University of Virginia Library

(2)

The sets of running-titles automatically change between shared sections of a book. Hence, running-title analysis is a fairly reliable method of detecting the possibility of shared printing, especially when a relatively large number of skeletons (e.g., four, five, and six) are found in a play-quarto, provided, of course, that the sets of titles and associated skeletons are correctly identified and charted. If fewer than four sets obtain, shared printing may nevertheless be suggested by a change in the method of imposition and number of skeletons.

In some instances, shared sections are immediately suggested by obvious differences in sets of running-titles. White's pica italic titles in EF of Isle of Gulls Q1-2 STC6212-13 are sandwiched between the large double-pica italic titles of A-D and GH. Irregularities in the style of capital letters in initial positions can be quickly noted. Braddock set an erect Granjon italic capital 'A' in both initial positions in A-C of An Answer STC12988, while Short (D-G), Snodham (H-L), Field (M-P), and Harrison (Q-V) set a variety of combinations in the second position consisting of the Granjon erect 'A' and swash 'A', and lower-case 'a'; an anomalous oversized swash 'A' occurs in

Short's section at D4, E4, G4; and Harrison set a 96mm roman 'A' in both positions at R1 and S4. In other instances, the text of the running-title changes between sections.[4]

However, the tracker of running-titles in shared books faces a dangerous pitfall when the sharing printers set their running-titles in the same italic type-face. Unless the sequential sets of titles exhibit some abnormalities that permit differentiating them, they are easily confused.[5] In Whore Q1 STC6501, the titles of AB and CD can be thus differentiated. On the other hand, the titles of E-K cannot, inviting the incorrect assumption that the section was printed by one printer and the incorrect correlation of some titles in EF with others in G-K. Similarly, the titles of AB and EF in Fools STC4963 have been confused as well as the titles in other plays. In these examples, the detection of the boundaries of the shared sections depends upon subtle differences in the sets of titles which can easily escape the eyes of even seasoned bibliographers.[6] The fundamental value of font analysis as the initial step in examining a book is obvious here. In each instance, a glance at the type below the titles reveals a night-and-day difference that cannot be overlooked and needs no subtle analysis. Whereas the titles of Whore F4v and G1, for example, are actually indistinguishable at high magnification, the radically different type-faces in F4v (Stafford-EFb) and G1 (Eld-Y1) are brutally obvious both in regard to font composition and general appearance. The same is true in Fawne Q1-2 STC17483-84, D4v (Purfoot-Y2) vs. E1 (Windet-S1) and in many other instances.

In general, it seems that such fortuitous shifts in typefaces occur at boundaries of shared books in the great majority of cases. Dutch Courtesan STC 17475 is an exception that underscores the difficulty of distinguishing same-face fonts both in running-titles and text. Y-fonts appear in both A-E and F-H, so that the boundary at E4v/F1 is not obvious at first glance, although

the first stage of font analysis can produce "gross features" evidence which leaves no doubt that a different Y-font (Jaggard-Y1b) prints F-H.[7] As a general rule, then, the most efficient and trustworthy approach in running-title analysis is first to compare the type fonts on the first and final pages of subsequent gatherings to ascertain whether the typeface itself is different on these facing pages. Overall, a leisurely execution of this procedure requires far less time than the frustrating tedium of sorting out units of, say, seventeen same-face italic letters on about sixty pages and then grouping them into sets of four or eight and charting their movement, including transpositions, through a book. Once a shift in typeface indicates a likely boundary such as at E4v/F1, the task of analysing the running-titles is considerably simplified because the hypothesis of sharing focuses efforts upon just two groups of titles in the two sections of the book.