 | |  |
I
Several kinds of facts normally noted in the routine examination of a book suggest that the font(s) in which it is printed be analyzed in order to settle the issue of shared printing. Strictly speaking, such facts are not "evidence" of shared printing but rather should be viewed as "clues" to that possibility. In general, these clues represent disruptions in the regular patterns established earlier in a book in one or more aspects of printing style or method of imposition and almost always occur at the boundaries between sections of a shared book. Despite this coincidence, the analysis of the font(s) in the book provides the only entirely reliable evidence that the disruption is attributable to sharing rather than to some irregularity in normal shop procedure during the machining of the book.
(1)
A disruption in the sequence of signature alphabets usually occurs only in long shared books but is not a necessary adjunct of sharing. Essays STC 18041, for example, runs through continuous alphabets although Eld printed Book 3 at 2S-3C and Simmes resumed with Book 4 at 3D. A sharing strategy based upon the division of a text into units such as books or parts or some other form of sub-heading may invite a shift in alphabets that was not necessarily implemented even in shared books. Stafford printed the title, preliminaries and part of the text (L-O2) of Part 1 of Essays STC5775 (1600), while Read(?) did Part 2 about a year later. Despite the gap in production, Parts 1 and 2 are continuously signed with the split at O2/O3. However, the two books of Treatise of Antichrist STC7120 (1603) are separately signed. Eld printed the title and preliminaries and most of Book 2 while Braddock printed Book 1. The division into three sections in An Apology STC19295 is accompanied by shifts to new alphabets which reliably indicate the general pattern of sharing. The title (with Eld's imprint), preliminaries, and Book 1 are signed ¶-E, whereas Book 2 commences with a new alphabet at [F1] running 2A-O; then the third shared section begins with a third alphabet running 3A-N4. In this instance, Eld's sharing strategy was obviously based upon the natural divisions by books and the flexibility in production schedule offered by non-sequential signing. Jaggard's machining of Book 2, in effect, was temporally independent of Eld's work on Book 1. At some point, Eld took over Book 2 after Jaggard's long stint 2A-O and began the third alphabet.
Perfectly logical sharing strategies in Elizabethan printing, however, must be held suspect until confirmed by font analysis. In each of the foregoing examples, font analysis reveals further sharing within sections: the font Creede-3 appears in B-K of STC5775 Pt. 1; Creede-4 appears in STC7120 2H-M; and Jaggard's three fonts alternate in 3H-K of STC19295. In general, no irregularity in signing occurs in short texts requiring only one alphabet,
Signature-alphabet shifts occur sometimes in a particular class of books consisting of a primary title/text and an appended secondary title/text. It is not always clear whether the two (or more) texts were intended as sections of one work or as complementary works, or were simply printed together as a matter of expediency. Eld printed the first title (with his imprint) and preliminaries of Remaines STC4521 (1604), Simmes did the first text B-2H, and Eld the second title "Certaine Poems, or Poesies, Epigrammes . . ." and text accompanied by a shift to lower-case alphabet a-h. A simultaneous shift occurs from Simmes-S1 to Eld-Y1. However, shifts also occur in other instances involving only one printer. Jaggard appended Genealogie of Vertue with a repeated alphabet 2B-K to Anatomie of Sinne STC12465.5 [old 565] (1603) which ended at I2v; Jaggard-Y1a prints both texts. Finally, the theoretical possibility should be borne in mind that a shift between quarto printing in fours and eights could occur at boundaries of shared sections. For example, this occurs in A Reformation STC3906 after sheet P where the alphabet and pagination repeat along with shifts in the pica roman and italic emphasis fonts.
(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
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
(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
| | |