T' occur in roughly equal proportions throughout. In general, the evidence of capitals clearly indicates

a distinction between AB, GH, K, and C-F, I, but is ambiguous regarding a further split in the latter section. The fact that two different styles of alternate-face capitals appear in CD, I, and EF cannot be determined from a reproduction.

Punctuation. Fouling with italic query and black letter colon, query and period can be dismissed as insignificant, since these occur throughout the text; similarly, S-face query occurs throughout C-F, I. Eld's section uses the Y-face query consistently. An obvious discriminant occurs in the exclusive appearances of Y-face query in CD, I, and the large Guyot query in EF.

Ligatures. Uniform Y-face ligatures occur in Eld's section. The evidence is ambiguous in C-F, I, since S-face and alternate-face variants occur in the ligatures. The S-face ligatures are obvious, but given the printing quality of Fools, it is improbable that the double variants (excluding S-face) in several ligatures would be detected at this stage, since examination in an original is necessary.

Lower-case. Again, Eld's section uniformly uses Y-face letters fouled by about a dozen S-face letters. The evidence is ambiguous with respect to further subdividing C-F, I, since most obvious variants seem to appear throughout. Except for some S-face g1 (CD, I) and g2 (EF), differentiating other variants requires examination in an original, including the bold variants of 'b d f h', condensed and wider variants of 'k p u v x y', the oversized 't,' the squarish w4 and the bowed outer-stems w3, the Y-face (CD, I) and Guyot (EF) 'g', and S-face k1 (CD, I) and poorly-printing or damaged EF-face k1-k2 (EF). Overall, the lower-case evidence as seen in a reproduction could easily suggest a single font in C-F, I.

Second and Third Stages

The first stage of analysis, in short, clearly indicates a distinct Y-font in Eld's section, but yields ambiguous evidence as to whether one or two fonts appear in C-F, I. The few major differences seen in CD, I, and EF suggest that the second stage of analysis proceed with an awareness of a possible division at the D4v-E1 boundary. The comparison at high magnification of numerous samples of each letter within the sequence of gatherings focuses upon stylistic structure and minute variations in size in order to complete the font composites and isolate variants. In this instance, the analysis of E1 yields new variants not seen in CD, suggesting that a second font composite be devised. The division of labor in Fools, with I separated from CD by EF, automatically requires moving to the third stage of analysis which consists of a comparison of the font in I with the refined evidence accumulated in the two composites. In other cases, the font composite from a section of one book usually is compared with a font in another book. The third stage of analysis of Fools focuses on the lower-case and ligatures. A summary of the results is given in the Appendix.

Overall, the comparative analysis of CD, I, and EF confirmes their separate identity and the assignment of their respective sections to two sharing

printers. In addition to distinguishing the divisions of labor in Fools, the analytical process produces font composites of CD, I, and EF which are the basis for a search of other books aimed at establishing the identities of the two printers. Once a similar font is located in another book, a font composite is used to determine whether the fonts are identical in the same manner that the CD and EF composites identify the font in I of Fools.[39] In this instance, the font in EF of Whore and The Converted Courtesan (STC6501, 6501a, 1604) exhibits obvious similarities to EF, including the awkward 'W', large Guyot '?' and other discriminants. Analysis of the two fonts shows a precise stylistic correspondence in all particulars as well as some shifts in proportions attributable to time. Some discriminants appear in greater proportions such as the condensed 'fi' and 'ſſ' ligatures in Whore. The only major difference occurs in the appearance of eleven transient foul-case italic 'I' in Whore E3v that were purged before Fools. While the same font is in both books, the unfortunate fact remains at this point (as often happens) that the font appears in shared sections of Whore, Courtesan and Fools by one unidentified printer. Nonetheless, the identification of Fools EF in Whore EF and Eld-Y1 in G-K along with previously identified Simmes-S in AB of Whore establishes the division of labor among the sharing printers and clarifies previous problems about the printing of the two editions, leaving only the identity of the printers unresolved.[40] The search process for unidentified printers is unpredictable, but once suitable candidates are located, the font composite usually easily decides the matter. Whore CD prints in an S-font characterized by low-riding capitals in many sorts and a resident cluster of foul-case italic capitals, traits which identify it as Creede-4 (see below). Similarly, the exclusive discriminants of EF link it to Simon Stafford. A comparison of Fools CD, I, to EF of d'Olive yields positive verification of the identity of this font, but again it belongs to an unidentified printer. The proportions of S-face g1 and Y-face 'g' remain the same, although the S-face k1 seems to decrease slightly; the variants in the ligatures are the same; and anomalous letters reappear such as the few Guyot 'G' and short second-stem 'w', the condensed 'ff' (F1v:34), and the Y-face 'ct' (Fools, D1v:23, D3:11; d'Olive, E1v:5). Identification of a few damaged types completes the process. Since the font composite successfully distinguished Fools CD, I, from EF and identified d'Olive EF, the eventual identification of the printer is a virtual certainty, given a dogged persistence and a good dose of luck. In this instance, White-M's seven years of replenishment and deterioration between LLL and Fools, compounded by the poor printing quality of Fools, buried some critical evidence in the blotted images of the reproductions which were laboriously (6 weeks) examined before consulting originals. The unique 'th' ligature of White-M appeared clearly enough in the reproductions of LLL; the equally unique 'ch' ligature, however, was totally overlooked; neither were hinted at in Fools and d'Olive. Once originals were consulted, the 'th' was easily confirmed, the 'ch' discovered (LLL, A2:10, A2v:38, A4v:3, B1v:24), and then the remnant 'th' recognised in Fools (C2:4 "either", 7 "mirth") and d'Olive (E1:14,15); the few 'ch' of LLL seem to have been exhausted during the intervening years. Finally, the reproductions were inadequate for confirming that the alternate-face in White-M actually is a Y-face.