University of Virginia Library

Bibliographica

THOMAS DRUE'S DUCHESS OF SUFFOLK: A PROTESTANT DRAMA
by
Leslie Mahin Oliver

The antagonism that existed so strongly between the theatre and various religious groups during the Elizabethan and Stuart periods, and which achieved its strongest expression, perhaps, in Prynne's Histriomastix and in such plays as The Puritan, may cause us to overlook a minor but definite countertendency of the theatre to play up to the religious interests of a part of the populace. In the earlier decades of the era, mystery and morality plays, though no longer as once under the aegis of the church, remained as reminders to us of the religious origin of the English theatre. We know that down into the 'eighties such plays continued, in diminished numbers, to be written and produced. And from 1590 on, in a theatre increasingly secular and especially anti-Puritan, there were occasional plays that, in whole or in major part, showed a desire in the writers and producers of plays for a raprochement with the bourgeois, church-going elements of the community.

As examples of the tendency we may name Greene and Lodge's A Looking-glass for London and England (printed 1594); Sir John Oldcastle, by Drayton and others (1600); Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602); Heywood's If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody (1605); Rowley's When You See Me You Know Me (1605); Dekker and Massinger's The Virgin Martyr (1622); Shakespeare and Fletcher's Henry VIII (1623); Heywood's England's Elizabeth (1631); his Life and Death of Queen Elizabeth (1639); and Shirley's The Martyred Soldier (1638). In the long roll of lost plays there are a number that, judging by their titles, must belong to the same group. All or a substantial part of the following plays must have been, at least, not utterly repugnant to religious-minded people: Pope Joan (produced ca. 1580-1592); Abraham and Lot (ca. 1580-1594); Haughton's The English Fugitives (? 1600); Judas (1601-2); Rowley's Joshua (1602); Dekker and Munday's Jephtha (1602); and Samson (1602). It may be argued, of course, that these plays could not have been very popular or successful, or they would not

have been lost; but their mere existence is enough to demonstrate that the minor tendency was present. The period from 1606 to 1621, when no such play is recorded as printed or produced except by such frankly religious groups as that of St. Omers, is the longest hiatus before the closing of the theatres.[1]

Among plays of this sort, and perhaps as good an example of the type as we shall find, is The Duchess of Suffolk, by Thomas Drue, produced at the Fortune Theatre in 1623, and printed in 1631.[2] It is a historical drama, and like most of that sort, it appeals strongly to community pride; but the community in this case is not the nation, primarily, but the strongly Protestant left wing of the English Church—the moderate Puritans.

There is also a very strong vein of local interest in the play and its production in 1623. The Fortune Theatre stood in Golden Lane, Cripplegate. Scarcely a stone's throw away stood the Barbican, the home of the Duchess and the scene of the first part of the play. An ancient watchtower rebuilt into a residence, the house stood near the corner of Red Cross street and what was later known as Barbican street. It had been a possession of the holders of the Suffolk title since the time of Edward III. As late as 1599, Peregrine Bertie, the son of the Duchess, bequeathed to his son a parcel of land on this street, possibly including the old residence. The Barbican was in a state of ruin in 1682, but did not entirely disappear until late in the 18th century. In its later years it was known as Willoughby House, possibly to distinguish it from the street.[3] In Dryden's day the locality was given over to brothels.[4]

The players at the Fortune were the Palsgrave's Company. They had been under the protection of the German princeling Frederick V, Elector of the Rhenish Palatinate, since 1612, when he had come to England to marry the Princess Elizabeth; and they remained under his aegis until 1631. During all this time the Fortune was their special theatre; it burned and was rebuilt (1621-23); it was the scene of riots; the players left it on occasion for excursions in the provinces. But through all their existence as the Palsgrave's Company the Fortune was their center and their home.[5]

The Palsgrave, as the king of Poland, is one of the characters in the play, The Duchess of Suffolk. Presumably the players thus honored their patron by presenting a flattering portrait of his predecessor. The Palsgrave's residence is not known, but his son Prince Rupert is said to have lived in Barbican Street.

Thomas Deloney, the ballad maker whose version of the Duchess' story, as we shall show, influenced the play, lived in Cripplegate.[6] And John Foxe the martyrologist, from whose Acts and Monuments the material for the play is chiefly drawn, from 1570 to his death in 1587 had owned a house in Grub street, an easy stroll from the theatre, and was buried in St. Giles, which fronts Red Cross street in the same neighborhood. The play, then, knits together a number of neighborhood interests.

The lady whose adventures are the subject of the play was the historical Katharine, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, born in 1519. She was the daughter of Lord Willoughby and of Mary de Salinas, a Spanish Lady of the court of Henry VIII. At her father's death in 1526 she became Baroness of Willoughby. Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, became her guardian, and married her in 1533. She was the Duke's fourth wife, and by him she had two sons. The Duke died in 1545, and the two boys in 1551. Richard Bertie, the Duchess' second husband, whom she married in 1553, was the son of a prosperous stonemason who, like Shakespeare's father, became a gentleman by act of the College of Heralds when his son came up in the world. Richard was a graduate of Oxford, reputed to be an accomplished student of French, Italian, and Latin, and a man of tact and ability. He had been the Duchess' gentleman usher. In the later period of his life he was a member of Parliament for Lincolnshire.[7]

There can be little doubt that the character named Foxe, who opens the play, was intended to represent the martyrologist. In a play in which practically every character is historical, which is based on his own book and set and produced in his own old neighborhood, it could scarcely be otherwise. The record of Foxe's ordination as a deacon indicates that he was a tutor in the household of the Duchess in 1550.[8] But Foxe, the Duchess' servant in the play, who envies Bertie's good fortune but goes into exile with his master and mistress, has little in common with his historical counterpart. Drue lavished more attention upon him, however, than upon any other minor character in the play, and made him an individual with more than a spark of life in him. He becomes the chief instrument of the Providence that watched over the Duchess. That the sober, studious, godly Foxe should be shown as worshipping his Protestant heroine, foiling the villainous prelates, and smoothing the path of Protestant exile might be taken, not too cynically, as an allegory of the effect of his book upon the Protestant world. At the very least, this is neither the first nor the last time that Foxe the man has been misunderstood. Almost any history of English literature will serve as another example.

The Duchess of Suffolk comes near the end of a surprisingly long list of plays

whose plots, in whole or in part, are drawn from the pages of Foxe.[9] In this case, the entire plot, with only minor modifications, is from the Acts and Monuments. Indeed, the play's indebtedness to Foxe is so obvious that its source was probably known and recognized from the beginning. The story of the Duchess' exile on the continent during Mary's reign was not reported in the 1563 edition— the first in English—of the "Book of Martyrs." The only reference to it occurs in a marginal note on page 1680: "Lady Francis, Duchess of Suffolk, who hazarding bothe life, lands, and so great possessions fled her countrey with her husband in cause of her conscience." Foxe, or more probably the translator who Englished his 1559 Latin version, had confused the Dowager Duchess with her stepdaughter.[10] The detailed story was inserted, when the book was revised for the second (1570) edition, among other accounts dealing with "divers saved by God's providence"—persons who, in spite of strong Protestant sympathies, had survived Mary's reign by one means or another.[11] It remained substantially unchanged in succeeding editions. The Dictionary of National Biography asserts, quite plausibly but without offering any proof, that the account was written by Richard Bertie.[12] The whole story is copied, word for word, by Holinshed's editors in the second edition of the Chronicles.[13]

Foxe's account tells of the Duchess' flight with her husband and children to escape the enmity of Bishop Gardiner. They made their way by slow stages, suffering hardships and meeting many adventures, to Poland. There they were befriended by the king and allowed to remain in security until the death of Mary made their return to England possible.

The story of the Duchess' wanderings had been made into a ballad by Thomas Deloney, and published in 1602 or earlier.[14] Deloney had taken some liberties with the story as told in Foxe, and it is possible, as a result, to say with certainty that the dramatist Drue knew and used the ballad version as well as Foxe's book. Drue follows Deloney rather than Foxe in including an attack by thieves on the Duchess and her party. Foxe has nothing of this. Foxe had told of the party's taking refuge in the church-porch at Wesel; Deloney added that the sexton came and tried to drive them out. Bertie "wrung the churchkeys

out of his hand," and beat the drunken janitor over the head with them. This incident also is used by Drue.

Deloney also had told of the son, Peregrine, born to the duchess during the early days of the exile, and had named the daughter, Susan, a babe in arms at the time of their flight, who afterward became Countess of Kent. These facts are used in the play, and Drue may have taken them from the ballad. But it is highly probable that Drue had later and more direct sources of information about the personages in the Willoughby family.

The influence of the Acts and Monuments upon the play is not confined to Foxe's story of the Duchess' flight and exile. Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer, Marian martyrs, and Dr. Sands, an exile, appear on the stage. Sands, with little effect on the plot but with much damage to his academic and ecclesiastical dignity, is pursued onto and off the stage so often as to become ridiculous. Foxe's story of Dr. Sands is told a few pages after that of the Duchess, but the two stories are not connected. Historically, Sands and Katharine were friends, and they may have met on the continent. The connection may have been suggested to the dramatist by this sentence in Foxe: "Dr. Sands . . . conveyed himself by night to one master Bartly's [i.e., Bertie's?] house, a stranger, who was in the Marshalsea prison with him for a while; he was a good Protestant, and dwelt in Mark-lane."[15] But Bertie was not a "stranger," never was in prison, and did not live in Mark lane. In one speech in the play Sands is called Saunders; a man of that name, according to Foxe,[16] had been Sands' prison-mate. These minor elements of the play are confused and confusing, but the whole complex suggests the hack-dramatist searching out details to fill up his scenes without too much regard for verisimilitude where his main character is not concerned.

Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer are introduced in the fourth act, where the dramatist compresses into a single scene the stories of the three martyrs. These he would have found in great detail in Foxe.[17] Historically, the Duchess was a staunch friend of Latimer, and some of his volumes of sermons are dedicated to her. Presumably the playwright's purpose in bringing in these characters is to show dramatically what the Duchess escaped by her flight, and perhaps also to associate her more closely with the main stream of historical events. But the connection is not made obvious in the drama, and the playwright lost a real opportunity to knit his story more closely together when he failed to bring Latimer into an earlier and more organic association with the main plot. To make room for him, Sands could have been eliminated entirely; he is never necessary to the action. One suspects he is present because a part had to be made for one of the comedians of the company. Perhaps the groundlings would have been less pleased, but the development of Latimer's part and the exclusion of

Sands would have caused less pain to the Muse of History than she suffers from other things in the play. The burning of Cranmer's hand, for instance, is distorted completely out of its true significance to provide a momentary dramatic sensation.

Sir Henry Herbert's Revels Book contains the following entry:

It would be interesting, if it were possible, to know what "dangerous matter" Sir Henry excised from the play. Perhaps—this is offered as pure speculation— he softened the anti-prelatical elements of the play, which would have been displeasing to the then-crescent high-church party.

In 1600 Philip Henslowe listed thirty shillings as paid to William Haughton in earnest of a play called The English Fugitives. Collier assumed that this play was a dramatization of the Duchess of Suffolk's story. Greg, however, thinks it more probable that the play dealt with other matters.[19]

Notes

THE COMPOSITION AND PRINTING OF MIDDLETON'S A MAD WORLD, MY MASTERS [*]
by
Gerald J. Eberle

In a paper read before the Bibliographical Evidence group at the meeting of the Modern Language Association in Chicago in 1945 I made the point that careful bibliographical analysis of the text of Thomas Middleton's A Mad World, My Masters,[1] 1608, along with a study of Middleton's scribal habits, might afford a more generally satisfactory explanation of the aberrations in the quarto than the previously held theory of revision.

The publication since then of F. T. Bowers' article, "An Examination of the Method of Proof Correction in Lear,"[2] has led me to believe that the analysis of the composition and printing of A Mad World might be interesting in its own right, apart from its application to the editorial problem; for the first five sheets of the play were printed with three skeletons used in a pattern somewhat different from that in Lear. To complicate matters a bit, no variant formes in

these sheets appear in the nine copies of the first edition which I have collated.

Incidentally, the two compositors of the first five sheets were accomplished workmen, one of whom set almost all the type for these first sheets—all but D1-4 and E3v-4. The point is significant because apparently a single compositor was not pressed for time in setting all the type for sheets A, B, and C.

Some of the phenomena to be detailed here are sufficiently similar to those in Lear to recommend comparison, and sufficiently different to prove puzzling and perhaps enlightening. To facilitate comparison, I have used in the following table the same system of indicating running-title transfers that was used by Bowers.

Several oddities deserve special comment, if only as a warning to future students of running-titles used as bibliographical evidence. As indicated in the above table two slightly different titles are used on A4v. Printing starts with title IIIa, found in copies of the play in the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Bodleian, the Folger, the Huntington, and the New York Public Library.

After a considerable number of copies had been printed the broken initial A was replaced by a better one, but the rest of the running-title was not changed. The title in its improved form, IIIb, appears on A4v in the copies of the play in the British Museum, Harvard, the Library of Congress, and the Boston Public Library. Thereafter title IIIb appears in all copies on B3v and C3v, after which it is rejected.

Meanwhile what is apparently the rejected initial A from IIIa re-appears in a new title on B4v, labeled now IXa, which is used again on C4v and then set aside temporarily. It appears again on E4v but its broken initial A is replaced almost immediately, quite by chance by what is apparently the same initial A which had replaced it in title III. Title IXa is found only in the British Museum copy.

The notable fact, it seems to me, is that these pages are invariant except for the changed letter in the running-titles. If these pages were proofed, as their general excellence suggests, what sort of proofing before printing might allow the broken running-title to escape notice? That there was ample time for proofing in the first five sheets of the play is obvious when we study the probable order of the formes through the press.

The cumulative effect of admittedly inconclusive evidence leads me to believe that the outer formes of both sheet A and sheet B preceded their inner formes through the press. If inner B had been imposed and run before outer B, we should be obliged to account for the delay occasioned by the use in inner B of running-titles from both formes of A. This demands the assumption that sheet A was completed at the end of a working day, in which event both skeletons should have been ready for normal transfer to their respective quarters in the formes of B.

Instead we find new running-titles used in outer B, one of them with the previously discarded broken A. Apparently outer B was imposed before either skeleton of A was ready for transfer. Then while outer B printed white paper, the running-titles and furniture from both formes of A were used in inner B.

Similarly, if inner A had been first run, its running-titles would presumably have been first ready for transfer to inner B, in which case normal transfer of running-titles would have placed title IV on B3v instead of on B1v, and title V on B4 instead of on B2. But if outer A was first run, first rinsed, and first stripped, normal transfer would place title II on B4 and title IIIb on B3v, which is precisely where they are used. This conjecture, unfortunately, leaves the puzzle of why title I from A2v was not used. I suspect that by the time the workman was ready to impose B1v and B2 he had available the running-titles from the two adjacent type pages of inner A, which he preferred to use rather than the single remaining running-title from outer A plus another odd one.

It seems likely, then, that the order of formes through the press thus far was outer A, inner A, outer B, inner B; and the pattern of running-title transfers

could be indicated as follows: set X, set Y, set Z, set XY, or three different sets plus a fourth composed of parts of the first two.

This last point may seem unduly labored; the reason for the insistence lies in the odd repetition of that same pattern in sheets C and D, though of course the running-titles used in inner and outer C are not newly set.

The outer forme of C uses the titles from outer B, and is presumably first printed, to be followed by inner C, which uses three titles from inner B plus one new one. The new title can be plausibly accounted for if we assume that imposition of outer C was begun after outer B had been rinsed and stripped. But when the imposition of inner C was begun, the skeleton of inner B was not quite ready for transfer. Overlooking the set-aside running-title from A2v, the compositor set a new one and imposed C1v. By the time he had completed that task the inner forme of B had been rinsed and stripped and its running-titles were available for normal transfer.

The situation in sheet D is similar. Outer D, like outer B, uses in effect a new skeleton, though two running-titles previously set aside from A2v and B1v form part of the skeleton. Composition is again far ahead of presswork; the outer forme of D is imposed with a new skeleton, and the inner forme of D is being imposed shortly before the outer forme of C has been rinsed. Rejecting the broken title IXa, the compositor imposes three quarters of the inner forme of D, making two normal transfers from C3 to D4 and from C1 to D2, and one unusual transfer from C2v to D3v instead of to D1v. By this time the inner forme of C has been rinsed and is available. The normal transfer of running-title from C1v to D1v completes the imposition of the inner forme of D.

It will be noted that inner D might have been imposed entirely with the skeleton from outer C, had the broken running-title not been rejected. It remains a fact, nevertheless, that the inner forme of D uses running-titles from both formes of C, thus completing the cycle of four sets as in sheets A and B with the same pattern, X, Y, Z, XY.

Laboring the point may be wasted effort, especially when one cannot explain exactly why the pattern exists; the point is made because it suggests that sheets B and D were completed at the end of a working day and immediately calls attention to a somewhat similar pattern in Lear.[3]

In any case, composition was well ahead of presswork, the new compositor at work in D is not needed to relieve any pressure, and the compositor evidently had sufficient type for sixteen standing pages. As a corollary it seems clear that the resources of the shop were fully utilized in the printing of these sheets.

If both formes of D marked the end of a working day, both skeletons might have been available for the imposition of either forme of E. As a matter of fact, both formes of E use running-titles from D. In sheet E, however, it is

rather difficult to determine which forme was first imposed and printed because the outer forme of E uses two running-titles from inner D and in addition a single running-title from each of two other formes, outer C and inner C.

The problem is not insoluble, however, if we can correctly interpret the following facts:

• 1. Title X from C1v is used on D1v and E2v.
• 2. Title V from C2 is used on E1.
• 3. Titles IIIb and II from the other two pages of inner C were probably distributed before outer E was machined, for we note that the initial A from title IIIb is used to replace the rejected A in the previously set aside title IXa that now appears on E4v.
• 4. The use of title X on E2v and VIII on E3 is the normal pattern of running-title transfers from an inner to an outer forme; and the only sensible reason why the other two titles from inner D were not used must be that the other quarters, E1 and E4v, were already imposed.

In short, the compositor went back to earlier set-aside running-titles because neither skeleton of D was available, but by the time he had imposed E1 and E4v, side-by-side on the stone, the skeletons of D had been rinsed and were available. The needed two running-titles were taken from the quarters of inner D which are appropriate to normal transfer from inner to outer formes, D1v to E2v and D4 to E3.

