Digital Renaissance Editions

About this text

  • Title: An Humorous Day's Mirth: Textual Introduction
  • Author: Eleanor Lowe

  • Copyright Digital Renaissance Editions. This text may be freely used for educational, non-profit purposes; for all other uses contact the Editor.
    Author: Eleanor Lowe
    Peer Reviewed

    Textual Introduction

    Watermarks

    A study of the watermarks in three British Museum copies indicates that one type of paper was used throughout the printing of sheets A-G, bearing the watermark of a pot.[180] At sheet G in BL1, the watermark changes to a hand and flower, which is used for all of the printing of half-sheet H. However, the use of the same stock of paper in the resetting of half-sheet H does not necessarily imply anything definite. Simmes may have used a lot of paper bearing this watermark in his shop, rendering estimation of time lapse between printing of the original and reprinted half-sheet H impossible. Secondly, the reprinting may have occurred within a very short space of time of the initial half-sheet H being printed. However, the use of paper with the same watermark for sheet G and half-sheet H does not rule out the possibility of half-sheet imposition, and goes some way to support it. If half-sheet imposition is ruled out, the type must have been redistributed into the cases before it was realised that more copies were needed.

    50Study of both copies of the play in the New York Public Library yielded a potentially interesting piece of evidence. The copy in the Arents Collection had evidence of a liquid stain of perhaps an inch deep along the bottom edge of H1 and H2. However, the pages belonging to sheet G possessed no evidence of any stain at all, as might be expected had the liquid damage occurred whilst the play was sewn. This suggests that half-sheet H in this copy had been stained before it was sewn or allocated to its edition. The stain supports Gregʼs suggestion that the stock of half-sheet H was damaged or destroyed in some way, therefore prompting resetting of the half-sheet.

    Although half-sheet imposition is a good idea in theory, it is to be doubted whether a compositor would have regularly employed such a time-consuming practice. Furthermore, D. F. McKenzie warns against assuming that one compositor and one press dealt with a single book at a time. McKenzieʼs study of the Cambridge University Press records indicates that one compositor might spend time setting at least two books at a time, or even that different compositors would be swapped onto one book, whilst also jointly setting other books.[181] It seems that without the records of Simmesʼs shop it would be very difficult to reach any conclusion other than a speculative one. It is only known that Simmes also printed A Warning for Fair Women in the same year. But as has already been mentioned, his record is not clean: in 1595 his presses were confiscated and his type was melted down, while in 1599 he was on a list of printers who were banned from printing satires, so Simmes was obviously printing material other than the plays which survive.