University of Virginia Library

I. The Number and Order of Editions

Besides the four "1770" editions posing as "private" or "trial issues," we may now identify at least twenty-two other separate editions of the poem.[8] All twenty-six were apparently printed within the copyright period

(ranging, in this instance, from 1770 to 1784) or immediately upon its expiration; but only eleven represent an authoritative sequence repeatedly revised in the earlier editions and regularly published, first by William Griffin, then by his authorized successors, Rivington, Carnan, and Cadell. These legitimate editions will be designated hereafter by their size, either as Q (editions 1-10) or 8vo (edition 11). The other fifteen, representing with one exception unrevised texts deriving ultimately from Q1 and issued without authorization under various imprints, real and assumed, are identified by the letters assigned below. (A complete description of these is given in Section III.)

                                 

				Page 9,
Ed.	Date	Publisher	Title-page points	line I	Scott
A	1770	'W. Griffin'	Dr. Oxford rule	hand	C
B	'1770'	"	Dr Oxford rule	hand	B
C	'1770'	"	Dr Double rule	head	A
D	'1770'	"	Dr French rule	head
E	1777	"	Ornamental rule
F	1775	"	'Fourth Edition'
G	[1783]	no title page
H	[1783]	Booksellers	French rule
I	[1784]	Booksellers	Ornamental rule
J	[1784]	J. Barker
K	[1784]	T. Martin
L	1770	J. Exshaw, &c.
M	1770	H. Saunders, &c.
N	1775	none listed
O	1773	G. Richter

Apart from the separate editions, legitimate and illegitimate, the textual collation offered in Section II implicates five or six collected editions. These are intermediate texts, transmitting readings from one separate printing to another, and therefore constitute a third group here distinguished by the dates on their title pages.[9]

             

Date	Publisher	Title
11775	?(Belfast)	Poems by the Late Dr. Oliver Goldsmith
21775	'W. Griffin'	Miscellaneous Works
1778	"	" "
1782	W. Osborne and T. Griffin	" "
[1783]	edition not extant
1784	W. Osborne and T. Griffin	" "

Altogether, then, we are concerned with thirty-two editions, differentiated by size, letter, or date, and now demonstrated to have a certain interrelation indicated by the following stemma:

This graphic account should effectively dispose of the various figments of the legend, including the assumption that each succeeding imprint was an improvement over the one before, the inference that C was therefore the first of a series advancing through B and A toward Q1, and the wild surmise that C, as the original "private issue," was presented to the Countess of Northumberland late in 1769. On the contrary, it is now apparent that, as always with reprints, each is a further corruption of the one before, that each moves not up toward Q1 but down toward E, an edition honestly dated 1777, and—if some personality is required to displace the Countess—that it is James Boswell Esq. who is found with a copy of C, not in the winter of 1769 but in the spring of 1783. To verify this fact all the mythologists need do is to turn from the Goldsmith bibliographies to the adjoining section on Samuel Johnson and there, in the second volume of the R. B. Adam Library, examine a facsimile of a page from this edition with Boswell's comment and date.[9a] Here, as opposed to an anonymous note discovered over a hundred years after the event, is

reliable testimony of the time by a person known for his attention to details.

Thus reassured, we may now consider the evident realities. From A to J in one sequence, from K to O in others, and doubtless for still others which have thus far escaped identification,[10] all of the separate editions represent a series of degraded texts cheaply produced at various times and places with the obvious intention of cutting in on the profits due the author and his publisher. To protect their interests, the owners of the poem relied upon their copyright; but as this was severely limited, extending in time only fourteen years from the original date of publication and in place only to England and Scotland, it hardly served to deter the more enterprising printers of the day. Anyone with a business in Ireland or on the continent, two areas beyond the reach of the law, might therefore openly identify himself in the imprint of his issue or, if he had a reputation to maintain, allow the issue to circulate anonymously. Hence all we need to know of such editions as L, M, and O is candidly admitted on the title page, and all we might want to know of the anonymous N is soon disclosed by the imprint of its copytext and its own watermark, both of which read BELFAST.

With other early editions, however, the attempt at concealment is far more successful, for more than reputation is involved. Quite naturally, to avoid the penalty of the law, various subterfuges were employed, all of which must now come under examination.

