While researching a copy of the first English edition of Sigmund Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams sent to me by a book collector friend, I found that the current listings for this book contained bibliographic inconsistencies and what seemed to be unchecked points of identification. I began simply wanting to determine if the copy I had in hand was a first or second printing of the American issue. The task quickly escalated as each point of identification I found so confidently stated in sellers' listings was factually unverifiable. As my friend had gone to the trouble of sending me his valuable book trusting me to answer such a basic question of whether it was a first or second printing, answering with a shrug and "other sellers said so" wasn't going to fly. Thus I began trying to unravel the complicated, uncatalogued print history Freud's English language debut.
First some broad history before I get into the details of what I found. The first English edition was released in 1913 and is a translation of the third German edition from 1911. The English edition was published simultaneously by George Allen & Company in the U.K., and in America by The Macmillan Company. All copies were printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co. in the U.K.
The first claim I questioned was that the American edition has a first state with an integral title page (meaning an original part of the book) and a second state with a cancel leaf title page (meaning the original leaf was cut out and an alternate leaf pasted in). This seems to be based on the fact that the Macmillan title page verso comes in two varieties. One lists the printer at the foot of the page, and the other has a title page verso that is completely blank. The Macmillan title page with the printer is much rarer than the alternate variety, and is claimed to be the first state. That I can agree with due to its uncommon nature. However, describing it as integral and the second state issue of a blank title page verso as a cancel leaf seems wrong.
This suggests that my friend's copy with a blank title page verso is a cancel leaf, and it certainly is not. Please, take my word for it. I poured over the leaf millimeter by millimeter with a flashlight and magnifying glass looking for any indication of it being pasted in. It is definitely an original part of the book. And so, while I can agree that there are two different title page states of the Macmillan version, and the rarer one is probably first state, both states are integral.
Integral title page of the first and second state American issue [My photo]
Back of the title page of the first state American issue with the printer's line at the foot of the page [Photo from Whitmore Rare Books]
Back of the title page of the second state American issue with the printer's line removed [My photo]
The next identification point I investigated was actually unmentioned by all current sellers, and was brought to my attention by my friend, the book's owner Mr. Bob McLaughlin. He noted that the grain of the cloth binding of his copy was horizontal, while the cloth's grain for online listings claiming to be a first state is vertical. This went entirely unnoticed by me and the aforementioned dealers. Leave it to the mind of a woodworker such as my friend to observe a detail like grain direction.
Looking into it further, I found that all copies with a first state Macmillan title page also have vertical cloth grain. Conversely, all second state Macmillan title pages--the one with the blank verso--consistently have horizontal cloth grain. Thus, the cloth grain direction seems linked to the printing state, concluding that American issue first state copies have vertical cloth grain and a printer's line at the foot of the title page verso, while second state American issue copies have horizontal cloth grain and a blank title page verso.
First state American issue vertical cloth grain [Photo from Whitmore Rare Books]
Second state American issue horizontal cloth grain [My photo]
Another claim I found odd was the presence of a tipped in errata slip before page 1. This slip was only mentioned in the negative, as in the slip is not present. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any examples of the slip at all, either in listing descriptions past and present, or of it being photographed in the flesh. Unless someone can produce an example of this errata slip being present, I believe it is not worth mentioning. It is too easy to claim the absence of something which is not there. For example, did you know that my book does not have the unicorn tail tipped in before page 323?
That is not to say that I don't believe the sellers making this claim, I just need some evidence. In my research, I did find that a post-production slip was pasted to the front endpaper of early printings, and perhaps this was being confused as the phantom errata slip to page 1. The slip states: "Publishers' Note: The sale of this book is limited to Members of the Medical, Scholastic, Legal, and Clerical professions." This was a common way of granting the author immunity from prosecution of what was seen as indecent material at the time. The restricted sales of such books were easily circumvented, as with my friend's copy where the slip appears to have been torn out with the remnant of its left edge found to the endpaper at the inner hinge. Now that is what I call evidence.
Publishers note to the front free end paper [Photo from The Internet Archive]
Publishers note torn out [My photo]
Close up of the remaining material [My photo]
It is not a slam dunk explanation, as most people would agree that errata slips and publishers' notes are very different things. Also, how stupid would it be to confuse an endpaper with page 1? All I can say is they're both tipped in slips, and I'm trying to be charitable.
Taking all of this into consideration, I'm left wanting to piece together printing history of this book that makes sense to me, but all I have to go on is unverifiable claims in listing descriptions. So who can I trust? How about the printed word of the publishers.
While my copy and similar copies do not have a print history to the title page front or back, indicating they are first printings, I was able to locate a few later printings that do contain this information. For example, here is a third impression of the book from Ebay seller psandtoes.
So the Macmillan printing history is finally elucidated as:
Published April 1913
Reprinted May and November 1913
Next, I'm curious what is known of the George Allen U.K. issue print history, as both it and the Macmillan versions were produced by the same printer. For this publisher I actually found two options:
1919 George Allen & Unwin edition with print history [From The Internet Archive]
1932 George Allen & Unwin edition with print history [From The Internet Archive]
The 1919 specimen mirrors the Macmillan print dates of April, May and November 1913. However, the 1932 specimen gives a different version of events:
First published in Great Britain, February 1913
Reprinted May 1913
Reprinted November 1913
Could the February printing be when the first state Macmillans were produced? If I were to tell a story about this book, I would guess that Macmillan saw the U.K. printer line to the back of their American title page and found it unseemly. They requested a change, and it was taken out. At this moment in production, the cloth was replenished and its direction was changed to horizontal...
But I am just telling stories.
It's almost impossible to know what happened for certain. Almost, because there is one way to find out: a quick trip to England. In 1914, just a year after the publication of the book, Stanley Unwin acquired an interest in George Allen & Company transforming the publisher into George Allen & Unwin Ltd. The answer may lie somewhere in the 1300 boxes of their publisher's archive located at the University of Reading Special Collections.
I'm too modest in time and money to make such a trip, but perhaps someone out there will want to get to the bottom of it once and for all.
%20First%20English%20Edition){kind=link}