(3)
A fairly common problem arises if proximate books were printed
during a transition in shop ownership, raising the question of whether a font
passed to the new owner. On the one hand, a survey may reveal a gap of
several years in the use of what seems to be a single font in intermittent use
in a shop. In some instances, the interval is such that common sense rejects
the notion that a single font is involved. Font analysis usually can confirm
this view, especially if a significant transformation in the composition of the
suspect font(s) would have been necessary. For example, a seven year gap
occurred between Middleton's last use of a Y-font (1581), which was
extensively contaminated with wrong-face letters, the passing of the shop
to Robinson, and
the introduction of Robinson-Y1 (1588?). The fact that at least thirty
lowercase letters and ligatures and most capitals had to be purged to
transform the former into the latter leaves no doubt that these are different
fonts. The four-year interval separating the last use of Read-S1 (1601) and
the appearance of Eld-S1 (1605) is not as great, but only a transformation
through a highly improbable decontamination could have produced the
latter.
[35] Read-S1 is contaminated
with Y-face letters: the high-density 'a' (about 30%) and 'k' (about 40%)
variants and low-density 'A D E F I M P p', and the low-density crimped
'w', which is not seen elsewhere at this time. Eld-S1 is uncontaminated in
its first three appearances in 1605 and does not exhibit Y-face fouling until
its use in
Eastward Hoe! Q1. Moreover, fundamental
differences are seen in the S-face composition of the two fonts. For
example, Read-S1 contains worn t1,2 and moderate-density oversized t3
whereas the new t1 is exclusive in Eld-S1; the old worn S-k1 is dominant
in Read-S1 except for moderate-density replenished S-k2 and fouled Y-face
'k' variants; Eld-S1 sports new S-k2 and no Y-face 'a k p' variants, capitals
or ligatures. Read-S1's capitals are correctly cast and justified; the miscast
D2 and G2 are exclusive in Eld-S1; and Eld-S1's punctuation sorts are new
and uncontaminated. In addition to these and other compositional
differences, Eld-S1 is, in sharp contrast to Read-S1, a crisp clean font in
1605. In short, the differences between the two fonts preclude any
possibility of transformation.
Settling the issue of ownership from shop lineage is a relatively
simple matter if the production of books in the font size in question was
consistent before and after the change in shop ownership. This is true even
in instances where overall production was consistently low as long as a few
books in the given font can be found. For example, shop output was sparse
both during Simson's, Widow Simson's, and Read's tenures. Nonetheless,
the lineage of Simson-S1 to Read-S1 is easily demonstrated. The font is
used in combination with ornamental stock in proximate books before and
after the passing of the shop to Read.[36] The unmistable composition of the
font
bridges the transition without modification. The passing issue is more
difficult to resolve if the fonts used before and after the passing of a shop
are in the same-face and lack such significant differentiae. In general, a
recurrent-types survey must be employed to resolve the same-face passing
issue
in this situation.
Two factors present a problem in determining whether Robinson-Y1b
passed to Braddock in 1598. Because of the lack of books from the shop in
the preceding year, Braddock-Y1 of 1598 must be compared to the
Robinson-Y1b seen in at least four books in 1595-96: in the text of
Salomon STC18194, 1596; the preliminaries (¶2-3v) and
sheet P of
The Discoverie STC20634, 1596; long quotations
in
A Comparison STC4098, 1595; and as the emphasis font in
The Second Time STC18246, 1596. Furthermore,
Braddock-Y1
exhibits a more extensive contamination with wrong-face sorts than
Robinson-Y1b, giving it a different overall appearance. However, the
limited foul-case cluster present in Robinson-Y1b (S-face A P S; italic
I O S; turned 'p'; 108mm ',') is consistent with that seen in
Braddock-Y1. Progressive contamination through fouling and replenishment
during 1597-1598 is a plausible explanation for the expansion of the cluster
since the transformation requires no elimination of sorts found in
Robinson-Y1b. In this instance, the
large font samples from 1596 and 1598 create a favorable situation for a
successful recurrent-types survey to either confirm or reject identity. The
passing and continuous use of the font is demonstrated by recurrent-types
from the 1595-96 Robinson-Y1b in Braddock-Y1 from 1598-1600.
[37]
