Notes on a Medley

When researching the history of Vincent Brooks Day and Son you soon find the many stunning posters from the hay-day of the art form during the twenties and thirties. Of the many top graphic designers patronised by the likes of Frank Pick of London Underground and Jack Beddington of Shell was Edward McKnight Kauffer.

Power -The Nerve Centre of London's Underground 1931 E.McKnight Kauffer, Vincent Brooks, Day & Son

Stonehenge - See Britain First on Shell 1931 E.McKnight Kauffer, Vincent Brooks, Day & Son

We came across this beautiful little book while browsing the internet today. Reportedly published by Vincent Brooks Day and Son in the late 1860's, it is Psalm 104 illustrated by Susan Maria Farington of Leyland in Lancashire. Fully extended the book opens up to three and a half meters long.

As detailed in other posts in this blog we know that a Harriet Robinson who witnessed the marriage of John Brooks and Elizabeth Stagoll in 1808 went on to marry the Rev. Robert Taylor (poss. Jan 17th 1834). We also knew that John Brooks had published Taylor's Diegesis; Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity' in 1829. We have recently rediscovered details of events from the previous year;

The initial charges date from 1827 but the case did to get heard until Jan/Feb 1828. 

1st count.
"Robert Taylor...John Roome...Thomas Brushfield...William Devonshire Saull...John Hanger...John Brooks...William Freeman...being persons of wicked, profane, and irreligious minds and dispositions...on the 1st day of January, in the 7th year of the reign of our sovereign Lord George the Fourth [1827]...did wickedly and impiously conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, to blaspheme our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to bring into ridicule and contempt the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures."

The indictment continues;

They "open[ed] a certain room, for the purpose, amongst other things, of delivering therein blasphemous and impious discourses,..."

"and did also...in pursuance of the said conspiracy...print and published, and cause to be printed and published, a certain impious and blasphemous libel, in the form of an advertisement...

It is obvious from many of the speeches that we have copies of that Vincent Brooks, Day & Son were always very proud of their employees and the way they were treated at the firm. Frederick V Brooks wrote in his autobiography,

"As will appear at a later stage of this Chronicle, I am Managing Director of a Company employing about eighty hands, with two exceptions the journeymen have all been apprentices of mine, while by the time that a new boy has been with me a couple me more than a couple of days, he feels that he has come to stay, that there will be no “blind alley” for him unless he makes one for himself and that a daily greeting, if we meet, is the custom of the house.
Have we any labour troubles? Certainly not, the staff is carefully selected by promotion from the lower grades and the work being high grade wages are well above the average. "

We were fortunate recently to be contacted by a descendant of one such employee. None other than Thomas George Broadstock who's name had already come up a few time in various documents.

Thomas had joined the company as a seventeen year old in 1869 soon after Vincent Brooks had taken over Day & Son. He was still working for the firm in 1924 at the age of seventy two!

During the company's centenary celebrations in 1923 Thomas presented the Brooks brothers with a portrait and in a later speech is noted for his length of service. In another comic pamphlet he is referred to as 'Old Tom'.

We were also sent this wonderful photograph of Thomas at work. If the picture that Thomas is holding in the photo is the same piece of work that we have a copy of (See post) then the photo dates to 1937.
If correct, this makes Thomas eighty-five!

Wikipedia now hosts a page on the history of Vincent Brooks, Day & Son.
The fully referenced article traces the origins of the businesses of Vincent Brooks and William Day. It follows the in-corporations, bankruptcies and mergers that finally lead to Vincent Brooks, Day & Son Ltd.

Amongst the notable work mentioned in the article are the Vanity Fair caricatures, the Underground and railway posters and all the early pieces from the era of the great exhibitions.

The wonderful thing about Wikipedia that has made it such a worldwide success is that anyone can edit material. So know of anything missing or incorrect? Just log in and edit away! The article can be found here.

A week's holiday in the delightful Channel Island of Jersey recently allowed us to do some on-site family research. John and Elizabeth Brooks appear to have moved from London to Jersey during the 1830's. The reason for this move are far from clear. Was John's radical printing press getting him into hot water? Was it a commercial decision as John turned more to wholesale stationary? Or was it to aid the convalescence of their daughter Harriet?

The notes made from Elizabeth Brooks’ diary show that she was visiting Jersey from the middle of the eighteen thirties. This period also ties in roughly with the time we stop finding books printed by her husband John Brooks from his Oxford Street premises. The census of 1841 shows John, Elizabeth, daughter Harriet and their son Vincent’s first wife Mary all living in the High Street of St. Aubins in the south west of Jersey. Elizabeth’s diary tells us that Harriet was christened on 13th May 1841 in St. Aubins although we could find no official record of this event.

