University of Virginia Library

(6)

The detection of shared printing is often aided by the fortuitous accident that sections of a shared book print in dissimilar fonts. The alternating pattern of dissimilar fonts in units of a gathering or more provides an obvious clue to the possibility of sharing and reveals the possible divisions of labor. The divisions are usually obvious in a book shared in the classical two-section A-B pattern. For example, it is impossible to overlook the fact that Eld-Y1 appears in Malcontent STC17479 Q1 B-E with Simmes-S1 in F-H; or Creede-4 in A-2D and Windet-F in 2EF of Regiment STC1827. The same holds for books shared in three or four sections so long as a sequence of dissimilar fonts emerges, as, for example, in Honest Whore STC6501, where Simmes-S1 prints AB, Creede-4 prints CD, Stafford-EFb prints EF, and Eld-Y1 prints G-K. In such instances, the dissimilar typefaces or obvious "gross features" differentiae are easily detected in the initial seriatim font analysis. However, a crux frequently emerges in books of more than two sections when two of the sections print in same-face fonts separated by one intervening section (or more) in a dissimilar font. This raises the intermediate issue of whether the two separated same-face fonts are the same and therefore indicate one printer as opposed to two printers using same-face fonts. In instances involving separated appearances of a font distinguished by "gross features" or obvious differentiae, the matter can be easily decided. Creede-3's unique mixture, for example, appears in Parnassus STC378 (1600) at B-S and 2G-K, separated by Purfoot-Y1 at T-Z and Simmes-S1(?) at 2A-F. Purfoot-Y1 could be as easily distinguished in a split appearance because of its unique composition. However, instances such as the appearance of Windet-S1 in EF and HI of Fawne Q1 STC17483 present a problem.

Same-face fonts lacking obvious differentiae usually can be identified in separated appearances only by a recurrent-types survey. Perfectly practical and logical assumptions about sharing strategies cannot be trusted in such instances.[44] For example, the appearances of same-face fonts in widely separated

sections of long books invites the erroneous assumption that, given the length of the book and individual sections, a sequence of printers were involved. A second factor frequently contributes. Printing quality and appearance easily change (sometimes due to different job lots of papers) in long books, leading to the suspicion that a second font appears in a later section. The font distribution in An Apology STC19295 (1607) is complicated by the fact that this quarto in eights was the work of two printers who respectively used two and three fonts during the proximate period. The major difficulty involves determining whether a single Y-font appears in widely separated sections in Book 1 (¶, B-E), 3A-G, and 3L-N. The low-density foul-case S-face sorts in this state of Eld-Y2 (A C D M S T Y b1 g1 k2; 'fl' ligature) do not recur in these isolated sections with the frequency and consistency needed to infer a single font so that evidence of recurrent-types is necessary to establish that Eld-Y2 indeed is the font. Sorting the remaining fonts is assisted by the font distribution. Although Eld was using Eld-S1 at the time, the alternating pattern of fonts in Jaggard's section, which includes Jaggard-S1, eliminates the possibility that Eld-S1 was involved. The combined appearances of Jaggard's three fonts in several gatherings clearly indicate a single printer in those sections;[45] individual full-gathering appearances in Book 2 of Jaggard-C2 (2D, 2G, 2K, 2O) and Jaggard-S1 (2LM) can be resolved by an analysis of cross-contamination. The combined appearances by halves of Jaggard-Y1b and -S1 in 3H and 3K separated by Jaggard-C2 in 3I repeat the pattern of Book 2 and furnish the evidence necessary for assigning the section (3H-K) to Jaggard.

Although shared printing is usually implied by a sequence of fonts in units of a gathering or more, the possibility exists that a printer with two fonts used them in this manner, which is typical of shared printing. The alternation of Lownes-S1 and -Y1 in A Modest STC5882 (1604) invites the inference that three printers were involved as suggested by an S-font in R-2C between Y-fonts in B-Q and 2DE.[46] As in STC19295, the widely separated

fonts in B-Q and 2DE seem different because of printing quality. Nonetheless, recurrent-types indicate that Lownes-Y1 printed both sections with Lownes-S1 in R-2C. The rationale underlying this in-shop division of labor between two fonts is unclear, but the similarity to Jaggard's alternation of Jaggard-C2 and -S1 in STC19295 is obvious. Both may be related to compositorial stints.

