University of Virginia Library

III

The identification of a printer's font in a sample text provides the only absolute evidence that he printed all or part of a book. The process of verifying a printer's ownership of a font in a shared book involves a survey of books in the proximate period by suspected printers in order to locate candidate fonts, followed by a comparative analysis to settle upon the most likely candidate. The target font in question and the candidate font are then examined for recurrent identifiable types which provide absolute evidence of the identity of the two fonts and thus establish the identity of the unknown printer of an unsigned book or a section of a shared book. The process is encumbered with pitfalls created by the seemingly inexhaustible inconsistencies in early printing. Sharing strategies frequently defy common-sense logic so that anomalous sharing patterns can be expected as the norm. Furthermore, the patterns of font usage varied widely among printers, a factor which frequently confuses the font ownership issue. Finally, the ownership question can be left hanging because of variations in shop output in the particular size of typeface in question during the proximate period.

In general, the process of sorting out the printers in a shared book usually begins with an initial clue as to the identity of one printer: a signed imprint, an identified ornament, or an entry in the Stationers' Register usually implies the assigned printer's ownership of one or more of the fonts found in the text although this assumption cannot be trusted categorically. In some instances, the printer specified in the imprint did only the title or the title and preliminaries. Moreover, some books lack such initial clues so that the search for the printer(s) begins in a vacuum with nothing more to go on than the fonts found in the book. For example, Whore of Babylon STC6532 (1607), tentatively assigned to Eliot's Court in STC, contains no initials or ornamental stock, but prints in two fairly distinct pica fonts in the classic two-section A-B sharing pattern (A4-G, H-L1). Except in longer books which permit insertion of ornamental stock, this situation obtains with shared sections nearly always in shorter books and invariably in play-quartos. Cancel titles and/or preliminaries in reissued or remarketed books present another kind of problem which must be settled by font analysis since the clues are sometimes confusing. Supplemental evidence provided by the distribution of papers (identified by watermarks) in a book (or books) frequently clarifies the

situation. For example, Islip's imprint appears in the cancel title on A2 (A1 blank) of the long Lectures STC7118, but a Dawson initial appears on A3 and the book prints in Dawson-EFc. Half-sheets A1-2 and A3-4 are printed on different papers. Islip clearly farmed out the entire book to Dawson but reserved the title for printing at half-sheet. Seven Sinnes STC6522 is an extreme case since the title page is found in four different states, each exhibiting a different printer's ornament (see STC description). The setting of the preliminaries is identical in at least two states, although changes occur in the title setting. The improper binding of 2A between 1A3-4 in the Huntington copy may provide a clue to the circumstances that produced this anomaly. In general, nothing can be trusted implicitly except an identified font; thus assignments based upon evidence in the title and preliminaries must be verified as a matter of course.

The survey process focuses upon books produced in the proximate period by either an assigned printer or the suspected sharing printer(s) in order to enhance the probability that a candidate font is the one in current use in the shop and in the same state as the target font.[25] Two kinds of books are

encountered in a survey. First, signed books printed in a single font imply ownership of the font in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Signed books printed in two or more fonts must be approached with an awareness of the possibility of shared printing although some printers used two fonts simultaneously. The survey process is affected by fluctuations in shop production. A decrease in overall production may be real, but in some instances is an indication that the shop was involved in printing unidentified sections of shared books. Moreover, the printing of books requiring other sizes of type can depress the use of the candidate font during the proximate period. In either case, the number of samples of a candidate font can drop dramatically. The varied patterns of font ownership and usage that are characteristic of Elizabethan printing thus can complicate a survey aimed at locating a candidate font in a suspected printer's proximate books. Three classes of font ownership and usage occur, each with its own set of subtle variations occasioned by the frequency, methods, and period of usage of the specific fonts that are encountered in a shop's output: (1) the use of a single font for an extended period, or a sequence of single fonts during shorter periods; (2) the use of more than one font either long-term or during transitional replacement periods; and (3) the continuous use of a font which was transformed at some point through replenishment, mixing or fouling.

(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.)

(2)

The appearance of two or more fonts in an assigned proximate book(s) by a candidate printer raises the possibility of shared printing so that the intermediate issue of his ownership of more than one font must be settled before work proceeds on the target text. In such a case, the pattern of font usage in

assigned books in the proximate period usually provides evidence of ownership. Ideally each font appears separately in a single-font book which can be unquestionably assigned to the printer. Otherwise, proximate books usually provide evidence of the simultaneous use of two or more fonts, especially when the fonts appear in an alternating pattern within gatherings or lesser units. A survey of proximate books should yield books to establish ownership in uncommon instances of a printer's two fonts alternating in sections consisting of gatherings in the manner typical of shared printing. Finally, an extended survey is sometimes necessary to establish the ownership of a replacement sequence of two fonts used simultaneously for a short period before the old depleted font was discarded.