Finally the entire skeleton of the outer forme of D was transferred in normal order to the inner forme of E. And that concluded the printing of the first five sheets of the play.

With sheet F a wholly new situation arises. All running-titles from the first five sheets are discarded; they are replaced in sheet F by four new running-titles, one of which has a comma instead of a period after the word "Masters." These four are used in both formes of F and G and in the inner forme of H. Four other running-titles, one of which has a badly broken upper case W in the word "World", were used in outer H, and three of these in the final three pages of the play, I1-2.

Apparently the outer forme of H was imposed and printed before the inner forme, a second skeleton being introduced to speed up completion of the job. It is likely that the order of the formes through the press was inner F, outer F, inner G, outer G, outer H, inner H. There is obviously nothing to prevent simultaneous imposition of both formes of I. In fact half-sheet imposition seems likely, the running-titles from outer H being transferred as follows: H1 to I1, H2v to I1v, and H3 to I2.

Signatures F-I differ from the earlier sheets of the play in another important respect—composition. The two efficient compositors of sheets A-E were replaced by one compositor who is not an accomplished workman. His work is easily distinguished from that of the other two by his spelling, by his handling

of contractions and apostrophes, and by his sometimes stupid blunders, which are noticeable chiefly in sheet H. Evidently, sheets F and G underwent some sort of correction, for we find only three variants in these two sheets, two on F1v and one on G3v. When we find numerous errors throughout sheet H, the comparative absence of errors in F and G strongly suggests that F and G underwent some sort of proofing earlier.

Sheet H is truly amazing, exhibiting as it does both formes variant in wildly erratic fashion. For instance we find in outer H in the uncorrected state these flaws: on H1 seven stupid blunders; on H2v a generally good page with one nonsense line at the bottom; on H3 a faulty speech-tag, An.c later changed to Anc.; on H4v a good invariant page.

In inner H the situation is much the same; on H1v there are five stupid blunders limited to the upper half of the page; signature H2 is invariant and good, and shows signs of having been set or extensively corrected by the compositor of the greater part of the first five sheets; on H3v one word is wrong and one speech-tag is changed from Short. to Short.R.; signature H4 exists in three states. The wholly uncorrected state,[4] found only in the British Museum copy, has the incorrect catchword Short. All other copies properly read Mast Pan. The third from the last line of text in this copy reads in part "ſhall I intreat a cuteſy?" All other copies properly add the missing r in "curteſy" and omit one of the l's in "ſhall", probably to avoid the necessity of spacing out the line anew; it was certainly not lack of room in the line. The British Museum copy uses Short. as a speech-tag five times. The partially corrected states remove all the errors listed above except the use of Short., which is hardly an error. The twice corrected states change Short. to Short.R. twice near the top of the page, but leave it unexpanded the other three times it occurs. Here surely is haphazard correction!

To complete the discussion of composition we may add that the three pages of sheet I exist in two states. Signature I1 is uncorrected in the Dyce copy of the play in the Victoria and Albert Museum. The variants in I1v and I2 seem to me to be the result not of correction strictly speaking but of an accident in the course of printing. In those copies of the play that do not lack the FINIS the upper part of signatures I1v and I2 near their common margin show signs of badly justified lines with type slipping from side to side. I assume that the type in this area pied locally and necessitated re-adjustment. In those copies that lack the FINIS these badly justified lines have been tightened up, but in those areas mistakes have crept in; for instance the i from "ſeriouſly" slips down into the next line with this result:

When we add to all this evidence of careless work the significant fact that the badly damaged running-titles in the last sheets of the book were not replaced, as were those in the first sheets, we get a picture the cumulative force of which demonstrates beyond a doubt that the two bibliographically distinguishable sections of A Mad World were composed and printed in quite different ways.

Sheets A-E were carefully composed and printed with all the resources of Ballard's shop directed toward turning out a reasonably good piece of work. Then for some reason the printing of A Mad World was stopped. The distribution of running-titles as outlined in step number three above suggests that the decision to set aside this play was reached before sheet E was in the press, but after its type had been set at least in part. When the printing was resumed, a wholly different attitude prevailed. Composition was done by one man in the main, probably an apprentice, certainly not a good compositor.

For, as I demonstrated before the Bibliographical Evidence group of the Modern Language Association in Chicago, the entire play shows signs of having been set from Middleton's holograph manuscript, and Middleton's handwriting is very easy to read, unlikely to prove troublesome to a good compositor. Even the printing did not make use of all the facilities of Ballard's shop, presumably because his accomplished workmen were busy with some other job.

This entire analysis undoubtedly introduces more questions than answers, but it may prove helpful to some other student with a similar bibliographical problem.

Notes

NOTES ON RESTORATION PLAYS
by Robert N. E. Megaw, Homer Goldberg, Frederick O. Waller

(1) The Two 1695 Editions of Wycherley's Country-Wife

The first edition of William Wycherley's Country-Wife appeared in 1675 with the collation 40, [A]2 B-O4. Before the end of the century four more quarto editions were published, each regularly derived from its predecessor: 1683, collating A2 B-K4; 1688, a line-for-line paginal reprint of 1683; and two editions in 1695 collating [A]2 B-I4, one a line-for-line paginal reprint of the other.

Before the appearance of the Woodward and McManaway Check List of English Plays 1641-1700 the fact that there were two editions, not one, in 1695 had not been recognized; but the Check List separated them, assigning no. 1325 to the edition with "Country Wife" (no hyphen) in the running-titles, and no. 1326 to the edition with the hyphenated running-titles "Country-Wife."[1] Other

differences may be added for identification. In 1325 the imprint contains plain italic caps; on sig. C4, line 33, Pinchwife's aside "Will nothing do?" is enclosed in parentheses; and on sig. D1v the first speech-heading reads "Sr. Jas." In 1326 swash italic caps head the imprint names Briscoe, Russel-street, and Daniel Dring; the aside is bracketed; and the speech-heading reads "Sir Jas."

These two 1695 editions have not previously been subjected to bibliographical examination to determine their order, but when this is done it is seen that the Woodward and McManaway order should be reversed: 1326 is the true fourth and 1325 the true fifth edition. Since one is a paginal reprint of the other, independent derivation is eliminated and the question resolves itself to the simple determination of which edition was set from 1688 and which was not. Of 86 variations between the two 1695 editions in Act II, for example, 77 in no. 1326 follow 1688 where no. 1325 differs. Three of these are substantives:

• 1688-no. 1326: that is no wit, out of friendship to me? (C3v, line 47)
• no. 1325: that is no whit out of Friendship to me.
• 1688-no. 1326: to our honours (C4v, line 38)
• no. 1325: to our honour
• 1688-no. 1326: do not use that word naked. (D1, line 3)
• no. 1325: do not use the word naked.

In 46 cases, no. 1326 follows 1688 in spelling, capitalization, or contraction where no. 1325 differs; and in 28 punctuation variants no. 1326 conforms to 1688, where no. 1325 does not. In the light of this overwhelming evidence that no. 1326 was printed from 1688 and that, as a paginal reprint, no. 1325 must derive from 1326, the four minor examples of spelling and punctuation variants in which no. 1325 and 1688, but not no. 1326, agree may readily be dismissed as fortuitous.

Collation against the 1675 and the 1683 editions discloses that no. 1326 did not consult these editions and that it is a straight reprint of 1688.

Robert N. E. Megaw

(2) The Two 1692 Editions of Otway's Caius Marius

The first edition of Thomas Otway's History and Fall of Caius Marius, listed in the Woodward and McManaway Check List as no. 880, was published by Thomas Flesher in 1680. The Check List follows with no. 881, an edition for Robert Bentley in 1692, which has a long "s" printed in the word "eft" on the title-page; no. 882, with a short "s", or "est" in the quotation on the title, thereupon follows in the listing as "another issue" of no. 881, with the same date and publisher. This listing as an issue is in error, for no. 882 is throughout

in a completely different typesetting from 881, and is the true third edition of the play.[2]

The order 880, 881, and 882 is readily established by collation. Nos. 881 and 882 agree in their makeup (a slight condensation of 880), one being a paginal reprint of the other. That edition, therefore, which derives directly from 880 must be the earlier. Various substantive readings point to the agreement of 880 and 881 in cases where 882 differs.

• 880-881: Lay my gray Hairs low (page 8, line 4)
• 882: Lay my gray Heirs low
• 880-881: This Dæmon (page 8, line 15)
• 882: The Dæmon
• 880-881: its most dear-bought Honours (page 11, line 29)
• 882: its more dear-bought Honours

This same line of derivation is clearly exemplified by the accidentals, as well:

• 880-881: my wish'd-for Peace (page 9, line 4)
• 882: my wish'd for Peace
• 880-881: Sh'has bin with Sylla (page 10, line 46)
• 882: Sh'has been with Sylla

The second instance is especially good evidence, for although "bin" is the invariable spelling of 880, "been" is the normal form in 881; hence, the few cases in 881 of "bin" reflect its copy-text, and 882 quite naturally normalizes the form to "been."

The whole trend of the evidence demonstrates this order without question, and the expected few cases of agreement in accidentals between 880 and 882 against 881, resolve themselves without difficulty into normal corrections by the compositor of 882.[3]

The seventeenth-century history of this play may be continued by remarking that no. 883, listed as a 1692 issue for Flesher, is a "ghost," the single recorded copy, that at Northwestern University, being in fact no. 882. No. 884, a 1694 edition reported by Montague Summers but without confirmation, has no recorded exempla and very likely does not exist. Finally, collation establishes that no. 885, the 1696 edition for Bentley, is a reprint of no. 882, a fact which points to 882 as an authorized edition and not a piracy.

Homer Goldberg

(3) Three 1695 Editions of Jevon's Devil of a Wife

Following the first edition in 1686 (no. 662) and the second in 1693 (no. 663) of Thomas Jevon's farce The Devil of a Wife, the Woodward and McManaway Check List records as no. 664 an edition for James Knapton in 1693 (4 preliminary leaves, 47 p.) and another (no. 665) in the same year, also for Knapton (3 preliminary leaves, 42 p.). Under no. 664 it is noted that the Henry E. Huntington Library has another copy of this edition with variant readings. This second copy, which is the same as that held by Chicago and Duke, is, on the contrary, a completely new reset edition and should be assigned the number 664a.

Collation establishes that no. 664, the first of the 1695 editions, was set in a condensed makeup from a copy of Knapton's 1693 edition (no. 663), and that 664a is a paginal and line-for-line reprint of 664.

         

	664a	663, 664
C4, line 6	Witnesses to my Proceedings	Witnesses of . . .
D2, line 11	Nadir Ah come, come.	Nadir. Ay, come, come.
D3v, line 28	what Dog is this, where is my Bell?	what Dog is this? . . . Bell?
G4, line 9	buskins empty smelling	buskins empty swelling

The similar title-pages and makeup of 664 and 664a furnish no points of identification, but the two editions may be distinguished on the basis of the above readings, although other points may be mentioned. Thus 664 has the correct page number 19 but 664a transposes this in the copies seen to 91. In the persons, in 664 Lovemore is described as "beloved for good old Engl. House-keeping" whereas 664a reads "House-keeper."

Various unique readings confirm the evidence of its compressed makeup to indicate that the third 1695 edition, no. 665, did not precede 664. Collation establishes, moreover, that it is derived directly from 664 and not from 664a or from any earlier edition, for it follows the major readings in which 664 varies from 663 but ignores the variants in 664a from 664.

Frederick O. Waller

Notes

THE EARLY EDITIONS OF ADDISON'S CAMPAIGN [*]
by
Robert D. Horn

The only modern edition of Addison's poetic works which has any authority is that of Guthkelch. In spite of the many merits of this production, the editing of The Campaign,[1] the poem which marked the turning point in Addison's career, is based on an erroneous bibliography of the early editions (also found in the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature); and the text is not contrived according to present-day standards of editorial practice. Accepting Tickell's text in the posthumous folio edition of Addison's Works (1721), Guthkelch assumes that the variants from the first edition of 1705 made their initial appearance in the edition of 1708 with the Latin translation. This assumption posits a delay of four years between the first appearance of the poem and Addison's revision of his text. In fact, no such delay occurred, for the poem was revised for the first and only time in the third London edition of 1705.

It is the purpose of this study to present a corrected bibliography of the critically important early editions of The Campaign, and to call attention to certain significant bibliographical features affecting our estimate of the authority of the texts.

The sequence of editions is as follows:

• 1. First London Edition (advertised October-November, published December 14, 1704.[2]) [within double rules] THE | CAMPAIGN, | A | POEM, | To His GRACE the | DUKE of MARLBOROUGH. | [rule] | By Mr. ADDISON. | [rule] | --- Rheni pacator & Istri. | Omnis in hoc Uno variis discordia cessit | Ordinibus; lœtatur Eques, plauditque Senator, | Votaque Patricio certant Plebeia favori. | Claud. de Laud. Stilic. | [rule] | LONDON, | Printed for Jacob Tonson, within Grays-Inn Gate next | Grays-Inn Lane. 1705.
• 20, [A]2 B-G2 [$1 signed], 14 leaves, pp. [4] 1-23 [24] (pp. in sq. bkts. centered) [variant: misprinting 13 as 31]. A1: hf. tit. [rule] | 'THE | CAMPAIGN, | A | POEM.' | [rule]. A1v: blank. A2: title (verso blank). B1 (p. 1): HT and text (cap2), ending on G2

  ---

  257

  
  
  
  (p.23) [rule] | 'FINIS.' | [rule]. G2v: 'Books Printed for Jacob Tonſon at Grays-Inn Gate.' (cap3), 15 items. Notes: Type-page (leaded) sig. D1, 247(271) X 153 mm. In sheet B the measure is 149-150 mm. Paper watermarked DP. Large-paper (w/m star), NN (Berg), measures 14 5/8" X 9 1/8". Of 19 known copies, only one—in the possession of the writer—contains the mispagination on p. 13. The "Luttrell" inscription on the CSmH copy is highly doubtful, the handwriting being suspect. The pagination brackets are uniform in size and measure 9-10 mm. tall. On the evidence of the ICU copy, which has sheets B and D from the second edition, late copies sold had underprinted sheets made up from the second printing.
• 2. Second London Edition The title is in the same typesetting as the first edition except for the insertion between the Latin quotation and the imprint: [rule] | The Second Edition. | [rule] | LONDON, | ..... Collation and contents are as in the first edition except that sig. G2v is blank. Notes: Although the title-page was printed from the standing type of the first edition, the half-title was reset. The type of the half-title is of the same setting as that in the head-title. The top rule in the half-title measures 154 mm. (as against a measurement of 149 mm. in the first edition). A full leaded type-page in sheets B-C and F-G measures 250(273) X 155 mm., which is also the measurement of the pages in the outer forme of sheet E, sigs. E1.2v. Inner E, sigs. E1v.2, has a measure of 161 mm. The full type-page in sheet D measures 247(271) X 153 mm. Sheet D is printed from the same DP watermarked paper as the first edition but the other sheets from a somewhat lighter stock with an indistinct watermark which may be ML. The square brackets about the pagination of sigs. B1-D2v (pp. 1-12) measure 9-10 mm. as in the first edition, but those in sigs. E1-G2 (pp. 13-23) are smaller and measure 7 mm.
• 3. Third London Edition. [within double rules] THE | CAMPAIGN, | [etc. as in first edition] | Claud. de Laud. Stilic. | Omnium effuſa lætitia eſt & gratis cogitationibus & ſermonibus revocata. | Esse aliquam in terris Gentes quœ suâ impensa, suo labore ac peri- | [4 lines] | Liv. Hiſt. Lib. 33. | [rule] | The Third Edition. | LONDON, | Printed for Jacob Tonson, within Grays-Inn Gate | next Grays-Inn Lane. 1705. 20, [A]2 [B]2 C-F2 [$1 signed], 12 leaves, pp. [4] 1-20 (pp. in sq. bkts. centered). A1: hf. tit. (verso blank). A2: title (verso blank). B1:HT and text (cap2), ending on F2v (p. 20) with 'FINIS.' Notes: Since there is no possibility of mixed sheets with this edition,

  ---

  258

  
  
  
  technical details are omitted. Paper: no w/m, or faint "W.C." Guthkelch errs in stating that the two new quotations appear first in the 1710 pirated edition.
• 4. First Scots Edition. THE | CAMPAIGN, | A | POEM | TO | His Grace the Duke | OF | MARLBOROUGH | [row of 4 crown type-orn.] | [rule] | EDINBURGH | Reprinted According to the London Copy M.DCC.V. 40, A-B4 [$2 signed, A2, B1 in italic], 8 leaves, pp. [1]-[2] 3-16 (pp. in parens centered). A1: title (verso blank). A2 (p. 3): HT and text (cap2) ending on B4v (p. 16) with 'FINIS.' Notes: Collation, with special reference to the peculiarity of the "British" and "British" forms discussed below, establishes that this edition was set from the first London edition. Owing to the speed with which the second London edition seems to have been prepared, whether the Edinburgh immediately preceded or succeeded it is impossible to determine. This Scots edition has no independent authority and is described here only because of its rarity and to complete the roster of 1705 editions.

The three 1705 London editions are all that can possess textual authority, but the precise assignment of authority to all details rests in part on the bibliographical evidence of their printing. In the opinion of the writer, the first edition was hurried to completion in order to be put on sale on the day of Marlborough's return to London. In addition to the evidence which has been cited elsewhere,[3] one may offer signs of haste in the book itself, for at least two and possibly more compositors were concerned in setting its few pages. A marked feature of the spelling in sheets B-C is the invariable form "Brittish," "Brittain," "Brittania," and "Britton," whereas in D-G are consistently found the forms "British," "Britain," and so on. We have, then, what seems to be simultaneous two-section printing of this book in the respective parts A-C and D-G. And if inferences are valid from the University of Chicago copy, which contains sheets B and D from the second edition, it is possible that the edition was enlarged after the type of these first-printed sheets had been distributed.[4]

That a very brief interval elapsed between the printing of the first and second editions is suggested by the fact that standing type from the first-edition titlepage was utilized in the second, although all other type had been distributed as printed. Very considerable haste in the preparation of this second edition is

shown by bibliographical analysis of its characteristics. A major break in the book between sheets D and E, indicated by the change in the size of the headline square brackets, shows that at least two-section printing with two presses obtained. The separate setting, at a minimum, of sheets F-G is indicated by the use of a very small-font possessive "s" following words set in small caps, which differs from the practice shown in sheet D of using a small-cap "s" as throughout the first edition. This difference is buttressed by the setting of "Marlbro" in F-G without a circumflex, although the form "Marlbrô" is found in D (the name does not appear in B-C).

