 | |  |
COMMENTS, SPECULATIONS, AND QUESTIONS
The Engravings
In the editions of 1749, 1753, and 1757, the first page of the Ars Poetica has an attractive engraving of two Muses, seated, with three satyrs playing and dancing in the background. The female figure on the viewer's left represents Thalia, the Muse of comedy and bucolic poetry. In her right hand she holds the smiling mask of comedy and in her left a flute. Next to her, holding a lyre, is Erato, the Muse who presided over lyric and amatory poetry (see Figure 1).
This plate was designed and drawn by Francis Hayman (?1708-76) and engraved by Charles Grignion (1721-1810). By the middle of the eighteenth century, these two men were perhaps the most popular artists producing copperplates for book illustrations in London. In the early 1740s Hayman relied upon Gravelot (1669-1773) as his engraver, but after Gravelot departed for
Who was responsible for hiring these artists for a book by an almost unknown writer? Hurd's only previous work was a pamphlet issued by Mary Cooper in 1746, so this was to be the first book by the young Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. The imprint of this 1749 book is somewhat unusual, for it lists the names of the printer and booksellers but no publisher (see note 1). Fortunately, William Bowyer's ledger B487 shows that William Thurlbourne of Cambridge was responsible for ordering and paying for the entire work. It is logical that Hurd would have turned to Thurlbourne for advice, for by 1749 Thurlbourne had been a leading bookseller and publisher in Cambridge for twenty-five years. Why, then, did Thurlbourne not include his name on the imprint as publisher? Perhaps we may speculate that although Thurlbourne paid Bowyer the complete bill of £25:10: 3 (for paper, printing, binding the fine copies, advertising, and 3s. "for working the plate"), yet Thurlbourne may have been acting merely as an agent for Hurd, who was responsible for paying the bills. It was certainly not uncommon at that time for authors to have to pay for the production of their early books (see note 2). In this case Thurlbourne may have left his name off the imprint—and out of the newspaper advertisements—since, technically, he was not the publisher. Therefore, since William Bowyer was directly responsible for all aspects of producing the book, he may have hired Hayman and Grignion; or, as an old professional in the book trade, Thurlbourne may have requested those artists from Bowyer; or, since he may have been paying for it all, Hurd may have requested them on the advice of his good friend William Mason, whose Musaeus had been illustrated by Hayman and Grignion in 1747.
In the editions of 1751, 1753, and 1757, the first page of the Epistola ad Augustum contains a left-facing head of Augustus Caesar, surrounded by an inscription "DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER" (see Figure 2). Under the plate are the initials "WS," but the identity of this engraver remains conjectural. Whoever he was, the center of his engraving—that is, everything inside the circle, including the lettering—is an extremely close copy of John Pine's engraving in his celebrated edition of Horace; see Quinti Horatii Flacci Opera (Londini: Aeneis Tabulis Incidit Johannes Pine, 1733), I, 21.
William Thurlbourne was clearly the publisher of the 1751 edition, yet some costs were still passed on to "Mr Hurd of Emanuel" according to William Bowyer's printing ledgers. On April 16 (and 20), 1751, there were charges of 3s. 6d. "for working at Rolling Press the Head of Horace [sic]" and 5s. "for advertising twice" (ledgers B487 and B544). From a financial point of view, the Ars Poetica of 1749 and the Epistola ad Augustum of 1751 are similar in many ways: both were printed by Bowyer for Thurlbourne, both have title pages printed in red and black, and both have only one copperplate engraving; yet the 1751 should have been the more expensive book to
Perhaps a more meaningful comparison, however, is in the prices Bowyer charged per sheet of printing. Of the 500 copies of the 1749 edition, there were "10 sheets & 1/4 with Title red equal to 11 Sheets at 24s. per Sheet" (B487). Of the 526 copies of the 1751 edition, there were "13 Sheets & 1/4 and Title red equal to 14 Sheets . . . at 24s. per sheet" (B544). Of the 750 copies of the 1753 edition, Bowyer printed "vol. I. 19 sheets . . . at 22s. per sheet" (B544); for Vol. II of this same edition, Thurlbourne was charged 20s. 9d. per sheet at Cambridge University Press (Minute Book Min. VI. 1*, p. 88). There are no price records for the later editions of Hurd's Horace, but surely the 1000 copies of the 52 1/2 sheets Bowyer printed for Millar for the 1766 edition would have been priced at a much lower rate. Examining other entries in the Bowyer ledgers at this period amply confirms the general maxim
There is no listing in these detailed ledgers of the expenses of buying the copperplates and having them engraved, so we will probably never learn the difference in cost between a plate done by Hayman and Grignion and one by the presumably less expensive WS. But regardless of the costs, who would normally have paid for the engravings in a book, and who owned them and controlled their use in later editions? In the case of Hurd's Horace, each plate was used in its first printing for 500 or so copies, a second printing in 1753 of 750 copies, and a third printing in 1757 of presumably 750 or more copies. Any copperplate may show signs of wear after 2000 or more impressions; and Thurlbourne, who presumably controlled all the editions through 1757, may well have scrapped the plates after the Cambridge edition of that year. In any case, when Andrew Millar had Bowyer print 1000 copies of the fourth edition in 1766, the plates were probably too worn to print that many more copies and Millar did not care to have new ones made, so no plates were used. When the fifth edition was published ten years later, Cadell also omitted any plates.
