University of Virginia Library

Samuel Ruchardson and Defoe's Tour (1738): The Evidence of Bibliography
by
Pat Rogers

Among unsolved questions of attribution comes the responsibility for later editions of Daniel Defoe's Tour thro' the Whole Island of Great Britain. It has long been known that Samuel Richardson was connected with the third, fourth and fifth editions (1742, 1748, 1753). It is likely that this was also the case with the sixth edition (dated 1762-61), though this did not appear until November 1761, four months after Richardson's death. The major uncertainty, however, concerns the second edition of October 1738. Downs and Dottin thought that Richardson was involved in the revisions here too. William M. Sale, jr., relying on statements in the 1742 preface, concluded that Richardson did not take over as editor until the third edition.[1] Recently, in the standard biography, T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel have revived the earlier claim. They write, 'It seems to us almost certain that Richardson's connection with the Tour began in 1738.' This statement is based on consideration of the revisions and editorial interpolations in the text of that year.[2]

A small bibliographic anomaly permits us to add further corroborative evidence. We know that Richardson's firm printed Volumes I and II of the second edition;[3] and it is an error in this area—more specifically binding—which supplies the clue. All copies of the work I have examined[4] contain the same oddity in the entry for Eton College, at the end of the first letter in Volume II. The cause of the confusion is easily located. And although the exact sequence of events can only be conjectured, a strong circumstantial case builds up pointing at Richardson's involvement.

When the second volume of the Tour originally came out in 1725, Defoe had referred briefly to repairs carried out on the college buildings. He also named the then Provost, Henry Godolphin.[5] In 1738 the editor added a mention of a new library, and continued:

This occurs on p. 71, the recto of the last leaf in gathering D (D12). However, all copies then follow with another leaf (E1) paginated 71-72, and signed E. Thereafter the register proceeds in the normal fashion. The new leaf has the first paragraph of the recto, just cited, amended thus: To make room for this change, the second paragraph from the foot of the page is reset to fit two, instead of three, lines. Otherwise the page is identical (apart from the addition of 'Vol. II E' prior to the catchword), and the verso is wholly undisturbed.[6] In fact the bulk of the type was left standing.

The reason for making the textual change is easy to find. In its original form, the paragraph described the statue as that of Godolphin, rather than of Henry VI. But it is here that the oddity appears. Instead of simply cancelling the erroneous leaf, the book presents a mosaic of both versions. In turn we have pp. 71-72 in uncorrected form, making the ordinary D12; then the same pages, making E1, and starting off a perfectly ordinary gathering. The second letter of this volume begins on E2r, p. 73.

It is obvious that the presence of both cancelland and cancel leaves arose from a technical slip-up: perhaps, faulty instructions to the binder. However, it is also apparent that the mistake was noted too late for correction for press but before the imposition of the first forme of sheet E. Whilst the type of signature D was still undistributed, the change was made in time to reimpose the standing type of D12 recto (corrected) and verso (unaltered) in the two formes of sheet E. The rest of the book went on unaffected.

This was undoubtedly a printing-house alteration, concerned with an error missed at proof stage. It is incidentally the kind of adjustment made throughout, though normally it is Defoe's text which is being revamped, and the aim is updating rather than correction of a mistake.[7] Significantly, there was someone directly involved in the printing of the book who could authorise and compile a new paragraph of this sort. The reworking of the entire sentence forbids the possibility that a compositor simply missed out a few words from his copy. The passage has indeed been rewritten, and this occurred (as we have seen) on the spot during the printing of the sheets.

Only one other name has ever been tentatively associated with revisions of the Tour, and this on dubious evidence. A manuscript note in the British Museum copy of the 1742 edition states that supplementary material was furnished (for this occasion?) 'by Messr. Richardson, Kimber, & others.'[8] Whatever the plausibility of Isaac Kimber on general grounds, he would be an unlikely man to find in a printing-house. That he, or anyone else apart from Richardson, could have been in a position to find the error so quickly, and correct it so confidently in the midst of printing, is surely highly improbable. The 'reviser' here was practically certain to be Samuel Richardson. And this strengthens the already powerful case of Eaves and Kimpel, dating Richardson's share in the enterprise back to 1738.

Notes