University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
collapse section4. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 03. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
collapse section8. 
 01. 
 02. 
 9. 
 10. 
 11. 
 12. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
collapse section2. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 04. 
collapse section3. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
collapse section4. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 04. 
 05. 
 06. 
(5)
 07. 
 08. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
 8. 
 9. 
 10. 
collapse section11. 
 01. 
 02. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
  

collapse section 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

(5)

The practice of sharing sometimes diminished the known output from a shop and created gaps in the use of a given font because it was used in unknown sections of shared books. The current state of knowledge about this phenomenon is by no means exhaustive. The stages of progress reflected in the expanded list of sharing printer assignments added to Morrison's Index and old STC in new STC, and the assignments yet to be added on the basis of typographical evidence, suggest that a significant portion of the output from printers with known sharing activity may lie buried in shared sections.


222

Page 222
Two factors affect the practical implications of this possibility: (1) these sections may actually constitute a large portion of the pica (or other sizes) output from a shop; and (2) since font identification requires recurrent-types identified in original copies, a virtual shortage may occur because the library at which one is working lacks a copy of the key assigned book in which the critical font sample is found. The unknown output in Eld-Y1 provides an informative example. The six books assigned to Eld in Morrison/STC for 1604 include two Eld-Y1 texts: Epigrames STC5672 (four octavo sigs.), and A Loyal Subjects STC25760 (9 quarto sigs.), equivalent to eleven quarto gatherings (plus one minimal use as emphasis font in Palladis STC26014). New STC adds three Eld-Y1 texts (Supplication Q2-3 STC14429.5, 14430.5, ten quarto sigs.; Q4 STC14430, one sig. [only] standing from Q3 [see later discussion]) comprising eleven quarto prose gatherings. In addition, Eld-Y1 printed Malcontent Q1-2 STC17479-80, B-E (eight sigs.); Q3 STC17481, HI (two sigs.); Whore Q1-2 STC6501,6501a, G-K (eight sigs.); and two pages in Siege STC18895, or slightly more than eighteen gatherings. Overall, the fact that eighteen of a total of forty gatherings for 1604 are hidden in unidentified shared sections obviously is a significant factor in a survey for Eld-Y1 samples in 1604. Similarly, one Eld-Y1 appearance in a Read book in 1603 is found in Morrison/STC in the tentative assignment of Antichrist STC7120; new STC assigns 2A-G to Read (seven sigs.) as well as Nero STC12551 (eighteen sigs.) for a total of twenty-five gatherings. In addition, Eld-Y1 appears in Book 3 of Essayes STC18041, an enormous Eld-Y1 sample in a prose folio in sixes which dwarfs the previously known output.

A different kind of problem is encountered in a survey of Eld's 1605 books. Both Morrison/STC and new STC assign Survey Q1-2 STC6200,6201 to Eld. Q2 prints in Eld-S1, while Q1 prints in a Y-font which could be easily misinterpreted as a healthy eight gathering sample useful for identifying Eld-Y1 in a shared section of another book. However, it is not Eld-Y1. Papers used in Q1 are shared with An Apology STC19295 (1607) and do not seem to appear in any other Eld or Simmes book 1603-1608. In private correspondence, Peter Blayney suggests a 1607 piracy. The 1607 dating of Q1 is unquestionable, but the issue of piracy can only be settled by the identification of the Y-font. Given a list of about 100 identified Eld-Y2 types which recur in half-dozen 1607 books by Eld, whether Eld-Y2 prints STC6200 could be easily settled, but The Huntington lacks a copy, a situation which amounts to a virtual gap in shop output and leaves the issue hanging upon another research trip (note also previous discussion of Cromwell STC21532). Nonetheless, the question remains: how is it that papers concurrently used by Eld in 1607 would find their way into a pirated text bearing Eld's imprint and a false date of 1605? Adam Islip's 1598-1605 output represents an extreme case that probably is unique but is worth mentioning since more moderate cases may occur. Pica roman output is lacking in 1599-1601 books bearing the Islip imprint and listed by Morrison/STC. New STC reassignments to Islip of books bearing the Thomas Wight (and/or Bonham Norton) imprint reveal the reason for the apparant lack of pica roman output: Islip-Y1a,b appears


223

Page 223
in at least seven such books 1598-1601. Islip-S1 appears at least in one Islip book 1602-1604, but in at least six Wight books.[43] The impact of new STC reassignments such as this will become clear once Volume 3's "Index of Printers" appears.