D1. Original British Edition (London: Bentley, 1849)
[_]
Heading (D1). Following the system in Tanselle
1984,
esp. p. 37, the arabic number following the letter designates the edition
number. The rest of the heading is meant to offer a convenient shorthand
designation in words for the edition under discussion. To say "First
Edition" here would add no information to what is already conveyed by
"D1," and it seems sensible to convey additional information in such
headings whenever possible. Moreover, the phrases "original British" here
and "original American" later emphasize a more important point than the
simple priority in publication, by a few weeks, of the former over the
latter.
Introductory discussion (following the D1 heading). For each
edition treated in detail, one may wish to begin with some introductory
commentary, partly to serve the same function for the edition that the
earlier paragraphs did for the work, but also to assemble into a coherent
narrative such evidence as there is regarding contracts, publication and
copyright dates, the author's relations with the publisher, and the like. (On
copyright, see Tanselle 1969.) In effect, all the kinds of details that come
from sources outside the copies of the edition themselves can be gathered
here, leaving the descriptions that follow to concentrate on the physical
evidence. Many bibliographical descriptions in the past have placed such
information in one or more sections called "Notes," following the treatment
of physical details, and sometimes these sections are not narrative in form
but are simply enumerations of relevant facts. This approach remains one
possibility, of course, but I show
here a different approach, which reflects more directly the concept of a
bibliography as a work of historical scholarship. The crucial point is not the
manner of presentation of the material but the underlying conception of the
work: a bibliography is not a listing of points for identification but a
historical account, partly biography and partly a segment of publishing
history (which itself encompasses the history of the arts of book-making as
well as economic and intellectual history). This view of bibliography
underlies Bowers's Principles and his 1953, 1966, and 1969
essays; see also Tanselle 1984 (passim, but esp. pp. 2-3 and
the
references in footnote 3) and Tanselle 1985 (esp. pp. 46-61), as well as
Vander Meulen 1985. Providing narrative introductions of the kind I
illustrate here does serve to drive home the point—both to authors
of
bibliographies and to their readers—that bibliographies are histories
and
that, like all histories, they attempt to offer
coherent readings of the past.
Different bibliographers will make different selections of details; what I
show here seems to me one reasonable selection, but there are always more
details that can be included. One point naturally to be kept in mind is what
kind of scholarly coverage already exists. In the case of Melville, the
existence of the Northwestern-Newberry Edition, with its historical and
textual essays and records of variant readings, would make redundant in a
bibliography an extensive account of the composition and reception of
Melville's books or lists of variant readings. The research underlying a
scholarly edition and that underlying a scholarly bibliography are
complementary, and the published results can be complementary, too. Thus
when, in the present introduction, I refer to the 79 substantive variants
between the Harper and Bentley editions of Redburn, there
is
no need to record them, for they are already available in the
Northwestern-Newberry volume, and readers of the bibliography
would have been told in the general introduction to the whole work that for
complete lists of variants they should turn to the Northwestern-Newberry
Edition. I am free to be selective in my use of variants, and I have decided
here that only one deserves mention, given the scale on which the
bibliography is being written. (However, variants between copies of a single
printing—such as those created by stop-press alterations or by type
or
plate wear—demand fuller treatment somewhere in the description,
even
if they have been reported in another work; see the paragraph on
typography below.) Similarly, documentation of frequently used sources
need not be repeated in each of these introductions; instead, the general
introduction can explain, for example, that quotations from Melville's
letters always come (unless otherwise specified) from Merrell R. Davis and
William H. Gilman's edition (1960) or that certain kinds of detail always
come (unless otherwise specified) from the
Northwestern-Newberry Edition. Documentation would then be supplied
only for unusual sources or for sources inconvenient to refer to without
specific references (hence the citations here of particular pages in the
volumes of Bentley Papers at the British Library). For those details repeated
in this introduction from one of the later descriptions,
documentation—if
needed—would come at that later point, where the matter is likely
to be
more fully treated. I do not find any awkwardness in the shift from
narrative in these introductions to the more formulaic style of the physical
descriptions: the two parts deal with very different material. A formulaic
rendering of dates, quotations, sums of money, and the like seems to
resemble undigested raw material and is not the most effective way of
conveying what is in fact a narrative. On the other hand, the formulaic style
is generally more efficient in laying physical details out clearly and more
convenient for readers who wish to check
copies against the description. (Cf. Tanselle 1984, footnote 6.) I ought to
add, however, that one should never hesitate to use sequential prose within
a physical description when it seems to offer a clearer way to make certain
statements.