The next diary entry of note refers to ‘taking Millbrook Cottage Xmas 1845’. Millbrook is on the south coast of Jersey just outside St.Helier. A librarian at the Société Jersiasie informed me that, at this time, the Millbrook area was just starting to develop with fashionable houses set amongst the sand dunes. This move closer to St.Helier links in with John Brooks’ purchase of some property in the Caledonia Place area of St.Helier, down on the dock side. The descriptions found in the Jersey Almanacs change over the years but list John Brooks as either a Wholesale Stationer, Paper Merchant or a Paper Bag Manufacturer, but always in Caledonia Place (pictured below). His son-in-law Samuel Buttfield is also listed as a Merchant operating from two doors down the street.

The Brooks’ then made a move into St.Helier itself and in the 1851 census we find them at King’s Cliff. Again, according to the librarian, a very smart and very English part of town. We know that they lived at number eight but on our brief visit we were unable to locate which house this was. However the picture below should give you an idea of the area.

At 5.30 am on 11th January 1855 Elizabeth Brooks passed away at the age of 66. She was buried at the Almorah Cemetery a short distance from the house. One of the first places we visited was this cemetery but our grave hunt proved fruitless. Two days later the ever-helpful librarian at the Société Jersiaise searched her records and found a cemetery map and grid reference. That afternoon, crawling on all fours, we uncovered Elizabeth's headstone hidden engulfed by a holly bush. The picture shows us taking a rubbing of the headstone once we had given the tree a good trim.

1861 finds John Brooks living with his daughter Harriet’s family in Buckingham Lodge, Duhamel Place, which is pictured below.
John Brooks made it to 84 years and 9 months before passing away at mid-day 12th January 1867. He joined his wife’s side, in Almorah and we hoped to see his named carved below that of his wife. Unfortunately the lower part of the headstone was too badly worn to read anything.

When John died he was living at 16 Regent Road and had been there with Harriet’s family since at least 1865 when he wrote his Will. With Regent road running in the shadow of St. Helier’s Regent Fort the house at first appears nothing special. However, reading a plaque on a neighbouring building describing the views of open country across to the coast that such properties enjoyed back in the eighteen century made us realise that this was the back of the house. Walking through an archway away from the road we viewed the house in it’s fully glory (trying to imagine it without the car park and secondary flats that have been build on the back garden). In it's day it must of been one of the finest houses in St.Helier.

On John’s death the business passed to his son Frederick. Records from the Jersey archive hint at trouble in 1875. These legal documents are handwritten in eighteen century French legal jargon and have been a pain to translate. From what we can just about comprehend in 1875 the business was in debt and all the Brooks children, Vincent, Frederick, Harriet and Thomas, renounced their inheritance to escape the effects of bankruptcy.

Of John and Elizabeth's four children, Vincent stayed in London carrying on the printing business that later turned into Vincent Brooks, day and Son. Frederick, who had previously been out in Quebec, settled down in St.Helier to run a boarding house first at number 6 and then at number 3 Elizabeth Place. Harriet’s husband Samuel Buttfield died at the age of 43 and she returned to London to be mentioned in Frederick Vincent Brooks’ biography who wrote “it is a joy to know [she] is still living as Mrs Buttfield at Bush Hill Park, Enfield.” We have no trace of Thomas except from an old family tree which has him married to a ‘Kitty’.[Letitia Kilpack, ran Victoria Hotel, Guernsey 1867-1881].

In the autobiography, frederick writes:

"The records of the Parish Church, St. Ann’s, Soho, bear witness that a little later the label “Frederick Vincent” was attached to me in solemn form, and certain promises were made on my behalf in which Miss Castell, a girl friend of my mother, took part: for a long time I thought that her name had been added to the others.

At school I was always known as “F.V.C. Brooks”, which my schoolfellows used to suggest savoured of a redundance not wanting in other directions : but on going to the Church Registry many years after I found that the extra name was a myth."

The extent of our author's mistaken belief regarding his own name has been discovered on obtaining a copy of his marriage certificate. Just how long the erroneous middle name persists after Frederick's school years, he fails to mention but long enough for him to spell it out for eternity on his wedding day.

