University of Virginia Library


Page 227

Keith Maslen

The presence in the two 1755 editions of Henry Fielding's Journal of a voyage to Lisbon of distinctive printer's ornaments used elsewhere by Samuel Richardson raises interesting questions. Did Richardson, not known to have printed earlier works by the rival he disparaged as `low', magnanimously collaborate in the printing of Fielding's last written, first posthumously published work?[1] If so, what part could this be, for the printing of all but a sheet or two of both editions is entered in a customer ledger of William Strahan, who was then already matching Richardson as a great London printer?[2]

Fielding's last act as an author had been to insist that he, like Richardson, aimed `to convey instruction in the vehicle of entertainment', and provocatively to define himself in opposition to those writers `who often fill a whole sheet with their own praises' (Preface to the Journal). Thomas Edwards was sure that Richardson was being slighted. Writing to the latter on 28 May 1755, he protested at Fielding's `impudence in attributing that to your work which is the true character of his own'.[3] Edwards informed another correspondent that `Fielding's malevolence against our friend was the more unpardonable as the Good Man had once by his interposition saved his bones and at the very last by his correspondence at Lisbon had procured him accommodations which he could not otherwise have had'.[4] Richardson's own reaction is not on record, but it is hard to believe that his inclination to relieve human distress would knowingly extend to the printing of an unanswerable challenge from beyond the tomb.

Nevertheless, those `Richardson' ornaments cannot be ignored. At first sight they seem to indicate that Richardson had collaborated with Strahan in the printing.

The bibliographical use of printer's ornaments in helping to identify the


Page 228
work of a particular printer is well understood. Investigations of Richardson's printing by William M. Sale, Jr.,[5] and in my fuller newly published study rely on the assumption that Richardson, like other London printers of his time, built up and maintained a stock of ornamental headpieces, tailpieces, factotums and initials which, following the prevailing fashion, he used frequently throughout the majority of his productions. This assumption has been thoroughly tested and proved reliable. Precisely detailed confirmation of the value of printer's ornaments in identifying a printer's works has been supplied by the printing accounts of Richardson's London contemporaries, the Bowyers.[6] For Richardson too I have drawn on printing accounts unknown to or little used by Sale, which, in many hundreds of instances, confirm the physical evidence of ornaments.

The relatively few problems encountered mostly concern instances of shared printing.[7] This trade practice was succinctly explained by Richardson in a letter to Johannes Stinstra of 26 November 1755: `Every Printer here, being furnished with his [Caslon's] Types, the Booksellers, in a large Work, can for Dispatch-Sake, put it to several Printers, and print on the same Type'.[8] In such cases a publisher would assign the composition and presswork of one whole volume of a multi-volume work, or a sequence of signatures in a large folio, to one of two or more printers. The two usual motives for dividing copy among two or more printers were, as Richardson notes, the size of the work, and/or the need for haste. The practice was common long before Caslon types from the 1730s began to set the London standard, the consequent reduction in typographical diversity making the bibliographer's work more difficult. However, throughout Richardson's career as master, from 1720 to 1761, the presence of impressions made from printer's ornaments (in the form of relief `cuts', not cast fleurons) is usually the first warning of shared printing. Where ornaments are few or absent, as for instance in works of learning, shared printing may easily pass unsuspected.

Richardson, like other printers of his time, often and unavoidably engaged in this practice. I have discovered fifty or so works the printing of which Richardson shared with other printers. Of these, ten were printed with Strahan between 1743 and 1754, but curiously not one thereafter—to set aside Fielding's Journal for the moment. The ten are listed in Appendix 2. By comparison, between 1730 and 1761 Richardson shared with Bowyer the printing of seventeen works, while Strahan and Bowyer shared nineteen between 1741 and 1761.[9]


Page 229

In the case of the 1755 editions of the Journal of a voyage to Lisbon, shared printing would at first sight seem to be the obvious explanation for the presence of ornaments apparently not all from the one printing house. Against this it must be admitted that no credible typographical division of work has been detected. Moreover, the incidence of `Richardson' ornaments in the same forme and even on the same page with others found nowhere else in his printing argues strongly that composition was performed in the one printing house.

It will be helpful to review the known bibliographical facts. There were two textually variant editions of Fielding's Journal of a voyage to Lisbon published during 1755.[10] These are usually referred to as `Francis' and `Humphrys', after the different surnames assigned in the narrative to Fielding's hosts at Ryde. The Francis edition was first printed, but second published. Humphrys was printed immediately after Francis, and published without delay—reviews appeared in mid-February 1755. Andrew Millar, the book-seller responsible, seems to have quietly released copies of Francis when his stock of Humphrys was running low. Demand may have increased after the news of the Lisbon earthquake reached London in November 1755. Francis collates [A]4 B-L12 M4, or 10⅔ sheets; Humphrys [A]4 B-M12 N6, or 11⅚ sheets. The rare reissue of Francis has a recomposed and newly printed half-sheet collating a1, 2.3... M1, 2.3 which replaces [A]4 and M4.

