University of Virginia Library

Hidden Editions in Satires I and II of Edward Young's The Universal Passion
by
James E. May

Edward Young published his Love of Fame satires first as seven separate folios entitled The Universal Passion between January 1725 and February 1728.[1] All bear the imprint "Printed for J. ROBERTS in Warwick-Lane," and the first five published, Satires I-IV and The Last (VII), were entered by James Roberts to Jacob Tonson in the Stationers' Register.[2] Two almost indistinguishable editions of Satires I and II were printed, yet there was no acknowledgement of second folio editions within advertisements of the period.[3] The same title-page layout and ornament, head- and tail-pieces, and ornamental initials were used in the two sets of editions, and their letterpress seems to have been deliberately set to increase their resemblance. Their resemblance is so close that Charles E. Frank, who examined copies of all four editions while preparing a bibliography of the editions of Love of Fame, failed to discern the hidden editions (pp. 155-156). But, as David Foxon first noted in his English Verse 1700-1750, there are two distinct editions

of both Satire I (Foxon's Y122 and Y124) and Satire II (Y125 and Y127).[4] One edition of each satire (Y122 and Y125) was also issued in fine-paper with a fleur-de-lys mark and an "IV" countermark.[5] Both editions of Satire I and II can be distinguished by press figures and by two accidental variants.[6]

Apparently, Foxon identified as first editions those he denominated Y122 and Y125 because they contain fine-paper issues and because the copies deposited in libraries as part of the Stationers' Company's registration process belong to these editions. However, I present here typographical evidence that the edition of Satire II that Foxon places second (Y127) was printed first. Then, in consequence of Y127's priority, and with what is known of the satires' publication, I would further argue the priority of the Y124 edition of Satire I. I conclude by speculating what may have led those concerned to publish the four editions within so short a period and to conceal their multiplicity.

Foxon incorrectly observes that edition Y127 was "Reset, with the exception of the title and half-title" (I, 919, Y127). Whereas the text and ornaments on the title (A2) are the same, there are typographical differences. The inside vertical rule on the left is shorter in all copies of Y127 seen, not extending beyond the inside-bottom horizontal rule as it does in copies of Y125 (in the Princeton copies, this rule is 270 mm. in Y127 and 273.5 in Y125). More importantly, the capital 'T' in 'Tanto' (within the motto) is broken off at the top right serif in all copies of Y125, but not damaged in any copy of Y127 which I have seen. If we discount the difference in rule length and suppose the title has not been reset, the broken 'T' in Y125 argues that its edition was machined after Y127, which controverts Foxon's ordering of the

editions. Furthermore, Foxon appears to be unaware that forme inner B is shared by both editions of Satire II. The irrefutable evidence that Y125 represents a second edition derives from damaged type on this forme.

The identity of the type-setting for forme Bi can be seen from the following pieces of damaged type found in both editions: 'a' in 'What's' and 'h' in 'wealth' (B1v, line 1), 's' in 'short-' (B1v, 3), 's' in 'smit' (B1v, 5), 'h' in 'the' (B1v, 6), 'p' and 'u' in 'Epictetus' (B1v, 8), 'k' in 'like,' 'h' in 'them,' and 'e' in 'the' (B1v, 10), 'T' in 'Thy' (B1v, 11), 'e' in 'The' and 't' in 'to' (B1v, 14), 'e' in 'some' and 'l' in 'peculiar' (B1v, 15), 'h' in 'the' (B1v, 19), 'b' in 'books' (B2, 3), 'e' in 'when' (B2, 5), 'o' in 'choice' (B2, 6), 'w' in 'whole' (B2, 7), 's' in 'cost' and the second 'e' in 'succeed' (B2, 17), 'w' in 'who,' 'e' in 'the,' and the second 'e' in 'expence' (B2, 21). There are differences between Y125 and Y127 at the line-endings, but these can be explained as the results of moving stored type. These differences are greater on B1v, where lines 6 and 11-14 have different relative line-lengths. The increased length of Y125's line 6 is due to the substitution of a wide 'W' for a narrow one in 'Wit'. The only other typographical substitution occurs in the question mark at the end of line 1, the longest line on B1v. The mark in Y125 does not reach above the 'r' in 'power' as that of Y127 does. On B2 the lines end in the same relative position. Here two end-line punctuation marks are altered. Y125 substitutes a smaller question mark at the end of line 6 and a semicolon for a question mark used for exclamation at the end of line 14. The extent and position of these alterations suggests that they resulted from the removal and reintroduction of the setting within the skeleton. The altered position of the bracketed page number relative to the first line of B1v argues that at least B1v, with the more typographical disturbance, was removed from the skeleton. (Examination of the Princeton copies of both editions with a Hinman collator also reveals these to be shared settings.)

