University of Virginia Library

Manuscript Materials in the First Edition of Donne's Biathanatos
by
Ernest W. Sullivan, II

Subsequent to the description of three presentation copies of Biathanatos printed on large, fine paper having a "bunch of grapes" watermark,[1] and the manuscript corrections in John Sparrow's copies of both issues of the first edition of Biathanatos [2] as well as in the St John's College (Oxford)[3] and Yale University Library (CtY)[4] first-issue copies, the discovery of several

other copies printed on fine paper and/or containing manuscript corrections, inscriptions, and presentation letters makes possible proof that: (1) the undated first issue was published in late September or early October of 1647, (2) some copies were specially printed for presentation, although others were also presented to potential patrons, and (3) the younger Donne, who edited Biathanatos, certainly authored some of the corrections and very probably made them all. A previously unknown letter in the copy presented to "ye Rt Honble ye Lord Marquesse of Neucastle [Newcastle]" proves that Biathanatos circulated in manuscript, identifies and traces the genesis of the manuscript which became the printer's copy, and suggests that the younger Donne participated in that genesis.

The following first-edition copies of Biathanatos have at least one of three characteristics: an inscription or presentation letter from Donne's son, John; fine paper; at least one of the seven recurring manuscript corrections, the first six in the "Epistle Dedicatory" and the last in the "Conclusion."

• (1) Inscribed "For ye Rt Honorable | the Kinsmoll. | October i9 | Io: Donne." (Bodleian Library, shelfmark Vet. A3 e 1496).[5] First issue, with the following corrections: (a) sig. ¶3, last line the Treatise] corrected to this Treatise; (b) sig. ¶3v, l. 6 writ] corrected to writen; (c) sig. ¶3v, l. 16 al most] corrected to al=most; (d) sig. ¶3v, l. 18 allarums] corrected to allarums); (e) sig. ¶4v, l. 7 truth.] corrected to truth,; (f) omits correction on sig. ¶4v, l. 8 morir.] corrected to morir,; and (g) sig. Ee2, l. 1 exacted] corrected to exalted.
• (2) Presented "For ye Rt wll Edward | Carter Esq." (ULC, H* 6. 46 E). Presenversity Library, Cambridge [ULC], G. 11. 8). Presentation letter as in Keynes (#2, p. 114) with the following exceptions (line number and incorrect reading from Keynes are left of bracket): l. 1, Mr] Mr; l. 6, belongs] beelongs; l. 8, thinke] thincke; l. 11, Couent Garden] Couent: Garden; l. 11, Jo] Io; and l. 11, Donne] Donne.. First issue, corrections (a)-(f).
• (3) Presented "For ye Rt w11 Edward | Carter Esq." (ULC, H* 6. 46 E). Presentation letter as in Keynes (#3, p. 114) except: l. 11, keeping] keepinge; l. 12, childrens] childrens,; l. 15, pittifull] pittefull; l. 17, Jo] Io; and l. 17, Donne] Donne.. First issue, corrections (a)-(e), (g).
• (4) Presented "For ye Rt Honble the | Earle of Denby. [Denbigh]." (Harvard University Library [MH], EC.D7187.644b [B]). Presentation letter as in Keynes (#4, p. 115) except: l. 1, Honble] Honble; l. 3, Havinge] Hauinge; l. 4, printed,] printed:; l. 4, upon] vpon; l. 5, beinge] beeinge; l. 10, hauinge] haueinge; l. 12, obedient Seruant] obedient | Seruant; and l. 13, Jo] Io. First issue, fine paper, corrections (a)-(g). Additional manuscript correction in the Epistle Dedicatory close (sig. ¶4v): From my house in | Covent-Garden. 28.] corrected to From my house in | Covent-Garden. 28.7ber [28 September].
• (5) Presented "To Sr Constantine Huygens | Knight" (Speer Library, Princeton Theological Seminary). The transcription of the presentation letter in Keynes (#5, pp. 115-116) differs from that in Roland Mushat Frye's "John Donne, Junior, on 'Biathanatos': A Presentation Letter," N&Q, 197 (1952), 495-496, even though Keynes lists (p. 116) Frye as his source. Line numbers and readings left of the bracket are from Keynes: l. 1, Knight.] Knight; l. 2, Sr.] Sr; l. 4, yr] yr; l. 5, England] Englande; l. 22, Sr Your] Sr | Your; ll. 22-26, Seruant | John Donne | Couent Garden | London