There can be no doubt that both editions were printed, in part if not wholly, by William Strahan, who began as a master printer in 1738, and within thirty or so years became the largest printer in London. Strahan's ledger A records his printing in January 1755 of 10 sheets of one edition (Francis), with extraordinary corrections costing 17 shillings, followed by 12 sheets of a `2d' (Humphrys), both editions in 2,500 copies.[11] Printing of Francis must have begun the previous December, for in an account of `the Estate of Wm Strahan' for 1 January 1755 under the heading `Work unfinished' Strahan listed 2500 copies of Voyage to Lisbon, 7 Sheets at £1 15s. [12] These


Page 230
seven sheets were very probably B-H, the first seven sheets of the text. In July 1756 Strahan further records the printing of 500 copies of an extra half sheet, which neatly corresponds to the six leaves of the reset outside gatherings of the reissue.[13] All three items are charged to Millar, for whom Strahan printed much throughout his career, as did Richardson, if rather less often.

Unfortunately the collations and the ledger record for the two editions do not quite match. The January ledger record for Francis would exactly fit signatures B-L, and, as Amory suggests (p. 197), this may imply that printing was suspended after signatures B-L had been worked off. However, no separate charge for the outside part sheets has been found in Strahan's ledgers.

Strahan's charge for printing 12 sheets of Humphrys is not in itself puzzling, for the work as it stands is just under 12 sheets. However, there is a complication. W. B. Todd established that signature [A]4 of both Francis and Humphrys was printed by half-sheet imposition on paper with a star watermark identical to that used for the rest of Humphrys. It may be inferred that enough copies for both editions were printed at one time. The ledger account does not seem to cover the copies intended for Francis. Likewise not brought to account is M4 of the Francis edition. This too, according to Todd, was printed by half-sheet imposition, but on the fleur-de-lys paper used for Francis.[14] These awkward procedures, presumably resulting in wastage of one-third of the sheet in each case, should have resulted in additional charges. It may be supposed that the printing of both [A]4 and M4 was carried out after Strahan had made up his account. But if so, why did Strahan, so careful and prompt a bookkeeper, fail to charge for them?

Such unresolved questions are compounded by the conjunction in Francis, Humphrys, and the reprinted half-sheet of five ornaments known to have been used elsewhere by Richardson and six others attributable to Strahan. The facts are tabulated below to show the distribution of ornaments. These are identified by kind and order of first occurrence, with Tailpieces denoted by T, Headpieces by H, Factotums by F, and the one Initial by I. The first references for Richardson ornaments are marked `(R)', and those for Strahan's are marked `(S)'. Further information about all ornaments, noting other works in which they have been found, is given in Appendix 1.

The puzzling association and location of `Richardson' and `Strahan' ornaments—to adopt a convenient short-hand—is also visible in the reprinted half-sheet. Given that the half- sheet corresponds with that entered in Strahan's ledger, the four ornaments T1, H1, F1, and T2 must in July 1756 have all been deployed by Strahan himself. Their presence in [A] of both editions speaks for their use by Strahan in January 1755.


Page 231

Table 1: Richardson and Strahan Ornaments in Fielding's Journal

Francis (1755)  Humphrys (1755)  Half-sheet reprint (1756) 
[A]2r / [A]2r / a1r T1 (R)  T1  T1 
[A]3r / [A]3r / a2r H1 (R)  H1  H1 
F1 (S)  F1  F1 
[A]4v / [A]4v / a3v T2 (S)  T2  T2 
B1r / B1r H2 (R)  H3 
F1  F3 (R) 
B9r / B10r H3 (S)  H5 (S) 
F2  F2 
C8r / C10r H4 (R)  H4 
I1 (S)  I1 

Inquiry into the history of the ornaments in question offers a way of attacking this bibliographical puzzle. In the course of preparing a comprehensive study of Richardson's printing I have identified over five hundred ornaments he used between 1720 and his death in 1761.[15] By entering every use of every ornament into a relational database (using 4D First, the entry level version of Fourth Dimension) I can tell how often each ornament was used and over what period of years. Because I have included ornaments from works that Richardson might have printed only in part, I have included those from the two editions of the Journal. My findings on the five Richardson ornaments, showing the dates of their use by Richardson and by Strahan, are tabulated as follows:

Table 2: Other uses of the five Richardson ornaments

Ornament   Richardson   Strahan  
T1  1748  1752, 1755-56 (Journal & reprint) 
H1  1735-54  1755-56 (Journal & reprint), 1760 
H2  1736-54  1755 (Journal
H4  1748-54  1755 (Journal
F3  1752  1755 (Journal

A striking pattern can be seen. Notwithstanding their previous history of use by Richardson, all the ornaments in Francis and Humphrys were by January 1755, or even by December 1754, in Strahan's possession, where, as far as the evidence extends, they remained. Richardson's collaboration in the printing of the Journal must therefore be ruled out as very unlikely.

