 | |  |
INTERRELATING THE CANCELLANTIA AND PARTIAL GATHERINGS IN
THE FIRST EDITION OF EDWARD YOUNG'S THE CENTAUR NOT FABULOUS
by
James E. May
Edward Young's prose satire and homily The Centaur Not Fabulous was published in 1755 and reprinted twice in revised editions that year. It was a sufficiently popular work—often enough reprinted and translated—to deserve bibliographical and textual scrutiny.[1] The work is also of interest be-
Letters between Young and Richardson record many major developments in the revision and printing of The Centaur. On 14 July 1754, Young wrote Richardson that he had something “about the length of five sermons” that he wished to publish with Richardson's assistance.[2] He sent Richardson his draft of its satirical dedication on 21 July 1754, remarking “Blot, add, alter, as you please; and, if then you approve it, print it” (Pettit, 405). On 28 July Young, estimating the manuscript's length as that of “five or six sermons,” proposed sending “not all the copy at once, but letter after letter, being four in all [five would be published],” and on 1 August he promised to send “the first letter” four days later (Pettit, 407). Richardson responded on 5 August with thoughts about the difficulty of pricing individual pamphlets, persuading Young to publish the Letters as a single unit and, perhaps, encouraging him to expand the text (Pettit, 408-409). Richardson then assured Young that, although he would “attend, as you desire, to the copy.... You shall see every proof,” and Richardson added, “I will send you a proof of the dedication as soon as possible” (Pettit, 409-410). After Young wrote 12 August to request that Richardson find an artist to cut a frontispiece illustrating the modern centaur described in the dedication, the printing began, with Young sending copy in installments from late summer 1754 through January 1755 and Richardson returning proof sheets for Young's correction. Young worked slowly, requiring multiple proofs to revise, not just correct, his text. In apologizing to Richardson for “slovenly copy” on 1 August, Young remarked, “my eyes are bad; and I had rather compose two letters than write one” (Pettit 408; see also 412 on Young's needing his housekeeper Mary Hallows to read for him). The conclusion to the fifth and final letter is dated 29 November 1754, and the undated postscript defending the work's “mixture of Levity with Solemnity” (375) was only written after Richardson's next extant discussion of The Centaur, in a letter of 21 January 1755.
On 21 January, when the press had printed to sheet Z and probably to Aa, but certainly not the last five leaves with the end of “The Conclusion” and the five-page postscript, Richardson proposed substantial revision to the dedication, requiring “a few pages [be] cancelled... after some such manner as I have presumed to offer in a waste sheet of the print, which I enclose” (Pettit, 416). In addition, he offered detailed corrections, mostly verbal, on
In another impression methinks it were to be wished that all from, If this is a man of pleasure, p. 161, to, from a higher hand, p. 163, were omitted, as it interrupts, by ludicrous images, emotions that were nobly excited.
For the same reason, suppose, in p. 163, were omitted the words, Fain would I bury &c. to the end of the paragraph, real men, p. 164?
(Pettit, 416-417)
This remark led to the cancellation of leaves N1-N2 (pp. 161-164) and their replacement with an altered text.In apologizing for the liberty taken in printing a revised draft of the dedication, Richardson explained that, having “seen the whole together,” he was “apt to think that the reader is not sufficiently prepared in that dedication for the solemn and elevated subjects of the following letters” (Pettit, 416). Young, apparently the next day (“Wednesday”), approved these changes and asked that Richardson “alter, as you think good; and let not delay or expense be any objection to any thing now practicable.” And he particularly asked for help with “the close now sent” (Pettit, 418). Although the final paragraphs of “The Conclusion” might be termed a “close” (“now, my Friend, Farewell,” Cc1v/370), Young probably refers to a manuscript version of the Postscript (Cc3v-Dd1v), which directly addresses Richardson's objections on 21 January regarding excessive levity. Closing, he added, “I desire this last sheet [presumably sheet Bb] again before worked off” (Pettit, 418). When Young next wrote (“Sunday,” Pettit supposed the very next, 26 January), he returned Richardson's revised printing “for ye Dedication part,” requesting the cancellations required for Richardson's “most judicious Insertions.” He added that “Tomorrow I expect ye last Sheet, & when I return yt, I shall... consult with you if the d[eletion]s p. 161 &c: can be made in this Edition. Expence, if yt is all shall not hinder it” (Pettit, 419). Young approved cancellations in the dedication during the very week that the final five leaves of the book were sent to be set in type, and the contents of leaves N1-N2 were soon to be rewritten. Thus, some of the cancellations were likely to be impressed on the same sheet or sheets with the final five leaves of the book. During the next fortnight, prior to the book's being bound for its sale in the first days of March, Young had to rewrite at least leaves N1 and N2 and read proof for them and the final five leaves, and the press had to print these leaves along with sheet Bb and the cancellantia within the dedication. On 13
Young and Richardson's correspondence prepares us for finding that some leaves in the B sheet (containing the dedication) as well as N1 and N2 are cancels. But nothing in the correspondence refers to three other canceled leaves, R1, R2, and U1. T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel rightly perceived that these, in addition to N1 and N2, were cancels, and they correctly identified two of the five cancellantia in gathering B when they claimed, “Three pages of the dedication (iii, viii, xi) were certainly reset since they are short by one or two lines.”[3] However, as will be shown, although leaves B2 and B6 (carrying pages iii and xi) were canceled, leaf B4 (with page viii) was not. The text cancels are easily detected since leaves N1.N2 and R1.R2 are folds, N2 and R2 are unsigned, N1.N2 have a different paper-stock from N3-N8, and the stubs of the cancellanda are more often than not visible. Eaves and Kimpel checked the press figures in a few copies and found the stubs of the obvious cancels, but they did not collate editions or scrutinize bibliographical features such as the paper-stock (nor as biographers would they have been expected to do so). They have left the task of identifying the cancels in the B gathering and of interrelating the cancels, singletons, and partial sheets in the edition. With evidence drawn from 58 copies (listed in Appendix 2, where abbreviated codes are noted), including an uncut copy at St. John's College, Cambridge, I will reconstruct the three final printed units of the book, placing 16 leaves that remained to be printed on 26 January on a whole sheet and on the halves of two other sheets. Scholars working on comparable cases of cancellation may find applicable the arguments drawn from press figures, point holes and dimensions of an uncut copy, watermarks and tranchefile patterns, and the position of chain-lines in many extant copies. The multiplicity of approaches and the many extant copies examined allow us to test the value of conclusions about imposition patterns drawn from chain-line positions.