Edit:
In fact, Fred's baptism does record Castell as a middle name.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
COMPANIES COURT

NO. 0062 OF 1940

MR. JUSTICE SIMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT BROOKS, DAY & SON, LIMITED
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1229
SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS
As at 25th January, 1940, the date of the appointment of a receiver for the debenture holder Submitted by Wilfred Vincent Brooks, a director on the 4th day of March 1940

OBSERVATIONS

1. The Winding-up Order was made on 5th February, 1940, upon a creditor’s petition to the Court on 24th January, 1940.

2. The Company was incorporated on 14th May, 1898, under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1893, with a nominal capital of £10,000 in £1 shares and was formed to acquire and take over as a going concern the business carried on at 48, Parker Street under the style of Vincent Brooks, Day & Son and to carry on the business of printers, lithographers, etc. By special resolution confirmed on 17th June, 1908, the company became a private company.

3. The issued capital is £10,000 consisting of 7,000 shares issued as fully paid and 3,000 shares issued for cash.

4. The Company’s registered office has throughout been at 48, Parker Street, Kingsway, W.C.2. and its business has been conducted from these premises.

5. At the date of the Winding-Up Order the directors of the company were Wilfred Vincent Brooks, who was appointed on 18th August , 1920, Mrs. Marjorie Mary Brooks, who was elected on 25th July 1935, and Douglas John Helme Coulson, who joined the board on 30th January, 1936. The qualifications for directorship was the holding of shares in the Company to the nominal valve of £100.

6. Under the Articles of Association the remuneration of the directors was fixed at the sum of £2. 2. 0 a piece for each attendance at a board meeting. On 26th October, 1922, Wilfred Vincent Brooks and Frederick Allan Brooks were appointed joint managing directors at the salaries of £1000 each per annum after the death of their father, who had been the managing director from September 1898. F. A. Brooks’ appointment as managing director was terminated in October, 1928. He was then engaged as Manager of the photo-litho department at a salary of £750, his brother’s salary being increased to £1250 as sole managing director, with an allowance of £500 for expenses. F. A. Brooks became the assistant managing director in 1928 and in 1930 his salary was again increased to £1,000 per annum. In 1932 the board suspended the assistant managing director as 28th February, 1933, and removed him from that position and from the board. W.V.Brooks has returned himself as a creditor for £2,654. 8. 10 in respect of indrawn salary. Coulson has been the Company’s secretary since 7th January 1932.

7. By an agreement dated 17th May, 1898 between F. G. Bowen (vendor) and the Company, the latter acquired the goodwill and all other assets of the business of Vincent Brooks, Day & Son, which business is said to have started in 1823. The consideration was fixed at £9,880 and was satisfied by the payment of £2,880 in cash and the balance by the allotment to the vendor and his nominees of 7,000 £1 shares in the Company as fully paid.

8. Annual accounts of the business have been prepared and audited regularly. These disclose fluctuating results until 1919 and then a general upward trend in turnover with an average of over £1,000 per annum net profit until 1927. Dividends at the rate of 10% per annum, free of tax, were paid for each of the eight years to 30th June, 1927. Dividends for the four following years were as follows:- 1928, 5%; 1929, 7 ½%; 1930, 10% and 1931, 5%. No dividends were paid after that year. From 1932 to date profits were earned in only two years namely, 1937, £256 and 1938, £551.

9. It appears that the original lease of the premises at 48 Parker Street was surrendered and that a new lease was granted to the Company for a term of 28 years from 29th September, 1902, at a rental of £215 per annum for the first 14 years and £230 per annum for the remainder of the term. During 1920 the Company acquired the freehold of these premises for approximately £5,000. Additions and improvements have been made to the premises from time to time, the balance on the asset account as at 30th June, 1934, being £17,141. 8. 3. In accordance with a valuation obtained on 30th May 1935, the freehold premises account was appreciated to £22,500. On 29thJune, 1939, the Company disposed of the freehold for £21,000 out of which the mortgage debt of £14,425 and various other commitments including a bank overdraft of £5,000 were discharged. The balance of the purchase money was retained by the purchasers against the rent payable under a 44 years lease of the premises which was granted to the Company at an annual rental of £1,450.

10. In January, 1936, the Company agreed to the terms of a resolution passed at a conference of certain creditors under which they were prepared to grant a moratorium of three months from 29th January, 1936, in respect of liabilities as at 31st December, 1935, provided Mr. A. Granville White was appointed financial supervisor and that all the Companies cheques were countersigned by him. The moratorium was extended from time to time in order to give the Company an opportunity of finding new working capital. Several financial schemes were arranged but they could not be satisfactorily completed. Eventually the Company entered into negotiations for obtaining an advance of £7,000. Pending completion of these negotiations overdraft facilities were arranged on the understanding that the overdraft would be discharged immediately the advance was received by the Company.

