The Philomathean Rosetta Stone Reports
1858/1859 Comparison Concordance
1858 & 1859, page by page.
A visual comparison of 167 printed-page pairs: the designs that recur, the details that change, and the passages that were newly drawn or lettered.
- 20
- No drawn change detected
- 57
- Locally altered / retouched
- 89
- Redrawn / newly lettered
- 1
- Retained border, new text
Building on the bibliography
Alongside Adams’s 1924 table
Randolph G. Adams supplied the foundational page-by-page account. This concordance credits his classification for each corresponding entry and adds illustrated observations, including non-pagination alterations on eleven pages he grouped under “Old plates.” These details were not individually recorded in his table; their absence there does not establish that nobody has noticed them elsewhere.
The categories describe visible printed work. Identical drawing can survive by transfer to another stone; a difference may result from local retouching, inking, registration, wear, or scanning. Image comparison alone cannot establish an exact count of surviving physical stones. Of the 57 locally altered pairs, 38 are classified as pagination changes only.
Read the sources and methodSix ways to read the evidence
Look closely.
Open a comparison to see the pages and the evidence. Image links open a larger view.
Loading the illustrated comparisons…
The complete register
Find a page. Follow the change.
Search both editions’ page numbers, a word in the evidence, or Adams’s classification.
Loading 167 printed-page pairs…
1858 page → 1859 pageKeep the full comparison
The illustrated report
All 197 pages, including the complete register, 167 illustrated pairs, blank-page accounting, additional matter, sources, and limits of the analysis.
Eight PDF parts, about 359 MB altogether. The page images retain the report’s original resolution. Download all eight into the same folder for readers that support links between PDF files.
- Part 1 · Report pages 1–3948.9 MB
- Part 2 · Report pages 40–6248.3 MB
- Part 3 · Report pages 63–8650.1 MB
- Part 4 · Report pages 87–11249.7 MB
- Part 5 · Report pages 113–13749.7 MB
- Part 6 · Report pages 138–16149.9 MB
- Part 7 · Report pages 162–19150.4 MB
- Part 8 · Report pages 192–19712.2 MB
Evidence & attribution
Sources and method
The principal witnesses are the Getty Research Institute’s digitized 1858 and 1859 copies. The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek copy supplies two counterparts missing from the Getty sequence and corroborates selected altered passages. Each register entry identifies the printed pagination, scan view, witness, and original source. Square brackets denote unprinted or supplied pagination. Foldouts, inserted matter, and the distinction between physical surfaces and numbered pages are accounted for in the full report.
Full pages were compared visually, with enlargement of lettering and ornament. Apparent differences in ink strength, color, registration, cropping, or paper condition are not by themselves evidence of redrawing. “Retouched” is a classification of local alteration in the printed image, not an independently proved account of the workshop operation. A retained design may have been transferred to a new stone. The Greek page 150 makes that distinction especially important.
- Philomathean Society. 1858 Report, Getty Research Institute copy.
- Philomathean Society. 1859 Report, Getty Research Institute copy.
- Philomathean Society. 1859 Report, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek copy.
- Randolph G. Adams. “The Rosetta Stone,” in Bibliographical Essays: A Tribute to Wilberforce Eames (1924), pp. 227–241; comparison table and associated prose, pp. 235–239.
- Library of Congress. “Transfer lithographs,” Thesaurus for Graphic Materials.
Suggested citation
Hicks, Marshall. 1858/1859 Comparison Concordance: An Illustrated Page Comparison of the 1858 and 1859 Philomathean Rosetta Stone Reports. Version 1, September 11, 2026. https://rosettastonecensus.org/concordance/.