The edition has many partial gatherings and cancellatia: the frontispiece, a confusing nine- leaf B gathering, two cancellans folds in the text (N1.N2 and R1.R2, with material from Letter III and from the beginning of Letter V), half-sheet Cc4, and four singletons (title-leaf A1, final leaf Dd1, and two cancels: B3 [with the third leaf of the preface] and U1 [with material from the “Thoughts for Age” section of Letter V]). As I shall argue, leaves A1, B3, U1, and Dd1 completed a sheet containing Cc4; cancellans folds in the B gathering that appear as if they are B2.B7 + 1 and B6.B7 were printed adjoined on half of a sheet; and cancellans folds N1.N2 and R1.R2 were both parts of a separate whole sheet. Thus, the octavo has the collational formula:
8°: (frt +) A1 B8 (-B2, B3, B6, B7; B1 + χ4, with χ2-4 between B5 and B8 [appearing as B6, B7, B7 + 1]; χ1 + 2χ1 [`B3'] C-M8 N8 (-N1,N2; + `N1'.N2 [=3χ8 -6 leaves in-
First, I need offer some prefatory observations on the paper-stocks and their watermarks. The edition was printed in common octavo imposition, with the watermark appearing principally on either leaves $1 and $4 or on $2 and $3, and tranchefiles (which produce narrower chain- widths at the shorter sides of the sheet) sometimes on the first four leaves of the gathering but never the last four. All four paper-stocks employed in The Centaur (each produced from a pair of nearly identical moulds) have watermarks, and three have tranchefiles. The dominant paper-stock (also the sole paper-stock in the second edition) has a single “NH” watermark (no sheet of any copy has been seen with double marks). The 14 mm-tall letters are divided by a chain-line; the “N” has single-lined verticals and a double-lined diagonal; the “H” is entirely double-lined. This paper-stock has fairly distinct chain-lines slightly wider than those in other paper-stocks in the book, four chain-widths usually measuring 104-107 mm. It has one tranchefile space of 12-14 mm at both short sides of the sheet (seen regularly in the uncut Csj copy and in many copies only slightly trimmed). The three other paper-stocks all have fleur-de-lys watermarks centered on chain- lines, “IV” countermarks, and more distinct, or easily visible, chain-lines 25-25.5 mm wide. The three are distinguishable from each other by differences in the shape and size of their fleur-de-lys watermarks. One fleur-de-lys paper-stock is found in sheets E and N of all copies; a second is found in sheet Q and the frontispiece of all copies. Of concern to us is the third fleur-de-lys paper-stock, found in folds B1.B8 and B4.B5. Unlike the other paper- stocks, it lacks a tranchefile. The watermark has a broad tail the size of that in the first paper-stock (23-24 mm across), but a broader head (17.5-19 mm across), sometimes asymmetrically larger on one side of the chain-line. Both the “NH” and fleur-de-lys watermarks are placed so close to the short exterior edge that they almost never appear on the four internal leaves of the sheet, and the “NH” is usually seen on only one of the exterior leaves of the short axis.
That said, let us consider the book's preliminaries, correcting Eaves and Kimpel's remarks on the cancellantia in gathering B. The frontispiece, with a fleur-de-lys paper-stock, and title-leaf (A1), with the “NH” stock, are disjunct. The frontispiece was almost certainly printed by itself and not with an earlier, canceled title- page without an errata list since watermarks appear in the frontispiece sometimes at the top outside corner (as in C, CtY, FU, MH1, MiU, OTH) and sometimes at the top inside (as in MH2, NcU, Ose, and ViWCF). All copies seen have an errata list on A1v. As originally printed, the title-page was followed by a dedication occupying leaves B1-B7, with a sec-
Since, in addition to the title-leaf and the B cancellantia, the “NH” paper- stock is also found in the cancels within the text (N1.N2, R1.R2, and U1) and in the five final leaves (Cc4 + Dd1), we have sixteen leaves to interrelate, the sixteen likely to be those last printed (if R1.R2 and U1 were also late alterations). For the sake of efficiency, Richardson would presumably have wished to print these sixteen leaves on as few units as possible, ideally on two sheets.
The press figures offer some guidance in hypothesizing what leaves were printed with what others.[5] For the 16 leaves of cancellantia and partial units,
The four press figures exclude certain possibilities. The two figures in Cc4 suggest that it was not produced with its eight page-settings locked in the chase and the sheet perfected from the same forme but that Cc4 was printed with four other leaves. Half-sheet Cc's two figures support the hypothesis that Cc4 was printed with the singletons, for were the two cancellans folds in B or were R1.R2 printed with it, the sheet would be figured three times. Also indicated is that pages B7+1r and R2r were not printed on the same side of the same sheet (as cancels they need not be both in the inner forme as the second and eighth rectos normally would be). There is no need to assume they were on different sides of the same sheet, for most sheets in this edition are not figured on both sides. Indeed, one might reason that, since the vast majority of whole sheets have a single figure, and since both R2r and B7+1r are figured, they were probably on separate sheets; however, that conjecture must be qualified since the sheet with Cc4, printed close to publication, has two figures. (Watermark evidence below will indicate that the B cancels were not printed with cancels N1.N2 and R1.R2.) Finally (although, atypically, sheet E and, after cancellation, sheet U are never found with a press figure), we can suppose it likely from the press's general figuring of sheets that the lack of a figure on the group of leaves A1, B3, U1, and Dd1 indicates that they were not printed by half-sheet imposition but with other leaves on a sheet.
St. John's College, Cambridge, has an untrimmed copy in a contemporary binding providing both point-hole and diverse paper evidence about the
In The Centaur, the point holes (from pins in the tympan that pierced the paper along the short axis at the center of the forme) appear between 110-165 mm from the top of the leaf, with one 20-30 mm higher than the other. What Philip Gaskell records as a general practice is true of this and other octavos of Young's works printed by Richardson during the 1750s: the “near-side point was placed further in towards the middle of the tympan (and of the sheet).”[7] For instance, in the Csj copy, leaves C5 and C6 share a point hole at 148 mm down leaves 208 mm tall; C7 and C8 share a hole at 120 mm down leaves 217 mm tall. Of the cancellantia in gathering B, only the leaf appearing as if B7+1 (χ4) has a point hole. It appears as a hemispherical bite along the edge, 114 mm down from the top edge. Within the singletons, point holes are not found on cancellans B3 and Dd1. However, half-sheet Cc4, whose press figures suggests it may have been printed with these leaves, has point holes on Cc3 down 110 mm and on Cc4, down 153 mm. As for folds N1.N2 and R1.R2, R2 has a large hole at the edge, down 165-170 mm on a leaf 210
The untrimmed margins of the Csj copy provide other useful evidence. First, there are matching uneven edges produced during cutting and tearing apart of formerly adjacent paper into separate leaves. As with outer edges of leaves N2 and R2, there are deficits and surpluses in the ragged upper edges of B2 and B6 that indicate these leaves were formerly joined at the top. If we measure in from the outer edge on B2, we find that the leaf is short of the uniform top edge until 15 mm in toward the fold and then again from roughly 25-35 mm in, but B6 has a surplus from 0-15 and 25-35 mm in, making it taller than the uniform height. And from 55-70 mm in on that top edge occur two dips where B2 has a deficit below the uniform edge and B6 a surplus above it (the valleys in B2 and the hills in B6 match exactly when they are xeroxed and cut along the edge, and these images are laid against one another with one image up and the other down). In addition, matching hills and valleys along the top edge are also shared by Dd1 and B3, providing further support for their formerly adjoining at their top edges. At 1-3 mm in from their outer edges, there is a deficit on B3 and a surplus on Dd1; from 50 to 66 mm in, there is a rectilinear deficit on B3 and a comparable surplus on Dd1; and, from 66 to 90, there is a rectilinear surplus on B3 and a comparable deficit on Dd1.