Given the general identity of the two settings for Bi, it is significant that Y125's has damaged type that does not appear in Y127's. Yet there is no damaged type in Y127's setting that does not appear in Y125's; thus, the setting that printed Y125 must have been damaged during a later, second impression. Since in Y125's setting the newly-broken type-pieces occupy the same position relative to other type-pieces that they do in Y127's, it seems unlikely that they result from resetting. Broken letter-type found only in the setting for Y125 include: 'f' in 'of' (B1v, line 4), 'f' in 'of' (B1v, 16), 'O' in 'Or' (B1v, 17), 'f' in 'of' (B2, 1), 'y' in 'buy' (B2, 7), and 'T' in 'Terms' (B2, 11—unbroken in some copies). Only the 'y' in line 7 of B2 occurs close to the line-ending and may result from substitution, but it occupies exactly the same position relative to lines above and below and is closely preceded by type damaged in both editions. The strongest evidence that Y125 was machined second derives from the 'T' in 'Terms' (B2, l. 11). In the Harvard, Texas (WK Y858 B726u), Bath (unbound) and Indiana copies of Y125, the 'T' is not broken, and in the Michigan copy, it is cracked but no space exists between the upper and lower halves. But in the Library Company of Philadelphia and the Yale copies, the two halves of the 'T' are separated. Since

in no copy of Y127 seen is the 'T' damaged, Y127 must have been impressed before Y125.

Although this typographical argument does not indicate which edition of Satire I is the first, it does offer a suggestion. Since the Y127 edition of Satire II is usually found bound with the Y124 edition of Satire I, I would argue that these represent the respective first editions.[7] Such an ordering fits the known facts about the publication and registration of Satire I. This satire seems first to have been advertised in the Post-Boy of 21-23 January 1725 (#5541). Yet the satire was not entered in the Stationers' Register until 9 April 1725. Since both editions of Satire I bear the advertisement "The Second Satire is now in the Press" (on E2), both probably preceded the April publication of Satire II. Since, then, both preceded registration, there is no a priori reason why the deposit copies for Satire I should have come from the first edition. Rather, it seems likely that the edition from which the deposit copies did not come (Y124) had sold out. An additional argument for the priority of Y124 will be offered in the discussion of the circumstances of its publication which follows.

We have, then, the peculiar printing of two editions with remarkable resemblance for two satires before the registration process was completed. I believe these facts must be explained with reference to Young's planned subscription and his sale of the satires' copyrights to Jacob Tonson. Young had planned to solicit subscribers for an edition of his works, or of the satires, during the winter months when Satire I was published, as he had indicated to Thomas Tickell in a letter dated 10 October 1724.[8] On 2 March 1725, Young wrote Tickell that "Since my Last to you I have set a subscription a foot," which would have been within a month of Satire I, as his last extant letter to Tickell is dated 14 December 1724 (Pettit, Correspondence, pp. 38-40). But Young seems not to have advertised for subscribers until 1726, when he proposed a three-volume collected works. Whether the subscription Young wrote of in 1724-25 involved the collected satires, as Frank proposed in 1939, or his collected works, as Trevor Mills assumed in 1980, cannot be

determined.[9] I see the failure to advertise for subscribers in March and April of 1725 as, at the very least, a postponement of whatever was planned. But, regardless of which of the two Young intended to publish, the postponement of the subscription would have opened the market for an expensive fine-paper issue of the satires.

