 | |  |
(2)
In general, printer identifications rely upon the recognition of ornamental stock previously identified in the references, or by the appearance of pieces in the context of a printer's other identified ornaments. Peter Blayney's discussion of "the pitfalls awaiting the unwary ornament-hunter" (Texts, pp. 491-497) documents the difficulties created by the common practices of the borrowing and the passing of ornamental stock among printers. The existence of duplicate castings and copies likewise can cause confusion. In one extraordinary instance, eight of Eld's ornaments and initials were specially forged for a pirated edition.[15]
Several strategic factors can impede the discovery of the owner of a given ornament when the piece is not identified in the references. With luck, a survey of the suspected sharing printer's books sometimes turns up other appearances of the ornament. However, in many instances, a given ornament was used very rarely, with appearances separated by a decade or more, so that such a survey can be quite time-consuming and futile, ending in an erroneous rejection of the suspected printer. Moreover, an appearance of the ornament may be found in a shared section whose printer is unidentified. The 'W' that begins Eld's section of Malcontent Q1-2 STC17479-80 (1604), for example, does not appear again until 1608, and not since 1598 when Gabriel Simson owned the shop. These appearances are obviously beyond the reach of a proximate survey of Eld's (and Read's) books so that my search for this initial was a dead-end.[16] An appearance of a borrowed ornament creates a similar confusion. The large "THE" logo frequently shared by Simmes and Eld, for example, was lent to Creede for London Prodigal STC22333 (1605), its only appearance noted by Yamada in Creede's books. The appearance of this unique logo in the title of Prodigal, its total absence in other Creede books, and its frequent appearance in Simmes's and Eld's books could lead one to doubt the veracity of the imprint of Prodigal. The suspicion that either Eld or Simmes ghosted the book, however, is laid to rest by the fact that Creede-4 printed the text. Once another tentative appearance has been located, the two ornaments must then be confirmed as being the same piece rather than duplicate castings or copies. When an ornament or its contextual stock have been verified as identical to those in the references and ownership thus established, the issue of whether the actual owner used the ornament in a given
For purposes of identification, ornamental stock falls into two categories: (1) duplicate castings which are basically identical and thus must be distinguished by damage; and (2) more or less faithful copies distinguished by major or minor design differences. Differences due to design and damage can usually be detected through direct comparison of simple pieces such as most initials and xylographics. For example, Simmes and Eld frequently used nearly identical title page xylographic ornaments. Small leaves project inward at top-center from the volutes (large scrolls). Eld's right leaf (shaped somewhat like a parrot's beak) is oversized and the tip extends markedly below the left leaf (see Fools STC4963); Simmes's leaves are nearly symmetrical with the tips aligned (see Malcontent Q1-3 STC17479-81). Failure to note this fairly obvious difference probably occasioned the incorrect new STC assignment of Siege of Ostend STC18895 (1604) to Simmes, whereas it is Eld's version that appears in the title, followed by his Goat-head head-piece at 2A1, three of his initials, his pica italic, and Eld-Y1 at 1A2v-3. Jaggard also used the Simmes version of these xylographic ornaments as the outer portions of a head-piece in a folio setting (Foure-footed Beastes STC24123, 1607, ¶6, 2¶5). This particular head-piece (similar to Plomer 52) seems identical to the one used by Eld (see below). Large duplicates and copies like this sometimes exhibit major design differences that can be detected by a brief comparison of the pieces. Three versions of Plomer head-piece 52 were in use. In all versions, the centered cherub's head rising from a cluster of three fishes is flanked by two dolphin-like creatures. These are flanked by feeding rabbits in Simmes's version, but by feeding squirrels in the versions used by Eld, Jaggard, A. Hatfield (Maison Q2 STC10548, 1606), and Melchisadech Bradwood (A Copy STC6164, 1606, C4v; Concerning STC24719, 1607, A2; A Preamble STC18191, 1608, ¶3). The latter can be distinguished in part by the cherub's head detail. The left cheek is straight and forms an angle with the jaw in Hatfield/Bradwood/Plomer 52, whereas the cheek is chubbier and rounded in the Eld/Jaggard version. The tips of the curved leaves flanking the head nearly touch the halo-like protrusions from the head in the Eld/Jaggard version, while they are spaced about a halo's width from the haloes in the Hatfield/Bradwood/Plomer 52 version. Concentration on these two areas of details is adequate for distinguishing the three versions of the head-piece. However, large pieces with no such major design differences present more of a challenge.[17]