In addition, since in the Csj copy the cancels and partials were not trimmed but only cut apart (as the point holes and watermarks testify), the leaves' dimensions provide further evidence of the leaves' positions in the sheets before division. The dimensions of the singletons support the arrangement hitherto argued: leaf A1 is between 213-215 x 137 mm, and U1, 212-213 x 137 mm; Dd1 is 215 x 132 mm, and B3, 212-213 x 132 mm, providing normal dimensions for half of a sheet in this book, 425-430 x 269 mm. The shared widths of 137 mm for leaves A1 and U1 and of 132 mm for leaves B3 and Dd1 suggest a cutting along the long axis of the half-sheet down a fold
Both the watermarks and the tranchefiles of the uncut Csj copy offer telling evidence. In this copy we find leaf A1 with a tranchefile and a portion of the “NH” watermark that complement those on U1 (8-9 mm of the top of “N” and one vertical of “H” on A1 and 4.5 mm of bottom of “N” and one vertical of “H” on U1); in addition, the chain- lines match up at the top of the page: at 12-13, 41, and 66 mm out from the spine on A1 and 14, 42, and 68 mm on U1. (Since they are singletons glued to stubs, we cannot expect the chain-lines to appear at exactly the same distances out from the spine, but they should be close and the distances between the chain-lines should be proportional.) Similarly, we find comparable chain-line locations in B3 and Dd1 as if these leaves without watermark or tranchefile were adjoined at the top (10, 37, 64, 91 mm out from the spine on B3 vs. 13, 39, 66, 92 mm on Dd1). In line with our hypothesis that Cc4 was printed on a whole sheet with the singletons, we note that Cc1 and Cc2 do not share a watermark (as they should not since it is on A1 and U1), but they do share a tranchefile. It is also reassuring to note that the combined height of Cc1 over Cc2 measures 425 mm, the usual sheet width. Leaves B2 and B6, which we would like to show were printed together adjoining at the top, lack watermarks but both do have a tranchefile, 12-13 mm, and their chain-lines are a comparable distance from the spine (B2: 10-11, 36-37, 64-65 mm; B6: 9, 36, 62 mm). The chain-line distances on leaves B7 and B7+1 are also compatible.
Paper evidence involving the leaf sizes and watermark of folds N1.N2 and R1.R2 supports the point-hole evidence in placing the folds on the same sheet's long axis: N1.N2.R2.R1. There are no surpluses or deficits along the top edges of these folds that suggest they were adjoined at their top edges; in fact, the reverse is true: the top edge of N1, from the outer edge to 18 mm inward, is raised a full one wire-line taller (1-2 mm) above the general height of the leaf, and there is no comparable dip near the outside along the top of R1. Moreover, leaf R1 has 9 mm of the watermark's “N” showing, but none of the watermark shows on N1. This being an untrimmed copy, we would expect at least several mm of watermark, perhaps as many as 5 mm, to be visible there. It might be objected that a cancellans fold like N1.N2 was the product of scissored cutting, not the opening of a folded whole sheet, and so some trimming could have occurred. However, all the other cancellantia and partial gatherings have not been trimmed but only cut, and there is no reason for the binder to have done additional trimming for leaves N1.N2 since these leaves are shorter on the bottom edge and have their running-titles slightly above those adjacent. Furthermore, the dimensions of leaves N1.N2 and R2.R1 suggest they were all cut from the whole sheet with a single cutting along the long axis. Leaf N1 is only 208 mm tall for the most part; N2 is 208 close to the fold and grows to 210 at the edge; R2 is 210 near its outer edge and grows to 211-212 near the fold; R1 is 210-211 near the
Watermarks, tranchefiles, and chain-lines in all the trimmed copies seen confirm as a general pattern what is true of the uncut St. John's copy and consonant with press figure evidence: the leaf-pairs A1/U1 and Dd1/B3 were joined at their top edges in the same half-sheet; the singletons' half-sheet was printed on a whole sheet with Cc4; folds B2.B7+1 and B6.B7 were printed on the same half of a sheet; and N1.N2 and R1.R2 were not joined at the top to form a half-sheet but ran laterally across a full sheet. In addition, this evidence from the paper of all copies indicates that leaves A1 and U1 were printed at the outside of the sheet and that the inside edge of A1 was conjugate with Dd1, just as that of U1 was with B3. Also, the watermarks and tranchefiles apparent in many copies and the chain-line positions in most copies will confirm what is true of the Csj copy: disjunct leaves and partial gatherings printed on the same individual sheets of paper ended up in the same copy of The Centaur. Indeed, demonstrating the imposition pattern for the sheets last printed also involves demonstrating this uniform procedure in the binding shop. It allows the evidence from the uncut Csj copy to be applied safely to other copies of the book. Finally, confirming the imposition pattern with evidence from most extant copies rules out the possibility of multiple imposition patterns caused by interrupting the press run to reimpose on a single sheet the four-leaf units with the cancellantia in the dedication and the text.
Given that the vast majority of extant copies have been examined, we can generalize with some confidence regarding which problematic leaves may have tranchefiles and watermarks and which may not. Tranchefiles have been seen in some copies on A1, B2, B6, N1, R1, and U1, and five of these leaves (all but B6) have tranchefiles in the TnU copy. The six leaves with tranchefiles have been seen with watermarks also. In no copy does a tranchefile appear in leaves B3, Dd1, N2, and R2. In no copy does a watermark appear in leaves B3, Dd1, N2, and R2 without it also appearing more fully in leaves A1, U1, N1, and R1—leaves that are or were formerly adjoining and that commonly have tranchefiles and so were at the exterior of the sheet's
Ample watermark evidence testifies that at their upper edges leaf A1 adjoined U1 and Cc1 adjoined Cc2. Eleven copies examined have watermarks divided in a complementary manner of tops and bottoms between A1 and U1: Csj, DLC, FU, LdU-B, LU, MnU, MR1, MR2, NBiU, NSbSU, and TxU. In no copy does the extent of the watermark on one leaf rule out the possibility that the mark is part of the same one showing in the other leaf. Also, in no copy do we find the same portion of the watermark on both leaves A1 and U1. Also, as will be noted below, when a copy has a watermark only on either A1 and U1, the watermark often fails to complement watermarks found on other partials and cancels. Similarly, Cc4 appears to be a regular half-sheet from complementary watermark halves shared by leaves Cc1 and Cc2 in at least ten copies (CaOTU, CSmH, MH[2], MiU, Occ, Ose, OTH, Owo, and PSt).
Additional evidence on the placement of A1, U1, and all the disjunct leaves and partial gatherings can be drawn from chain-line position. Above I found it useful to note the matching chain-line positions on A1 and U1, as on B3 and Dd1, of the uncut Csj copy. Similar evidence confirming my hypotheses can be drawn from all the copies examined. Moreover, since in this edition we have other strong evidence from watermark and tranchefile patterns and from the uncut Csj copy for the imposition patterns within three sheets, we can test the value of evidence from chain-line position. Although there is nothing novel about employing chain-line position to situate conjugate folds and disjunct leaves on a reconstructed sheet, The Centaur offers an ideal case for applying the method systematically. For here we have good confirmation from other more reliable evidence, and measurements can and have been obtained from a large number of extant copies. Furthermore, every case is unique: here we are working in octavo on disjunct leaves both at the exterior edge and within the sheet and also on conjugate folds; also, we have a paper stock that has regular spacings between chain-lines and comparable spacings between the tranchefile and closest chain-line at both ends of the sheet. Because of the regularity of the chain-widths, when examining copies I often neglected to record chain-line positions across the entire leaf. Yet I believe the position of the closest chain-line to the spine will be shown useful in situating disjuncts and partial gatherings in editions without watermarks or tranchefiles and for which there are no uncut copies or copies with offset.
