James E. May
George Lyttelton (1709–1773) was awarded a critical preface in Samuel Johnson’s Lives of the Poets for verse in which there is “nothing to be despised, and little to be admired.” Johnson notes that Lyttelton lived “in the highest degree of connubial felicity” with his wife, the former Miss Lucy Fortescue of Devonshire, who bore him three children, until she “died in childbed.”1 Christine Gerrard, in her entry for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, notes that Lyttelton married Lucy Fortescue (1717/1718–1747) “on 15 June 1742” and “was devoted to her,” and that her “early death, on 19 January 1747 at the age of twenty-nine, while giving birth . . . was a tremendous blow” to him. At the end of October 1747, Lyttelton published a long elegy to his wife, To the Memory of a Lady Lately Deceased: A Monody, with nineteen irregular stanzas printed on five folio sheets. Gerrard calls this Lyttelton’s “most famous poem,” noting it “has a simple directness which transcends its literary conventionality.”
There were three folio editions (or issues), two dated 1747 and a “second edition” dated 1748 (all printed by Samuel Richardson for Andrew Millar).2 In addition, the poem was reprinted in octavo by George Faulkner in Dublin during November 1747, an extract of more than half the poem appeared in the British Magazine’s “Supplement for the Year 1747” (for volume 2, February 1748), and Andrew Millar brought out a rare octavo in 1755.3 There is no fine-paper issue identifying the first edition, all folios having the same unmarked paper, nor do any copies in the public domain appear to be presentation copies. The problem of determining the order of the two 1747 folios has received two different hypotheses and may sustain more, for the text does not descend on a linear path through the three folio impressions. The “1748” edition probably was not published after both 1747 folios. The complexity of shared type among the three editions allows a demonstration of the value of analytical bibliography, calls into question the accuracy of mechanical collation in identifying resetting, illustrates the use of stored type, and reveals the author’s unusual involvement in the publications.
William Todd first called attention to the two 1747 folios (with very similar title pages) in 1950, identifying the Daily Advertiser’s notice on 1 December of a “Second Edition” as calling for an edition “hitherto unrecorded,” which he linked to an “edition . . . not so designated on its title-page.”4 Todd wrongly observed that it is “Reset throughout” and “may be distinguished from the first only by the points listed below” (274–75). Overlooking most textual variants, Todd identified the two 1747 editions by the length of a title page rule, a catchword with and without a comma, and the presence or absence of indentation for two lines (4.11 and 11.18, at B2/3.16 and C2v/8.18). Todd concluded that the folio with the catchword error and without the lines indented to reflect “similar rhymes” (in fact, indentations indicate lines of fewer than ten syllables) showed “signs” of being “a reprint carelessly composed and hastily printed to meet the demand for copies” (275). Although anyone who has done much collating would find nothing markedly careless in a fifteen-page resetting with two errors, there are other compositorial errors in 1747A. As Todd shapes the problem, priority is decided by whether we infer from incorrect readings in 1747A and correct in 1747B that 1747B later corrected 1747A’s readings or that 1747A was carelessly produced after 1747B, after Lyttelton had ceased to read proof. But the printing and publication history is more complicated than Todd conceived it—for one, the printing and publication orders might not be the same, if only for some of the sheets.
David Foxon, identifying a “second edition” dated 1748, reversed Todd’s order, for he found a greater resemblance in the “1748” edition (Foxon’s L339) to the more correct 1747 edition (L338) than to the incorrect.5 Foxon recognized that the less correct 1747 edition (Foxon’s L337; my “1747A”) cannot have come between the more correct edition (my “1747B”) and the 1748 edition, for he defined the 1748 as “a reimpression” of 1747B “except for sheet C which corresponds to L337” (1747A). The English Short Title Catalogue (ESTC) employs Foxon’s ordering and the signature positions that he relies on to distinguish the editions. From his own comparison of the typesettings relative to the head- and direction-lines, Foxon incorrectly thought that the 1747B was a resetting of 1747A “except for sheets B and E.” Foxon only glanced at typographical similarities that require much fuller attention, for typesettings shared by the three editions and peculiar to each preclude any straightforward transmission (the three are not in a son-father-grandfather relationship), but let us stick with the publication history for the moment.
Whatever sequence is offered for these three publications must be related to an advertisement record that is more complicated than Todd and Foxon have noted. Todd and Foxon both cite as the first advertisement that in the Daily Advertiser on 30 October (for A. Millar and sold by M. Cooper). Repeated through 12 November, it differs only in accidentals and abbreviations from another run on 30 October in the General Advertiser. The edition was also advertised as “This Day” published in the London Evening Post of 29–31 October and its next two issues. The second edition was first advertised over two weeks before the notice of December 1 that Todd discovered and Foxon repeated: the Whitehall Evening Post on 12 November, the Daily Advertiser on 14 November, and the London Evening Post on 14–17 November announced the publication of the “second edition.” A renewed campaign started in early December, with the Daily Advertiser’s advertisement on 1 December, its first since 14 November (unchanged, from stored type), and a newly set advertisement—without an edition statement—in the General Advertiser on 2 December 1747. Then, after about five months without regular (perhaps any) newspaper advertisements,6 on 27 and 28 May 1748, the General Advertiser carried Millar’s announcement for “This Day . . . The Third Edition,” and advertisements for the “Third Edition” followed beginning on 1 June in the Daily Advertiser. If we assume the folio dated 1748 appeared in May 1748, this advertisement record can support Foxon’s ordering of the less correct edition first, followed by the more accurate 1747 edition in November, and the edition dated 1748 third in late spring 1748. However, it is impossible that the 1748 edition was printed four to six months after those of 1747, for it shares with the 1747 editions not only its paperstock but most of its typesettings, some on every page being shared with either 1747A or 1747B, usually but not always within a new skeleton and with slight textual alterations. Typesettings shared by 1748 with 1747B include the half title and title, with large type pieces that would not likely be stored long.
If we hypothesize that the 1748 “second edition,” though printed in the fall, was not demanded until May 1748, we might suppose Millar, instead of just sending a waste sheet of the new title to the newspapers, or Lyttelton himself, perhaps with some pride, reported the more accurate edition count. Lyttelton apparently self-published the poem and may well have handled the advertisements: he was not prone to sell copyrights, neither 1747 edition is present in most deposit libraries, and Millar’s general advertisements listing many publications at this time do not include the Lyttelton monody. In any case, if the May 1748 advertisements had spoken of the edition’s being the “second edition,” we might confidently suppose it was the 1748 “second edition”; the identification could be argued as likely even if there were no edition statement at all. But the description of the publication as a “third edition” raises the question whether one of the 1747 editions was not now put on sale—perhaps 1747A or 1747B because it was last printed or, even if first printed, the 1747A because it was less correct and so held off until all the more correct were sold.7
Furthermore, George Faulkner’s Dublin edition (Foxon L340) throws a wrench into Foxon’s order of editions. Faulkner’s octavo, announced published in his Dublin Journal of 24–28 November 1747, clearly descends from either the more correct 1747B or the 1748 edition, as is indicated by variant readings. In the table of variants, we also see that the British Magazine (printed no later than January) also took the 1747B or the 1748 folio as printer’s copy, but that Millar’s 1755 octavo followed the less correct 1747A:
A2 [title page motto, l. 1]: Te^ 1747A 1755] Te, 1747B 1748 D1747
A2: Catherine-Street 1747A] Catharine-Street 1747B 1748
B1 [head title, l. 4]: Lately 1747A 1748 D1747 1755] lately 1747B
C1/5.18: antient 1747A 1748 1755] ancient 1747B D1747 BM
D1v/10.8: Gale. 1747A] Gale, 1747B 1748 D1747 1755 [1747A errors]
D2/11.7 [14.7]: Elegant 1747A 1755] elegant 1747B 1748 D1747
E1/13.CW: Another^] ~, 1747A [no CW error in 1747B 1748]
E1v/14.15 [18.18]: His 1747A 1748 1755] his 1747B D1747 BM
E1v/14.18 [18.21]: his 1747A 1747B D1747 BM 1755] His 1748
This list does not include readings in the octavos and the British Magazine that vary from all three folios. Any absence of readings for the British Magazine text indicates lines not reproduced. In addition, there are the indentations to 4.11 and 11.18, noted by Todd, as well as another to the second line of stanza 1, occurring on B1/1.2, B2/3.16, and C2v/8.18 (with only eight, six, and eight syllables); those more apparent, on B2 and C2v (that in B1.2 is obscured by the ornamental initial in line 1), are properly indented in all editions but 1747A and 1755.8 Setting these differences aside, variants among the folios total eleven accidentals, twelve if we include the catchwords: three involve indentation, three punctuation (A2, D1v, and the catchword on E1), four involve case (B1, D2, E1v, and E1v), and two involve spelling (A2, C1). Whether Lyttelton revised the text to produce a more correct 1747B edition or whether the press carelessly printed 1747A in a hurry after Lyttelton stopped inspecting the press, one can, as Todd did, distinguish the two editions as the more and the less correct. Except for the spelling “Catherine-Street” in 1747A and “Catharine-Street” in 1747B and perhaps the case difference for the “L” in “Lately” of the head title, the variants could be seen as corrections by 1747B of 1747A, including the change to lowercase on E1v. The spelling “antient” is not typical even of 1747A, for it and the other editions have “ancient” in the next line (C1/5.19) and at C1v/6.18. The use of uppercase for “Elegant” in 1747A is arguably inappropriate, for another adjective in the line is in lowercase, although adjectives are in uppercase two and four lines earlier (“Silver Lyre” and “Ambrosial Flowers”). The only obvious blunder requiring correction is the period after the subordinate clause ending “Gale” on D1v (the only 1747A variant not found in 1755).