The question remains: if Richardson and Strahan were not engaged in the fairly common practice of shared printing (in which each would have printed parts of given books), how did in fact the five `Richardson' ornaments come to appear in books apparently printed by Strahan? One possibility is through borrowing, a practice whose complications for bibliographical study have been acknowledged but seldom pursued.[16] Type itself, especially exotic


Page 232
founts, must often have been borrowed and returned; John Nichols, for instance, kept a list of `Sorts lent to different printers'.[17] Although, so far as I know, neither Nichols nor the Bowyers mention lending ornaments as well, this practice too must have occurred, as when printers shared the printing either of a work in large format and needed to make use of larger than usual headpieces or of a multi-volume work and wished to endow it with a uniform look. Richardson himself may provide an example of the latter: when in 1749 he employed two other presses to help with the second duodecimo edition of Clarissa no special size or design of ornament was called for, and yet, as Sale suggestively remarks, his `own headpieces are used in each volume' (p. 196). Fielding's Journal, however, was an ordinary duodecimo, notable only for the textual differences between the two 1755 editions. Because its ornaments are unremarkable for size, rarity, or beauty (factors that could otherwise help to account for their migration), it is hard to imagine why Strahan would have needed to borrow them from Richardson. Therefore, borrowing also seems improbable as an account for what happened.

Another explanation for Strahan's use of Richardson printing materials arises from two entries in one of Strahan's less consulted ledgers. In one record in this miscellany of printing accounts from the early 1750s through 1776,[18] Strahan charged `Mr. Richardson' in April 1750 for `Working 3000 Chambers Sig. 2P, 2F' the sum of 2 pounds 2 shillings, that is at one guinea per sheet, and on the second of March 1752 Strahan charged `Mr. Richardson' for `Working' eight signatures of the same work and at the same price. (The reference is to the seventh edition of Chambers' Cyclopaedia, in two volumes, dated 1751 and 1752. The work is described in Appendix 2.)

The term `working' is not to be loosely understood as a synonym for `Printing', a term properly referring to both composition and presswork. Strahan meant by `working' that he was charging Richardson only for presswork.[19] Had Strahan's men performed the setting as well as the presswork, he would have written `Printing' (or simply, as he very often did, omitted the


Page 233
term altogether), and his charges would have been nearly twice as high.

That Strahan's charge to Richardson of one guinea a sheet applied only to presswork is proved by comparison with Bowyer's charge for a very similar product, and confirmed by direct analysis. Bowyer printed part of several editions of the Cyclopaedia between 1738 and 1756. However, in the case of the second edition of 1738 the costs of composition and presswork are itemised in the Bowyer wages book and can be measured against his final charge per sheet of 38 shillings a sheet. Bowyer paid his compositors 13s. for composition and 9s. 4d. for working 2,000 copies (at the usual rate of 1s. 2d. per token of 250 perfected sheets).[20] He was apparently following the common method of charging applied to large edition quantities, which allowed for a slightly larger profit to compensate for the greater wear on materials and equipment. This involved charging for 1,000 copies and adding a flat 5s. for each additional 500 copies, which in this instance should have made the price per sheet 39s. 9d. made up as follows: 13s. 0d. (composition), 2s. 2d. (correction), 4s. 8d. (presswork for first 1,000), 9s. 11d. (master's half of the three previous charges), plus 10s. (for second 1,000). William Bowyer's actual charge of 38s. for this large multi-volume folio was no doubt reached by agreement with the copyright shareholders.[21] These figures demonstrate that if Strahan had charged Richardson for both composition and presswork his price per sheet would have been over 40s. and not about half that sum.

An analysis of Strahan's actual charge of 21 shillings further supports my argument. He must have reached this sum simply by multiplying by twelve the regular rate of 1s. 2d. for a token in order to reckon the cost of presswork for 3000 copies, and then adding fifty per cent for his master's share.

A reasonable inference is that on these two occasions Richardson sent formes comprising type matter set by his compositors to Strahan whose press-men worked the total number of copies ordered by the bookseller. Transport within the city would have required care, but would not have been difficult. The point was made by John Smith in The printer's grammar, a work printed by Richardson in 1755: `Our Form, or Forms, being now lock'd up, and become portable' (p. 271). Richardson would have had good reason for such an arrangement. In his day edition quantities usually ranged between 500 and 1,000, and a balance between composition and presswork would have been sought on this basis. Much larger edition quantities would have tended to strain pressroom resources, especially if haste was required. If it was not convenient to employ more pressmen, and not wise to disappoint a customer, either through delay or by declining the work offered, it would have made sense for a printer to send out formes of his own setting to be printed off


Page 234
elsewhere. Was this a common practice? Certainly the preconditions existed, including the strong links which one printer had with another. But although subcontracting or “outwork” of composition and/or presswork is common practice nowadays, I have found no other evidence for it in the eighteenth century. Nothing in the ledgers of the Bowyers, of Charles Ackers, or, so far as I can see, elsewhere in the Strahan ledgers points to such an arrangement. Conceivably bibliographical analysis of features such as press figures could indicate responsibility for presswork, but such determinations promise to remain difficult.