In common octavo imposition, one notes how the chain-line positions on leaves adjoining at their top edges ($1 and $4, $5 and $8, $6 and $7, and $2
As Appendix 1 with chain-line positions within 42 copies indicates, the distances from the spine of the closest chain-line to it in leaves A1 and U1 of the same copy differ on average 1.88 mm (see the third last measurements in the tables of Appendix 1; these differences total 79 mm for the 42 copies). In all but three copies the distance of the chain-lines from the spine on leaves A1 and U1 is within 4 mm of each other (in May the first chain-line out from the spine on A1 is 12-13 mm away, but on U1 it is 9; in Occ, A1: 11-12 vs. U1: 5-6; and in OCU, A1: 10-11 vs. U1: 17 [only OCU is rebound]). The first chain-lines from the spine on B3 and Dd1 at the top edge differ on aver-
In addition, if, as hypothesized here, leaves A1.Dd1 and U1.B3 were conjugate pairs prior to the separation of a half-sheet, then the distances from the spine to the closest chain-lines in each pair should add up to roughly 25.5-27 mm, the general range of the spaces between chain-lines. In fact, we find that the first chain-lines out from the spine usually total approximately 26 mm (see respectively fifth and fourth last measurements in the tables). Since the chain-widths can vary a millimeter from 26 mm and since my own measurements are subject to one mm of error for each measurement, we might consider any total within 4 mm of 26 an instance arguing the singletons were once conjugate folds. All the totals for the first chain-lines from the fold on A1 and Dd1 are within 4 of 26 mm except the May copy by.5 mm (21.5 mm) and the rebound OCU copy (17). The totals of the first chain- lines out on B3 and U1 are within 4 mm of 26 except for MdBJ (17.5) and, off by 1 mm, rebacked OTH (20). (With B3's stub factored in, the May is no longer
There is substantial watermark evidence that leaves B2 and B6 were adjoining at the top edge. First, there is the converse evidence that in none of 58 copies examined does the same portion of the watermark appear on both B2 and B6. More importantly, complementary halves of the watermark appear on B2 and B6 in eleven copies: CaAEU, CaOTU, CoU, CSmH, MdBJ, NjP, NRU, O, Occ, Owo, and TnU. Additional support for supposing B2 and B6 were printed adjoined at their top edges comes from the matching position of chain-lines at the top of these leaves and of their conjugates, B7 and B7+1. In 41 of 42 copies measured for Appendix 1, the measurements of the first chain-lines out from the spine on B2 and B6 (as on B7 and B7+1) fall within 2 mm of each other (they are 3 mm off in CoU); the average distance is under 1 mm (41 mm total difference divided by 42 copies).
Although the uneven outer edges of leaves N2 and R2 in the Csj copy indicate these edges were formerly conjugate in that copy, let us still test other paper evidence on the placement of these folds. Since the tranchefiles in the “NH” stock are comparable in width at both sides of the sheet, those on N1 and R1 match in the Csj copy and 13 other copies (C, CaOTU, CtY, FU, MR1, NBiU, NcU, NIC, NRU, O, Oa, TnU, and Wns). As with the tranchefile evidence, some watermark evidence could mislead us into hypothesizing that the two folds were adjoining at their top edges. For instance, not a single copy has the same portion of the watermark on N1 and R1, which would rule out the hypothesis that they were imposed with top edges adjoining. However, the absence of any watermarks shared by leaves N1 and R1 supports paper-tear and dimension evidence that N1.N2 and R1.R2 were adjoined, not at their upper edges, but at the outer edges of N2 and R2. The absence of any matches is striking. Since one-fifth of the copies seen show watermarks shared by leaves A1 and U1 (11 copies), by leaves B2 and B6 (11), and by leaves Cc1 and Cc2 (10), we might expect to see at least one copy with watermarks shared by N1.N2 and R1.R2 if those folds had been adjoining at the top. We should particularly expect to see watermarks on both N1 and R1 in large copies like that at O, where 7-8 mm of the “NH” watermark often
In addition, since, whenever either N1 or R1 has a watermark, the other does not, and since more than half the copies have a watermark on either leaf N1 or R1, we can infer that the two leaves were probably printed at opposite ends of the same sheet. In the 58 copies examined, I recorded watermarks on N1 in 27 or 28 copies (CaOHM, CoU, ICN1, L, LdU-B, LU, May, MH2, MoU, MR1, MR3, N, NcU, NIC, NjP, NRU, NSbSU, Oa, Ose, OTH, Owo, PSt, RPB, TnU, ViWCF, Wns, WU; possibly CaOTU) and on R1 in 15 or 16 copies (CLU-C, Csj, CSmH, CSt, DLC, The Hague, MdBJ, MH1, MiU, NBiU, O, OAU, Occ, O-HF, TxU and possibly MB). I still found 42 to 44 of 58 copies examined to have the watermark on either N1 or R1 but never on both. Watermarks, thus, appear on N1 or R1 in a high percentage of the total copies seen: roughly 75%. That is a very high percentage when one considers that I probably failed to identify one or two and that watermarks were commonly trimmed off. There are copies cut short enough that no watermark appears in the sheet with the singletons and Cc4, such as CSt (194), CtY (195), NeU (194), and OCU (194)—indeed, no watermark appears in any cancellantia or partial gathering of CtY. Since three quarters of the copies seen have a watermark in N1 or R1, it is likely that N1 and R1 were at the two opposite ends of one sheet, with one receiving the watermark when the other did not. That may be inferred from how much greater the total 42-44 is than the total number of copies with watermarks in the singletons half-sheet (27 copies, possibly 28), the half-sheet formed by folds B2.B7+1 and B6.B7 (26 copies), or the half-sheet Cc4 (24 copies).[9] Indeed, the total number of copies with watermarks on leaves N1 or R1 is comparable to the total with watermarks on the sheet comprising the singletons and Cc1-Cc4, 51 (possibly 52).
Since N1.N2 and R1.R2 were not positioned head to head but side by side, N1 and R1 on different ends of the sheet, chain-line positions in those leaves provide a good check against the value of chain-line position as used above for evidence that two cancellans leaves or folds were formerly adjoined at the top edge. As the tables indicate, there is less evidence from chain-line positions that N1.N2 and R1.R2 were adjoined at the top than there was
Besides trying to match portions of watermarks to determine what leaves were printed beside each other, we can also use the record of watermarks to establish that three sheets were required to print the 16 leaves with cancellantia and partial gatherings. In no copies does either the top or bottom half of the watermark appear more than three times in cancellantia and the partial gatherings. Thus, there is no watermark evidence that more than three sheets were needed to print these 16 leaves or that all leaves printed together on a sheet were not bound in the same copy. But that three sheets were needed to print these 16 leaves, as was shown by the presence on them of five leaves with tranchefiles within the TnU copy, is also evident from the appearance of three separate watermarks in the sixteen leaves within at least six copies: CSmH (complementary halves on B2 and B6, Cc1 and Cc2, and bottom half on R1), LdU-B (complementary halves on A1, and U1 and bottom on B6 and N1), MiU (complementary halves on Cc1 and Cc2 and bottom on B6 and R6), O (complementary halves on B2 and B6 and also the bottom on R1 and U1), Owo (complementary halves on B2 and B6 and on Cc1 and Cc2 and bottom on N1), and PSt (complementary halves on Cc1 and Cc2 and bottom halves on B6 and N1). Furthermore, if we accept the evidence for placing on the same sheet the singletons and Cc4, or for placing on the same sheet N1.N2 and R1.R2, then other copies evince the need for three sheets. For instance, if either reconstructed unit is presupposed, three printed units are indicated by CoU, for it has the bottom of the watermark on AI and B6 and top on B2 and N1, and three printed units are indicated by L, for it has the bottom half on B6 and N1 and the top on Cc1.
