University of Virginia Library

The functions of the descriptive bibliographer and textual editor vary somewhat in purpose and scope but both depend upon knowledge of essential bibliographical facts about a book. Of primary importance is the relation between the identity of the printer of a book and the circumstances of its production. Early books divide into three classes, each of which presents a special problem in this context. First, the need for printer identification is obvious in books which lack a signed imprint and mention of the printer in in the Stationers' Register entry. The second class consists of books whose printer is given in the imprint and/or a Stationers' Register entry but which actually were shared with one or more other printers. Although it has been generally assumed that such printer identifications are trustworthy, the many instances of previously undetected shared printing in this class of books is demonstrable cause for suspicion. As a result, it is necessary to verify these

identifications in order to distinguish a third class consisting of books printed solely by the specified printer. Tentative printer identifications supplied in the revised STC upon the basis of ornamental evidence also must be subjected to this verification process. The significance of the identity of the printer(s) of a book and the distinction between shared and unshared books is self-evident. Descriptive bibliographers and textual editors should, as a consequence, settle these issues as completely as circumstances permit before proceeding with other aspects of description and analysis. However, they should approach the task with realistic expectations, given the unpredictability of the process of searching for an unidentified sharing printer.

The purpose of descriptive bibliography is to record two kinds of information about a book: its physical characteristics and corresponding inferences about its printing history; and other details which may contribute to the general understanding of early printing.[1] Hence, a bibliographer who is working on a specific project involving a group of books or is on the staff of a rare books collection should, as a matter of course, take a long-term perspective by examining every book for evidence of shared printing. Even if the sharing printer(s) cannot be identified, the divisions of labor should be recorded along with any data that may provide clues for the future identification of the

sharing printer(s). Similarly, evidence that confirms the identity of the assigned printer in unshared books is an essential component of a bibliographical description. Typographical evidence is of primary importance in printer identification. The bibliographical descripton of the typefaces found in a book has been discussed in some detail by Fredson Bowers.[2] Although limited to generic typographical characteristics (style of face such as roman, italic, or black letter, and 20-line height), such information can save valuable time otherwise wasted in surveying irrelevant books: a note that type of a specified style and size appears in a book as the text font or that it appears only as the emphasis font, or no mention of a particular type in the description (indicating that it does not appear at all), permits an immediate decision as to whether to examine the book for typographical evidence or simply disregard it. To this may be added the description of more specific information about the fonts found in a book consisting of "gross features" (easily observed font differentiae such as mixed capitals and/or the foul-case cluster). This category of typographical evidence provides the initial clues to the identity of a font and is of utmost importance in the printer-search process. A match-up of the foul-case letters found in a target font in a shared book with those listed in a bibliographical description can lead directly to the unknown sharing printer.

On the other hand, the textual editor is absolutely bound to resolve the issue of shared printing and to define the sections of a shared book before proceeding with the analysis of setting and presswork upon which inferences about the evolution of a text depend. A complete execution of editorial responsibility extends to the identification of the sharing printer(s), the key fact which links the evolution of a text to the production methods and personnel of particular shops and the known manner in which they can affect the textual transmission process. At minimum, a textual editor should attempt to identify the section(s) of a shared book printed by the primary printer, provided that he is identified by the book's imprint (or STC assignment) or can be inferred tentatively from ornamental stock appearing in the book.[3]

The process of settling the shared printing issue, distinguishing sections, and searching for the printers of a book can be a time-consuming, frustrating, and ultimately a sometimes futile effort. However, such an outcome need not reflect upon the calibre of the investigator, given the vagaries and erraticness of early printers' practices. While the search process itself should be guided by logic, the phenomena that it seeks to unravel are sometimes illogical, unpredictable, and off-the-cuff responses to a vacillating business situation. Early printers apparently were reluctant to turn a potential printing job back into the street; rather, part of the job went out the back door and down the alley to another printer who could take it on at a moment's notice. The search for unknown printers is facilitated by a systematic approach grounded in an awareness of the various irregularities that occur in the business and printing practices of early printers. This paper is intended to provide bibliographical scholars with a knowledge of the kinds of evidence which suggest shared printing, methods of avoiding pitfalls in interpreting that evidence, and methods of searching for and identifying sharing printers or printers of books lacking an imprint. For the most part, the principles and methods described in the following are derived from an analysis of the factors which contributed to demonstrable errors in printer assignments and oversights of shared printing as found in the bibliographical literature. As is typical of research limited to a quite small sample of the books printed before 1640, it can be assumed that the following discussion by no means exhausts the probable variations on the problem of printer identification and shared printing. Much work remains to be done. I hope that this paper will create an awareness

of the intricacies of the problem so that bibliographical scholars, armed with the potent tool of font analysis, will eventually complete this sketch of what actually happened in early printing.