II
A different kind of frustration characterizes the reliance upon
ornamental stock as a means of identifying printers and detecting shared
printing. Despite the fact that ornamental stock has long served as the
primary evidence of a printer's work, a comprehensive catalogue has yet
to be published and probably never will be. Hence, scanning the standard
references to identify the owner of a particular ornament frequently (or
usually, in my experience) ends in failure.[10] This seems to have happened to
STC researchers as well since, in some instances, a printer
has
not been supplied for books in which ornamental stock appears. Likewise,
shared printing has been overlooked when the stock of a second printer
appears along with that of the printer given in the imprint. Furthermore, the
reliability of ornamental stock as evidence of printer identity is somewhat
lessened by the common practice of borrowing and the existence of
duplicate castings and
copies. The printer assignments in new STC that are based
upon
the identification of ornamental stock are thus considered tentative and are
cited in brackets; these must eventually be verified by font
identification.
Oversights of shared printing and incorrect identification of printers
in the new STC seems reason enough to discuss in detail the
difficulties associated with the reliance upon ornamental stock. The basic
flaw in previous printer-research has been the sole reliance
upon
ornamental stock.[11] However,
a more accurate and trustworthy conclusion both about the sharing issue and
the identity of a sharing printer can result if the appearance of ornamental
stock is understood as an initial clue to the possibility of shared printing
that must be followed up by font analysis and identification. A discussion
of the various patterns of ornamental appearances seen in shared books will
contribute to a more effective use of this kind of evidence.
(1)
In general, the usefulness of ornamental evidence increases with the
length of a book and the opportunities presented by the kind of text for the
insertion of ornamental stock. Unfortunately, no predicatable relationship
obtains between the various patterns of sharing and the appearances of
ornaments. Many short texts such as play-quartos and theological pamphlets
present no opportunity for the insertion of sharing printers' ornaments after
the preliminaries and beginning of the text, although this is not an
inviolable pattern. The first section of a short shared text could in fact be
given to a sharing printer while the printer cited in the imprint (usually
accompanied by his ornamental stock in the title and preliminaries)
completes the text without the insertion of ornamental stock. Thus Creede's
initial Yamada / Creede T6 begins the octavo text of Essays
Pt.
1 STC5775 while Stafford prints the final section (L-O); and Eld's rarely
used 'W' begins the text of
Malcontent Q1-2 STC17479-80 while Simmes prints the
second
section (F-H). Shorter texts consisting of two sub-titles or a major title and
sub-title present the opportunity for the insertion of ornamental stock. In the
octavo Of the Calling of the Ministerie Two Treatises
STC19733 (1605), Roberts's imprint and ornaments appear in the
preliminaries and his two fonts alternate in the first treatise in
1BC.
"The Second Treatise" shifts to a repeated alphabet with Yamada/Creede
initial I1 in 2B1 heading the text in 2B-K
which is printed in
Creede-4.[12]
In longer texts, divisions by books and chapters frequently occasion
a shift in ornamental stock between shared sections which is almost
inevitably accompanied by a shift in fonts except in instances of borrowing.
Printers sometimes concluded intermediate shared sections with a favorite
ornament to fill space even though the text continued in the next section.
In general, it is therefore advisable to check for a shift in fonts before and
after the textual appearance of an ornament or initial even when the piece
is identified in the references. This approach usually clarifies whether a
boundary between shared sections obtains. In some instances, the divisions
of shared sections do not coincide with the points at which ornaments
appear. For example, it seems clear that a decision to begin each chapter
with an initial accompanied the jobbing out of An Answer
STC12988 with the result that each of the six printers had the opportunity
to insert at least one initial. However, only
Braddock's 'H' (Chapter 1, A1) and Harrison's 'Y' (Chapter 8, Q1) appear
coincidentally at the beginning of sections and chapters. Other initials are
buried within sections (E2, H1v, K4, N4, P1v). The ornaments in the
preliminaries and text of Seven Deadly Sinnes STC6522
(1606)
present a confusing situation which can only be resolved by identification
of the contextual fonts. Allde's imprint and ornaments appear in the title
(McKerrow 207; see STC description of four states of the
title),
the dedication (McKerrow/Allde ornament 15 and an 'I' in
1A3), then
two of Stafford's pieces (McKerrow 295b, Lavin/Danter initial I2) head the
Induction 2A1-4r which is printed in Stafford-EFb; the
short letter
"Reader" in an unsigned, apparently extra, leaf begins with an unidentified
factotum (similar to Woodfield/Field Fac. 1), is printed in Allde-S2, and
concludes overside with an identified Allde piece (McKerrow/Allde 4).