Notes: 1. In this context the term "publisher" means the person responsible for paying the costs of producing the book, and whose name in the imprint usually was preceded by "Printed for." One says "usually" because it was the normal practice among the major figures in the London book trade, but one excludes booksellers such as "the Coopers, who are recognized retailers with no likely financial share in many smaller works stated on the title-page to have been printed for them"; see Keith Maslen, An Early London Printing House at Work: Studies in the Bowyer Ledgers (New York: The Bibliographical Society of America, 1993), 101—hereafter cited as "Maslen." One can only agree when Maslen argues that "imprints were not meant to reveal the background of a commercial transaction, and therefore may seriously mislead the modern scholar who reads them too literally" (p. 101); but, to paraphrase Pope, what can we reason but from what we see on the printed pages before us?
2. Regardless of their imprints, books printed for the author were common. The Bowyer ledgers indicate that "from 1710 to 1773 at least 315 separately published works large and small are charged to 160 or so gentlemen" (Maslen, 98). In this group, the largest number were clergymen, and one of the most common types of books they produced was editions of the classics (Maslen, 104). The young Reverend Mr. Hurd, with his editions of Horace, was a good example. After all—a bookseller might wonder—how many editions, translations, and imitations of Horace could the London public be expected to buy in any year? Hurd was the exception to such gloomy predictions, for his editions received critical acclaim and sold relatively well.
The Royal Paper Copies
Today it is not unusual for popular authors to have their works published not only in hardcover and paperback trade editions but also in limited editions, numbered and signed by the author. This practice, as such, does not seem to have been normal—if it happened at all—in eighteenth-century England. In some instances all copies of an edition were numbered and signed by the author—e.g., John Angell's Stenography: or, Short-hand improved of 1758. In other cases all copies of an edition were signed by the author—e.g., John Payne's New Tables of Interest of 1758, or Christopher Smart's A Song to David of 1763. But what purchasers of books usually had to pay extra
Like many academics before and since his time, Richard Hurd tried to advance his career by having his writings published and then distributing copies to everyone who might be helpful to him. An excellent example of this practice is a small pamphlet which Hurd paid Bowyer to print for him in 1751 at exactly the same time Bowyer was printing Hurd's edition of the Epistola ad Augustum. Entitled The Opinion of an eminent Lawyer, concerning the Right of Appeal from the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, to the Senate . . ., its imprint states accurately that it was "London, Printed, and Sold by M. Cooper . . ." thus reflecting the lack of any named publisher. Astonishingly, Hurd paid for printing three editions of this little piece in the months of May, June, and July of 1751—£4:10:0 for each edition—but apparently it was worth his while to distribute the pamphlet widely. Of the 250 copies of the first edition, 100 copies, stitched, were sent to Thurlbourne in Cambridge; Cooper took 80 copies, "not stitched," for London; six copies were sent "to the Author"; and Hurd had the remaining 64 copies "Stitched in Marble paper" at the cost of 2d. each and sent "To the Judges & other presents" (see Bowyer Ledgers B487, B564, and P1074). All the copies of this pamphlet were printed on ordinary paper; but with his early editions of Horace, Hurd had 20 or 26 copies of each edition printed on Royal paper and distributed to friends and persons of potential influence.
Of the Ars Poetica of 1749, Hurd paid £1:11:6 to have the twenty Royal paper copies printed and another 2s. 6d. to have them "sew'd in Marble paper" (Bowyer Ledgers B487, P1067). Of the 1751 Epistola ad Augustum, Bowyer printed 26 copies on "Large [paper] with marg[ins] opened"—that is, the type was reimposed with wider margins in order to accomodate better the large paper—and of these, twelve copies were sent to Thurlbourne, presumably for Hurd's use. Of the remaining fourteen, three were "bound & gilt" at 2s. each and sent to the Bishop of Norwich, Mr. [Ralph] Allen, and to the Honble. Charles Yorke; the other eleven were "sewed in Marble" for the total cost of 3s. 8d. and sent to the "Ld. Bishop of London, Mr. Tho. Villers, Honble. George Littleton, Dr. Tunstal, Dr. Heberden, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Whitehead, Dr. Askew, Mr. Mason, Mr. Morris, and the Revd. Mr. Barnard" (Bowyer Ledgers B544, P1084).