  ---

  212

  
  
  
  Julio 29 | i649] Seruant | Couent Garden | London Julio 29 | i649 John Donne. First issue, fine paper with bunch of grapes and coat of arms watermarks, no corrections.[6]
• (6) Presented "For ye Rt Honble ye Lord Marquesse | of Neucastle" (MH, EC. D7187.644b [C]). Listed as presentation copy by Keynes (#6, p. 116) but letter unmentioned; see transcription below. First issue, fine paper, corrections (a)-(f).
• (7) Presented to "I. Marckham" (location unknown). Keynes (#7, p. 116). An auction catalog of Richard Heber's books, the Bibliotheca Heberiana, 1834-36, Part the Eighth, provides the only information about this copy: "Donne (I.) on Homicide, with a Letter from his Son, the Editor, presenting the work to I. Marckham, 1647" (p. 37, item 728).
• (8) Presented "For ye Rt Hoble the Earle | of Oxforde." (Folger Shakespeare Library [DFo]). Presentation letter mentioned in Keynes (#8, p. 116), but not published.[7] First issue, fine paper, correction (g) only.
• (9) Presented to William Hodges (owned by R. S. Pirie). Keynes (#10, p. 116). First issue, fine paper, no corrections.[8]
• (10) CtY (Zd 1270) copy. First issue, corrections (a)-(g).
• (11) St John's College (Oxford) copy. First issue, corrections (a)-(f).
• (12) MH (EC.D7187.644 [A]) copy. First issue, corrections (b)-(f).
• (13) John Sparrow copy (A). First issue, corrections (a)-(d), (g).
• (14) John Sparrow copy (B). Second issue, corrections (a)-(f).
• (15) Ernest Sullivan copy (purchased from Francis Edwards Ltd., 7 July 1976). Second issue, corrections (a)-(f).

Dated letters and inscriptions plus other manuscript materials in five presentation copies and the dated Thomason second-issue copy place publication of the undated, first issue of Biathanatos in late September or early October of 1647. Three copies have fully dated presentation letters: copy (4), dated "Nouember i6 i647," with the "7ber" addition in the younger Donne's hand in the Epistle Dedicatory; (6), "May y io i648"; and (5), "Julio 29 i649." Three others are partially dated: (1), "October i9"; (2), "October 26"; and (7), dated "1647" in the Bibliotheca Heberiana. Since Moseley had published the second issue by "Dec: 2d 1647,"[9] the October dates of first-issue copies (1) and (2) must precede 2 December 1647, and, since no second-issue presentation copies exist, the "1647" copy (7) must also antedate 2 December. Biathanatos was licensed on "20. Sept. 1644" (first

edition, sig. Ee2v); hence the October dates could belong to 1644-47, but publication before "25th Sept. 1646" when "Master War. Seale [Henry Seile]" entered Biathanatos in the Stationers' Register (I, 247) is extremely unlikely.[10]

Copy (4), with its presentation letter to the Earl of Denbigh dated "Nouember i6 i647," provides the key evidence for a 1647 publication date, evidence strengthened by indications that the younger Donne held this copy in special regard: printed on fine paper, it has the "7ber" addition (which very likely dates the Epistle Dedicatory) in his hand and is one of only two fully-corrected copies. Frequent pleas in the presentation letters that the recipient look upon the book with "favor" show that the younger Donne hoped to profit from publishing Biathanatos, and any delay would lessen the impression made by personal presentation copies; thus, had Biathanatos been published by 28 September 1646, he almost certainly would not have waited until 16 November 1647 to present the copy to Denbigh. Furthermore, sheet ¶, containing the Epistle Dedicatory, was printed last,[11] so that the younger Donne could have finished the Epistle Dedicatory on 28 September 1647 and easily have had it printed and bound before 16 November 1647.