Assuming that the sixteen leaves derive from three sheets and that partials cut from the same sheet were distributed to the same copy, the distribution of watermarks in these copies indicate what units were not printed with what other units (and by implication what units were printed with what
We know that B2.B7+1 and B6.B7 formed a half-sheet printed separately from the other cancels and partial gatherings in the edition. We might now ask whether this half-sheet of B cancellantia was imposed for work-and-turn and printed by itself or whether it occupied a sheet with four leaves of other text. Half-sheet imposition might have been preferable if the rest of the book had been printed, if cancellantia N1.N2 and R1.R2 were not yet composed, or if Richardson wished the B cancellantia solely to occupy a chase to facilitate Young's revision and correction. Then too half-sheets offered the simplicity of printing separately Young's text on the paper-stock billed to him. (Were a paper-stock different from the dominant “NH” stock found in the cancellans folds of B, we might suppose they were printed with other jobs.) Since only half the sheet is watermarked and roughly half the copies have a watermark in the B cancellantia half-sheet (26), we are unable to conclude whether it was produced through work-and-turn or with other material in whole sheets. If either considerably more than or fewer than half of the copies had watermarks on B2 or B6, then only full-sheet imposition could account for that pattern. We could suppose that half of the forme with the B cancellantia was regularly draped with the watermarked or the non-
In conclusion, the 16 leaves of cancellantia and partial gatherings to be accounted for were printed on three units: the singletons and Cc4 on one whole sheet, folds N1.N2 and R1.R2 on another whole sheet (with unidentified material), and the cancellans folds B2.B7+1 and B6.B7 separately through either whole-sheet or half-sheet imposition. The pattern of watermark distributions supports this conclusion and argues that almost always the leaves printed together went into the same copy. We know that the cancellation of material on leaves R1-R2 occurred at the same time as that of N1-N2, days after Young's letter of 26 January 1755. Also after 26 January, leaf U1 was canceled, for cancellans U1 was printed with cancellans B3, and Young returned with approval the proofs for the revised B gathering only on 26 January, responding to Richardson's proposed changes penned 21 January 1755. The whole sheet with B3 and the half- or whole-sheet with the other B cancellantia must have been printed at nearly the same time since the texts on B3 had to begin and end in sequence with that on B2v. Perhaps the printing of cancels N1.N2 was further delayed by changes, unrecorded in the correspondence, that appear on cancels R1-R2.
APPENDIX 1 Chain-Line Distances from the Spine
These tables provide, for 42 copies (cited with abbreviations glossed in Appendix 2) the distance of the first chain-line from the spine at the top of disjunct and canceled leaves. Leaves in gathering B are numbered as they appear; when the first chain-line is too close to the fold to allow measurement, 26 or 27 has been subtracted from the second chain-line to place the first one.
| C | CaOHM | CaOTU | CoU | Csj | CtY | DLC | |
| A1 | 10 | 12-13 | 8 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 13 |
| B2 | 8-9 | 9 | 7-8 | 14 | 10-11 | 7-8 | 9 |
| B3 | 17 | 15 | 16 | 14-15 | 10 | 6-7 | 12 |
| B6 | 8-9 | 10 | 6 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 11 |
| B7 | 16 | 17 | 19-20 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 13-14 |
| B7+1 | 16 | 17-18 | 18 | 11 | 15 | 12 | 13-14 |
| N1 | 6-7 | 7 | 5-6 | 9 | 5-6 | 8 | 4-5 |
| R1 | 5-6 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 5-6 | 4 | 2 |
| U1 | 7-8 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 14 | 16 | 13 |
| Dd1 | 17 | 13 | 19 | 16 | 13 | 6-7 | 12-13 |
| A1+Dd1 | 27 | 25-26 | 27 | 28 | 26 | 22-23 | 25-26 |
| B3+U1 | 24-25 | 24 | 26 | 23-24 | 24 | 22-23 | 25 |
| A1 vs U1 | 2-3 | 3-4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| B3 vs Dd1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1-2 | 3 | 0 | 0-1 |
| N1 vs R1 | 1 | 1 | 0-1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2-3 |
| FU | InU | KU | L | LdU-B | LU | May | |
| A1 | 10-11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 13-14 | 3-4 |
| B2 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 15-16 | 11 | 9 | 12-13 |
| B3 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 17 | 23 | 15 | 11 |
| B6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 16 | 10-11 | 10 | 14-15 |
| B7 | 14-15 | 10-11 | 17 | 11 | 17 | 17 | 16 |
| B7+1 | 14-15 | 13-14 | 17 | 11 | 17 | 17 | 15 |
| N1 | 4-5 | 5-6 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 8 |
| R1 | 6-7 | 24 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 3 |
| U1 | 9-10 | 10 | 11-12 | 7-8 | 5 | 15 | 9 |
| Dd1 | 12 | 13 | 17 | 16-17 | 21-22 | 13-14 | 18 |
| A1+Dd1 | 22-23 | 23 | 27 | 25-26 | 26-27 | 26-28 | 21-22 |
| B3+U1 | 23-24 | 23 | 25-26 | 24-25 | 28 | 30 | 20 |
| A1 vs U1 | 1 | 0 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0 | 1-2 | 5-6 |
| B3 vs Dd1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 7 |
| N1 vs R1 | 2 | 7-8 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| MdBJ | MH1 | MH2 | MiU | MoU | MR1 | MR2 | |
| A1 | 15 | 10-11 | 15 | 10-11 | 11 | 5-6 | 14 |
| B2 | 8 | 6-7 | 14 | 16 | 9 | 13-14 | 17 |
| B3 | 6-7 | 13 | 11-12 | 18 | 14 | 15 | 14 |
| B6 | 9-10 | 8-9 | 12 | 17 | 8 | 15 | 15 |
| B7 | 16 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 20 | 11 |
| B7+1 | 17 | 19 | 12 | 12-13 | 15 | 18 | 12 |
| N1 | 3 | 6-7 | 7-8 | 8-9 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| R1 | 2 | 7 | 3-4 | 20 | 5 | 2-3 | 6 |
| U1 | 18 | 13-14 | 13-14 | 11 | 13-14 | 7 | 13 |
| Dd1 | 11 | 15 | 12 | 18 | 15 | 17-18 | 13 |
| A1+Dd1 | 26 | 25-26 | 27 | 28-29 | 26 | 22-24 | 27 |
| B3+U1 | 24-25 | 26-27 | 24-26 | 29 | 27-28 | 22 | 27 |
