 | |  |
(1)
The demonstration of ownership is a straightforward matter if the target font belongs to the class of printer who used a single font in a large number of books over an extended period of time in conjunction with his imprint and/or ornamental stock or entries in the Stationers' Register. Simmes-S1, for example, was the primary font used in this manner in Simmes's shop from 1594-1606. Similarly, White-M was White's primary font from 1597 until about 1608 when it was replaced with White-S1. Although Stafford-EFb appeared in a lower proportion of the books printed by Stafford between 1599-1607?, it nonetheless is the only pica roman font that he used. Creede-3 appeared in a large number of signed books 1594-1602. Given an initial clue such as an imprint or identified initial, a check of a few proximate books by such printers usually will produce a candidate font sample. For example, a survey of a few of Simmes's books from 1604 as suggested by his imprint and xylographic (opposed scrolls) in the titles of Malcontent Q1-2 STC17479-80, Q3 STC17481, and Whore STC6501 quickly leads to the identification of Simmes-S1 in his sections of these shared books (sigs. F-H, B-G, and AB respectively).
However, this ideal situation is fairly uncommon since most pica fonts were replaced at intervals of about 2-4 years, a factor which can present a problem. The survey of the suspected printer's books can yield samples of the wrong font in the sequence used by the correct printer if a font was replaced during the proximate period of the target book. If the sequence involves fonts in different faces, an extension of the survey beyond the proximate period is usually adequate to establish that a replacement occurred and when. The shifts from mixed Creede-3 to S-face Creede-4 (1603) to hybrid Creede-5 (1609) or from Allde-M to Allde-C2 (1591) to Allde-Y1 (1597) are easily established by an extended survey. In contrast, a sequence of two same-face fonts requires closer scrutiny since it is possible to confuse them as a single font in continuous use. For instance, Braddock printed regularly with his sequence of Braddock-Y1,2a from 1598-1601, 1602-1605, with a slight decrease in pica roman output 1601-1602. Y-font samples before and after this transitional period are common enough. Although Braddock-Y1 is easily distinguished by its foul-case cluster, failure to perform this stage of analysis could lead to the erroneous assumption that any Braddock Y-font book 1598-1605 uses the same font. Hence, a comparison of a target font (Braddock-Y1) predating the replacement point of 1602 with a later book (Braddock-Y2a) would lead to the rejection of Braddock as a potential sharing printer. (Further discussion of same-face sequences follows below.)
| | |