:: :: University of Virginia Library

In these seven quires, Hinman discovered four different compositors occupying three different cases. Compositor B alone used case y; Compositor C used case x, although, according to Hinman, so did Compositor A in quire K; and Compositor D alone used case z, except during composition of quires O and P, where Hinman found Compositor A standing at case z. Subsequent research has established a higher correlation between individual compositors and cases. Howard-Hill re-assigned Compositor A's quire-K pages to Compositor C so that Compositor C is now recognized as the only workman to use case x during composition of these seven quires, with the single exception of column K5b, set by Compositor B from case x, according to Howard-Hill. Howard-Hill also re-assigned Compositor A's quire-O pages, set from case z, to Compositor D, thereby strengthening the association between Compositor D and case z. At the same time, however, Howard-Hill weakened this association when he attributed the z-case pages of quire P to Compositor F and gave Compositor D column P1va, set from case x. Most of these anomalies in Howard-Hill's analysis were resolved by O'Connor, who assigned the disputed z-case pages of quire P to Compositor D and demonstrated that only lower column P1va was Compositor D's work and was set from case z. After the cumulative efforts of Hinman, Howard-Hill, and O'Connor, we now know that, with the exception of a single column (K5b), Compositor B alone used case y, Compositor C case x, and Compositor D case z for quires K-Q.[11]

228

There is now general agreement that Compositor A was not represented in these quires.

In these seven quires there recur a significant number of distinctive types last seen in quires F-H. These recurrences (charted below) confirm that the same pattern of three distinct cases of type associated with three individual compositors is also evident in the composition of quires G, H and I.[12] Twelve

Hinman's distinctive type	last seen	then distributed into case	location of recurrence in quires K-Q	set from case
1. y24	H5va22	Cx	K3b59	Cx
2. h45	H2a65	Cx	K4va32	Cx
3. o26	H2a57	Cx	K4va33	Cx
4. S24	H5b8	Cx	K4vb48	Cx
5. p25	H4va8	Cx	L4b49	Cx
6. B28	H5b6	Cx	L3b54	Cx
7. W23	H2b46	Cx	L2vb29	Cx
8. st24	H3vb41	Cx	L1b62	Cx
9. W30	H4b6	Cx	M3vb57	Cx
10. N21	H4va30	Cx	N3b49	Cx
11. P25	G2vb21	Cx	O2a8	Cx
12. w34	G2a57	Ds	L1b65	Cx
13. W45	H4vb23	By	K4a16	By
14. W44	H3vb65	By	M5a46	By
15. H33	G2vb55	By	M4va55	By
16. F25	G5vb21	By	N2vb34	By
17. P21	G2vb27	Ds	K5vb58	Dz
18. ss24	H2va2	Ds	L4vb19	Dz
19. )21	F1va58	Fs	L4va16	Dz
20. B26	G5b7	Fs	L5vb59	Dz
21. Y21	H2vb36	By	K5vb28	Dz
22. st23	H2a59	Cx	K2vb15	Dz

of these distinctive types (no.'s 1-12) recur in the pages of quires K-Q set by Compositor C from case x. Since all but one of these (no. 12) were last seen in material already identified as distributed by Compositor C, these type recurrences support the conclusion that Compositor C used case x for his stints on quires G and H and forme I3v:4. Compositor B's use of case y during the setting of these earlier quires is also confirmed again by the recurrence of the next four charted types (no.'s 13-16) in his pages of quires K-Q, all four from wrought-off columns he distributed to set pages of quires G and H. The remaining six types charted (no.'s 17-22) re-appear in pages set from case z by Compositor D. Hinman was forced to regard all six recurrences as anomalous because he argued that Compositor D's case z was not set up until composition of quire K had begun (II, 400). Yet four of these distinctive types were last seen in pages, columns, and partial columns already

229

identified as distributed by Compositors D or F into case s. The reappearance of these four types in quire-K and quire-L pages set from case z establishes that case s was the case Hinman designated case z. Therefore case z was not set up de novo during work on quire K, but was instead the case from which Compositors D and F set pages of quires G, H and I.

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).