Note: The proofreading on my bibliography of Professor Hoffmann booklets continues. It actually is going a little beyond straight proofreading, since it has involved some revisions. I have tried to make the text a little more, oh, maybe succinct, or compact. This has had the impact of eliminating one or two pages, which is good. But I could not simply shorten the book (have it be fewer pages), because that upsets the apple cart in other ways. (As a made-up example, if I eliminate two pages at the beginning, then almost all of the table of contents has to be changed, and it will also make certain page-references in the text inaccurate.) So I have had to do “clever things” to keep almost all of the text on the correct pages, like adding images and perhaps rearranging one or two. But the amount of work left is quite finite and should not take more than maybe a week or so.
I want to start this post by saying that my interest in the De La Rue booklets is pretty subdued compared to my interest in the Goodall booklets. One of my early posts discussed in detail some of the reasons why I think Goodall booklets in general are a superior subject for collecting. Of course, it is all pretty subjective. I think the main thing I find curious about the De La Rue booklets is how little real interest there seems to be in them overall. That is especially interesting as to the Cavendish booklets, because Cavendish was huge in his day.
Professor Hoffmann, in his Preface to Hoyle’s Games Modernized, says, “To the present generation the name of Edmond Hoyle conveys but a vague meaning,” and later he adds, “Hoyle was in fact the ‘Cavendish’ of his day….”
This was in 1898.
Get it? Hoffmann is saying, you may not know who Hoyle was , but he was sort of an early-day Cavendish. You know all about Cavendish, and Hoyle was kinda like him.
Well, today, I suspect that, if anything, the situation is reversed. I doubt if many know who Cavendish was, but Hoyle, well, he’s like Shakespeare, and his name lives on and on.
Okay, I suppose that the preceding paragraph is just a guess. I have NO IDEA of how well-known Hoyle is to the general public today. And honestly, I don’t know if Cavendish is as poorly known as I think he probably is. After all, though, he died in 1899, and that has given many years for his books to fall into obscurity, and for other experts to carry on. I guess we mainly think of Cavendish as a “Whist” guy, and my impression is that Whist became largely passé not so long after Bridge arrived on the scene.
Anyhow, in this post I hope to continue to show that Cavendish’s The Pocket Guide to Bezique is quite a complicated booklet, as far as its publishing history and revisions go.
First, below is an image of all, or almost all, of the examples of the booklet that I have in my collection. It’s “only” seven copies, and I suppose a few of you guys do have more than that. (Scroll down.)
Kind of interesting to see them laid out like that. Obviously, the sixteenth edition is red, with one color of ink, while the others are blue, with black and red ink. Sorry De La Rue, but you are not fooling anyone. Yes, you kept the black and red, but obviously this was a cost-saving measure that resulted in an inferior appearance.
The booklets are arranged chronologically, and the two at the upper-left are dated 1869.
So, now what is the really interesting thing about these booklets? Just this: There are at least FIVE DIFFERENT TEXTS represented among the seven booklets. Now the differences are not necessarily great, but texts are different. This is demonstrated by the following scans relating to five of the booklets.
I have marked up the scans. The color-coding is pretty simple. The blue represents the corresponding sections (or at least the general areas) of text in three different booklets. The red indicates the corresponding sections (or general areas) of text in two booklets. Likewise, the green. Likewise, the orange.
The areas correspond, but the text has changed from one booklet to the next as shown by the boxed areas.
These are not intended to show all the changes.
I think that concludes this post!
July 20, 2017