In general, two situations occur: the long-term use of two fonts or the simultaneous use of two sequential fonts during a transitional period. In either instance, the simultaneous use can lead to transformations in font composition that affect the font identification process. Such transformations are usually progressive and irreversible. Reverse transformations through decontamination seem not to have happened except through purging of foul-case italic letters.[26] Hence, a commonsense assessment of the changes necessary to transform a font from suspected early to late states usually suffices to settle the issue. The possibility of the total replacement of individual sorts should be considered in the context of the number of affected sorts. It is conceivable that a printer decided to jettison entire 'a k y ?' sorts and replace them with newly-cast type. However, at this point, there seem to be no examples of this having occurred. When the balance or proportions are observed to shift dramatically to new replenished types in a sort, remnants of the original types are inevitably present. The transformation issue is sometimes critical in establishing the sequence of fonts in a shop during one printer's tenure or in deciding whether a font passed to a new printer along with a shop. In the matter of identifying a sharing printer, a target font in a shared section can be compared to either state of a transformed candidate font. If it can be established that the font was transformed at some point, text samples in the earlier state will contain recurrent-types that can establish the identity of the font in the later state in a target text (or vice versa).

In ideal situations, the ownership of two fonts is easily demonstrated by the interwoven use of two fonts in bibliographical units that eliminate shared printing. New Simmes-S2 prints most of Eliosto STC13509 (1606), but old Simmes-S1 appears at D3-E4v. Such a pattern argues against sharing because of the mutual appearance of the two fonts in the respective halves of a gathering. Ballard took over the two fonts and used them in a similar fashion in Merry Devil STC7493 (1608). Shop lineage, in this instance, provides added evidence of ownership of the two fonts. The alternation of Kingston-Y1 and -EFc, both used simultaneously for a few years, in T. Workes STC12316 (1601)

was probably occasioned by the demands of the large folio setting, although alternating compositorial stints are plausible, and leaves no doubt about ownership. For example, EFc sets 3D1-1v, Y1 sets 3D2:1-49, followed by EFc from 3D2:50-3D2v:38 with Y1 completing the page (:39-54). The shift to EFc on 3D3:1-26 is accompanied by mixing in of some Y1 sorts until Y1 takes over from 3D3:27-47, then EFc sets a long section 3D3:48-3D4:17, Y1 from 3D4:22-D5:34, and EFc concludes the gathering 3D5:35-D6v. The intricate interweaving of two fonts within page-length units in this manner is infrequent but valuable typographical evidence of ownership. The observation of the minor transformation of Kingston-EFc by the fouling with Y1 sorts in 3D3:1-26 provides additional internal evidence of the identity of EFc.

In some instances, the transformation is more extensive, consisting either of a partial or a complete mixing of two fonts in different faces. This kind of phenomenon is usually accompanied by the transitional use of the two in an alternating pattern which leaves no doubt as to ownership and transformation. The mixing of a replacement font into the previous font is illustrated by the creation of Creede-3. Creede-1 (S-face) is used to D in Selimus STC 12310a (1594), at which point Creede-2 (C2-hybrid) takes over; the two alternate, then are promiscuously distributed and fully mixed by the end of the book. The new mixed font Creede-3 immediately begins its appearances in a long sequence of signed books to 1602. The transformation of one case of Windet-S1 into Windet-S2 from 1605 by fouling with Windet-F letters (A D G H M O T a b g k w x y z) has been noted previously.[27] The process can be observed in Fawne STC17483 (1606) where Windet-F and -S2 alternate

by formes in Q1, but in the resetting of pages for Q2, they alternate within pages accompanied by some cross-contamination.[28] With the further contamination of Windet-S1 in Sophonisba STC17488, the clear distinction between Windet-S1 and -S2 becomes somewhat obscured by the low-density mixing of these and additional Windet-F capitals (E F P S) into Windet-S1, an increase in the proportions of these capitals in Windet-S2, and the mixing of Windet-F 'g w' into both fonts. However, Windet-S1 remains relatively free of Windet-F lower-case sorts. Though difficult, it would be possible to sort out the alternating stints of the two fonts in many pages of a later text such as 1 Henry 4 Q5 STC22283 (1608) and Romeo & Juliet Q3 STC22324 (1609) if the need arose in a compositorial analysis.

