 | Studies in bibliography |  |
E. ONE-OFF SPIN-OFFS
Gordon Lindstrand, Randall McLeod, and R. Carter Hailey are not the
only individuals to have followed Hinman's lead. Over the years other scholars
and bibliographers have tried to improve upon, replace, or supplement
his invention. This section documents these efforts, which largely resulted
in one-offs—that is, experimental devices that were never developed beyond
the prototype and for the most part were never used on projects beyond those
associated with their own inventors. I have not listed efforts to use the computer
for collation purposes. Such attempts began very early (in 1962 Vinton
Dearing introduced a program that ran on the IBM 7090) and continue to
the present (as mentioned in note 3). Various applications (Peter Shillingsburg's
CASE program, for example) have achieved some currency, but no
effective system has yet been produced to compare efficiently a large number
of original images (as the Hinman does) instead of comparing texts that
must first be converted to digital text files. Readers who wish to know more
about computer-assisted collation should consult Shillingsburg's Scholarly
Editing in the Computer Age (3rd ed., 1996). The arrangement of this section
determined.
E1. The Poor Man's Mark IV
In 1966, Vinton Dearing introduced the first second-generation mechanical
collator (Dearing, "Poor Man's"). The "Poor Man's Mark IV" [plate 5] was
created as a less expensive alternative to the Hinman. From 1953 to 1957,
the price of a Hinman rose from $1500 to $5000. The very last machines sold
for $8000 to $10,000. These were not inconsequential sums of money for
scholars working in the humanities. Most Hinmans were bought with grants
from public and private sources. If a researcher did not have access to such
funds, chances were unlikely he or she could afford one. Dearing estimated
his machine cost $100 in materials. There were no labor costs because he
envisioned it as a do-it-yourself project, his intent being not to go into business
but to show other researchers how to build a machine. This was not a
new idea. Early in his work Charlton Hinman considered making mechanical
drawings available for non-commercial projects. Any bibliographer or editor
with access to a "standard machine shop," so the idea went, could build his
or her own device ("Variant Readings" 281). The Hinman, however, was
simply too complicated to construct for all but the most mechanically adept
bibliographers, witness the professionally produced set of specifications required
to build one. And even if one were able, the collator would still have
been a significant investment. In 1953, Hinman estimated the cost of materials
at $1000 (281).Dearing's inspiration was Hinman's prototype (A1), which was a much
simpler and less expensive device to construct than its later incarnation
(Dearing, Methods 20). Like the Hinman prototype, the Mark IV was designed
to work with microfilm reproductions rather than the original documents.
Dearing positioned two microfilm projectors side by side inside a box. The
images were projected through an occulting disc onto a mirror in the far end
of the box. The mirror then reflected the images back onto a ground glass
screen above the projectors. The projectors, microfilm, mirror, and screen,
along with the light and noise, were all contained within the box. This set
up gave the Mark IV an advantage or two over Hinman's prototype. First, it
could be used in a lighted rather than a darkened room. Second, any noise
generated by the projectors or the motor turning the disc was somewhat insulated
from the outside by the walls of the box. The disadvantage was that
one had to rely on microfilm reproductions, and so one also had to deal with
all the problems inherent in working from copies, not to mention the cost
and trouble of making the microfilm. Dearing and a few of his fellow editors
at the University of California used his device for work on their edition of
Dryden, but it did not catch on elsewhere.Dearing also proposed another means of collation, one that was completely
non-mechanical. This technique, dubbed the "poor, poor man's
collator," was really just a variation on the old Wimblelon method with
help from a photocopy machine. In the old-fashioned, unassisted manner, one
opens two copies of the same book and proceeds to read from each. Using the
"poor, poor" method, one first photocopies the pages in question and then, in
Dearing's words, rolls a "Xerox copy of the pages . . . over the fingers so as to
bring line after line to the top edge of the visible surface and just under the
corresponding line in another copy (if one eye is closed, both lines will appear
to be equidistant and so will be easier to read simultaneously, which is the
whole purpose of the method)." Dearing earlier proposed a wooden frame
with a system of rotating, "closely set rods" to accomplish the same thing but
161with practice evidently found his fingers and thumbs more portable and less
cumbersome (Methods 15).E2. Another Poor Man's Collating Machine
Richard Levin proposed a photocopy-assisted method in 1966. His idea was
simply to photocopy the pages in question and overlay them on a light table
or, in the absence of a table, merely hold them up to the light. As he admitted,
this procedure was so simple he could hardly have been the first to
think of it. And, he further suggested, it was easier on "one's purse, eyesight,
and patience" than the Hinman (Levin 25-26). Levin did mention one drawback,
however. If one page has a character placed where the other has a
blank space, or if on one page there is a character that completely covers a
character on the other (like for example a comma over a period), these variations
will not show up. To avoid this problem, he recommended going
through the process a second time, only with the pages in the reverse position.E3. The Poor Man's Mark VII
In 1967, Gerald A. Smith, a former graduate student of Hinman's, proposed
the next mechanical device—the "Poor Man's Mark VII," another machine in
the poverty-stricken tradition (Smith 1967) [plate 6]. He utilized two Dagmar
Super microfilm readers placed on their backs so that the mirrors faced one
another. A screen was erected where the images were superimposed. Each
reader contained its own shutter, operated either by a motor or a hand crank
to create the alternate flashing effect. An advantage of this adaptation was
that it required a minimum of assembly from non-readymade components.