A similar argument results in a 1647 date for copies (1) and (2). Copy (1), inscribed "October i9," and (2), with its "October 26" letter, could belong to 1646 since Biathanatos was entered in the Stationers' Register on 25 September 1646, but again it seems extremely unlikely that the younger Donne would wait for nearly a year after presenting these two ordinary-paper copies in October of 1646 to send the special copy to Denbigh on 16 November 1647. A "28.7ber" 1647 publication date would still allow time to prepare a copy for an "October i9" 1647 presentation; thus, the October dates also very probably belong to 1647, placing the publication of the first edition between 28 September and 19 October of 1647. Why the younger Donne waited until "Julio 29 i649" to present copy (5) to Constantine Huygens remains a mystery, though Huygens, who translated some of Donne's poems into Dutch, would have been an unlikely patron, but there was no delay in presenting copy (6) to Newcastle on "May y io i648": Newcastle, a Royalist, returned to England from Paris in April of 1648.

Although the younger Donne may have intended to present all the corrected ordinary-paper copies as well as the fine-paper copies, the facts that all five fine-paper copies (4, 5, 6, 8, and 9) were presented and that he kept the sheets of at least two fine-paper copies after selling the sheets of at least two ordinary-paper corrected copies to Humphrey Moseley support Keynes's hypothesis that "it is probable that the special printing [on fine paper] was made mainly for presentation" (p. 119).[12] Because the younger Donne presented

the corrected, ordinary-paper copies (1), (2), and (3), we can conjecture that very few fine-paper copies were printed and that he may have intended to present all the corrected copies as well. In any case, he decided very early to present corrected copies on ordinary paper; (1) and (2) have earlier dates than (4). The younger Donne soon changed his mind, however, about presenting corrected copies on ordinary paper and sold the ordinary-paper sheets, corrected or not, to Humphrey Moseley: (14) and (15) have corrections and the Moseley title page, and no ordinary-paper presentation copies carry a date later than 2 December 1647, by which time Moseley had published the second issue. On the other hand, the younger Donne did retain some fine-paper sheets: copies (6) and (5) are dated "May y io i648" and "Julio 29 i649" respectively. Moseley, who published many of Donne's works, probably offered the younger Donne more for the sheets of Biathanatos than any expected patronage from corrected copies on ordinary paper, but the younger Donne still wanted to try his luck with the fine-paper copies, probably without informing Moseley of their existence.

The pattern of corrections implies that they were made at different times. A single person or persons copying all the corrections at one time would almost certainly emend more consistently, particularly if using an Errata list. Of course, an emendator or emendators with an Errata list could produce an erratic correction pattern if the various corrections were initiated at different times from an updated Errata list; however, dated, corrected copies prove that the inconsistencies do not result from additions to an Errata list. The earliest dated, corrected copy, (1), lacks (f) but has (g); the next earliest, (2), has (f) but lacks (g). One might explain the addition of (f) to (2) by a later recognition of the need for the correction, but not the dropping of (g), a clearly authoritative correction.[13] Furthermore, copy (4), dated "Nouember i6 1647," has all the corrections; but (6), dated "May y io i648," lacks (g); and (5), dated "Julio 29 i649," has none. Lastly, no possible chronological ordering of the undated copies can account for copy (13) having corrections (a)-(d) and (g), while (12) has (b)-(g), as the result of an updated Errata sheet. The pattern of corrections, then, strongly implies that they were introduced over a period of time but not from an Errata sheet, and the inconsistencies very likely result from carelessness or forgetfulness.

The corrections were made after the sheets were positioned for binding, and ordinary-paper copies were corrected before 2 December 1647. All the corrections which offset do so on the pages which they face after normal

quarto folding,[14] so that they must have been added with the sheets folded. Furthermore, the corrections (e) and (f) on sig. ¶4v which offset do so on sig. (*) 1, proving that they were made with the sheets positioned for binding.[15] Correction (a) on sig. ¶3 of (13) and (14) must have been made before 2 December 1647, because the Moseley cancel title page versos, unlike those of the first-issue corrected copies, lack the offset. Since all first-issue copies with correction (a) have the offset, but none of the second-issue copies do, we can reasonably date correction (a) prior to 2 December 1647 in ordinary-paper copies.[16] No evidence suggests that corrections were introduced at different times in the same copy; thus, all the corrections in ordinary-paper copies were very likely completed before 2 December 1647.

