University of Virginia Library

The Printer of the First Quarto of Astrophil and Stella (1591)
by
MacD. P. Jackson

Sidney's sonnet sequence was first printed in a Quarto of 1591: the publisher was Thomas Newman, but the printer has not hitherto been identified, even by William A. Ringler, who remarks that the unknown tradesman "had good reason to keep his name and device from the title-page."[1] The Quarto is of little significance for the construction of a critical edition, for "its publication was unauthorized and its text is extremely corrupt;"[2] it evidently derives from the least satisfactory of three lost intermediaries between Sidney's original and the twenty-six early manuscripts and prints in which the sequence is, in whole or in part, preserved. However, it is of historical interest, at the very least, to identify the printer for Newman's piratical venture.

He was, in fact, John Charlewood, whose printing-house was fairly productive during the period 1558-1595, and who printed at least four books for Thomas Newman and Thomas Gubbin in 1587-1595.[3] The crucial evidence is the highly distinctive head-piece to Sig. B1r of the Astrophil and Stella Quarto, a head-piece which reappears on Sig. B2r of The Approved Order of Martial Discipline, written by Giles Clayton and printed by I(ohn) C(harlewood) for Abraham Kitsonne in 1591 (STC 5376). There are several other typographical links between the two volumes. The title-pages employ in the same way the decorative six-point star and three dots within parentheses. The fleurons heading A2r of Astrophil and Stella likewise head A2r and L2r of The Approved Order. The fig-leaf type is used several times in both volumes. The two fleurons centred above the imprint on the title-page of

Astrophil and Stella are used in exactly the same manner in The Approved Order on H1r, the title-page to the Second Part (where the star in parentheses is again to be found); these fleurons appear in series on G3r and I3v of Astrophil and Stella; two are used in association with different fleurons on L4r of The Approved Order. Several of these forms of ornamentation also link Astrophil and Stella with the Quarto of Daniel's Delia (STC 6253), which John Charlewood printed for Simon Waterson in 1592 (see especially A2r of each volume), with A Pathway to Military Practice (STC 20995) by Barnabe Rich, printed by Charlewood for Robert Walley in 1587, with The Second Part of the Book of Christian Exercise (STC 19380) by Robert Parsons, printed by Charlewood for Simon Waterson in 1590, and with The Royal Exchange (STC 12307) by Robert Greene, printed by Charlewood for William Wright in 1590.

Bibliographically the Quarto is of some interest. It collates A-L4, with Sheet A devoted to title-page and preliminaries. The recto section of the running-title is invariably "Astrophel and Stella" but even a casual glance reveals a change in the versos from "Sir P.S. his" or "Sir P.S. hys" in sheets B-E to "Syr P.S. his" in sheets F-L. Upon careful inspection of the headlines it becomes clear that one skeleton imposed B(i), B(o), E(i), and E(o), and another skeleton imposed C(i), C(o), D(i), and D(o); two new skeletons were used for sheets F-L: although there are some minor alterations and anomalies among the headlines, it appears that one skeleton imposed G(i), G(o), I(i), I(o), L(i), and L(o), and another skeleton imposed F(i), F(o), H(i), H(o), K(i), and K(o).

Various features of spelling and typography confirm a bibliographical division between sheets E and F. Comparatively small capitals almost always head sonnets in sheets B-E; sheets F-L employ a mixture of large and small capitals. Stopped signatures in A-E give way to unstopped signatures in F-L (except for G1r, H1r and L1r). The word "eye" occurs just under one hundred times in the volume and the pronoun "her" nearly two hundred times: in sheets B-E the spelling eye is invariable, but thereafter eie is also used frequently; within sheets B-E the spelling her is invariable, but thereafter hir is frequent. The spellings hee, shee, mee, wee, and bee become more frequent in the later sheets. The distribution of eye|eie and her|hir spellings within sheets F-L suggests that two compositors set this part of the text: there is a definite tendency for eie and hir to be associated. And the distribution of smaller and larger capitals at the beginning of sonnets implies setting by formes, at least in F. Whether or not the single compositor who appears to have set sheets A-E was one of the two men involved in setting the remaining sheets is hard to determine—the pattern of stopping of signatures (27 stops for 15 signatures in A-E, 3 stops for 18 signatures in F-L) would suggest not.

The bibliographical peculiarities of the Quarto are, as I have said, of little consequence textually. But one small point is worth making. The Quarto must be numbered among descendants of a lost manuscript which Ringler designates Z. Ringler calculates, however, that the Quarto contains about 6 per cent more error than Z itself, "which indicates either that it was

printed with almost unbelievable carelessness, or more probably that it descends from Z through one or more carelessly executed intermediaries" (p. 452). Ringler's belief that the latter is the more plausible explanation of the Quarto's extreme corruption is supported by the fact that both the main bibliographical sections, sheets A-E and F-L, display this corruption in the same manner and degree: errors peculiar to the Quarto are not significantly more common in the earlier or later half of the book. Nor does the second section itself vary in quality in accordance with the compositorial pattern which it exhibits. That three compositors could all have set the text "with almost unbelievable carelessness" is, I submit, too great a strain on credulity.

Notes