Melville's earliest known reference to Redburn occurs
in
a letter of 5 June 1849 to Richard Bentley, who had published the British
edition of Mardi and was to publish
White-Jacket
and The Whale. In view of the slow sales of
Mardi,
Melville took pains to emphasize that the new book would be "a thing of
a widely different cast": "a plain, straightforward, amusing narrative of
personal experience—the son of a gentleman on his first voyage to
sea as
a sailor—no metaphysics, no conic-sections, nothing but cakes
& ale."
Nevertheless, Bentley's reply, on 20 June, was disappointing: alluding to
the sales of Mardi and the uncertain copyright situation, he
felt
that he could offer only £100 as an advance against half-profits (not the
£150 that Melville wanted, much less the £210 paid for
Mardi). By the time Melville wrote to Bentley on 20 July,
Harper & Brothers had accepted the work and given it to the printer,
and
Melville
assured Bentley that proof sheets could be sent "in the course of three
weeks or so." Apparently they were sent fairly promptly, for Bentley
published his edition (750 copies, two volumes each, at a guinea per set)
on 29 September, in advance of American publication,
as the agreement stipulated. (See Bentley Papers, Add. 46637,
ff.72
v-73, where the official publication date is recorded
as 29
September—although Melville, in a letter to Lemuel Shaw on 6
October,
stated that the book had been published "on the 25th of last month.") The
book was entered in the
Publishers' Circular for 1 October,
in
the list of new publications for the period 14-29 September; it was
advertised as available on 28 September in the
Athenaeum for
22 September and listed in that journal and the
Literary
Gazette
on 29 September; and it was included in an advertisement for "Mr.
Bentley's New Publications for the Month of October" in the 1 November
number of
Publishers' Circular.
Melville had read and marked the Harper proof sheets before sending
a set to Bentley; but he had no opportunity to go over proofs of Bentley's
edition, which, as it turned out, differed from the Harper edition in wording
at 79 points (and at many more, of course, in spelling and punctuation).
Only one of those differences, however, poses any question of textual
authority, for all the others fall into one of three
classes—obvious errors, the correction of obvious errors, and other
alterations of the kind ordinarily made in Bentley's office (e.g., the
substitution of British idioms). The one difference that may be a revision
of Melville's is the substitution of "quick, small, and glittering" for "large
and womanly" as the description of Harry Bolton's eyes in the third
sentence of Chapter 18 in Volume 2 (Chapter 49 of the Harper edition). If
both readings are Melville's, the Bentley reading is not necessarily the later
one, for Melville could have made a late revision on the Harper proofs after
sending one set to Bentley. (The Northwestern-Newberry editors conclude
that, whoever wrote "quick, small, and glittering," it was the other wording
that Melville wanted.)
Redburn had been alluded to in the London press a
month
before publication, in the Literary Gazette of 25 August (p.
630). During the autumn, Bentley advertised the book in the usual
prominent journals—in the Athenaeum, for example,
on 8,
15, and 22 September and 13 and 27 October, and in the
Spectator on 29 September and 20 October. The earliest
known
review appeared in the Literary Gazette for 20 October (pp.