Might it then be possible that the presence of Richardson's ornaments in Strahan's sheets of Fielding's Journal could be accounted for by Richardson having set type that Strahan printed? Several difficulties arise with that explanation. First, Strahan's charges per sheet, of £1 15s. for Humphrys and £1 13s. for Francis, exactly match the anticipated cost of composition and presswork combined rather than of presswork alone. Moreover, hypothesizing this arrangement requires a series of additional conjectures as well. The presence of one of the ornaments, T1, in a Strahan publication three years before the Journal would have to be separately explained. Likewise would the reappearance of ornaments after the Francis edition in the reset Humphrys one and the reset half-sheet: either Strahan returned the formes to Richardson, who then a couple of times provided new ones, with the same ornaments, to Strahan (as he also might then have done for Strahan's use of ornament H1 in 1760), or Strahan removed the ornaments presumably before returning the formes to Richardson. The latter scenario is particularly unlikely, for to extract the ornaments from well-locked formes would have been to risk squabbling the whole type matter in transit. The increasing complexity of the speculation increases the attractiveness of an alternate theory—that Strahan had these ornaments available in his own shop.

A hint of how this might have occurred, other than through the borrowing considered earlier, arises from an unpublished notebook once owned by the London printer Ichabod Dawks. In 1704 Dawks recorded that he had sold type and cases to fellow London printer, Richard Janeway the younger.[22] If type, why not ornaments too? When in 1732 William Bowyer sold some fonts of used type to his friend George Faulkner in Dublin, a few Bowyer ornaments went with the shipment, and appeared thereafter in works printed by Faulkner.[23] Perhaps Richardson at one time or other likewise suited himself and obliged Strahan by selling the latter a quantity of type. And, espe-


Page 235
cially if this included standing type, a few ornaments might have made part of the transaction. After some thirty years as a master, Richardson had more than enough ornaments, and many of the older ones were falling out of fashion. He would not have bothered to sell them by themselves, but might not have cared if some were included in a sale of type. What reason could Richardson have had for disposing of type? His was a `Printing-house the most compleat', so John Smith informed his readers in 1755 (p. iv), by `compleat' meaning stocked with a wide range of types. The disadvantage of such completeness was the difficulty of housing so much and so heavy a material, especially in old premises. On 26 November 1755 Richardson complained to Stinstra, `I am greatly over-stock'd, at present with all Sorts; and want to reduce my very great Weight'.[24] He had perhaps already made some effort to lessen the accumulated weight of type metal before he shifted to his new printing house, which he did in the summer of 1755, while Strahan for his part had only two years previously expanded his premises and capacity to print. Richardson could have chosen to return any badly worn fonts to the founder, but at scrap metal prices. To dispose of still usable types it would have made more sense to sell, probably at a better price, to another printer. Such transactions may well have occurred more often than is known.[25]

What were the relations between Richardson and Strahan that the two should do business together in such ways? Their correspondence is illuminating. On 9 March 1745 Strahan wrote to David Hall in Philadelphia: `Mr. Richardson... has turned out a good Friend, of which I leave you to judge, when I tell you that the work I have done within these Eight Months by his Recommendation, comes to upwards of £300'.[26] This may indicate that Richardson was not just sharing work with Strahan, but declining work with a recommendation that it be done by Strahan. (Was this because at particular times Richardson had too much work on hand to cope, or was he diverting some of his energy from his printing business to the writing of Clarissa?) No doubt exists that Strahan cultivated so beneficial a relationship. On 17 August 1749 he writes fulsomely from Scotland to Richardson: `I esteem you as my friend, my adviser, my pattern, and my benefactor; I love you as my father; and let me, even me also, call you my Nestor'.[27]

It would be surprising if this intense client-patron relationship had endured, given Strahan's drive towards commercial success, and Richardson's increasing sensitivity over any threat, real or imagined, to the large business


Page 236
which he was very anxious to leave in good shape for the benefit of his wife and daughters. Strahan continued to carry out some work for Richardson in the early 1750s. In 1754, in an effort to frustrate the Dublin pirates of his work, Richardson called in seven other printers including Strahan to help with the third edition of Sir Charles Grandison. [28] However, after 1754 tangible evidence of cooperation between the two men has not been found, even although Richardson remained active as a printer until his death in 1761. There seems little doubt that some time in the 1750s their working relationship came to an end, whether before 1755 or later.