Of the 1753 edition of Horace in two volumes, twenty copies were printed on Royal paper (Bowyer Ledgers B544, P1094). The ledgers do not record any distribution list for this edition, but we do know that Hurd presented one large paper copy in sheets to Henry Hubbard of Emmanuel College (see
Thus, of the editions of 1749 through 1757, apparently all large paper copies were reserved for Hurd's personal use and none were offered for sale. All editions later than 1757 were printed uniformly without any large or fine paper copies.
Shared Printing
Shared printing—that is, simultaneous collaboration in producing a work by two or more printing houses—is one of the most puzzling and difficult problems facing any investigator. Many of these problems cannot be answered beyond speculation because of the lack of hard evidence and information. In recent decades, however, enough evidence has become available for us to realize that shared printing was quite common in English printing shops in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; and the printing ledgers indicate that the Bowyers, for instance, shared with various colleagues the printing of a total of 685 works between 1710 and 1777 (Maslen, 153). As one might suspect, it is much easier to share the printing of previously printed works rather than first printings which involve splitting up an author's manuscript, and the ledgers show that it is much more common. Nor is it always large or multi-volume works which get shared: Bowyer printed seven editions of John Brown's Estimate in 1757-58, printing all of the first, sixth, and seventh editions but no more than half of the fourteen sheets of the other four editions. Since such a practice obviously complicated the working life of printers, why did they do it? The reasons are varied and practical. Any well organized shop has its work scheduled as far ahead as possible, so depending upon the work load any new job order may be shared with other shops if it is to be finished in a reasonable time. Authors who are engaged in hot pamphlet warfare, for example, may demand that their pieces be printed immediately, and so the work is shared. Anyone paying the bills, author or publisher, can demand any printer or printers he chooses. Finally, many printers were members of the Company of Stationers and as such they regularly shared work with other members, especially in such jobs as printing almanacs.
With eighteenth-century books it is often difficult to see whether a work was produced by shared printing merely by examining the finished product. Therefore an investigator is always grateful for any external evidence which may prove relevant, and in the case of the second edition of Hurd's Horace in 1753 there is such evidence. Richard Hurd wrote a letter to William Bowyer dated Cambridge February 14, 1752, saying in part:
Clearly Bowyer did not intend to pay £40 for the right merely to print and sell one edition, so it is reasonable to suppose that Hurd finally sold his copyright to Thurlbourne for some smaller amount. When the new edition was printed and delivered late in March of 1753, William Bowyer— as noted above—was the printer of only the first volume, and Thurlbourne had the second volume printed at Cambridge University Press. As Bowyer wryly remarked on a later occasion, "Of two Volumes, the removing away one to another Printer is a crust I have been forced to devour all my life" (Literary Anecdotes, 2:388).
Besides our sympathizing with Bowyer in his dealings with an inexperienced and demanding young author, we are left bemused by the complexities of working out the shared printing of these two volumes. In the days before telephones and fax machines, who was responsible for coordinating the print-shops to use not merely paper of equivalent quality but the same paper for all small paper copies and the same paper for all large paper copies? Who determined the fonts of type, and who decided that no ornaments of any kind would be used? Who arranged such fine details of printing as the fact that all the Royal paper copies would be printed with vertical chain lines and the ordinary paper copies with horizontal chain lines? Why, we may ask, did not Thurlbourne merely turn over the entire project to Bowyer? We will probably not be able to answer these questions until we discover the correspondence between Thurlbourne and Bowyer, so we are left with the mere fact that at some time after February, 1752, it was considered necessary or desirable to share the printing of these volumes.
Note: John Nichols (1745-1826), Literary Anecdotes of the eighteenth-century . . ., 9 vols. (1812-16), 2:230-31—hereafter cited as "Literary Anecdotes." Hurd, of course, was overly optimistic about selling the remaining copies of the third edition of the Opinion; finally, in 1759 he ordered Bowyer to burn the remaining copies (Literary Anecdotes, 6:511 [misnumbered 611]). It was ungracious, to say the least, for Hurd to criticize Thurlbourne about the advertising for the Epistle to Augustus, since Hurd paid the bill for it and Bowyer's records show how many times it was advertised and in what newspapers. Perhaps he did not know that Bowyer kept such records.
More than sixty years ago the Bodleian Library bought Bowyer's Paper Stock Ledger, and most of the remaining Bowyer ledgers were uncovered at the Grolier Club thirty years ago; but it was not until 1991 that the scholarly efforts of Keith Maslen and John Lancaster were finally published. Their work in letterpress and microfiche makes the Bowyer ledgers fully accessible for the first time; and when Professor Patricia Hernlund finishes her work on the ledgers of William Strahan, we will have available the records of the two major printers in eighteenth-century England. All scholars in the field are truly grateful for such work, for it enables us to base our interpretations and speculations on their solidly grounded facts.
| | |