I
Several kinds of facts normally noted in the routine examination of
a book suggest that the font(s) in which it is printed be analyzed in order
to settle the issue of shared printing. Strictly speaking, such facts are not
"evidence" of shared printing but rather should be viewed as "clues" to that
possibility. In general, these clues represent disruptions in the regular
patterns established earlier in a book in one or more aspects of printing
style or method of imposition and almost always occur at the boundaries
between sections of a shared book. Despite this coincidence, the analysis
of the font(s) in the book provides the only entirely reliable evidence that
the disruption is attributable to sharing rather than to some irregularity in
normal shop procedure during the machining of the book.
(1)
A disruption in the sequence of signature alphabets usually occurs
only in long shared books but is not a necessary adjunct of sharing.
Essays STC 18041, for example, runs through continuous
alphabets although Eld printed Book 3 at 2S-3C and Simmes resumed with
Book 4 at 3D. A sharing strategy based upon the division of a text into
units such as books or parts or some other form of sub-heading may invite
a shift in alphabets that was not necessarily implemented even in shared
books. Stafford printed the title, preliminaries and part of the text (L-O2)
of Part 1 of Essays STC5775 (1600), while Read(?) did Part
2
about a year later. Despite the gap in production, Parts 1 and 2 are
continuously signed with the split at O2/O3. However, the two books of
Treatise of Antichrist STC7120 (1603) are separately signed.
Eld printed the title and preliminaries and most of Book 2 while Braddock
printed Book 1. The division into three sections in An
Apology
STC19295
is accompanied by shifts to new alphabets which reliably indicate the
general pattern of sharing. The title (with Eld's imprint),
preliminaries, and Book 1 are signed ¶-E, whereas Book 2 commences
with a new alphabet at [F1] running 2A-O; then the third shared section
begins with a third alphabet running 3A-N4. In this instance, Eld's sharing
strategy was obviously based upon the natural divisions by books and the
flexibility in production schedule offered by non-sequential signing.
Jaggard's machining of Book 2, in effect, was temporally independent of
Eld's work on Book 1. At some point, Eld took over Book 2 after Jaggard's
long stint 2A-O and began the third alphabet.
Perfectly logical sharing strategies in Elizabethan printing, however,
must be held suspect until confirmed by font analysis. In each of the
foregoing examples, font analysis reveals further sharing within sections:
the font Creede-3 appears in B-K of STC5775 Pt. 1; Creede-4 appears in
STC7120 2H-M; and Jaggard's three fonts alternate in 3H-K of STC19295.
In general, no irregularity in signing occurs in short texts requiring only
one alphabet,
although a few isolated instances can be found such as
Vertumnus STC12555 where Okes printed A-C2v, and Eld
began his section 2B-H with a repeated alphabet. It should be noted that
both the preliminaries and first sheet of text are frequently signed A as a
matter of course. Although fairly uncommon in quartos, a shift in
pagination can provide a clue to a sharing division. For example, Islip
paginates his first section of
De Missa STC23456 1-325, and
the sharing printer not only repeats the alphabet but also begins with the
second page 1.
Signature-alphabet shifts occur sometimes in a particular class of
books consisting of a primary title/text and an appended secondary title/text.
It is not always clear whether the two (or more) texts were intended as
sections of one work or as complementary works, or were simply printed
together as a matter of expediency. Eld printed the first title (with his
imprint) and preliminaries of Remaines STC4521 (1604),
Simmes did the first text B-2H, and Eld the second title "Certaine Poems,
or Poesies, Epigrammes . . ." and text accompanied by a shift to lower-case
alphabet a-h. A simultaneous shift occurs from Simmes-S1 to Eld-Y1.
However, shifts also occur in other instances involving only one printer.
Jaggard appended Genealogie of Vertue with a repeated
alphabet
2B-K to Anatomie of Sinne STC12465.5 [old 565] (1603)
which
ended at I2v; Jaggard-Y1a prints both texts. Finally, the theoretical
possibility should be borne in mind that a shift between quarto
printing in fours and eights could occur at boundaries of shared sections.
For example, this occurs in A Reformation STC3906 after
sheet
P where the alphabet and pagination repeat along with shifts in the pica
roman and italic emphasis fonts.
(2)
The sets of running-titles automatically change between shared
sections of a book. Hence, running-title analysis is a fairly reliable method
of detecting the possibility of shared printing, especially when a relatively
large number of skeletons (e.g., four, five, and six) are found in a
play-quarto, provided, of course, that the sets of titles and associated
skeletons are correctly identified and charted. If fewer than four sets obtain,
shared printing may nevertheless be suggested by a change in the method
of imposition and number of skeletons.
In some instances, shared sections are immediately suggested by
obvious differences in sets of running-titles. White's pica italic titles in EF
of Isle of Gulls Q1-2 STC6212-13 are sandwiched between
the
large double-pica italic titles of A-D and GH. Irregularities in the style of
capital letters in initial positions can be quickly noted. Braddock set an erect
Granjon italic capital 'A' in both initial positions in A-C of
An Answer STC12988, while Short (D-G), Snodham (H-L),
Field (M-P), and Harrison (Q-V) set a variety of combinations in the
second position consisting of the Granjon erect 'A' and swash
'A', and lower-case 'a'; an anomalous
oversized
swash 'A' occurs in
Short's section at D4, E4, G4; and Harrison set a 96mm roman 'A' in both
positions at R1 and S4. In other instances, the text of the running-title
changes between sections.