One merely turned the microfilm readers on their backs and erected a screen.
The only materials that had to be fashioned from scratch were the alternating
shutters. Another advantage of this device was that the viewers, because they
were designed to zoom in and out, could in theory be adjusted to compensate
for images photographed at different magnifications. In practice Smith indicated
this was somewhat difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the feature was
a novel proposal for a common collation problem. The disadvantage with
Smith's collator was that it worked only with copies. Smith also indicated
that exact register was often difficult, even with the help of the zoom feature.
At the time of his description, the machine was still in development.54. A Portable, Cheaper Collator
In 1968, Johan Gerritsen announced a technique that utilized one portable
tabletop projector, one negative microfilm of the book to be collated, and
one original copy of the book. Gerritsen arranged the projector so as to cast
the negative microfilm image on to the actual book itself. When the white
or negative image was brought into exact superimposition with the black
print of the page, variants were revealed by white spots where there was an
impression of type in the filmed copy, dark spots in the opposite instance, or
a combination of the two. As Gerritsen wrote, "If one can beg, borrow, or
steal one physical copy, the method enables one to collect microfiches from
all over the world and do one's collating at home. If one cannot, once one
is the proud possessor of a single film, one can travel to the copies" (Gerritsen
29-30). Gerritsen stated that he had never tried this method with
photographs in place of the original but imagined it would have worked well
enough to have at least identified which formes needed closer examination.E5. The Televised Collator
In 1972, John Horden described an application using two small industrial television
cameras synchronized to feed to a single television monitor (Horden).
162The cameras broadcast images of two books from the same edition, and an
automatic changeover switch alternated the images on the screen. At high
speed any differences between the two texts appeared as a blur. Slowed down,
the operator could more closely examine any discrepancies. The potential
advantages of this system were significant. First, the actual collation process
could be recorded on tape, allowing the act of collation itself to be preserved
and stored for review at a later date, thereby avoiding the trouble and wear
of consulting the original texts. The recorded collation could also be sent for
examination to researchers at other locations. Second, the cameras could
each conceivably be set up at separate libraries, alleviating the need and
avoiding the risk of bringing the books together from distant locations.
Horden also claimed this method was cheaper than other techniques (by which
he presumably meant the Hinman, for at this time all the other methods,
though ineffective except for the Lindstrand, were far cheaper than their
more famous predecessor) as well as easier to operate and less tiring to use.
Like most of the other methods and machines, the television collator was
never used for projects other than those associated with its own development.