The collation indicates the Dublin edition probably took as printer’s copy the more correct 1747B edition. The three line indentations at 1.2, 4.11 and 11.18 in 1747B and 1748; the punctuation in the motto; and the five accidental variants in the text distinguishing 1747B from 1747A are all shared by D1747. If 1747A were the printer’s copy, we would need to suppose there were nine more variants in D1747 than if 1747B were the copy.9 The 1748 reprinting is sufficiently accurate that it is possible that D1747 was set from 1748, for only three more textual variants would have been incurred by the Dublin compositor if 1748 were his copy: the spelling “ancient” in place of “antient” (7.11), and the change of the uppercase “H” in “His” at 18.18 and 18.21 to lowercase. Furthermore, D1747 does share with 1748 the uppercase “L” in “Lately” of the head title. But the 1748 edition’s publication on 12 or 14 November makes it unlikely that the Dublin edition followed it—the transportation and then printing would take too long, and it seems unlikely that prepublication sheets would have been sent when published copies were available. In any case, as will soon be discussed, the 1748 edition was printed during or on the heels of the 1747B such that, if the 1748 did provide Faulkner’s copy, probably the 1747B was ready for publication by October 30.
Todd’s note does not refer to the octavo reprinting of the poem in Dublin by George Faulkner, though it is a relatively common edition. Faulkner first advertised the edition in his Dublin Journal on the 24–28 November 1747: “This Day will be published by the Printer hereof Price 2d | To the Memory of a Lady lately deceased, A MONODY. . . . By Mr. LYTTLETON.”10 Unlike the London advertisements and editions themselves, this advertisement, for the first time, publicly announces Lyttelton’s authorship. The Dublin Journal contains many references to Lyttelton in and around November 1747, presumably to attract interest in Lyttelton works published by Faulkner. Faulkner had already this month published Lyttelton’s Observations on the Conversion of St. Paul, In a Letter to Gilbert West, Esq. (advertised as by Lyttelton and sold by Faulkner in Dublin Journal, 21–24 November 1747—A. C. Elias, Jr., observed to me that the advertisement’s placement on page 4 suggests it repeats an earlier advertisement). The Dublin Journal on 28 November–1 December printed in full “Verses Occasioned by a Poem of Mr. Lyttelton’s to the Memory of Capt. Greenville of the Defiance Man of War, who was slain
. . . 1747”; the Dublin Journal on 8–11 December offered “a more correct version” of this poem to Lyttelton, subjoining “the verses of Mr Lyttelton which occasioned it.” These would only appear in London’s Daily Journal on 8–12 December and in the Gentleman’s Magazine’s 1747 supplement published in early February 1748 (17:600), so Faulkner may well have had the copy more directly than from the London papers. The Dublin Journal on 1–5 December, while rerunning Faulkner’s advertisement for the monody to Lyttelton’s wife, reprinted a six-couplet eulogy or epitaph for Lucy Lyttelton (it had appeared in the British Magazine of June 1747).11
Faulkner’s publication on 24 November of an edition copying the 1747B folio argues that the latter was the first London edition published. It is hard to imagine 1747A’s publication on 30 October and then 1747B’s soon enough after to allow its transportation to Ireland in time for Faulkner to have produced a copy of it by 24 November. One can only hypothesize 1747B’s sale as a second edition on 12 or 14 November and Faulkner’s use of it as printer’s copy if Faulkner obtained sheets from the shop prior to publication, either through Lyttelton’s request or surreptitiously. Faulkner’s concentration on Lyttelton might make it more likely that Faulkner received a prepublication copy or at least the superior revised text from Lyttelton. It is worth considering too that Faulkner within a fortnight published volumes 1–2 of Samuel Richardson’s Clarissa, printed from prepublication sheets. Faulkner advertised it as available “This Day” on 5–8 December (Dublin Journal), only one week after the publication appeared in London (“This Day” in the London Evening Post on 28 November–1 December 1747, and in the General Advertiser on 2 December). Either Richardson had a distribution agreement with Faulkner wherein sheets were advanced to Ireland before publication, or Faulkner obtained stolen sheets of Clarissa prior to publication. Without Richardson’s blessing, Faulkner previously had obtained prepublication sheets of the continuation of Pamela, and later he obtained sheets for Sir Charles Grandison.12 Regardless of whatever agreements or thefts were involved in these cases, they indicate the possibility that sheets printed at Richardson’s shop were posted to Ireland prior to that edition’s London publication. If the sheets of more than one edition had been printed prior to publication, and if Faulkner obtained prepublication sheets, then Faulkner’s printer’s copy need not have been those sheets first published. Indeed, the sheets employed by Faulkner could have been a mixture of two editions. Thus, we might suppose the head title in the Dublin edition reads “Lately” like 1748 because that was the B sheet sent over; whereas Faulkner’s edition has the variant readings of 1747B’s sheets C–E because those sheets were sent. But, if Lyttelton sent Faulkner prepublication sheets, then Faulkner’s use of the 1747B sheets argues these were perceived as the more correct and were combined to form the first published edition. That Faulkner’s copy was not the 1747A sheets is compatible with the conclusion that 1747A was printed after 30 October.
One of two variant readings on the title pages of the London folios may be useful in relating the editions to the dated newspaper advertisements. The 1747A edition (Foxon’s L337) has no comma after “Te” in the first line of the motto; the 1747B and the 1748 have a comma after “Te.” The motto (“Te, dulcis conjux, solo te in littore secum | Te veniente die, te decedente canebat”) is from Virgil’s Georgics, book 4, lines 465–66, and the comma after “Te” seems the more common punctuation in contemporary editions.13 The first “Te” in the motto is followed by a comma in all the initial advertisements and most that follow: General Advertiser’s settings of 30 October–11 November, Daily Advertiser’s on 30 October–12 November, its setting for a second edition on 14 November and 1 December (from stored type), and its setting for a third edition on 1 and 4 June 1748; the Whitehall Evening Post’s on 12 November for the second edition; and the London Evening Post’s on 29–31 October through its revised setting for the second edition on 14–17 November. If, as sometimes happened, the title pages were sent to the newspapers to provide the text of the advertisements, then the uniform use of a comma after “Te” in the first advertisements indicates that 1747B was first published. Almost certainly the 1748 edition with the comma after “Te” and the label “second edition” was the “second edition” offered in mid-November. Even if the advertisement bubble in early December was not for the 1747A, it is certainly the edition most easily identified with advertisements in May 1748. The 1747A is the only edition not certain to have been launched by advertising in October and November. Its title page fits the later advertisements. The first “Te” in the motto is not followed by a comma in the General Advertiser on 2–3 December (newly set, without edition statement) and on 27–28 May 1748 (newly set, with “Third Edition”). The 1747A edition without a comma after “Te” is more likely than the 1748 edition to have been that published in conjunction with advertisements in May 1748 announcing a “Third Edition,” because it has no edition statement. Contrary evidence, however, is offered by the Daily Advertiser’s continued use of the comma in advertisements for all three editions, from late October through June,14 but that particular compositor could have set copy from the old advertisements, not from a new title page.
Although variants in the Dublin edition and paratextual considerations suggest 1747B was first published, followed by the “second edition,” we cannot further conclude safely this was the order of impressions. Let us examine the typesettings themselves for what can be inferred about the order of impressions. Both 1748 and 1747A share most of their type with 1747B, and although Foxon was right to observe that 1748 shares most of sheet C with only 1747A, it does not share all of it, and 1747B also shares some typesetting in C with 1747A, as well as some only with 1748. All three editions share most of the type set for sheets B and E and some of that set for sheets C and D. Type is shared exclusively by 1747A and 1748 (but not 1747B) throughout two-thirds of sheet C, and exclusively by 1747B and 1748 (but not 1747A) on C2v and in four-fifths of sheet D.