Sheet E, which may be taken as beginning the second section, is irregular because of the unique wide measure used to set its inner forme. The two measures used in the sheet demonstrate composition by formes in order to begin printing with the least possible delay. The compositor of inner E differs from that of sheet D in dropping the circumflex in "Marlbro," but he also differs from F-G in using a small-cap possessive "s" for words set in small caps. That sheet E was not the only sheet to be set by formes may perhaps be indicated by a certain feature of the typography. In the first edition the cases contained a mixture of two kinds of commas, one perceptibly thinner than that proper for the font. These mixed commas are found in the second edition in both formes of sheet B, in inner C and inner D. Only the regular commas which go with the font are found in outer C and D and in all formes of E-G.

If the inference is correct that in the first edition sheet D, and possibly B as well, was underprinted by accident or by reason of a subsequent enlargement of edition-sheet, then the fact that in the second edition sheet D, uniquely, was reset with the same measure as the first edition and printed on first-edition paper throughout very likely indicates that this sheet preceded all others through the press as a separate unit in order to complete the edition-sheet for the first edition.[5] The second edition may, therefore, have been sent to the presses in sections as A-C, D, E, F-G, or possibly as A-C, D, E-G. If, then, typesetting for the reprint began and was pushed forward rapidly before the complete exhaustion of first-edition sheets, we may combine this evidence with the standing type of the first-edition title-page to suggest that sale of the first edition was brisk and that no very great time elapsed between the printing of the two editions.[6]

Collation of the text of the second against that of the first edition discloses no substantive variants, indicative of revision, but only the scattering of

punctuation and capitalization variants which are encountered in any resetting. The number of compositors employed resulted in varying degrees of exactitude with which copy was followed. The relatively short time between the printing of the first and second editions, combined with the absence of substantive revision, makes it extremely unlikely that Addison had anything to do with the copy for the second edition or that any of its variants have authority.

This point is of considerable importance for the minutiae of the text, for since the revised third edition was set from a copy of the second, the vast majority of the alterations from the first in the "accidentals" were retained. That by the retention in a substantively revised edition of compositors' variants Addison automatically gave them authority and his approval is a contention that would be utterly unsupported by modern views of the transmission of texts.[7] On the other hand, the changes made in the third edition from the accidentals of its copy-text, the second, may be compositorial or may reflect Addison's markings, or both: that is a decision for an editor in each specific case. Otherwise, only the "accidentals" of the first edition, set from manuscript, have authority.

The substantive revisions in the third edition are recorded by Guthkelch, but with the erroneous assumption, previously noted, that they originated in the 1708 edition. At least sixteen such alterations attest to Addison's labors of revision. Twelve alterations are slight changes in wording such as the shift from "indites" to "recites" (line 5), or from "A Captive Host" to "Whole Captive Hosts" (line 355). More positive revisions are confined to four passages, each a single couplet. Although these are strictly rhetorical in interest, they may be regarded as pointing out those passages in which Addison could have sensed the dangers of the kind of turgidity that led Pope to score on The Campaign in his Peri Bathous.[8] Since the revised couplets appear in widely separated passages on pages 4, 8, 13, and 16, it is apparent that Addison submitted the whole poem to critical scrutiny. One example, lines 153-154 on page 8, will suffice to show the general character of his polishing.

With the recognition that Addison's work on The Campaign was complete with the third edition, subsequent reprints retain but slight importance, although they do show continued interest in the most successful of the several score of Blenheim poems or, indeed, of the larger group of Marlborough panegyrics. The 1708 edition with the Latin translation, Hill's piracy of 1710, T. Warner's edition of 1713, and the reprint in Part VI of the reissue of the Dryden-Tonson Miscellanies in 1716, all listed by Guthkelch, have no textual importance. Unnoticed by Guthkelch are two Tonson editions, of 1713 and 1725, which are labeled as the fifth and sixth editions respectively. The 1713 edition is embellished by an engraving which depicts an Angel bearing a sword and riding the storm clouds above Marlborough's head, while he, mounted on a rearing horse, towers above squadrons of cavalry on the field of combat below. The 1725 edition is an unpretentious octavo, interesting only in that it is the final separate printing to be identified with the name of Tonson, although of course the elder Jacob had retired in 1720. Thus a total of six editions, four of them separate printings, are to be associated with the press of the eminent Kit-Cat printer.

The final question remains: which of the three 1705 Tonson texts of The Campaign is to be preferred? Although conventional editorial procedure would select the revised third to reprint, the McKerrow-Greg bibliographical school—conscious of the derivation of some of the "accidentals" of the third from the unauthoritative second edition—would choose the authoritative first edition as copy-text and in this would incorporate the authoritative substantive revisions of the third and such of its unique "accidentals" variants as might be due to Addison's own alterations.[9] To date no edition is available which, according to this standard, is completely satisfactory.[10]

Notes

THE FIRST ANTHOLOGIES OF ENGLISH LITERARY CRITICISM, WARTON TO HASLEWOOD
by
Rodney M. Baine

Although in England reprints and collections of Elizabethan and seventeenth-century poetry and drama were popular throughout the eighteenth century, this eminently critical age lacked easy access to its rich heritage of literary criticism. Only slowly were the classics of Elizabethan and seventeenth-century criticism reprinted, and for these there was so little demand that the editors usually had to share or assume the financial risk of publication. No history of English criticism appeared to supplement Thomas Warton's History of English Poetry. In 1737 Elizabeth Cooper promised "some Account of the Progress of Criticism in England; from Sir Philip Sidney, the Art of English Posey (written by Mr. Puttenham, a Gentleman Pensioner to Queen Elizabeth:) Sir John Harrington, Ben Johnson, &c."[1] But the volume which was to contain this account never appeared, nor did Dr. Johnson ever write his more ambitious "History of Criticism . . . from Aristotle to the present age."[2]

The first separate English reprint of Elizabethan literary criticism seems to have been that of Sidney's Defence of Poesy issued in 1752 by G. Robert Urie, one of Glasgow's foremost publishers. This book, though neatly printed and adorned with a portrait, was an isolated phenomenon, since it did not promote further republication of literary criticism.

The unpretentious forerunner of future scholarly collections was published in 1787 by Joseph Warton. Warton had acquired experience as an anthologist by assisting Dodsley to select material for his Collection. He had established a reputation as literary critic by his edition of Virgil, his critical papers in The Adventurer, and his Essay on the Writings and Genius of Alexander Pope. On 18 April 1784 Warton suggested to the printer John Nichols the small compendium which appeared in 1787 as Sir Philip Sydney's Defence of Poetry, and Observations on Poetry and Eloquence, from the Discoveries of Ben Jonson:

For this venture Warton thus offered to share the expenses and undertook to furnish copy, supply notes, and read proof. Nichols promptly accepted and, evidently on 27 April, Warton sent copy to the printer. For some reason publication was delayed until early in 1787, possibly because Warton was remiss in performing his editorial duties. Of the second volume of his Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope two hundred pages had lain in the warehouse for more than a score of years while the publishers waited for him to complete the volume. Finally, on 12 December 1786, Warton sent in the preliminaries for his collection of literary criticism, suggesting that publication might coincide with his presence in London about January the sixth or seventh. About that date, probably, it appeared, published by G.G.J. and J. Robinson and J. Walter.

This slender compendium was possibly Joseph Warton's greatest service to English scholarship; but it had its deficiencies. Warton did not attempt to reproduce the original texts, or probably even to consult them. Instead he used for copy eighteenth-century editions of Sidney's and Jonson's Works, even further modernizing the punctuation and paragraphing and marking for omission several passages in Jonson's Timber, or Discoveries. Nor did the edition include the explanatory notes which the editor had intended to supply. Despite these modernizations, however, sale of the book was slow. Indeed most copies were evidently still unsold when on 8 February 1808 Nichols's warehouse burned with all his stock, so that soon Warton's book was difficult to obtain.

Meanwhile at the very end of the eighteenth century, in 1800, accurate scholarly methods were finally applied to the editing of literary criticism. For his edition of Dryden's Critical and Miscellaneous Prose Works Warton's friend Edmond Malone used and collated originals, employing methods which he had helped to perfect in editing Shakespeare.

In 1810, two years after most of Warton's edition burned, Sidney's Defence was reprinted by Edward Hovell, Lord Thurlow. He was prompted to replace Warton's editon and, possibly, to help satisfy interest aroused in Sidney by Thomas Zouch's Life and Writings of Sir Philip Sydney, published in 1808. In his edition of The Defence, which appeared in December, 1810, Thurlow made no attempt to apply Malone's scholarly methods to the editing of Sidney. Instead he merely reprinted Warton's text, modernizing the capitals and prefacing five original sonnets. This edition, elegantly printed by W. Bulmer in quarto on large wove paper, evidently found so few purchasers at the shop of White and Cochrane on Fleet Street that Thurlow decided to get rid of some copies by preparing a private or gift issue. For this issue he used the original sheets containing the text of Sidney's Defence but printed new preliminaries. He deleted the publishers' names on the title-page, acknowledged there the sonnets included in both issues, changed the date of publication to 1811, suppressed the advertisement, and added a two-leaf gathering to include an additional original poem. The leaves he had only slightly cut and gilded; and the whole issue he had elegantly bound.[4]

Thurlow's edition of Sidney's Defence probably helped to lead Joseph Haslewood, who was already editing scarce and curious Elizabethan material, to publish in 1811 an edition of Puttenham's Arte of English Poesie. At least Haslewood in 1815 omitted Sidney's Defence from his anthology of criticism because it had already been edited by Thurlow's "noble hand." In his edition of Puttenham, Haslewood followed Malone in the tradition of scholarly accuracy and on some points was even more meticulous than his predecessor had been. Haslewood's edition is a page by page reprint of the 1589 Field edition. Even in bibliographical features such as pagination, signatures, and gatherings all the accidental oddities of the original were reproduced. Haslewood skipped page numbers 93 to 100, which had in his original been left unused to compensate for four unpaginated leaves, omitted from many copies, including that used by him. He signed his leaves in the style Field had used, C, C ij, C iij, C iiij, etc., though why he signed leaf aiij as a 5 and aiiij as a 7 does not appear. In reproducing the original gatherings he was just as scrupulous, imitating the original two-leaf gathering I and only the three leaves that he saw of the original AB gathering. Haslewood's leaves [Bij] and Biij are conjugate and correspond to Field's [ABij] and A B iij. The single leaf B, blank like Field's leaf AB, Haslewood had his binder paste onto the preceding leaf. Since in Haslewood's copy of Field's edition the original leaf [ABiiij], containing the woodcut portrait of Queen Elizabeth, had been removed from its original position, Haselwood, thinking that he was following Field, omitted this leaf from his B gathering, but had the portrait printed with sheet a to face his general title-page.

Accompanying the publication of Puttenham's Arte, Haslewood announced his intention of publishing a uniform edition of all the essays on poetry up to Dryden. Meanwhile he continued to edit and encourage the publication of rare old volumes. In 1812 he helped to found the Roxburghe Club for this purpose. During the same year he became, with Sir Edgerton Brydges, joint editor of The British Bibliographer; and in the fourth volume he printed critical extracts from Henry Reynold's Mythomystes.

In 1815 finally appeared Haslewood's anthology of critical essays, The Arte of English Poesie, &c., later designated, with the Puttenham volume, as Ancient Critical Essays on Poets and Poesie. Complaining of the difficulty of locating copies, Haslewood here renounced his project of reprinting a complete series of critical essays, but this 1815 volume is in itself a magnificent collection. It comprises Gascoigne's Certayne Notes of Instruction, Webbe's Discourse of English Poetrie, King James VI's Treatise of the Airt of Scottis Poesie, Harrington's Apologie of Poetrie, Meres's Comparative Discourse of our English Poets, Campion's Observations in the Art of English Poesie, Daniel's Defense of Rhyme, Bolton's Hypercritica, and five letters on poetry by Spenser and Harvey. Here Haslewood again tried to reproduce his originals as accurately as possible, and he indicated variant

readings when he could locate more than one authoritative text. At least some of the volume is, again, a page for page reprint; and though he could not here follow the original pagination and signatures, he varied the style of his signatures to follow his originals. It was beautifully printed in an edition of 220 copies by T. Bensley, Sir Edgerton Brydge's printer. It was a worthy culmination of the renaissance of interest in older criticism begun with Warton's thin collection in 1787. Only a century later was it superseded, and even then the modern editors like G. Smith frequently abstracted what Haslewood had printed in full and modernized punctuation which he had reproduced faithfully.

Notes

PRINTER'S COPY FOR TYRWHITT'S CHAUCER
by
Atcheson L. Hench

The Alderman Library of the University of Virginia was happy to find recently that the annotations in a fragment of a black-letter Chaucer which it owns are those of the great english scholar and editor Thomas Tyrwhitt. It finds further that nearly all the matching fragments of the volume, also annotated, are in the Britism Museum.

In 1944 the Alderman Library purchased, at the suggestion of the English department, from Myers and Co. of London, a book-fragment (catalogue 340, item 107) described as "ninety-nine leaves and portions of several others of Speght's edition of Chaucer, 1602, most extensively annotated and corrected by Timothy Thomas . . . in connection with Urry's edition of Chaucer's works . . . of which he was the final editor."

In 1946, Dr. George Pace, at that time of the University of Virginia English faculty, examined the emendations and came to the conclusion that they were not those of Timothy Thomas but were probably those of Tyrwhitt; they bore no relation to the Urry text but were identical with Tyrwhitt's text.

That the emendations are Tyrwhitt's, Pace has now happily established as true. Recently in London, he writes, he examined a fragment of a black-letter Chaucer in the British Museum (press mark 641.m.19). He saw written on the recto of the leaf which precedes the title page a note, "Bequeathed by Thos Tyrwhitt Esq. 1786." Furthermore the volume lacks folios 1-85 and 92-108, the very folios which—except for two two-folio breaks—are present in the Alderman fragment. All this makes a pleasing discovery.

The Alderman fragment contains the prologue to the Canterbury Tales and all the tales now held authentic except for the two two-folio breaks already mentioned and a segment of the Parson's tale; it also lacks a large part of the apocryphal Plowman's Tale. The marginal emendations, of which there are thousands, and the instructions make it clear that the fragment is part of

Tyrwhitt's copy for the printer. They reveal the pains-taking devotion of a great scholar to his task. His five-volume edition of the Tales, the first of the modern ones, was published, part in 1775 and the rest in 1778. He was the first to make sense out of what were then the baffling mysteries of Chaucer's language and the supposed crudities of his verse.

The volume deserves and awaits close study.

AN UNRECORDED EARLY ANTHOLOGY OF CRABBE
by
Franklin P. Batdorf

The bibliographer of George Crabbe's works has strange opportunities in the United States of America, for on this side of the Atlantic have been preserved several early editions which have not thus far come to light in the libraries of Europe and have not been listed in the bibliographies of Crabbe hitherto published.[1] One of these scarce early editions is a collection of the tales and miscellaneous poems of Crabbe which was brought out in 1847 by H.G. Bohn. A copy of this collection, once owned by the Public School Library of Municipality No. 2, New Orleans, Louisiana, is now in the New Orleans Public Library.[2]

The volume is of interest both as a rarity and as an additional testimonial of the popularity of Crabbe's works about the middle of the nineteenth century. I regret that I have not been able to identify the makers of the drawings and the plates or to determine what processes were used.

A description follows:

Plates:

• (1) "Jesse and Colin," with reference to p. 197 (end of the tale "Jesse and Colin"), signed with a capital I superimposed on a capital G, and W. G. and G.E. Mason; facing a conjugate leaf bearing
• (2) Added title-page, with illustration of the tale "Resentment" and reference to p. 262 (end of the tale "Resentment"), with the same signatures as in (1), followed immediately by printed title-page.

Recto of Plate 1 and verso of Plate 2 blank.

100 X 161 mm. Perfect. Rebound in dark blue buckram. Owned by the New Orleans Public Library.

Notes

BENEFACTORS OF THE CAMBRIDGE PRESS: A RECONSIDERATION
by
Lawrence G. Starkey

The story of the establishing of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Press, the first printing house in England's North American colonies, has been told and retold many times during the past one hundred and forty years, but the known facts about its founding are still relatively few, singularly open to various interpretations, and really not materially augmented over those set down by Isaiah Thomas in the first edition of his History of Printing in America (1810).

Especially lacking are details about the financing of the original printing house established at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the autumn of 1638. Writers on the subject have been understandably reluctant to accept as sole founder and benefactor of the Cambridge Press the Reverend Jose Glover, Non-Con-formist clergyman of Surrey, who died at sea in the summer of 1638 while conveying the press and other printing equipment and supplies to Massachusetts. There is, indeed, some evidence that others besides Glover helped to procure the press and fonts of type for the new colony.

Speculation about these circumstances by writers on the Press seems to stem almost completely from two entries made by the third president of Harvard College, Leonard Hoar, in the early records of the college. In 1674 Hoar, attempting to list for posterity various benefactors of Harvard in its early days, wrote down seven names as follows:

At a different time, but during his twenty-seven months as President, Hoar collected and entered the following information:

The purpose of this note is to correct a widely-accepted legend that identifies the seven names on the list made by Hoar with the "Gentlemen of Amsterdam." Both of Hoar's entries were printed by Thomas in 1810, but Roden seems to have been the first to make this identification with a misleading passage in his Cambridge Press (1905), pp. 10-11:

An examination of the actual information as preserved in the manuscript records at Harvard shows that Roden came to the wrong conclusion. The list of names and the entry about the benefactors of Amsterdam are not even preserved in the same volume of records; thus there is no physical connection between these two scraps of information, and the sum of £49 is wrongly associated with the seven English names.

G. P. Winship has helped to perpetuate this false identification, first in an article in 1938[3] and again in a further consideration of the Cambridge Press in 1939.[4] Finally, in 1945, when Mr. Winship wrote his extensive monograph

on the Cambridge Press, he printed the two excerpts from the early Harvard records and then wrote the following:

Although thus conjecturally connected by Winship, there is nothing implicit in the entries to suggest that the seven names might be identified as the gentlemen of Amsterdam. Furthermore, none of the scholars who have written about the Cambridge Press seem to have investigated the list to see if the names may not be identifiable. Actually, such an investigation provides proof that the names are not those of the gentlemen of Amsterdam. Instead, at least four of them can be positively identified as residents of New England many years after the printing house at Cambridge was established. Major Thomas Clark was actually an Overseer of Harvard College during Hoar's administration;[6] Captain James Oliver was a resident of Massachusetts and had given money to Harvard about twenty years before Hoar recorded his name;[7] Mr. Stoddard was both an Overseer of the College and its Librarian: he had not yet been born when the Cambridge Press was founded.[8] There was a Captain John Allen who lived

in Massachusetts at this time, although identification of him as a benefactor of Harvard College cannot be definite.[9] Mr. Freake cannot be positively identified, although two English brothers, Ralph and John Freck, are known to have given books to the Harvard Library not long before Hoar's administration.[10] Lake and Hues do not seem to appear in early Massachusetts records.