The transformations in the sequence of three fonts used by Eld 1603-1609 occur in the context of a simultaneous transitional use of Eld-Y1 to Eld-S1 and Eld-S1 to Eld-Y2 in interwoven settings during both transitions. The resulting cross-contaminations yield foul-case clusters in Eld-S1 and Eld-Y2 that aid in potential recognition of the two fonts if encountered in shared sections. Eld clearly planned ahead in acquiring new fonts, but for some reason pushed the old fonts to the brink of depletion, thereby occasioning the transformations of the new fonts. Although his compositors were quite careful, it seems that interweaving a depleted font with a new one presented an impossible distribution situation. Each of the fonts appears separately in signed books; nonetheless, Eld's ownership is clear from the use of the respective pairs of fonts in alternating patterns which eliminate the possibility of shared printing. Put into use in 1603?, Eld-Y1 was the only pica roman that appeared in books from the shop until early 1605, when Eld-S1 appeared in Survey (STC6201, 22 January 1605) with Eld's imprint and thereafter in several others (An Answer STC26002 etc.) to 1608?. The low-density S-capitals that appear in Eld-Y1 early on are possibly remnants from Simson/Read-S1; this suggests that part of Simson/Read-S1 was in the shop until replaced by Eld-Y1 in 1603? If so, it either was not used at all, or only in shared sections, although this seems unlikely because of the overall production of the shop during Read's tenure, which seems to have included but a few short ephemera and no books of noteworthy length after 1601. However, the fouling of Eld-Y1 with additional S-capitals and then with lower-case sorts begins

an upswing in the proximate period of the acquisition of Eld-S1.[29] Unfortunately, the actual transitional period is obscured by several factors, including discrepancies between imprint and entry dates, a common problem in sorting out font sequences.[30] During the nebulous transitional period, Eld-Y1 and Eld-S1 alternate in an anomalous pattern in Eastward Hoe! Q1 STC 4971.[31] Moreover, the sequence of Eastward Q1-2 provides a unique additional kind of evidence of ownership. Standing type in Eld-Y1 from Q1 migrates across page and gathering boundaries into Q2. In the process, lineation is disrupted as the measure is expanded to 100mm in HI to accommodate the transferred type.[32] Tied-up standing type could conceivably be transported between shops, but that unlikelihood is completely dismissed by the dovetailing of standing vs. reset type in Eastward Q2. Eld-Y1 makes a final appearance in two pages (E1v, F3v) of Q3 along with Eld-S1. The period of transition from Eld-S1 to Eld-Y2 likewise is somewhat nebulous due to uncertainty about the date at which Eld-Y2 began use, but Eld's ownership of the two fonts is clear from alternating patterns within gatherings. Eld-S1 appears heavily fouled with Eld-Y1,2 capitals at F2, G1v-2, H4v, I1-2, I4v, K3v-4v, L1v-2, M4-4v of Lingua STC24104 (23 February 1607) and at I(i), K2, M1, M3v-4v, N2v-3 of Volpone STC14783 (imprint: 1607; entry: 3 October 1610). The progressive fouling suggests that Eld-S1 was considerably depleted in the upper-case at the end of its lifetime; the lower-case was contaminated with Y-sorts throughout its lifetime. The process left Eld-Y2 contaminated with S-face sorts (A B C D2 E1 G2 H I L M O P R S T V Y b1 f1,4 g1 k1 n3,4 p1 x2; ligatures: ct fl2 ſi ſl ſt; and '?') in varying low-density proportions. There seems to be a concentration of fouled sorts in sections of later texts such as Troilus STC22331 (1609) which may be useful in compositorial analysis.

