University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
collapse section4. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 03. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
collapse section8. 
 01. 
 02. 
 9. 
 10. 
 11. 
 12. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
collapse section2. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 04. 
(3)
collapse section3. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
collapse section4. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 04. 
 05. 
 06. 
 07. 
 08. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
 8. 
 9. 
 10. 
collapse section11. 
 01. 
 02. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
  

collapse section 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

(3)

In shorter books such as play-quartos, the sections of a shared book almost inevitably exhibit some differences in the various details of layout and setting cumulatively termed "printing style." Compositorial and textual studies of shared play-quartos usually take note of such differences but overlook the possibility of sharing.[8] Caution must be exercised in interpreting such evidence, since it could merely imply a shift between two compositors in one shop. For example, the two Windet compositors who used the Windet-S1, and the Windet-S2 and -F cases differ in some aspects of printing style. Eld's compositors consistently sign all four leaves of play-quartos during 1603-1606 (as do Purfoot's compositors), but after late 1606, the practice changes to the more common signing of only three leaves in most dramatic texts.[9] None of the five printers of An Answer STC12988 (1603) signs the fourth leaf, but Snodham's section (H-L) is the only one signed with roman numerals (H, Hii, iii), an easily recognized clue to the sharing in his section. Such peculiarities of printing style may seem, at first glance, to be potential clues to a printer's work in shared books. However, other factors could be responsible. In printing two of Jonson's dramatic quartos (Sejanus STC14782, 1605; Volpone STC14783, 1607), for example, Eld set the speech prefixes with an initial


191

Page 191
pica roman capital followed by small roman capitals, a rare deviation from the standard use of italic in speech prefixes. The same setting style also appears in Braddock's printing of Poetaster STC14781 (1602) and Snodham's Alchemist STC14755 (1610). Thus it seems more probably attributable to Jonson's direct involvement in the printing of these plays than to a shop's practice. The two could be confused and lead to the erroneous suspicion that Eld printed sheets CD of d'Olive STC4983 (1606), given the possibility that Eld-Y1 and Eld-S1, used previously in Eld's books, could have been mixed to produce the font in CD (the fact that Braddock did not use an S-font eliminates him from consideration). Compositorial preferences are a primary consideration. Both Simmes's and Jaggard's compositors periodically switched to a lower-case initial letter in italic speech prefixes possibly because of shortages in the capitals, and / or they punctuated alternately with colons or commas instead of periods. The appearance of the former atypical practice in Isle of Gulls STC6212 (1607; see H) and Dutch Courtesan STC17475 (1605; see H3v-4) provides a preliminary clue to the possibility of Jaggard's involvement; Simmes is easily rejected since his pica roman font is in the wrong face.