University of Virginia Library

By 1698 Dr. Daniel Coxe, a London physician who speculated in colonial rights, had secured the assignment of the patent to the proprietorship of the province of Carolana, a territory which extended from central Virginia southward through Florida, and westward to the Mississippi valley. Forthwith he began to seek confirmation of the patent, but without waiting for his rights to be secured fully he caused an expedition to be fitted out and to set sail for the New World to establish an English settlement on the Mississippi. Unfortunately for his plans the French were already there; the English ships were met on the Mississippi by a party under the command of Bienville and the attempt to settle proved abortive. Several years later Coxe tried to establish a colony in Virginia, this time with a group of French Huguenots, but the second attempt also met with failure.

Dr. Coxe's own travels in America were confined to the vicarious experience of reading in his large collection of explorers' accounts, but his son, also named Daniel, chose to seek his fortune in the New World. The younger Coxe landed in New Jersey in 1702. Being a favorite of Lord Cornbury, he received from his patron the rank of colonel and the command of the English forces in the western part of the colony. He married a wealthy Quaker's daughter and was becoming prominent in local politics when he ran afoul of the incumbent colonial administration and had to retreat hastily to England in 1716. In 1722 he published in London A Description of the English Province of Carolana, a book which has proved to be of interest to historians and collectors because it contains an early printed proposal for a confederated colonial government.

This volume is an octavo, collating [A1] iB8 c-d8 e2 B-H8 I4 K1 (iB3 missigned B5). It is divided into three sections: a preface (iB1r—e1v), which contains an account of the repulse of the elder Coxe's expeditions and a discussion of the consequences of the French having established a settlement;[1] the text (B1r—H6v), which draws upon Dr. Coxe's library of Americana to present an attractive picture of the province for prospective emigrants; and an appendix (H7r—K1v), which advances a claim for the validity of the Coxe patent. It was reissued in 1726, 1727, and, as part of a collection of three works on America made by Coxe, in 1741. More recently the book, in whole or in part, has appeared three times.[2]

A description of the work has been given in several places, sometimes inaccurately and never completely. Sabin's note that issues subsequent to that of 1722 are "the same work with new title-pages"[3] is reasonably accurate, but apparently the issue of 1726 was unknown to him. Ignoring Sabin's entries, the Church catalogue draws a conclusion which seems to be quite the opposite of the real state of affairs when it notes of the 1722 issue, "This work must have had considerable success, as it was reprinted in 1726, 1727, and again, with additions, in 1741."[4]

The question of whether or not the appearances of the book after 1722 were in the form of reprints is easily resolved. An examination of the typographical peculiarities and watermarks of later issues shows without a doubt that everything, excepting the title-leaves, is of the 1722 printing. It seems, therefore, that instead of enjoying "considerable success" the edition did not sell out for at least nineteen years in spite of stationers' periodic attempts to foist off on the public the original sheets disguised as new editions.[5] The fact that the sheets changed hands three times[6] might be a further indication of the slowness of sale.

The printing of the book seems to have been normal enough. The facts are these: in eleven copies examined the letterpress is identical except for the title-leaves which are in all cases, excepting that of the 1722 (first) issue, cancels.[7] An engraved map (47 x 58 cm.) is bound with each copy, usually,

but not always, between e2 and B1 or before the title-page, and because of this variation in binding, stubs are found in different places in different copies. Instead of appearing on four leaves as one expects in octavo folds, the watermark[8] of each sheet seems invariably to fall on only two leaves, a fact that leads one to suspect either that the watermark was not exactly in the center of the half sheet or that the printing was not centered on the sheet. Except for this peculiarity the watermarks fall normally for octavo full sheet printing except in gatherings e, I, and K.

In these gatherings the watermarks appear either in gathering I on the one hand or in gatherings e and K on the other, leading one to suspect quite strongly that what the collational formula suggests about the printing of the book is true — that the four leaves of I, the two of e, the one of K, and the original title-leaf[9] were printed as one full sheet. This suspicion is made stronger by the fact that in one copy (ViU 291418) two stubs are found between the conjugate leaves I2 and I3. The excision of the leaves has not been made smoothly; the stubs are irregularly cut as if they had been removed with a small scissors after binding. These stubs must be the remainder of two leaves sewn in by mistake and inexpertly removed later.

In order to determine the imposition of the type from which the leaves of e, I, K, and the original title-page were printed, one may look first at the positions of watermarks in other gatherings. Ordinarily the watermark of each sheet appears either on leaves 6 and 7 or 5 and 8, a fact which indicates that the sheets were impressed in such a way that the watermarks normally fell on the longer axis of the forme closer to the center than to the outside edge.[10] Watermarks in e, I, and K appeared in eleven copies examined a total of ten times, according to the following distribution: e1 (1), K1 and e2 (5), I3 and I4 (2), I1 and I2 (2). It is apparent that K1 must have occupied a position in the forme head to head with e2, I3 with I4, and I1 with I2. The proportionately greater number of occurrences of the watermark on K1 and e2 suggests that the type pages from which they were

printed probably occupied two of the next-to-center positions in the octavo forme.

Inspection of the copies also revealed that I1 and I4 as well as I2 and I3 are conjugate leaves; therefore, one pair must also have occupied a next-to-center position in the forme and the other an outside position. It will be remembered, however, that two stubs were found between I2 and I3. If the imposition were made in such a way as to allow two leaves to fold between I2 and I3, then the four leaves of I must have been imposed as 2, 3, 6, and 7 of an octavo full sheet.[11] The other half of the forme contained K1 and e2 in the 8 and 5 positions and the original title-page and e1 in the 1 and 4 positions, the location in the forme of the two leaves of e being determined by the fact that they are conjugate.