Robin Alston, who worked with Horden at the time, states that the collator
was "never more than an idea," though he was convinced "that it could be
made to work" (Alston).E6. The British Library's Homemade Hybrid
This machine was built sometime in the mid to late 1970s. Library staff members
first tried to buy a Lindstrand Comparator and when that effort proved
unsuccessful (Lindstrand had either gone out of business or proven himself
unreliable) decided to build a machine of their own which combined features
of the Lindstrand and the Hinman. They gathered specifications for the
Lindstrand-like features from known users of the Comparator. They presumably
based the Hinman features on their own machine (A7). William
Proctor Williams was one of the individuals asked for advice on the Lindstrand
(E-mail). He collated extensively with this hybrid machine in 1983 and
found it a satisfactory, if uncomfortable, device. Its optics were on par with
the Lindstrand. The blinking effect of the Hinman was created by a central
rotating plate that alternately obstructed the right and left image. The collator
moved with the rest of the British Library from Bloomsbury to Euston
Road in 1998, and shortly thereafter technicians disabled the power cords
because they felt the machine's electrical system was unsafe. Since that time
Williams has tried to repair it twice. As of 2002, it was located in the Humanities
2 (Rare Books) reading room behind the Enquiries Desk. The stereoscopic
effect of the Lindstrand can still be achieved, but without electrical power
the blinking effect of the Hinman is not possible (Williams, E-mail and
"Smith").E7. The Houston Editing Desk and the Editing Frame
In 1978, Irving Rothman introduced a device that occupied a middle ground
between the replacement or alternative collators and the old-fashioned methods
of collation by "eye-and-hand" (Rothman 130). Rothman felt that despite
the successes of the Hinman and a few of its descendants, collation by sight
was still by far the most common method of comparing texts. The chief impediment
to mechanical collation, according to Rothman, was simply that
there were very few places where one could find multiple copies of any text
from the same edition. Most editors were therefore forced to work primarily
from copies, and Rothman felt that when copies were involved sight collation
was more effective. He built two devices designed to work in concert that
accommodated and facilitated the old-fashioned method rather than replaced
it. He named these devices the Houston Editing Desk (HED) and the Editing
163Frame (EDFRAME) [plate 7]. The HED was a portable, multi-layered Plexiglas
box that allowed the bibliographer to organize more effectively the work
of textual collation and editing. The HED was fitted with various compartments
for the storage of copies as well as paper, pens, rulers, erasers, and
other paraphernalia. The EDFRAME was a frame constructed to the precise
dimensions of the type page in question, including head and direction lines.
The text under investigation was placed on the top of the HED and then the
EDFRAME over the text. A transparent rule was fitted to the width of the
frame to assist in line-by-line referral. If an editor was performing collation
within the same edition, two frames of the same dimension, each with its
own independent rule, were used. If one was performing collation across
editions, the frames could be manufactured to different sizes, say the left frame
for a large folio page and the right for a smaller one, or even for different
formats. Rothman also suggested various means by which the desk and frame
could be customized to meet the needs of a particular project. Rothman's
devices grew out of his research as a textual editor on The Stoke Newington
Daniel Defoe Edition, currently being published by the AMS Press, Inc.
Though he patented these two devices for commercial production, he never
sold them or built any beyond the ones used in his own research.E8. Rotating Vertical Collation Aids, or Twirler
Developed by William Proctor Williams around 1998, this device [plate 8]
was built specifically for "vertical" or cross-edition collation. Williams has
kindly provided the following information on the origin and operation of
his device:While working on the New Variorum Shakespeare edition of Titus Andronicus
I have devised a collating tool that, although it does not do away
with the old Wimbledon method of collation, does improve its efficiency.
Tit Q1 (1594, the copy-text) exists in only one copy. Of Q2 (1600) there
are only two copies; Q3 (1611) exists in 17 copies. These were all
collated (Q3 regularly using optical collation) several years ago. However,
now I was faced with the daunting task of the vertical collation
of all those editions from F1 (1623) on. I had seen illuminations
and woodcuts of various sorts of book wheels and dimly wondered how
they would work. Slowly this drifted around in my mind until one day in
a DIY shop (I believe it was Home Depot, but any such shop can supply
these things) I saw those pre-cut round wooden items sold as small table
tops . . . and the light dawned. I first built one and then a second one
(one for each side of the centrally located computer).Now when collating by the Wimbledon method using two Twirlers
(Williams, Letter)
. . . I have 8 copies in front of me, plus the copy-text on paper and the
historical collation on the computer screen, instead of just one or two
other texts. I use the larger size of rectangular post-its as line holders.
Although the collation takes slightly longer per line this way, when I am
finished I have done 8 texts not just one. I have also found in practice
that the accuracy of all the collations is improved because of the ability
to spin back and forth between copies on the Twirlers and, since all
previously completed copies are kept on shelves to the side of the work
table, it has also been the case that some errors and omissions from previous
collations are also corrected in this manner.So essentially what Williams has constructed are two revolving bookstands,
each capable of holding multiple texts. With his computer between the stands,
he can look across several editions of the same text, checking and recording
differences between them, spinning each twirler as he moves from edition to
edition.
| Studies in bibliography | |