Examination of the papers reveals that Stafford's
preliminary gathering was mistakenly bound in between
1A3-4 of
Allde's preliminaries. The text (
2B1-O4) in black letter
begins with an
unidentified headpiece and Lavin/Danter I2 followed by a factotum similar
to Woodfield/Wolfe Fac. 3 on C2v. The appearance of an identified piece
in each of this sequence of sections would seem to suggest that Stafford
then continued with the entire text. However, a special problem (see later
discussion, note 41) arises in distinguishing the shared sections in the
remainder of the book since it prints in black letter with pica roman as the
emphasis typeface.
In unshared long books, external identification of ornamental stock
is frequently unnecessary since some pieces recur throughout the book.
However, a change in the manner of heading chapters and the appearance
of new ornamental stock could be misinterpreted. Bearing Jaggard's
imprint, Badges STC889 is continuously signed B-2G; each
of
the four textual units (Books 1-3 and "A Corollary") contains numerous
chapters, each headed by an initial. A mixed setting style is established in
Book 1 comprised of factotum 1 (C1, E1, F5, F8v, K2), and initial T1 (E4,
F3v, F7, G6v, H5v, H7, I4v), with the remaining chapters headed by
unornamented, large (7mm) roman capitals. The appearance of previously
unseen initial A1 at N4 in Book 2; the shift to setting large roman initials
almost exclusively in 20 chapters of Book 3 except for the previously
unseen I1 at Q2 and a problematic initial T2 on 2C2v which seems identical
to T1 except that single rather than double rules enclose it, making
it seem a different initial (it actually is); and factotum 2 in Book 4 (2E1)
should cause no difficulty because of the recurrence of previously seen
ornamental stock and the mixed setting style. Ornament 1 begins both Book
1 and 2, T1 continues in Book 2 (O7, O8), and factotum 1 appears twice
in Book 3 (Q2, R5v). Book 4 raises the possibility of sharing with its new
factotum 2 and different printing style, but that can easily be attributed to
the change in the kind of text. Moreover, the font which prints the whole
book is easily recognized as Jaggard-Y1b.
In some long quartos, sharing may be hinted at by an apparent shift
in ornamental stock, although a common problem is that usually too few
pieces appear to permit such an insight. Hence, the erratic appearance of
ornamental stock somewhat lessens its usefulness as a means of detecting
shared printing since pieces may be scattered about in a book without much
of a recognizable pattern or with just a few appearances across several
gatherings. Furthermore, the intermittent appearance of ornamental stock
at likely boundaries between shared sections can create the impression of
a sharing pattern less complex than that which actually occurs in a book.
Eld's stock and Eld-Y2 appear in Book 1 of An Apology
STC19295, followed by Jaggard's stock and fonts in the first half of Book
2. However, a shift to a third alphabet reintroduces Eld-Y2 up to and after
3H-L, where Jaggard's fonts appear.
Even when a pattern of recurrence or the appearance of identified
pieces is encountered in a shared book, it may not provide a basis for
precise differentiation of sections, especially if the two printers print in
alternate groups
of gatherings instead of in a simple division into long self-contained
sections.
De Missa STC23456 (1603) illustrates these
difficulties. Bearing Adam Islip's imprint, the text of Books 1-3 is
continuously signed B-2T3 but a repeated alphabet is prematurely
introduced at [2T5] with the beginning of Book 4. The simultaneous shift
from easily distinguished Islip-EFb, which uses Guyot capitals exclusively,
to a Y-font suggests, at first glance, a simple division by books. However,
the distribution of fonts in Book 4 reveals the actual sharing pattern: the
Y-font prints
2A-L,
2P-R,
2T, and
2X; Islip-EFb prints
2M-O,
2S, and
2V. It
is illuminating to consider the
ornamental evidence against this background. The ornamental stock in
Books 1-3 is extensive, including two identified head-pieces and one
identified factotum in six appearances, nineteen initials in forty-seven
appearances, and three factotums in single appearances. Together with the
shift in
signature-alphabets, a group of twelve new pieces in
2A-L
easily points
to a sharing division marked by six recurrent pieces (repeated alphabet
assumed in the following): factotum 1 recurs at K2, L7v; 'S' at A1, E1;
'A' at A4v, C5, D4v, G2; 'I' at B1v, H1, K4; 'Q' at C1, D6v, I7v; and
'P1' at C5v, I1v, and R5. In addition, six other initials occur once: 'V' at
A8v; 'D' at B5v; 'C' at B3; 'R' at E5v; 'F' at H4; and 'B' at L2v.
