Diachronic analysis enables the critic to focus on the physical material of the text instead of solely its body. In looking at the various editions of Goblin Market through the years, I found myself longing to hold the physical texts. There's an extra element of understanding in the materiality of an edition. I wanted to feel the binding, look at the paper quality and the ink used. Seeing the wear and aging on an individual book can often reveal the purpose and audience of the text. 

The version of Goblin Market that I researched was the Collins' Clear-Type Press version pocketbook. The book itself is very petite and clearly designed for travel. This was interesting as none of the other books seemed to have this purpose in mind. Books are usually promoted within a strictly collectable realm. Another thing that intrigued me about the book was its lack of information on the illustrator. In fact, the illustrator is unnamed. I have another book from the same time period that has the same disregard for its artistic sources, listing many illustrations as simply "from an old print." This prompts the question of credit in the industry of publishing. The collaborators of a text tend to be overshadowed by their famous peers. Just as the painters who would colour early illustrations go unnamed, there are too unnamed artists acting as ghost writers. I do wonder if it was common practice for an artist to have other artists working under them in a studio in the same style as Edison's Menlo Park. The individual artists would perform the creative labour under a studio, but the main artist would get all the credit. It's a curious thought and I'd like to know if it has any merit.