I would hypothesize that Young intended to publish the later satires in a subscription edition and had Satires I and II printed to drum up interest in the subscription. Young hired Roberts as a trade publisher to help distribute the work, although Roberts may also have printed it. Young invested just enough money to have limited editions of Satires I and II printed, only the copies needed to initiate the subscription effort before being sold out. This explains why there are fewer extant copies of Y124 and Y127. For some reason, perhaps having planned to all along, Young sold the copyright to Jacob Tonson, probably between the letter of 2 March and the registration on 9 April. Young may have sold the rights at this time because their apparent success assured a good price from Tonson for the satires. Young now needed money as is evident from the importunity of his letters to Tickell.[10] Most likely, Young feared that enough subscribers could not soon be found but that, with the successful run of all the satires, or of the first five, they might be. Thus, with the subscription postponed or looking precarious, Tonson or Young brought out Y122 and Y125 with fine-paper issues for the wealthier readers who would have purchased the satires in the subscription edition. To please the purchasers of the fine-paper issues, the printer was instructed to disguise Y122 and Y125, setting them to resemble Y124 and Y127 as closely as possible, which allowed buyers to assume they owned the first edition. These wealthier readers would have desired the editio princeps either because they were vain book collectors or because they distrusted the accuracy of second editions. Not surprisingly, copies of the second editions were used when Tonson's copyright was registered. Copies of the first edition of Satire I, and perhaps II, were already spoken for, and, if Tonson had acquired an interest in the folio sale, he would have wished to deposit copies at least partly his. But it is also possible that the second-edition copies were deposited as part of the ruse of passing off those editions as first editions.

We do not know, however, whether it was Young or Tonson who commissioned the second editions with fine-paper issues. The copyright agreement might not have given Tonson any interest in the folio sale.[11] We can argue Tonson's interest in the folios is reflected by the printing of the more costly fine-paper issue in a larger edition. Also, the Tonson house was more likely to sell to "fine-paper" customers than the trade-publisher Roberts. Furthermore, the only signed presentation copy of Satires I and II that Foxon has recorded (I, 919, Y124) is from Y124; it along with a copy of the first edition of Satire II and others of Satires III and IV was given to George Clarke and dated 8 February 1725[/26]. We could argue that Young did not give Clark a copy of the fine-paper edition because it belonged to Tonson, although he may well have preferred to give away only copies of the first editions. Conversely, we can argue from the absence of the Tonson name in advertisements of the satires that Young himself paid for them and alone received profits from their sales.[12] Finally, we can argue from penned corrections on all copies of Satire VI that Young, not the wealthy and more powerful Tonson, was paying the printer.[13]

In any case, the decision to sell folios to the affluent, originally targeted as subscribers to a postponed edition, would explain why the editions were hidden and why the fine-paper issues would not be from the first edition. We know from damaged type that the edition of Satire II without a fine-paper issue (Y124) is not the first. If it was decided after the first edition of Satire II to bring out a fine-paper issue, then surely it was decided to do the same for Satire I after it had been published. If we suppose, as Foxon has, that Satire I was first published in an edition with fine-paper issue, why was the same not done for Satire II? Furthermore, would not the precariousness of publishing a poem have discouraged the impecunious Young from printing his first edition with an expensive fine-paper issue?

Although my clarification of priority within these hidden editions only affects two accidental readings in each satire, it may offer useful information to scholars studying the book trade, particularly the demands of readers, the marketing of fine-paper issues, and the inter-relations of author, tradepublisher, and copyright holder.

Notes