[4]
However, the tracker of running-titles in shared books faces a
dangerous pitfall when the sharing printers set their running-titles in the
same italic type-face. Unless the sequential sets of titles exhibit some
abnormalities that permit differentiating them, they are easily
confused.[5] In Whore
Q1
STC6501, the titles of AB and CD can be thus differentiated. On the other
hand, the titles of E-K cannot, inviting the incorrect assumption that the
section was printed by one printer and the incorrect correlation of some
titles in EF with others in G-K. Similarly, the titles of AB and EF in
Fools STC4963 have been confused as well as the titles in
other
plays. In these examples, the detection of the boundaries of the shared
sections depends upon subtle differences in the sets of titles which can
easily escape the eyes of even seasoned bibliographers.[6] The fundamental value of font
analysis as
the initial step
in examining a book is obvious here. In each instance, a glance at the type
below the titles reveals a night-and-day difference that cannot be overlooked
and needs no subtle analysis. Whereas the titles of Whore
F4v
and G1, for example, are actually indistinguishable at high magnification,
the radically different type-faces in F4v (Stafford-EFb) and G1 (Eld-Y1) are
brutally obvious both in regard to font composition and general appearance.
The same is true in Fawne Q1-2 STC17483-84, D4v
(Purfoot-Y2) vs. E1 (Windet-S1) and in many other instances.
In general, it seems that such fortuitous shifts in typefaces occur at
boundaries of shared books in the great majority of cases. Dutch
Courtesan STC 17475 is an exception that underscores the difficulty
of distinguishing same-face fonts both in running-titles and text. Y-fonts
appear in both A-E and F-H, so that the boundary at E4v/F1 is not obvious
at first glance, although
the first stage of font analysis can produce "gross features" evidence which
leaves no doubt that a different Y-font (Jaggard-Y1b) prints F-H.
[7] As a general rule, then, the most
efficient
and trustworthy approach in running-title analysis is first to compare the
type fonts on the first and final pages of subsequent gatherings to ascertain
whether the typeface itself is different on these facing pages. Overall, a
leisurely execution of this procedure requires far less time than the
frustrating tedium of sorting out units of, say, seventeen same-face italic
letters on about sixty pages and then grouping them into sets of four or
eight and charting their movement, including transpositions, through a
book. Once a shift in typeface indicates a likely boundary such as at
E4v/F1, the task of analysing the running-titles is considerably simplified
because the hypothesis of sharing focuses efforts upon just two groups of
titles in the two sections of the
book.
(3)
In shorter books such as play-quartos, the sections of a shared book
almost inevitably exhibit some differences in the various details of layout
and setting cumulatively termed "printing style." Compositorial and textual
studies of shared play-quartos usually take note of such differences but
overlook the possibility of sharing.[8]
Caution must be exercised in interpreting such evidence, since it could
merely imply a shift between two compositors in one shop. For example,
the two Windet compositors who used the Windet-S1, and the Windet-S2
and -F cases differ in some aspects of printing style. Eld's compositors
consistently sign all four leaves of play-quartos during 1603-1606 (as do
Purfoot's compositors), but after late 1606, the practice changes to the more
common signing of only three leaves in most dramatic texts.[9] None of the five printers of
An
Answer STC12988 (1603) signs the fourth leaf, but Snodham's
section (H-L) is the only one signed with roman numerals (H, Hii, iii), an
easily recognized clue to the sharing in his section. Such peculiarities of
printing style may seem, at first glance, to be potential clues to a printer's
work in shared books. However, other factors could be responsible. In
printing two of Jonson's dramatic quartos (Sejanus
STC14782,
1605; Volpone STC14783, 1607), for example, Eld set the
speech prefixes with an initial
pica roman capital followed by small roman capitals, a rare deviation from
the standard use of italic in speech prefixes. The same setting style also
appears in Braddock's printing of
Poetaster STC14781 (1602)
and Snodham's
Alchemist STC14755 (1610). Thus it seems
more probably attributable to Jonson's direct involvement in the printing of
these plays than to a shop's practice. The two could be confused and lead
to the erroneous suspicion that Eld printed sheets CD of
d'Olive
STC4983 (1606), given the possibility that Eld-Y1 and Eld-S1, used
previously in Eld's books, could have been mixed to produce the font in
CD (the fact that Braddock did not use an S-font eliminates him from
consideration). Compositorial preferences are a primary consideration. Both
Simmes's and Jaggard's compositors periodically switched to a lower-case
initial letter in italic speech prefixes possibly because of shortages in the
capitals, and / or they punctuated alternately with colons or
commas instead of periods. The appearance of the former atypical practice
in
Isle of Gulls STC6212 (1607; see H) and
Dutch
Courtesan STC17475 (1605; see H3v-4) provides a preliminary clue
to the possibility of Jaggard's involvement; Simmes is easily rejected since
his pica roman font is in the wrong face.