In observing typesettings shared and separately set, I have relied on transparency overlays and the examination of most copies for the presence of identifiably damaged type; in many cases whole lines that appear identical with transparencies (and so would on a collating machine) in fact contain distinct type, identifiable from cracks, cuts, dents, and nicks not shared.15 Because the shared settings frequently involve only groups of lines on a page, not even pages, and the three impressions share most of all the page-settings but the half title, title page, and two pages on the inner forme of D, we cannot hypothesize concurrent printing of multiple settings except on those four pages. Rather, we must presume that type was stored with the expectation that demand would require one or more reimpressions, but someone redistributed at least part of sheet C prior to the second impression and also type for the other sheets prior to at least the third impression. The fullest resetting occurs in C and D, the middle of the text, and not B and E; whereas, we would expect the first printed and redistributed formes would be those for sheet B.16 Unless composition began in the middle, the sheets were not impressed in the order composed because some received press corrections. Another possible conclusion is that during the reimpressions of Lyttelton’s poem, type was imperfectly stored such that some resetting was always required. And, presumably, very evidently damaged type pieces were on rare occasions replaced during the resetting.17
The editions 1747A and 1747B, the two most different, have the following shared and separate settings of type:
Sheet A has separate settings, encouraged by the reuse of large-font letters for half title and title page on opposites sides of sheet A and also for the head title on B1. In 1747A the same four-line large-font title appears on A1, A2, and B1.
Sheet B shares typesetting but for resetting in the head title and second line on B1, the presence or absence of indentation in B1/1.2 and B2/3.16, separate skeletons (i.e., different head- and direction-lines), stanza numbers, and several isolated letter pieces (e.g., B1.5, B1.13, B1v.16).
Sheet C has separate settings except for at least three words in line C1.20 or all that line, lines C1v.7-12, 16, and several words in or all line C2v.2.18 Thus, the distinguishing variants involving spelling at C1.18 (“antient” vs. “ancient”) and the line indentation at C2v/8.18 occur in separate settings.
Sheet D differs entirely on the inner forme (D1v–D2), D1.1–15, and D2v.1–5, 16–17, and 18 after the third word. Within sheet D, 1747A and 1747B only share D1.16–21 and D2v. 6–14, some of 15, and 19–21 (demonstrated by multiple pieces of type in all but D2v.10). Thus, the punctuation variant at D1v.8 (after “Gale”) and the case difference at D2.7 (“Elegant” vs. “elegant”) occur where separate settings occur.
Sheet E has a largely shared text but all skeletons, stanza numbers, “FINIS,” and ornament differ. The typesettings not shared in the text are complex and indicate the inadequacy of judgments based solely on mechanical collation:
E1: differing in some type pieces in line 1, the wrap of line 2, and type pieces uniquely broken in 1747B in lines 8 and 16 (while transparencies show different alignments for lines 10–11 and 14–16, broken type pieces show that at least most of lines 1–3 and 9–17 are shared);
E1v: differing fully in lines 18–22 and with at least some type pieces substituted in lines 11, 13, 15, and 17 (conversely, broken type pieces are shared in lines 1–4, 7, and 9–17, and matching transparency overlays suggest lines 1–12, 15 before and after the variant “His,” 16, and the end of 17 are shared). Note that accidental variants occur in lines 15 and 18.
E2: differing in isolated letter pieces, perhaps words, in lines 1, 4–6, 8, and 11.19 This suggests that differences occurred during the substitution of lost pieces. Transparency overlays of E2 differ by about half an “n”-width in lines 1, 5–6, and 11, and there is more leading between lines 13 and 14 and between 15 and 16 in 1747B/1748 than in 1747A; broken type pieces are shared by all three editions in lines 1(2–3 [pieces]), 2(2), 7(2), 8(3), 9, 10(2), 11(3), 12(2), 13(3), 14(2), and 16(3).
Aside from sheet A, 1747A is most unlike both 1747B and 1748 in sheet D, where it has a separate setting for all the inner forme. I would judge from copies of at least 1747B that the inner forme was printed first and outer last for sheets B–D and the reverse for sheet E, where only the inner has two pages of type. This fits the conventional practice of the period according to Philip Gaskell.20 Thus, we should not be surprised that in sheets C–D more resetting occurred on the inner forme pages than the outer forme. (The fact that redistribution of type occurred prematurely for multiple sheets might suggest that multiple sheets were impressed on the same day.)
Most noteworthy about the typesetting shared by 1747A and 1747B is that almost all of it is also shared with 1748. Most of the typesetting shared by the 1747A and 1748 editions in sheets B and D–E is also shared with 1747B. However, in sheet C (as in isolated letter pieces of sheets B and E), 1747A and 1748 share typesetting not found in 1747B: all C1/5 except line 20 shared by 1747B; all the text and probably stanza numbers on C1v/6 but not footnotes and skeleton (also 1748 may have different damaged type pieces from 1747A in lines 13 and 17: “a” in “what” and “n” in “in”); all the text and stanza number on C2 but not the skeleton; and lines 1–7, 13–14, and 19–23 on C2v. Insofar as 1747B and 1748 are more separate impressions and issues than separate editions, it is surprising that so little type set for sheet C is shared by 1747B and 1748. Yet even in sheet C some type is shared by 1747B and 1748 but not shared by 1747A.
Without regard to the skeletons, the 1747B edition shares with 1748 most of sheets A–B, lines in C shared by all three editions as well as eight lines on C2v not shared with 1747A, and virtually all of D–E; 1747B and 1748 do not share the revised lines in the title page and head title (A2, B1), and any of C2/7. Copies 1747B and 1748 have identical settings for the half title (A1) but differ on the title page only as was necessary to insert “The SECOND EDITION” after the motto and alter the date (lines 1–8 and the imprint except for the date are shared). On B1, the head title is not shared by 1747B and 1748 even before the variant at “Lately” in line 4.21 The 1747B and 1748 impressions share the same text throughout sheet B but not the same skeleton, though stanza numbers on B1, B1v , and one of two on B2 are identically placed. Still, in 1747B and 1748 the bracketed paginations are not identical, and the signature on B1 and the catchwords of B1 and B2–B2v are separate settings in all three editions.
Foxon wrongly implied that 1748’s sheet C solely follows 1747A’s. As noted above, 1747B and 1748 share some type in C1.20, C1v.7–12 and 16, and C2v.2 also shared by 1747A, but they also share type set for C2v that is not shared with 1747A in lines 8–12 and 15–18 (excluding a few isolated letter pieces broken in either but not the other, as in lines 10 and 17), lines that closely match on transparencies. Thus, 1748 does not share 1747A’s indentation variant in C2v/8.18. Some broken type pieces on C2v are unique to each edition,22 but clearly the set of type in 1748 is an intersection of those sets of type found in 1747A and 1747B. No type for sheet C is shared by 1747A and 1747B that is not also in 1748.
In sheet D, 1747B and 1748 have the same settings, including both skeletons (all page numbers and catchwords and also the signature) as well as the stanza number on D2v (the same nicked “X” occurs in “XVI”), but they were not a single impression, for there are at least different placements of the stanza numbers on D1 and the first number on D2 and different isolated type pieces (e.g., on D1v/10.11, “B” in “Bough” severely bent and cut at 5:00–6:00 only in 1747B; and on D2v/12.10 the “M” in “Mutual” deeply nicked atop the second stroke only in 1748). Both issues share the risen “C” in “Could” in line 4 of D1r/9, and the same injured or misshaped left brackets in the headlines of D1v and D2r. The 1747B and 1748 issues also share the skeleton and nearly all the text setting for the inner forme of sheet E (E1v–E2). All they do not share is the capitalization of “His” in E1v.15 and E1v.18 and isolated type on E2 shared by 1748 only with 1747A (lines 1 and 4) or uniquely broken in 1747B.23 The editions have the identical settings on E1r, including the stanza numbers, signature, and catchword, except that the bracketed page number is in a different position (and the space within brackets is narrower in 1747B).
As we draw conclusions from the typographical evidence, we need to remember that our conclusions focus on the order of printed sheets. We cannot even assume that sheets B–E of the 1747B and those of 1748 were all printed with the intention that they would form the editions they form, for they may have been sorted into issues after printing. The 1748 shares variant readings in sheets B, C, and E with 1747A, and, arguably, was viewed as less correct than 1747B. Accordingly, the sheets of 1747B and 1748 might have been divided as unrevised and revised sheets, with the second, or more correct, sheets going into the first edition published. That in no known case is a sheet proper to one edition found in one of the other two is also noteworthy, given how closely in time all three impressions occurred and the editions were published, and given that they were published on the same paperstock. Care must have been taken to avoid such intermingling. This is especially remarkable for 1747B and 1748 since their shared skeletons in sheets D and E indicate these sheets were printed at approximately the same time. Richardson’s pressmen did not normally store the head- and direction-lines with the text’s type. Furthermore, sharing identical settings on A1 and—but for edition statement and date—on A2, the A sheets of 1747B and 1748 were also printed at approximately the same time. Since the sheets of both issues were printed by early November (such that two weeks later one set was in Faulkner’s hands and the other published as the second edition), only the 1747A could have been printed or published after mid-November.