Evidence is circumstantial, but persuasive. In a letter of 2 April 1757 Richardson wrote to Erasmus Reich about his `Detection of a false & ungrateful Friend'.[29] Sale judged that the false friend must have been Strahan, and Eaves and Kimpel were inclined to agree.[30] It was presumably the same friend whom Richardson harshly condemned in letters to Mrs Chapone of 27 June and 30 August 1758. Richardson wrote to her as follows: `A false and perfidious Scotchman [has been] pretending Friendship to me for Years, confessing all the time Obligation to me; constantly visiting me, tho' he had made secretly near a Year before he was detected, Offers of Circumvention and Underpricing, to one of my Friends in a principal Branch of my Business; Himself a prosper'd Man; a Friend he had never known, but for my Hospitality to him the Invader... This Man has already done me great Mischief; obliging me to lower Prices not too high for the Service; and goes on propagating the Mischief; And his View is, to interfere with my Family when I am no more; when I had so lately laid out great Sums of Money in Building for the better Convenience of carrying on this particular branch of Business, improved and, as I may say, established in my self and Family, by my honest Care and Industry.'[31] The description fits Strahan exactly, allowing for Richardson's emotive language. Who other than Strahan was a competitor in trade, a London printer, of Scottish extraction, prosperous and ambitious, and for many years a close friend and associate of Richardson's! Sale supposed that the particular branch of business might have been Richardson's printing for the House of Commons, his official printing that is, which was the only kind Sale knew of. There is another possibility. From his earliest days, long before he became the recognised printer to the House,


Page 237
Richardson had specialised in the printing of private bills, and Strahan, as his ledgers show, was printing more and more of these.[32]

Exactly when Richardson took fright at Strahan's competitive moves is not known. The tone of his letter to Mrs Chapone is heated enough to suggest a quite recent and sudden happening. The ornament evidence, fragmentary as it is, points to a date some two or three years earlier. However this may be, if Richardson did sell surplus type to Strahan, and with it a few ornaments, he is much more likely to have done so while they were still on good terms, perhaps not long before Strahan's printing of the first two editions of Fielding's Journal.

This last attempted solution to the ornament problem has the merit of refusing to be disproved. Perhaps confirmation will yet be found among the many surviving volumes of Strahan ledgers. I have taken the matter as far as I can.

Appendix 1 Notes on Ornaments in Francis, Humphrys, and the half-sheet reprint

Ornaments are listed, as above, by kind and order of their first occurrence in Francis and, in two instances, in Humphrys. Ornaments referred to as Richardson's, whether found in the 1755 editions of Fielding's Journal or elsewhere, are allotted the three- digit number to be adopted in my forthcoming study of Richardson as printer (thus R328). Strahan's ornaments have not been systematically studied.

T1 (18 × 23 mm; Mercury as messenger running left; R328). Francis [A]1r; Humphrys [A]2r, half-sheet reprint a2r.

Other Richardson uses: inset (in headpiece R050, used five times 1724-48) on B1r of volume 2 and on [A]2r of volume 4 of Richardson's Clarissa, 1748. These two volumes (with Richardson headpiece R145, tailpieces R349, R384, R385, and factotum R484) were apparently entirely printed by Richardson.

Other Strahan uses: A1r (title) of volume 2 of Charlotte Lennox's Female Quixote, second edition (1752), which Strahan charged Millar for printing in April 1752—see Appendix 2.

T1 is the mirror image of a Richardson tailpiece (R333) used 1723-25.

H1 (23 × 70 mm; reproduced by Sale as no. 26; R067). Francis [A]3r; Humphrys [A]3r; half-sheet reprint a2r.

Other Richardson uses: twenty-two times 1735-54, for instance in James Hervey, Meditations, fourth edition (1748), and tenth edition (1753), Richardson's own Pamela, seventh edition (volume 1, with eleven other Richardson ornaments, 1754), and in his Letters written to and for particular friends, sixth edition (1754).[33]


Page 238

Other Strahan uses: on B1r of volumes 1 and 2 of Anne Steele's Poems... by Theodosia, which Strahan (ledger A, f. 126v) charged to James Buckland between January and April 1760 as `Poems by Theodosia', 34 sheets, 750 copies. The 34 sheets neatly covers both volumes, for volume 1 had 16¾ sheets and volume 2 has 17 sheets, not counting the engraved frontispieces.

F1 (16 × 16 mm; bird with wings spread centre top). Francis [A]3r; Humphrys [A]3r, B1r; half-sheet reprint a2r.

T2 (27 × 46 mm; two birds with wings spread at top; signed F[rancis] H[offman]). Francis [A]4v; Humphrys [A]4v; half-sheet reprint a3v.