There seems no doubt, then, that in light of this information all previous speculations that Hoar's two entries refer to the same gift are erroneous.

Notes

SCOTCH TYPE IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA [1]
by
John Alden

To this day the question of who first cast type in America remains unsettled. Although the claims in behalf of Abel Buell, of Connecticut, are the strongest, there remains an element of doubt.[2]

That we cannot be certain is due largely to a statement in the Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter for September 7, 1769, that "Printing Types are also made by Mr. Mitchelson of . . . [Boston] equal to any imported from Great-Britain." This casual remark seems destined to cast a lengthening shadow over the problem of Buell's priority. It is given further weight by the statement made by Isaiah Thomas in his History of Printing in America that "An attempt was made to establish a foundry for casting types in Boston about 1768, by a Mr. Mitchelson from Scotland, but he did not succeed."

The "Mr. Mitchelson" of the Massachusetts Gazette and of Isaiah Thomas has been plausibly identified by Mr. Lawrence Wroth as David Mitchelson, who had arrived in Boston from Scotland in October, 1764. He was a member of the religious sect called Sandemanians, the leader of which, Robert Sandeman, came to America at the same time. By trade he was a goldsmith and lapidary—like Gutenberg, and like Abel Buell as well—and thereby qualified, at least by precedent, to turn his skill to casting type.

In discussing Mitchelson's possible merits as a type founder, in the appendix to his Abel Buell of Connecticut, Mr. Wroth suggests that Mitchelson was working in co-operation with John Mein, the Boston bookseller and partner in the printing shop of Mein and Fleeming.[3] That Wroth does so is on the basis of a letter from Benjamin Gale to Ezra Stiles of April 1, 1769, where Gale writes, "However as Buel is jealous of his being intercepted by Mein you will not mention Bismuths entring that Composition." The context implies that Mein, like Buell, was interested in the founding of type, and Mr. Wroth is able to assume that Mein was linked with Mitchelson's activities.

The conjunction is a reasonable one. Mein and Mitchelson were probably acquainted, for they apparently were fellow-passengers aboard the shop George and James which brought Mein to America. That Mein was also a Sandemanian is not known, but a member of the Sandeman family was a partner in the first shop he set up in Boston. His subsequent partner, John Fleeming, had also come to New England earlier in 1764, and had, with William McAlpine, printed Some Thoughts on Christianity, the first work by Robert Sandeman to be published in America.

But can we, even so, find any evidence that Mitchelson did cast type, to substantiate his reported efforts? And are we justified in connecting him with John Mein?

Before Mein set up his shop with John Fleeming he apparently employed William McAlpine to do his printing. Early in 1767 he and Fleeming began to issue works with a joint imprint which are distinctive in a curious bold-face roman type so unusual as to make its presence valid evidence of Mein and Fleeming printing even when their imprint does not appear on the title-page.[4] As a type face it is a prototype of that which became so popular in the early nineteenth century, when it came to be known in the printing trade as "Scotch" type.

The need for accounting for the Mein and Fleeming type is perhaps the strongest support for Mitchelson's actual activity as a type founder and for linking him to John Mein that exists. For if Mitchelson did not cast the type, who did?

Although Mr. Wroth has noted the use of this bold-face roman only in Boston at a slightly later period (when the type may have come from Fleeming's possession after Mein's departure for England late in 1769), and by John Carter in Providence, it does occur in other printing of the 1770's. For instance, John

Howe, the printer set up by the British forces in Newport during their occupation of the town, possessed a supply, probably brought from Boston.

More significant is the fact that Alexander Purdie, of Williamsburg, like-wise employed it in his Virginia Gazette and elsewhere, such as the title-page of The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates . . . the 6th of May, 1776.[5] John Dunlap, of Philadelphia, is also known to have used it.

Despite the fact that Dunlap came from northern Ireland (which was, none the less, culturally and economically related to Scotland), it is noteworthy that Alexander Purdie, like both Mein and Fleeming, was a Scotchman. If our bold-face roman type was not cast in America, it is probable that it came from Scotland, as suggested by the popular name given to its descendants. According to Isaiah Thomas, Fleeming in 1766 had returned to Scotland to secure printing supplies: that these included type follows.

A comprehensive examination of Scottish books of the period has not been feasible, but it may be noted that the first edition of the Encyclopœdia Britannica, the publication of which was completed in 1771, is in the same bold-face roman. Scattered instances of its use are found in other British works such as William Woty's Poetical Works (London, G. Scott, 1770), and for the text of John Tait's Poetical Legends (London, J. Donaldson, 1775). That the printer of the latter, John Donaldson, was a Scotchman may be deduced on the basis of his name alone; but before moving to London he had in fact been a printer in Edinburgh. On the other hand, the London, 1767, edition of Tissot's Advice to the People, cited by Mr. Wroth as an English use of the type, proves to be an American edition with a false imprint.[6]

In their Catalogue of Specimens of Printing Types (London, 1935), W. T. Berry and A. F. Johnson list no Scottish examples of the 1760's or 1770's other than those issued by Alexander Wilson. A comparison of Wilson's faces with the Mein and Fleeming types eliminates effectively any likelihood that Wilson produced the latter. During this period there was, however, another type founder in Scotland, a relatively obscure person named John Baine. Mr. George H. Bushnell, Librarian of St. Andrews University, is currently engaged on a biography of him, but as yet very little is known regarding Baine. At one time a partner of Alexander Wilson, Baine appears to have been active many years before the appearance of his first recorded type specimen book, A Specimen of Printing Types by John Baine & Grandson & Co. (Edinburgh, 1787). Of it a unique copy, which belonged to Isaiah Thomas, is preserved at the American Antiquarian Society. A comparison of Mein's type specimen sheet of ca. 1768 with the Baine types leaves no more than a perfunctory doubt that it was from Baine that Mein and Fleeming secured their type.

The possibility that the Mein and Fleeming type may none the less have been cast in America from matrices supplied by Baine is largely disposed of by at least one strange phenomenon observed in printing done by their shop. In setting A Sermon Delivered July 31st, 1768, by Sylvanus Conant (Boston, 1768), the compositor, probably following the author's copy, set the words "Lord" and "God" in large capitals throughout the work. Its theological nature, needless to say, gave frequent occasion for their appearance. A close examination of some of the capital O's reveals a slight deformity at the foot of the letter which on further scrutiny proves to be a vestige of the tail of a Q. The demand for capital O's for the words "Lord" and "God" may well have taxed the resources of the shop: in any event, the Q's were obviously cut down either for this or an earlier need. The same modified Q's will be found in the running titles of Mein's newspaper, the Boston Chronicle, which were kept as standing type during the early months of its career. Amusing as this is as a demonstration of the printer's ingenuity, its importance for us lies in the fact that, if matrices were available, to cast the needed O's would have been easier than to file off the tails of the Q's.

Whatever the truth may be regarding the newspaper reference to Mitchelson, there is even less reason for linking him with the Scotch type of Mein and Fleeming, in face of a recognized source for it in the foundry of John Baine. It is perhaps wisest and safest to accept Isaiah Thomas's statement that in his efforts to set up a foundry Mitchelson did not succeed. If Mein were associated with him, then Mein had other more pressing problems on his hands, for the year 1769 found Mein engaged in political controversy which led to his being mobbed in the streets of Boston and to an ignominious flight to England.

II.

In attributing the Mein and Fleeming type to John Baine, a new pattern in American type history is made possible, a new continuity with British typography established. In his essay on "British Influences upon American Printing," recently published in his Typographic Heritage (1949), Mr. Wroth recognizes the rôle played by John Baine and his grandson in casting the type used by Thomas Dodson in printing Rees's Encyclopœdia, although the face used is a traditional face unlike the bold-face roman of Mein and Fleeming.

Continuing, Mr. Wroth speaks of the work of Binny and Ronaldson of Philadelphia, the first type founders to achieve significant and lasting stature in America. Both were Scotchmen, and in the partnership it was Binny who contributed the knowledge of printing and of punch cutting. Although they began business in 1797 their first specimen book of types did not appear until 1812. Of the two distinct faces displayed, the first was a transitional letter which, recast in recent times, has been named "Oxford," and, even more recently, has been recut by the Linotype Company as "Monticello."

The other face cast by Binny and Ronaldson is one which, in Stanley Morison's words, is a "fat grotesque," one of the "bold, bad faces" which none the less achieved great popularity. But in speaking at some length of this face Mr. Wroth does not call attention to the fact that its resemblance to the Baine type is most remarkable. The obvious question arises: Was there any connection between Baine and his fellow Scots Binny and Ronaldson?

The evidence for such a connection is at present inconclusive. The research in which Mr. P. J. Conkwright, of the Princeton University Press, is currently engaged concerning Binny and Ronaldson should ultimately clarify the matter. In the meantime we do know that Baine and his grandson came to Philadelphia around 1790, where shortly thereafter the elder man died. There is reason to believe that Binny was as a young man apprenticed to Baine, and the ledgers of the firm record that on June 12, 1799, J. Baine (presumably the grandson) sold to Binny and Ronaldson $300 worth of tools. What these tools included is not specified, but in the sale there is evidence of continuity. That the boldface Binny and Ronaldson type is a lineal descendant of the Baine face becomes a very real possibility.[7]

III.

As the innovator of the type known as "Scotch" John Baine's significance is consequently far greater than has been hitherto acknowledged in the history of typography, both in America and in Great Britain. As a result, the importance ascribed to Richard Austin and to Robert Thorne by A. F. Johnson, discussing the evolution of modern-face roman in his Type Designs (1934) should be reevaluated and reconsidered. Obscure as he may have been, to Baine should apparently be attributed the bold-face roman type which, unfortunately, makes so much early nineteenth-century printing hideous to our eyes.

Notes

THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS CONSIDERS THE PUBLICATION OF A BIBLE, 1777
by
William H. Gaines, Jr.

The early summer of the third year of the Revolutionary War was a period of crisis for the struggling colonials. One British army under General Burgoyne had launched an invasion of New York State from Canada and, having conquered Ticonderoga, was moving down the Hudson towards Albany. Another, commanded by General Sir William Howe, was being herded aboard the troopships that were to take them from New York to the Head of Elk in Maryland, from which they were to march overland to the rebel capital at

Philadelphia. In that city, the Continental Congress was busy with the varied complex of problems, military, diplomatic, and financial, that were all crying for attention and action.

There, on the seventh of July, 1777, a petition from a group of Presbyterian clergymen was received, which called on the Congress to underwrite the printing of an edition of the Bible for the use of patriot families. This petition was sponsored by the Reverend Francis Allison, assistant pastor of the first Presbyterian church of Philadelphia; John Ewing, provost of the University of Pennsylvania; and William Marshall. These gentlemen were much concerned over the lack of Bibles in the colonies and the difficulty of importing them from abroad, and they apparently felt that a war for liberty could not be won by bullets alone. The petition[1] was immediately referred to a committee consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Daniel Roberdeau and Jonathan Bayard Smith of Philadelphia.[2]

The petition, the original manuscript of which appears in the Papers of the Continental Congress, is printed here below for the first time:

• 1. As the Price of Bibles for the Use of Families and Schools is greatly advanced beyond what was formerly given for them, thro their Scarcity and Difficulty in importing them from Europe, it is highly expedient for Congress to order a common Bible to be printed under their Inspection for the Use of ye united States of America.
• 2. That as there are about 500,000 families in the united States, each standing in Need of one or more Bibles, many Thousand Copies of the holy Scriptures are immediately wanted and ought to be furnished at a moderate Price.
• 3. That as there are not Types in America to answer this Purpose, there should be a compleat Font, sufficient for setting the whole Bible at once, imported by Congress at the Public Expence, to be refunded in a stipulated Time by the Printer.
• 4. That in Order to prevent the Paper Makers from demanding an extravagant Price for the Paper, and retarding the Work by Breach of Contract or otherwise there should also be imported with the Types a few Reams of Paper, not exceeding a thousand, at the Beginning of the Work, to be paid for by the Printer in ye same Manner as ye Types are to be paid for.
• 5. That a Printer be employed, who shall undertake the Work at his own Risque & Expence, giving a Mortgage on ye Font & Printing Materials, with sufficient Personal Securities for his Fidelity, until the first Cost of ye Font, ye Paper, & such Sums of Money as the Congress may think proper to advance to him for Dispatch of the Work, be refunded to the Public.

---

276




• 6. That in Order to render the Price of Binding as low as possible, the Congress order their Commissary General for Hides etc to deliver to the Printer at a moderate Price all the Sheep Skins furnished at ye Camp, to be tanned for this Purpose.
• 7. That the Printer be bound under sufficient Penalties to furnish Bibles to ye Public at a limited Price, not exceeding ten Shillings each, & to prevent any Retailer, under him in the united States from asking an higher price on any Pretence whatsoever.
• 8. That, as the greatest Precaution is necessary to preserve the sacred Text uncorrupted & free from Errors, an accurate & skillful Corrector of the Press be employed at a proper Salary, to superintend the Impression, untill the whole Bible be composed: and then that the Frames be carefully locked up in proper Places prepared for ye Purpose, to guard against an accidental or designed Alteration of them, and to have them ready for constant Use to supply the Public Demand.
• 9. That the Printer on no Pretence whatsoever presume to strike off any Sheet of the Bible, untill the Corrector has examined a sufficient Number of Proofs & judged it to be sufficiently accurate & corrected: and that this Precaution be taken as often as any Frame is used after having been locked up for some Time past.
• 10. That ye most correct Copy of the Bible that can be found be delivered by ye Congress to the Printer, who shall be bound by solemn Oath not to vary from it knowingly in his Edition, even in a single Iota, without first laying the proposed Alteration before Congress & obtaining their Approbation.
• 11. That the Corrector be bound by a similar Oath, to correct the Sheets according to that Copy.
• 12. That instead of the old Dedication to King James, a new Dedication to the Congress be drawn up & prefixed to the Bible.
• 13. That instead of the Words, newly translated out of the original Tongues, & By his Majesty's special Command, in the Title Page of our Bibles, it be said, translated from the original Tongues, and, Printed by Order of Congress.
• 14. That the Printer employed in the Work devote himself to this Business alone; & that no other Printer in the united States be suffered to interfere with him in the Printing of that Form or Kind of a Bible, which he has undertaken.
• 15. That after the Bible is published, no more Bibles of that Kind be imported into the American States by any Person whatsoever.

This was no ordinary printing job which Mr. Allison had proposed and of which Congress was expected to dispose. Up to 1777, there had been no complete English Bible printed in the colonies, and the English-speaking inhabitants depended on British presses for their copies of the Scriptures. There had been Bibles printed in the colonies, but these had been in non-English tongues and

had been produced in relatively small numbers. Thus, as early as 1663, Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson of Cambridge, Massachusetts, had issued one such printed in the Maumee tongue, the lingua franca of the New England Indians. This was the famous and rare Eliot Bible, prepared by the Reverend John Eliot for the use of Congregationalist missionaries to the red heathens of Massachusetts. Then, in 1743, Christopher Saur, a Rhenish German printer settled in Germantown, Pa., issued a Bible in German, the first to be published in a European tongue in North America. Even Saur had had to use imported paper and type. However, another edition of the German Bible, which appeared in 1763, was the first to use American-made paper. Then, in 1776, Saur's son, also Christopher, published the first Bible to be printed from American-cast types. However, these were all limited editions, the Saur or German Bible, running only to 1200 copies, while the third or 1777 edition to only 3000.[3] The project now before Congress, on the other hand, called for 20,000 English Bibles to be run off by an American printer at a time when every resource was at least theoretically devoted to war production. However, the committee to which Mr. Allison's petition had been referred began studying the most practicable way of solving the problem, and before arriving at a solution turned to the printers of Philadelphia, inviting them to submit estimates and to give their advice on the best way to print 20,000 Bibles. This was quite natural, since at that time many of the competent printshops in the Confederation were located in that city. Of the other two colonial printing centers, New York was in the hands of the enemy, while Boston was many days' hard travel from the capital of the Confederation. At least five printers, all of them Pennsylvanians, submitted estimates in which every phase of the work, the cost of every piece of equipment and every material was quoted.

One of those submitting bids was Robert Aitken[4] (1734-1806), a Quaker of Scotch birth, who was already established in his profession by his work as publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine and of an edition of the New Testament. Figuring 24 pages to each sheet and the weight[5] of type necessary to print one sheet at 144 (6 per page), he estimated a total of 34 sheets (or 4896 wt) for the entire job, then added 600 additional weight of type to reach an estimated font of 5496 weight of type for the whole. Allowing a cost of 5 shillings per sheet or per 144 weight of type, Aitken set the cost of type alone at 1374 pounds. Although the specifications called for the use of nonpareil type, Aitken, feeling that this type would wear out sooner than brevier "being of smaller face," maintained that 200,000[6] Bibles could be run off from the latter, and submitted

a sample sheet of the Bible printed in this type. The types, he thought, should be purchased at the foundry of Dr. Wilson in Glasgow, for these produced "the best metal and the neatest letter in Europe." Aitken made no suggestions, however, as to how the embattled colonies were to obtain this superior metal while Glasgow remained loyal to the Crown and while the British fleet maintained its blockade.

As for paper, Aitken based his estimates on a total of 200,000 Bibles and called for 146,000 reams, 73 reams sufficing to print a thousand. Since the domestic product seemed adequate neither in quality nor quantity, he advised that this commodity be imported from Germany or France and allowed a cost of 15 shillings per ream or a total cost of 10,950 pounds. (At this rate, 20,000 would have cost 1095 pounds.) By way of fixed equipment, he felt 13 presses, one of which was to be used for running proofs, would be necessary. These like "penny pies" could be obtained for 10 pounds each in Glasgow, but for not less than 42 pounds in Pennsylvania. It is significant that he used the lower figure in totalling up his estimates. Chases, 84 of which were necessary, were obtainable for 3 pounds each in the colonies but could be had for only 15 shillings each in that paradise for impecunious printers, the loyal city of Glasgow. A labor force of 6 compositors and 24 printers (2 to a press) could complete the work, Aitken felt, in 20 months. Calculating from the price of leather then prevailing, he estimated the binding cost per volume at 4 shillings. Arriving at a total cost for the job of 33,281 pounds, 5 shillings and 4 pence (after allowing for a difference of 66-2/3 in the exchange price of all material imported from abroad), Aitken showed that the actual cost per Bible was only 3 shillings 4 pence apiece.