In the transmission of text through the three editions, figured as X-Y-Z, the 1747 folios must be X and Z, and the 1748 must be the intervening Y. This is indicated by three considerations. First, in no sheet is broken type shared only by 1747A and 1747B, to the exclusion of 1748, suggesting that in the transmission, 1747A and 1747B were never beside each other, regardless of which was first printed. Yet, second, there is evidence that transmission occurred exclusively between 1747A and 1748 and between 1747B and 1748. Uninterrupted and exclusive transmission between 1747B and 1748 is obvious in sheets A and, from shared skeletons, sheets D and E (especially in D where 1747A has the inner forme entirely reset). In the B sheet 1747B and 1748 alone have line indentations on both inner and outer formes. As for the transmission between 1747A and 1748, 1747A shares with 1748 the page settings for C1 of the outer forme where 1747B is all but one line reset and for C2 of the inner forme where 1747B is fully reset. Furthermore, sheet E has isolated type shared between 1747A and 1748 to the exclusion of 1747B (for example, E2.1 and E2.4—see note 19). Finally, some lines of type are shared by all three editions in all formes but sheet A and the inner side of sheet D, ruling out concurrent impressions for all but those three formes, and, since 1747A’s settings entirely differ there from 1747B–1748, we know that no compositor drew on two prior settings to produce those three. It follows that the 1748 “second edition” lies between the two 1747 folios.
Consider what sequences of impressions can explain the three page settings for C1v, where 1747A and 1748 share all the text setting but not the skeleton, stanza numbers, and footnotes, and all three editions share lines 7–12 and 16. If 1747A was printed first and then 1748 second aided by standing type for lines 1–18 but not the footnotes, the third compositor, for 1747B, found type still standing for lines 7–12 and 16. If 1747B was printed first and then 1748 or 1747A second (though that 1747A was second is unlikely since no type is shared it exclusively with 1747B), the second compositor would complete the page setting while using seven lines still standing from 1747B and leave a full text setting except for notes and skeleton to be reused by the compositor for the third impression. Only someone’s ignorantly distributing type intended to be stored can explain why 1747B only shares seven lines with 1748 when those two impressions, to judge from sheets A, D, and E, came very soon after one another. Nonetheless, we can explain the differences on C1v by supposing the printing sequence was either 1747A-1748-1747B or 1747B-1748-1747A. However, several sequences do not work, such as 1747A-1747B-1748 and 1748-1747B-1747A. If 1747A came first, 1747B cannot have come second and then 1748 third, for the 1747B compositor only used lines 7–12 and 16 of 1747A while the 1748 compositor found the remaining lines of 1747A’s page setting still available, re-embedding 7–12 and 16 into what was not used from 1747A by 1747B. For much the same reason, 1748 could not have been printed first followed by 1747B and then 1747A.
In addition, the typesettings on C2v/8 are least plausibly explained by supposing the printing of both 1747A and 1747B prior to or after 1748. On C2v all editions share only line 2; 1748 shares exclusively with 1747A typesettings for lines 1–7, 13, the beginning of 14, and 19–23; and 1748 shares exclusively with 1747B typesettings for lines 8–12 and 15–18.24 If 1748 came first, we need imagine whichever compositor came second taking roughly half of his lines from 1748 (1–7, 13–14, 19–23 for 1747A or 2, 8–12 and 15–18 for 1747B) and then the third compositor receiving only line 2 from the second setting but also finding in storage half the type for the page from the first setting, type never used in the second. If 1747A or 1747B were the first and second settings, whichever compositor came second would employ only line 2 from the first setting, yet 1748’s compositor, coming third, would find roughly half the first page setting unused by the second compositor but still available. For instance, the 1748 compositor would find only lines 2, 8–12, and 15–18 left if 1747B was the second impression but coincidentally find the very lines not left by 1747B (1, 3–7, 13–14, and 19–23) were left standing from 1747A. There could not have been full separate settings of 1747A and 1747B for the 1748 compositor to work with since the settings for 1747A and 1747B share the same setting of line 2. No least-effort principle can explain C2v. Presumably a second compositor set part of sheet C in duplicate when a new order came from Lyttelton or the earlier typesetting was not found.
Accepting the likelihood that 1748 was the second impression of sheet C, we may find on C2v some modest support for supposing 1747A printed last. If the order was 1747A-1748-1747B, 1748’s compositor would have put to use fourteen lines it shares with 1747A but then passed on to 1747B only nine lines including line 18 newly set and indented, or, if the order was 1747B-1748-1747A, the 1748 compositor would have reused ten lines 1748 shares with 1747B but then reset and passed on to 1747A fourteen lines. In the 1747B-1748-1747A ordering, line 18 would be indented in the first and second editions because 1747B’s compositor saw it indented in the manuscript and 1748’s compositor received it indented; then 1747A’s compositor would mistakenly reset the line without the indentation and the insufficient correction more likely in a third impression failed to discover the mistake. If 1747A had been the first printed and was set from manuscript, the omitted indentation would involve an error not only by the author or compositor but by the corrector of a first edition setting. If 1747A was last printed, there is only one mistake, and that could easily result from spacing lost in type incompletely stored in a tray.
One variant inviting a close look at typographical evidence is the uppercase “Lately” in 1747A and 1748 and the lowercase “lately” in 1747B within the fourth line of the half title (“A Lady Lately Deceased”). This is the only instance in sheet B where 1748 shares a variant with 1747A but not with 1747B. Was it a deliberate correction and does it suggest anything about the order of impressions? The answers require a discussion of sheet A, for all three editions share some type in the large-font lines 1–4 of the half title and/or the title page with the head title on B1. Copy 1747A has the same setting for these lines on all three pages, and, hence, may have an uppercase “L” in “Lately” on B1 in consequence of reusing type set up for the A sheet. Copy 1747A’s head title setting differs from those in 1747B and 1748 except perhaps in the final three words of line 4, where damaged type pieces recur in all editions.25 In addition, damaged “M” pieces are shared by the three editions if in different positions.26 From type shared by 1747A with 1747B and 1748, we can conclude that no two settings of A1–B1 were concurrently impressed or stored fully. The reuse of large type pieces on these three pages explains why the large type pieces for the head title were not shared by 1747B and 1748. (It also suggests that Richardson’s shop had a shortage of large-font letters.)
Reflecting an economy of effort, 1747B and 1748 fully share a setting for A1 and are probably the same impression (transparency overlays are identical and what broken type they have is shared). They also share the setting of A2 but for changes required to add the edition statement and alter the date. (Some of the same type appears in both half title and title page, particularly in line 4 where they share the same “A” in “A” in addition to the two pieces also in 1747A, but the “M” pieces differ, with the thrice broken first “M” in “Memory” on A2 not appearing on A1.) Copies 1747B and 1748 do not share the same setting of the head title, not only differing in line 4 (“Lately” in 1747B and “lately” in 1748) but also having different “M” pieces in “MEMORY” of line 2 (1748 has an unbroken first “M”). Copy 1748’s half title and head title share the four-line title setting. Copy 1747B’s title page and the head title share some of the same setting (such as the second “M” in “Memory”; the alignments of lines 1–3 are shared) but differ in more than the presence on B1 of a lowercase “l” in “lately” and that line’s spacing (different initial “M” pieces occur in “Memory,” both with three cuts, but A2’s has a break in the left foot and B1’s has a break atop the third stroke). We can explain in two ways why 1747B and 1748 do not share the same setting of the head title nor sheet B’s skeletons but do share sheet B’s text settings: (1) 1748’s B sheet was printed; then the half title of 1747B and 1748 using type from 1748’s head title on B1; then, inserting the broken first “M,” 1748’s title page; then, following revision, 1747B’s title page; then, following alteration of the four-line title, including the change to “lately” and the insertion of a different badly injured first “M,” 1747B’s B sheet; or (2) 1747B’s sheet B was impressed; then, with one bad “M” replaced by another and with “Lately” now capitalized, the title page of 1747B; then, after changing the date and adding the edition number, the title page of 1748; then, removing the injured first “M,” the half title of both issues; and then the B sheet of 1748. The second hypothesis seems much more likely: it involves the removal of the bad first “M” in “Memory” before printing the half title; it supposes the first edition to be published was printed first, thus the first edition’s title before the press variant second’s; and it allows the lowercase “lately” in the first-impressed 1747B setting of B1 to follow from the manuscript. Moreover, this sequence assists the hypothesis that 1747A was printed last, for it allows 1747A’s uppercase “Lately” on B1 to derive from 1747A’s following 1748 or even re-employing some type in 1748’s head title. Also, 1747A’s failure to indent lines B1.2 and B2.16 seems less likely to arise from a flawed manuscript or the faulty correction of proofs than from quads falling out of stored type (much of the typographical substitution in shared settings occurs at the start and end of lines, such as the final letter in line 5 of B1). The indentation of B1.2, given the large-font “A” in B1.1, would have been more easily overlooked setting copy from a printed text (Todd missed it) than from a manuscript. But, to return to the case variant in the head title, it does not necessarily involve a correction the way variants on E1v do, for 1747B and 1748 have different settings, and 1747A and 1748 may have “Lately” capitalized because type was carried over to save work. (And the case difference, if recognized, could have been welcomed for suggesting that 1748 was truly a new edition, as could different skeletons in later formes of 1747B and 1748.)