| A1 vs U1 | 3 | 3 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 1 |
| B3 vs Dd1 | 4-5 | 2 | 0-1 | 0 | 1 | 2-3 | 1 |
| N1 vs R1 | 1 | 0-1 | 4 | 11-12 | 1 | 4-5 | 2 |
| MR3 | NBiU | NcU | NeU | NIC | NjP | NRU | |
| A1 | 12 | 8-9 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 10 |
| B2 | 12 | 14 | 5-6 | 13 | 13 | 5 | 10 |
| B3 | 17 | 13 | 16-17 | 14 | 16 | 14 | 1 |
| B6 | 10 | 14 | 5-6 | 13 | 13 | 5-6 | 10 |
| B7 | 17 | 11-12 | 16-17 | 12-13 | 13 | 19 | 16-17 |
| B7+1 | 15-16 | 10-11 | 16-17 | 12-13 | 13 | 18 | 15 |
| N1 | 5-6 | 5 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 4 | 5-6 | 7 |
| R1 | 6 | 3-4 | 4 | 4-5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| U1 | 11 | 12-13 | 8-9 | 12-13 | 10-11 | 9 | 11-12 |
| Dd1 | 17 | 15 | 18 | 14-15 | 13-14 | 16 | 13 |
| A1+Dd1 | 29 | 23-24 | 26 | 24-25 | 24-25 | 25 | 23 |
| B3+U1 | 28 | 25-26 | 24-26 | 26-27 | 26-27 | 23 | 26-27 |
| A1 vs U1 | 1 | 4 | 0-1 | 2-3 | .5 | 0 | 1-2 |
| B3 vs Dd1 | 0 | 2 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 2 | 2 |
| N1 vs R1 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0 | 1 | 0-1 | 2 |
| NSbSU | O | Oa | OAU | Occ | OCU | Ose | |
| A1 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 11-12 | 10-11 | 11 |
| B2 | 8 | 8-9 | 9 | 7 | 12-13 | 6 | 11 |
| B3 | 16.5 | 15 | 17-18 | 11-12 | 20 | 12-13 | 15 |
| B6 | 8 | 7-8 | 11 | 6-7 | 13 | 6 | 12 |
| B7 | 18-19 | 15-16 | 16 | 16-17 | 13 | 22 | 12 |
| B7+1 | 18-19 | 15 | 16 | 16-17 | 12 | 22 | 12 |
| N1 | 8.5 | 6 | 1-2 | 2-3 | 3 | 6 | 10-11 |
| R1 | 2 | 3-4 | 3-4 | 7 | 5-6 | 6 | 3-4 |
| U1 | 13 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 5-6 | 17 | 8-9 |
| Dd1 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 6-7 | 16-17 |
| A1+Dd1 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 29 | 25-26 | 16-18 | 27-28 |
| B3+U1 | 29-30 | 25 | 28-29 | 22-23 | 25-26 | 29-30 | 23-24 |
| A1 vs U1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 6-7 | 2-3 |
| B3 vs Dd1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1-2 | 4-5 | 6 | 6 | 1-2 |
| N1 vs R1 | 6-7 | 2-3 | 2 | 4-5 | 2-3 | 0 | 7 |
| OTH | Owo | PSt | TnU | TxU | Wns | WU | |
| A1 | 12-13 | 15-16 | 12-13 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 6-7 |
| B2 | 9 | 13 | 12-13 | 8-9 | 11 | 9 | 6 |
| B3 | 11-12 | 10 | 15 | 19 | 17 | 18-19 | 21-22 |
| B6 | 8-9 | 12 | 13-14 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 8 |
| B7 | 20-21 | 11 | 11-12 | 20 | 13 | 16 | 22 |
| B7+1 | 18-19 | 10 | 12-13 | 20 | 13 | 15 | 22 |
| N1 | 6 | 6 | 8-9 | 7-8 | 9 | 6-7 | 7 |
| R1 | 7 | 5 | 3-4 | 7 | 5 | 5-6 | 2 |
| U1 | 8-9 | 15-16 | 8-9 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 8 |
| Dd1 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 19 | 17 | 15 | 21-22 |
| A1+Dd1 | 24-25 | 25-26 | 22-23 | 28 | 29 | 23 | 27-29 |
| B3+U1 | 19-21 | 25-26 | 23-24 | 27 | 28 | 27-28 | 29-30 |
| A1 vs U1 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1-2 |
| B3 vs Dd1 | 0-1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3-4 | 0 |
| N1 vs R1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0-1 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
APPENDIX 2 Copies Examined
The frontispiece is present unless noted otherwise.[10]
C (Cambridge) N.17.25; 199 x 128; rebound
CaAEU (U. of Alberta) PR3782.C39 1755; 194 x 125; cont[emporary] calf
CaOHM (McMaster U.) B-623; 194 x 117-118; cont. calf; rebacked; lacking section title to Letter I
CaOTU (U. of Toronto) B-11 5583; 199 x 124; section title to Letter I before B1; cont. calf
CLU-C (Clark Library) PR3782.C31; 202 x 124; section title to Letter I before B1; cont. calf
CoU (U. of Colorado, Boulder) Pettit 72; 205 x 128; cont. calf
Csj (St. John's College) P4.9.119; uncut, 208-216 [frontispiece, 219] x 129-134; cont. calf spine with marbled paper boards
CSmH (Huntington Library) 351165; 204 x 127; nineteenth-century half calf with marbled paper boards
Cst (Stanford U.) PR3782.C4; 194 x 119; leaves N1-N2 bound after N8
CtY (Yale U.) formerly Ik Y85 755, recatalogued as 1997/1114; 195 x 124-125; cont. calf; rebacked; some leaves on conservation stubs
DLC (Library of Congress) PR3782.C4 1755; 195 x 122-123; cont. calf; rebacked
FU (U. of Florida) 824.5 Y71c; 200 x 122; cont. calf
The Hague (Koninklijke Bibliotheek) 234 m 22; 197 x 120; cont. calf remounted on new boards
ICN (Newberry Library) 2: 1) C.69.99; 194 x 122; cont. calf; 2) Y135.M6387; 195 x 124; cont. calf; with spine label
InU (Indiana U.) PR3782.C3 1755; 197 x 121; lacking section title to Letter I; cont. calf; rebacked
IU (U. of Illinois) Nickell 318; 197 x 122; cont. calf
KU (U. of Kansas) C907; 194-195 x 124; lacking frt; cont. calf; rebacked
L (British Library) 525.i.3; 200 x 124; rebound
LdU-B (Brotherton Collection, U. of Leeds) Lt q Young; 198 x 122; cont. calf
LU (Sterling Library, U. of London) Sterling I [Young, E. 1755]; 194 x 123; cont. calf; rebacked
May (Author's copy) 195-197 x 124-125; lacking frt.; cont. calf
MB (Boston Public) Deofe 30.755.YoBC; 195 x 124; section title to Letter I before B1; rebound
MdBJ (Johns Hopkins U.) PO3782.C39 1755 [sic]; 199 x 118; cont. calf
MH (Harvard U.) 2: 1) Typ 705.55.892; 195 x 123-124; cont. calf; rebacked; 2) *EC7 Y8460.755c; 201 x 125; section title to Letter I before B1; cont. calf; with arms of England stamped on front and back boards; rebacked
MiU (U. of Michigan) PR3782.C4; 196.5 x 123; cont. calf
MnU (U. of Minnesota) 824.y8 OCe; 187 x 122; rebound
MoU (U. of Missouri) 828.Y8ce; 190 x 116; rebound
MR (John Rylands U. Library, Manchester) 3: 1) 1110; 200 x 127; cont. calf; 2) R144667; 194 x 120; cont. calf; 3) MAW CW 74; 200 x 125; washed, resized, and resewn in 1986; preserved endpaper signed “Mel[issa?] Hotham June ye 20th 1755”; in another hand, signed “Wesley Jan. 29. 1756 The Gift of Miss Melly Hotham”; title-page signed “CWesley 1756”
N (New York State Library) N248.4 Y71; 196 x 125; lacking B6, replaced with cont. manuscript copy of the leaf; rebound
NBiU (SUNY at Binghamton) PR3782.C4 1755; 198 x 125; cont. calf
NcU (U. of North Carolina) PR3782.C4 1755; 200 x 121; cont. calf
