University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
  
 2. 
 3. 
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
collapse section2. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
collapse section3. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 04. 
 05. 
 06. 
collapse section4. 
 01. 
 02. 
collapse section5. 
 01. 
 02. 
Anomalous Types
 6. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
collapse section5. 
 01. 
 6. 
 7. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  

collapse section 
  
  
  
  
  
  

Anomalous Types

Three anomalous appearances are listed among the types charted (no.'s 12, 21 and 22). I can discover no explanation for the anomalous appearance of numbers 12 and 22, but the third, no. 21, can be readily explained. Distinctive type Y21 (no. 21) is found in the lower part of column H2vb at l. 36 and found again in the Dz page K5v. Since column H2vb supplied three distinctive types to By pages, distribution of column H2vb is assigned to Compositor B in the chart. The three distinctive types mentioned are h44, common to H2vb32 and H6va44; e27, common to H2vb29 and I5b11; and o38, common to H2vb66 and I2b11. Only the last of these three distinctive types is evidence that Compositor B distributed the lower part of column H2vb, but it is not good evidence because it was located in the last line of the wrought-off column H2vb where it would have been especially vulnerable to a stripping accident. More probably, therefore, Compositor B distributed only the upper part of column H2vb, including ll. 29 and 32, while Compositor D distributed the lower part of the column, including l. 36 where Y21 was last seen before it recurred in the Dz page K5v. The recurrence of Y21 is probably not anomalous but instead becomes further evidence of Compositor D's use of case z during the setting of quire H. In summary, the three-case hypothesis for quires G-I explains all but two of the distinctive type recurrences charted (no.'s 12 and 22), whereas Hinman's two-case theory for quires G-I failed to explain six of these recurrences (no.'s 17-22).