Another printer who submitted a bid on the job was Thomas Bradford (1745-1838), son of "the patriot printer," William Bradford, and co-publisher with him of the Pennsylvania Journal.[7] He submitted two sets of estimates, one for printing 20,000 Bibles and one for 30,000. For the former number, he estimated that 1100 reams of paper would be sufficient, whereas 2000 reams would be necessary for an edition of 30,000 copies. Bradford, like the other printers, was acutely aware of the paper shortages within the colonies and advised that that commodity be imported from either France or Holland, where it was obtainable for 6 to 8 shillings the ream, and expressed a preference for the Dutch product. His type estimates, which he based on a Bible of 45 sheets, each taking a font of 200, allowed for imperfections and deterioration, for he called for a font of 10,000 weight. He estimated that 8 hands could complete the job in 6 months, and he fixed the expenses of composition at 14 pounds per sheet and press costs at 20 pounds. Apart from his estimates and possibly looking to his

own interests in the event that the Congress should award him the contract, Bradford recommended that no Bibles be imported, once the Congressional edition was completed, for ten to fifteen years. He was the only one of the five printers to make this suggestion specifically.

The founder of the Pennsylvania Packet and the man who had printed the Declaration of Independence, John Dunlap, also entered the competition on July 10, 1777.[8] Dunlap estimated that 300 pounds of type would be necessary to set one sheet, but pointed out that it would be desirable to obtain a total of 8000 weight to set all sheets at once, since the types were so small and delicate that they would be worn out "if frequently worked." Paper, which might formerly have been purchased from Great Britain at 10 shillings per ream, posed a problem. Dunlap hoped that if enough could be imported to begin the job, he would be able to get the remaining stock made in Pennsylvania. The cost of paper and type was estimated by him at 4000 pounds sterling, and he allowed $500 for labor. Binding would cost 4 shillings per volume.

Another printer who submitted estimates on the Congressional Bible was Henry Miller (1702-1782), native of Waldeck, Germany, and publisher of the Wochentliche Philadelphische Staatsbote.[9] Allowing a font of 156 weight for each sheet and figuring that 35 sheets would be necessary for the work, Miller stipulated a total type weight of 5460, but allowed an additional 1360 to allow for errors. He estimated that the type alone would cost 1687 pounds 10 shillings, and pointed out that types of good metal and having the proper depth would be sufficient for two impressions of 10,000 copies each. While making no estimate of the quantity or cost of paper needed, the German felt that it should be made by master workmen in that craft, "which will hardly be possible in this Country at this present time." Pointing out that the number of printers and compositors would have to be fixed "and their attendance assured" before an estimate could be made on the time to finish the job, he guessed that it could not be done in much less than a year. As leather was not to be had, he refrained from making any estimate of binding costs.

The last of the Philadelphia group submitting bids was William Sellers (1725?-1804), who had served his apprenticeship in London before he set up his shop in Philadelphia in 1764 and who with David Hall had published the Pennsylvania Gazette.[10] Sellers figured on a total font of 6000 weight, which would cost about 1500 pounds sterling. If these were cut "clear and deep," he felt that they would suffice for two impressions of 10,000 copies each, but a third impression from the same type could not be expected to be as satisfactory. Calling for approximately 1500 reams of paper, he found no satisfactory supply

existing in the United States, and thereby implied the need for importation. As to the time element, Sellers thought that two compositors might set the whole in nine months, and that two presses could run off 10,000 copies in the same length of time.

The committee considered these propositions for a little better than two months before it reported to the Congress. In that interval, the military developments had been sufficiently disastrous to the American cause that all but the most urgent business was delayed. By the 25th of August, "Blue Billy" Howe's expeditionary force had established a beachhead at the Head of Elk in Maryland and was deploying for a strike at Philadelphia itself. By the tenth of September, that army had defeated Washington's at the Battle of the Brandywine, and only the Schuylkill river stood between the invaders and the capital of the Confederation. In the north, the news was not so bad, but it was bad enough. Burgoyne had advanced almost to the junction of the Mohawk and Hudson rivers, and though both his right and left wings had been defeated, he was still in a position to capture Albany and to seize the Hudson Valley for the Crown. Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan were to annihilate this threat at the battle of Bemis's Heights in late September, but at the time it seemed very likely that Gentleman Johnny's reckless stroke would succeed.

Thus, on the eleventh of September, Mr. Adams, Mr. Roberdeau, and Mr. Smith submitted their report on Mr. Allison's petition to a Congress that undoubtedly was more concerned with the military situation, particularly the one on its own doorstep. The committee, tacitly considering the advice of the Philadelphia printers, but also, it must seem, influenced by the nearness of Blue Billy's veterans, reported unfavorably on the project. Noting that "the proper types . . . are not to be had in this country" and that "the paper cannot be procured but with such difficulties and subject to such casualties as render any dependance on it altogether improper," the committee's report dwelt on "the risque of importing them" and on the uncertainty of any calculations of expenses "in the present state of affairs." Thus, they recommended that no attempt be made to import these materials. Recognizing, however, that "the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great," they recommended also that the Committee of Commerce be ordered to import the 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland "or elsewhere." A motion to this effect was approved with all four New England states, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia supporting the measure, while New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and both Carolinas opposed it. The resolution being read a second time, final action was put off until the nineteenth.[11]

Before that date, however, the body was concerned almost exclusively in finding enough reenforcements to stop Howe and save Philadelphia. On the eighteenth, the emperilled legislators discreetly resolved to adjourn their deliberations to the more restful atmosphere of Lancaster. Two days later, General Charles Grey surprised the usually vigilant Anthony Wayne in his bivouac at Paoli; Howe slipped across the Schuylkill with his main body; and on Friday, the twenty-sixth of September, the British marched into the erstwhile Continental capital. The government in exile at Lancaster returned to Philadelphia the following summer, but it did not resume the Bible project until 1782. In that year, the Quaker printer, Robert Aitken, working under Congressional auspices, produced the first complete Bible printed in English in the New World.[12] But by then, Philadelphia had been four years restored to American rule, France had recognized the independence of the revolted colonies, and Yorktown had been fought and won. The new nation, though far from being out of the political or financial woods, no longer had a well-armed hostile army on the outskirts of its capital. A printing project, which the exigencies of war and invasion had made impractical and relatively unimportant, became attainable within a year after Cornwallis' surrender.

Notes

THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE FARRER MAP OF VIRGINIA [*]
by
Coolie Verner

The Huth Catalogue[1] in 1880 described two different states of the 1651 Farrer Map of Virginia, and Col. Lawrence Martin in 1936[2] further distinguished a total of four states. There is, however, a copy of the map in the Huntington Library which was pulled from an earlier state of the plate than any previously described. It can be distinguished from the earliest of Col. Martin's states by the absence of the words "Fort Orang." on the right border above "Septen." There is no other difference.

It is not often enough emphasized that 17th-and 18th-century map plates had an active life expectancy of well over a decade. The Jefferys' plates for the 18th-century Fry & Jefferson Map of Virginia were, for example, in use for at least 21 years; moreover, additions were made to the plates after Jefferys' death.

The Farrer Map has peculiar interest as showing the survival of two related but inaccurate geographical beliefs: a northwest passage through the North American land mass; and the close proximity of the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean. Although in general the Farrer Map is derived from the more important and more accurate 1646-7 Dudley Map of Virginia,[3] it nevertheless has a significance of its own in that it places for the first time on any known map the names of the original shires: Henrico City, Charles City, Elizabeth City; and Anandale County, Maryland. For historical as well as bibliographical reasons, therefore, it is worth recording with some care the additions to the plate, with their probable dates.

The map was first engraved by John Goddard for Stephenson's 3rd edition, 1651, of Edward Williams' Virgo Triumphans, which announced the addition of the map on its titlepage. This 3rd edition is, however, known only by an inserted titlepage in the Huth copy of the 2nd edition. Stephenson also apparently added the map to some copies of another of his 1651 publications, Edward Bland's The Discovery of New Brittaine, its relevance to which was, however, only approximate, since Bland's explorations were southwest of the chief placename locations on the Farrer map. Copies of the two works in question have been so long sought for by collectors of Americana and have so often been sophisticated by dealers and binders, that it is no longer possible to speak with precision about occurrences of the map with either book. It is, however, assumed from available evidence that

• 1) Copies of the first and second editions of Williams which contain the map are either late gathered copies or sophisticated ones.
• 2) Any of the first four states of the map (see below) might properly be found with the 3rd edition of Williams, and the 3rd edition would be incomplete without one of them.
• 3) The copies of the Bland with the Farrer map are accidental, or special copies, or sophisticated ones.
• 4) The plate was obtained by Overton from Stephenson or his successors, and was used by him under his own imprint for separately issued (or Atlas bound) copies of the map. The assignment of the date 1667? to the final state of the plate is based on indirect evidence in Plomer[4] and on the fact that after 1668 the Term Catalogues carry notices of Overton's publications with a different imprint address.

Following are the known states of the plate, with sufficient descriptive

information concerning the changes for the recognition of other possible variants. Location symbols are for copies examined in photostat:

• 1650
• [AN UNTITLED MANUSCRIPT DRAFT]
• Said to have been Farrer's own draft for the engraving. It shows "Ould Virginia 1584 now Carolana, 1650.", "New Virginia 1606" and "New England 1606". This is described in Quaritch's catalogue # 112 Part 2, May 16, 1891, p. 158. NN
• 1651a
• A MAPP OF VIRGINIA DISCOUERED TO YE FALLS . . . [Imprint:] JOHN FARRER ESQR COLLEGIT. ARE SOLD BY J. STEPHENSON AT YE SUNN BELOW LUDGATE. 1651.
• Distinguishing characteristics of this first state are the lack of the Drake portrait and the lack of the placename "Fort Orang." at the right center. This and all other states are signed in the lower left: "John Goddard sculp". CSmH
• 1651b
• A MAPP OF VIRGINIA DISCOUERED TO YE FALLS . . . [Imprint:] JOHN FARRER ESQR COLLEGIT. ARE SOLD BY J. STEPHENSON AT YE SUNN BELOW LUDGATE. 1651.
• Same as the preceding except for the addition of the placename "Fort Orang."
• NN
• 1652?a
• A MAPP OF VIRGINIA DISCOUERED TO YE FALLS . . . [Imprint:] DOMINA VIRGINIA FARRER COLLEGIT. ARE SOLD BY J. STEPHENSON AT YE SUNN BELOW LUDGATE. 1651.
• The ascription of authorship has been changed from John to Virginia Farrer, the portrait of Sir Francis Drake has been added, as have been other decorative figures (below the title: 3 trees, a rampant animal, and a cluster of 4 mountains); the forks of two of the southernmost rivers have been extended; the following placenames appear for the first time: Secotan, Dazamoncak, Woosquok, Col. Littletons Plantation, Majotoks, Elk River, Richnek woods, Nanteok, Raritas, Mont Ployden, Eriwoms, Kildorp; Cape James has been moved to a new location above Lord Delawars Bay; and Cape May has been added in the old Cape James location.
• NN
• 1652?b
• A MAPP OF VIRGINIA DISCOUERED TO YE HILLS . . . [Imprint:] DOMINA VIRGINIA FARRER COLLEGIT. ARE SOLD BY J. STEPHENSON AT YE SUNN BELOW LUDGATE. 1651.
• The title has been changed; the peninsula in "A Mighty greate Lake" has been extended so that there is no longer a northwest passage through the continent; two placenames (Rawliana and Anandale C.) and 6 mountains have

  ---

  284

  
  
  
  been added; one of the rivers emptying into the north end of the Chesapeake has been extended; and the name of the Roanoke River has been changed from "Magna Passa" to "Rolli Passa".
• MB NN
• 1667?
• A MAPP OF VIRGINIA DISCOUERED TO YE HILLS . . . [Imprint:] DOMINA VIRGINIA FARRER COLLEGIT. ARE SOLD BY JOHN OUERTON WITHOUT NEWGATE AT THE CORNER OF LITTLE OLD BALY.
• The publisher's name has been changed and the date dropped.
• MB

Notes

POE'S ALONE: ITS BACKGROUND, SOURCE, AND MANUSCRIPT
by
I. B. Cauthen, Jr.

The lines entitled "Alone," first published in 1875, twenty-six years after Poe's death, have been generally accepted by his editors as an early Poe poem.[1] Various details concerning the background of this poem and bearing on its attribution to Poe have not previously been known, for the correspondence of John Ingram, the English biographer of Poe, seems never to have been examined for the light it throws on the poem.[2] In addition to discussing the prepublication background of "Alone" and the source from which the poem is derived, this paper will present information concerning the manuscript of the poem which only recently has been definitely located.

The poem was first published in Scribner's Magazine for September, 1875, with a prefatory note by Eugene L. Didier, who claimed to have found the poem "in the album of a lady of distinguished social position."[3] The poem is reproduced in what Didier calls "fac-simile," but very likely it is a reproduction either by wood-cut or zinc-plate; this is different in several ways from modern

facsimile processes since the hand of the engraver intervenes between the document and its printed reproduction.[4]

Nearly a year before the poem's publication, Didier had offered Ingram on the first of October, 1874, a transcript of this poem for $100, along with other information he had been collecting for "five or six years . . . for a correct life of Poe." Concerning "Alone," Didier wrote, "I have in my possession a M. S. poem of Poe's which has never been printed. Poe wrote it in a lady's Album in this city [Baltimore], from which I copied it. It is dated March 17, 1829, and signed E. A. Poe. This will be very valuable to you."[5] Ingram appears to have been interested enough in this writer and the materials he offered to write to a Baltimore friend for details about Didier. For, on May 17, 1875, John Parker, an assistant in the Peabody Institute Library, wrote Ingram that Didier was "a magazine writer, who had been collecting and writing in regard to Poe for some years, but from what I hear of him I do not believe he would impart much knowledge."[6] Two months later Parker was able to send Ingram a copy of this poem under rather strange circumstances:

Ingram probably had his doubts of the poem's authenticity and must have asked Parker for further details; thus, in December, after the poem had appeared in the September Scribner's, Parker wrote:

Later, in an essay on the Virginia Edition of Poe's Works, Didier himself gives us an important piece of information concerning these lines. Again claiming the poem to be a genuine one, although Professor Harrison had classed it under "Attributed Poems," Didier declared,

Thus, although the poem purported to be in Poe's handwriting, Didier admitted that he added a title and a date to the manuscript. The title has been retained by Poe's editors, but the date has been suspect. Although Didier had implied to Ingram that the dating of the poem, "Baltimore, March 17, 1829." was in Poe's hand, actually it was his own handwriting. This fictitious date has not been accepted by editors: indeed, the chronology of Poe's life does not allow acceptance. After the funeral in Richmond of Mrs. Allen, Poe's foster mother, Poe had returned to Fortress Monroe by March 10, 1829, and presumably was there until his discharge from the army on April 15, 1829. Although it is possible that he could have visited Baltimore sometime in that month before his discharge from the army, a letter from Baltimore, May 20, 1829, seems to indicate that he had but recently arrived.[10]

The handwriting of the poem as it appears in the reproduction in Scribner's has sometimes been doubted by Poe's editors and friends. For instance, Mrs. Whitman, the "Seeress of Providence," was outraged by "so audacious and so palpable a forgery." Nevertheless, she saw that the poem might after all be Poe's:

Although there are many difficulties in determining the authenticity of the handwriting with only the reproduction in Scribner's as a basis, it is now possible to examine the original of the poem, which only recently has been definitely located.[12] It is written in an early nineteenth-century autograph album, 12.5 by 20.5 centimeters, bound in red morocco with gold and black stampings; on the spine in the lettering in gilt, "ALBUM." Its pages are numbered in script, the odd numbers on the recto, the even on the verso, from 1 to 258. Some of the leaves bear the watermark, inverted, with the outline letters "S &A Butler / U S"[13] at the fold near the bottom of the sheet. The paper, which is of the "wove" type, appears to be fully consistent throughout the album.

There are seventy-six poems in the album, many of them bearing datelines; these dates range from August 1, 1826 (p. 15) to October 7, 1848 (p. 99). Many of the poems bear signatures as well: one is signed by Lucy Holmes, the original owner of the album; another signature is that of I. Balderston, who

married Miss Holmes. In addition to members of the Balderston and Holmes families, several of the other writers can be identified.[14]

The poem that is of the greatest interest in the album is that signed "E. A. Poe" (p. 55). It is headed "Original" and bears no date-line. Yet traces of the title "Alone" and the date-line which Didier admitted that he added can be seen, for they appear to have been carelessly erased from pencilling. The traces left, however, are sufficient to indicate that the writing is that of Didier, and that this is the manuscript that he had photographed and from which he was working for the Scribner's publication.

Of almost equal interest is a poem, p. 51, headed in this way: "by W. H. Poe—copied at his / request by E. A. Poe—"[15] Although there is a slight difference in appearance in the handwriting of this poem and Poe's own poem, it is very probable that they were written by the same person. Especially the formation of short words like my and in, the long pendulums on certain letters, the general cursory nature of the script, and the characteristic of crossing the "t" some distance after the letter itself lead me to believe they are in the same hand.

From several pieces of evidence it appears that these are genuine Poe manuscripts. First, there are no blank rectos of leaves in the first hundred pages of the album except in one instance where a poem is written on the verso following (p. 48). It seems rather improbable, then, that two leaves, p. 51 and p. 55, would be left blank (to be utilized by a forger) in this rather full first section; the leaving of these rectos blank here would be more than chance. The latest poem in the album (p. 99), dated October 7, 1848, may indicate that there were no blank rectos suitable for autograph in this first section at that time; otherwise, the writer here would have utilized them. His alternative was to turn to the back of the album where there are many blank leaves, but he seemed to have wanted his poem as near the first of the album as possible, and therefore he may have taken the first blank recto he came to.

