>Sevin Seydi wrote:
>I am cataloguing a book, not very remarkable in itself, which raises a
problem about the binding: [Anne, Lady Hamilton], The Epics of the Ton, 3rd
edition, London, by & for C.& R.Baldwin, 1807. It is in certainly original
and contemporary boards, printed three times "THIRD EDITION - THE EPICS OF
THE TON - Price 7s 6d", in smaller lettering on the spine and larger on the
sides.
>The only reference I have at hand for this style of binding is Michael
Sadleir, The Evolution of Publishers' Binding Styles (1930), who says
(p.31):-
>Isaac Disrael's Narrative Poems (1803), in a slim boarded quarto with the
title printed on the side only, is an immediately striking phenomenon, while
for works (other than series) in more than one volume ink-titling, whether
on spine or side, was even more unusual [footnote: I can only find one novel
in three 12mo volumes thus treated, and that (A Winter in Dublin by Sedley)
at the strikingly early date of 1808.] Between 1810 and 1820 many small
single-volume works appeared in this style...
>This account is short on detail (e.g. it gives me no clue whether our
printing on spine and both sides in untypical at an early date), but it does
suggest that - apart from the perhaps isolated experiment with the Isaac
Disraeli, our example is earlier than any seen by Sadleir. On the other hand
it gives the impression that he is drawing inferences from very little
evidence.
>Can anyone point me towards a more recent study, that has perhaps located
more examples?
As Gene Freeman commented earlier, Ruari McLean book on paper is certainly
worth a look. I believe Gene's reference to an article in _The Library_ is
Jonathan Hill *From Provisional to Permanent: Books in Boards, 1790-1840*
(_The Library_ 6th Series 21:1 247-273). Hill's article is the best I know
on the subject.
Your observation regarding Sadleir's inferences seems true enough. In
fairness, though, Sadleir understood a great deal about both his
subject--primarily novels--and his own limitations. On pp. 5-6 of
_Evolution_, he states:
*my own available examples of books in original binding and the conclusions
which have been drawn from them, have both been governed (and restricted) by
the chances of finding such books at all. ... Whereupon, perforce dependent
on my own observation or discovery ... I am compelled to argue from examples
principally of the genre in which my own collection specializes--novels
(alike in first edition and reprint form), satirical anonyma, and
non-fiction works of authors mainly known as novelists. ... I am, therefore,
quite prepared for refutation by books in the possession of other people,
and venture my tabulations with the timidity proper to one aware of his
exposed and dangerous position.*
Where Sadleir opens himself to charges of arguing *from very little
evidence* is his assertion (which I conveniently omitted in my ellipses)
that he can extrapolate from that which he knows well--his novels--that
which he knows less well--many other genres of book; this he does a bit
freely in some instances. Would that none of us succumb to such temptation.
______________
Edward S. Levin
edwardlevin@hotmail.com