[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Withinside



I'm with Cynthy here.

The Morgan reference doesn't in any way rule out the idea that this was a printed label, to be cut out and pasted to the spine. The Morgan cataloguing doesn't make clear whose price reference this was. Given the issue date of the book, it seems unlikely (but not impossible) that the publisher issued the book in leather-bound form. More probable is that a bookseller had some copies of the book bound to their specifications, and that the 'six pence' price is that of the bookseller.

If the publisher did not issue all of the copies in leather-bound form (and I believe it's unlikely this he did), then most, if not all, of the copies would have been issued in wrappers, with the idea that many, if not most, purchasers would have the book bound in leather (as was the case with the Morgan copy), but that some would not. Enough 18C 'wrappers' copies survive to suggest that some number of purchasers were completely content to leave their copies in wrappers. In those cases where the 'wrappers' copies survive, their labeling tends to be in the form of pasted-on printed spine labels. In some instances, books were issued with printed labels either cut and loosely laid in, or as a printed leaf to be excised, trimmed, and pasted on. It's most likely that such a printed paper spine label is what the "N.B." refers to.

On the other hand, I'm not speculate as to why on earth the publisher of the book in question chose the use an affected term like "withinside."

Edward Levin

BTW: In any case, it certainly would not have been a "lettering piece," which term tends to be reserved for a gilt-lettered leather label, often in a contrasting color to that of the leather binding.

Further, the Pierpont Morgan listing states as present in their copy, in
addition to the note under discussion: "[Price six pence, bound, gilt, and
lettered.]" This seems to rule out a lettering piece for the purchaser to
paste on.

Hm - actually, I think it supports it - precisely because James's copy
seems *not* to make reference to a gilt binding; in his version, the
binding (if any) is presumably Other, and a supplied label might well be useful to
a buyer deciding how/whether to bind or embellish the item himself.


And, we see from the series "bound, gilt, and lettered," that "lettering" is probably related to binding and
gilding but is not the same as either - "labelled" works there quite
neatly!


Cynthy


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]

 [CoOL]