776-778), and a half-dozen more reviews came out before the end
of the month. Although the long review in the November number of
Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine (66:567-580) was
unfavorable, most of the British reviews were laudatory; but even so the
book did not sell well, for in an accounting two and a half years later (on
4 March 1852) Bentley reported that he still had on hand 415 of the 750
copies. The profit on the book at that time he reckoned at £23.12.6; and
since he had paid Melville £100 (when Melville visited his London
office on November 12: see Melville's journal; the payment is also
recorded in the Bentley Papers, Add. 46676A, f.3), he incurred a deficit of
£76.7.6. In an effort to reduce that deficit, he had some of the
remaining sheets bound as single volumes and issued them with cancel title
leaves dated 1853. At some point he also sold sheets to the remainder
publisher T. C. Newby, who issued them (in two-volume sets?) with his
own name on the spines. Bentley had no more reason to be pleased with the
sales of
Redburn than with those of
Mardi.
First Bentley Issue (London, 1849)
[_]
Heading for first Bentley issue. No entry number is
assigned here, in the belief that descriptions of issues should not be
regarded as separate entries but rather as subsections of the entry for the
printing of which they are a part. It should also be recognized that
furnishing entry numbers for issues would complicate any system
considerably and thus perhaps make it less efficient: this Bentley issue
would have to be numbered—in the system I am using, which is
essentially a very simple one—D1.1a. It could not be labeled "D1a,"
for
lower-case letters attached to edition numbers ought to refer to subeditions,
so that numbers could be attached, following a decimal point, to signify
printings. Clearly an issue designator has to be associated with the number
referring to printing, but since this Bentley edition consists of only a single
printing, it seems unnecessary (indeed, illogical) to call it a first printing.
On this general matter, see Tanselle 1984, esp. p. 37 and
footnote 64. The concepts lying behind the terms "edition," "subedition,"
"printing" (or "impression"), "issue," and "state" are set forth in Bowers's
Principles, pp. 37-113, 371-426, supplemented (and
somewhat
modified) in Tanselle 1975. When separate platings (e.g., duplicate relief
plates made from the type, or offset plates made photographically from a
copy of a printed book) can be identified they should be noted (perhaps in
the heading); but, contrary to the argument of James L. W. West III ("The
Bibliographical Concept of Plating," Studies in
Bibliography, 36 [1983], 252-266), it seems advisable to use
subedition (i.e., any printing or sequence of printings with a
different publisher's or series imprint) rather than plating as
the
classification between edition and printing (for
an
explanation, see Tanselle 1984, pp. 10-20).
Title-page transcription. The dominant system of
quasi-facsimile
transcription, as developed over the years, is the one codified, extended,
and thoroughly explained in Bowers's Principles, pp.
135-184,
427-429. It attempts to report more typographic features (such as line
endings) than does ordinary quoting, but it does not suggest relative sizes
of type, except when both large and small capitals appear in the same line.
(However, David Vander Meulen's 1981 dissertation, a descriptive
bibliography of Pope's Dunciad to 1751, shows that a
type-face
measurement can be easily and unobtrusively added in brackets at the end
of each line of the transcription.) That such transcriptions are not
superseded by photographic facsimiles is touched on in the
Principles, pp. 135-137, and in Bowers 1953, esp. pp. 9-15;
and the argument is most fully set forth in Tanselle 1985, pp. 46-61. One
should assume that the description of Redburn presented here
would in
the actual bibliography be accompanied by appropriate reproductions of
title-pages, but their presence would not affect the transcriptions.
Photographic facsimiles are illustrations that supplement the verbal account
but do not substitute for it. It is also imporant to remember that title-pages
are not the only parts of books that may usefully be transcribed in
quasi-facsimile (and not necessarily the most important ones).