11. On 29th June, 1939, the Company issued a debenture charging its undertaking and all other property and assets with the payment of all moneys due or to become due to the Bank.

12. W. V. Brooks states that the returns of sales for the last three months of the year 1939 did not average more than £600 a month as against a normal turnover of £1,400 or £1,500 a month; that the Company had practically no orders on hand for January and that, therefore, he decided not to accept the advance.

13. On 10th October, 1939, a creditor for £186. 3. 1 obtained judgment against the Company in that sum and costs. Leave to proceed to the enforcement of the judgment was suspended provided the Company paid a sum of £50 within 4 days of the Order and the balance by installments of £50 a month. The Company paid £50 on 21st November, 1939, but the cheque for the second installment was dishonored on presentation. No further payment was made by the Company and the creditor presented the petition on which the Winding-Up Order was made. In the meantime, on 25th January, 1940 the debenture holder appointed Mr. A. Granville White of 73, Cheapside, E.C. as Receiver.

14. W. V. Brooks and Coulson attribute the failure to the outbreak of the war.

15. The Receiver for the debenture holder is continuing the business in the hopes of disposing of it as a going concern, but he states that having regard to the specialised and somewhat ancient type of plant he doubts whether the assets will realise sufficient to discharge the debenture liability, particularly bearing in mind the somewhat heavy claims of the preferential creditors.

16. As a result of the statutory meetings of creditors and contributories held on 14th March, 1940, the Official Receiver remains the Liquidator of the Company.

Dated this 24th day of June 1940

H. P. Naunton,
Official Receiver.

33, Carey Street,
Lincoln’s Inn,
London, W.C.2.

In the previous post we saw that Elizabeth Stagoll's marriage record was witnessed by Harriet Robinson. To strengthen our theory that this 1808 wedding of John Brooks and Elizabeth Stagoll is the one relating to our family tree we now turn to examine Miss Robinson.


Our first reference to Harriet Robinson came from Elizabeth's copied diary entries:

"Mrs Robinson was married to Mr Taylor Jan 17 1834"

A subsequent entry tells us that Mr. Taylor died in 1844. Both these dates tie in with the Rev. Robert Taylor, a radical free-thinker and anti-clericalist nick-named 'the devil's chaplain'. In 1829 John Brooks published Taylor's 'Diegesis; Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity' and both Brooks and Taylor were acquaintances with Richard Carlile and Julian Hibbert.

It is interesting to note that John Brooks was an executor in Hibbert's will. When the non-animal-eating Hibbert died suddenly in 1834 (also recorded in the diary) a sum of money left to Robert Taylor was 'revoked by a codicil, in consquence, as he states, of Taylor having married a Lady of large fortune'. The Cambridge Alumni Database also records this marriage to 'an elderly lady of means'.

Parish records for St. Giles in Field indeed register the 1834 marriage of a Robert Taylor and Harriet Robinson although we have yet to obtain a copy of the certificate.

The Cambridge records also record Taylor's 1844 death in Tours, France. This might explain another diary entry:


"Left Tours for Jersey June 4th 1842...
...my second visit to Tours June 7th 1844. Mr. Taylor died about 7th June 1844"

So to summarise, the 1808 marriage of John Brooks and Elizabeth Stagoll looks very likely to be the correct one. Harriet Robinson was a good friend of Elizabeth who later married Rev Robert Taylor. Elizabeth continued to visit Harriet even after the Taylor's move to Tours and yet another diary entry records a last visit to Mrs Taylor in Cumberland.



Sources:
Cambridge Alumni Database
The Gentleman's Magazine Published by F. Jefferies, 1834

Frederick Vincent Brook's autobiography names his paternal grandmother as Elizabeth Steggall. Although we are fortunate enough to have a transcription of some of her diary entries we have always struggled to learn much about her origins or even her marriage to John Brooks. It now seems that the spelling of her surname could well have thrown us off the scent.

Our first inkling that something was not right was when the only marriage record we could find for the name John Brooks was for a marriage to an Elizabeth Stagoll. This wedding took place on the 10th May 1808, which is a little early considering Frederick's memory of John Brooks returning from America 'in time for the Waterloo Rejoicing' in 1815. At a time when there was only one form of contraception it is also unusual that Frederick's father, Vincent Brooks, wasn't born until the same year.

