VII
To summarise, although this kind of evidence requires a tedious
searching of sample texts, the section of a font composite which indicates
the kind and proportion of replenished abnormal letters and resident
foul-case letters and punctuation is a potent tool for distinguishing
same-face fonts. Mutually exclusive clusters of these letters usually provide
adequate evidence of the identities of such fonts.[65] Fortunately, much of this evidence
can be
found in high quality reproductions since it consists of obvious classes of
letters and marks. However, it must be approached with an awareness of
the manner in which the ease of purging and compositorial intention is
affected by the class of letter. Otherwise, confusion can result about the
distinction between transient and resident fouling. Thus the interpretation
of obvious foul-case italic capitals and punctuation, black letter punctuation,
and small capitals
must be preceded by a survey of the font aimed at establishing these as
either transient or resident. Lower-case letters can be trusted implicitly as
resident in a font. Letters introduced by moderate-to-heavy fouling and
replenishment appear with such consistency across a sequence of gatherings
that residence is usually not an issue. The interpretation of this evidence in
font identification must be qualified by an understanding of the relations
among the density of cluster members, sort-pressure and random recurrence
behavior. Low-density fouling is accompanied by an even probability of
non-recurrence in a sequence of gatherings and across texts. Hence, the
non-recurrence of low-density letters must be approached with extreme
caution when comparing two fonts, since the non-identity of the fonts
cannot be inferred from non-recurrence unless this behavior is consistent
across several texts. A difference in the proportions of cluster members or
an expanded cluster in one of two fonts
may be significant in distinguishing fonts, given the dynamics of the
fouling, purging and replenishment processes. A part of the cluster will
usually remain constant despite the variations in the other members.
[66] Furthermore, differences in
proportions
provide the basis for inferring states of a font and can provide evidence of
the sequence of printing if an adequate sample of cluster members is
available in a sequence of books. Finally, clusters are especially valuable
in initially determining whether portions of a text were printed from
standing type in a sequence of editions even though the cluster letters are
not identifiable. The first obvious clue to printing from standing type is that
the wrong-face and wrong-size letters are always in exactly the same textual
positions in both editions. Reproductions are adequate for this initial
insight, but only an examination of originals can provide positive proof of
printing from standing
type.
[67]
As implied in the preceding discussion, the recurrence patterns
exhibited by resident clusters suggests an obvious relevance of this kind of
evidence to compositorial and presswork analysis, but the subject as a
whole is beyond the scope of this paper, needs further investigation, and
will be addressed later. However, the implications of recurrent patterns of
resident fouling should be briefly noted in regard to the common practice
of inferring the method and order of setting, and distribution points, from
type shortages and substitutions. The simple fact that resident wrong-face
types tend to recur in clusters argues against viewing them as repetitive acts
of fouling unless the history of the font shows that these appearances result
from transient fouling during the setting of the particular text in question.
Given the varying demands of a text upon the variety of sorts in a
wrong-face cluster, the odds against recurrent shortages that require the
same limited set of
substitutions in a sequence of gatherings must be astronomical. For
example, this is tantamount to claiming that the text of Mal
Q1
required substitutions of the S-face 'G O D' part of the resident cluster first
on B3, then again on D1. Unless the distinction between transient and
resident fouling and the principle of randomness is borne in mind, the
locations of appearances of foul-case letters can be tortured into supporting
any plausible explanation of the order of
setting and distribution. As the random recurrence tables discussed above
show, no particular setting order is necessary to distribute foul-case letters
into the early or late pages of a gathering, nor is a distribution required to
yield a normal letter after the first appearance of a foul-case letter. Random
recurrence does the job without help from the compositor.