Other Strahan uses: in John Leland, The case fairly stated, Dublin printed; London, reprinted for A. Millar, 1754, 8°. Strahan (ledger A, f. 104v) charged Andrew Millar in May 1754, for the `Case fairly stated', 3½ sheets, 500 copies. Other ornaments, not recognised as Richardson's, but presumably belonging to Strahan, occur in this work. Richardson had in fact turned down a request to print it, as he explained when answering the reverend Philip Skelton's reproaches for not proceeding fast enough with the printing of Skelton's Discourses: `I parted with three pieces of work; I put out to several printers the new `third' edition of my Grandison; took in help to the first edition of the seventh volume; I refused Dr. Leland's last piece' (3 April 1754, The correspondence of Samuel Richardson, ed. A. L. Barbauld, 6 vols [1804], 5:238).

H2 (24 × 69 mm; top corners rounded off by 1751; reproduced by Sale as no. 37; R068). Francis B1r.

Other Richardson uses: eleven times 1736-1754, for instance in Richardson's Letters, sixth edition (1754) (see H1 above).

H3 (21 × 74 mm; sun face at centre). Francis B9r; Humphrys B1r.

F2 (19 × 18 mm). Francis B9r; Humphrys B10r.

H4 (26 × 73 mm; reproduced by Sale as no. 28; R047). Francis C8r; Humphrys C10r.

Other Richardson uses: sixteen times 1748-54, for instance in Richardson's History of Sir Charles Grandison, third edition (1754), alone in volume 4 (according to Sale), and in volume 7 with factotum R481 (used by Richardson to 1761). See Appendix 2 for further details.

I1 (19 × 19 mm; initial O). Francis C8r; Humphrys C10r.

F3 (18 × 17 mm; R436). Humphrys B1r.

Other Richardson uses: Parliamentary private bill, 25 George II pr.c.3 (1752).

Other uses: by unidentified printer in signature N, Defoe, Religious courtship, second edition (1729), of which Richardson apparently printed only signature B-M.

H5 (20 × 70 mm; peacock facing right at centre). Humphrys B10r.


Page 239

Appendix 2 Works Jointly Printed by Richardson and Strahan 1745-54

1. An universal history [Antient Part], vol. 7, for T. Osborne, J. Osborn, A. Millar, J. Hinton, 1744, 2°.

Richardson's involvement with this work began in 1736, with the printing of volume one. Seven volumes were printed 1736-44, and an eighth of additions in 1750. Richardson probably printed part of vol. 7, but there are no telltale ornaments.

Strahan ledger A (f. 25v): Oct. 1744, 16 sheets Gen. Index, 50 Chron. Table, 4 sheets Preface. Strahan printed 70 of the whole 280½ sheets.

2. James, Robert. A medicinal dictionary, vols 2-3, for T. Osborne; sold by J. Roberts, 1745, 2°

Sale, items 307A, 328A and pp. 97-98, notes that Richardson was a partner in this work `and hence, in all likelihood, the printer' of volume 1 (1743) and volumes 2-3. Sale's attribution to Richardson is unconfirmed, but probable; no ornaments are found in volumes 2 and 3.

Strahan ledger A (f. 25v): [vol. 3] Jan. 1745, Letters R & S, 70 sheets; May 1745, Letters UXYZ &c., 11½ sheets.

3. An universal history [Antient Part], 20 vols; for T. Osborne, A. Millar, J. Osborn, 1747-48, 8°.

Richardson may have printed much of this work, but only one of his ornaments is used, on the title-page of vol. 2.

Strahan ledger A (f. 76v): 1747, February, vol. 1, last 10 sheets, 2500; + cancel half-sheet (May); vol. 2, 2250 copies; May, vol. 6 [all] 33¼ sheets; Aug., vol. 9, 38 sheets [actually only 37 sheets in this volume]; Jan. 1749, [vol. 20], Index, 7 sheets.

4. Hill, John A. A general natural history: or, new and accurate descriptions of the animals, vegetables, and minerals, of the different parts of the world; with a great number of figures, elegantly engraved, for Thomas Osborne, 3 vols, 1748, 1751, 1752, 2°. Vol. 1 half-title: `A history of fossils'.

Strahan ledger A (f. 67v): Mr Thomas Osborne Dr, 1747 January, 1000 Proposals; Oct 1747, Hills Fossils, 13 sheets, 700 coarse and 50 fine paper copies; March [1748], 8,000 quarto Proposals; Hills Fossils, 14½ sheets printed by Mr Richardson; extraordinary corrections in Ditto.

5. Harris, John Navigantium atque itinerantium bibliotheca. Or, a compleat collection of voyages, 2 vols, 1748, 2°.

Richardson ornaments appear in part of vol. 2, but the exact division of work and how many other printers were involved remains unclear.

Strahan ledger A (f. 85v): Mr Charles Hitch Dr, May 1749 (or 1750), Harris Voyages, 4 sheets, 100 copies, and paper supplied. This seems to refer to the later printing of imperfections.