Although the sheets were corrected after positioning for binding, copy (6) offers dramatic evidence that the corrections could have been made before binding the sheets. In its presentation letter, reproduced below, the younger Donne suggests an intention to dedicate Biathanatos to Newcastle, and, to further this impression, the "List of Authors" (sigs. (*) 1-2v) in this copy has been put immediately before, rather than following, the printed Epistle Dedicatory to Philip Herbert; thus, the "List of Authors" comes between the presentation letter to Newcastle (sig. ¶1v) and the Epistle Dedicatory (beginning on sig. ¶3). Even with half sheet (*) between sigs. ¶2v and ¶3, however, the correction on sig. ¶3 offsets on sig. ¶2v, so the correction occurred before half-sheet (*) was positioned as presently bound,[17] perhaps long before presentation on "May y io i648." Since unbinding a fine-paper copy, inserting half-sheet (*) between sigs. ¶2v and ¶3, and rebinding the volume would have been some trouble and inevitably done some damage to the pages, the order of pages in (6) suggests that the younger Donne kept the sheets for presentation copies unbound until an opportunity or inspiration for presentation arose.

The evidence that the corrections are authoritative and initiated by the younger Donne is now overwhelming. On the basis of their occurrence in three copies, their clustering in the Epistle Dedicatory, the nonessential nature of corrections (a), (b), (e), and (f), and the textual authority of correction (g), I argued in "Authoritative" that all the corrections were authoritative and initiated by the younger Donne. The presence of the Epistle Dedicatory

corrections in eleven copies clearly establishes their authority, and the younger Donne personally wrote the "exalted" correction in copies (1), (3), (4), and (10).[18] Furthermore, the incidence of Epistle Dedicatory corrections in presentation copies very strongly suggests that the younger Donne initiated them: such corrections occur in five of the eight extant presentation copies but in only six of eighty-six nonpresentation copies. Absence of Epistle Dedicatory corrections in three fine-paper, presentation copies does not destroy this connection: (5) and (9) also lack correction (g), which he usually made, and (g) in (8) is not in his hand. Since one of these uncorrected, fine-paper copies, (5), was presented on 29 July 1649, long after all ordinary-paper copies (2 December 1647) and one fine-paper copy (10 May 1648) were corrected, perhaps the other two, (8) and (9), were also presented late; if so, the corrections may have been omitted through forgetfulness. Finally, the unnecessary correction of "writ" to "writen"[19] may have been inspired by a letter from Donne to "Sr Robert Carre now Earle of Ankerum, with my Book Biathanatos at my going into Germany," a letter later printed by the younger Donne in his father's Letters (pp. 21-22). In the Epistle Dedicatory, the sentence begins "It was writ, long since, by my Father, and by him, forbid both the Presse, and the Fire," clearly echoing Donne's letter: "It was written by me many years since . . . Reserve it for me, if I live, and if I die I only forbid it the Presse, and the Fire." The younger Donne, then, had easy and certain access to the letter, and the phrasing was so similar before the correction that he alone would have had any interest in rewriting the Epistle Dedicatory to parallel more exactly the letter.

The younger Donne, then, wrote in at least four of the "exalted" corrections and almost certainly initiated all the corrections, and the available evidence now strongly implies that he also corrected the dedicatory epistle. Each Epistle Dedicatory correction involves the same hand and technique: correction (a) has an "i" superimposed on the "e" with an "s" added; (b) has an "e" on one side and an "n" on the other of the comma following "writ"; in (c), (d), (e), and (f), the parallel lines, parenthesis, and commas all have

thick lines and exaggerated size. Undoubtedly, one person made each correction, and since no easily imaginable circumstances would lead to several people simultaneously correcting a single sheet, one person must have corrected all the dedicatory epistles.

Unfortunately, the handwriting and correction technique do not conclusively identify the Epistle Dedicatory emendator,[20] but other evidence strongly suggests that the younger Donne authored the corrections. Many copies having manuscript materials in his hand also have Epistle Dedicatory corrections: he made correction (g) in copies (1), (3), (4), and (10), all of which have most of the Epistle Dedicatory corrections, as do five of the eight presentation copies. His manuscript addition, "7ber," in (6) proves that he wrote on a corrected page, sig. ¶4v, in at least one Epistle Dedicatory. The handwriting and erratic correction pattern proved that one person made corrections (a)-(f) over a period of time without an Errata sheet; the younger Donne had access to corrected sheets from 28 September 1647 to 10 May 1648 as well as the independent authority to make even the unnecessary corrections (a), (b), (e), and (f). Finally, as author of the Epistle Dedicatory, he certainly had a personal interest in its accuracy, particularly in presentation copies.

