University of Virginia Library

Excepting the several numbers examined by Professor Leed only last year in these Studies (XVII, 210-214), the bibliographical history of the Gentleman's Magazine is entirely conjectural, with all editions undefined, early printings unlocated, piracies and counterfeits undetected and—excepting again the work of a few Johnsonians—all textual revision completely unnoticed. The matter last mentioned obviously depends upon a determination of those preceding and may therefore await a later report. Of primary concern now is the citation of data which will assist readers not only in identifying the significant variants which have come to my attention but in spotting others as yet unseen. For this purpose the report is limited to volumes originally printed during the term of Cave's proprietorship, a period extending just short of the date when Johnson withdrew his services but, I believe, just beyond the time when conditions later necessitated some resetting. Within this range there are 24 annual volumes, comprising 312 separate numbers,[1] some printed at least nine times, all occurring in states differing in every set, and many thereafter confused in mixtures of several sets. Short of providing a facsimile of the whole series, together with a description of equal length, the only practicable means of dealing with these infinitely varied combinations is first by a general survey of the problem, then by three groups of tables, each with an appropriate commentary.

The problem is immediately apparent in the first number. Of the original January 1731 title, described the upper part by Carlson,[2] the

lower by Nichols,[3] there are presumably three essential features: (a) a peculiar subtitle "Trader's Monthly Intelligencer"; (b) an original cut of St. John's Gate; (c) an imprint reading "Printed for the Author; and sold at St. John's Gate; by F. Jefferies, in Ludgate-street; and all other Booksellers, and by the Persons who serve Gentlemen with the Newspapers." The fact is that no two of these particulars can be found together in any 18th-century publication. Subtitle (a), said to occur in the first number only, appears seventeen times: in the original edition of the first eight numbers, in eight early reprints of numbers 1-6, and in the first setting of the general title for the entire volume. Woodcut (b), not represented in any of the editions just cited, if considered in relation to the imprint, is either the third or fourth in a series of eight, all used for original and many again for reprinted work. Imprint (c) is fifteenth in a series of twenty-four and, in this form, occurs not before August 1733 in an original edition, and thus not before the same date in a "fifth edition" of the earliest number. Hence it may be surmised that Francis Jefferies, instead of being the earliest collaborator in Cave's enterprise, ranks after eight booksellers previously recorded (imprints 1-6, Table III) and along with fifteen others who now and then join him (imprints 7-14) in various arrangements prior to the one specified in the August 1733 printing. Even so, it is comforting to realize that Nichols was here citing as first what may be duly certified as an authentic fifth edition, and not a counterfeit of this (with earlier woodblock but later imprint, issued ca. 1753), nor a legitimate sixth (issued earlier than the spurious fifth, ca. 1742), nor a counterfeit of that (with identical imprint but issued, apparently, ca. 1786), nor at last a mongrelized type-facsimile of the first edition, reproducing the original 1731 subtitle, a block-style appropriate for 1732, but honestly dated 1806. Evidently if this Magazine represents "an epoch in the Literary History" of England,[4] the first chapter has yet to be written.

For what has already been reported some extenuation is now in order. No doubt Mr. Carlson, the more recent authority, eventually discovered that among the eighteen libraries mentioned in his preface not one contained any edition of the original number earlier than the fourth—not even such venerable institutions as Harvard, Yale, the British Museum or the Bodleian—and thus, it seems, came to rely on the 1806 fabrication (the only one combining the a and b features) which he perhaps examined either in the reading room at Yale or in

the Douce Collection at the Bodleian. For John Nichols, writing as the proprietor of the Magazine in 1821, there was somewhat less excuse, since he was probably well aware that his own file copy represented a late substitute for volumes previously destroyed, some in the fire of 7 May 1786, others in the holocaust of 8 February 1808.[5] After the latter date the only copy readily available was the two-volume "facsimile" souvenir issued by another publisher in 1806; but even this appears to have had a very short existence, for on 27 May 1809 the printer, Joseph Smeeton, and his wife, together with all their worldly goods, were "entirely consumed" in flames.[6] In 1837 an original edition of these two volumes was reported in the Dresden Library;[7] yet that too, presumably, disappeared in the conflagration of 13-15 February 1945. No wonder, then, that the "first chapter" of this history is still unwritten: the whole matter is highly combustible.

Nonetheless a few copies of the earlier issues have recently been identified, and from these and others we may now speculate on such general topics as original conditions of sale, factors affecting reissue, size of total issue, and present state of the volumes examined.

When the Magazine was first issued, at 6d in blue wrappers,[8] its sale at once and for months to come exceeded all expectations. Notices below original imprints announce in March 1731 a second edition of the first number, in May a reprinting of the two earliest numbers, and in July a reprinting now through five numbers. Thereafter all numbers remained available until November 1733, when it was reported that those for 1731 "are reprinting some of them the Fourth time"—a statement

immediately amended in December to "the Fifth time."[9] Meanwhile the February 1732 imprint advertised a few copies "printed on fine Royal Paper, large margin, for the Curious, at 1s each Month." This issue, offered first in marbled wrappers,[10] was also reprinted at least once,[11] apparently without further notice to that effect.