Collation. The system of signature collation that has evolved
in
the English-speaking world since the late nineteenth century received its
classic treatment (superseding several earlier landmark discussions) in
Bowers's Principles, pp. 196-268, 332-339, 431-434, 487-499
(with "A Digest of the Formulary" on pp. 457-461), now supplemented and
somewhat revised in Tanselle 1985, pp. 61-80. (See also Greg 1959,
Stevenson 1961, and Margadant 1968.) The principal function of the
collation is to show the physical structure of books, and the collation is
therefore the indispensable heart of any description (more important than
the title-page transcription), though some bibliographers of
twentieth-century books have attempted to argue otherwise.
(Redburn contains no inserted plates; but when they are
present,
they obviously complicate the task of recording structure—see the
Principles, pp. 287-289, Stevenson 1961, Bridson 1976, and
Tanselle 1982.) A record of
where the signatures appear and in what form is a separate (and lesser)
matter, but it should be provided as a supplementary statement to the
collation. The signature statement in this sample follows the form in
Tanselle 1985, pp. 78-80, which only slightly modifies the form suggested
by Bowers (Principles, pp. 269-271). (On the use of the
dollar
sign to stand for a signature and thus to refer to every gathering, see the
Principles, pp. 266-268.) In the collation given here, I have
assumed the 23-letter alphabet (without J, either U or V, and W)
traditionally used by printers, and this fact would be explained in the
introduction to the bibliography; but for books of this period some
bibliographers might prefer to be more explicit and write
"B-I12
K-O12" instead. Indication of format (here "12°")
must be included
when it can be ascertained, since the regular number of leaves in gatherings
does not necessarily reveal the format (the number of times each sheet was
folded); when (as in many twentieth-century books) the format cannot be
determined, measurement of the leaf size can be substituted, as Bowers
suggests. A helpful assemblage of imposition diagrams for various formats
is found in Gaskell's New Introduction, pp. 84-107. On the
rules for recording pagination (and the crucial one of not combining
unnumbered and numbered pages with a dash, as in "i-viii"),
see the Principles, pp. 271-284, 435-438, 462 (but numbered
and unnumbered pages can be combined in the contents
paragraph or elsewhere, the facts having been put on record here).
Contents. The basic rules are in Bowers's
Principles, pp. 289-299, 438-444. In a book made up of
numerous short pieces, such as stories or poems, one should not simply
have an entry for "text" but should enumerate the contents (either in this
paragraph or in a separate paragraph below, where references to their
original appearances in periodicals, for example, could also be included,
perhaps in columnar form). Any words that one wishes to quote might as
well be quoted in quasi-facsimile, since it conveys more information and
scarcely takes up any more space; and one should wish to quote instead of
paraphrase whenever feasible (e.g., quoting the form of the heading to the
table of contents instead of simply referring to "table of contents"). I show
here the convention of using single quotation marks to signal quasi-facsimile
transcription and double quotation marks to indicate ordinary quoting.
Punctuation supplied by the bibliographer must therefore go outside the
single quotation marks but may—if the American system of
punctuation
is being followed—go inside the double ones.
Paper. The system followed here and the considerations
underlying it are set forth in Tanselle 1971(1), where references to much
of the relevant literature also appear. Anyone attempting to describe paper
should be acquainted with at least as much historical background as is
provided in Gaskell's New Introduction, pp. 57-77, 214-230,
before beginning to examine the relevant specialized works. Those dealing
with pre-nineteenth-century paper should certainly know the great series of
essays by Allan Stevenson (1949, 1952, 1954, 1962) and Vander Meulen's
important 1984 article (a worthy successor to that series). Vander Meulen's
own descriptions of paper in his bibliography of The Dunciad
(his 1981 dissertation) are exemplary, showing an orderly way to set forth
mixtures of papers (e.g., pp. 72-77). Measurements here (and throughout)
are in millimeters, though one need not use the metric system; it is
extremely convenient, however, and Vander Meulen notes its
particular convenience for paper measurement (pp. 60-61). My
measurements of paper thickness (made by micrometer) are to the nearest
thousandth of a millimeter, and the leaf and total-bulk measurements to the
nearest third of a millimeter. (The bulking thickness of each sheet is of
course arrived at by dividing the total bulk by the number of
leaves—and
rounding off to the nearest thousandth of a millimeter.) The tolerances I
have set for myself would be specified in the general introduction to the
bibliography. On the importance of stating tolerances, see Tanselle 1968(1).