Two other items may be mentioned to authenticate the poems: both pages 51 and 55 are conjugate to their gathering, and there is no evidence of any kind of insertion of these two leaves. The stitching is plainly evident, and it has not been tampered with. The other item is a drawing, p. 258, the last page of the album, of a series of visiting cards bearing the names of writers in the album. These are the work of a skilled penman, and the cards are in contemporary styles of engraved cards. Among these cards is the name of "E. A. Poe." The ink used seems to be of the same age throughout this page, and the addition

of Poe's name at a later date might be indicated by a difference in ink, which is not present. There is every indication that this card was drawn with the others.

But the most conclusive evidence rests on the handwriting, which examination shows to be the same in the two poems. It would seem an unnecessary and almost unbelievable forgery to head a poem "by W. H. Poe copied . . . by E. A. Poe," since it would clearly be more advantageous for a forger to give us another poem by Edgar Poe. But this problem is subordinate to the handwriting of the poem "Alone." The signature of Poe on both poems is very similar to those of the Poe letters to John Allan in 1829 and 1830, which Mrs. Whitman and Ingram did not know; their conclusion that the poem was not in Poe's handwriting was very likely based on the Poe script that they knew, which was some years later than the presumed date of this poem. The handwriting within the poems, aside from headings and signatures, has been carefully examined for me by several specialists. Especially, Mr. Robert W. Hill, Keeper of Manuscripts, The New York Public Library, has very generously examined this poem and compared it with Poe letters particularly of the years 1829 and 1835. He has written that while this examination has been hindered by the necessity of comparing letters against poem, "nevertheless, there are common characteristics in both: the 'th,' the long pendulums of the 'f,' 'g,' and the 'y' and the beginning strokes of the 'm' and 'n.'" He summarizes his examination by stating that, "An examination of the photostats which have been furnished me and which have been made from the autograph album described in this paper leads me to lean toward acceptance of the poem as being in the handwriting of Poe."[16]

Thus this poem which has been long suspect because of the method of first publication and the temporary disappearance of this album now seems to be authenticated, and may be accepted as a genuine Poe manuscript.

Poe's editors have generally agreed that, as Killis Campbell describes it, the poem "is clearly in Poe's early manner."[17] The tone of the poem is certainly not that of the mature poet, but it contains many resemblances to his early work. As Swinburne wrote Ingram, the verses "seemed to me not unworthy on the whole of the parentage claimed for them."[18] Indeed, the lines are particularly infused, as we shall see, with a reflection of Byronism that is very common in the early poems. It is likely that Poe had "read all of Byron's poems, and that he had read and re-read many of them";[19] this early reading obviously

influenced Poe's earliest volumes, and "Alone" shares a kinship with those early volumes because of the strong Byronic element common to all of them. While the mere presence of a Byronic influence does not guarantee the authenticity of "Alone," it strengthens the claim that this is a genuine Poe poem.

It has not hitherto been pointed out that the first nineteen lines of "Alone" are derived from Byron's Manfred, II, ii, 50-75, although the last three lines are a Poësque conclusion using only a slight hint from Byron. A comparison of Poe's lines and the passage from Manfred shows clearly the strong similarity of the two.

Both "Alone" and the speech of Manfred are autobiographical. Both begin with a similar phrase, and both put an emphasis on the act of seeing. Manfred declares:

Poe writes: Both poets continue in the description of their isolation from humanity. In Byron it is, This difference in the poet's passions from those of the common man is reemphasized in Poe: This is the same sense of isolation that Byron expresses in

Byron, for dramatic foreshadowing, mentions the "One" who, as Manfred later explains, has been destroyed by heart and not by hand. Poe does not reflect these two lines, but begins a description, following Byron, of the mystery which binds him, a Byronic love of nature. The elements that the two poets mention are similar, Poe's "red cliff of the mountain," Byron's "iced mountain top," Poe's "the torrent, or the fountain," Byron's,

Byron's "the moving moon, / The stars and their development," becomes in in Poe "the sun that 'round me roll'd / In its autumn tint of gold." Byron's "the dazzling lightnings" is Poe's "the lightning in the sky / As it passed me flying by—." Byron's "the scattered leaves" and "Autumn winds . . . at their evening song" is compressed by Poe to "the thunder and the storm."

Poe's conclusion,

is not directly derived from the passage in Manfred but was perhaps suggested by the Witch of the Alps to whom Manfred had spoken the lines of autobiography.

Here again it appears that Poe was familiar with Byron's writings and did not hesitate to rely on them for ideas. It would be interesting to know if Poe composed these lines on the spur of the moment for Mrs. Balderston's album. If he did, the performance shows a remarkable memory for his reading and an admiration for this particular passage in Byron. But, of course, it is possible that he had composed the lines some time before and that he took the opportunity of a proffered album to set them down. Although he was probably satisfied in the suitability of his paraphrase for a lady's album, he was not proud enough of its to include it in his later volume of poems.

Notes

A SELECTIVE CHECK LIST OF BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SCHOLARSHIP FOR 1949
Part I: Incunabula and Early Renaissance, by Rudolph Hirsch
Part II: Later Renaissance to the Present, by Lucy Clark and Fredson Bowers

A CHECK list of the previous year's bibliographical scholarship will hereafter become a regular department in Studies in Bibliography. The present list is experimental: overlooked items will be cumulated in the 1950 compilation. The editor would appreciate copies of off-prints or collected publications containing material for listing, although reviews cannot be undertaken. Interested persons are invited to send references to books or articles which should appear here. This annual listing does not propose to treat the large number of enumerative catalogues which acquaint scholars with secondary publications in their field or assist libraries in the performance of their duties. Instead, the single attempt is made to bring together a selective account of primary investigations dealing with printing and publishing history, and bibliographical treatment of authors and their books, together with such critical or textual studies as are based on bibliographical evidence or the interpretation of basic documents. The claims of history have not been entirely excluded under these conditions; but in general the emphasis in Part II is placed on English and American literature. In Part I some few works on manuscripts are noted, but no attempt has been made to collect this material comprehensively. The compilers gratefully acknowledge a number of items suggested by Mr. Rollo Silver and Mr. John Wyllie.

The following abbreviations have been used for certain periodicals:

AL American Literature

                       

BSA	Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America
HLQ	Huntington Library Quarterly
JEGP	Journal of English and Germanic Philology
MLN	Modern Language Notes
NEQ	New England Quarterly
N & Q	Notes and Queries
NYPB	New York Public Library Bulletin
PMLA	Publications of the Modern Language Association of America
PQ	Philological Quarterly
RES	Review of English Studies
SB	Studies in Bibliography
TLS	Times (London) Literary Supplement

1. Part I: INCUNABULA and EARLY RENAISSANCE by Rudolf Hirsch

• ACHTNICH, W. H. Katalog der biblischen Bilder aus Albert Schramms Bilderschmuck der Frühdrucke , Berne, Achtnich, 1949.[1]
• BAUER, K. F. Gutenberg und der Weg des Abendlands , Frankfurt a.M., Der goldene Brunnen, 1949.[2]
• BENNETT, H. S. “Printers, Authors, and Readers, 1475-1557,” Library , 5th ser., 4:155-65.[3]
• BENZING, JOSEPH, comp. Aloys Ruppel: Verzeichnis seiner Schriften , Mainz, Gutenbergmuseum, 1949.[4]
• BLASER, FRITZ. “Daten zur Geschichte der graphischen Gewerbe in der Schweiz,” Schweizerisches Gutenbergmuseum (1948), pp. 136-62(Years 1314-1600 occupy pp. 138-44).[5]
• BOUCHEREAUX, S. M. “Recherches bibliographiques sur Gilles Corrozet,” Bull. du Biblioph . (1948), 134-51, 204-20, 291-301, 324-36, 393-411, 470-78, 532-38, 584-96; (1949) 35-47, 93-107, 147-54, 196-202.[6]
• BOWERS, F. Principles of Bibliographical Description , Princeton 1949 (“Incunabula” [chap. 9], pp. 322-51; “Some application of formulary notation to incunabula” [app. III], 487-99).[7]
• BOWERS, F. “Printing Evidence in Wynkyn de Worde's Edition of The Life of Johan Picus by St. Thomas More,” BSA , 43:398-99.[8]
• BRACKER, F. “The Lost Book of Privileges of Columbus Located and Identified,” HLQ , 12:401-7.[9]
• BROWN, R. B. “The Printed Works of Isidore of Seville,” Univ. Kentucky Occ. Contr. , no. 5(mimeographed).[10]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “The British Museum's Fragment of Lydgate's Horse, Sheep, and Goose, Printed by William Caxton,”, BSA , 43:397-98.[11]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “The Fleurs de toutes vertus,” PMLA , 64:600-1.[12]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “Incunabula,” in Standards of Bibliographical Description , Univ. Penn., 1949.[13]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “The Incunabula of the Grenville Kane Collection,” Princeton Univ. Libr. Chron. , 11:26-36.[14]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “A Note on a Fifteenth Century Printing Technique,” Univ. Penn. Libr. Chron. , 15:52-55(blind impressions).[15]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “Seven Variants in The Chastising of God's Children,” BSA , 43:75-78.[16]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “A Spanish Incunable,” BSA , 43:191(deletion of Gesamtkatalog no. 7251 since printed after 1501).[17]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “The Statistics of Scientific incunabula,” Isis , 39 (1948), 163-68.[18]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “Stop-Press and Manuscript Corrections in the Aldine edition of Benedetti's Diaria de bello Carolino,” BSA , 43:365-73.[19]
• BUTTER WORTH, C. C. “Early Primers for the Use of Children,” BSA , 43:374-82.[20]
• BUTTER WORTH, C. C. “Robert Redman's Prayer of the Bible [1535],” Library , 5th ser., 3:279-86.[21]
• CAPLAN, H. & H. H. KING, “Latin Tractates on Preaching; a Booklist,” Harvard Theol. Rev. , 42:185-206.[22]
• CHAMARD, H. “Bibliographie des éditions de Joachim du Bellay,” Bull. du Biblioph . (1949), 400-15, 445-63.[23]
• DE LA FONTAINE VERWEY, H. & M. JACOPS & L. GILKENS. “Hendrik van Brederode en de Drukkerijen van Vianen (1563-66),” Het Boek , 30:3-41.[24]
• DEMPSTER, G. “The Fifteenth-Century Editors of the Canterbury Tales and the Problem of Tale Order,” PMLA , 64:1123-42.[25]
• D'EVELYN, C. “Notes on Some Interrelations between the Latin and English Texts of the Ancren Riwle,” PMLA , 64:1164-79.[26]
• DONATI, L. “L'ancora aldina,” Bibliofilia , 50 (1948), 179-82.[27]
• DONATI, L. “Discorso sulle illustrazioni dell' Esopo di Napoli (1485) e sulla Passio Zilografica,” Bibliofilia , 50 (1948), 53-107.[28]
• DOYLE, A. I. “Two Medieval Calendars and other Leaves Removed by John Bowtell from University Library MSS.,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:29-36.[29]
• EVOLA, N. D. Libro e Cultura in Sicilia nel Secolo XVI , Palermo, Priulla, 1949.[30]
• FAYE, C. U. Fifteenth Century Printed Books at the University of Illinois , Univ. Illinois Press, 1949.[31]
• FERGUSON, F. S. “John Siberch of Cambridge; an Unrecorded Book from his Press,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. 1:41-45(for a binding on a Siberch book, see further pp. 46-47).[32]
• GOFF, F. R. “Early Music in the Rare Books Division of the Library of Congress,” Music Libr. Assn. Notes , 6 (1948), 58-74.[33]
• GOLDSCHMIDT, E. P. “An Italian Panel-Stamped Binding of the Fifteenth Century,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:37-40.[34]

---

294




• HIND, ARTHUR M. Early Italian Engraving , 3 vol., London, Quaritch, 1949.[35]
• HOBSON, G. D. “`Et amicorum',” Library , 5th ser., 4:87-99(Grolier's books).[36]
• HUSNER, F. “Die Editio princeps des Corpus historiae byzantinae, Johannes Oporin, Hieronymus Wolf und die Fugger,” in Festschrift Karl Schwarber, Basle, 1949, 143-62.[37]
• HUESCA. BIBLIOTECA PUBLICA PROVINCIAL. Incunables de la Biblioteca . . . Catalogo descriptivo . . . por Isidoro Montiel , Madrid, Cuerp facult. de arch., bibl. y arqueol., 1949.[38]
• Huldeboek Pater Dr. Bonaventura Kruitwagen. O. F. M. , The Hague, Nijhoff, 1949 (41 contr. honor famous Dutch incunabulist).[39]
• JEREMY, M, Sister. “Caxton's original additions to the Legenda aurea,” MLN , 64:259-61.[40]
• KER, N. R. “Medieval Manuscripts from Norwich Cathedral Priory,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:1-28.[41]
• KRANS, G. H. A. “Steven Joessen, Drukker en Uitgever te Kampen van c. 1550-1581,” Het Boek , 30:91-115(incl. catalogue of 30 Joessen imprints).[42]
• KRUITWAGEN, B. “De Freeska Landriucht-Drukkerij [Friesland?, ca. 1485-90],” Het Boek , 29:213-37.[43]
• KYRISS, E. “Der verzierte gotische Einband des deutschen Sprachgebiets,” Zentralbl. für Bibliotheksw. , 63:192-205.[44]
• LAURENT, M. H. “Alde Manuzio l'ancien éditeur de S. Catherine de siena (1500),” Traditio , 6(1948), 357-63.[45]
• LE GEAR, C. E. “Sixteenth Century Maps Presented [to the Library of Congress] by Lessing J. Rosenwald,” Libr. Congress Quart. Journ. , 6:18-22.[46]
• LEGMAN, G. “A Word on Caxton's Dictes,” Library , 5th ser., 3:155-85.[47]
• LEHMANN, P. “Der Reformator Johannes Hessius als humanistisch gerichteter Büchersammler,” Medievalia et Humanistica , 5 (1948), 84-87.[48]
• LEPORACE, T. G. “La società tipografica Beretta-Gerardengo (1479-1492) nei documenti inediti coevi,” Bibliofilia , 50 (1948), 24-52(incl. catalogue of 61 imprints).[49]
• MALONE, K. “Readings from the Thorkelian Transcripts of Beowulf,” PMLA , 64:1190-1218.[50]
• MARSTON, T. E. “The Rabinowitz Incunabula [at Yale],” Yale Univ. Libr. Gaz. , 24:37-39.(see also L. Nemey, ibid., 95-96).[51]
• MENDENHALL, T. C. “A Library of Nautical Americana and Early Books on Navigation,” Yale Univ. Libr. Gaz. , 24:70-73(Henry C. Taylor collection, 1471-1551 imprints).[52]
• MESEGUER FERNÁNDEZ, J. “Impreso raro [Reformationes ord. frat. Min., called Estatutos alejandrinos, Barcelona] 1540, y algunos documentos de interés, 1517,” Árch. Ibero-Americano , 9: 34:239-54.[53]
• MITCHELL, W. S. “Hector Boece's Copy of Galen's Thegni [1515],” Aberdeen Univ. Rev. , 33:34-35.[54]
• MONTENOVESI, O. “Un gruppo di incunaboli nell' Archivio di Roma,” Archivi , ser. 2, 11-16: 5-10.[55]
• MUNBY, A. N. L. “Jacob Bryant's Caxton's: Some Additions to de Ricci's Census,” Library , 5th ser., 3:218-22.[56]
• OATES, J. C. T. “The `Costerian' Liber precum,” Library , 5th ser., 3:65-66.[57]
• OATES, J. C. T. “The G. U. Yule Collection of the Imitatio Christi in the Library of St. John's College,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:88-90.[58]
• PENNICK, R. “Petrarca Teghen die Strael der Minnen; een Unicum van de Koninklijke Bibliotheek [Campbell 1393, Gouda, ca. 1484],” Het Boek , 29(1948), 239-53.[59]
• PERRAT, C. “Le Polydore Virgile [De rerum inventoribus, Lyons, Gryphius, 1546] de Rabelais,” Bibl. d'Humanisme et Renaissance , 11:167-204.[60]
• RIDOLFI, R. “Nuovi contributi sulle `stamperie papali' di Paolo III,” Bibliofilia , 50(1948), 183-97.[61]
• RUPPEL, A. “Heinrich und Nikolaus Bechtermünze,” Nassauische Lebensbilder , 3:60-75.[62]
• RUYSSCHAART, J. “Autour des études de Juste Lipse sur Tacite; Examen de quelques Éditions du XVIe siècle,” Gulden Passer , 26:29-40.[63]
• SARTON, G. “Incunabula Wrongly Dated,” lsis , 40:227-40.[67]
• SARTORI, CLAUDIO. Bibliografia delle opere musicali stampata da Ottaviano Petrucci , Firenze, Olschki, 1948 (Bibl. di Bibliografia Ital. vol 18).[68]
• SAULNIER, V. L. “Deux oeuvres inconnues de Jean Sève [1558] et une Édition Inconnue de Baïf,” Bull. du Biblioph . (1949), 265-79.[69]
• SAULNIER, V. L. Maurice Scève , 2 vol., Paris, Klincksieck, 1948-49 (vol. 2 contains bibliography of Scève).[70]
• SCHAZMANN, P. E. “La Bulle d'excommunication de Georges de Supersaxo: un imprimé officiel de 1519, émenant de la chancellerie épiscopale de Bâle,” in Festschrift Karl Schwarber , Basle, 1949, 207-12.[71]
• SCHELER, L. “Jean de Brinon, bibliophile,” Bibl. d'Humanisme et Renaissance,” 11:215-18.[72]