6. Chambers, Ephraim. Cyclopaedia, seventh edition, corrected and emended, 2 vols, 1751, 1752, 2°. Vol. 1; for W. Innys, J. and P. Knapton, S. Birt, D. Browne, T. Longman, R. Hett, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, J. Hodges, J. Shuckburgh, A. Millar, J. and J. Rivington, J. Ward, M. Senex, and the executors of J. Darby. Vol. 2: as above, save `S. Birt, R. Ware, D. Browne, T. Osborne, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch'.


Page 240

Richardson printed much of vol. 2, as his ornaments show.

Strahan ledger B (f. 16v): `Mr Richardson', April 1751, `Working 3000 Chambers Sig. 2P, 2F'; March 1752, `Working 3000 Chambers, Signatures 8F, 8L, 8Q, 8Y, 9A, 9N, 8R, 10D, 10E'. Strahan must have printed in volume 1 single sheets signed 2P (part of no. 27), and 2F (no. 24). The single sheets referred to in volume 2 are as Strahan says: 8F (no. 111), 8L (no. 113), 8Q (no. 114), 8Y (no. 116), 9A (the first part of no. 118), 9N (no. 122), 8R (the first part of no. 115), 10D (the first part of no. 127), and 10E (the second part of no. 127). The oddities of collation, especially in volume 1, suggest that printer's copy was divided among several printers.

7. Lennox, Charlotte. The female Quixote, second edition, for A. Millar, 2 vols, 1752, 8°.

Richardson apparently printed part of vol. 1, as revealed by his ornaments: headpiece R071 (used by Richardson 27 times 1732-60 appears on B1r, with factotum R481 (used by Richardson 29 times 1740-62). Sale, item 399, states that Richardson printed only volume 1. Ten ornaments not recognised as Richardson's appear in signatures A and N (perhaps printed as one sheet), and in E, H and K. Richardson presumably printed signature B and perhaps others which lack ornaments, but the division of work remains unclear.

Strahan ledger A (f. 94v): Mr Andrew Millar Dr, April 1752, `Female Quixotte', 13½ sheets, 2000 copies. The number of sheets exactly matches volume 2 of this edition, which collates [A]1 B-O12 P6 (-P6; [A]1= P6). Ornaments, presumably Strahan's, appear in signatures B, D, G, K, M and N of this volume.

8. Voltaire, François Marie Arouet de. Le siecle de Louis XIV, 3 vols, chez R. Dodsley, 1752, 4°.

Richardson printed part of volume 1, as his ornaments show.

Strahan ledger A (f. 96v): Mr Robert Dodsley Dr, June 1752, quarto, 14 sheets [of volume 1, or 2, or 3], 500 copies.

9. Voltaire, François Marie Arouet de. The age of Lewis XIV, 2 vols, for R. Dodsley, 1752, 8°.

Richardson printed vol. 1, as his ornaments reveal.

Strahan ledger A (fo. 96v): Mr Robert Dodsley Dr, July 1752, 26½ sheets [that is all volume 2], 1500 copies.

10. Richardson, Samuel. The history of Sir Charles Grandison, 7 vols, third edition, for S. Richardson; sold by C. Hitch and L. Hawes; J. and J. Rivington; Andrew Millar; R. and J. Dodsley; J. Leake, at Bath; and by R. Main, in Dublin, 1754, 12°.

Richardson ornaments are found in volumes 1, 4, 6, and 7. He told Lady Bradshaigh on 8 April that he had farmed the printing out to `7 other houses'.[34]

Strahan ledger B (f. 21r): `Mr. Richardson', March 1754, Grandison, volume 5, 11 sheets, 2500 copies. Ledger entry printed R. A. Austen-Leigh, The story of a printing house, second edition (1912), p. 49.


`Poor Fielding! I could not help telling his sister, that I was equally surprised at and concerned for his continued lowness. Had your brother, said I, been born in a stable, or been a runner at a sponging-house, we should have thought him a genius'. Richardson to Lady Bradshaigh, 23 Feb. 1752, in John Carroll, ed., Selected letters of Samuel Richardson (1964), p. 198.


British Library (BL): Add. MSS 48800, ledger A, running from 1738 to 1776.


Quoted in T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel, Samuel Richardson: a biography (1971), p. 304.


Edwards to Daniel Wray, 16 June 1755, quoted in Eaves and Kimpel, p. 305.


Sale, Samuel Richardson: master printer (1950).


See for instance Keith Maslen, `A Supplement to The Bowyer ornament stock', An early London printing house at work: studies in the Bowyer ledgers (1993), pp. 235- 243.


For a discussion of this practice see Maslen, `Shared printing and the bibliographer: new evidence from the Bowyer press', An early London printing house at work, pp. 153-164.


