:: :: University of Virginia Library

In the McGregor Collection of the University of Virginia Library are two tracts concerning colonial tobacco trade. A study of the relationship existing between the tracts illustrates a printing practice which, so far as I have been able to learn, has not been previously recorded.[1] One of the tracts was printed as a folio sheet, with the following undated title-page:[2]

The other tract was printed as an octavo in fours; its dated title-page reads as follows:[3]

As the titles suggest, the texts of the two tracts are, in part, the same. In fact, a collation of the two copies reveals that, save for titles, catchwords, and the Vindication which appears only in the 8, the text of one of the copies is a letter for letter, point for point reprint of that of the other. There are no variants in either the substantives or the accidentals of the text of the two formats. This complete absence of variation suggests that one of the formats was printed from the standing type of the other, even though their line-length is completely dissimilar; and an examination and collation of defective type and misprints occurring in the two copies proves that such was indeed the case.

Of course, there are apparent defects in the sorts of one copy which do not appear in the sorts in the corresponding positions of the other copy. However the many examples of defective type common to the tract in both formats make it most likely that variation is only apparent and was the result, on the one hand, of light inking and, on the other, of heavy inking. Of the ninety or so obvious type defects common to the tract in both formats, the following is a list of those defects which seem most

185

significant. The first reference is to the folio; the reference within parentheses is to the octavo.

p. 1, line 4. the Industry (A2, line 8) Spurs, evidently the result of faulty casting, print as small dots in the eye of the e of the.
p. 1, line 6. Progress of that (A2, line 13) The tail of the first t of that is bent so that it forms an obtuse angle with the vertical stroke.
p. 1, line 29. Warehouſes (A3, line 11) There is a very noticeable break in the curve of the long s.
p. 2, line 19. Affairs (A4, line 29) There is a break in the left leg of the A immediately above the conjunction of the leg and the bar.
p. 2, line 37. Manner (A4v, line 30) The serif at the top of the vertical stroke of the first n is broken off. There is a nick slightly above the base of the vertical stroke of the first n.
p. 3, line 4. Debts (B1v, line 23) The s is turned.
p. 3, line 11. Draught (B2, line 1) There is a break in the lower curve of the D.
p. 3, line 37. allowed (B2v, line 7) In the a, the upper hairline of the bowl is almost completely broken away.
p. 3, line 55. will have (B3, line 7) The tail of the e in have is bent up perpendicular to the horizontal bar enclosing the eye.

These examples present convincing proof that standing type of one format was rearranged and used exclusively in printing the text of the other format.

Which of the formats was first through the press is a matter of some interest. The Vindication mentions a text of the Case which ". . . has been long talked of about the Royal Exchange . . ." (sig. C2), and it is natural to assume that the reference is to the folio sheet. However, Arents Catalogue lists the 8° as a first edition, and, as the folio sheet is undated, there is no proof, only a general probability, that this listing is wrong. That the listing is in fact incorrect, and that the Case as printed in the 8° is a second issue (re-imposed and re-impressed) of the text printed in the folio sheet, can be established. In the lack of any variant readings, the clearest and the only unambiguous evidence[4] as to the order of the issues is what may be called the awkward spacing occasionally found in the 8° as compared with the consistently regular spacing of the folio.[5] Roberts or his compositor seems regularly to have attempted to split the folio lines, the measure for which was 148 mm., in half in rearranging them for the 8°, which was set in a measure of 75 mm.[6] Very often he

186

was unable to do this and, in order to justify lines, was forced to remove or to add spaces. In the majority of cases he changed the original spacing without any very unsightly result, but in a few instances the result is manifestly unsightly. Following are three of the most obvious examples of awkward spacing in the 8°:

Folio	Octavo
p. 1, line 40. End of Eighteen End (1 mm.) of of(2) Eighteen	A3, line 28. End (3 mm.)of > of(3)Eighteen
p. 3, line 24. the Duties was the (1) Duties Duties (1.5) was	B2, line 27. the(2.5)Duties Duties (3) was
line 34. seeing upon the Merchants seeing(1) upon upon(1) the the(1)Merchants	B2v, line 13. seeing(2)upon upon(3)the the(2)Merchants

The awkward spacing found in the 8° establishes the order of the two issues. The text of the Case printed in 8° is not the first edition but a separate, second issue of the folio text.