---

295




• SCHMIDT-KÜNSEMÜLIER, F. A. “Das Schriftmetall der ältesten deutschen Druckerzeugnisse,” Zentralbl. für Bibliotheksw. , 53:343-59.[73]
• SCHOLDERER, V. “The Beginnings of Printing at Basel,” Library , 5th ser., 3:50-54.[74]
• SCHOLDERER, V. “Hilprand Brandenburg and his Books,” Library , 5th ser., 4:196-201.[75]
• SCHOLDERER, V. “Printers and Readers in Italy in the Fifteenth Century,” Proc. British Acad. , 35(issued separately before complete volume).[76]
• SCHOLDERER, V. “Schoolmen and Printers in Old Cologne,” Library , 5th ser., 4:133-35.[77]
• SHEPPARD, L. A. “The Early Ownership of the British Museum Copy of Caxton's Recuyell of the Histories of Troy,” Library , 5th ser., 3:216-18.[78]
• STEPHANIDES, M. “Table chronologique d'histoire des sciences du XVIe siècle pour ce que regarde le monde grec,” Aroh. Intern. d'Hist. des Sciences , 9:1144-50(with listing of editions).[79]
• STRASBOURG BIBLIOTHÈQUE MUNICIPALE. Catalogue des incunables et des livres du XVIe siècle , Strasbourg, Heitz, 1948 (comp. by François Ritter).[80]
• TYLER, A. E. “The Chronology of the Estienne Editions, Paris, 1526-50: Old Style or New?” Library , 5th ser., 4:64-68.[81]
• VINDEL, F. El arte tipográfico en España durante el siglo XV. Zaragoza . . . . Madrid, Dir. de rel. cult., 1949.[82]
• WARDROP, J. “A Note on Giovanantonio Tagliente [Opera . . . a scrivere, Venice, 1524],” Signature , new ser., 8:57-61.[83]
• WEAD, E. “Early Binding Stamps of Religious Significance in Certain American Libraries: A Supplementary Report,” SB , 2:64-77.[84]
• WEINBERG, B. “Une édition du Dialogo contra i poeti de Berni [Ferrara, 1537; Modena, 1540; n.p., 1542],” Bull. du Biblioph . (1949), 33-34.[85]
• WIRIATH, R. “Les rapports de Josse Bade Ascensius avec Erasme et Lefebvre d'Etable,” Bibl. d'Humanisme et Renaissance , 11:66-71.[86]

2. Part II: THE LATER RENAISSANCE TO the PRESENT by Lucy Clark AND Fredson Bowers

1. Bibliographies, Check Lists, Enumeration

A. English and General

• ALDEN, J. English Books, 1641-1700, Acquired 1 July 1948—30 June 1949 , Univ. Penn. Libr. (mimeographed).[87]
• BESTERMAN, T. “Preliminary Short-Title List of Bibliographies Containing Manuscript Notes,” BSA , 43:209-26.[88]
• BESTERMAN, T. A World Bibliography of Bibliographies , 2nd ed., revised, 3 vols., Priv. pr. author, London 1947-49.[89]
• BOWERS, F. Supplement to Woodward & McManaway Check List English Plays 1641-1700 , Bibl. Soc. Univ. Virginia (mimeographed).[90]
• CARTER, J. “Hand-List of the Printed Works of William Johnson, afterwards Cory,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:69-87.[91]
• CORDASO, F. G. M. & K. W. SCOTT. Wilkie Collins and Charles Reade , Long Island University, Brooklyn, N.Y., 1949.[92]
• FRANKLIN, B. & G. LEGMAN, David Ricardo and Ricardian Theory: A Bibliographical Checklist , N. Y., Franklin, 1949 (prominent 19th-century economist).[93]
• GEORGE, M. D. Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires , vol. 9, British Museum, 1949 (covers period 1811-1819).[94]
• GIBSON, S. A Bibliography of Francis Kirkman , Oxford Bibliographical Society Publ., new series, I (for 1947), 1949.[95]
• GILMOUR, J. S. L. “The Early Editions of Rogers's Italy,” Library , 5th ser., 3:137-40.[96]
• HATCH, B. L. “Notes Towards a Definitive Bibliography of Thomas Hardy's Poems of the Past and Present,” Colby Libr. Quart. , Nov. 1949, 195-98.[97]
• HEIFETZ, A. & A. YARMOLINSKY, “Chekhov in English: A List of Works by and about him,” NYPB , 53:27-38, 72-93.[98]
• JOOST, N. “Henry Stephens: Bibliographical and Biographical Note,” N & Q , Sept. 3, 1949, 379-80.[99]
• LEHMANN-HAUPT, H. One Hundred Books about Bookmaking , rev. ed., Columbia Univ. Press, 1949.[100]
• MACGILLIVRAY, J. R. Keats: A Bibliography and Reference Guide, 1816-1946 , Univ. Toronto Press, 1949.[101]

---

296




• McANALLY, H. The Alfierian Canon , Cambridge Univ. Press, 1949 (reprinted from MLR, 44).[102]
• McKAY, G. L. “Books about Books,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 7:266-76.[103]
• MILLER, C. W. Henry Herringman Imprints , Bibl. Soc. Univ. Virginia (mimeographed).[104]
• OSBORNE, M. T. Advice-to-a-Painter Poems 1633-1856: An Annotated Finding List , Univ. Texas, 1949.[105]
• PARTRIDGE, C. “School-Books, 1800-1823,” N & Q , Sept. 3, 1949, 387-89.[106]
• PHILIP, A. J. Index to Special Collections in Libraries, Museums, and Art Galleries in Great Britain and Ireland , London, F. G. Brown, 1949.[107]
• PRAZ, M. Studies in 17th Century Imagery, v. 2: A Bibliography of Emblem Books , London, Warburg Institute, 1949.[108]
• SMITH, W. C. Bibliography of Musical Works Published by John Walsh , Bibl. Soc. (London), 1949.[109]
• TANNENBAUM, S. A. & R. D. Robert Herrick: A Concise Bibliography , Tannenbaum, Eliz. Bibl. no. 40.[110]
• WHITE, W. “James Joyce: Addenda to Alan Parker's Bibliography,” BSA , 43:401-11.[111]
• WHITE, W. “D. H. Lawrence: A Checklist, 1931-1948,” pts. 2 & 3, Bull. Bibl. , 19:209-11, 235-39.[112]
• WORLEY, P. “Current National Bibliographies,” Libr. Congress Quart. Journ. Current Acquisitions , Aug. & Nov., 1949.[113]

B. United States

• BAER, E. Seventeenth Century Maryland: A Bibliography , Baltimore, Garnett Library, 1949.[114]
• BIBL. SOC. AMERICA. Preliminary Finding List of Writings on the Kentucky Book Trade , Bibl. Soc. Univ. Virginia (mimeographed).[115]
• CHOMET, O. “Jack London: Works, Reviews, and Criticism published in German,” Bull. Bibl. , 19:211-15, 239-40.[116]
• COLEMAN, J. W. Bibliography of Kentucky History , Univ. Kentucky Press. [117]
• FOLEY, T. T. Books About Collecting: Year-and-aquarter Bibl. Report of Books Appeared in American Book Market , Priv. pr., Paris, Ill. [118]
• GALLUP, D. Bibliographical Check-List of Writings of T. S. Eliot , Yale Univ., 1949.[119]
• HARDING, W. “Additions to the Thoreau Bibliography,” Thoreau Soc. Bull. , see issues.[120]
• HINTZ, C. W. “Notable Materials Added to North American Libraries 1943-47,” Libr. Quarterly , 19:105-18.[121]
• HISTORICAL SOCIETY PENNSYLVANIA. Guide to Manuscript Collections of Hist. Soc. Penn. , 2d ed., Phila., 1949.[122]
• KALLICH, M. “Bibliography of John Dos Passos,” Bull. Bibl. , 19:231-35.[123]
• LARREMORE, T. A. “An American Typographic Tragedy—the Imprints of Frederick Conrad Bursch,” BSA , 43:1-38, 111-72, 425-26.[124]
• MORSE, A. R. The Works of M.P. Shiel: A Study in Bibliography , Fantasy Publ., Los Angeles, 1949.[125]
• NASH, R. The Isaiab Thomas Donation Library of Dartmouth College , Dartmouth Libr., 1949.[126]
• NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY. Berg Collection. Edgar Allan Poe; an Exhibition Catalogue , ed. J. D. Gordan, 1949.[127]
• NORTHERN, P. 100 Years of the “Shields Gazette” 1849-1949 , priv. pr. South Shields, Ill., 1949.[128]
• NORTHWEST BOOKS. Bibliography Northwest Writing; Ist suppl. 1942-47, Univ. Nebraska, 1949.[129]
• RUSSO, D. R. Bibliography of Booth Tarkington , Indiana Hist. Soc., 1949.[130]
• SILVER, R. G. Baltimore Book Trade Directory, 1800-1830 . At present in reference files, Peabody Institute. [131]
• SPILLER, R. E. etc. Literary History of the United States , v. 3, bibl. MacMillan, 1948-49.[132]
• TEMPLEMAN, W. D. “Additions to Young's Night-Thoughts in America,” BSA , 43:348-49.[133]
• VAIL, R. W. G. “Gold Fever: Catalogue of California Gold Rush Exhibition,” N. Y. Hist. Soc. Quart. , 33:237-71.[134]
• WAGMAN, F. Newspapers on Microfilms; a Union Checklist , Washington, 1949.[135]
• WETHERBEE, W. JR. Donn Byrne: A Bibliography , N. Y. Publ. Libr., 1949.[136]
• WINKLER, E. W. Check List of Texas Imprints 1846-1860 , Texas State Hist. Assn., Austin, 1949.[137]
• WYATT, E. A. IV. Preliminary Checklist of Petersburg, Va. 1786-1876 , Virginia State Library, Richmond, 1949.[138]

2. Printing, Publishing, Bibliographical and Textual Scholarship

A. English and General

• ADAMS, F. B. JR. “Another Man's Roses,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 6:107-12(“Two Roses” Thomas Hardy forgery).[139]
• ADAMS, H. M. “Tables for Identifying the Edition of Imperfect Copies of the Book of Common Prayer 1600-1640,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:61-63(details of some unrecorded editions also).[140]
• “ALDINES at Venice,” TLS , Nov. 4, 1949, p. 724(account of exhibit).[141]
• ALLISON, A. F. “Robert Howard, Franciscan,” Library , 5th ser., 3:288-91(concerns STC 17567 and an unrecorded Mistical Crowne of Virgin Marie, 1638).[142]
• ALTICK, R. D. “A Neglected Source for Literary Biography,” PMLA , 64:319-24(suggests reference sources to determine existence of autograph letters).[143]
• ANGELI, H. R. “Cor Cordium and Thomas J. Wise,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 7, 237-44.[144]
• ARBER, E. Transcript of Register of Company of Stationers of London, 1554-1640 , v. 1 & 2 (offset), N. Y., Peter Smith, 1949.[145]
• BAINE, R. M. “The Publication of Steele's Conscious Lovers,” SB , 2:169-73.[146]
• BALD, R. C. “Landor's Sponsalia Polyxenae,” Library , 5th ser., 4:211-12.[147]
• BARLOW, H. & S. MORGENSTERN, A Dictionary of Musical Themes , London, Williams & Norgate, 1949 (listed here for importance of new system of indexing themes, see TLS, April 9, 1949).[148]
• BATDORF, F. P. “An Unrecorded Edition of Crabbe,” BSA , 43:349-50.[149]
• BELLINGER, R. R. “The First Publication of Ode on a Grecian Urn,” N & Q , Oct. 20, 1949, p. 478-79.[150]
• BENGER, F. B. “John Wolf and A Spanish Book,” Library , 5th ser., 3:214-16(1589 Tractado with Turin imprint printed London).[151]
• BLACK, R. K. The Sadleir-Black Gothic Collection (Bibl. Soc. Univ. Virginia offset pamphlet).[152]
• “BOOKBINDERS' Historian,” TLS , Jan. 22, 1949, p. 64; Feb. 5, p. 92(scholarly writings of late G. D. Hobson).[153]
• “Cambridge Bindings,” TLS , Nov. 25, 1949, p. 780.[154]
• “English Blind-Stamped Bindings,” TLS , Dec. 30, 1949, p. 864.[155]
• “Modern Book-Binding,” TLS , June 3, 1949, p. 372; June 10, p. 381.[156]
• “Exhibition of Book-Jackets,” TLS , Oct. 7, 1949, p. 654.[157]
• BOUTEL, H. S. First Editions of Today and How to Tell Them , 3d ed. rev., Univ. Calif., 1949.[158]
• BOWERS, F. Principles of Bibliographical Description , Princeton Univ., 1949.[159]
• BOWERS, F. “Bibliographical Evidence from the Printer's Measure,” SB , 2:153-67(methods for compositor identification).[160]
• BOWERS, F. “Bibliographical Evidence from a Resetting in Caryll's Sir Salomon (1691),” Library , 5th ser., 3:134-37.[161]
• BOWERS, F. “Bibliography and the University,” Univ. Penn. Libr. Chron. , 15:37-51.[162]
• BOWERS, F. “The Cancel Leaf in Congreve's Double Dealer, 1694,” BSA , 43:78-82.[163]
• BOWERS, F. “Thomas Dekker, Robert Wilson, and The Shoemakers Holiday,” MLN , 64:517-19.[164]
• BOWERS, F. “Thomas D'Urfey's Comical History of Don Quixote, 1694,” BSA , 43:191-95.[165]
• BOWERS, F. “Variants in Early Editions of Dryden's Plays,” Harvard Libr. Bull. , 3:278-88.[166]
• BOWERS, F. “The Wits [pt. 2, 1673],” (in no. 95).[167]
• BOYCE, G. K. “The Costs of Printing Gibbon's Vindication,” BSA , 43:335-39.[168]
• BÜHLER, C. F. “Two Unrecorded Jacobean Proclamations,” Library , 5th ser., 3:121.[169]
• CABOT, N. G. “The Illustrations of the First Little Gidding Concordance,” Harvard Libr. Bull. , 3:139-42.[170]
• [CARTER, J.] “The Bibliographical Jungle,” TLS , Aug. 5, 1949, p. 512(case-histories of dark places in bibliography; for discussion, see W. H. Bond, TLS, Sept. 23, p. 624 concerning Sidney's Defense of Poesie; and D. Flower, ibid. concerning Candide).[171]
• CHAPMAN, R. W. “Gilt,” Library , 5th ser., 3:223(use of term for size).[172]
• “The Dispersal of Coleridge's Books,” TLS , Oct. 28, 1949, p. 704; Dec. 9, p. 809.[173]
• COLLINS BAKER, C. H. “Some Illustrations of Milton's Paradise Lost (1688-1850),” Library , 5th ser., 3:1-21, 101-119(for a correction, see ibid., 4:146-47).[174]
• CRAIGIE, J. “The Basilicon Doron of King James I,” Library , 5th ser., 3:22-32.[175]
• CROW, J. “'A Thing Called Adagia',” Library , 5th ser., 4:71-73(rediscovered 1621 edition of Bartholomew Robinson's proverb book).[176]

---

298




• DAHL, F. “Amsterdam—Cradle of English Newspapers,” Library , 5th ser., 4:166-78.[177]
• DAVIES, D. W. Social and Economic Background to History of the Elzeviers , Univ. Chicago Microfilms Editions no. 392, 1949.[178]
• DAVIS, R. B. “George Sandys v. William Stansby; The 1632 Edition of Ovid's Metamorphosis,” Library , 5th ser., 3:193-212(lawsuit provides much general information printing and binding costs, names of binders).[179]
• DAWSON, G. E. “Warburton, Hanmer, and the 1745 Edition of Shakespeare,” SB , 2:35-48(isolates and assigns emendations by Warburton previously confused).[180]
• DICKINS, B. “The Irish Broadside of 1571 and Queen Elizabeth's Types,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:48-60.[181]
• DONAHUE, M. J. “Tennyson's Hail, Briton! and Tithon in the Heath Manuscript,” PMLA , 64:385-416.[182]
• DUNKIN, P.S. “The Dryden Troilus and Cressida Imprint: Another Theory,” SB , 2:185-89.[183]
• DUNKIN, P.S. “The 1613 Editions of Bacon's Essays,” Library , 5th ser., 3:122-24.[184]
• EAGLE, R. L. “The Arcadia (1593) Title-Page Border,” Library , 5th ser., 4:68-71.[185]
• ELWIN, M. “Reprints of English Classics,” TLS , May 20, 1949, p. 329(textual variations in reprints of Tristram Shandy).[186]
• ENCK, J. J. “John Owen's Epigrammata,” Harvard Libr. Bull. , 3:431-34.[187]
• EVANS, G. B. “The Text of Johnson's Shakespeare (1765),” PQ , 28:425-28.[188]
• EVANS, L. H. “Copyright and the Public Interest,” NYPB , 53:3-26.[189]
• FINCH, J. S. “Sir Thomas Browne: Early Biographical Notices, and the Disposition of his Library and Manuscripts,” SB , 2:196-201.[190]
• FLETCHER, H. “A Second(?) Title-Page of the Second Edition of Paradise Lost,” BSA , 43:173-78.[191]
• FRANCIS, F. C. “Drawback on Paper,” Library , 5th ser., 4:73(term related to duty).[192]
• FRENCH, J. M. “The Date of Milton's First Defense,” Library , 5th ser., 3:56-58.[193]
• GALLAWAY, R. J. “Bibliography Evidence of a Piracy by Edmund Curll,” Univ. Texas Stud. in English , 28:154-59(Abbe Vertot's History of Revolutions in Portugal, 1735).[194]
• “GALSWORTHY'S Man of Property,” TLS , Jan. 22, 1949, p. 64; Feb. 19, p. 126; March 12, p. 174(variants in 1st ed.).[195]
• GARROD, H. W. “Erasmus and his English Patrons,” Library , 5th ser., 4:1-13.[196]
• GATHORNE-HARDY, R. “The Bibliography of Jeremy Taylor,” Library , 5th ser., 3: 66(explains twin titles in Great Exemplar).[197]
• GERRITSEN, J. “The Printing of the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647,” Library , 5th ser., 3:233-64.[198]
• GETTMANN, R. A. “Serialization and Evan Harrington,” PMLA , 64:963-75(information about the periodical Once a Week).[199]
• GILBERT, S. “The Wanderings of Ulysses,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 7:245-52.[200]
• GOLDSCHMIDT, E. P. The Printed Book of the Renaissance: Three Lectures on Type, Illustration, and Ornament , Cambridge Univ. Press, 1949.[201]
• GRIEVE, H. E. P. Some Examples of English Handwriting , Chelmsford, Essex Record Office Publications, 1949.[202]
• GRIFFITS, T. E. Colour Printing , 2 vol., London, Faber, 1949.[203]
• HADLOCH, W. S. “Concealed Fore-Edge Painting,” Essex Institute Hist. Coll. , 85:97-100.[204]
• HEAWOOD, E. “Paper Used in England after 1600,” Library , 5th ser., 3:141-42(some French paper makers identified on information from A. H. Stevenson).[205]
• HODGES, J. C. etc. “Congreve's Library,” TLS , Aug. 12, 1949, p. 521; Sept. 2, p. 569.[206]
• HOPPE, H. R. “The Birth-Year of Gillis van Diest I, Antwerp Printer of English Books,” Library , 5th ser., 3:213.[207]
• HOPPE, H. R. “The Birthplace of Stephen Mierdman, Flemish Printer in London,” Library , 5th ser., 3:213-14.[208]
• HOTSON, L. “The Library of Elizabeth's Embezzling Teller,” SB , 2:49-61(list of books and assessed prices in 1597).[209]
• HUMMEL, R. O. JR. “Henry Crosse's Virtues Commonwealth,” BSA , 43:196-99(discussion of issues 1603-5).[210]
• HURT, P. Bibliography and Footnotes , rev. ed., Univ. Calif., 1949.[211]
• JACKSON, W. A. “Humphrey Dyson's Library, or, Some Observations on the Survival of Books,” BSA , 43:279-87.[212]
• JOHN, L. C. “The First Edition of the Letters of Hubert Languet to Sir Philip Sidney,” JEGP , 48:361-66.[213]
• “Hyde Collection of Johnsonian Manuscripts,” TLS , Sept. 23, 1949, p. 624.[214]
• JOHNSON, A. F. “The King's Printers, 1660-1742,” Library , 5th ser., 3:33-38.[215]
• JOHNSON, S. F. “Reflections on the Consistency of Coleridge's Political Views,” Harvard Libr. Bull , 3:131-39(textual changes in the Addresses).[216]
• JORDAN, J. E. “The Reporter of Henry VI, part 2,” PMLA , 64:1089-1113(textual study of memorial reconstruction in the Contention).[217]