One distinctive feature common to many of these editions is the fictitious "Printed for W. Griffin," an imprint used to such good effect, apparently, that the publisher was never able to discover who had appropriated his name and, with it, much of his income. Yet as Griffin might have declared, and as we now perceive, none of these editions bears any resemblance to the various works which he had printed and published. Contrary to the practice in his shop, all appear without press figures, habitually use founts other than Caslon, elide the final 'e' in past participles, hyphenate compounds, modernize the spelling, ignore the revisions which appear in his later quartos, arbitrarily shift one paragraph division and create another.[11] Moreover, among the earlier editions, A—D

are in 12° half-sheets, an unusual imposition for any London publication of this time; A—E persistently convert "woe" to "wo," a variant spelling not used by Griffin's compositors;[12] D—E separate the date in the imprint with commas, a practice common to provincial issues but not observed in Griffin's books; and E alone ingenuously uses the date 1777, two years after Griffin's death.[13] Of itself, this latter circumstance suggests that some of these editions were far removed from the scene described in their imprints.

To all this must be added still another peculiarity. Though the five duodecimos are much alike, superficially, and so designed to pass under a common disguise, each is slightly different in size, type, and ornamentation. It is quite probable, therefore, that these are not only far removed from Griffin's shop, but removed in five different directions.

Aside from the duodecimos one other separate edition is known with

Griffin's address. This is F, a 1775 octavo in half-sheets, with a title page reading "By Oliver Goldsmith, M.B." and imprinted "Catherine-Street, in the Strand." Both in the use of the author's medical degree and in the spelling of "Catharine" with an 'e', this issue differs from all "Griffin" books except the Miscellaneous Works and the Select Poems, two collections of similar imposition and date. As may be demonstrated for F, and safely assumed for the Poems,[14] both owe these similarities to the fact that they are separate reimpressions or "offprints" from the collected Works. All three, then, betray some of the idiosyncrasies derived from copytext A, share among themselves a peculiar ascription and imprint not used by Griffin, and suspiciously appear as a group in the very year of Griffin's death. But again, as with the separate edition E, a deception once engaged in is practiced too often: In 1778, long after Griffin had ceased to care about the raids on his literary property, another edition of the Works was produced with his name in the imprint.

So far, our survey of the 'Griffin' imprints A—F allows several conclusions: (1) that all six are textually related, (2) that some are deliberate imitations, one of another, (3) that each, nonetheless, is sufficiently distinct to suggest its origin in a different shop, and (4) that none, despite the pretensions of all, is an issue from "Garrick's Head, in Catharine-street, Strand." Furthermore, by exhibiting characteristics uncommon to London publications of the time and repeating information which had long since

become invalid, it would seem that certain of these editions appeared at some distance from the Strand. Precisely where or when, however, are questions which, with the exception of one edition, may never be determined.

The evidence for the one edition, the critical one in the sequence, comes providentially from the reviews. According to their usual practice, the London journals cite immediately from the original quarto edition.[15] Many of those issued in provincial towns, on the other hand, reproduce any available text, usually that offered in some other magazine. Thus in its account of the "Deserted Village" the Newcastle Literary Register quotes first from the Critical Review, then from the Monthly Review.[16] Another provincial journal, the Weekly Magazine, or Edinburgh Amusement, also offers mixed citations; and in this mixture we find the clue we seek. Three weeks after the publication of the quarto the Magazine, in two successive issues dated June 14 and 21, reprints the first 194 lines. Then, after another delay of four weeks, the citation continues, in the July 19 issue, through line 252. Apparently, as collation indicates, the earlier printing was derived from the 194 lines quoted in the London Chronicle of May 26-29, the later, from another text which had become available in the meantime. That text, undoubtedly, is the one described as A.

The implications of this discovery are obvious. If Walter Ruddiman, the printer and publisher of the Edinburgh Magazine, is not the principal agent in the manufacture of the first of these piracies, as we must now call them all, he is certainly an accessory after the fact. Though slight and scattered, the evidence is nevertheless incriminating. Here, in this man's shop, seven weeks after the issuance of the quarto and 395 miles distant from London, we find a copy of the duodecimo printing. Here too we encounter a person already in contempt of the laws relating to the stamp tax[17] and therefore quite ready, we may suppose, to evade any others pertaining to copyright. And here again we observe, in abundance, the several features which distinguish many of these editions from Griffin's publications, notably the elided 'e' in participles, the interspersed commas in imprint dates, and the occasional production of books in duodecimo half-sheets.[18]

Even more damning is the fact that the title page of the A reprint and Ruddiman's work is composed of the peculiar bold face letter manufactured by John Baine, a type-founder then residing in Edinburgh.[19] Before us, then, is a disreputable printer of known habits, using material similar to that found in the book, and discovered with a copy in his possession. Unless he can escape by placing the blame on some close neighbor, Walter Ruddiman of Forester's Wynd, Lawn-market, Edinburgh, should therefore be charged with pirating a copy of the "Deserted Village" on or about July 15, 1770.

