University of Virginia Library

Shared printing introduced complications into the relationship between book production and textual transmission that produced bibliographical evidence of varying degrees of importance to bibliographers and textual editors. In general, two categories of shared books obtain. The first consists of the large majority of books in which the sharing operation proceeded smoothly and left no significant bibliographical evidence beyond that which demonstrates that a book was shared among two or more printers and permits the identification of one or more of the printers.[1] These two fundamental insights provide a sharper focus for bibliographical analysis in regard to the disposition of copy during production, the linkage of the book to the workmen and procedures of the respective shops and their potential effect upon the textual transmission process, and the temporal component of production. Taken alone, however, the detection of sharing does not in itself reveal anything about the temporal component of production. When supplemented by other forms of evidence accessible in most books, sharing may actually indicate an expansion of production time rather than the time-saving which it seems naturally to imply. The temporal issue usually can be settled with certainty by defining the printing context of the book in the primary printer's

shop. In general, this difficult and time-consuming proposition seems unnecessary in the absence of important textual or dating problems.

George Gascoigne's A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres provides a rather unique example of a second category of shared books, in which the printing process produced bibliographical evidence relevant to unresolved textual problems. In such books, it is essential to establish the facts about the shared printing operation so as to define the temporal component of production before proceeding; otherwise bibliographical analysis must rely upon circumstantial considerations that are external to the production of the book and exhibit no necessary physical connection to the evidence found in the book. Such an approach is bound to overlook, misconstrue, or adjust the bibliographical evidence to fit a hypothesis comprised of selected external circumstances and presumptions about early printing.[2] This is especially true of A Hundreth since the book contains an unfinished text and other textual indications of time-related problems on the part of the author.

A Hundreth is a quarto collating A4 B4(-B1,2) C-X4, 2A-Y, Aa-Hh4, Ii4(—Ii4). Pagination: 208 leaves, pp. [8] 1(=B3) . . . 36(=F4v) . . . 45(=G1) . . . [82-83 misprinted as 83-82] . . . 164(=X4v); 201(=2A) . . . 376(=2Y4v) . . . 377(=Aa1) . . . 443(=Ii2) . . . 445(=Ii3). The significant contents are: A2-3: 'The Printer to the Reader.'; A4: title, 'SVPPOSES'; B3-K1v: text; K2: title, 'IOCASTA'; K3-X4v: text; on X4v: imprint 'Printed by Henrie Bynneman | for Richarde Smith.'; 2A1: title, 'A discourse of the adventures | passed by Master F. I.'; 2A1-M3: text; 2M3v-S4v: 'The deuises of sundrie Gentlemen' [running title 2M3v-4: 'A translation of | sundrie Gentlemen.']; 2S4v-Ee2v: 'The deuises of master Gascoyne' [running title: 'The deuises of | sundrie Gentlemen.']; Ee2v-Hh4v: 'Dan Bartholmew of Bathe.'; Ii1: title [for misplaced narrative link 'The Reporter'], 'This should have bin placed in the | dolorous discourse, before the Supplication | to Care in Folio. 430.'; Ii2, 'The reporters conclusion unfinished.'; Ii3: imprint, 'IMPRINTED AT LOND-| don for Richard Smith.'

Two forms of typographical evidence establish the key facts about the printing of a shared book: (1) the composite of normal and variant letters that characterize a specific font at some point during its lifetime; and (2) the sequence of changes or transformations that occur in a font's composition during an extended period of usage. In this instance, analysis of the fonts

found in the book permits identification of Henry Bynneman and Henry Middleton as the printers and, furthermore, reveals that the book was shared in an asymmetrical pattern created by Bynneman's recall of the shared section from Middleton. Second, although typographical evidence provided by font transformations usually is useful only for locating a shared section in a shop's production schedule, A Hundreth is extraordinary in this respect because the sequence of transformed states of Bynneman-Y1 demonstrates an expansion of production time far beyond that required to print the book even if allowance is made for several intervening book-length interruptions. Given this insight, the bibliographical and textual analysis of the book can proceed according to the certain knowledge of delayed production instead of the standard assumption of rapid printing at maximum efficiency.

This understanding of the printing operation is crucial to resolving the textual problems present in A Hundreth. The extended production period during which the book was printed was adequate for major stages of textual evolution in regard to textual issues including the dates of composition and printing, modifications to the text such as revisions, deletions and omissions, changes in the author's concept of his overall collective text, and problems created by the delivery of printer's copy in segments. The recovery of Gascoigne's intention regarding the number and sequence of texts depends upon settling the issue of Gascoigne's involvement in the printing process. Whether Gascoigne intended to include the two plays in a particular location in the book has been the fundamental problem since C. T. Prouty eliminated the two plays from his edition, attributing their appearance to Bynneman's desire to enhance the book's profitability. The rearrangement of the texts in The Posies (1575), the second edition, indicates that Gascoigne was concerned with producing an overall impression by combining the separate compositions in a particular order and publishing the collective text as a single unit. An editor must determine whether Gascoigne attempted to achieve a similar effect in A Hundreth before resolving several relatively minor textual issues.

This paper is intended to contribute to an awareness of the potential relationships between shared printing and textual issues. My primary focus is upon a reconstruction of the printing context of A Hundreth as the basis for interpreting the bibliographical evidence of textual evolution. I have described in previous papers the procedures to follow in establishing the essential facts about a shared book: (1) the recognition of the preliminary clues to sharing; (2) the analysis of typographical and ornamental evidence that can clarify the divisions of labor and establish the identity of one or more of the printers; (3) a survey of the primary printer's books in order to identify his section(s) of a book; (4) a survey of books printed by likely sharing candidates in the hope of identifying the sharing printer(s) and their sections. Once these facts have been established, analysis can proceed to forms of evidence which reveal the temporal component of production in the sharing situation. The subsequent reconstruction of the printing context of a shared book usually establishes the date of the printing operation, and

in some instances such as A Hundreth, the printing dates of its sections. In the following discussion, textual issues will be addressed as the emerging picture of the printing operation warrants.