University of Virginia Library

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.