 |
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. | Notes |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| 2. |
| 3. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| 2. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| 2. |
| 2.1. |
| 2.1a. |
| 2.1b. |
| 2.2. |
| 2.2a. |
| 2.2b. |
| notes. |
|
| 1. |
| 2. |
| 3. |
 | |  |
Notes
As this goes to press still another reason is suggested by the recollection that many of the contributors to the 5th and 6th volumes of Dodsley's Collection of Poems by Several Hands were much displeased by his production, some insisting that their material was included without their consent, others that what they had entered must be extensively revised in a second edition. Faced with these protests and demands, Dodsley surreptitiously published another uncorrected edition so much like the first as to remain undetected then and thereafter. [See my account forthcoming in BSA.] Through this stategem he—and, I would suspect, many others—easily avoided considerable expense, not only in extra pay to the compositors for work from manuscript, but in royalties to the authors, who were generally entitled then, as now, to some of the proceeds from a revised edition.
The ratio of size of issue to cost of paper and printing is illustrated in the following data:
| copies | paper cost & percentage | printing cost & percentage | ||||||
| 500 | £ 7 | 8 | 10½ | 42.1 | £ 11 | 0 | 6 | 57.9 |
| 750 | 11 | 15 | 9 | 46.2 | 14 | 8 | 0 | 53.8 |
| 1500 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 63.7 | 41 | 2 | 0 | 36.3 |
Besides these four, I. A. Williams describes two others, one of the same date with a Dublin imprint, and one dated 1731. Cf. Points in Eighteenth-Century Verse (1934), pp. 63-67.
For notes on Chesterfield and Lyttelton see BSA, XLIV (1950), 224-238, 274-275, and other of my articles forthcoming in the same journal.
Supplementary information on the works by Pope, Johnson, and Goldsmith cited in this paper will be provided in future publications.
It is convenient to list as reprints what Giles E. Dawson has demonstrated to be, in each case, a reprint and a piracy. Cf. "Three Shakespearian Piracies, 1723-1729," Papers Biblio. Soc. Univ. Virginia, I (1948), 49-58.
More precisely, these are unauthorized printings of material suppressed by Burke's literary executors.
This is the conclusion to be drawn from the account offered in "The Bibliographical History of Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France," The Library, 5th ser., VI (1951-52).
Robert E. Styles, "Doctor Samuel Johnson's 'Taxation No Tyranny' and Its Half Title," American Book Collector, I (1932), 155-156.
See my "Observations on the Incidence and Interpretation of Press Figures," Studies in Bibliography III (1950), 171-205.
Item 28 in Biblio. Notes and Queries, I, Nos. 1-3 (January-August, 1935). For a rejoinder cf. fn. 8 above.
Mr. John Cook Wyllie reminds me that the periodicals, especially this one, were also frequently reprinted, sometimes as many as twenty-five years after the date assigned. Just recently I discovered, in what appeared to be a first edition of the Magazine, a reference in the February 1733 number to a citation in a number issued in the following year. When the alteration involves nothing more than this, the reprint may still be used as an index to the princeps of a book, since new errors would derive independently of the texts. But when the reprint substitutes one passage for another—one perhaps in greater esteem than the one originally printed—the replacement may originate in a text later than the first edition. The periodicals should therefore be used with some discretion.
Henry Fielding, The Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, ed. Austin Dobson (1892), pp. v-xii. J. Paul de Castro, "The Printing of Fielding's Works," The Library, 4th ser., I (1920-21), 268-269.
See A. Edward Newton, This Book-Collecting Game (1928), p. 26; David Randall's notes in John T. Winterich, A Primer of Book-Collecting (1946), p. 152; and notes by various contributors in Biblio. Notes and Queries, II, No. 1 (January, 1936), 7; II, No. 3 (April, 1936), 3; II, Nos. 4-5 (May, 1936), 3.
At the time of this address I chose not to amplify my commentary on Humphry Clinker, though a matter of record in my dissertation on The Number and Order of Certain Eighteenth-Century Editions [University of Chicago Microfilm Edition 433 (1949), pp. 48-50, 131-135], in the expectation that a full account would appear in a study then in preparation by Franklin B. Newman. Since Dr. Newman preferred to undertake this investigation without assistance and to disregard the findings incorporated in my thesis, his analysis, now published in BSA, XLIV (1950), 340-371, fails to supply all that the bibliographer should know concerning the location of copies, discrepancies in the make-up of the title-pages for the three volumes of each edition, variant states, an occasional reimpression, collateral evidence for the priority of variants, and the case for a pirated edition (D in the above stemma, corresponding to C in Dr. Newman's account). Thus the question, in some of its particulars, remains unresolved.
London Magazine, XL (1771), 317-319, 368-370; Gentleman's Magazine, XLI (1771), 317-321; Critical Review, XXXII (1771), 81-87; Weekly Magazine, XIII (1771), 39-40, 76-79, 105-107, 225-227, 272-273.
Hill, Catalogue 34 (March, 1950), item 220. Further discussed in my "First Printing of Hume's Life (1777)," The Library, 5th ser., VI (1951-52).
"Two Issues of The World," MLN, XLV (1930), 29-30. For this periodical the notes offered here and in my dissertation (op. cit., pp. 50-53, 140-141) are to be viewed as a casual summary of what will be more thoroughly considered in George P. Winship's forthcoming edition.
| | |