The sequence of four editions of A Supplicatione culminates in an undesirable kind of same-face crux: the Eld-Y1 and Simmes-S1 sections of Q3 are reset in Q4 in a second Y-font except for one standing gathering in Eld-Y1 and a few pages in Simmes-S1. Q1 STC14432 prints entirely in Simmes-S1 (incorrectly assigned to the English Secret Press in new STC). Both Q2 and Q3 are in the two-section A-B sharing pattern. B-E is in Eld-Y1 and F-O is in Simmes-S1 in Q2 STC14429.5. In the resetting for Q3 STC14430.5, F of Q2 shifts to Eld-Y1 with Simmes-S1 printing G-O. The redistribution of labor and the sections of standing type seen in Q4 STC14430 provide one clue to the sequence of editions.[47] The complex sharing pattern constructed around standing Eld-Y1 in F and standing Simmes-S1 in M4 and O1-2v would be impossible except in a line-for-line resetting of a text previously containing the standing sections. The pattern exemplifies the problems associated with separated appearances of same-face fonts. White-M with its mixture of nearly complete S- and Y-fonts is easily distinguished in D and G of Q4. Creede-4 could possibly be confused at first with the minimal sample of Simmes-S1 in the latter's standing section; moreover, the separated appearances of Creede-4 could also suggest two more sharing printers; however, Creede-4's differentiae permit verification of separated appearances in BC, H, and L. Another major pitfall is created by the appearance of Y-fonts in the remainder of the pica roman sections of text. The previous use of a same-face font in a section(s) of an earlier edition creates a predisposition to assume that it appears in the same section (or part thereof) in the later edition. Given the fact that Eld-Y1 appears in B-E of Q2 and B-F of Q3, it is easy to assume that Eld-Y1 therefore appears in EF, I, N and M3v of Q4. The analysis of "gross features" and composition is frequently inadequate to distinguish same-face fonts in these situations: the few wrong-face capitals in Eld-Y1 in Q3 B-F (B E L P S, Guyot 'S') seem consistent with the 'E P' in Q4 E (E2v:1, 3), the 'P' with the crimped bowl (Q4, E4:9, I:13, N2v:16) seems at first glance consistent with that seen in Eld-Y1 in Q3 (B2v:15, B3:25, C1v:35, D1v:3, E3v:3), and the few fouled italic 'P S' seen in Q4 could easily be attributed to transient fouling. A recurrent-types survey of Q4 is necessary to identify Eld-Y1 in standing F and distinguish it from the second Y-font. The remainder (E, I, M3v, N) was reset (very probably)

in Braddock-Y2a. The correct sequence of 14430.5 and 14430 is implied by the fact that the final sections of Q3 in Eld-Y1 (F) and Simmes-S1 (M4, O1-2v) were undistributed and hence remained standing for Q4. Similarly, resetting patterns in the absence of standing type may provide useful evidence as to a sequence of editions. For instance, the font distributions shift between the two editions of Pericles. Q2 STC22335 is set in the classical A-B pattern, with White-S1 in A-D and Creede-5 in E-I3v. In Q1 STC22334, however, sheet E is printed by White and sheet B by Creede so that the resulting distribution is: White-S1: A, C-E; Creede-5: B, F-I. In general, the simple two-section pattern usually occurs in the first edition while the disrupted pattern occurs in a line-for-line resetting in the second edition.

The most treacherous crux consists of the appearances of two same-face fonts in contiguous sections of a shared book. If other clues to sharing are present, the possibility of two fonts should be tested immediately. The shift of ornamental stock in Book 2 of Antichrist STC7120, for example, calls for a comparative analysis of the Y-fonts in Books 1 and 2 in order to differentiate Braddock-Y2a from Eld-Y1. Although an uncommon case, the Dutch Courtesan STC17475, a book bearing Purfoot's imprint and printed in two Y-fonts, epitomizes the various complications that can confound the search for sharing printers. Some aspects of printing style and the running-titles shift between A-E and F-H. Purfoot's ownership of both Purfoot-Y2 and -Y3 is a complicating factor in detecting shared printing in this instance. The S-capitals and italic foul-case cluster in A-E leave little doubt that Purfoot-Y2 printed the section. However, the Y-font in F-H exhibits a deceptive similarity to Purfoot-Y3. The italic foul-case cluster in F-H is consistent with that seen in Purfoot-Y3 although the two overlap in only a few sorts. This difference could be attributed to progressive fouling and/or purging. The presence of the turned 'p q' and the oversized 'b' and 'ct' ligature in F-H, Purfoot-Y2 and -Y3, in contrast, suggests cross-contamination and renders the inference of identity more difficult to dismiss. In any event, this obvious evidence is ambiguous. The recurrent-types survey of F-H produces another complicating factor: several positively identifiable types appear in both formes of sheet F,[48] indicating one-case setting with distributions after each forme, a sound basis for inferring that only half of the font appears in F-H. In turn, this undermines the conclusiveness of the failure of a recurrent-types survey of F-H and Purfoot-Y3 to yield identified types in both fonts. The identity of the target font in F-H, in short, can be determined only by the discovery of a candidate font which yields recurrent-types. The obvious differentiate exhibited by the F-H font lessens the difficulty of settling upon a suitable candidate such as Jaggard-Y1b. If it is the correct candidate, recurrent-types usually emerge

rather quickly. However, the search process seems destined to failure when a target font lacks obvious differentiae, and worse yet, exhibits minimal to virtually no damage and wear. For example, identified Eld-Y2 types recur throughout Byron STC4968 (B-O, QR) except in sheet P, where a Y-font in virginal condition appears. This font is entirely uncontaminated, almost all types print with crisp clean edges, and only a few types exhibit minor damage that could support positive identification in recurrences. Identification of this font would be a tenuous procedure even if the correct candidate font were located. The Y-font alternating with Islip-EFb in De Missa STC23456 is a similar instance but not quite as extreme.