The present description represents a moderate level of detail, which I have
tried to adhere to in other paragraphs of the description as well. More
details could be given, but more would probably then have to be given in
other paragraphs, so that the proportions of the whole description would
remain balanced.
[_]
Typography. The approach illustrated here is essentially that
advocated in Tanselle 1966 (1), where the value of recording these details
in a description is explained. Bowers's Principles includes a
brief treatment of typography (pp. 300-306, 344-347, 444-446); and, as
with paper, Gaskell's New Introduction gives the basic
background (pp. 9-56, 201-213; but see Vander Meulen 1985, p. 215). The
goal in this sample, with a moderate amount of detail, is to suggest the
principal characteristics both of the type faces used and of the typographic
layout. Even at this modest level of detail, the identification of the text type
might well be carried further: for a rare example of meticulous attention to
typography in post-1800 books, see Nicolas Barker's notes on types in
David Gilson's A Bibliography of Jane Austen (1982). The
paragraph on typography is the place to draw together comments on all
aspects of what is printed on the sheets, and when there is a
great deal to record regarding running titles and catchwords, as often in
pre-1800 books, it may be necessary for ease of reference to provide special
subsections, separated by spaces from the main paragraph, to cover these
matters. A splendid treatment of such problems (but one that is
unfortunately not very accessible) is Vander Meulen's 1981 dissertation, his
bibliography of The Dunciad to 1751, where the sections on
typography are sometimes the longest in a description because they include
subsections recording running titles, catchwords, signatures (which may be
regarded as an aspect of typography and need not be recorded in the
collation paragraph), and ornaments (sometimes with tables to show patterns
of recurrence). He also sensibly offers a section on presswork, where he
records first-forme impressions (whether the inner or the outer of each
sheet), point holes, and press figures (the latter in the form suggested in
Tanselle 1966(2)). What I have here labeled
"Typographical variation" might better be placed in a paragraph on
presswork, for these variations are certainly not part of the planned
typography of the book. On the other hand, they are a characteristic feature
of the typographic impressions that appear on the sheets being described.
In the case of Redburn these variations consist only of
unimportant shiftings of type during the course of printing; the principal
examples are noted (by page and line, with empty brackets to show where
space exists as a result of shifting type and with each instance documented
by reference to individual copies—see the paragraph on copies
examined
below); but they do not need to be reported in full or given the prominence
of a separate paragraph. (On the general use of type damage, see Tanselle
1968(2).) However, stop-press textual alterations are indeed important and
deserve to be reported in full (or perhaps selectively, if already reported in
an edition) and keyed to individual copies;
therefore they may, if extensive, require a paragraph of their own. The
important theoretical point here concerns the treatment of states.
Typographical variations create states of individual sheets; but such
states—and states of all kinds—refer only to particular parts
of books,
not copies of books as wholes (cf. Tanselle 1975). Thus states do not call
for separate entries (indeed, could not be handled clearly by separate
entries) but instead should be described under whatever heading (paper,
typography, binding) encompasses the particular variation involved.
Binding. The term "binding" is used here to refer to any
covering of the sheets that was supplied by the publisher, whether paper
wrappers or a casing of cloth over boards. But a more purist usage would
not allow "binding" to be used when "casing" is meant. The overall form
of the description is based on Tanselle 1970 (the illustrations in which are
referred to by the cloth-grain citation numbers), with colors specified in
reference to the Centroid charts, as recommended in Tanselle 1967.
Publishers' binding is discussed briefly in Bowers's
Principles,
pp. 446-450, and in Gaskell's New Introduction, pp.
231-250.
