Edward Young published his Love of Fame satires first
as seven separate folios entitled The Universal Passion
between
January 1725 and February 1728.[1]
All bear the imprint "Printed for J. ROBERTS in
Warwick-Lane," and the first five published, Satires I-IV and
The Last (VII), were entered by James Roberts to Jacob Tonson in the
Stationers' Register.[2] Two almost
indistinguishable editions of Satires I and II were printed, yet there was no
acknowledgement of second folio editions within advertisements of the
period.[3] The same title-page layout
and ornament, head- and tail-pieces, and ornamental initials were used in
the two sets of editions, and their letterpress seems to have been
deliberately set to increase their resemblance. Their resemblance is so close
that Charles E. Frank, who examined copies of all four editions while
preparing a bibliography of the editions
of Love of Fame, failed to discern the hidden editions (pp.
155-156). But, as David Foxon first noted in his English Verse
1700-1750, there are two distinct editions
of both Satire I (Foxon's Y122 and Y124) and Satire II (Y125 and
Y127).
[4] One edition of each satire
(Y122 and Y125) was also issued in fine-paper with a fleur-de-lys mark and
an "IV" countermark.
[5] Both editions
of Satire I and II can be distinguished by press figures and by two
accidental variants.
[6]
Apparently, Foxon identified as first editions those he denominated
Y122 and Y125 because they contain fine-paper issues and because the
copies deposited in libraries as part of the Stationers' Company's
registration process belong to these editions. However, I present here
typographical evidence that the edition of Satire II that Foxon places second
(Y127) was printed first. Then, in consequence of Y127's priority, and with
what is known of the satires' publication, I would further argue the priority
of the Y124 edition of Satire I. I conclude by speculating what may have
led those concerned to publish the four editions within so short a period and
to conceal their multiplicity.
Foxon incorrectly observes that edition Y127 was "Reset, with the
exception of the title and half-title" (I, 919, Y127). Whereas the text and
ornaments on the title (A2) are the same, there are typographical
differences. The inside vertical rule on the left is shorter in all copies of
Y127 seen, not extending beyond the inside-bottom horizontal rule as it
does in copies of Y125 (in the Princeton copies, this rule is 270 mm. in
Y127 and 273.5 in Y125). More importantly, the capital 'T'
in
'Tanto' (within the motto) is broken off at the top right serif
in
all copies of Y125, but not damaged in any copy of Y127 which I have
seen. If we discount the difference in rule length and suppose the title has
not been reset, the broken 'T' in Y125 argues that its edition
was machined after Y127, which controverts Foxon's ordering of the
editions. Furthermore, Foxon appears to be unaware that forme inner B is
shared by both editions of Satire II. The irrefutable evidence that Y125
represents a second edition derives from damaged type on this
forme.
The identity of the type-setting for forme Bi can be
seen
from the following pieces of damaged type found in both editions: 'a' in
'What's' and 'h' in 'wealth' (B1v, line 1), 's' in 'short-'
(B1v, 3),
's' in 'smit' (B1v, 5), 'h' in 'the' (B1v,
6), 'p' and
'u' in 'Epictetus' (B1v, 8), 'k'
in 'like,' 'h' in
'them,' and 'e' in 'the' (B1v, 10), 'T' in 'Thy'
(B1v, 11), 'e' in
'The' and 't' in 'to' (B1v, 14), 'e' in 'some' and 'l' in
'peculiar'
(B1v, 15), 'h' in 'the' (B1v, 19), 'b' in
'books' (B2, 3), 'e' in
'when' (B2, 5), 'o' in 'choice' (B2, 6), 'w' in 'whole' (B2, 7), 's' in 'cost'
and the second 'e' in 'succeed' (B2, 17), 'w' in 'who,' 'e' in 'the,' and the
second 'e' in 'expence' (B2, 21). There are differences between Y125 and
Y127 at the line-endings, but these can be explained as the results of
moving stored type. These differences are greater on B1v,
where lines
6 and 11-14 have different relative line-lengths. The
increased length of Y125's line 6 is due to the substitution of a wide 'W'
for a narrow one in 'Wit'. The only other typographical substitution occurs
in the question mark at the end of line 1, the longest line on
B1v. The
mark in Y125 does not reach above the 'r' in 'power' as that of Y127 does.