---

299




• KARCH, R. “Introduction to Type Faces,” Print , 6, pt. 2:33-60.[218]
• KEYNES, G. “Books from Donne's Library,” Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc. , 1:64-68(for more on this subject, see J. H. Pafford and others, TLS , Sept. 2, 1949, p. 569; Sept. 23, p. 617).[219]
• KNOTTS, W. E. “Press Numbers as a Bibliographical Tool: A Study of Gay's The Beggar's Opera, 1728,” Harvard Libr. Bull. , 3:198-212.[220]
• LEIGHTON, D. “Canvas and Bookcloth: An Essay on Beginnings,” Library , 5th ser., 3:39-49.[221]
• LEWIS, W. S. “The Last Word,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 6, 163-66(concerning the Walpole edition with the case-history of a letter).[222]
• LORING, R. B. “Colored Paste Papers,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 5:33-40.[223]
• LOWNES, A. E. “Two Editions of John Wilkins's Mathemataicall Magick, 1648,” BSA , 43; 195.[224]
• LUCAS, R. C. “Book-Collecting in the Eighteenth Century: The Library of James West,” Library , 5th ser., 3:265-78(contains some prices).[225]
• McMANAWAY, J. G. “The Two Earliest Prompt Books of Hamlet,” BSA , 43:288-320.[226]
• McMANAWAY, J. G. “Early English Literature 1475-1700,” in Standards of Bibliographical Description , Univ. Penn., 1949.[227]
• MAYOR, A. “A Suspected Shelley Letter,” Library , 5th ser., 4:141-45(see also T. G. Ehrsam, TLS, Sept. 30, 1949).[228]
• MEAD, H. R. “Richard LeGallienne's Perseus and Andromeda,” BSA , 43:399-401.[229]
• MILLER, C. W. “A Bibliographical Study of Parthenissa by Roger Boyle Earl of Orrery,” SB , 2:115-37.[230]
• MOGG, W. R. “Some Reflections on the Bibliography of Gilbert Burnet,” Library , 5th ser., 4:100-13.[231]
• MORISON, S. English Prayer Books , 3d ed. Cambridge Univ., 1949.[232]
• MORISON, S. Four Centuries of Fine Printing , 2d, rev. ed. N. Y., Farrar, Straus, 1949.[233]
• MOZLEY, J. F. “Grindal and Foxe,” N & Q , July 23, 1949, p. 3-3-15(defence of Foxe against forgery in publication of Cranmer's book on eucharist, 1551).[234]
• MUELLER, W. R. “Robert Burton's Frontispiece,” PMLA , 64:1074-88.[235]
• MUIR, P. “The Kehl Edition of Voltaire,” Library , 5th ser., 3:85-100.[236]
• MUMBY, F. A. Publishing and Bookselling , N. Y., Bowker, 1949 (contains revised bibliography).[237]
• PAFFORD, J. H. P. “Binding Costs, 1735,” Library , 5th ser., 3:222-23.[238]
• PATTON, L. “Coleridge's Marginal Comments on Bowles's Spirit of Discovery,” Library Notes Duke Univ. Libr. , Feb, 1949, 12-15.[239]
• THE PENROSE ANNUAL, vol. XLLIII, London, Humphries, 1949 (review of graphic arts).[240]
• PETTIT, H. “Young's Night-Thoughts Re-Examined,” Library , 5th ser., 3:299-301.[241]
• “Beatrix Potter Books,” TLS , Aug. 26, 1949, p. 560.[242]
• PRICE, G. R. “The Early Editions of The Ant and the Nightingale,” BSA , 43:179-90(relations of two eds. 1604 of Middleton's book).[243]
• PRICE, G. R. “The First Edition of A Faire Quarrell,” Library , 5th ser., 4:137-41.[244]
• RANDALL, D. “The Court of Appeals,” New Colophon , see issues 1949 for these questions and answers on points of the bibliography of specific books.[245]
• READE, A. L. “Early Career of Dr. Johnson's Father,” TLS , June 17, 1949; June 24, p. 413(his book-collecting and book-binding interests).[246]
• ROLLINS, C. P. “Adventures in Typography,” New Colophon , see 1949 issues.[247]
• ROLLINS, H. E. “Letters of Horace Smith to his Publisher Colburn,” Harvard Libr. Bull. , 3:359-70.[248]
• ROSENKILDE, V. “Printing at Tranquebar, 1712-1845,” Library , 5th ser., 4:179-95.[249]
• RUSSELL, G. H. “Philip Woodward: Elizabethan Pamphleteer and Translator,” Library , 5th ser., 4:14-24.[250]
• SCHURER, H. “Bibliography in Germany, 1939-47,” Journal of Documentation , 5:98-112.[251]
• SHAABER, M. A. “The Third Edition of Wits Common Wealth,” Univ. Penn. Libr. Chron. , 15:56-58(unique copy of 1598 ed. not found in STC).[252]
• SHAW, P. “Richard Venner and The Double PP,” BSA , 43:199-202(affirms Dekker's authorship).[253]
• SHELLEY, P. A. “Archdeacon Wrangham's Poems,” Library , 5th ser., 4:205-11.[254]
• SHIELD, H. A. “Links with Shakespeare, IV,” N & Q , Dec. 10, 1949, p. 536-37(on Isaac Jaggard's widow and her second bookseller husband Luke Fawne).[255]
• SILVER, H. M. “'Near-Print' Draws Nearer,” Journal of Documentation , 5:55-68.[256]

---

300




• SMITH, W. C. “John Walsh and his Successors,” Library , 5th ser., 3:291-95.[257]
• STARKEY, L. G. & P. ROPP, “The Printing of A Declaration of the Demeanour and Cariage of Sir Walter Raleigh, 1618,” Library , 5th ser., 3:124-34.[258]
• STECK, J. S. “Dryden's Indian Emperour: The Early Editions and their Relation to the Text,” SB , 2:139-52.[259]
• STEELE, M. A. E. “The Woodhouse Transcripts of the Poems of Keats,” Harvard Libr. Bull. , 3:232-56.[260]
• STEWART, P. “A Bibliographical Contribution to Biography: James Miller's Seasonable Reproof [1735],” Library , 5th ser., 3:295-98.[261]
• STEWART, P. “Typographical Characteristics of The Loyal London Mercuries,” N & Q , March 19, 1949, p. 118-19(standing type in headings of 17th-cent. newspaper).[262]
• TEERINCK, H. “Swift's Cadmus and Vanessa Again,” Harv. Libr. Bull. , 3:435-36(printings in 1726 from standing type; see also 2:254-57).[263]
• TEERINCK, H. “Swift's Discourse . . . Contests . . . Athens and Rome,” Library , 5th ser., 4:201-5.[264]
• THOMAS, S. “Bibliographical Links between the First Two Quartos of Romeo and Juliet,” RES , 25:110-14.[265]
• THOMAS, S. “A Note on the Reporting of Elizabethan Sermons,” Library , 5th ser., 3:120-21.[266]
• THOMAS, S. “Richard Smith: 'Foreign to the Company',” Library , 5th ser., 3:186-92(records of publisher and his books 1567-97 with analysis of imprints and his legal status).[267]
• TODD, R. “The Techniques of William Blake's Illuminated Painting,” Print , 6:53-64.[268]
• TODD, W. B. The Identity and Order of Certain XVIII Century Editions , Univ. Chicago Microfilm Editions no. 433, 1949.[269]
• TODD, W. B. “The Early Editions and Issues of The Monk, with a Bibliography,” SB , 2:3-24.[270]
• TOOLEY, R. V. Maps and Map Makers , London, Batsford, 1949.[271]
• TURNBULL, J. M. “An Elian Make-Weight,” N & Q , Jan. 22, 1949, p. 35-6(revision and resetting in Lamb's 'A Quaker's Meeting').[272]
• WEBER, C. J. A Thousand and One Fore-edge Paintings , Colby College Press, 1949 (see TLS, Sept. 30, 1949, p. 633 for a correction).[273]
• WEEDON, M. J. P. “Richard Johnson and the Successors to John Newberry,” Library , 5th ser., 4:25-63(with annotated checklist of this 18-century printer's writings).[274]
• WILLEY, M. M. “Peter the Whaler, Plagiarist,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 5, 29-32(plagiarism by W. H. G. Kingston).[275]
• WHALLEY, G. “The Bristol Library Borrowings of Southey and Coleridge, 1793-8,” Library , 5th ser., 4:114-32.[276]
• WILLIAMS, G. “A Note on King Lear, III. ii.1-3,” SB , 2:175-82(assesses the punctuation and its emendation on bibl. evidence).[277]
• WILLIAMS, P. “The 'Second Issue' of Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida, 1609,” SB , 2:25-33(cancel title printed as part of last sheet).[278]
• WILLOUGHBY, E. E. “A Long Use of a Setting of Standing Type,” SB , 2:173-75(in Speed's Genealogies, c. 1631-1640).[279]
• WILLOUGHBY, E. E. “Bacon's Copy of a Douai-Reims Bible,” Library , 5th ser., 3:54-56.[280]
• WILSON, F. P. “A Merie and Pleasant Prognostication (1577),” Library , 5th ser., 135-36.[281]
• WOLF, E. 2nd. “The Fragonard Plates for the Contes et Nouvelles of La Fontaine,” NYPB , 53:107-20.[282]
• WOLF, E. The Textual Importance of Manuscript Commonplace Books of 1620-1660 (Bibl. Soc. Univ. Virginia mimeographed pamphlet).[283]
• “Modern Wood-Engraving,” TLS , Oct. 21, 1949, p. 688; Oct. 28, p. 697.[284]

B. United States

• ADAMS, R. “The Bibliographical History of Thoreau's Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers,” BSA , 43:39-47.[285]
• ALDRIDGE, A. O. “Benjamin Franklin and the Maryland Gazette,” Maryland Hist. Mag. , 44:177-89.[286]
• BANTA, R. E. Indiana Authors and their Books , Wabash College, 1949.[287]
• BATTELL, F. C. “The DuBuque Visitor and its Press,” Iowa Jour. History , 47:193-214.[288]
• BENNETT, W. A Practical Guide to American Nineteenth Century Color Plate Books , N. Y., Bennett Book Studios, 1949.[289]
• BINGHAM, M. T. “Emily Dickinson's Handwriting—A Master Key,” NEQ , 22:229-34.[290]
• BROWN, H. G. & M. O. “A Directory of the Book-Arts and Book Trade in Philadelphia to 1820 including Painters and Engravers,” NYPB , 53:211-26, 290-98, 339-47, 387-401, 447-58, 492-503, 564-73, 615-22.[291]
• CARSON, M. S. & M. W. S. SWAN, “John Bioren: Printer to Philadelphia Publishers,” BSA , 43:321-34.[292]

---

301




• CLOUGH, B. C. “Poor Nancy Luce,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 7, 253-65.[293]
• CORDASCO, F. “The First American Edition of Junius,” N & Q , May 28, 1949, p. 233(corrects Sabin by noting 1791 edition).[294]
• “CORRESPONDENCE of R. W. Griswold,” Boston Libr. Quart. , July, 1949, 61-74(of publishing history interest for authors' letters).[295]
• DANDRIDGE, E. P. JR., “Proposals of Nine Printers for a New Edition of The Journals of the Continental Congress, 1785,” SB , 2:189-96.[296]
• DAVIS, C. C. “A Letter from the Muses: the Publication and Critical Reception of James M. Legaré's Orta-Undis, and Other Poems (1848),” North Carolina Hist. Rev. , 26:417-38.[297]
• DOZER, D. M. “The Tariff on Books,” Miss. Valley Hist. Rev. , 36:73-96(affairs of 1850-80).[298]
• DUNCAN, H. “The Cummington Press,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 7, 221-36(adds check list).[299]
• EDEL, L. “The Texts of Henry James's Unpublished Plays,” Harv. Libr. Bull. , 3:395-406.[300]
• EDELSTEIN, D. S. “Joel Munsell: Printer and Bibliographer,” BSA , 43:383-96.[301]
• ELLISON, R. C. “Early Baptist Printing in Alabama,” Alabama Review , 2:24-31.[302]
• FERGUSON, A. R. “Some Bibliographical Notes on the Short Stories of Henry James,” AL , 21:292-97.[303]
• FULTON, D. “The Typophiles,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 6:143-62.[304]
• HAMILTON, S. “'The Earliest Device of the Colonies' and Some Other Early Devices,” Princeton Libr. Chron. , 10:117-23.[305]
• HEILBRON, B. L. “Henry Lewis' Das illustrirte Mississipithal: A Contemporary Advertisement,” BSA , 43:344-45.[306]
• “HENRY JAMES Reprints,” TLS , Feb. 5, 1949, p. 96; Feb. 12, p. 105; Feb. 19, p. 121; March 12, p. 169; March 19, p. 185(textual changes made by James in novels).[307]
• KALLICH, M. “A Textual Note on John Dos Passos' Journeys Between Wars,” BSA , 43:346-48.[308]
• KESSELRING, M. L. “Hawthorne's Reading, 1828-1850,” NYPB , 53:55-71, 121-38, 173-94.[309]
• KINGSBURY, M. “Emily Connor and the Marchbanks Press,” Print , 6:1-16.[310]
• KIRKLAND, F. R. “An Unknown Franklin Cartoon,” Penn. Mag. Hist. & Biog. , 73:76-79.[311]
• LEWIS, O. “Grabhornana,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 5:13-28.[312]
• LUCKE, J. R. “The Cancels in Lockman's Travel of the Jesuits, 1743,” SB , 2:205-7(Sabin 40708).[313]
• McANEAR, B. “William Bradford and The Book of Common Prayer,” BSA , 43:101-10.[314]
• McDERMOTT, J. F. “Banvard's Mississippi Panorama Pamphlets,” BSA , 43:48-62(see also 43:245).[315]
• MILES, W. “Notes on Some Early Chemistry Books Published in Pennsylvania,” Isis , 40:313-16.[316]
• MULKEARN, L. “The Biography of a Forgotten Book—Pownall's Topographical Description of North America,” BSA , 43:63-74.[317]
• NOWELL-SMITH, S. “Signatures in Some Nineteenth-Century Massachusetts Duodecimos: A Query,” Library , 5th ser., 3:58-62(enlightenment from W. A. Jackson and A. T. Hazen, 3:224-29).[318]
• NAUMBURG, E., JR. “A Seventeenth Century Book-Label Problem,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 5:41-53.[319]
• PENROSE, B. “The First Book about America Printed in England,” Penn. Mag. Hist. & Biog. , 73:3-8(trans. by Rich. Eden from Latin in 1553 as A Treatyse of the newe India).[320]
• ROBBINS, J. A. “Fees Paid to Authors by Certain American Periodicals, 1840-1850,” SB , 2:95-104.[321]
• SEALTS, M. M. JR. “Melville and the Shakers,” SB , 2:105-14(Melville's marked copy of The Millenial Church).[322]
• SEALTS, M. M. JR. “Melville's Reading: A Check List of Books Owned and Borrowed,” Harv. Libr. Bull. , 3:119-30, 268-77, 407-21(cont. 1950).[323]
• SILVER, R. The Boston Book Trade 1800-1825 , N. Y. Public Library, 1949.[324]
• STARKEY, L. G. “The Printing by the Cambridge Press of A Platform of Church Government, 1649,” SB , 2:79-93.[325]
• STARRETT, V. “Firsts in a Manner of Speaking,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 5:68-81.[326]
• STERN, M. B. “Keen & Cooke: Prairie Publishers,” Jour. Illinois State Hist. Soc. , 42:424-45.[327]
• SWAN, B. F. Gregory Dexter of London and New England, 1610-1700 , Rochester, N. Y., L. Hart, 1949.[328]
• TARG, W. The Making of the Bruce Rogers World Bible , ltd. ed., Cleveland, World Pub., 1949.[329]
• TRYON, W. S. & W. CHARVAT, The Cost Books of Tichnor and Fields and their Predecessors, 1832-

  ---

  302

  
  
  
  1858 , N. Y., Bibl. Soc. America, 1949.[330]
• “TWO More Torrents Turn Up,” Colby Libr. Quart. , ser. 2, May, 1949, p. 161-62(adds to census of E. A. Robinson).[331]
• VAIL, R. W. G. Voice of the Old Frontier , Univ. Penn., 1949.[332]
• VAIL, R. W. G. “Bibliographical Notes on Certain Eastern Mining Companies of the California Gold Rush, 1849-1850,” BSA , 43:247-78.[333]
• VAN PATTEN, N. “The Yerba Buena Press and Some Related Privately Printed Books,” BSA , 43:202-9.[334]
• VERNER, C. “Some Observations on the Philadelphia 1794 Editions of Jefferson's Notes,” SB , 2:201-4.[335]
• WALSH, M. J. “Contemporary Broadside Editions of the Declaration of Independence,” Harvard Libr. Bull , 3:31-43.[336]
• WHEAT, C. I. “The Literature of the Gold Rush,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 5, 54-67.[337]
• WINTERICH, J. T. “The Life and Death of the Lafayette Publishing Co.,” New Colophon , 2, pt. 7:209-20.[338]
• WROTH, L. C. Typographic Heritage , Portland, Me., Anthoensen, 1949.[339]
• WROTH, L. C. “Early Americana,” in Standards of Bibliographical Description , Univ. Penn., 1949.[340]