The previously unnoted letter in the first-issue, fine-paper copy presented to "ye Lord Marquesse of Neucastle," reproduced here by permission of the Houghton Library, confirms Donne's statement in a letter to Sir Robert Ker that Biathanatos had circulated in manuscript and makes it possible to trace the development of the holograph into the manuscript which served as the printer's copy for the first edition. In the letter to "Sr Robert Carre now Earle of Ankerum, with my Book Biathanatos at my going into Germany" written between 9 March and 12 May of 1619, Donne describes the circulation of the holograph: "no hand hath passed upon it to copy it, nor many eyes to read it: onely to some particular friends in both Universities, then when I writ it, I did communicate it . . ." (Letters, p. 21). As the unpublished letter shows, one of these friends was William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle (1592-1676), educated at St John's College, Cambridge (DNB III, 1273), and "Marquis of Newcastle" on 27 October 1643:

Cavendish received the M.A. from St John's College (Cambridge) on 8 July of 1608, about the time Donne finished Biathanatos. Biographical notes compiled by the late F. P. White, Keeper of the Records at St John's College, and provided by A. G. Lee, the College Librarian, prove that "Sr Ieruaise Clifton" was Gervase Clifton, Esquire (1587-1666), posthumous son of George Clifton (died 1 August 1587) by Winifred, daughter of Sir Anthony Thorold and grandson of Sir Gervase Clifton of Clifton Hall in Nottinghamshire. Clifton attended St John's from 1603 until he received the M.A. in 1612. He was a friend and neighbor of Newcastle and an acquaintance of Henry Wotton,[21] which might account for his connection with Donne.

The younger Donne's comments on the various states of Biathanatos are maddeningly vague, but do fill in important links in the evolution of the holograph into the manuscript used by the younger Donne as the printer's copy for the first edition,[22] an evolution in which he may have participated. Donne's son does not specify whether the "imperfect Manuscript" possessed by Clifton was a holograph or what was "imperfect" about it, though his comment about not needing any "addition" in its present state could imply that he considered the earlier manuscript incomplete. Given Donne's statement in the letter to Ker that the manuscript had not been copied but shown to friends at the universities plus the presence of Clifton and Newcastle at St John's College about the time Donne finished Biathanatos, we can reasonably infer that the "imperfect Manuscript" was probably the original holograph, which Donne would add to extensively before it became the printer's copy.

The younger Donne's assessment of the holograph seen by Newcastle as "imperfect" (in the sense of "incomplete") relative to the printer's copy would seem correct on the basis of differences between the Bodleian manuscript and the first edition. Besides several lines omitted from the Bodleian manuscript as the result of eyeskip errors, the first edition contains the following additions: (1) hundreds of Section and Distinction headings in the text and numbered marginal glosses[23] of uncertain origin; (2) authoritative marginal annotations, "Herennius." (p. 51), "Festus." (p. 53), "Supra. fo. 66." (p. 66), "Vbi supra." (p. 101), "Stanf. Plees de Coron. cap. Petie treason." (p.

117), "Declaration & Protestation des Doctes de France." (p. 120), "Liber Conformi. Fran. & Christi." (p. 123), "Sedulius Minor. Advers. Alcor. Francis." (p. 123), "Gerson." (p. 125), "Navar ex Dist. 5. de cons." (p. 129), "Binsfeld. de confes. sagarum f. 67." (p. 144), "Menghi fustis Daemonum, cap. 8." (p. 144), "Ema. Sâ Not: in univers: Script." (p. 158), "Supra." (p. 160), "Phil. 1. 23" (p. 183), "Joh. 15. 13." (p. 187), "Act. 15. 26." (p. 188), "Hist. Schol." (p. 202), "Supra fo. 130" (p. 211), and "Supra" (p. 212); and (3) an authoritative passage postdating the Bodleian manuscript, "And since both Saint Hierome, and the Bracarense Councell, inflict the same punishments upon those Catechumeni, who although they had all other preparations, and degrees of maturity in the Christian Faith, yet departed out of this world without Baptisme, as they doe upon Selfe murtherers, and so made them equall in punishment, and consequently in guiltinesse; I thinke it will ill become the Doctrines of our times, and the Analogy thereof, to pronounce so desperately of either of their damnations. Sert. Senen. lib. 6 Annot. 7. p. 311." (p. 89, ll. 12-23). Since "Sert. . . . 311.", normally a marginal annotation,[24] appears in the text after "damnations." as though it were the next sentence, we can infer that the sentence, "And . . . damnations.", was probably written in the margin of the printer's copy. Had "And . . . damnations." been written in the margin just above the marginal annotation, "Sert. . . . 311.", the compositor might easily have read the marginal annotation as part of the text. If, as seems likely, Newcastle saw the original holograph, and if the above additions formed the basis for the younger Donne's judgment that the manuscript seen by Newcastle was "imperfect," then the printer's copy, "entirely from the Authors owne Penn," was probably the original seen by Newcastle, subsequently sent to Ker in 1619,[25] and afterwards added to by Donne.

