 | |  |
Compositors and Cases
Hinman identified two compositors at work on quire I, Compositor A, perhaps, or C at case x, and Compositor B at case y. Howard-Hill then assigned the six and a half pages set, according to Hinman, from case x (I3v-5a, 5v-6v) to Compositor C, but Howard-Hill's re-assignment was modified by O'Connor who offered a strong argument that page I3v was Compositor D's. Again Compositor B presents the fewest problems. Hinman demonstrated the integrity of case y, the case used by Compositor B to set pages I1-3 and column I5b (II, 396). It is sufficient here to indicate evidence presented in Hinman's graph for quire I that shows Compositor B must have stood at the same case, case y, when he set his stints on quires G and H. Such evidence consists of the recurrence (in quire-I pages set by By) of distinctive types Compositor B distributed in preparation for setting his portions of quires G and H. The By page I3 contains one distinctive type from each of columns G3b and G3va (see Hinman, II, 394, l. 8), both distributed by Compositor B into case t during his work on quire G. The By pages I3 and I1v and the By column I5b reveal distinctive types last seen in upper column G6a, lower column H3vb, and columns H2vb, H4a, and H4vb (see Hinman, II, 394, ll. 8, 12, 17 and 23), all distributed by Compositor B into case t during his stint on quire H. These seven type recurrences demonstrate the simple equation that case t, Compositor B's case for quires G and H, is the familiar case y
The same kind of evidence indicates that case r, used by Compositor C to set his pages of quires G and H, was the familiar case x occupied by Compositor C for quire I. The Cx pages I4v and I6v contain single distinctive types last observed in lower column F2a and column F1vb (see Hinman II, 394, ll. 10 and 21), both distributed by Compositor C into case r during composition of quire G. The Cx pages I4, I4v, I5v, and I6 take distinctive types from columns G1b and H5b and the middle of column H3a (see Hinman, II, 394, ll. 4, 10, 15, 16, and 18), all distributed by Compositor C into case r during the setting of quire H. Re-examination of Hinman's type-recurrence evidence thus not only demonstrates that Compositor C's case r is indeed case x, but also confirms attribution of pages I4, 4v, and 5v-6v to Compositor C by identifying these pages as set from the case long occupied by that workman.
No type recurrences can establish that the disputed page I3v was also set from case x. This page contains ten identifiable types. Three of these were last seen in columns distributed by Compositor D into case s during the setting of quire H: sh26 in H3a55, u22 in H3b3, and sh23 in H3va32. Five more are taken from hitherto undistributed column H2va;[9] yet this column provides no distinctive types to Compositor C's page I4, forme-mate to I3v, and none to any other pages of quire I set by Compositor C. Thus type recurrence provides strong evidence that page I3v was not set from case x, but from case s, the case used by Compositor D for quire H. O'Connor's attribution of page I3v to Compositor D is thus confirmed.
| | |