(Dust jackets, when they exist, would be described either in the binding
paragraph or, more appropriately, in a separate paragraph following
it—see Tanselle 1971(2), where several samples are provided on p.
114.
Descriptions of the endpapers and of the treatment of the edges of the
leaves, along with an account of any advertisements or other leaves
inserted during the binding process, do clearly belong in the paragraph on
binding.) The reference here to "Bentley 2" illustrates how one can
incorporate citations of illustrations into verbal descriptions. The actual
Melville bibliography would include a section of photographs showing the
various stampings used on the cloth casings of Melville's books; the citation
here of the second such Bentley pattern does not lessen the bibliographer's
obligation to describe it in words. Variations here in spine stamping and in
endpapers again illustrate the treatment of states. The concept of
state does not refer to whole copies of books but only to their
parts, and these variations only result in states of the binding and
endpapers; they are therefore properly taken up in this paragraph and do not
necessitate separate entries. Every variant state must be documented by
citation of specific copies from among those listed in the record of copies
examined (see the next paragraph of the
description).
Copies examined. The importance of a paragraph identifying
the
copies that provided the evidence for the bibliographical account that
precedes it cannot be overestimated. But I am tempted to belabor its
importance because so often it has been disregarded. A description that does
not record copies examined is simply incomplete and unscholarly. Readers
must know what copies were looked at, so that they will know when they
are looking at additional copies and so that they can locate, when they wish,
copies that display any of the features described. As set up here, the record
of copies examined is organized by country, with copies arranged
alphabetically under each country according to library abbreviations (those
of the National Union Catalog for the United States and
Canada
and those of the British Union Catalogue of Periodicals for
Britain, with additional ones constructed on the same pattern). Following
each library identification is the shelfmark or call
number, followed in turn by a reference to any post-publication alterations
to the copy (such as rebinding, the excision of leaves, or the insertion of a
bookplate or inscription). The much misunderstood concept of "ideal copy"
simply refers to all those characteristics that copies possessed when they left
the control of the publisher, as opposed to those characteristics that
individual copies have subsequently acquired at the hands of their owners.
The bibliographer's task is to record the former: "ideal copy" does not
necessarily mean a single copy but rather encompasses all the variations of
the book as published. Bowers has commented on the concept in the
Principles, pp. 113-123, 404-406; the fullest analysis is in
Tanselle 1980 (and cf. Tanselle 1977). The record of copies examined must
note post-publication alterations of copies, at least when they result in the
elimination of parts of the originals, so that readers will know exactly
which copies did, and which did not,
contribute to the body of evidence on which each element of the description
was based. If the roster of copies is sequentially numbered, individual
copies can then be referred to concisely in the body of the description.
References to copy numbers in the paragraphs on typography and binding
above show how variant features of the copies as published can be
conveniently documented. The division should be clear between variations
that are part of a book's publication history (they are taken up in the
description, with references made to particular copies) and variations that
occurred subsequently (they form no part of the description but are noted
in the record of copies examined as peculiarities of particular
copies).
REDBURN: | HIS FIRST VOYAGE. | BEING | THE
SAILOR-BOY CONFESSIONS | AND REMINISCENCES OF THE
SON-OF-A-GENTLEMAN, | IN THE MERCHANT SERVICE. | BY
HERMAN MELVILLE,
| AUTHOR OF "TYPEE," "OMOO," AND "MARDI." | IN TWO
VOLUMES. | VOL. I. [II.] | LONDON: | RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW
BURLINGTON STREET. | 1849.
collation. 12°: Vol. I. A
4
B-O12 P2, 162
leaves, pp. i-v vi-viii 1 2-316. Vol. 2.