Of the textual variants, most significant are the variant readings on E1v.15 and E1v.18 where a possessive adjective refers to God: 1747B (like D1747) has consistently lowercase, 1748 has consistently uppercase, and 1747A has uppercase in line 15 but lowercase in line 18 (aside from 1755, it is the only one of six settings in 1747–1755 treating them inconsistently). Since 1747B and 1748 have an otherwise identical setting for this entire page, either 1747B’s “his” or 1748’s “His” is a deliberate correction of the other. Given the reference, uppercase may seem on the whole more normative, especially where, as here, no capitalized words precede and follow, but below in line 19 (“Would thy fond Love his Grace to her controul”) the possessive for “God’s” is in lowercase in all editions, even if capitalized words flank it. Several dozen adjectives can be found capitalized in the folios, yet the handling of “His” and “Her” suggest the norm was to capitalize only nominal use, not adjectival (e.g., B1v/2.12–13). No convincing case can be made from other passages for Lyttelton’s final intention at E1v.15 and E1v.18. If 1747A was produced first, 1748 inherited as part of the lines 1–17 shared with it the uppercase “His” in line 15; in resetting as was necessary lines 18–22, 1748’s compositor merely regularized the adjectival pronoun three lines below. Then the 1747B compositor, coming third, deliberately changed “His” and “His” to lowercase without making any other alteration. If 1747B came first, providing 1748 with the entire page of preset type, 1748’s compositor deliberately capitalized the modifier. Then the 1747A came third, letting stand the uppercase “His” in line 15 but failing to regularize with capitalization the possessive modifier in line 18. In either scenario, the compositor of 1747A inconsistently treats parallel words. If 1747A came first, the inconsistency can be explained as following from the authorial manuscript; if 1747A came after 1748, the inconsistency can be explained as a careless regularization of adjectives and pronouns into lowercase, which commonly happens in reprint editions (such as in both the Dublin 1747 and the British Magazine reprintings).
Although one can call 1747B the “more correct” edition and 1747A the “less,” as the inconsistent use of “His” and “his” on E1v in 1747A indicates, the presence of correct and incorrect readings arises from the reuse or failure to reuse available type, in part subject to accident. As noted, the uppercase “Lately” on B1 of 1747A and 1748 may result from the reuse of type from sheet A. Issues 1747B and 1748 share the correct punctuation in D1v/10.8 and the lowercase “e” in “elegant” of D2/11.7 because they share the entire forme. Similarly, 1747B and 1748 share the punctuation in the catchword on E1 and the proper indentation of short lines at B2/3.16 and C2v/8.18 because they share these line settings. Thus, too, 1747A and 1748 share the archaic spelling “antient” at C1/5.18 because they share type at that point.
One final kind of argument can be made by focusing on damaged type pieces, those that are replaced prior to reimpression and those that are damaged during an impression. At E2.11 an obviously broken long “s” in “Rise” occurs in 1747A but not in 1747B and 1748, though the line setting otherwise seems the same in all editions (all share three broken letter pieces). I tracked this letter closely, hoping to find that it broke during a press run and so could be evidence of the order of editions. In the fifteen extant copies of 1747A, it is cut short at 12:00, but it is not cut in the twenty-four extant copies of 1747B nor in the twenty-seven copies of 1748. Since no copy of 1747A has the letter unbroken, it remains possible that 1747A was set first and the piece replaced in later resetting. However, in sheet E, an identifiable type piece seems broken worst in 1747A, indicating it was printed last: in E1v.15 the “O” in “Or” at 12:00 has a dent or crack downward to the left in 1747B (CaOHM CLU-C CSmH CU-B EU[2] InU MH NIC NjP NN-B O[2] OClW PSt TxU) as it does in most copies of 1748 (CU-B InU IU L[2] NcD NIC NSbSU O Owo ShU TxHR TxHU TxU; dented only in LSU MH ViNO), in both producing a tongue of ink downward to the left; all copies of 1747A have the widest cut seen in other editions and most have a wider cut along the same diagonal (CaAEU CU-D DLC ICU IU L MH NIC O PSt TxU WU). One strong confirmation of the greater injury to 1747A is that those copies at libraries with 1747B and/or 1748, after direct comparison, all show the letter piece in 1747A broken widest (IU L O NIC PSt).
From type pieces broken during an impression, the evidence is mixed but at least for sheet C points overwhelmingly toward 1747A’s following 1748. In sheet C, eight identifiably broken pieces of type appear more injured in 1747A than in 1748. Of these, three identifiable pieces of type appear to break in 1748 and to suffer only the fullest deterioration in 1747A, providing evidence that sheet C of 1747A was printed after that of 1748. In C1/5.16, the “o” in “Hoar” at 11:30–11:45 is not injured in some 1748 (Cp L1 LSU NcU NIC NSbSU), is shaved thin and/or nicked but probably continuous in others (IU NcD Ne TxHR TxHU ViNO), and is cracked in others but never cut wider than in any 1747A (E[2] InU L2 Owo ShU TxU); whereas, it is cut wide at 11:30–11:45 in all 1747A examined for it (CaAEU CU-D DLC ICU IU L NIC O PSt TxU WU) and in all but CaAEU and PSt the cut is wider than in the 1748 copy at InU, with the widest cut of any 1748 copies. In C1.17, the “o” in “You” is uninjured in some 1748 (CaOHM CU-B E[2] InU TxU) but cut at 11–12:30 in most 1748 copies (not as wide as 1747A: LSU TxHR TxHU; as wide as 1747A: Cp IU L[2] MH NcD NcU Ne NIC NSbSU O Owo ShU ViNO); it is cut wide in all 1747A examined for it (CaAEU CU-D DLC ICU IU L MH NIC O PSt TxU WU). Less convincing but noteworthy is that in C1.8, the “W” in “Where” is cut in the lower half of the second stroke in 1747A (CaAEU CU-D ICU IU L NIC O PSt TxU), but it is uncut in some 1748 (E[2] InU IU L[2] LSU NcD TxHR ViNO) and cut or cracked in others (NIC NSbSU TxHU TxU and probably NeU and Owo).
Four other identifiable type pieces shared by 1747A and 1748 apparently become broken in 1747A. In C1.2, the “w” in “own” is distinguishable by a dent from the right and break in the middle of the second stroke of both editions’ copies, but it has the fourth stroke also cracked in some copies of 1747A (CaAEU CU-D IU Pst TxU) or nicked (ICU NIC; not injured in L). In C1.11, “L” in “Love” has a thin horizontal stroke headed downward in both editions; in all 1748 copies seen, the bottom right serif has the normal upward serif, but in 1747A the serif is a small tooth in L O and PSt, has almost no upward movement in CaAEU CU-D ICU NIC TxU, and is entirely missing in IU. In C2v.13, the “a” in “Wealth” has a dot centered in the bottom loop in all copies of both editions; it is uncut in all copies of 1748 seen but cut at 9:00 in 1747A copies CU-D ICU L NIC PSt and cut fairly wide in CaAEU IU and TxU. In C2v.5, the “e” in “Manners” is nicked or bubbled at 7:30 in 1748 (apparent in most copies, such as CaOHM InU IU LSU NcD), but in most 1747A copies it has in addition to this flaw a cut at 5:00 in the upper circle of 1747A (CaAEU CU-D ICU IU L NIC O PSt TxU).
Prior to or soon after the first edition’s publication, Millar or, more likely, Lyttelton called for the press variant second edition to be set up with the date “1748,” expecting sales would require a second edition in or after December, with the edition number and 1748 date insisting on the poem’s popular success and the edition’s currency. This “second edition” was almost certainly the second published, on 12 or 14 November to judge from advertisements. Sheets A and D–E of the 1748 edition were “in the press” at the very same time as at least those sheets of 1747B, which cannot be said of any sheets of 1747A. Thus, of the two editions dated 1747, only 1747B can be safely assumed to have been printed prior to the work’s publication on 30 October. Since the Dublin edition published by 24 November took as printer’s copy sheets of 1747B (though possibly several of 1748), the 1747B is more likely to have been the first published. That the British Magazine was set from 1747B or 1748 increases the likelihood that 1747A was not yet published. Similarly, since the 1755 octavo took 1747A as its printer’s copy, 1747A was more likely the last published and, since not fully sold off, more likely to be turned over to compositors for resetting. That only fifteen copies of 1747A are extant in libraries, whereas twenty-four and twenty-seven are for 1747B and 1748, suggests that 1747A was published third, in a smaller run, when consumer demand was falling off.27 That copies of 1747B and 1748 are extant in comparable numbers (the greater number of the first edition predictably in private hands will even out their numbers) and share the half title and some skeletons raises the possibility that they were part of a divided order to the press. But, given their differences, unless the appearance of separate editions was desired, probably the press was only told to expect the possibility of a second edition.