However, the ornamental evidence is clear only about the
2A-L section
of Book 4. Relatively few initials occur after
2A-L,
leaving little to go
on as to the precise division of sharing. The recurrence of 'P1' at
2R5
(previously seen at
2C5v and
2I1v) links
2R to the sharing
printer of
2A-L; otherwise three additional initials appear
in his later
sections: the 'T' at
2P6; 'E' at
2T8; and
'V' at
2X1. The latter
could possibly be confusing since another 'V' appears at
2A8v; it might
suggest a third printer rather than one who
possesses and uses two different 'V' in the same text. The recurrences of
five initials from Books 1-3 permit the assignment of three gatherings of
Book 4 to Islip and clearly indicate that the division of labor was not a
simple "by books" job; rather, Islip alternated with the sharing printer in
Book 4.
[13] Overall, internal
ornamental evidence clarifies the divisions of labor for most of the book
with B-2T,
2N,
2O, and
2S assigned to Islip, and
2A-L
and
2R to the sharing printer. "Gross features" font
analysis is adequate
for settling the assignment of the remaining six gatherings
(
2M, V to
Islip;
2PQ, T, X, to the sharing printer) and confirming
the rest.
In general, the appearance of previously identified ornamental stock
in alternating gatherings of a shared section such as Book 4 of De
Missa STC 23456 provides a short-cut to the assignment of some
gatherings. All five recurrent initials noted above belong to Islip, so that a
charting of initials through Books 1-3 to establish a recurrence pattern is
unnecessary in this instance. However, this is possible only if a previous
survey of a printer's work has established that such initials are part of his
stock. A rather quick survey of long books (especially folios if available)
in the proximate period by
the printer given in the imprint of a shared book will usually locate at least
a few pieces which can tentatively establish his sections in the latter.
However, in Islip's case, this approach is thwarted by an anomaly in the
output from his shop (see later discussion).
Long folios generally contain many pieces so that an internal
grouping of ornamental stock exclusive of external identifications frequently
can provide an initial clue to the alternation between two printers and
sometimes the actual boundaries of sections, provided that the sections are
long enough for the recurrence of one or more pieces, or of several initials
that belong to a particular alphabet. The latter situation merely hints at
ownership by one printer, but is a valuable initial clue to the identity of
some printers. For example, an initial from Islip's Blayney/Alphabets 4 and
5 rarely (if ever) appears alone in books which use several initials.
Similarly, the Robinson/Braddock stock included at least eight (A B F H I
O T S) large (41mm) initials enclosed by two outer rules separated from an
inner frame by ringlets (see Plomer T158, F161, H163; Purfoot also used
a similar 'T'; see Romish Spider STC5963.5, B1). A second
Robinson/Braddock alphabet is characterized by
human subject-matter on a filled black background. An appearance of a few
initials from these recognizable alphabets calls for a check of the contextual
font(s). Moreover, the shift in a long book to previously unseen stock calls
for a comparison of the fonts at the previous border between gatherings.
Adam Islip and George Eld are identified in the imprint (an extremely rare
gratuitous clue) of A General Historie STC12374 (1608) so
that
the identification of their respective sections should be nothing more than
a "mop-up" operation. The new STC assigns to Eld sections
O-2D, 3A-3P, 4I-5F, and 5X-6C, with the rest to Islip. The error in the
assignment of the first section is puzzling and illustrates the need for
consideration of the pattern of ornament appearance as well as font shifts.
Islip's ornaments and initials from his Alphabets 4 and 5 appear up to K5.
