University of Virginia Library

Quire I

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

at which Compositor B generally worked throughout the setting of the Folio.

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.

Anomalous Types

Four anomalous appearances of distinctive types must be recorded. Distinctive type y28 is common to I5va5 (set by Cx) and H3b56 (distributed by Ds during composition of quire H); distinctive type h24 is common to I4va21 (set by Cx) and H3a62 (distributed by Ds again during work on quire H). In the wrought-off material, neither type occupied a peripheral position, nor was either one adjacent to a centre rule. Thus neither one was likely vulnerable to a stripping accident.[10] Even so, these two anomalous appearances can scarcely outweigh the seventeen regular appearances of distinctive types already noted in the Ds and Cx pages of quire I. Were the three-case hypothesis for quires G-I seriously in error, we might expect to find a much lower proportion of type recurrences explained by it.

A third apparently anomalous appearance of a distinctive type in fact provides further evidence for the three-case hypothesis. The Ds page I3v contains distinctive type D23, last seen in column G3vb, a column which supplied types to the Cx page H1 and the By page G1v (see Table II, l. 1 and Table I, l. 26). However, the distinctive type in Cx's page H1 is from

G3vb6 in the upper part of the column, the distinctive types in By's page G1v are from G3vb23-39 in the middle part of the column, and the distinctive type in Ds's page I3v is from G3vb52 in the lower part of the column. Therefore three compositors in all likelihood shared the distribution of column G3vb, as they shared distribution of other columns of quires F, G, and H.

The fourth anomalous appearance was noted by Hinman: "The type represented in line 19 of the graph is G34. It is common to H5a22 (distributed into case y) and I5vb5 (set by Ax [that is, Cx]). It is immediately adjacent to the left-hand rule in page H5, and hence in a peripheral position there" (II, 397).