Lyttelton could have decided to print a more ambitious impression after the printing of sheets now in 1747A had begun—perhaps flaws in what had been printed only encouraged that decision. And any sheets of 1747A first printed were presumably insufficient to have been used for the sheets of 1747B or 1748. But some sheets of 1747A, the A sheet for one, could have been impressed before those of the 1747B and 1748 editions. This would explain why 1747A and 1748 bear the titles they do and neither is called the third edition. It is possible that sheet C was being composed but was abandoned when 1747B and 1748 were undertaken (hence the confused double settings in sheet C). The E sheet of 1747A might have been printed first if what is now the E sheet of 1748 was printed second and then held off for a more correct sheet E of 1747B. If other sheets of this aborted first impression had been printed, textual revisions might have led to some being discarded for fully reset sheets. However, in the face of all these contingencies, it is safer to conclude that the title pages are misleading and that 1747A was called for in smaller size to meet lessened demand in late 1747. If we suppose sheets of 1747A were first printed prior to publication and thus that all three impressions occurred prior to publication, we cannot easily explain the amount of type not shared by 1747A with 1747B–1748. As discussed above, the failure to indent lines in sheets B and C of 1747A is more easily explained by those sheets’ having been set from standing type rather than from manuscript. We have reviewed typographical and textual evidence that 1747A’s sheets B, C, and E were probably printed with type stored from 1748, to which settings they are more closely linked than to those of 1747B. Probably more time elapsed between the impressions of 1748 and 1747A than had between those of 1747B and 1748, not so much that most type was no longer in storage but enough that authorial involvement ceased and the press was less vigilant. There is a higher ratio of errors in lines set solely for 1747A than in those set for 1747B. If 1747A followed the other two impressions, sixty-three lines were reset on C2v, D1–D2v, and E1v. In them occur the indentation error at C2v.18, the punctuation error at D2.7, the uppercase “Elegant” at D2.7, and the inconsistent use of lowercase “his” at E1v.18. By contrast, in the sixty-six lines unique to 1747B (19 lines on C1, 11 on C1v, 23 on C2, and 13 on C2v), the compositor only varies once from the other two editions, adding the variant “ancient” at C1.18, a regularization agreeing with the spelling in the next line. Thus, we are left with the conclusion that 1747A was printed after 1747B and 1748, and, thus, with another instance of Todd’s supposition that succeeding reprints grow incorrect.
Notes
1. The Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets; with Critical Observations on Their Work, ed. Roger Lonsdale (Oxford: Clarendon, 2006), 4:189–90, 4:186.
2. To the Memory of a Lady Lately Deceased: A Monody (London: For A. Millar and sold by M. Cooper, 1747, 1747, and, “2nd ed.,” 1748); all collate: 2o: A2 B–E2 [$1 signed]; pp. [iv] 1 2–15 16 blank. The half title (hft) in all editions reads “[rule] | TO THE | MEMORY | OF | A Lady Lately Deceased. | [rule] | {Price One Shilling.}.” The title page (A2) for 1747A (Foxon L337) reads: “TO THE | MEMORY | OF | A Lady Lately Deceased. | A | MONODY. | [rule] | Te dulcis conjux, solo te in littore secum | Te veniente die, te decedente canebat. | [rule] | [ornament of seated man fishing toward his right, 51.5 x 60.5 mm.] | [rule] | LONDON: | Printed for A. Millar, over-against Catherine-Street in the Strand; | And Sold by M. Cooper, at the Globe in Pater-noster Row. | [rule, 38–39 mm. in 1747A; 44–45 in 1747B and 1748] | M DCC XLVII.” For simplicity, I refer to these folio publications as “editions,” but technically the 1748 “second edition,” sharing more than two-thirds of its type with 1747B, is a reissue and reimpression with partial resetting. The two 1747 folios are largely different settings on three of five sheets, involving about half the type set, and so can be called “different editions.” All editions have unmarked paper with horizontal chain-lines 27–28 mm. across; tranchefiles 13–14 mm. occur either at the top or bottom, never both, of untrimmed sheets of copies C, CU-B, E1, LdU-B, MH, NN-B, and PSt (whole sheets were cut in half, hence the horizontal chain-lines). All lack press figures. All have cut ornaments belonging to Samuel Richardson: title page vignette of a man fishing (Sale #59; Maslen #288); B1/1: headpiece of face over crossed flower horns, within foliation, 35.5 x 132 mm. (Sale #99; Maslen #018); E2/15: tailpiece, fruit vase, with birds flanking, 44 x 50 mm., two cuts: in 1747A: birds’ beaks touching fruit (Sale #75; Maslen #304); in 1747B and 1748: a variant cut with beaks not touching fruit (Sale #74; Maslen #303). William M. Sale, Jr., identified the ornaments correctly in noting only the 1747B and 1748 editions in Samuel Richardson: Master Printer (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1950), 186, 296, 304, and 314. Keith Maslen similarly fails to note the 1747A folio; he wrongly dates the “second” edition “1747” and indicates his ornament #280 as the title-page ornament of 1747B: in fact, it is #288 (Samuel Richardson of London Printer: A Study of his Printing based on Ornament Use and Business Accounts [Dunedin, NZ: English Dept., University of Otago, 2001], 104). The records on RLIN and OCLC do not faithfully distinguish copies of the two 1747 editions. All copies in the public domain have been examined and are listed below. Library abbreviations are those in the National Union Catalogue and David Foxon’s English Verse, 1701–1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). All measurements are in millimeters.
1747A: Recognized by “Te” without a comma following in the first line of motto and the spelling “Catherine” in the imprint. Foxon L337 [Foxon, English Verse, 1701–1750, 1:436–37]; ESTC T51302 (wrongly listing copies of 1747B at CaOHM CaOTU CLU-C CU-B MR[2] NIC NN-Berg OClWR TxHR and overlooking copies at CtY-B DLC ICU MH PSt TxU). Copies examined (assume hft [half title] present unless noted): C (7720.a.3; uncut, 366 x 235); CaAEU [U. of Alberta]; CtY-B (Fielding +2a 734d[6]); CU-Davis; DLC (-hft; 4 ll. of MS verse on E2v); ICU (PR 3543.L8T8 1747; -hft); IU (xq821.L99t; 346 x 221); L (11630.h.34; 339 x 221; rebound by British Library in brown buckram; ESTC copy of record, reproduced on microfilm in The Eighteenth Century, reel 1464, no. 19 and on Eighteenth-Century Collections Online [ECCO]); LdU-B ([Brotherton Collection] uncut, 370 x 234); MH (*fEC75.L9994.747t; 342 x 220); NIC (PR3542.L8T6++ 1747; 310 x 212); O (G. Pamph. 1662[24]; 328 x 222; with MS addition on p. 8 regarding final line: “in a subsequent Edition this line is changed to— | Tears from sweet Virtue; source benevolent to All”); PSt ([Penn State U.] PR3542.L8T6 1747Q; 342 x 227; disbound); TxU (Am L999 +L47t; 340 x 222); WU.
1747B: Distinguished by “Te,” with a comma in the first line of motto on A2 and “lately” (lowercase) in l. 4 of head title on B1. Foxon L338; ESTC T221490, missing half the copies and wrongly listing ICU, LSU, and a third copy claimed for O—the G. Pamph. 1663[5] copy is Lyttelton’s The Progress of Love, in Four Eclogues (1732). Not filmed in The Eighteenth Century. Copies examined: CaOHM (trimmed small unevenly); CaOTU; CLU-C (uncut, 376 x 242–43; -hft); CSmH; CU-B (pfPR3542.L8T6 1747; 333 x 217; disbound); DFo; EU (2: 1) *S.18.32/12; 310 x 201; +hft; rebound in blue buckram; 2) Q P[amphlets].486/31; -hft; with thirty poems indexed in contemporary MS); ICN (-hft); InU (PR3542.L8T5; 305–8 x 208); L (2: 1) 643.m.16[15]; 342 x 210; hft bound after A2; rebound by BL with other folio poems in half calf with green boards; 2) 840.m.1[21]; 336 x 218; -hft); MH (*fEC75.L9994.747tb; 340 x 218); MR (2: 1) R100161.19; 350 x 220; +hft; rebound with twenty-three other items in marbled paperboards with calf spine; 2) R66851; 280 x 190, severely cropped; -hft); NIC (PR3542.L8T6++; 340 x 226); NjP; NN-B ([Berg Collection] uncut, 378 x 240; no MS notes as called for by ESTC); O (2: 1) G. Pamph 1662[23]; 348 x 224; -hft; in collection of folio poems; 2) G. Pamph. 1666[27]; 320 x 201; -hft); OClWR [Case Western Reserve U.]; PSt (Williamscote Library, PR3542.L8T6 1747a Q; uncut, 370 x 238; with contemporary MS notations by John Loveday: on p. 8, ult. l. crossed out and replaced with “Tears from sweet Virtue’s source, benevolent to all”; p. 10.8 [13.4]: “its Western” underlined for replacement with “her gentle” written above; final line of poem with “n” inserted before “e’er”; with commas added in MS on p. 1 after ll. 6, 7, and 9, and after l. 15 on p. 15); TxHR ([Rice U.] *PR 3542.L8T6; 338 x 220; half title signed “R Eyre”); TxU (Wm L999 +747t; 335 x 208).
