(4)
The failure to locate recurrent-types that positively confirm the
identity of the same-face fonts in samples from before and after the
suspected passing must be viewed as negative evidence and interpreted with
caution. The simple
fact is that two reasonably adequate samples of one font will eventually
yield recurrent-types. The length of the samples must increase
proportionately with the interval separating them to adjust for the on-going
process of purging battered types, a factor which varies among shops. In
general, samples consisting of several quarto gatherings at both ends of a
long interval (three years or more) are usually adequate for the purpose,
provided that the font is reasonably battered to start with. The variables that
must be weighed in interpreting the failure of the survey include (1)
investigator oversights, (2) a less-than-thorough search for recurrent-types,
and (3) the possibility that each sample text was set from a different case
thereby precluding recurrence of identifiable types. The first clue to the
latter possibility is that recurrent-types appear in both formes of a
gathering, a fairly certain indication that only one case was used in setting
the text.
[38]
The lack of adequate font samples during a transitional period can
produce an ownership crux that can be resolved tentatively at best. For
instance, shop lineage is established by Read's inheritance of Simson-S1
along with the shop's ornamental stock, which then passed to Eld. The
situation is complicated by the assumption, based upon the first appearances
of Eld's imprint, that he took over the shop in 1604.[39] The appearances in 1601, 1602,
and 1603 of Y-fonts in suspected Read books, and then Eld-Y1 in signed
books in 1604, create the appearance of the continuous uninterrupted use
of a single Y-font and raise the possibility that it passed to Eld along with
the shop. Overall, these font samples exhibit no significant differentiae that
would raise suspicion about their identity. Two Y-font appearances in early
1602 contribute to the appearance of the continuous use of a single font, but
the sample is less than minimally adequate in both instances. The Y-font
that appears in one quarto-page (B2v) of verse in
Epitaph
STC3415 (entered 24 February 1602) is considerably worn and battered; the
Y-font seen in speech headings in
A Dialogue STC18892
(entered 25 February 1602), a very short quarto, is in distinctly better
condition. This observable difference in condition is a reasonable basis for
rejecting the identity of the two. It is plausible that the font of
A
Dialogue STC18892 is that seen in the other
books but the amount of type in
A Dialogue is simply too
limited to provide the evidence needed to establish identity. On other hand,
the consistent appearance of Read/Eld stock in pages set in a Y-font in the
octavo text of
Essayes Pt. 2 STC5775 (entered 19 October
1601) and
Tragedies STC26076 (1601, not entered),
and two later dramatic quartos suggests a single font. However, two factors
prevent reaching a definite conclusion about the identity of these font
samples in this instance. As sometimes happens, the practical reality of
limited library holdings can present an obstacle: since The Huntington lacks
an original copy of
Cromwell STC21532 (entered 11 August
1602), it is impossible to perform a recurrent-types survey which could link
Essayes Pt. 2 to the first demonstrable appearance of Eld-Y1
in
Nero STC12251 (entered 23 February 1603) via identifiable
types in
Cromwell. Cromwell could be an important source
of
evidence given the quite good condition of the type in
Essayes,
Tragedies, and
Nero, a factor which makes it difficult
to
locate identifiable types in the latter books. In general, some identifiable
types remain in a font throughout its lifetime. However, the probability of
locating recurrences of specific types is affected by the random
recurrence phenomenon and hence is directly proportional to the number of
such types in a font. Although the interval between
Essayes/Tragedies and
Nero is hardly enough
in
itself to explain the apparent absence of recurrent-types in the two books,
the relatively few identifiable types in each compounds the problem
presented by the interval. A third set of identifiable types in
Cromwell would dramatically increase the chances of finding
overlapping recurrences if the fonts are actually the same. It is also possible
that repeating the recurrent-types survey of
Essayes/Tragedies
and
Nero would eventually yield evidence of identity.
Nonetheless, the ornamental evidence in combination with the composition
of the complementary Granjon pica italic font points to a single font in
Essayes/Tragedies, Cromwell, and
Nero
although
specific typographical evidence is lacking.
