University of Virginia Library

Sizes of Plates

Measurements, in centimeters, were made from edge of impression to edge of impression at the widest point, of the plates in the Morgan copy of Jerusalem. Since some edges are uneven, another measuring might not give identical results; in other copies the actual impressions may vary by a millimeter or two either way.

As measured, the plates of Jerusalem vary in size from 19.9 x 13.7 (Plate 56) to 22.5 x 16.4 (Plates 24 and 75). But 89 of the 100 plates fall into three discrete sizes. Exactly fifty cluster with slight variations around a size of 22.2 x 16.2; another 28 plates cluster around the size of 21 x 14.8 (somewhat more than a centimeter shorter and narrower than the first size); and 11 plates are in a size as long as the first but as narrow as the second. The remaining 11 plates are scattered in what appear to be five discrete sizes, larger or smaller than these three.

Copper plates were poured into moulds and hardened and then hammered and beveled; for small sizes they were cut in half before beveling: the edges would vary from hammering, cutting, and beveling, but the discrete clusters of sizes found here seem to signify different moulds — or at least different batches of cuttings. The plates of America (early 1790's) run somewhat larger in both dimensions than those of Jerusalem, around 23.8 x 17 cm. The plates for Visions of the Daughters of Albion (of the same period) can be accounted for as halves of the same size. Halves of the Jerusalem size appear in the plates of Milton. If America and Jerusalem were productions that overlapped in the workshop, we would expect to find that some of the odd sizes in Jerusalem came from the batch used for America. But the sizes in Jerusalem (and Milton) do not lie close to any of the sizes found in America and other early works. If the inference of discrete batches is correct, this evidence supports the usual assumption that there was a lapse of some time between the earlier Illuminated books and the beginnings of Milton and Jerusalem. Jerusalem at least (it is harder to tell about the half-plates of Milton) does not appear to use any copper left over from the earlier works.

It may also be inferred that Blake's economical practice of using backs and fronts of plates (there are several visible platemaker's marks in

Europe) had not left him any unused backs among the plates from which he continued to print copies of his Lambeth books.

Of the 11 plates in five odd sizes, I find nothing very significant to say. Plates 71 and 77 are in the widest size (22 x 17, 21.9 x 16.8) — the latter plate for the good reason that it contains the widest matter in Jerusalem, pentameter lines in double column; the former for no obvious reason (can it be printed from the back of the same plate?). The narrowest plates, 56 (19.9 x 13.7) and 95 (20 x 13.6), may be early (on the basis of other evidence) but do not demonstrate earliness or lateness by their narrowness, for there is no early work by Blake with plates of these dimensions. Very probably the suspicion that plates of odd sizes may be intruders — early or late insertions — is mistaken. Plate 96, cut from the Moore & Co. plate, is not textually an intruder.)

More fruitful is the discovery that, when we abandon the grouping of roughly equivalent sizes and make a table of particular sizes, many are represented by two or four examples and many of these pairs or potential pairs are closely related in pagination and in appearance (style, lettering, thickness of varnish, or other qualities). Can anything be made of the hypothesis that two pages with plates of the same size may represent the two sides of a single plate? My measurements were too crude to be taken as proof of identical shapes even when identical — or to rule out such identity even when varying by a millimeter or so. Nor should we expect the two sides of a plate to have identical beveling and to make identical impressions.[37] Something other than chance distribution, however, appears to lie behind the following groupings.

Here is a list of all sizes represented by two or more plates of Jerusalem. In parentheses I indicate which potential pairs seem "likely," i.e. closely related in content, script, or some other indication of vintage. An asterisk (*) denotes presence of platemaker's stamp, a certain but not always present indication of the back of a plate.

