University of Virginia Library

Facts and Conjectures Concerning the Printing

Volume I was printed in a somewhat unusual manner. In the first state iA and a (including d1-3) were printed as separate sheets, whereas Z1 was printed separately. In the iA gathering, however, leaves 1 and 2, 3 and 6, 4 and 5, and 7 and 8 are conjugate.[15] The evidence of the watermarks and chain lines indicates that the imposition was as follows:

Thus iA3-6 were in their normal order for an octavo forme, and iA1-2 and iA7-8 were cut out and pasted before and after iA3-6. This method kept the title and special title conjugate and yet separate from the list of subscribers. As a result of such a method, however, the evidence of the watermarks is not uniform in all copies. In some cases the title pages printed on one sheet were bound with the list of subscribers printed on another sheet.

In the a gathering, leaves 1 and 5, 2 and 4, and d1.2 are conjugate. a3 is pasted in between a2.4 and d3 is pasted in after d2. (This too is proved by the Princeton copy.) Again, the evidence shows that the imposition was as follows:

Further evidence that the forme of a was arranged in the above manner is found by examining the offsets in the University of Michigan coarsepaper copy of the first state. At some stage of printing the inner forme (probably when the sheets were stacked after "drying"), two sheets that were not quite dry were laid down with their wet sides facing each other and end-for-end. The result was a mutual offset of pages d1r and a3v, d2v and d3r, a1v and a2r, and a4v and a5r.

The only puzzling aspect of the first state of volume I is the separate imposition of Z1. In a book of 26 sheets surely Strahan could have included the printed matter of Z1 if he wished to without resorting to pasting in an extra leaf at the end of the book. Note, however, that by printing even one leaf more than 26 sheets, Strahan charged a rate throughout the printing for 26½ sheets. At a time when labor was cheap and paper was expensive, this was profitable for Strahan. Thus, as mentioned above, on all the copies of the first state Strahan saved three-eighths of a sheet and on the second state one and three-fourths sheets.

In the second state of this volume the iA and a gatherings were deleted, d and Z were printed together as a half-sheet, and the revised title and special title (again conjugate) were printed on a quarter-sheet. This manner of printing shows that a simple mistake at the bindery can account for the fact that Wells (cited above) says that he has a copy of the second state that contains the list of subscribers.

Both states of volume II contain 26 1/2 sheets, and in each case 2E and the title were printed together as the half-sheet.

Both states of volume III contain 27 sheets, and it seems most likely that a, the title, and 2E were printed on one sheet.

Each of the three volumes was printed by a different printer; but since the printers were all printing approximately the same number of sheets with the same kinds of paper and type, and since they were probably provided with their copy at the same time, it seems very likely that the chronology of their work was approximately the same. Assuming that the notice in the Daily Advertiser (see above) was correct in stating that the subscription would close on February 22; assuming that no copies were printed until the subscription closed; and knowing that at least two of the volumes were completely printed by the end of March or the beginning of April, it seems that the printers were faced with the task of printing 1250 copies of 26 1/2 or 27 sheets octavo in a period of about five weeks. I believe that they could do this at their normal rate of printing.[16]

The printing probably proceeded in this manner: (1) 250 copies of the first state were printed on royal paper; (2) without altering the formes, approximately 350 copies were printed on the smaller sheets of coarse paper; (3) altering the forms of volume I as described above, and changing the title pages on all the volumes, approximately 650 copies of the second state were then printed on coarse paper.[17]

Of course, it is another matter to prove that such a procedure was followed. An examination of the royal-paper copy and the coarse-paper copy of each state of a given volume shows that they are invariant so far as the body of the text and the headlines are concerned. (Volume I has no headlines except in the preface.) Any further conjectures concerning the printing, therefore, must be based upon the evidence of the press figures.

Both states of volumes I and II lack enough variations in their press figures to enable one to make meaningful deductions. The evidence of the printing sequence, therefore, must be found in volume III. The royal-paper copies of volume III lack four press figures found in all the coarse-paper copies of both states, the figures being added before the coarse-paper copies were printed. Also, only the second state has a press figure in 2E. (Since the title page was changed in the second state, and since it was printed on the forme with 2E, the printer undoubtedly introduced the new figure at that time.)

Perhaps it will be argued that the coarse-paper copies may have been printed first and that the press figures fell out before the royal-paper copies were printed. This, however, was not the case. In the royal-paper

copies the average bottom margin on a page is 5.5 cm., while in the coarsepaper copies this margin is usually 3.5 cm. Undoubtedly the printers noticed the unusually large margin in the royal-paper copies, and some of them placed their press figures so that they were printed several centimeters below the body of the text. When confronted with the problem of printing these same formes on the smaller sheets of coarse paper, in certain instances it probably seemed necessary or at least advisable to raise the press figures, and this was done. It is inconceivable, of course, to believe that if the coarsepaper copies had been printed first the printers would have bothered to lower the press figures when they printed the larger royal-paper copies.

This particular evidence reflects the printing practices only in Bowyer's shop and thus is limited to volume III, the press figures in the other volumes generally being on the level of the catchwords. Admittedly there is no conclusive proof to show that volumes I and II were printed in the same manner, but the available evidence does indicate that the printing probably proceeded in the sequence described above.