1748: Distinguished by “1748” and “second edition”; and “Lately” in uppercase within head title; Foxon L339; ESTC T4628, noting microfilm in The Eighteenth Century, reel 6870, no. 9, and reproduction on ECCO, listing a TxHR copy not extant and overlooking copies at CtY (in Miscellaneous Poems 57), O (Vet.A4c.30[5]), and ViNO. Copies examined: Cp [Pembroke College]; CaOHM (disbound; 318 x 209); CtY-B (2: 1) 1978 +331; 300 x 222; disbound; 2) Miscellaneous Poems 57; 271 x 210; -hft); CU-B (fPR3542.L8T6 1748; 340 x 209; rebound); E (2: 1) 7.66; uncut and unbound, 366-68 x 460 across sheet; 2) Nha.E.18/2; 333 x 215); InU (PR 3542.L8T5 1748; 346 x 215); IU (xq821.08 P7514; 338 x 218); L (2: 1) 11630.h.35; -hft; 341 x 217; 2) 11657.m.28; +hft; 322 x 200); LdU-B (320 x 195); LSU; MH (*fEC75.L9994.747tc; uncut, 375 x 230); NcD; NcU; Ne (Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle); NIC (Rare PR3542.L8T6+ 1748; 280 x 196; on hft MS “Robt Master | E Coll: Ball”); NPM ([Pierpont Morgan] 77499.32); O (Vet.A4c.30[5]; 340 x 220; -hft); Owo; ShU ([U. of Sheffield] -hft); NSbSU [State U. of New York at Stony Brook] -hft); TxHR (WRC PR3542.L8T6 1748; 337 x 226; disbound); TxHU [U. of Houston]; TxU (Am L999 +747tb; 318 x 202); ViNO [Old Dominion U.] -hft). OCLC lists copies of the 1748 edition with accuracy except for double listing CU-Berkeley. I thank the following librarians for their assistance: Jean Archibald at University of Edinburgh, John Bidwell of the Pierpont Morgan Library, A. Iris Donovan at the Bancroft, Jeannine Green at the University of Alberta, Geoffrey Groom at the Bodleian, Janice Halecki at Old Dominion University, Susan Halpert at the Houghton, Sue Hanson of Case Western Reserve University, Kristen Nyitray of Stony Brook University, Philip Oldfield at the University of Toronto, Julie Ramwell and Thomas Gordon at the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, Meg Rich at Princeton University, Barbara Richards and Jill Rosenshield at Wisconsin University, Jennifer Schaffner at the Clark, John L. Skarstad at the University of California at Davis, Carl Spadoni at McMaster University, Stephen Tabor at the Huntington, and Georgianna Ziegler at the Folger.
3. Dublin: by George Faulkner, 1747; 8vo half-sheet imposition: A4 B4; pp. 1-2 3–15 16 advt.; Foxon L340; ESTC T77100, noting twenty-two copies; copies examined: CaOHM, CLU-C, CtY-B, L (1490.r.41; 191 x 118; on ECCO), NIC, TxU. In its “Supplement to Volume 2” (1747), 595–98 (published February 4, 1748, according to the General Advertiser), the British Magazine reprinted stanzas 1–3, 6–7, 10–11, 12.22–25 (last four lines), 13–16, 18.16–21, and 19.15–20 (last six lines)—for a total of 136 lines (entitled “Extract of Mr. Littleton’s Monody to the Memory of his deceased Lady”). These contain no substantive or punctuation variants and almost no accidental variants not related to emphatic accidentals (it places all common nouns and adjectives in lowercase and all italic to roman font). Due to its great fidelity, we can safely conclude it derives from 1747B: it avoids 1747A’s indentation errors and has only two punctuation variants if from 1747A, only one if from 1747B or 1748; two spelling variants if from 1747A or 1748, only one if from 1747B. Lyttelton’s poem was fully reprinted in 1755 (“Printed for A. Millar, in the Strand. | MDCCLV.”); 8vo: A1 B-C4 D1 [$1–2 signed]; pp. [ii] 1 2–17, 18 blank; press figures: B4/7-3; C4v/16-6. In the sole copy, located in the Brotherton Collection of the University of Leeds, there are MS corrections on p. 17 to 19.13: “fleetings” has “s” crossed out in pen and the final line has “n” added to “e’er” (after “Pow’r”). This edition took 1747A as printer’s copy, for it has “Te” without a comma in the motto’s first line, uppercase “Lately” in B1’s head title, all 1747A’s text variants but the comma after “Gale” at D1v.8 of the folios and fails to indent lines 4.11 and 11.18.
4. “Variant Editions of Lyttelton’s ‘To the Memory of a Lady Lately Deceased,’” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 44 (1950): 274–75.
5. English Verse, 1701–1750, 1:436–37. As mentioned above in note 2, William Sale had noted a second edition the same year as Todd’s article.
6. No advertisements for the edition appear between early December 1747 and late May 1748 in the Daily Advertiser, General Advertiser, London Evening Post, London Gazette, Penny London Post, St. James Post, Westminster Journal, and Whitehall Evening Post. Lyttelton’s To the Memory was listed under new books in the November 1747 issues of the Gentleman’s Magazine (17:548), London Magazine (536), and British Magazine (2:517); subsequent editions apparently were not noted.
7. Lyttelton’s suppression of an incorrect monody to his wife must be considered possible, for William Zachs indicates that two editions of Lyttelton’s lengthy Dialogues of the Dead were produced for publications by John Murray in 1768, with Lyttelton’s direct involvement (as in the ordering of presentation copies). These are “two entirely distinct settings,” distinguishable by press figures, with the less correct “reissued in 1774 with an altered title page,” apparently a canceled title page differing only in the date (The First John Murray and the Late Eighteenth-Century London Book Trade with a Checklist of His Publications [Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1998], 22–23, 265). These editions are listed as #1 and #2 with the second also listed as #81 under the 1774 date in the chronological bibliography of Murray’s publications (255 and 265). Also, as Johnson notes in his “Life of Lyttelton” in Lives of the Poets (see note 1, above), Lyttelton incurred extraordinary personal cost (“at least a thousand pounds”) for multiple impressions of his History of Henry the Second, needed to satisfy his desire for an accurate text.
8. In addition, superscript footnote letter “c” before Anio in C1v/6.8 is missing from all copies of 1748 (probably lost after composing, for footnote letter “d” in the following line is dropped low in all copies). The half title’s rules are 148–49 mm. apart in 1747A and 158–60 mm. apart in 1747B and 1748.
9. In the Dublin resetting there are five changes to lowercase (four involve pronouns) and two changes to uppercase (“veniente” in the motto and “midst” at 13.10). This pattern suggests that, were 1747A taken as copy, the uppercase “L” in “Lately” in the head title, the uppercase “E” in “Elegant” at 14.7 and “H” in “His” at 18.20 would have been reduced to lowercase as part of a characteristic change. The other Dublin changes are: eight changes in punctuation, seven in spelling (including “canchat” for “canebat” in the motto, the loss of an apostrophe for “Shepherd’s” [3.7], “pours” to “pour” [8.8], the loss of hyphens at 16.11 and 19.17, and “Appeninus” for “Apenninus” [13.11]), and three substantive errors: the omission of “te” in the motto’s second line, the addition of an incorrect “is” in the footnote to 8, and the reasonable (still meaningful) substitution of “ne’er” for “e’er” at 19.20.
10. The advertisement, transcribed by A. C. Elias, Jr., was rerun in the next two issues, with the misspelling “canchat,” also on the Dublin edition’s title page.
11. Entitled “To the Memory of Lucy Lyttelton,” the verses follow an epitaph describing her relations, death, and character. These twelve lines are entitled “Verses, Making Part of an Epitaph on the Same Lady” in The Works of George Lord Lyttelton, 3rd ed. (London: J. Dodsley, 1776), 3:159, where they differ only in reading “gentlest” before “Female Tenderness” where Faulkner has “gentle.” In 1748 Faulkner published Lyttelton’s To the Memory of Capt. Grenville of the Defiance Man of War (not in Foxon; ESTC T107955) and in 1768–1772, Lyttelton’s The History of the Life of King Henry the Second, 4 vols. Faulkner’s earlier publications of Lyttelton include The Progress of Love: In Four Eclogues in 1732 (Foxon, L336); and two editions (or issues?) of Considerations upon the Present State of Our Affairs, at Home and Abroad in 1739.
12. T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel remark, “The best known bookseller in Dublin, George Faulkner, was able to induce someone to send him copies of the sheets [of the “continuation of Pamela,” released in London 7 December 1741] as they were printed off, which he then published for his own benefit” (Samuel Richardson: A Biography [Oxford: Clarendon, 1971], 146). They note Richardson had agreed to “furnish the sheets” to the Irish bookseller Thomas Bacon and that “Richardson’s reaction does not seem to have been so violent as it was later, when Sir Charles Grandison was similarly pirated” (146). Regarding the theft of the last, Richardson detailed his complaints against Faulkner in The Case of Samuel Richardson of London, Printer, with Regard to the Invasion of His Property in the History of Sir Charles Grandison (a free handout written in September 1753), later excerpted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for October 1753, and, after Faulkner’s reply, further developed in “Address to the Public” printed in the third edition of Sir Charles Grandison (Catherine Coogan Ward and Robert E. Ward, “Literary Piracy in the Eighteenth Century Book Trade: The Cases of George Faulkner and Alexander Donaldson,” Factotum 17 [November 1983]: 27 and 33). Ward and Ward, as also Eaves and Kimpel, have discussed how Richardson’s plan to sell prepublication sheets of Clarissa to Faulkner for seventy guineas was disrupted by the purchase of the sheets of the first two London octavo volumes by Peter Wilson and of first two London duodecimo volumes by John Exshaw and Henry Saunders (Eaves and Kimpel, 378). James E. Tierney has noted that Faulkner then failed to “render [to Richardson] his share of the profits of Clarissa” (“More on George Faulkner and the London Book Trade,” Factotum 19 [October 1984]: 9).
