University of Virginia Library

The identification of a printer's font in a sample text provides the only absolute evidence that he printed all or part of a book. The process of verifying a printer's ownership of a font in a shared book involves a survey of books in the proximate period by suspected printers in order to locate candidate fonts, followed by a comparative analysis to settle upon the most likely candidate. The target font in question and the candidate font are then examined for recurrent identifiable types which provide absolute evidence of the identity of the two fonts and thus establish the identity of the unknown printer of an unsigned book or a section of a shared book. The process is encumbered with pitfalls created by the seemingly inexhaustible inconsistencies in early printing. Sharing strategies frequently defy common-sense logic so that anomalous sharing patterns can be expected as the norm. Furthermore, the patterns of font usage varied widely among printers, a factor which frequently confuses the font ownership issue. Finally, the ownership question can be left hanging because of variations in shop output in the particular size of typeface in question during the proximate period.

In general, the process of sorting out the printers in a shared book usually begins with an initial clue as to the identity of one printer: a signed imprint, an identified ornament, or an entry in the Stationers' Register usually implies the assigned printer's ownership of one or more of the fonts found in the text although this assumption cannot be trusted categorically. In some instances, the printer specified in the imprint did only the title or the title and preliminaries. Moreover, some books lack such initial clues so that the search for the printer(s) begins in a vacuum with nothing more to go on than the fonts found in the book. For example, Whore of Babylon STC6532 (1607), tentatively assigned to Eliot's Court in STC, contains no initials or ornamental stock, but prints in two fairly distinct pica fonts in the classic two-section A-B sharing pattern (A4-G, H-L1). Except in longer books which permit insertion of ornamental stock, this situation obtains with shared sections nearly always in shorter books and invariably in play-quartos. Cancel titles and/or preliminaries in reissued or remarketed books present another kind of problem which must be settled by font analysis since the clues are sometimes confusing. Supplemental evidence provided by the distribution of papers (identified by watermarks) in a book (or books) frequently clarifies the

situation. For example, Islip's imprint appears in the cancel title on A2 (A1 blank) of the long Lectures STC7118, but a Dawson initial appears on A3 and the book prints in Dawson-EFc. Half-sheets A1-2 and A3-4 are printed on different papers. Islip clearly farmed out the entire book to Dawson but reserved the title for printing at half-sheet. Seven Sinnes STC6522 is an extreme case since the title page is found in four different states, each exhibiting a different printer's ornament (see STC description). The setting of the preliminaries is identical in at least two states, although changes occur in the title setting. The improper binding of 2A between 1A3-4 in the Huntington copy may provide a clue to the circumstances that produced this anomaly. In general, nothing can be trusted implicitly except an identified font; thus assignments based upon evidence in the title and preliminaries must be verified as a matter of course.

The survey process focuses upon books produced in the proximate period by either an assigned printer or the suspected sharing printer(s) in order to enhance the probability that a candidate font is the one in current use in the shop and in the same state as the target font.[25] Two kinds of books are

encountered in a survey. First, signed books printed in a single font imply ownership of the font in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Signed books printed in two or more fonts must be approached with an awareness of the possibility of shared printing although some printers used two fonts simultaneously. The survey process is affected by fluctuations in shop production. A decrease in overall production may be real, but in some instances is an indication that the shop was involved in printing unidentified sections of shared books. Moreover, the printing of books requiring other sizes of type can depress the use of the candidate font during the proximate period. In either case, the number of samples of a candidate font can drop dramatically. The varied patterns of font ownership and usage that are characteristic of Elizabethan printing thus can complicate a survey aimed at locating a candidate font in a suspected printer's proximate books. Three classes of font ownership and usage occur, each with its own set of subtle variations occasioned by the frequency, methods, and period of usage of the specific fonts that are encountered in a shop's output: (1) the use of a single font for an extended period, or a sequence of single fonts during shorter periods; (2) the use of more than one font either long-term or during transitional replacement periods; and (3) the continuous use of a font which was transformed at some point through replenishment, mixing or fouling.