University of Virginia Library

II

The relationships among the impressions of The Dunciad printed by James Bettenham can be seen most clearly on the accompanying chart, which lists the appearances of running titles and indicates resettings of the text. Both the determination of resettings and the identification of recurring running titles were made by comparison of copies on the Hinman Collator. The chart employs conventional methods of presenting the information whenever possible,

but because no conventions exist for some of the features, an explanation of the chart is in order before proceeding to an analysis of the patterns.

The four main columns of the chart represent the different impressions. As a way of condensing and clarifying the arrangement, the first column combines the 12° and 8° issues of the first edition; those issues are from the same setting of type throughout, and the running titles and their positions with respect to the text are identical. Combining them also eliminates the need to decide their order before the priority of one has been demonstrated. On the far left are lists of the page numbers and the signatures for the volumes. The signature letters in parentheses are those of the 8° issue of the first edition; those without the parentheses are for the remaining copies, all 12°. The pagination is the same in both formats.

Across the top are the "edition" numbers according to the books themselves and also the designations given to these Dunciads in Foxon's English Verse 1701-1750 (1975). The poem was first printed in both duodecimo and octavo formats (Foxon P764-765), with the octavo apparently intended as a large-paper issue. A 12° reimpression with the words 'The Second Edition' on the title page appeared next (P766); about one-and-a-half gatherings were reset. An additional gathering was reset in each of the following two reimpressions, both in 12° and calling themselves 'The Third Edition' (P767-768). The contents of the five impressions are virtually identical; in both formats the poetic text begins at the start of gathering B and continues to the end of the book. The collation formula for the first 12° impression also applies to those which follow: 12°: A-E6 F2. That of the lone 8° is: 8°: a 4 b2 B-G4 H2. This chart of running titles ignores the preliminaries ($A, a, and b) which contain only a few running titles, all of which remain unaltered through the series of impressions.

Inner and outer formes are not distinguished, for the half-sheets almost certainly were imposed for printing by the ordinary work-and-turn method. Thus, all pages of a gathering were on the press at the same time, and distinctions of inner and outer skeletons are meaningless. That method of imposition is difficult to prove equally well for each gathering, both because much of the evidence is available only in rare uncut copies and because by the nature of the evidence conclusive proof is available only for the other well-known way of printing half-sheets, the working of two different gatherings together. Nonetheless, over various copies of the 12° impressions at least two and sometimes more tests can be successfully applied to each of the half-sheets, and that evidence is always consistent with imposition for work-and-turn. Evidence for the lone 8° is scant, but it too indicates work-and-turn.

Briefly, the evidence in the 12° is this. When two half-sheets are worked together, there ordinarily will be an approximately equal number of cut and deckled fore-edges on $1 and 6 and on 3 and 4; in work-and-turn, the fore-edges of $1 and 3 will always be deckled and $4 and 6 cut. In the sheets in the Dunciads, all examples are of the second group. Secondly, paper machined by the first method will, on the average, have an equal number of

watermarks on $1, 3, 4, and 6; work-and-turn sheets will have them only on $3 and 4. All watermarks in these Dunciads are in fact on $3 and 4. Point holes follow a similar pattern. They appear with nearly equal frequency on $2, 3, 4, and 5 when two half-sheets are worked together but only on $2 and 3 in work-and-turn. In Dunciads, they occur only on $2 and 3. (In gathering A of the second edition they appear on $1 and 2; apparently the opposite end of the sheet, here containing the frontispiece, was intended as the cut-off. The position of the holes is nevertheless consistent with work-and-turn.) When two half-sheets are worked together, the first-forme impression will be consistent, unless the sheet was produced by concurrent printing; in work-and-turn, the first-forme impression will be evenly divided (in a sufficient number of examples) between the outer and inner formes of the gathering. The first-forme impressions in the Dunciads vary; that feature is again consistent with work-and-turn printing. The accumulated agreement of these indicators strengthens the suggestions of them individually; moreover, the absence of any counter evidence, in situations where half of the examples might be expected to vary, makes persuasive the claim that the 12° Dunciads were printed by the work-and-turn method of half-sheet imposition. Most of these tests cannot be applied to the 8°. Nonetheless, the first-forme impressions here also vary, suggesting that the 8° was also printed this way.

The running titles themselves are represented on the chart by roman numerals—capitals for those on versos (here, 'The Dunciad.'), and lower case for rectos ('Book the First.', 'Book the Second.', or 'Book the Third.'). An asterisk before the running title number indicates that that running title is being used for the first time. Because the chart represents a completed assessment, it has not been possible to avoid indicating which of the two examples of the same running title in a particular copy appears first. But in order not to exclude evidence which conceivably could sustain a different interpretation, I have also noted second examples of running titles in a particular impression; I have enclosed the asterisks for them in parentheses.

The number in parentheses following a roman numeral identifies another page on which that running title is used in that impression (on the chart, another page in the same column). An equals sign before a roman numeral indicates that that running title is identical with the one on that page in the previous impression. Under special circumstances, only part of the recto running title 'Book the. . . .' may be the same from one impression to the next. Sometimes the last word of 'Book the First', for example, is changed to 'Third' when the running title is reused later in the book. When the running title is subsequently restored to the beginning of the book in the following impression, a different setting of 'First' may be used. As a result, the running titles on a given page of two impressions may be identical only in part. To indicate this partial agreement, I have added the fraction ⅔ in parentheses following the equals sign. Furthermore, the presence of fractions incidentally indicates that some interruption occurred between the printing of those

pages in the two impressions. I have not indicated the normal replacement of the last word in the running title within a single impression; such a shift can be assumed, and a record of it would merely clutter the chart. In a couple of cases I have been unable to determine with absolute certainty that certain running titles in the same impression are identical; I have then added a question mark behind the running title number or the cross-reference pagination.

The chart also indicates resettings of the text. Although such changes are not inevitably linked with the running title pattern, the chart proves to be a useful place to record them, for every page of the poetic text is listed here. Moreover, there is in fact a frequent connection between textual resetting and the running titles, and the juxtaposition of the two patterns makes clear those links. The symbol used to indicate resettings is the number sign, #. Although it is a familiar sign, it is not used elsewhere in bibliographical description. Furthermore, its form may suggest its function; this symbol which indicates non-agreement of texts is similar to the "not equals" figure. The addition of a footnote is not here considered a resetting.[8]