University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
 1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
collapse section5. 
Quires K-Q
 01. 
 02. 
 6. 
  
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 

expand section 

Quires K-Q

Compositors and Cases

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

Page 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

Page 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).