In general, ornamental stock is especially prone to a variety of damage because of the complexity of even simple designs. Straight borders and linear elements exhibit bends, gaps created by missing sections, or sheared sections bent away from the original line. In addition, curved elements typically exhibit flattening or wavy damage. Some comment about the differences in the initials of Alphabets 4 and 5 reproduced by Blayney (Texts, pp. 446-447) is useful for illustrating the difficulty of sorting out duplicate castings in a particular style. The best method for comparing two similar initials depends on the nature of the ornamental design. Ornamentation with recognizable subject matter such as human figures, animals, birds, and objects provides clearly defined areas within the initial for comparison (see Blayney W2, E7, H8, N13, C15 etc.). However, abstract, stylized arrays ("arabesques") of vines and leaves such as Blayney/Alphabets 4, 5, 9, and 12 lack recognizable forms for judging symmetry and proportions. It is best to examine a section at a time (e.g., the top third, the lower-right quadrant etc.) for discontinuities, gaps, bends, extra buds, shoots, tendrils, leaves and vines. For example, the diagonal vine passing through the bottom-left section of the upper counter of Blayney B4 shows a short stem or shoot that is lacking in B5. At the upper right corner, the tips of the two leaves touch on the extreme right border in B4, but not in B5. In addition, the letter in B4 is slightly smaller. Note also that the leaf directly beneath the left base-serif of N4 is notably smaller than in N5. Differences in size can be detected by measurements of the rules enclosing a letter (height, width, diagonal) and the spacings between points in the design. If the two initials are identical duplicate castings, the objective of a comparison is to detect damage, usually quite minor, that differentiates the two initials. For example, if B4 and B5 actually were identical, the two could be distinguished by damage at the extreme lower-right, where B4's vine exhibits a sinuous bend and is separated from the leaf. Note also the damage illustrated in States 1 and 2 of T4 (p. 450) and the missing outer section of the leaf at 10mm down and to the right of H5. The differences created by damage in some Alphabet 5 letters owned by Okes (17 letters) and Islip (at least 15 letters) can be noted by reference to Blayney's reproductions.[18] The dates of appearance are important in deciding whether these examples represent
Since damage is progressive and cumulative, an earlier appearance may lack some damage seen in a later state. A comparison of early and late states of an Islip factotum (Blayney/A3r) illustrates the point. Blayney reproduces a 1607 state (Texts, p. 492) in which two gaps appear in the top border, one large gap at the lower left, and three gaps in the bottom border. Only the gap at the top-left corner is present in the 1600 state (Les Reports STC5493, at *3,A1). Such damage to the rules enclosing a piece is not the firmest kind of evidence, but establishes a strong probability of identity. Hence, this gap, along with most of those seen in Blayney's reproduction, leave little doubt that the factotum at A2 of Six Books STC3193 (1606, Islip) is the same. Islip also possessed what appears to be an identical duplicate casting of this factotum (Blayney/A3r #1) that illustrates one kind of confusion caused by duplicates and copies. The two factotums are virtually indistinguishable except for the fact that A3r #2 is enclosed in double rules and is in much better condition. Both appear in Six Books STC3193 with the inner enclosing rules (the only rules in A3r #1) in obviously different condition: the rules are undamaged in A3r #2 (see Six Books, B1, 2M5v, 2S4v; also De Missa STC 23456 (1603), A2, B1, Z7v, 2F2v; Christian's Sanctuarie STC7113 (1604), B1, K1; and A General Historie STC12374 (1608), C4).[19] Similarly, Jaggard owned the duplicate castings T1 and T2 (noted earlier) which can be differentiated by single vs. double rules; both are characterized by the strange bulge of the whole arabesque array in the upper right quadrant which possibly could be explained in terms of the uneven depth of the mold. Again, simultaneous appearances in one book with differentiating damage leaves no doubt that two pieces are involved (see Foure-footed STC24123, T1 at B3v, T2 at P5, Q6; also Badges STC889 noted earlier).
Large copies and duplicates that exhibit only minor design differences are especially troublesome when the issue is borrowing vs. sharing. An assignment crux arises from the appearance, in the context of identified ornamental stock of one printer, of pieces that are extremely similar to or identical to those known to have been used by another printer. The two samples must be painstakingly compared for differences produced by design or because of the imperfect copying of the original version. In some instances, such differences are so clearly due to design that the issue of damage is irrelevant. However, the absence of distinct progressive damage can leave the question hanging if the ornaments are duplicate castings. These problems are exemplified in
Two of the head-pieces are faithful copies, each with more than one known version. The Eld/Jaggard version of Plomer 52 appears at 1A3; as noted earlier, Bradwood, who joined the Eliot's Court group in 1602, and Hatfield used the Plomer 52 version at least four times. Eliot's Court could have owned both versions, or replaced an earlier Eld/Jaggard version with the Plomer 52 version by 1606.[20] In any event, progressive damage along the upper half of the left edge strongly suggests that the piece in STC12988 is the same as that used by Eld.[21] The initial 'M' seen at 1A3 STC12988 undoubtedly is the same that appears in Eld's books.[22] Damage to two of three areas of the Turk's Head tail-piece in the state seen in 1A4v of STC12988 leaves little doubt that it also is the same piece used by Eld.[23] Finally, the second head-piece, a Goathead flanked by feeding-squirrels and grotesques, exists in two nearly identical versions differentiated by quite minor design
In short, the preliminaries of STC12988 contain one unquestionable Eliot's Court ornament and four pieces which, for all intents and purposes, cannot be distinguished from those used continuously over a long period of time by Eld. So, while ornaments are usually more easily recognized and identified than fonts and frequently lead directly to the correct printer, assignment cruxes do arise that ultimately must be settled by the identification of the contextual font(s). Since A3-3v are set in a Guyot double-pica roman titling font almost never used in texts because few printers owned enough of this type for this purpose, the discovery of samples by either Eliot's Court or
| | |