A different set of five initials appears between L1-N. Then Eld's Mermaid
head-piece (30mm x 150mm) and a large
'I' (48mm x 45mm) appear on O1. As far as I know, the Horseman-L at
L1 and the "Honi Soit"-A at L3v do not appear previously in an Eld book,
but the three others do, including the Monkey-D at L5, the Demon-W at
M5v, and Scholar-T at N4v. Nonetheless, two recur in later sections
assigned to Eld: the "Honi Soit"-A appears later in the first section at V2,
in the second section at 3M6 along with the Scholar-T at 3I7, and in the
third section at 4X5. These appearances overlap with 15 other of Eld's
initials in the correctly assigned sections,[14] a fact that should be easily noted
and
interpreted as evidence of Eld's work in L-O. Moreover, a shift in fonts
occurs at L1 along with the introduction of the new set of initials; why this
was overlooked is puzzling, given the fact that other boundaries were
detected in the absence of ornamental stock. The shift to Islip's font at 2E1
occurs fairly close to the
appearance of his Mermaid head-piece (34mm x 126mm) and initials P5 at
2E4 and K5 at 2E5v. However, font shifts without ornamental stock occur
at 3Q1 [3M6], 5X1, and 6C1 [5P2] at some distance from the previous
appearance of ornamental stock (in brackets). In short, it is not necessary
to know a printer's entire ornamental stock in many instances if proper
attention is given to the pattern of appearances and contextual fonts.
(2)
In general, printer identifications rely upon the recognition of
ornamental stock previously identified in the references, or by the
appearance of pieces in the context of a printer's other identified ornaments.
Peter Blayney's discussion of "the pitfalls awaiting the unwary
ornament-hunter" (Texts, pp. 491-497) documents the
difficulties created by the common practices of the borrowing and the
passing of ornamental stock among printers. The existence of duplicate
castings and copies likewise can cause confusion. In one extraordinary
instance, eight of Eld's ornaments and initials were specially forged for a
pirated edition.[15]
Several strategic factors can impede the discovery of the owner of a
given ornament when the piece is not identified in the references. With
luck, a survey of the suspected sharing printer's books sometimes turns up
other appearances of the ornament. However, in many instances, a given
ornament was used very rarely, with appearances separated by a decade or
more, so that such a survey can be quite time-consuming and futile, ending
in an erroneous rejection of the suspected printer. Moreover, an appearance
of the ornament may be found in a shared section whose printer is
unidentified. The 'W' that begins Eld's section of Malcontent
Q1-2 STC17479-80 (1604), for example, does not appear again until 1608,
and not since 1598 when Gabriel Simson owned the shop. These
appearances are obviously beyond the reach of a proximate survey of Eld's
(and Read's) books so that my search for this initial was a dead-end.[16] An appearance of a borrowed
ornament
creates a similar confusion. The large "THE" logo frequently shared by
Simmes and Eld, for example, was lent to Creede for London
Prodigal STC22333 (1605), its only appearance noted by Yamada
in
Creede's books. The appearance of this unique logo in the title of
Prodigal, its total absence in other Creede books, and its
frequent appearance in Simmes's and Eld's books could lead one to doubt
the veracity of the imprint of Prodigal. The suspicion that
either
Eld or Simmes ghosted the book, however, is laid to rest by the fact that
Creede-4 printed the text. Once another tentative appearance has been
located, the two ornaments must then be confirmed as being the same piece
rather than duplicate castings or copies. When an ornament or its contextual
stock have been verified as identical to those in the references and
ownership thus established, the issue of whether the actual owner used the
ornament in a given
book can be settled only by the identification of his font(s) as the context
of the ornament's appearance. If an ornament appears several times in the
context of a given printer's font(s), it is reasonable to assume ongoing
possession of the ornament whether or not the printer actually owned
it.
For purposes of identification, ornamental stock falls into two
categories: (1) duplicate castings which are basically identical and thus must
be distinguished by damage; and (2) more or less faithful copies
distinguished by major or minor design differences. Differences due to
design and damage can usually be detected through direct comparison of
simple pieces such as most initials and xylographics. For example, Simmes
and Eld frequently used nearly identical title page xylographic ornaments.
Small leaves project inward at top-center from the volutes (large scrolls).
Eld's right leaf (shaped somewhat like a parrot's beak) is oversized and the
tip extends markedly below the left leaf (see Fools STC4963);
Simmes's leaves are nearly symmetrical with the tips aligned (see
Malcontent Q1-3 STC17479-81). Failure to note this fairly
obvious difference probably occasioned the incorrect new
STC
assignment of Siege of Ostend STC18895 (1604) to Simmes,
whereas it
is Eld's version that appears in the title, followed by his Goat-head
head-piece at 2A1, three of his initials, his pica italic, and
Eld-Y1 at
1A2v-3. Jaggard also used the Simmes version of these
xylographic
ornaments as the outer portions of a head-piece in a folio setting
(Foure-footed Beastes STC24123, 1607, ¶6, 2¶5).