Thus far, through 1733, the original settings appear not to have been held for any later reprint, and the increasing demand for back numbers thus necessitated, at frequent intervals, ever larger issues of new editions. However closely these may resemble original printings, the later editions can easily be differentiated and their occurrence tabulated as follows:

             

Volume date	1731	1732	1733	1734
First editions	12	12	13	13
Regularly numbered reprints	29	12	2	1
Counterfeits without edition label	24	14	--	--
Counterfeits with edition label	4	3	8	1
	----	----	----	----
Totals:	69	41	23	15

After 1733, apparently, the issue of the original edition had been so considerably expanded that later settings were required only occasionally, and then long after the initial printing.

Along with this steady expansion it becomes evident, however, both from press figures and headlines, that type is now being retained, perhaps for two or three months at a time, and reimpressed as often as necessary for any number in sudden demand. An "increased and unexpected demand of 3,000 Magazines monthly" is remarked in the Preface to the 1746 volume, where defaulting booksellers were excused on the grounds that "since several months of this year being twice entirely sold, they were obliged to wait for further impressions, which

could not be so speedily worked off, as might be desired, several former months being at the same time in the press, in order to make compleat sets." The occasion here, of course, was the rebellion of '45, now at St. John's Gate resulting in a number of undifferentiated impressions, with some of them partially revised and reset to up-date the historical chronicle. As there was no other event of comparable interest throughout the remainder of the century—or none which a larger press could not handle—I rather suspect that, while some reimpression may continue, this is the last occasion for any major disturbance in the text.

For an estimate as to the size of the earlier editions Cave provides in the number for November 1734 (p. 620) a single clue, this in a fine-print notice to a disappointed contributor that "our Time is limited, and every page in our Bo6k [sic] is a Guinea Charge to us." At that rate the total issue of each 1734 number must have approximated 9000 copies,[12] a count somewhat more, we may presume,[13] than the combined total of all smaller editions (1-5) of the first number issued before that time. Hence, judging by the number and ratio of copies known to me, the extent of these earlier editions may have been about as follows:[14]

     

Edition:	1	2	3	4	5
Copies:	3	16	7	28	30
Issue:	250	1250	500	2250	2500

If the issue was some 9000 in 1734 it may well have reached 10,000 several years later (when Johnson began to edit the "Debates") and in the period July 1741-March 1744 (when he was the sole author of this section) gradually increased to 15,000.[15] Thereafter, as already noted, alarums to the north possibly extended it, temporarily, several thousand more or, if all these earlier estimates are correct, to 18,000. Such a figure, or any other approaching it, would explain why, after so many incendiary events of later time, perhaps a thousand sets are still extant; and why again, in relation to the very small beginning, the earliest editions of the earlier numbers are practically non-existent.

The mere presence of a set, however, is no guarantee of its condition. Though Cave regarded the wrappers as only temporary (GM, 1738, p. ii), he did consider the monthly title, with all its supplementary information, as an essential leaf "which the Binder is therefore by no means to throw away" (1735, p. [786]). Ten years later he was still repeating this injunction (1745, p. [728]), but all to little purpose, for many copies are without these leaves, and some indeed without annual titles as well.

Even more distressing is the pillage of inserted illustrations. For these expensive attractions Cave proceeded very cautiously, venturing at first only a single engraving in the volume for 1735 (facing p. 661), another for 1736 (p. 733) and two folding maps for 1739 (pp. 4, [55]). Then, encouraged no doubt by a favorable response to these efforts, he (or his son) offered five more maps in 1740 (pp. [3], 242, 350, 359, 659), thereafter issued plates for almost every number, and for awhile (June 1752-July 1755) even lavished upon his delighted readers a series of colored illustrations. Yet, excepting the copy later identified as "C", all the sets I have examined now exhibit only remnants of this grand array. Most often the damage was done, I suspect, by the earliest owners, and done so effectively that Samuel Ayscough in his general index of 1789 (reprinted without alteration in 1818) listed only about half the illustrations and, among the colored ones, only two of the seventeen originally included. Possibly it was at his suggestion that, from 1789 onward, the annual volumes, instead of providing occasional "directions" to the binders, regularly incorporate in their own indexes a list of these inserts, and thus preserve a record lost in former years.

However delapidated, the volumes still serve to exemplify the bibliographical record, and to this we may now direct our attention. The commentary is in three parts applicable (1) to all variants and data presented in Tables I-III, (2) to the numbers for 1731-1733 and relevant Tables IV-V, (3) to the numbers for 1734-1754 and accompanying Table VI.