13. These line numbers are shared by John Stirling’s P. Virgilii Maronis Opera (London: Atley, 1741), 139; John Hawkey’s Dublin edition (Typographia Academiae, 1745), 86; Thomas Neville’s second edition (Cambridge: Woodyer et al., 1774), 218; and Christopher Pitt’s translation, edited by Joseph Warton, The Works of Virgil in Latin and English (London: R. Dodsley, 1753), 3:378, all employing the comma after the first “Te.” In the monody’s reprinting within The Works of George Lord Lyttelton, 3rd ed. (1776), the motto is expanded to three lines, with the preceding l. 464 added: “Ipse cavâ solans aegrum testudine amorem / Te dulcis conjux, te solo in littore secum, / Te veniente die, te decedente canebat” (3:144). Pitt translated the three lines, “He on the desart shore all lonely griev’d, / And with his concave shell his love-sick heart reliev’d; / To thee, sweet wife, still pour’d the piteous lay, / Thee, sung at dawning, thee at closing day!” (3:379).
14. No advertisement appears in the London Evening Post of May and June 1748. The other title page variant in the London folios involves the more common spelling “Catherine-” in 1747A and the less common “Catharine-” in 1747B and 1748. It is 1747A’s spelling that appears in most advertisements (as in the General Advertiser on 30 October), but a common street name does not require compositorial fidelity to text the way a Latin motto does (the Daily Advertiser employs “Katharine-” with two a’s in its advertisements from October through June, and the London Evening Post employs “Katherine Street” in its from 29–31 October to 14–17 November 1747).
15. Transparencies suggest, as collating machines would, that on D1/9 1747A and 1747B have identical settings in ll. 1–3, 5–7, 10–11, and 16–21, but only ll. 16–21 are shared to judge from broken type in both: ll. 16(3[pieces]), 17(4), 18(2), 19(3), 20(2), 21. Type broken only in 1747A appear in ll. 5 (“O” in “On,” “F” in “Fortune’s”), 8 (“b” in “Ambition,” “g” in “highest”), 10 (second “a” in “maintain”), 11 (“B” in “But”), 12 (“W” in “Wit”), and 14 (“p” in “pleasing”); type broken only in 1747B and 1748 appear in ll. 1 (second “o” in “Good”), 2 (“S” in “Strong,” “d” in “Elevated”), 4 (“C” in “Could”), 6 (“R” in “Regret,” “o” in “or,” “a” in “Pain”), 8 (“O” in “Or,” “r” in “or”), 10 (“s” in “Its,” “b” in “by,” first “n” in “Vengeance,” first “a” in “maintain”), 12 (“p” in “temperately”), 13 (“o” in “inoffensive,” second “e” in “inoffensive”), and 15 (“o” in “Bounds”). On C2v, transparencies suggest that 1747A and 1747B share ll. 4 (except one word), 6–9, 15–16, and 23; yet broken type pieces rule out the possibility that any of these lines have shared settings. One comes to judge cautiously after finding pieces similarly broken on the same page and thus recognizing that Caslon type was prone to break at certain locations (as the loop of the “d” at 12:00, the “e” at 5:00–6:00 in the top loop, or the “M” at the joint of the first and second stroke). Few injuries will be apparent in every copy, for dirt fills in nicks and cuts; conversely, grease and other impediments to thorough inking will make a letter appear broken in one or a few copies when six or more others show it is probably not broken. The ideal marker has multiple breaks, nicks, and/or dents.
16. For example, in the following partly reset works, the resetting does not include the text and skeleton of the final sheet (D) and the text of B inner in the later of two “second editions” of Edward Young’s Night I of The Complaint, 1742 (Foxon Y25 or Y26); the final three and the first of the eight sheets of Defoe’s A Hymn to Victory, 1704 (D124); the final two of the eight sheets of Defoe’s True-born Englishman, 1701 (D157); the first and last of the five sheets of William Pitt’s Canterbury Tales, 1701 (P428); the last three of six sheets in the second octavo of Alexander Pope’s Dunciad, 1728 (P766); the last two of four sheets of Pope’s Epistle to Burlington, 1731 (P910); the last two of the five sheets of the second edition of Pope’s Second Epistle of the Second Book of Horace, 1737 (P957); the last three of six sheets of Pope’s Sober Advice from Horace, 1734 (P969). There are exceptions to this pattern in Foxon’s catalog, such as P767, but they prove the rule.
17. An example of type evidently broken that was not reemployed for later impressions appears to be the damaged first “M” in “Memory” on the title pages of 1747B and 1748, not also employed on the half title, though type in l. 4 of the title was. It is much easier to identify type that should have been replaced when reimpressions occurred, such as two pieces shared by 1747A and 1748: in C1.17 the “o” in “You” cut wide at 11-12:00; and in E2.1 the “d” in “Mind” cut 10–12:00.
18. All editions share in C1/5.20 the “h” in “her,” “a” in “raptur’d,” and “S” in “Spirit”; in C1v/6.16 the “s” in “search’d,” “R” and “o” in “Rome”; and in C2v/8.2 the “n” in “brighten’d” and “e” in “some.” These lines are identical on transparency overlays.
19. These include broken pieces unique to 1747A in ll. 4 (“e” in “enthron’d” cut at 10:00), 5 (4 pieces: “f” and “a” in “frail,” “w” in first “how,” and first “e” in “insecure”), 6 (“B” of “Bliss”), and 11 (long “s” cut short at 12:00 in “Rise”); broken pieces in 1747A shared by 1748 but not in 1747B in l. 1 (the “n” and “d” and probably the “M” in “Mind”) and possibly l. 4 (“h” in “enthron’d”); broken pieces in 1747B shared by 1748 but not in 1747A in ll. 4 (“I” in “In,” “n” in “now,” and “w” in “with”), 6 (second “s” in “Bliss”), and “S” in “FINIS”; and broken pieces uniquely broken in 1747B in ll. 6 (“r” in “ev’ry” nicked on right side) and 8 (“e” in “Beyond” cut at 5:00). Frequently the damaged type pieces not shared occur at the edges of lines, such as damaged type only in 1747B and 1748 at the start of l. 4 and the end of l. 6 and damaged type only in 1747B in the first word of l. 8.
20. A New Introduction to Bibliography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 127, noting that K. Povey found 86 percent of sheets printed in 1701–1750 were first printed on the inner forme. Printing second the inner forme of E allowed the side with most type to look the better.
21. Copies 1747B and 1748 have different alignments in the head title relative to the word “OF” and the different letter pieces for “MEM” in “MEMORY.”
22. On C2v/8, broken type pieces unique to 1747A occur in ll. 5, 8–12, and 15–18 (and it alone fails to indent l. 18); unique to 1747B, in ll. 1, 3–4, 6, 8, 13, and 17–23; unique to 1748, in l. 10 (“T” in “Tell,” the first letter of the line, nicked underneath the left cross-stroke, which is employed in C2v.16 by 1747A).
23. For instance, E1v.21 (“p” in “pure” nicked at 3:00 in circle), E2.6 (“r” in “ev’ry” nicked on right side), and E2.8 (“e” in “Beyond” cut at 5:00).
24. Copies 1747B and 1748, however, do not share isolated broken letter pieces, such as the “T” in “Tell” of l. 10 only broken in 1748 and the third “s” in “Distress” of l. 17 only broken in 1747B.
25. Transparencies of the 1747A settings for ll. 1–4 on A1, A2, and B1 overlay each other with the same alignment, though vertical spacings vary, and damaged type indicates that ll. 2 and 4 are certainly shared: e.g., in l. 2, the first “M” of “MEMORY” is nicked upward from the crotch between the first two strokes and also nicked left into the first ascender; the “O” in “MEMORY” has a white spot at 8:30–9:00; in l. 4, the “A” in “A” has a nick high on the left side; the small capital “a” in “lady” has a piece of lead sticking out like a finger to the left near the top; the long “s” in “Deceased” is nicked upward at the center of the top end (the second two injured type pieces also occur in 1747B and 1748’s title settings).
26. The first “M” in “MEMORY” on A1, A2, and B1 of 1747A is the second “M” in the word on A1 and B1 of 1748 and the second “M” on A1 of 1747B.
27. Although allowance must be made for copies in private hands, the relative scarcity of the 1747A edition argues against its having been the first printed of several prepublication printings, held back as less correct, for Lyttelton in ordering 1747B and 1748 foresaw that demand would justify larger press runs. No copies of any folio edition have been on the auction market in decades or offered by a major antiquarian bookseller in at least a decade.