This
particular head-piece (similar to Plomer 52) seems identical to the one used
by Eld (see below). Large duplicates and copies like this sometimes exhibit
major design differences that can be detected by a brief comparison of the
pieces. Three versions of Plomer head-piece 52 were in use. In all versions,
the centered cherub's head rising from a cluster of three fishes is flanked
by two dolphin-like creatures. These are flanked by feeding rabbits in
Simmes's version, but by feeding squirrels in the versions used by Eld,
Jaggard, A. Hatfield (Maison Q2 STC10548, 1606), and
Melchisadech Bradwood (A Copy STC6164, 1606, C4v;
Concerning STC24719, 1607, A2; A Preamble
STC18191, 1608, ¶3). The latter can be distinguished in part by the
cherub's head detail. The left cheek is straight and forms an angle with the
jaw in Hatfield/Bradwood/Plomer 52, whereas the cheek is chubbier and
rounded in the Eld/Jaggard version. The tips of the curved leaves flanking
the head nearly touch the halo-like protrusions from the head in the
Eld/Jaggard version, while they are spaced about a halo's width from the
haloes in the Hatfield/Bradwood/Plomer 52 version. Concentration on these
two areas of details is adequate for distinguishing the three versions of the
head-piece. However, large pieces with no such major design differences
present more of a challenge.[17]
In general, ornamental stock is especially prone to a variety of
damage because of the complexity of even simple designs. Straight borders
and linear elements exhibit bends, gaps created by missing sections, or
sheared sections bent away from the original line. In addition, curved
elements typically exhibit flattening or wavy damage. Some comment about
the differences in the initials of Alphabets 4 and 5 reproduced by Blayney
(Texts, pp. 446-447) is useful for illustrating the difficulty of
sorting out duplicate castings in a particular style. The best method for
comparing two similar initials depends on the nature of the ornamental
design. Ornamentation with recognizable subject matter such as human
figures, animals, birds, and objects provides clearly defined areas within the
initial for comparison (see Blayney W2, E7, H8, N13, C15 etc.). However,
abstract, stylized arrays ("arabesques") of vines and leaves such as
Blayney/Alphabets 4, 5, 9, and 12 lack recognizable forms
for judging symmetry and proportions. It is best to examine a section at a
time (e.g., the top third, the lower-right quadrant etc.) for discontinuities,
gaps, bends, extra buds, shoots, tendrils, leaves and vines. For example,
the diagonal vine passing through the bottom-left section of the upper
counter of Blayney B4 shows a short stem or shoot that is lacking in B5.
At the upper right corner, the tips of the two leaves touch on the extreme
right border in B4, but not in B5. In addition, the letter in B4 is slightly
smaller. Note also that the leaf directly beneath the left base-serif of N4 is
notably smaller than in N5. Differences in size can be detected by
measurements of the rules enclosing a letter (height, width, diagonal) and
the spacings between points in the design. If the two initials are identical
duplicate castings, the objective of a comparison is to detect damage,
usually quite minor, that differentiates the two initials. For example, if B4
and B5 actually were
identical, the two could be distinguished by damage at the extreme
lower-right, where B4's vine exhibits a sinuous bend and is separated from
the leaf. Note also the damage illustrated in States 1 and 2 of T4 (p. 450)
and the missing outer section of the leaf at 10mm down and to the right of
H5. The differences created by damage in some Alphabet 5 letters owned
by Okes (17 letters) and Islip (at least 15 letters) can be noted by reference
to Blayney's reproductions.[18] The
dates of appearance are important in deciding whether these examples
represent
two states of the respective initials (as with Blayney T4). In general,
damage is progressive and irreversible. The damage to Islip's initials
precedes the appearance of Okes's undamaged initials by several years, a
fact which settles the issue.
