University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
  
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
 1. 
 notes. 
Notes
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
  
expand section 

expand section 

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.