NeU (U. of Newcastle); 821.55 You; 194 x 120; cont. calf
NIC (Cornell U.) PR3782.C3; 196 x 127; rebound
NjP (Princeton U.) Ex3999.7.323.12; 197 x 121-122; cont. calf; restitched
NNU (New York U.) PR3782.C4 1755; 198 x 120; rebound
NRU (U. of Rochester) xPR3782.C39m; 194 x 126; cont. calf
NSbSU (SUNY at Stony Brook; PR3782.C4 1755; 198.5 x 123; rebound
O (Bodleian Library) 141 j.106; 203 x 125-126; section title to Letter I before B1; cont. calf
Oa (All Soul's College) qq.13.27; 196 x 121-122; cont. calf
OAU (Ashland U., Ohio) EL 159; section title to Letter I before B1; cont. calf
Occ (Corpus Christi College) 1704.Yo; 200 x 121-122; cont. calf
OCiU (U. of Cincinnati) PR3782.C4; 191 x 121; cont. calf
OCU (Ohio State U.) PR3782.C4 1755; 195 x 122; rebound
O-HF (Harold Forster Collection, Bodleian Library) Forster 51; 198 x 125; cont. calf
Ose (St. Edmund Hall) 204-205 x 124-125; section title to Letter I before B1; cont. calf
OTH (Heidelberg College, Tiftin, Ohio) PR3782.C4 1755; 199 x 126; cont. calf; rebacked
Owo (Worcester College) B.B.2.6; 196-197 x 124; cont. calf; “MISCELLANY” on red spine label; bound with James Hervey's Remarks on Lord Bolinbroke's Letters on the Study and Use of History, 1752, and Peter Whalley's A Vindication of the Evidences and Authenticity of the Gospels from the Objections of the late Lord Bolingbroke, 1753
PSt (Penn State U.) PR3782.C4 1755; 202 x 123-124; cont. calf; section title of Letter I before B1
RPB (Brown U.) YQE Y8 Lamont; 196 x 121; cont. calf; rebacked
TnU (U. of Tennessee) PR3782.C4 1755; 201 x 127; section title of Letter I before B1; cont. calf
TxU (U. of Texas at Austin) AK Y858 755c; 200 x 124-125; section title to Letter I before B1; cont. calf; rebacked
ViWCF (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation) PR3782.C4 1755; 197 x 122; cont. calf
Wns (Winchester College) 199 x 125; cont. calf
WU (U. of Wisconsin, Madison) PR3782.C4; 197 x 122; cont. calf
The first edition octavo, indexed in the ESTC as T113256, has the full title The Centaur Not Fabulous in Five Letters to a Friend, on the Life in Vogue and was printed for Andrew Millar and Robert and James Dodsley. The edition was first announced published in the London Evening Post of 1-4 March 1755 (bound, 5s.). In the same year, with “Five” altered to “Six” in the title, Millar and the Dodsleys published a revised second edition, also an octavo (15-17 April, LEP), and a revised third edition, a duodecimo (17 November, Public Advertiser; 3s. bound). Additions to the text lengthened the second edition sufficiently that, although often a page-for-page reprinting, it is several leaves longer, collating 8°: (frt. +) A 2 B-Cc8. Peter Wilson and John Exshaw brought out a duodecimo edition in Dublin in 1755, called the “Third Edition,” evidently published before the London third edition. Young revised The Centaur once again for its reprinting in Volume 4 of his The Works of the Author of The Night Thoughts (1757). Millar and James Dodsley brought out a “fourth edition,” in duodecimo, in 1765. Thereafter, the work was not frequently reprinted except within collections of Young's works. Unlike the authorized editions of 1757, 1762, 1767, and 1774 where The Centaur is in Vol. 4 after Night 9 of The Complaint, unauthorized works editions usually place The Centaur in a volume intended to be sold separately. The Dublin publishers G. and A. Ewing and partners placed it alone in Vol. 4 of their four-volume Works (1764), which lacks any works title and begins with the title-page for The Centaur. The Centaur shares the fourth volume with three prose items not included in the authorized collections (Conjectures on Original Composition, The Vindication of Providence, and the “Essay on Lyric Poetry” from Imperium Pelagi) in the unauthorized Works in Prose of the Reverend Edward Young (London: P. Brown, H. Hill, and S. Payne, 1765), a separate issue of Vol. 4 of a four-volume works with this same false imprint. In 1770 these four prose pieces were reprinted as The Centaur Not Fabulous, and Other Prose Works of the Reverend Dr. Edward Young (Edinburgh: Martin and Wotherspoon, 1770), a separate issue of Vol. 4 of their four-volume works, also issued with a false imprint (London: S. Crowder, C. Ware, and T. Payne, 1770). These four prose works were reprinted in 1774 with a variant of the 1765 false imprint (London: P. Brown, H. Hill, and S. Bayne [sic]). A six-volume Works printed in 1774, issued with various imprints (one for J. Donaldson in London, and four others placed in Edinburgh: for Alex. Donaldson; for J. Dickson; for C. Elliott; and “by and for” Colin Macfarquhar), includes The Centaur in Volume V with two poems excluded from the authorized works. The first American edition of The Centaur, a duodecimo, was printed in Philadelphia by T. Stephens and W. W. Woodward in 1795. The Centaur was translated into German in 1755 ( Der nicht fabelhafte Centaur in sechs Briefen [Leipzig: J. G. Dyck, with a separate Frankfurt issue]) and into Dutch in 1768 (De Centaurus geen Verdichtsel [Amsterdam: P. Meijer]).
Henry Pettit, ed., The Correspondence of Edward Young 1683-1765 (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971), p. 404; hereafter cited as “Pettit.” For a judicious, comprehensive account of The Centaur's composition and publication, see Harold Forster's Edward Young: The Poet of the Night Thoughts 1683-1765 (Alburgh, Harleston, Norfolk: Erskine Press, 1986), pp. 268 and 280-287.
That within the dedication the second edition shares the same essential page settings as the B cancellantia is evident from type alignment and damaged type throughout. Note, for instance, that the “g” cut at top in ldquo;Pegasean” (B6v/xii.3) and the “d” cut in “untamed” (B6v/xii.4) are also in the second edition on B5v, and that the “a” cut at top in “scandalized” (B7r/xiii.1) and the “a” cut in “Travels” (B7 + 1v/xvi.2) are also in the second edition on B6r and B7v. The first- edition page settings end up as different pages of the second edition, for in the latter the dedication is begun on leaf A2 conjugate to the title-page.
