University of Virginia Library

Single letters of the alphabet, not signatures or catchwords, disfigure the foot of certain pages in books London printed by Samuel Aris 1730-32. As each book contains only a few letters, upper or lower-case, placed one in each forme or sheet with occasional omissions, their function as press-figures is readily supposed. In Eustace Budgell, A Letter to Cleomenes (1731) occur the letters C J R W: in one copy C or C in 19 formes, J in 5 formes, R or R in 13 formes, W or w in 5 formes — other copies vary slightly.[1] No fewer than seven letters, C F I J R T W, are used in Budgell's Memoirs of the life and character of the late Earl of Orrery (1732). These letters plus g (?), l, p, and T appear in others of the seven books printed by Aris that bear press letters; J is found in all seven, C and W in five books. One has evidently stumbled across another of the 'many idiosyncratic numbers or marks adopted in some books . . . [involving] the use of letters perhaps to indicate pressmen's names'.[2]

One notices the considerable number and haphazard selection of letters, the disproportionate use of some, and the instability of their grouping. Besides three regulars, C, J, and W, another six or seven letters more occasionally appear, whilst some formes or sheets are unlettered. No doubt a larger sample would reveal more letters and other patterns. From such tangible evidence in the finished product one is unable to infer the total number either of presses or pressmen at work, since work at half-press cannot be distinguished from work at full-press requiring a second unmarked crew-member; nor can the absence of letters on occasions be taken to mean that no other presses or men are concerned.

However, something may be made of the facts by comparison with

press-figures and related work patterns at the Bowyer Press for the same years 1730-32. Details of press-work are taken from a recently discovered Bowyer ledger, which records work done and prices charged by compositors and pressmen for the period 1730-39.[3] Three to five presses were in constant use at the Bowyer Press from March 1730 to March 1732. Occasionally there were six and rarely seven in use in any one pay period of two to four weeks. At these presses wrought from six to twelve men, usually but not always working in pairs. At one time or another altogether eight presses were in operation, corresponding with the figures 1-8 evidenced in the printed sheets. At the Bowyer Press, then, generally speaking, figures denote a press, and identify work done at that press, either by a partnership, or occasionally by one man, who regularly wrought there for a period of weeks or month. Some anomalies, apparent or real, may relate to the frequent changes in personnel and their movements within the shop.

During these two years no fewer than nineteen press-men were employed at the Bowyer Press, some for periods of only a few weeks, others during the whole time. Similarly at some presses the crew remained constant for many months at a time, whilst at others there were changes every few weeks. These phenomena are a function of many variables, including most obviously the going and coming of workmen, either permanently or temporarily, the amount of work offering, and breakdowns of equipment. At the Bowyer Press, as no doubt at any other commercial press of this or other times, frequent changes from press to press and of partnership produce complex and shifting work-patterns, not easily described and in fact impossible to infer from patterns of press-figures found in the finished product.

It is unlikely that the ten or so 'press'-letters in books printed by Aris — these having been identified as his productions by imprint, types, and ornaments — refer to actual presses. From the little known of his business one would expect him to have fewer presses than the elder Bowyer, recognized at the time as a major London printer, and even the preeminent William Strahan boasts forty years later of no more than '7, 8, or 9 Presses . . . constantly employed' in his commercial printing-house.[4] The seven press-letters in Budgell's Memoirs

of the Earl of Orrery mentioned above may be taken to reflect changes of press-crews. Such changes are shown by the Bowyer records to be not uncommon in the life of a press.

It is intrinsically probable then that the haphazard letters refer to men, perhaps by the initial of their surname. It is not hard to believe that by comparison with Bowyer's nineteen pressmen Aris employed twelve men over roughly the same period, as delimited very approximately for Aris by title-page dates. The numerical comparison however can give little idea of the relative size and output of Aris's establishment, since one cannot assume for this period either regular employment or optimum or even steady output per man. If only one knew the names of Aris's pressmen 1730-32! The list of his apprentices given below is no help. Those apprentices out of their time before 1730 might well have taken jobs elsewhere, and in any case they are more likely to have been on the composing side, like Thomas Aris, later proprietor of the Birmingham Gazette. On the other hand, if any of the apprentices did help at press 1730-32, his labours, most likely as 'second', would not need to be marked by letter, because he would claim no wages at piece rates from his master.

Press-letters as used by Aris have the same value as figures in alerting one to possibilities of reissue, reimpression, and divided printing, as evidenced by items 9, 14 and 15 described below.

Possibly insignificant are typographical variations in press-letters: the alternation between upper and lower case letters, changes in size of type, and the occasional use of italic instead of roman. Sometimes the choice seems to have been made from the case nearest to hand, containing the type used in the text or the notes. Still it seems odd that in Budgell's Memoirs of the Earl of Orrery only W, out of the seven press-letters used, alternates between W and w or w. A similar variation in size of press-figures was noticed by J. D. Fleeman in respect of William Somerville's The Chace (1735), which was printed by Bowyer, but here on closer examination the variation seems to be without significance.[5]

Unlike figures, letters have one great inconvenience, that they may easily be confused with signatures and even catchwords, such as A and I. This is surely why they are seldom encountered.

But how 'idiosyncratic' was this use of letters? For Aris during 1730-32 it was a standard practice, since out of twelve octavos dated

within these years and identified as coming from Aris's press, seven are lettered; indeed for 1731-32 only one book is unlettered. Aris seems to have adopted the practice, or sanctioned it, some time in 1730. Daniel Waterland's The nature, obligation, and efficacy, of the Christian Sacraments, considered, 'Printed by Sam. Aris for John Crownfield' (1730), is unmarked, but its Supplement, also dated 1730, is lettered. However, Budgell's Letter to His Excellency Mr. Ulrick D'Ypres (1731) is also unmarked. Title-page dates of course are no precise indication of the date of printing.

Before 1730 the few books recognized as Aris's, most belonging to 1727-28, have some sheets unmarked and others figured 1 or 3. After 1732 no books have been recognized as coming from Aris's press, on the evidence of imprint or printer's devices, of which Aris used at least two; by October 1734 he was dead. The above sample is too small to allow generalizations about the limits and extent of Aris's use of press-letters.

It is worth noting that other printers in this period use letters, but in ways that I shall not try to explain. Bentham at Cambridge, as remarked by Dr. McKenzie, uses b-d, 3-6, and 8 in a book of 1743, and examples of Parliamentary printing, Acts, Bills, and the King's Speeches, by John Baskett 1726-51 bear the letters B/b, C/c, e, and figures 1-8. This is a complication to be added to the 'many mysteries about press-figures yet to be solved'.[6]

The above examples, trivial in themselves, remind us that we need continually to 'reconsider our ideas about the permissible variations in the early printer's routine', and to revise and extend our notions of what is considered normal, since it is out of such notions that our bibliographical and textual hypotheses are made.[7]