Do you know if they have other eras instead of the colonial one?…It would be nice if there was but nevertheless, it’s still looks like an interesting game.

In a piece written by Jennifer Howard ["The Chronicle Review", 3-28-08 and titled, "A Question of Evidence, or a Leap of Faith?"], Professor McKusick [co-author along with Professor Burwick] is quoted as saying, “We would like for this ‘hypothesis’ [** emphasis mine] to be tested in the fire of literary debate but I think we have the evidence in the end for this to come out that it’s by Coleridge.” Ahh! Hypothesis! Indeed! And the prerogative of virtually anyone to advance with their supporting evidence but ’still’ remaining within the realm of a hypothesis versus a rather clear statement ["translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge"] of purported definitive fact! There is a difference. A big one!

The 2007 Burwick/McKusick book states that the Faust material of Goethe is, in the very title of the tome, “translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge” but which has NOT been definitively established other than in the ‘hypothesis’ [read: conjectured opinion] of the authors. Hence the continued controversy on the matter! The translation issue as to author remains an open question and by no means is it “solved” which, I would suggest, the global controversy itself amply attests! Coleridge’s own 1833 denial of same notwithstanding. Assorted, shall we say, pro-translator theory internet rhetoric of “he lied” or its diplomatic brother, viz., “Coleridge was quite possibly being less than candid” [read: lying] is not proof, it’s rank conjecture!

Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo

“A key to the Analytical table of mechanical movements : from the London edition”: p. [21-22]. The table is on the folded leaf.

That analytical table is among the most interesting features of Fuller’s Computing Telegraph, and is one in a long line of increasingly abstract diagrams ofmechanisms, going back to the theatrum mechanicum of earlier centuries and arguably looking forward to CAD programs of our own time.

A curious telegraphic connection is Christopher Polhem’s “mechanical alphabet” of 1729, by which — theoreticaly, I suppose — one might write a “sentence” out of a combination of letters, each representing a mechanical movement.

Fuller’s Computing Telegraph is an interactive example of a ready reckoner / commonplace book.

Instead I’ll note that, despite the Animal Farm trope you mention, had the digital file been of sufficient quality, it would - to me - be more interesting perhaps to make comparisons of the illustration work with the contemporary output of JJ Grandville and also in respect of the visual types in german childrens books of the same era and its relationship to the monde renversé stylistic theme.

Despite my obvious reservations, I am happy to see your blog appear on the radar and wish you well. If it is at all within your powers, I would love for this particular image to be uploaded in higher resolution format for public access. It is indeed a wonderful illustration that ought to be shared.