[40] In general, the suspicion about
ownership
raised by the
failure to locate recurrent-types in reasonably battered candidate and target
fonts from the proximate period is usually a sound indication that a search
for a sharing printer is necessary.
Finally, the ownership crux is unresolvable if a font appears in only
one assigned book but in the absence of an interwoven setting which could
demonstrate ownership. The presence of identifiable ornamental stock in
such an instance is inadequate to prove the ownership of the font because
of reasons discussed earlier. On the other hand, ownership can be assumed
if the single appearance of the font occurs in combination with an identified
complementary font (e.g., italic, black letter) in quantities and patterns such
as preclude sharing. Very short settings that are inserted into a text which
is set before and after in another font style or size present a special problem
since transportation from another shop is not unrealistic. The page of short
verse noted above in Epitaph STC3415 is such an instance.
Page-length prose epistles or dedicatory verses in preliminaries seem to be
another class of settings to approach with caution. It seems wise to require
a verifiable second
appearance of a font in these instances before concluding ownership. The
need for such caution can be illustrated by two cases involving books signed
by Roberts. His infrequently used 76mm Guyot pica roman appears in three
short settings in the context of identifiable fonts and ornamental stock. The
passages at B4-4v and I3-3v of Scourge of Villanie STC17485
(1598) are inserted in a text in Roberts-S1. The epistle in A3-3v of A
True Discourse STC7293 (1604) shares A3 with a Guyot pica italic
such as Roberts used and Roberts-S1 serves as the emphasis font in the
black letter text A4-D3. Similarly, the epistle on A2-4 of
Euphues STC17075 (1597) is headed by Roberts's
Trumpets-T,
followed by a Granjon italic in A4v-B1v such as he used elsewhere, and
Roberts-S1 on B2-B2v headed by his Angel-G, followed by Roberts-S1 as
emphasis font in the black letter text B3-2F2.[41] In these instances, the contextual
materials
and their pattern of
appearances would be sufficient
to allay any doubts about Roberts's ownership of the Guyot pica roman.
Fortunately, Roberts used the Guyot pica at least two other times as the text
font, leaving no doubt of ownership (See
Englands Heroicall
STC7196 [4th ed., 1600], STC7197 [5th ed., 1602]; not checked: STC7193
[1st ed., 1597] and STC7195 [3rd ed., 1599]). However, two appearances
of Y-fonts in books signed by Roberts are deceptive and lead to an
erroneous inference of ownership. The minimal sample of a Y-font seen in
the few speech heads and emphasis in the black letter text (A2-C3v) of
Clim of Clough STC1808 (1605) lacks distinguishing features
(except for the odd use of the 'fl' ligature in setting "Cloudesse" which may
indicate a lack of the 'ff' ligature in the font) and would be cause for
suspicion of sharing if it was the only appearance of a Y-font in a book
signed by Roberts. However, the entire text of
Scourge STC
17486.5 (1599) (Folger 17486a; British Library C.39.b.43) also prints in
a Y-font which, despite the gap of five years and the minimal sample in
STC1808, would seem adequate to demonstrate ownership. Furthermore,
Roberts-S1 accumulates an extensive foul-case set of Y-face capitals from
about 1600 on, a factor which suggests the use of a Y-font in the shop.
However, the Y-font of STC17486.5 exhibits an extensive foul-case cluster
that makes it easily identifiable (even a single-page reproduction such as
Plate 124,
Pica Roman Type, contains highly suggestive
evidence of identity). Roberts actually farmed out STC17486.5 to Braddock
and the font is Braddock-Y1 in a state similar to that seen in
Midsummer Night's Dreame Q1 STC22302.
[42] Finally, a short
passage printed in a font distinguished by such "gross features" can
sometimes suggest the identity of the printer of a section in another font
style or size. For example, the appearance of 18 lines of Stafford-EFb at
D1 in the 96mm roman text font of sheets CD in
T. Whole
Magnificient Entertainment STC6513 (1604) suggests the assignment
of the section to Stafford.
