It seems to be the common opinion that the typography of the
period 1580-1640 was poorer than that of the preceding period.
The most commonly noted causes of this inferiority are: first,
the "monopoly system," which made the printing of pure
literature (rarely falling in the class of privileged works) a
comparatively profitless undertaking; and, second, the control
of the output by authorities of church and state, resulting, in the
opinion of many critics, in a poorer quality of work. Thus, Mr.
H. R. Plomer, in two of his articles on the printers of the period,
explains the decline of typography:

Pick up what one [play] you will, and its distinctive features will
probably be bad paper, wretched type, and careless and slovenly press
work. This was largely due to the low condition to which the printing
trade had been reduced by the monopoly system, which put all the
best paying work into the hands of half a dozen men, while the majority
of the printers, whose numbers were increasing year by year, found it
nearly impossible to make a living by their trade. The printers were
thus compelled to seek work that was out of the reach of monopolists.
Of such a nature were plays. ¹

With such fetters [as the Star Chamber decrees of 1566 and 1586]
hampering the freedom of the men by whose means whatever was
noblest and best in the nation's language was given to the world, it is
not surprising to find that the work of Spenser and Shakespeare and
their contemporaries was put forth in a totally unworthy form. Take
as a whole the books printed between 1560 and 1600, and they tell the
same tale. No attempt whatever was made at artistic workmanship.
The type is wretchedly cut, printers' errors abound, and carelessness
in both setting and printing is only too evident. But worse was yet to
follow. ²

It is no doubt true that monopolies and state regulation of
printing worked hardships upon some of the stationers, and so,

-317-