More accurate publication dates for H . C . Andrews ’ The Heathery , particularly volumes 5 and 6

Using three types of evidence—dated watermarks; dates of flow ering of Erica L. species in cultiv ation in England: dates on which Andrews prepared the original drawings—it is concluded that the six volumes of Henry Charles Andrews’ The Heathen> were published as follows: volume 1. not earlier than June 1805; volume 2. not earlier than 1806: volume 3. 1806; volume 4, 1807; volume 5, not before 1816; volume 6. late in for Erica species were first published in Coloured engravings


INTRODUCTION
Henry Charles Andrews published The Heathery as a convenient, working edition o f his lavish, large-fonnat part-work Coloured engravings o f heaths.When com pleted, The Heathery comprised six volumes, each con taining 50 hand-coloured plates with accompanying brief text, and an alphabetical index numbering the plates.The introductory pages were essentially similar to those in Coloured engravings but the text was revised according to experience.Inevitably, the 'Introduction' (in vol. 1) was quite different and solely an explanation o f the new work; it contained a statement that The Heathery' would be published in parts (as all A ndrews' other publications had been) and that "when one volume is completed, every necessary requisite for binding will be given'.However, it is our contention that this was not the case, and that the individual volumes o f The Heathery' were published as separate, complete vol umes.There is no evidence known to us in the form of wrappers or partial sets o f unbound parts that The Heather}' were issued, like Coloured engravings o f heaths, in sequential fascicles for later collation and binding.
As with Coloured engravings o f heaths, which has been discussed in detail by Cleevelv & Oliver (2002), the dates o f issue o f The Heather}-, especially the last two volumes, are problematic.The title pages o f the six vol umes are dated as follows: 1, 1804; 2, 1804; 3, 1806; 4, 1807; 5. 1809; 6, 1804 (for comment on the title page of the last volume, see below).Hitherto, taxonomists (e.g.Dulfer 1%5) have accepted those dates as the correct publication dates, except for that o f vol.6; for the sixth volume, 1812 has been the date generally cited in botan ical monographs following Pritzel (1872).Kerkham (1988) gave 1804 1809 as the date range for publication o f the six volumes o f The Heathery but also remarked that 'Vol.6 must have been published much later as there are 1826 watermarks in it.' Stafleu & Mennega (1992) accounted for only the first four volumes stating the dates from the title pages.
At present, we have been unable to discover how The Heathen-was advertised, sold or distributed.We have not been able to trace any published references to it in contemporary periodicals.
In this paper we present evidence supporting Kerkham 's (1988) remarks and contradicting the title page dates for vols 1, 2. 5 and 6.We conclude that those dates are far too early, and in particular that instead o f publi cation o f vols 5 and 6 o f The H eathen• preceding publi cation o f Coloured engravings o f heaths, those two vol umes.like the previous four, were published after the rel evant fascicles o f Coloured engravings o f heaths.
It is surprising that so few complete copies seem to exist, and the occurrence o f incomplete sets o f the plates, especially from the later volumes, might indicate that these could be obtained separately, or even in fascicles, although, as noted, we do not consider this to be the case.Alternatively, it might be that the volumes really were heavily used as 'working* tools-Andrews described The Heathery as a 'green-house companion*-and suffered accordingly.

THE HEATHERY-. PLATES
The plates published in The Heathery> are directly related to the plates in Coloured engraving o f heaths.

Comparison o f the individual illustrations indicates that
The Heathery> plates, which, as noted below, are invari ably dated after the companion ones in Coloured engrav ings o f heaths, show only a small portion o f the plant as portrayed in the main work.Many, but not all, The Heathery illustrations are reversed and in some instances alterations are evident.The enlarged dissections, arrayed along the bottom o f each plate in The Heathery> are also either mirror images or redrawn or new.The redrawn dissections sometimes differ in details-broader append ages, filaments omitted, or the ovary now included in the small gynoecium/androecium dissection-and in most of these cases the whole drawing is redone with the anthers in different positions and with a different aspect.Re versed images corroborate evidence o f the engraved pub lication dates that Andrews prepared new plates for The Heathery\ often, but not always, using the printed plates from Coloured engraving o f heaths as the templates.Had he used his original drawings as templates for the engravings published in both books, the images would all have had the same orientation.
Regarding engraved dates on botanical illustrations published in Great Britain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, under an Act o f Parliament (8 George ll.c.13) passed in 1734.authors o f an engraved work were granted copyright protection 'to commence from the day o f the first publishing thereof, which shall be truly engraved with the name o f the proprietor on each plate, and printed on every such print or prints' (see Henrey 1975: II, p. 664;Steam 1940).Thus the legally required engraved date should be the exact date o f publi cation.However, by the early nineteenth century, although this act and several subsequent ones were still in force, authors, including Andrews, began to abandon the practise o f engraving dates on their illustrations, probably because the necessarily lengthy process o f pro duction o f these hand-coloured illustrations meant that engraved dates were not the true dates o f publication.