Since damage is progressive and cumulative, an earlier appearance
may lack some damage seen in a later state. A comparison of early and late
states of an Islip factotum (Blayney/A3r) illustrates the point. Blayney
reproduces a 1607 state (Texts, p. 492) in which two gaps
appear in the top border, one large gap at the lower left, and three gaps in
the bottom border. Only the gap at the top-left corner is present in the 1600
state (Les Reports STC5493, at *3,A1). Such damage to the
rules enclosing a piece is not the firmest kind of evidence, but establishes
a strong probability of identity. Hence, this gap, along with most of those
seen in Blayney's reproduction, leave little doubt that the factotum at A2
of Six Books STC3193 (1606, Islip) is the same. Islip also
possessed what appears to be an identical duplicate casting of this factotum
(Blayney/A3r #1) that illustrates one kind of confusion caused by duplicates
and copies. The two factotums are virtually
indistinguishable except for the fact that A3r #2 is enclosed in double rules
and is in much better condition. Both appear in Six Books
STC3193 with the inner enclosing rules (the only rules in A3r #1) in
obviously different condition: the rules are undamaged in A3r #2 (see
Six Books, B1, 2M5v, 2S4v; also De Missa
STC
23456 (1603), A2, B1, Z7v, 2F2v; Christian's Sanctuarie
STC7113 (1604), B1, K1; and A General Historie STC12374
(1608), C4).[19] Similarly, Jaggard
owned the duplicate castings T1 and T2 (noted earlier) which can be
differentiated by single vs. double rules; both are characterized by the
strange bulge of the whole arabesque array in the upper right quadrant
which possibly could be explained in terms of the uneven depth of the
mold. Again, simultaneous appearances in one book with differentiating
damage leaves no doubt that two pieces are involved (see
Foure-footed STC24123, T1 at B3v, T2 at P5, Q6;
also Badges STC889 noted earlier).
Large copies and duplicates that exhibit only minor design differences
are especially troublesome when the issue is borrowing vs. sharing. An
assignment crux arises from the appearance, in the context of identified
ornamental stock of one printer, of pieces that are extremely similar to or
identical to those known to have been used by another printer. The two
samples must be painstakingly compared for differences produced by design
or because of the imperfect copying of the original version. In some
instances, such differences are so clearly due to design that the issue of
damage is irrelevant. However, the absence of distinct progressive damage
can leave the question hanging if the ornaments are duplicate castings.
These problems are exemplified in
the preliminaries at
1A1-4v of
An Answer
STC12988
(1603) where the Eliot's Court ornament McKerrow 352 appears on the title
page, followed by three ornaments which seem identical to those used by
Read and then Eld. This raises the questions: did Eliot's Court lend
McKerrow 352 to Eld specifically to be included in the title, with Eld then
filling in
1A3,4,4v with his three ornaments and an 'M'
initial, or did
Eliot's Court own duplicates of all four Eld pieces, or were the pieces
borrowed from Eld? The
STC assignment of the preliminaries
to Eliot's Court is based upon either of the two latter options.
Two of the head-pieces are faithful copies, each with more than one
known version. The Eld/Jaggard version of Plomer 52 appears at
1A3;
as noted earlier, Bradwood, who joined the Eliot's Court group in 1602,
and Hatfield used the Plomer 52 version at least four times. Eliot's Court
could have owned both versions, or replaced an earlier Eld/Jaggard version
with the Plomer 52 version by 1606.[20] In any event, progressive damage
along
the upper half of the left edge strongly suggests that the piece in STC12988
is the same as that used by Eld.[21]
The initial 'M' seen at 1A3 STC12988 undoubtedly is the
same that
appears in Eld's books.[22] Damage to
two of three areas of the Turk's Head tail-piece in the state seen in
1A4v of STC12988 leaves little doubt that it also is the
same piece used
by Eld.[23] Finally, the second
head-piece, a Goathead flanked by
feeding-squirrels and grotesques, exists in two nearly identical versions
differentiated by quite minor design
details. Eld's version can be differentiated from that used by Barker and
Islip on the basis of at least six such details. On the other hand, design and
damage are identical in Eld's version and that which appears in
1A4 of
STC12988.
[24]
In short, the preliminaries of STC12988 contain one unquestionable
Eliot's Court ornament and four pieces which, for all intents and purposes,
cannot be distinguished from those used continuously over a long period of
time by Eld. So, while ornaments are usually more easily recognized and
identified than fonts and frequently lead directly to the correct printer,
assignment cruxes do arise that ultimately must be settled by the
identification of the contextual font(s). Since A3-3v are set in a Guyot
double-pica roman titling font almost never used in texts because few
printers owned enough of this type for this purpose, the discovery of
samples by either Eliot's Court or
Eld is a project clouded with potential futility. (As luck would have it, Eld
used his Guyot double-pica roman [140mm; see Vervliet, Fig. 185, p. 248]
to also set the epistle "From the King" in B1-2v of
Obedience
STC25633. The small size of the two samples is balanced by the small
quantity of type in the font so that a dozen identifiable types recur in
STC12988 and STC25633, and at least four recur in the two formes of
STC25633.) In many instances that involve the more common pica and
96mm roman fonts, it seems more efficient to hunt after a printer's fonts
since they are likely to appear with greater regularity than a printer's
ornaments.