A
4 B-O12 P1, 161 leaves, pp.
i-v vi-viii
1 2-314. Signatures. $1,2,5
(—A1,2
in both volumes); $1 (—A 1) also carries the
designation
'vol. I' or 'vol. II', and $5 is signed '$3'.
contents. Vol. 1. i title. ii printer's
imprint at
foot: 'LONDON: | R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.'
iii dedication: 'TO | MY YOUNGER BROTHER, |
THOMAS
MELVILLE, | NOW A SAILOR ON A VOYAGE TO CHINA, | Chis
Holume is Jnscribeù.' iv blank. v-viii
'CONTENTS | OF | THE FIRST VOLUME. | [swelled rule, 10 mm]'.
1-316 text (foot of 316: 'END OF VOL. I.').
Vol.
2. i half-title: 'REDBURN: | HIS FIRST VOYAGE. | [rule,
8 mm] | VOL. II.' ii printer's imprint as in Vol. 1.
iii title. iv blank. v-viii
'CONTENTS |
OF | THE SECOND VOLUME. | [swelled rule, 10 mm]'.
1-314 text (middle of 314: 'THE END.'; foot of 314: '[rule,
43
mm] | R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.').
paper. Sheets. White wove unwatermarked; thickness
.133
mm, bulking .142 mm. Leaves. 197 X 125 mm; total bulk
(each volume) 23 mm.
typography. Text. 25 lines (with some pages in Vol. 1,
e.g. 273-274, of 26 lines and many in Vol. 2, e.g. 84-92, of 24 lines), 133
(141) X 76 mm; 10 lines = 54 mm; modern face, 3.33 (1.67x) mm.
Running titles. 1.67 mm face, centered 5 mm above text and
with no rule beneath: 'REDBURN:' (versos), 'HIS FIRST VOYAGE.'
(rectos). Head titles. 4 mm face, dropped 32 mm in Vol. 1
and
36 mm in Vol. 2 from headline position (the headline does not appear):
'REDBURN. | [swelled rule, 10 mm]' (p. 1 of both
volumes).
Chapter openings. Chapter numbers (e.g., 'CHAPTER IV.')
2.33 mm face, chapter titles 1.33 mm face, dropped varying distances from
the headline (e.g., 37 and 45 mm respectively on p. 43 of Vol. 1 and 42
and 52 mm on p. 197). Chapters begin on new pages, with running titles
and pagination continuing. Pagination. 2 mm
face, at outer margins of headlines.
Typographical variation.
As
a result of the movement of types during printing, a number of sheets exist
in variant states. Among the more prominent instances of shifted types, at
points where some copies print properly, are the following:
Vol.
1. 34.16 's[]weetmeats' (as in copies 4, 5, 8, 9; second issue,
copies 2, 3); 203.0 '2[]0[]3' (9), '2[]03' (second issue, 2), and
'20[]3' (second issue, 3); 218.5 'hand[]ing' (1, 2, 4, 8; second issue,
1-3) and 'han[]ding' (5); 293.14 'sp[]rit' (2, 5; second issue, 2, 3)
and 'sp[]r[]it' (1, 8; second issue, 1).
Vol. 2 123.23
'ga[]y' (2); 225.0 '22
5' (2) and '22[]' (3, 7).
binding. Material. Cord cloth (306), dark blue (183).
Front and back. Blind thick-thin-thick rule frame with scrolls
in the corners (Bentley 2). Spine. Lettering in gold,
decoration
in blind: '[scalloped rule, then decorative band] | REDBURN | BY |
HERMAN MELVILLE | [decorative band] | VOL. I. [II.] | [two
decorative bands, then scalloped rule] | LONDON | BENTLEY. |
[scalloped rule]'. There is minor variation in the decorative stamping (e.g.,
copy 9 has straight rules at the head of the spine and above and below the
spine imprint) and in the size of the lettering (cf. the imprint on the two
volumes of copy 8). Edges. Untrimmed.
