Second and Third Stages
The first stage of analysis, in short, clearly indicates a distinct Y-font
in Eld's section, but yields ambiguous evidence as to whether one or two
fonts appear in C-F, I. The few major differences seen in CD, I, and EF
suggest that the second stage of analysis proceed with an awareness of a
possible division at the D4v-E1 boundary. The comparison at high
magnification of numerous samples of each letter within the sequence of
gatherings focuses upon stylistic structure and minute variations in size in
order to complete the font composites and isolate variants. In this instance,
the analysis of E1 yields new variants not seen in CD, suggesting that a
second font composite be devised. The division of labor in
Fools, with I separated from CD by EF, automatically
requires
moving to the third stage of analysis which consists of a comparison of the
font in I with the refined evidence accumulated in the two composites. In
other cases, the font composite from a section of one book
usually is compared with a font in another book. The third stage of analysis
of Fools focuses on the lower-case and ligatures. A summary
of the results is given in the Appendix.
Overall, the comparative analysis of CD, I, and EF confirmes their
separate identity and the assignment of their respective sections to two
sharing
printers. In addition to distinguishing the divisions of labor in
Fools, the analytical process produces font composites of CD,
I, and EF which are the basis for a search of other books aimed at
establishing the identities of the two printers. Once a similar font is located
in another book, a font composite is used to determine whether the fonts are
identical in the same manner that the CD and EF composites identify the
font in I of
Fools.
[39] In
this instance, the font in EF of
Whore and
The
Converted
Courtesan (STC6501, 6501a, 1604) exhibits obvious similarities to
EF, including the awkward 'W', large Guyot '?' and other discriminants.
Analysis of the two fonts shows a precise stylistic correspondence in all
particulars as well as some shifts in proportions attributable to time. Some
discriminants appear in greater proportions such as the condensed 'fi' and
'ſſ' ligatures in
Whore. The only major difference
occurs in the appearance of eleven transient foul-case italic '
I'
in
Whore E3v that were purged before
Fools.
While
the same font is in both books, the unfortunate fact remains at this point (as
often happens) that the font appears in shared sections of
Whore,
Courtesan and
Fools by one unidentified printer.
Nonetheless, the identification of
Fools EF in
Whore EF and Eld-Y1 in G-K along with previously
identified
Simmes-S in AB of
Whore establishes the division of labor
among the sharing printers and clarifies previous problems about the
printing of the two editions, leaving only the identity of the printers
unresolved.
[40] The search process for
unidentified printers is unpredictable, but once suitable candidates are
located, the font composite usually easily decides the matter.
Whore CD prints in an S-font characterized by low-riding
capitals in many sorts and a resident cluster of foul-case
italic capitals, traits which identify it as Creede-4 (see below). Similarly,
the exclusive discriminants of EF link it to Simon Stafford. A comparison
of
Fools CD, I, to EF of
d'Olive yields positive
verification of the identity of this font, but again it belongs to an
unidentified printer. The proportions of S-face g1 and Y-face 'g' remain the
same, although the S-face k1 seems to decrease slightly; the variants in the
ligatures are the same; and anomalous letters reappear such as the few
Guyot 'G' and short second-stem 'w', the condensed 'ff' (F1v:34), and the
Y-face 'ct' (
Fools, D1v:23, D3:11;
d'Olive,
E1v:5).
Identification of a few damaged types completes the process. Since the font
composite successfully distinguished
Fools CD, I, from EF
and
identified
d'Olive EF, the eventual identification of the
printer
is a virtual certainty, given a dogged persistence and a good dose of luck.
In this instance, White-M's seven years of
replenishment and deterioration between
LLL and
Fools, compounded by the poor printing quality of
Fools, buried some critical evidence in the blotted images of
the
reproductions which were laboriously (6 weeks) examined before consulting
originals. The unique 'th' ligature of White-M appeared clearly enough in
the reproductions of
LLL; the equally unique 'ch' ligature,
however, was totally overlooked; neither were hinted at in
Fools
and
d'Olive. Once originals were consulted, the 'th' was
easily
confirmed, the 'ch' discovered (
LLL, A2:10, A2v:38, A4v:3,
B1v:24), and then the remnant 'th' recognised in
Fools (C2:4
"either", 7 "mirth") and
d'Olive (E1:14,15); the few
'ch' of
LLL seem to have been exhausted during the
intervening
years. Finally, the reproductions were inadequate for confirming that the
alternate-face in White-M actually is a Y-face.