Transformations in fonts usually occur offstage. Unless the process is observed in progress, it must be inferred from the demonstrable ownership of the two fonts either in long-term or transitional simultaneous use. This is the case with the two states of Jaggard-Y1. Jaggard-Y1a appeared in at least three books before transformation: T. Anatomie STC12465.5 (1603), T. Triumphs STC18279 (1605), and T. Lamentation STC7606 (1605). At some point in 1605, Y1a was transformed into Y1b by the addition of C2-hybrid sorts. Two factors obscure the time and source of contamination. Jaggard-Y1b's first appearances in signed books occurs in 1606: Essays STC1139, and T. Badges STC889. However, Jaggard used the font earlier in his section (F-H) of Dutch Courtesan STC17475, entered 26 June 1605. The most likely source of the contaminating sorts was Jaggard-C2. However, the date of Jaggard's acquisition and first use of this font is unclear, but it seems to have been later than 1605. The date of its appearance in Westward Hoe STC6540 is confused by the contradiction between the crossed-out Stationers' Register entry of 2 March 1606 and the imprint of 1607. An alternative possibility is that, in order to extend the life of the font, Jaggard replenished Y1a with C2 sorts from the same foundry that supplied Jaggard-C2 before acquiring the latter. In any event, ownership of Y1b and Jaggard-C2 is not an issue because of Jaggard's practice of alternating these fonts within gatherings along with a third font, Jaggard-S1. Jaggard's section (A-G; Eld-Y2 in H-I2v) of Westward Hoe, for example, prints in Jaggard-Y1b except for Jaggard-C2 in D4 and F1, and Jaggard-S1 in B2v-3, C1, C2v-4v, E1-3, E4v, F1v-4v and G2v-3. The three fonts alternate in Jaggard's sections of An Apologie STC19295, shared with Eld, and Jaggard-C2 and -S1 alternate in T. Miseries STC25635 (1607).[33] The two were used at least once in alternating fashion as the emphasis fonts (T. Deade Tearme STC6496, 1608). Just why Jaggard acquired and used the three fonts is a mystery since Jaggard-Y1b was still adequate in 1606 for setting the long (B-2G) T. Badges STC889. Even so, the use of the three is confined to 1607, suggesting a transitional waiting period until Jaggard-Y2 was delivered in 1608 (Jesuites STC1824). The fonts may have been used more extensively than we know. The practice of alternating seems to have gone amuck and fouled one case of Jaggard-S1 in Sermons STC15882 (1607) where a mixture of Y1b, C2 and S1 sorts occurs in R6,7,8, S1,2v,3,4v and later. The font is largely uncontaminated in the short text in A2-A3v:15 of Ruine of Rome STC6641 (1607), but this probably is attributable to the use of the uncontaminated case. A transient phenomenon confined to 1607, the three fonts seem to occur always in alternating fashion and thereby provide a unique kind of font identification composite consisting of the pattern and the cross-contamination.

One circumstance is shared by the Islip-Y1a,b and Jaggard-Y1a,b transformations.

The contamination respectively with EFc and C2 sorts occurs in rough proximity with the acquisition of a new font. In both instances, a similarity in the nature of the transformation and the lapse between the introduction of the new font perhaps implies something about supply sources, that is, replenishment from a local source which supplied a particular hybrid set of letters. Islip-Y1a appears uncontaminated in 1598 in A Treatise STC 17291, but by 1599 exhibits the replenished EFc sorts in Prenobilis STC11196. Meanwhile, Islip-C2 makes its final(?) appearance in the same year (see T. Love STC19540). Islip-EFb first appears in 1600 in EMOH STC14767, which establishes its first date of usage and not necessarily its date of acquisition. Its appearance in the incorrectly assigned and dated (A. Jaffes, c1585) Articuli STC4584 (see Pica Roman Type, Plate 76, Jaffes-1) probably predates EMOH (8 April 1600). The fact that two versions of the EF-hybrid are involved raises a question about the connection between the two acquisitions, implying perhaps that two supply sources were involved, one of which supplied the EFbhybrid with Guyot capitals. Perhaps the replenishment of Islip-Y1a was an attempt to extend the life of the font, and once completed, Islip decided to order the new font Islip-EFb. This is plausible in view of the fact that Islip had obtained Islip-S1 by 1602. The font was used along with, but independent of, Islip-EFb until 1604; similarly, Islip-Y1b continued in use until 1602. Overall, a pattern emerges in which a sequence of three fonts was acquired and used separately during two-year overlapping periods, although this degree of precision may be illusory.

In general, the continuous use of a single font in two states can be demonstrated by recurrent-types in the early and late states. In some instances, a font is already contaminated in what seems to be its earliest appearance. Circumstances may indicate the plausible source of contamination. For example, Allde-Y1 appeared in 1597 (R & J Q1 STC22322; and Granados STC 16902, 1598) with a low-density wrong-face mixture in place, including S-face sorts (A1 D1 G H O T; low-riding C F1 G2 H I L M P; a d2 f1 h2 p1 u1; ligatures: ct fi2 fl2; and '?') and C2-hybrid sorts (b2 k1 g2), all of which are probably from Allde-C2 which last appeared in 1596. However, Jaggard-Y2 appears with oversized capitals (2.95-3.15mm) already in place which do not seem to come from Jaggard-S1 (A B C D G H I K M O P R S T V; see T. Pathway STC898, 1609).