The following pages of the first edition of The Centaur have press figures: B7 + 1r/ xv-7, C8v/16-2, D8r/31-5, F1v/50-2, G1v/66-4, H2v/84-3, 16r/107-3, K6v/124-2, L5r/137-3, M8r/159-5, N3v/166-2, O2v/180-3, P1v/194-3, Q2v/212-1, R2r/227-2, R6v/236-3, S8r/255-1, T3v/262-4, T7r/269-2, X6v/300-1, Y7v/318-1, Z6r/331-1, Aa4v/344-2, Aa7v/350-7, Bb1v/354-7, Cc3r/373-1, and Cc3v/374-4. In all copies seen, press figures appear on both the inner and outer formes of only gatherings T and Cc. Most but not all copies have two figures in gatherings R (although one is on cancellans R2) and Aa (this variation was missed by Eaves and Kimpel [432n.] and by William Todd [“Observations on the Incidence and Interpretation of Press Figures,” Studies in Bibliography, 3 (1950-51), 193]). Six copies lack the figure on R6v (CSmH, FU, ICN1, MR3, NRU, and Oa), and only the top of the figure is visible in CaOTU, NcU, and OCU, suggesting it was accidentally lost. A third of the copies examined (18 of 58) lack the press figure on Aa7v/350 and so have only one figure in Aa: C, CoU, Csj, CtY, LU, May, MH1, N, NeU, NIC, NjP, NRU, NSbSU, OAU, O-HF, PSt, MdBJ and Wns. Only gatherings E and U have no press figures in all copies, and U may have had a figure on the verso of the cancellandum of U1.
The preliminary, disjunct, cancellans, and concluding leaves of the uncut copy at St. John's College, Cambridge, have the following features (all measurements are in mm): Frontispiece (219 x 126): chain-lines 76-77/3 [i.e., 76-77 for 3 chain-widths]; tranchefile 11; no watermark.
A1 [t-p.] (213-215 x 137): chain-lines 81/3; tranchefile 13-14; 8-9 of the top of “NH” watermark (completing that on U1); glued to B1.
B1. section title-page (212-215 tall): chain-lines, 101/4; no tranchefile or watermark; closest chain-line to the fold on B1: 17 (matching B4).
B2 (212-213 x 135): conjugate to B7+1; chain-lines, 79-80/3; tranchefile 12 at top; 14 at bottom; no watermark; ragged top edge matching that on B6.
B3 (212-213 x 132): chain-lines, 79-80/3; no tranchefile or watermark; uneven top edge matching that on Dd1; glued to leaf B2.
B4.B5 (215 x 270): chain-lines, 101-103/4; no tranchefile or watermark; closest chain-lines to the fold: 19 on B4; 28-29 on B5; point hole at 165 down B5.
B6 (212-215 x 134): conjugate to what appears to be B7; chain-lines, 80/3; tranchefile, 13- 14; no watermark; ragged top edge matching that on B2.
B7 and B7+1 (215 x 133; 212 x 131): chain-lines, 80/3; no tranchefile or watermark; point hole on B7+1 114 down outer edge.
N1.N2 (208-210 x 128, 131): chain-lines, 79/3; tranchefile on N1, 12-13; no watermark; point hole on N2 shared with R2 at 165-170 down outer edge; sewn in, with stubs behind N2.
R1.R2 (210-213 x 124, 134-135): chain-lines, 78/3; tranchefile, 13; 9 mm of the bottom of the “NH” watermark (same half as U1); point hole on R2 shared with N2 at 165-170 down outer edge; sewn in, with stubs behind R2.
U1 (212-213 x 137): chain-lines, 105-106/4; tranchefile, 12-13; 4.5 of bottom of “NH” watermark visible (same portion as on R1 and completing A1's half); glued to stub behind it.
Cc4 (213-214 x 133): chain-lines, 105/4; tranchefiles on Cc1 and Cc2, 12-13; no watermarks; parallel chains on Cc1, Cc2; point holes on Cc3 110 down and on Cc4 153 down on outer edge.
Dd1 (215 x 132): chain-lines, 108/4; no tranchefile or watermark; uneven top edge matching that on B3; glued to leaf Cc4.
By measuring the distance out for chain-lines on known conjugates in regular gatherings, one first determines how much space is usually swallowed up in the fold (often this adds 1 mm to the apparent width). For instance, if one finds that the distances to the first chain-lines out from the fold on leaves known to be conjugate add up to 22 mm when the usual chain-width is 26 mm, then one need allow more for the fold. If easy measurement from the fold is not possible, one can measure in from the outside edge to the closest chain-line to the fold and subtract that from the total width. One must remember that the trimmed leaves of a normal book will often vary progressively from beginning to middle to end by one or two millimeters, that rulers vary slightly in their measurements, and, that if the leaves are glued in several millimeters from the fold and the measurements begin just behind the fold, measurements could easily be off by 3-4 mm. For a good discussion of measuring chain-lines and other identifiable features of paper and a system for identifying paper moulds by these features, see David L. Vander Meulen's “The Identification of Paper without Watermarks: The Example of Pope's Dunciad,” Studies in Bibliography, 37 (1984), 58-81. Vander Meulen's proposal that one reconstruct the chain-line model for the mould offers a surer but more time-consuming method than my reliance on the position of the first chain-line from the fold.
Watermarks are only seen in the leaf A1 (not U1 also) in 9 copies: CaAEU, CoU, KU, MR3, NcU, Oa, O-HF, PRB, and ViWCF; and only seen in U1 in 7 or 8: CLU-C, ICN2, InU, N, O, Wns, WU, and possibly The Hague (where I think I identified one, but Librarian Paul van Capelleveen did not); and in the 11 copies wherein leaves A1 and U1 share a watermark noted above in the text, for a total of 27 (possibly 28) of 58 copies seen. A watermark is shared by leaves B2 and B6 in 11 copies listed in the text and appears in either B2 or B6 in 15 others: C, CLU-C, L, LdU-B, MB, MiU, MnU, NeU, NIC, Oa, OCU, Ose, PSt, RPB, and WU, for a total of 26 of 58 copies seen. A watermark is shared by leaves Cc1 and Cc2 in 10 copies listed in the text and appears in either Cc1 or Cc2 in 14 copies: C, CaOHM, ICN1, IU, L, May, MdBJ, MoU, NIC, NjP, NNU, NRU, OCiU, and TnU, for a total of 24 copies seen.
For checking details in their libraries' copies, I thank the following: Paul van Capelleveen of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, James Corsaro of the New York State Library, Geoffrey Day of Winchester College, Gail Greve of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Library, Jeannine Green of the U. of Alberta, Jacob Hand of the U. of Cincinnati, Jonathan Harrison and Elizabeth Quarmby Lawrence of St. John's College, Cambridge, Tim Johnson of the U. of Minnesota, Mike Kelly of New York U., Margaret Kulis of the Newberry Library, James Lloyd of the U. of Tennessee, Kris McCusker of the U. of Colorado at Boulder, John Mustain of Stanford U., Richard Noble of Brown U., D. W. Riley of John Rylands U. Library of Manchester, Christopher Sheppard of the Brotherton Collection, U. of Leeds, Bruce W. Swann of U. of Illinois, and Stephen Tabor of both the Clark Library and the Huntington Library. I also acknowledge my son Erich May's help in examining copies and editor David Vander Meulen's many corrections to and suggestions for the essay.
| | |