Endpapers. Two varieties of endpapers have been discovered:
(A) white paper printed in deep blue (179) with a circular pattern and with
advertisements listing works of "History and Biography" (beginning with
"Correspondence of Schiller") on the front pastedown and "Voyages and
Travels" (beginning with "Mackay's Western World") on the back
pastedown (all copies but 9); (B) pale yellow (89) coated paper printed with
two pages of advertisements listing works of "History and Biography"
(beginning with "Memoirs of the House of Orleans") on the front
pastedown and recto of the front free endpaper, and two pages listing
"Voyages and Travels" (beginning with "Wayside Pictures") on the verso
of the back free endpaper and the back pastedown (copy 9).
Binder's
ticket. Some copies (e.g., 1-3, 5, 6) have the label of Remnant
&
Edmonds, London, at the lower inner corner of the back pastedown of Vol.
1.
copies examined. Ireland. 1. DT. Gall.QQ.24.9,10.
United Kingdom. 2. C. Rom.72.83,84. 3. E. Hall.187.f.3.
4.
L. 12704.f.20 (rebound). 5. O. 49.1216,1217.
United States. 6. ICN. Gift.M67-14 (rebacked and
lacking
front free endpaper). 7. —. M67-722-3. 8. MH.
*AC85.M4977.849r. 9.
NN. Berg (with presentation inscription to Maria G. Melville, January
1852).
Second Bentley Issue (London, 1853)
[_]
Second Bentley issue. This section shows how
subsequent
descriptions under the heading of a single edition can be made to relate to
the first description. The cancel title of the 1853 issue exhibits enough
differences from the 1849 title that it seems easier to provide a new
transcription, whereas the differences in collation and contents are slight
enough that they can be best handled by simple statements setting forth
what the differences are.
REDBURN: | HIS FIRST VOYAGE. | BEING | THE
CONFESSIONS OF A SAILOR-BOY. | BY HERMAN MELVILLE, |
AUTHOR OF "WHITE JACKET," "THE WHALE," &C. | IN TWO
VOLUMES. | VOL. I. [II.] | LONDON: | RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW
BURLINGTON-STREET. | [rule, 5 mm] | 1853.
collation. The only difference from the first issue is that the two title
leaves (A1 of Vol. 1 and A2 of Vol. 2) are
cancels
and that the half-title of Vol. 2 (A1) is excised.
contents. The only differences are that the verso of the title leaf of
Vol. 1 is blank, having no printer's imprint, and that there is no half-title
leaf for Vol. 2.
binding. The sheets are bound as a single volume.
Material. Cord cloth (306), deep red (13). Front and
back. Blind frame and centerpiece (Bentley
5).
Spine. Lettering in gold, decoration in blind: '[decorative
band] | REDBURN | BY | HERMAN MELVILLE | [decorative band] |
[pendant] | [decorative band]'.
Edges. Untrimmed.
Endpapers. Light yellow (86) coated paper.
copies examined. United Kingdom. 1. BrP. 11272
(C5483) (rebound). 2. L. 12627.r.1. United States. 3. ICN.
M67-722-16.
Newby Issue (London, after 1853?)
[_]
Newby issue. Sometimes an extensive search for
copies
fails to produce an example of some form that has been previously referred
to in print. In many instances such references can be dismissed as
bibliographical ghosts (though they should normally be mentioned and
explicitly dismissed). At other times one may judge the reference to be
trustworthy and deserving of a place in the bibliography. Michael Sadleir's
assertion that he had seen a copy of the Newby issue seems to me to fall
into the latter class. (His Excursions in Victorian
Bibliography
of 1922 and his 1923 bibliography in the Constable edition, referred to here
in short form, are among the basic works that would be identified in the
general introduction to the bibliography.)
Apparently Bentley sold some sheets to T. C. Newby, who had them
bound (as two-volume sets?) with his imprint on the spines. Michael Sadleir
(Excursions, p. 226, and Constable edition, 12:349) reports
having seen such a copy, but I have not been able to locate one. (Of course,
Newby may also have been the distributor of some copies with the Bentley
bindings, if Bentley sold him bound copies, as well as sheets, at a reduced
price.)