THE HEATHERY: VOLUMES 1-4
It is generally accepted that the first four volumes of The Heathery' are not o f nomenclatural significance.While the dates on the title pages are not always consis tent with the contents, amending the dates o f publication o f these volumes will not cause shifts in the priority o f names.
Volume 1 has a title page dated 1804.but according to the dates engraved on the 50 plates, almost two-thirds (29) o f the plates were not prepared until 1805.The lat est engraved date is June 1805 (Erica walkeria: t. 50).It should be noted that with a single exception, all the engraved dates in this volume post-date those on the cor responding plates in Coloured engravings o f heaths.The one exception is the plate depicting Erica pubescens minima which is dated May 1805 in The Heathery (t.39) but 1 June 1805 in Coloured engravings o f heaths (vol.2: t. 124).
The watermarks in copies o f this volume are confus ing.While the dates 1804 and 1805 predominate in the copies we have examined, it is clear from paper dated 1808, 1810, 1812 and 1822 that both plates and text pages were reprinted on more than one occasion, proba bly as customers requested copies or back numbers.
We conclude that contrary to the date on the title page, vol. 1 was issued not earlier than June 1805.
Volume 2 has a title page dated 1804, but according to the engraved dates this could not have been issued before 1806.Forty-two plates are dated 1805, six are dated 1806.Without exception, all the engraved dates coincide with or post-date those on the corresponding plates in Coloured engravings o f heaths.Watermark dates range between 1803 and 1805, although one text page with 1808 has been noted.
We conclude that contrary to the date on the title page, vol. 2 was issued not earlier than 1806.
Volume 3 has a title page dated 1806 and 36 plates are also so dated.Two plates are dated 1805 but none is dated 1807.As with vol.2, all the engraved dates coin cide with or post-date those on the corresponding plates in Coloured engravings o f heaths.We have not detected any anachronistic watermarks in this volume; the dates that can be determined are 1803, 1804 and 1805.
It is probable that this volume was completed in 1806, and as it would be odd if it was published before vol.2, the two could have been issued together.
Volume 4 has a title page dated 1807.Five plates are dated 1806 and 26 are dated 1807.One 1809 watermark date has been detected but could indicate a reprinting of that plate (Erica canaliculata minor: t. 157).As with vols 2 and 3 all the engraved dates coincide with or post-date those on the corresponding plates in Coloured engrav ings o f heaths.
These suggest that vol. 4 was completed and perhaps published in 1807.
In a catalogue issued in 1813, Andrews stated that he had 'finished his various botanical w orks' and sought 'to remind ... his Patrons' that they 'may now complete their sets'-Coloured engravings o f heaths was stated to com prise three volumes and The Heathery just four volumes (Andrews 1813: [i]).Judging by Andrews' phraseology, he deemed these works complete.Thus it seems that pub lication o f volume 5 o f The Heathery' and volume 4 o f Coloured engravings o f heaths had not been commenced in 1813.

THE HEATHERY. VOLUMES 5 A M ) 6
The evidence for much later dates than those stated for vols 5 ( ' 1809') and 6 ( ' 1804') is three-fold; first, dated watermarks [as noted by Kerkham (1988)]; sec ond, the dates when the portrayed heathers tlowered in England; third, the dates on which the original drawings were stated to have been prepared by Andrews.
As far as we can ascertain, the sixth volume did not have a separate, new title page.For some unknown reason.Andrews re-used the title page o f volume 1 but had it mod ified by hand, the Roman numeral 'V ' being neatly inserted before the original numeral T .Thereby the volume number was amended from one to six.whereas the date ' 1804' remained unaltered.He followed the same procedure with vol. 4 o f Coloured engravings o f heaths, re-using the title page o f the first volume and inserting by hand the Roman numeral 'V ' after the T (see Cleevely & Oliver 2002: 249).

Watermarks
When using watermarks to date publications, several points have to be borne in mind.Despite the require ments o f the Paper Act o f 1794 that enabled paper manu facturers to qualify for exemption from the payment o f Excise Duty on any paper produced for export, they were not meticulous in changing the date used in their moulds.The date 1794. in particular, occurs in many publications printed between that year and 1801.Secondly, in a study o f dated papers, Heywood (1950) concluded that the average interval between the making o f a paper and its actual use was a little under three years.
Although virtually all the watermarks found in The Heathery' are o f Whatman papers, these w ere made at two different mills and by two separate businesses.The water mark 'J.WHATMAN* was retained by William Balston when he sold the premises o f Turkey Mill to the Hollingworth Brothers in 1806.on the dissolution of the partnership he had had with them since 1794.The name of the mill was added to the Whatman name in order that it could continue to be used by the Hollingworths from 1807.
Balston briefly used 'W RB' upon opening his new Springfield Mill (one o f the first to rely on steam power) in 1807.After 1814. he adopted various other designa tions with the Whatman mark which reflected the man agem ent o f the new business.These included 'J.Whatman & W. Balston' and later 'J.W hatman & W. Balston & C o.'.followed, after 1822 when his son joined him.by 'W.Balston & Son' (Balston 1954).
The occurrence o f the dated watermarks 'W.B]alston & Co. 1815' and 'Balston 1815' in copies o f The Heathery, apart from the date itself, support the thesis that the publication date o f vol. 5 cannot be earlier than 1816.It has been claimed by Balston (1954: 124) that 'there is only one known instance o f a Balston water mark after 1816', although other examples in that work and our current examination refute this.
As already noted.Kerkham (1988) remarked that 'vol.6 must have been published much later as there are 1826 watermarks in it.'However, it must be kept in mind that we have detected watermark dates as late as 1822 in vol. 1. so we urge treating the watermark evidence with circumspection.
The follow ing is a summary o f the watermark evidence: Volume 5: in the examined copies, we have detected six plates with dated watermarks for 1812.eight text pages and two plates with 1815.and one text page and two plates dated 1816; Volume 6: in the examined copies, we have detected the following dates: 1824 (four: one plate; three text pages); 1825 (five plates); 1826 (ten; two plates; eight text pages): 1828 (one plate).