Once the A reprint appeared it served, not only as the copytext for Ruddiman's Magazine, but also for many of the other piracies now identified. By a kind of Gresham's law, these inferior texts, selling perhaps at sixpence a copy, and multiplying in various little shops around the countryside, must have had an enormous sale among those who could not afford two shillings for the authorized editions. The opportunity for a quick return undoubtedly attracted many unscrupulous vendors, among whom might be named Francis Robertson of Edinburgh, a notorious expert in duplications of the kind represented by B, C, and D, and Alexander Donaldson, of Edinburgh and London, a specialist in cheap reprints of work not specifically covered by copyright.[20]

Donaldson's role in these depredations is perhaps not beyond conjecture. By a strange turn of events which could hardly have gone unnoticed by this publisher and others of his ilk, much of Goldsmith's property lay for awhile, if not in the public domain, at least near enough so that it could be snatched at very little risk. In 1773 the Court of Session, upon Donaldson's appeal, rendered its historic verdict against the common law interpretation of copyright; in 1774, the year of Goldsmith's death, the House of Lords sustained the ruling; and in 1775 fate again intervened to remove the publisher. All rights held by Griffin were therefore suspended from 1775 until such time as they were reinstated by his successors; and for the "Deserted Village" this was not until 1779, the date

of the ninth Quarto. Yet, as suspension did not amount to revocation, it was still convenient to hide behind the name of the original publisher. Under Griffin's imprint, then, the work continued, possibly by Donaldson for the 1775 issues, separate (F) and collected, probably by a more distant and less well informed printer for those dated 1777 (E) and 1778.

Thereafter, when it was finally realized that Griffin had died long before, and that his copyright was now enforced by others, the long-practiced scheme of falsification was abandoned in favor of simple anonymity. This took two forms, either as issue completely without imprint (G), or as issue "Printed for the Booksellers in Town and Country" (H, I). Of G all that may be surmised is that it derives, probably as an offprint, from an unknown collected edition intervening between others dated 1782 and 1784.[21] The known edition of 1782 is a 12° in half-sheets in which the text of the "Village" extends from R6r to S4r; the one of 1784 a full 12° with text from 12r to I10r; the separate printing G, of a setting different from both, but of format like the earlier, and with a vestigial signature 'S3' which points to some collection based upon the earlier text.

For the other two surreptitious editions, H and I, the evidence is external and more outspoken. Apparently these were issued just before the copyright expired, when it was still inexpedient for the "Booksellers" to reveal themselves; and again with these, as with A—D, we witness the effort of one pirate to duplicate the work of another. That effort did not go unnoticed by the authorized publishers, who inserted in the 11th edition of 1784, the year which terminated their copyright, a notice designed to maintain their privilege.

The cut for the 11th edition is not that of "The sad historian of the pensive plain," a vignette much too large for an octavo, but a bust of the author prepared originally for the first edition of Retaliation printed for George Kearsly, and still inscribed "Published as the Act directs 18th April 1774," though now employed for an occasion some ten years later.

By 1784 evidently, if not long before, the provincial issues were encroaching upon the London market; and by then it was too late to stop them, for with the end of restrictions any publisher could safely venture into the open. Among the first to do so, it would seem, was James Barker, a former apprentice of Griffin's, and now a prolific purveyor of chapbooks. Like Carnan, Barker felt called upon, but for much less reason, to advance the merits of his own printing against the others then on sale, and accordingly warned the readers of his issue: "N.B. The Public are respectfully desired to be careful not to have an inferior Edition imposed on them, instead of that printed by J. Barker." The only thing that distinguishes this issue (J) is its appearance, which is superior to that of all preceding reprints. Barker even outdid his legitimate competitors by having the original quarto vignette reversed, reduced, and re-engraved to fit the size of his version. Unfortunately, however, he did not consult the quarto for his readings, but was content to print from one of the latest and least reliable (D) of the provincial editions.

Another who crept into public view about this time was T. Martin, a tradesman who describes his proper occupation as a "Letter-Case Maker" and his place of business at "No. 11, Club Row, Bethnal Green." Of this let me say, for the benefit of those who may henceforth label it as a "private issue," that it is the only London edition immediately related to the first quarto, one containing an appreciable number of "early readings" definitely "improved" in the quarto, appearing in smaller size but of the same format as the quarto, quite exempt from any incriminating dates or reviews, and known only by a single copy. Thus, ironically enough, where the earlier reprints fail to meet a single qualification of the many which might be advanced for a "private issue," the latest scores on every count. Yet this too is beneath contempt.

With this last printing we have traced the fragmentary history of fifteen separate editions of the "Deserted Village," each remarkably debased in appearance, association, and text. All are mongrels, occasionally sporting some fancy gilt and Zaehnsdorfian trappings, but essentially without pedigree, without claim to any distinction other than that accorded the common run of six-penny pamphlets often found in the bookstalls. What they were then is, all nonsense aside, what they are now.