Was there any evidence to back up the 1808 marriage certificate?
We are fortunate to have a copy of the record of Vincent Brook's first marriage to Mary Ann Wybrow in 1839. Elizabeth, his mother, signed as a witness to the event. Although surnames are different (the first an unmarried Stagoll, the second a married Brooks) we can compare the signatures from the two marriage documents. Both names are abbreviated to 'Elizth' and are remarkably alike.

What else do we know about Elizabeth that might add weight to our theory?
All we know about her family comes from a snippet in her diary:

"My beloved sister Fanny married Feb 27th, 1820.
Elizabeth Matilda Clara born Dec 30th, 1820, her only child.
On the 10th of January 1826 my dear sister with her husband & child were lost off the Texel coming from Bolivia to Amsterdam".

A search of parish records for Elizabeth Steggall produces nothing.
A search for Stagoll gives us the following results:

Elizabeth Clarkson and John stagoll Married 1787 St.Botolph Without Aldgate,
Children and christening dates:
Elizabeth Stagoll, 1789 St.Olave
Mary Stagoll, 26.10.1791 St. Botolph Without Aldgate
Matilda Amelia Stagoll, 17.08.1792 St. Olave
Martha Stagoll, 09.10.1793 St.Olave Hart Street
Fanny Stagoll, 26.06.1796 St.Botolph Without Aldgate
Jonathan Stagoll, 15.05.1803 St. Botolph Without Aldgate

So here we find an Elizabeth Stagoll who would have been nineteen or twenty at the time of the 1808 marriage and who also had a younger sister called Fanny. This fits in nicely with the diary entry. In naming her child 'Elizabeth Matilda', could Fanny also have been using the names of two of her older sisters?

The chances of our Elizabeth being a Stagoll instead of a Steggall are looking more likely. However, does the real key to the mystery lie in the name of a witness on the 1808 marriage certificate?

To follow, Harriet Robinson and the Devil's Chaplain...

One of the more notable books published by John Brooks was an edition of Shelley's Queen Mab. The rather unauthorised appearance of this volume, how it was obtained and Shelley's amendments to it have long intrigued scholars of the subject. The text below comes from two sources. The first first-hand account was written by Thomas Medwin and comes from 'The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley' published in 1847. The second is from 'The complete poetry of Percy Bysshe Shelley' by Donald H. Reiman (2000). Reiman describes Queen Mab,

'...perhaps Shelley's most intellectually ambitious work, articulating his views of science, politics, history, religion, society, and individual human relations. Subtitled A Philosophical Poem: With Notes, it became his most influential -- and pirated -- poem during much of the nineteenth century, a favorite among reformers and radicals.'

"One evening he [Sir Thomas Lawrence] persuaded me to accompany him to the Owenite chapel, in Charlotte-street. In the ante-room, I observed a man at a table, on which were laid for sale, among many works on a small scale, this History of the Nairs, and Queen Mab, and after the discourse by Owen—a sort of doctrinal rather than moral essay, in which he promised his disciples a millennium of roast beef and fowls, and three or four days' recreation out of the seven, equal division of property, and an universality of knowledge by education,—we had an interview with the lecturer and reformer, whom I had met some years before at the house of a Northumberland lady. On finding that I was connected with Shelley, he made a long panegyric on him, and taking up one of the Queen Mabs from the table, read, premising that it was the basis of one of his chief tenets, the following passage:

"How long ought the sexual connection to last! What law ought to specify the extent of the grievance that should limit its duration! A husband and wife ought to continue so long united as they love one another. Any law that should bind them to cohabitation for one moment after the decay of their affection, would be a most intolerable tyranny, and most unworthy of toleration."

If Lord Melbourne did not hold similar opinions, he at least thought there was no harm in encouraging them, by presenting Mr. Owen to our Queen. The question is, whether, in the - present state of society, and with the want of education that characterises the sect of which Mr. Owen is the founder, the Socialists, their tenets are, or are not pregnant with danger. This philanthropist, however, certainly is sincere in believing the contrary; and up to this time experience seems to have confirmed his belief. He has spent his life, and expended his fortune in inculcating them; and a more thoroughly amiable and moral man does not exist. "He has had but one object in both hemispheres," (to use the words of Frederica Bremer,) "to help the mass of mankind to food and raiment, in order that the mass may make provision for their mental improvement; for when the necessary wants are satisfied, man turns to those of a more general and exalted kind. Hence, when the great day work of the earth is done with men, the Sabbath will begin, in which a generation of tranquil worshippers will spread over the earth, no longer striving after perishable treasures, but seeking those which are eternal; a people whose whole life will be devoted to the improvement of their mental powers, and to the worship of the Creator in spirit and in truth. Then the day will arrive in which the angels will say, 'Peace upon Earth!!!'"