It would be interesting to know how long the type used in printing the folio sheet was kept standing before the printing of the 8°, but that I have not been able to discover. However, from extant sources I have inferred a history which is admittedly conjectural, though not, I think, illogical. On June 28, 1732, John Randolph was appointed by the House to present before parliament a petition pleading the case of the Virginia planters.[7] He left Virginia soon after August 8, 1732,[8] and reached England in late November or early December. Soon after he was settled in London he gave the MS of the Case to Roberts, and the folio sheet was printed by late December or early January. Randolph, expecting, perhaps, that the Case would be attacked, ordered Roberts to keep the type standing. The folio Case was ". . . long talked of about the Royal Exchange . . .", and attacks against it did appear in print.[9] Sometime after March 2, 1733, Randolph finished his Vindication [10] of the Case and gave it to Roberts. Roberts decided upon the format to be used in printing the Vindication and began reimposing the standing type from the folio Case while setting the Vindication. Thus the type of the folio sheet was kept standing over two months before the second issue was printed. The chief interest in this octavo, however, lies not merely in the fact that it employed standing type in another format but that this standing type was broken up and completely rearranged to adjust it to a smaller type-page.

Notes

[1]

I am indebted to Professor Fredson Bowers for directing my attention to this problem and for suggesting some of the tests used in the investigation. I wish also to thank Mr. John Wyllie, Curator of Rare Books at the University of Virginia Library, for his kind help.

[2]

The folio sheet has no formal title-page; the transcript is from the title printed on the lower half of p. 4. Evidently the sheet was sold folded as a quarto. A complete bibliographical description seems unnecessary. For further information see Sabin, vol. XXVII, nos. 99909, 99910. This tract should not be confused with another folio sheet, The Case of the Tobacco Planters in His Majesty's Colony of Virginia, as to the Bill now depending in the House of Lords. . . . (Torrence, pt. 1, p. 106, no. 120), which was printed earlier than the Case, cf. Case, sig. A2.

[3]

See Arents, Tobacco, vol. III, p. 233, no. 673; Sabin, vol. XXVII, no. 99911. None of the catalogues I have seen notes the relationship of the two tracts to each other. In fact, only Sabin lists both tracts.

[4]

One is tempted to see type deterioration in the 8°. For instance, in both copies (F., p. 2, line 12; 8°, A4, line 15.) the second h of which has a small break near the top of the vertical stroke; in the 8° there appears to be a second break in the vertical stroke. On the other hand, in the folio the upper horizontal borderline of the slot in the factotum found in both copies has a break which seems larger than that in the 8°. Whether a looser locking of the surrounding type, combined with a tighter fit of the type within the slot, would cause this is uncertain.

[5]

There is one glaring exception to the regularity in the folio spacing; for no apparent reason there is a space 9 mm. in length between reprefent, and The in the folio (p. 1, line 6.). The 8° compositor did not change the obvious error.

[6]

Of course, a compositor resetting lines 148 mm. long in a 75 mm. measure would occasionally achieve an exact 2/1 ratio even if he reset word by word. But I believe that Roberts' compositor tried to break the folio lines in half and fit them in their new measure without otherwise disturbing the type. His failure to correct the spacing error noted in fn. 5 is the best evidence of the 8° compositor's unwillingness to disturb the folio lines.

[7]

Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1727-1734, ed., H. R. McIlwaine, p. 160.

[8]

See William and Mary Quarterly, 1st series, I, 137.

[9]

Vindication, sig. E3.

[10]

Ibid., sig. D3.