On B2 the lines end in the same relative position. Here two end-line
punctuation marks are altered. Y125 substitutes a smaller question mark at
the end of line 6 and a semicolon for a question mark used for exclamation
at the end of line 14. The extent and position of these alterations suggests
that they resulted from the removal and reintroduction of the setting within
the skeleton. The altered position of the bracketed page number relative to
the first line of B1v argues that at least
B1v, with the more
typographical disturbance, was removed from the skeleton. (Examination
of the Princeton copies of both editions with a Hinman collator also reveals
these to be shared settings.)
Given the general identity of the two settings for Bi, it
is
significant that Y125's has damaged type that does not appear in Y127's.
Yet there is no damaged type in Y127's setting that does not appear in
Y125's; thus, the setting that printed Y125 must have been damaged during
a later, second impression. Since in Y125's setting the newly-broken
type-pieces occupy the same position relative to other type-pieces that they
do in Y127's, it seems unlikely that they result from resetting. Broken
letter-type found only in the setting for Y125 include: 'f' in 'of'
(B1v,
line 4), 'f' in 'of' (B1v, 16), 'O' in 'Or'
(B1v, 17), 'f' in 'of' (B2,
1), 'y' in 'buy' (B2, 7), and 'T' in 'Terms' (B2, 11—unbroken in
some
copies). Only the 'y' in line 7 of B2 occurs close to the line-ending and
may result from substitution, but it occupies exactly the same position
relative to lines above and below and is closely preceded by type damaged
in both editions. The strongest evidence
that Y125 was machined second derives from the 'T' in 'Terms' (B2, l.
11). In the Harvard, Texas (WK Y858 B726u), Bath (unbound) and Indiana
copies of Y125, the 'T' is not broken, and in the Michigan copy, it is
cracked but no space exists between the upper and lower halves. But in the
Library Company of Philadelphia and the Yale copies, the two halves of the
'T' are separated. Since
in no copy of Y127 seen is the 'T' damaged, Y127 must have been
impressed before Y125.
Although this typographical argument does not indicate which edition
of Satire I is the first, it does offer a suggestion. Since the Y127 edition of
Satire II is usually found bound with the Y124 edition of Satire I, I would
argue that these represent the respective first editions.[7] Such an ordering fits the known
facts
about the publication and registration of Satire I. This satire seems first to
have been advertised in the Post-Boy of 21-23 January 1725
(#5541). Yet the satire was not entered in the Stationers' Register until 9
April 1725. Since both editions of Satire I bear the advertisement
"The Second Satire is now in the Press" (on E2), both
probably
preceded the April publication of Satire II. Since, then, both preceded
registration, there is no a priori reason why the deposit copies for Satire I
should have come from the first edition. Rather, it seems likely that the
edition from which the deposit copies did not come
(Y124) had sold out. An additional argument for the priority of Y124 will
be offered in the discussion of the circumstances of its publication which
follows.
We have, then, the peculiar printing of two editions with remarkable
resemblance for two satires before the registration process was completed.
I believe these facts must be explained with reference to Young's planned
subscription and his sale of the satires' copyrights to Jacob Tonson. Young
had planned to solicit subscribers for an edition of his works, or of the
satires, during the winter months when Satire I was published, as he had
indicated to Thomas Tickell in a letter dated 10 October 1724.[8] On 2 March 1725, Young wrote
Tickell
that "Since my Last to you I have set a subscription a foot," which would
have been within a month of Satire I, as his last extant letter to Tickell is
dated 14 December 1724 (Pettit, Correspondence, pp. 38-40).
But Young seems not to have advertised for subscribers until 1726, when
he proposed a three-volume collected works. Whether the subscription
Young wrote of in 1724-25 involved the collected
satires, as Frank proposed in 1939, or his collected works, as Trevor Mills
assumed in 1980, cannot be
determined.