• 20.2 x 14.4 (pages 64* & 96) (likely, and the pair of 96 would have to be the back of the plate; we would expect it to be used first)
• 20.8 x 14.8 (97 & 98) (likely)
• 20.8 x 15 (86 & 88) (unlikely, at least in lettering)
• 20.9 x 14.6 (54 & 55) (likely)
• 20.9 x 14.7 (58 & 81) (unlikely; 58 seems to pair more obviously with 57 [20.9 x 14.8])

---

47




• 20.9 x 14.9 (36[32] & 62 & 84 & 93) (possibly two pairs, though all four pages seem disparate: unlikely)
• 21 x 14.8 (69 & 85) (likely)
• 21 x 14.9 (34[30] & 67 & 94) (the latter pair likely, the odd third not pairing easily with either)
• 21.1 x 14.8 (60 & 91) (likely)
• 21.1 x 15 (15 & 17 & 22 & 30[44] & 44[39] & 49) (likely pairs are: 15 & 22, 30 & 44)
• 21.8 x 15.9 (79 & 80) (likely)
• 22 x 16 (8 & 29[43] & 43[38] & 70 & 82) (likely pair: 29 & 43)
• 22.2 x 14.6 (10 & 33[29]* & 73) (likely pair: 10 & 73)
• 22.2 x 16.1 (1 & 20 & 28 & 31[45] & 35[31] & 42 & 65 & 66 & 76) (likely pairs: 35 & 42; 65 & 66)
• 22.2 x 16.2 (4 & 7 & 26 & 48 & 53) (likely: 4 & 7)
• 22.3 x 16.1 (18 & 19 & 23 & 27 & 37[33] & 38[34] & 46[41]) (likely pairs: 18 & 19, 38 & 46)
• 22.3 x 16.2 (3 & 5 & 6 & 12 & 45[40]) (likely: 5 & 6, 12 & 45)
• 22.3 x 16.3 (14 & 74) (not very likely, yet possibly same vintage)
• 22.4 x 16.1 (13 & 40[36]) (likely)
• 22.4 x 16.2 (11 & 50 & 52) (any combination likely, but pagination favors 50 & 52)
• 22.5 x 16.4 (24 & 75) (likely)

This table accounts for 73 pages and holds 33 possible pairs or 21 likely pairs (saving 47 & 48 for the next list). It leaves 27 pages unaccounted for, each unique in its size, as now measured. But any of the nearly identical pages may be disguised pairs. The following table includes all such possible pairs (defined as within one millimeter of identity in either or both dimensions) which are also likely (but excluding the unlikely).

• 19.9 x 13.7 & 20 x 13.6 (56* & 95) (discussed above)
• 20 x 14.3 & 21.1 x 14.4 (89 & 92*) (likely)
• 20.9 x 14.8 & 20.9 x 14.7 (57 & 58) (likely)
• 20.8 x 15.9 & 20.9 x 16 (47 & 48) (likely)
• 22.2 x 14.7 & 22.2 x 14.8 (59 & 63*) (likely)

(Proof that all likely pairs may not be actual pairs lies in the example of 72* & 100*, which are very close in measurement — 22.3 x 14.7 & 22.3 x 14.6 — but are both backs of plates.)

Altogether we have found 26 likely (and possible) pairs, involving over half the pages in the book. How closely in sequence do the partners appear? Here is the list in sequent order:

Note that in the Rinder order the pairs involving the second chapter would run: 12&40 13&36 31&42 34&41 38&43 39&44 47&48 50&52. (I fail to see why — is it only chance? — Plates 38 and 39 in this order, which are paired respectively with 43 and 44, become 43 and 44 in the Standard order!)

In either order the plates of 8 of these pairs are adjacent; the plates of almost half (12 out of 26) are either adjacent or within three numbers of each other. Nor are most of the others distributed at random. The series 40 41 42 43 44 (in Rinder order) are (hypothetically) on the backs of another, more scattered series 12 31 34 38 39. (In the standard order the series 40 42 43 46 are on the backs of the series 13 29 34 38.) Further on there is another tight series 91 92 94 95 96 on the backs of a looser series 56 60 64 67 89. These patterns altogether account for 22 out of 26 pairs and seem to indicate something more than a chance distribution. The adjacent or straddling pairs (5&6 4&7, for instance) suggest a working from front to back at once or almost at once. The more scattered series suggest accumulations of one-sided plates all used on their backs at once (i.e. for plates 40 to 44 and 91 to 96).

If we grant that these patterns may approximate the methods actually followed, can we make any meaningful deductions at this point? Perhaps not in isolation. But I suggest that further study of the textual and technical continuities and discontinuities in the plates of Jerusalem might benefit from attention to these potential pairings. Such odd couplings as 10&73 and 24&75 may provide clues to an earlier arrangement. Indeed one clue of this sort enters into the discussion, above, of Plates 56 and 95.