University of Virginia Library

The Printing of Greenes Groatsworth of Witte and Kind-Harts Dreame
by
Sidney Thomas

It is hardly necessary to emphasize the supreme importance of Greenes Groatsworth of Witte and Kind-Harts Dreame for Elizabethan literary history, and especially for the biography of Shakespeare. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that some interesting and puzzling bibliographical features of the two books should have escaped notice heretofore.

As is well known, the two works are intimately connected. Both were published by William Wright with no printers' names given, the first (entered 20 September 1592) in 1592, and the second (entered 8 December 1592) without date, but presumably early in 1593. More important, the author of Kind-Harts Dreame, Henry Chettle, was also, by his own admission, the editor of Greenes Groatsworth of Witte; and the most famous section of the Chettle work is his commentary upon the notorious attack on Shakespeare and other playwrights made, ostensibly by Greene, in the earlier book.

Even a superficial examination of the two books indicates that, for each, the copy was divided in approximately equal sections between two printers. In Greenes Groatsworth of Witte, the two sections comprise signatures A1-C4 and D1-F4. D1r begins a new sequence of the book, "Robertoes Tale"; from this point on, a new type font is used; and a new form of running-title, "Greenes groatsworth of wit", takes the place of the earlier "Greenes groats vvorth of vvit," or "Greenes groats-vvorth of vvit". Exactly the same features are found in Kind-Harts Dreame, in which the two sections comprise signatures A1-D4, and E1-H2. E1r begins a new sequence, "Robert Greene to Pierce Pennilesse"; again, a different type font is used for the latter part of the book; and again, the running-title differs, being consistently given in E1-H2 as "Kindharts Dreame", rather than the "Kind-harts Dreame", or "Kind-hartes Dreame" of A1-D4.

Further study of the two books makes it clear that what we have, for each, is not a manuscript divided between two compositors working in the same printing house, but rather a manuscript divided between two different printers; and the evidence further enables us to identify the two printers who collaborated on both books as John Wolfe and John Danter.

If we look first at Kind-Harts Dreame, we find that the title-page device (McKerrow, 226) is unquestionably Wolfe's, and was used by him, for example, in Harvey's Foure Letters (S.T.C. 12900) of 1592. Furthermore, the black-letter type font of A3-D4 is the same as that of Greene's Quip for an Upstart Courtier, printed by Wolfe in 1592. The ornament used on A3r and C1r is identical with that on A2r of The chief occurrences of both the

armies (S.T.C. 11260), printed by Wolfe in 1592; on A2r of An excellent discourse upon the now present estate of France (S.T.C. 14005), printed by Wolfe in 1592; and on A3r of The survay or topographical description of France (S.T.C. 7575), printed by Wolfe in 1592. Finally, the initial letter A on C1r is similar to the Wolfe initial identified by Hoppe as No. 20.[1]

The evidence for Danter as printer of E1-H2 of Kind-Harts Dreame is equally strong. The ornament on E2v, with the inserted initials "ID" is certainly Danter's and is found again and again in his books. To give only two examples, it serves as the title page device of the 1594 Orlando Furioso ("Printed by Iohn Danter for Cuthbert Burbie"), and is used on A3r of Henry Smith's God's arrowe against atheists (S.T.C. 22666), printed by Danter in 1593. This in itself is conclusive; but in addition, the factotum on E1r is identical with that on C1r of Nashe's Strange Newes (S.T.C. 18377c) printed by Danter in 1593; and on A3r, B1r, and K3r of Smith's God's arrowe.

Turning to Greenes Groatsworth of Witte, we find that the title-page device of a mask is the same as that used as a colophon on D3r of A fig for the Spaniard (S.T.C. 1026), printed by Wolfe in 1591. The ornament on B1r is identical with that on B1r of Kind-Harts Dreame; and the capital G on A3v is identical with that on B1r of Kind-Harts Dreame. The identity of Danter as the printer of the second part of Greenes Groatsworth of Witte is established by the factotum on D1r, which is identical with that on C5r of Henry Smith's Jurisprudentiae, medicinae et theologicae dialogus dulcis (S.T.C. 22678),[2] printed by Danter in 1592; and on C1r, E2r, and I1r of Smith's God's arrowe.[3]

Whatever questions it may raise, the evidence presented here does help to solve one minor puzzle of Elizabethan printing history. The controversy between Chettle and Danter which was referred to Thomas Dason and Thomas Orwin for hearing and determination on March 5, 1592/3,[4] has up to now eluded explanation. There can be little doubt that this dispute arose out of the printing of Greenes Groatsworth of Witte, or Kind-Harts Dreame, or both; though one can only guess at the specific cause of the dispute. Finally, we can now transform into a certainty what Jenkins refers to as "a not unnatural assumption that . . . Chettle had subsequently [after 1591] resumed his association with Danter."[5]

Notes