This edition of Queen Mab, that has led to the above quotation, bore the name of Brooks as publisher. It contains a beautiful frontispiece illustrative of the death of Ianthe, and as a motto, the well-known line from some Greek dramatist —probably Eschylus—which may be rendered:

Give me whereon to stand, I’ll move the earth.

Brooks did, or does, live at the bottom of Oxford Street, and I paid him more than one visit. He had a correspondent at Marlow, who knew Shelley, but whose name I have forgotten, from whom he obtained a copy of Queen Mab, which, like the Wandering Jew, had probably been left by Shelley's inadvertence in his abode here. This copy was exceedingly interlined, very much curtailed and modified, as by a specimen given in a fragment entitled the "Demon of the World," appended to "Alastor;" and what is still more important and worthy of remark, with the Notes torn out. The copy had been revised with great care, and as though Shelley had an intention at the time of bringing out a new edition, an idea which his neglect of his labour shews he soon abandoned. This emendated work is a great curiosity, and has scattered about the pages rude pen-and-ink drawings of the most fantastic kind, proving the abstraction of his mind during this pursuit. It was a comment that led me to many speculations, suggesting a deep sense of the obloquy of which he had made himself the victim, and betokening a fluctuation of purpose, a hesitation and doubt of himself and of the truth or policy of his theories. That Mr. Brooks (he was the publisher if not the printer of the Owenites) did not make use of the refacciamenti or pentimate in his numerous reprints of Queen Mab, may easily be conceived, for these very alterations were the only objectionable parts to him, and he would have thought it a sacrilege to have struck out a word of the original text, much less the notes. Queen Mab is indeed the gospel of the sect, and one of them told me, that he had found a passage in Scripture that unquestionably applied to Shelley, and that the word Shiloh was pronounced in the Hebrew precisely in the same manner as his name.

It is much to be desired that Mrs. Shelley should endeavor to obtain this Queen Mab of Mr. Brooks. I have no doubt that he would estimate it at a price far beyond my means, nor have I made any overtures to him for the purchase, invaluable as its acquisition would be to me at this moment."

Donald H. Reiman;

"Brooks, an Owenite publisher, produced a “very handsome edition,” priced 9s. (see ad reproduced in Shelley Library, 55). Its engraved title page omits the subtitle and mention of the notes and includes only the epigraph from Archimedes. It does, however, contain a striking vignette depicting Queen Mab calling forth the sleeping Ianthe’s spirit, which was drawn by Charles Landseer (son of the engraver John Landseer) and engraved by Edward James Portbury (who did much engraving for the gift books of the 1820’s and 1830’s). Brooks, who includes the dedicatory poem to Harriet (in the copies we have seen) and does not provide translation of the notes, took his text directly from [the] 1813 [edition], a unique copy of which he had obtained from Robert Madocks, Shelley’s handyman and the agent for his landlord in Marlow who had confiscated it years earlier in addition to other of the Shelley’s belongings left behind along with an unpaid balance. This copy contains Shelley’s draft revisions of Queen mab into Demon and other shorter pieces, which are mentioned above and which ended up in the hands of Forman and ultimately Pforzheimer.

Brook’s edition follows 1813 closely but not uncritically: rarely emending the text of the poem proper, it is somewhat freer with the notes, especially in revising Shelley’s grammar and in correcting errors in the foreign language passages (once in Note 17 even “correcting” back to the orginal an intentional change Shelley made in Horace’s Latin). Several of these changes were transmitted through Ascham to Mary Shelley’s editions. Perhaps Brooks’s most significant textual gaffe in editing the poem comes in VIII.232-33, where, misunderstanding Shelley’s grammar, he initiates three misguided emendations (“extends / Its…wields” for “extend / Their wield”) that were also transmitted through Ascham to Mary Shelley. Beyond this textual important edition, Brooks’s influence on the transmission of Queen Mab extended in 1833 to his acquiring the stock and stereotyped plates of Mrs. Carlile’s 1832 piracy, which first printed the notes as footnotes to the poem, at the bottom of the page. Brooks published this pocket-sized edition under his own name for the price of 1s 6d., and from him the plates seem to have passed on to Hetherington and Watson, who continued to make Queen Mab widely available to the lower classes."