Shared printing introduced complications into the relationship between
book production and textual transmission that produced bibliographical
evidence of varying degrees of importance to bibliographers and textual
editors. In general, two categories of shared books obtain. The first consists
of the large majority of books in which the sharing operation proceeded
smoothly and left no significant bibliographical evidence beyond that which
demonstrates that a book was shared among two or more printers and
permits the identification of one or more of the printers.[1] These two fundamental insights
provide
a sharper focus for bibliographical analysis in regard to the disposition of
copy during production, the linkage of the book to the workmen and
procedures of the respective shops and their potential effect upon the textual
transmission process, and the temporal component of production. Taken
alone, however, the detection of sharing does not in
itself reveal anything about the temporal component of production. When
supplemented by other forms of evidence accessible in most books, sharing
may actually indicate an expansion of production time rather than the
time-saving which it seems naturally to imply. The temporal issue usually
can be settled with certainty by defining the printing context of the book in
the primary printer's
shop. In general, this difficult and time-consuming proposition seems
unnecessary in the absence of important textual or dating problems.
George Gascoigne's A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres
provides a rather unique example of a second category of shared books, in
which the printing process produced bibliographical evidence relevant to
unresolved textual problems. In such books, it is essential to establish the
facts about the shared printing operation so as to define the temporal
component of production before proceeding; otherwise bibliographical
analysis must rely upon circumstantial considerations that are external to the
production of the book and exhibit no necessary physical connection to the
evidence found in the book. Such an approach is bound to overlook,
misconstrue, or adjust the bibliographical evidence to fit a hypothesis
comprised of selected external circumstances and presumptions about early
printing.[2] This is especially true of
A Hundreth since the book contains an unfinished text and
other
textual indications of time-related problems on the
part of the author.
A Hundreth is a quarto collating A4
B4(-B1,2)
C-X4, 2A-Y, Aa-Hh4,
Ii4(—Ii4). Pagination: 208
leaves, pp. [8] 1(=B3) . . . 36(=F4v) . . . 45(=G1) . . .
[82-83 misprinted as 83-82] . . . 164(=X4v); 201(=2A)
. . .
376(=2Y4v) . . . 377(=Aa1) . . .
443(=Ii2) . . .
445(=Ii3). The significant contents are: A2-3: 'The Printer to the Reader.';
A4: title, 'SVPPOSES'; B3-K1v: text; K2: title, 'IOCASTA'; K3-X4v:
text; on X4v: imprint 'Printed by Henrie Bynneman | for Richarde Smith.';
2A1: title, 'A discourse of the adventures | passed
by Master F.
I.'; 2A1-M3: text; 2M3v-S4v:
'The deuises of sundrie
Gentlemen' [running title 2M3v-4: 'A translation
of |
sundrie Gentlemen.']; 2S4v-Ee2v: 'The deuises of master
Gascoyne'
[running title: 'The deuises of | sundrie Gentlemen.'];
Ee2v-Hh4v:
'Dan Bartholmew of Bathe.'; Ii1: title [for misplaced narrative link 'The
Reporter'], 'This should have bin placed in the |
dolorous discourse, before the Supplication | to Care in Folio. 430.'; Ii2,
'The reporters conclusion unfinished.'; Ii3: imprint,
'IMPRINTED AT LOND-| don for Richard Smith.'
Two forms of typographical evidence establish the key facts about the
printing of a shared book: (1) the composite of normal and variant letters
that characterize a specific font at some point during its lifetime; and (2) the
sequence of changes or transformations that occur in a font's composition
during an extended period of usage. In this instance, analysis of the fonts
found in the book permits identification of Henry Bynneman and Henry
Middleton as the printers and, furthermore, reveals that the book was
shared in an asymmetrical pattern created by Bynneman's recall of the
shared section from Middleton. Second, although typographical evidence
provided by font transformations usually is useful only for locating a shared
section in a shop's production schedule,
A Hundreth is
extraordinary in this respect because the sequence of transformed states of
Bynneman-Y1 demonstrates an expansion of production time far beyond that
required to print the book even if allowance is made for several intervening
book-length interruptions. Given this insight, the bibliographical and textual
analysis of the book can proceed according to the certain knowledge of
delayed production instead of the standard assumption of rapid printing at
maximum efficiency.
This understanding of the printing operation is crucial to resolving the
textual problems present in A Hundreth. The extended
production period during which the book was printed was adequate for
major stages of textual evolution in regard to textual issues including the
dates of composition and printing, modifications to the text such as
revisions, deletions and omissions, changes in the author's concept of his
overall collective text, and problems created by the delivery of printer's
copy in segments. The recovery of Gascoigne's intention regarding the
number and sequence of texts depends upon settling the issue of
Gascoigne's involvement in the printing process. Whether Gascoigne
intended to include the two plays in a particular location in the book has
been the fundamental problem since C. T. Prouty eliminated the two plays
from his edition, attributing their appearance to Bynneman's desire to
enhance the book's profitability. The rearrangement of the texts in
The
Posies (1575), the second edition, indicates that Gascoigne was
concerned with producing an overall impression by combining the separate
compositions in a particular order and publishing the collective text as a
single unit. An editor must determine whether Gascoigne attempted to
achieve a similar effect in A Hundreth before resolving
several
relatively minor textual issues.
This paper is intended to contribute to an awareness of the potential
relationships between shared printing and textual issues. My primary focus
is upon a reconstruction of the printing context of A Hundreth
as the basis for interpreting the bibliographical evidence of textual
evolution. I have described in previous papers the procedures to follow in
establishing the essential facts about a shared book: (1) the recognition of
the preliminary clues to sharing; (2) the analysis of typographical and
ornamental evidence that can clarify the divisions of labor and establish the
identity of one or more of the printers; (3) a survey of the primary printer's
books in order to identify his section(s) of a book; (4) a survey of books
printed by likely sharing candidates in the hope of identifying the sharing
printer(s) and their sections. Once these facts have been established,
analysis can proceed to forms of evidence which reveal the temporal
component of production in the sharing
situation. The subsequent reconstruction of the printing context of a shared
book usually establishes the date of the printing operation, and
in some instances such as
A Hundreth, the printing dates of
its
sections. In the following discussion, textual issues will be addressed as the
emerging picture of the printing operation warrants.