The transformation issue can be clouded when the similarity exhibited by a sequence of fonts is such that transformation seems the logical explanation. The general principle that transformations are progressive usually permits settling the issue. Sorting the sequence of fonts in Purfoot's shop 1598-1607? is complicated by the fact that three same-face fonts are involved (see also later discussion of Robinson-Y1a,b). The sparse known output during the transitional periods between Purfoot-Y1, -Y2, and -Y3 forces an extension of the survey across 1601-1606 in order to locate samples of each font. The fiveyear period represents sufficient time for major transformations to have occurred. The early font, Purfoot-Y1 (last seen in 1601?) exhibits mixed Y- and

S-capitals, an obvious characteristic of Purfoot-Y2 (first seen in 1605?), inviting the inference that the two are the same.[34] A closer examination reveals that whereas Purfoot-Y2 exhibits an uncontaminated lower-case, Purfoot-Y1 exhibits a variety of moderate-density oversized wrong-face roman letters: (S-face: b3, p1; C2-hybrid: k1; B-face: a b1,2 c d e h i m n o p q r u; Guyot 'w'; 015). Although the dearth of output eliminates the opportunity to observe the transformation of Y1 into Y2, the hypothesis that Purfoot-Y1 capitals were mixed in with a new Purfoot-Y2 to produce the apparent continuity in the capitals can be rejected on the basis of the new condition of the latter. There is no doubt that the rest of Purfoot-Y1 was discarded since its contaminated state precludes the kind of modification that would be necessary to permit mixing the lower-case into Purfoot-Y2. Furthermore, the acquisition of uncontaminated Purfoot-Y3 during the four-year interval separating the use of Purfoot-Y1 and -Y2 clearly indicates a strategy of total replacement of Purfoot-Y1. On the other hand, the sequence of uncontaminated Purfoot-Y3 in 1603-5, followed in 1605 by Purfoot-Y2 with mixed S-capitals, looks like an internal transformation of one case of Purfoot-Y3 by replenishment with wrong-face capitals. The two-year period could conceivably deplete the uppercase of Purfoot-Y3, but the replenishment of just one case is improbable. The fact that both Purfoot-Y2 and Purfoot-Y3 were adequate for setting prose quarto texts in the same year (1605: Spider STC5963.5, Papisto-Mastix STC 17913, Downefall STC1819 etc.) as well as play-quartos contradicts the depletion hypothesis. The issue can be settled with finality on the basis of the general principle: if a seminal font is split into two through replenishment or mixing, recurrent-types will remain in both states. Recurrent-types first seen in 1603 are still in Purfoot-Y3 in 1605, but absolutely no sharing of recurrent-types with Purfoot-Y2 is detectable.

(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]

(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.

(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.

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

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.

(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.

(7)

Although concluding on such a negative note seems poor rhetorical strategy, it nonetheless is indicative of the psychological experience that sometimes results from a futile search for a sharing printer. The commitment to printer research assumes a willingness to endure such frustration. The discovery of sharing, however, is important in itself and is a source of satisfaction. In fact, shared printing is the only area where new discoveries in relatively large numbers are within easy reach, given the high probability that we have found all the extant manuscripts of plays by important Elizabethan/ Jacobean authors. Beyond that, an enormous amount of work remains to be done by employing font analysis to verify the tentative assignments in new STC that are based upon ornamental stock. A practical problem exists in regard to the recording and dissemination of the new information that will be generated by typographical analysis. Detailed evidence that affects our understanding of the transmission of early texts should find its way into print as a matter of course. However, the overwhelming majority of early books probably do not merit such treatment although typographical information about them can be extremely valuable in the context of printer identification. Publication of such information in printed format is obviously out of the question: the Short Title Catalogue with its abbreviated descriptions exemplifies the practical limits both in terms of economics and dedication (bibliographers cannot help feeling a sense of gratitude to Katharine V. Pantzer every time the revised STC is consulted). The creation of on-line computer databases, however, offers the exciting prospect of instant (or nearly so) dissemination of current bibliographical information that can be expanded and updated as the need arises. The proposal by Henry L. Snyder (University of California, Riverside), Director of the Eighteenth-Century Short Title Catalogue for North America, to include the STC in the on-going project of converting the ESTC to an electronic database has, in fact, been underway for some time.[49] Although the abbreviated entries of the revised STC serve as the basic records for the database, Snyder envisions expanding them "so that they

would be comparable to ESTC records in fullness, content, and format." The possibility of adding to the database once it is completed should provide additional motivation for bibliographers to record routinely the kinds of evidence that are pertinent to shared printing and printer identification.