University of Virginia Library

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.