University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
collapse section8. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
[section 1]
collapse section2. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
 04. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
 1. 
collapse section2. 
 01. 
 02. 
 03. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
collapse section 
 1.0. 
collapse section2.0. 
collapse section2.1. 
 2.1a. 
 2.1b. 
collapse section2.2. 
 2.2a. 
 2.2b. 
  

collapse section 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

We know very little about the making and use of paper in England in the eighteenth century. Even though more information is becoming available in published documents and commentary, we do not know enough to make generalizations about paper which would apply to the entire century or to large sections of England. Until we have more specific details, we must proceed with the kind of caution described by Donald F. McKenzie in his recent and valuable study The Cambridge University Press 1696-1712 (1966). Speaking of the difference between production cost and wholesale and retail costs of books, McKenzie warns

Lack of more detailed knowledge on all these points makes it difficult to draw any very reliable general conclusions from the information supplied by the Cambridge papers. So long as the limitations of their evidence are recognized, it is of considerable value in taking us slightly closer to an understanding of the economics of publishing. But we need to know a great deal more about paper costs in particular cases and about the proportion of any edition sold to the trade before we can refine the evidence at all significantly. [I, 145]

Even the few generalizations and facts we do have will bear reexamination. For example, it is widely accepted as true that the customer, particularly if he were a bookseller, provided the paper for a printing contract. Frequently the proof for this theory is a reference to the "fact" that the customer provided the paper at William Strahan's large and prosperous printing company in London — a "fact" for which there is no evidence at all. Even so careful a scholar as McKenzie refers to Strahan's ledgers to substantiate, in part, his contention that book-sellers


180

Page 180
who printed at Cambridge at the beginning of the century "almost invariably . . . supplied their own paper" (I, 162). The source for this theory about Strahan, cited by McKenzie, is a single sentence in Richard Austen-Leigh's "William Strahan and His Ledgers," Library, 4 Ser., III (1923), 284. Austen-Leigh says, in a vague and casual way, "when printing for booksellers, Strahan does not seem to have supplied the paper as a rule: apparently the present habit, not much approved by printers, whereby the publisher supplies the printer with paper is of old standing" (italics mine).

J. A. Cochrane makes a slightly different claim in his recent biography Dr. Johnson's Printer: The Life of William Strahan (1964). Cochrane devotes p. 16 to describing the use of paper at Strahan's company. He begins by saying that "paper was usually supplied to the printer by the bookseller (or publisher), but the printer would have to buy it for jobbing work." Cochrane's supporting evidence is not a discussion of Strahan's ledgers but a description of Richardson's practices as presented by William M. Sale, Jr., in Samuel Richardson: Master Printer (1950), pp. 24-25, which is followed by the explanation that "all paper was of course hand made in sheets measuring about 15 inches by 20 — the standard crown size — or 12 inches by 16." Cochrane concludes p. 16 by implying that Stephen Theodore Janssen was Strahan's sole supplier of "small amounts [of paper] used for jobbing work and such bookwork as was not worth the bookseller's while supplying paper for." None of Cochrane's statements is totally wrong but none of them explains any more accurately than Austen-Leigh's sentence what actually happened at Strahan's shop.

Strahan's ledgers do contain valuable information about practices followed in using and charging for paper stock. We must remember, however, that the information is fragmentary rather than complete because Strahan's warehouse books for major paper transactions have not been found.[1]

I have gathered 631 entries mentioning paper, a representative majority of such entries in Ledgers A, B, D and F, from 1738 to the year of Strahan's death, 1785. For the sake of clarity, I shall mention these 631 entries throughout as though they were exactly half of the entries for paper rather than a majority. This decision allows me to compute approximate percentages so that the reader will have a clear


181

Page 181
understanding as the argument proceeds:        
631 x 2  = 1,262  approximate total entries mentioning paper  = 7% 
Ledgers A, B, D and F  =16,867  approximate total entries note mentioning paper  = 93% 
------  ------ 
18,129[2]   100% 

The standard debit entry in Strahan's ledgers represented a contract between Strahan and the customer, the proprietor of the copyright. It is significant that Strahan did not mention paper stock in 16,867 entries, for it means the customer was not billed for this costly necessity. If he was not being billed, then (a) the customer was providing the paper, or (b) Strahan was including paper in the cost per sheet of the contract. At first glance, it seems logical to say that the customer was providing the paper, and this hypothesis is confirmed by examination of the entries in which paper is mentioned.