[9] I see the failure to
advertise for subscribers in March and April of 1725 as, at the very least,
a postponement of whatever was planned. But, regardless of which of the
two Young intended to publish, the postponement of the subscription would
have opened the market for an expensive fine-paper issue of the
satires.
I would hypothesize that Young intended to publish the later satires
in a subscription edition and had Satires I and II printed to drum up interest
in the subscription. Young hired Roberts as a trade publisher to help
distribute the work, although Roberts may also have printed it. Young
invested just enough money to have limited editions of Satires I and II
printed, only the copies needed to initiate the subscription effort before
being sold out. This explains why there are fewer extant copies of Y124
and Y127. For some reason, perhaps having planned to all along, Young
sold the copyright to Jacob Tonson, probably between the letter of 2 March
and the registration on 9 April. Young may have sold the rights at this time
because their apparent success assured a good price from Tonson for the
satires. Young now needed money as is evident from the importunity of his
letters to Tickell.[10] Most likely,
Young feared that enough subscribers could not soon
be found but that, with the successful run of all the satires, or of the first
five, they might be. Thus, with the subscription postponed or looking
precarious, Tonson or Young brought out Y122 and Y125 with fine-paper
issues for the wealthier readers who would have purchased the satires in the
subscription edition. To please the purchasers of the fine-paper issues, the
printer was instructed to disguise Y122 and Y125, setting them to resemble
Y124 and Y127 as closely as possible, which allowed buyers to assume
they owned the first edition. These wealthier readers would have desired the
editio princeps either because they were vain book collectors
or
because they distrusted the accuracy of second editions. Not surprisingly,
copies of the second editions were used when Tonson's copyright was
registered. Copies of the first edition of Satire I, and perhaps II, were
already spoken for, and, if Tonson had acquired an interest in the folio sale,
he would have wished to deposit
copies at least partly his. But it is also possible that the second-edition
copies were deposited as part of the ruse of passing off those editions as
first editions.
We do not know, however, whether it was Young or Tonson who
commissioned the second editions with fine-paper issues. The copyright
agreement might not have given Tonson any interest in the folio sale.[11] We can argue Tonson's interest in
the
folios is reflected by the printing of the more costly fine-paper issue in a
larger edition. Also, the Tonson house was more likely to sell to
"fine-paper" customers than the trade-publisher Roberts. Furthermore, the
only signed presentation copy of Satires I and II that Foxon has recorded
(I, 919, Y124) is from Y124; it along with a copy of the first edition of
Satire II and others of Satires III and IV was given to George Clarke and
dated 8 February 1725[/26]. We could argue that Young did not give Clark
a copy of the fine-paper edition because it belonged to Tonson, although he
may well have preferred to give away only copies of the first editions.
Conversely, we can argue from the absence of the Tonson name
in advertisements of the satires that Young himself paid for them and alone
received profits from their sales.[12]
Finally, we can argue from penned corrections on all copies of Satire VI
that Young, not the wealthy and more powerful Tonson, was paying the
printer.[13]
In any case, the decision to sell folios to the affluent, originally
targeted as subscribers to a postponed edition, would explain why the
editions were hidden and why the fine-paper issues would not be from the
first edition. We know from damaged type that the edition of Satire II
without a fine-paper issue (Y124) is not the first. If it was decided after the
first edition of Satire II to bring out a fine-paper issue, then surely it was
decided to do the same for Satire I after it had been published. If we
suppose, as Foxon has, that Satire I was first published in an edition with
fine-paper issue, why was the same not done for Satire II? Furthermore,
would not the precariousness of publishing a poem have discouraged the
impecunious Young from printing his first edition with an expensive
fine-paper issue?
Although my clarification of priority within these hidden editions only
affects two accidental readings in each satire, it may offer useful
information to scholars studying the book trade, particularly the demands
of readers, the marketing of fine-paper issues, and the inter-relations of
author, tradepublisher, and copyright holder.