Since the Bodleian manuscript was transcribed before the holograph which served as the printer's copy conjecturally arrived at its final state, the holograph could have served as copy for the Bodleian manuscript as well as for the printer. Indeed, shared errors and incorrect marginal references in the quarto indicate that the Bodleian manuscript and the first edition probably derive from a single manuscript in different stages of completion.[26]

The statement about "the mistakes of carelesse transcribers" and claim that the quarto reproduces a manuscript "entirely from the Authors owne Penn" probably allude to the Bodleian manuscript. The younger Donne knew this manuscript: his presentation letters to Denbigh and Huygens extensively paraphrase his father's presentation letter sent with it to Lord Herbert of Cherbury.[27] The younger Donne's reference to "the mistakes of

carelesse transcribers" could be his description of the Bodleian manuscript, but it may instead reflect his fears that someone else might seize the holograph or use the Bodleian manuscript (or a transcription of it) for an edition of Biathanatos.[28] The Bodleian manuscript is not "entirely" in Donne's hand: the presentation letter "To the Noblest knight Sr Edward Herbert," hundreds of marginal annotations, and a sixteen-word correction added to the text (p. 215) are, but not the text. The Bodleian manuscript transcriber was not, however, "carelesse"; he made some eyeskip and other errors, but numerous corrections testify to his fairly careful proofreading, and bibliographical evidence of all kinds proves that he more accurately reproduced his copy than did the compositors of the first edition.[29] Thus, the younger Donne's concern about "carelesse transcribers" has no basis in fact if aimed at the Bodleian manuscript, and probably reflects an effort to promote his edition.

Furthermore, his claim that the printer's copy is "entirely from the Authors owne Penn" may be false. The hundreds of Section and Distinction headings and numbered marginal glosses in the first edition but omitted in the Bodleian manuscript add no new information and contribute nothing to the understanding of the text; therefore, their source is uncertain. Surely had Donne considered such headings or glosses useful or necessary he would have included them when he added the hundreds of marginal annotations in the manuscript of Biathanatos sent to Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Since the first-edition running-title lists the Part, Distinction, and Section number from the table of contents for the text on every page, the headings in the text as well as the numbered glosses, which generally merely paraphrase the table of contents, are superfluous. It seems very unlikely that Donne, who, as the letter to Ker clearly shows, never intended to publish Biathanatos and who carefully limited its readership to congenial and learned persons, would add unnecessary headings and glosses to widen the possible audience of the work to the lazy and simple-minded, a purpose more suited to the financial needs of the younger Donne. And, indeed, the younger Donne could have been responsible for adding the headings and marginal glosses: the Newcastle presentation letter shows that he was familiar with differences between various stages and states of the texts of Biathanatos, and he made manuscript corrections in the Epistle Dedicatory and Conclusion.

Thanks to the letter to Newcastle, we have a more complete picture of

the probable manuscript transmission of Biathanatos: (1) completion in 1608; (2) holograph circulated in manuscript to "Sr Ieruaise Clifton" and "ye Lord Marquesse of Neucastle" shortly afterward; (3) holograph presented for safekeeping to "Robert Carre" in 1619; (4) holograph returned to Donne and transcription made for Lord Herbert of Cherbury;[30] (5) addition of lengthy passage and some marginal annotations to the holograph by Donne as well as textual headings and numbered marginal glosses by an unidentified person, perhaps Donne's son; (6) use of the corrected holograph as the printer's copy of the first edition; and (7) destruction of the holograph.

Notes