William C. Slattery, ed., The Richardson-Stinstra correspondence and Stinstra's Prefaces to Clarissa (1969), p. 99.


For printing done by the Bowyers see The Bowyer ledgers, ed. Keith Maslen and John Lancaster (1991).


J. Paul de Castro and A. W. Pollard eventually agreed that the `Francis' edition was first printed, though second published. See de Castro, `Henry Fielding's last voyage', Library, 3rd ser., 8 (1917), 145-159 (with a reply by Pollard on pp. 160-162), and `The printing of Fielding's works', Library, 4th ser., 1 (1920-21), 257-270. In his second article de Castro printed the relevant entries from Strahan's ledger A, but without analysis. William B. Todd, in `Observations on the incidence and interpretation of press figures', Studies in Bibliography, 3 (1950), 171-205, in particular pp. 196-198, used press figures and watermark evidence to determine the method of imposition. For the best account of the textual problems of this work, see Hugh Amory, `The authority of the two versions of Fielding's Journal of a voyage to Lisbon', The culture of the book (Melbourne, Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand, 1999), pp. 182-200. In an appendix Amory summarised facts and problems to do with printing and publication. I am much obliged to him for encouraging me to grapple with the problems and for his help in my attempts at a solution.


Ledger A, ff. 104v and 113v (BL Add. MSS 48800).


Octavo account book in which Strahan periodically calculated his net worth, 1755-61 (American Philosophical Society: call no. B St 83, no. 4). I am grateful to Dr Hugh Amory for supplying the reference, and to the American Philosophical Society for permission to print the substance of the entry.


Copies seen at the Houghton Library, Harvard (*EC7.F460.755jba), and the University of Otago (Eb1755F).


Amory suggests that the existing [A]4, containing the Dedication, is a cancel and postulates an original A6, later cancelled, to make up exactly 12 sheets (`The authority of the two versions', p. 197). For Todd's argument see note 10 above.


See for instance `Samuel Richardson as printer: expanding the canon', Order and connexion: studies in bibliography and book history; selected papers from the Munby Seminar, Cambridge, July 1994, ed. R. C. Alston (1997), pp. 1-16.


Richard Goulden, in The ornament stock of Henry Woodfall 1719-1747, Bibliographical Society Occasional Papers 3 (1988), p. vii, notes in particular Henry Woodfall junior's borrowings from his father's stock.


`An editorial impasse; the Dawks-Bowyer-Nichols printer's notebook', An early London printing house at work (1993), pp. 213-222 (p. 218).


Ledger B, ff. 16v and 21r (BL Add. MSS 48803A). I am grateful to Dr Hugh Amory and Professor O M Brack for supplying photocopies of openings in this ledger. In these same two accounts Strahan also charged Richardson in March 1752 for printing a `Case relating to the Santa Catharina', 3 sheets pica, no. 250 and 60, and a `Road Act', 4 sheets, 8vo, no. 300, and 60; and in February 1754 for a `Road Bill for Leicester to Northampton', 6 sheets, no. 15, 25 and 150. My impression is that from the early 1750s Strahan was printing more and more private bills, a class of work then much expanding, and which Richardson deemed very much his speciality, given that he had been engaged in it from his earliest years.


Joseph Moxon prefers the usage `Work off', with past participle `wrought off', as in `he Works off the Reteration' (Mechanick exercises on the whole art of printing, ed. H. Davis and H. Carter [1958], pp. 296-297). William Savage, in A dictionary of the art of printing (1841), uses `worked, or worked-off' to refer to the process whereby a `job, or the sheet of a work is printed' at press. In contrast the term `printing' is used to cover the range of processes that occur at the printing house.


See item 2610 (9 Oct. 1738) in The Bowyer ledgers. For printing charges and methods of arriving at them see Maslen, `Printing charges: inference and evidence', An early London printing house at work, pp. 91-96.


Had Bowyer adopted the more common method of charging used for shorter works he would have added one-sixth of the cost of composition for correction, and fifty per cent of the three costs of composition, correction and presswork as his master's share, thus reaching a total of 36s. 9d.


The Dawks-Bowyer-Nichols notebook, British Library of Political and Economic Science, MS. Collection G 1521, rear paste-down: `Del[ivere]d Mr. Richard Janeway Jan 19, 1704 at ye li. Small pica Black 4 Cases and Letter 135, More Letter 126, More of the same 039, Quadrats 023 [totalling] 323 [pounds, at 6 pence a pound]'. The notebook is described in Maslen, `An editorial impasse: the Dawks-Bowyer-Nichols printer's notebook'.


In 1732 Bowyer sold Faulkner large quantities of pica and long primer, and from this date eight `Bowyer' ornaments begin to be used by the Dublin printer—see `George Faulkner and William Bowyer: the London connection', An early London printing house at work, pp. 223-233 (p. 230).


Slattery, p. 99.


It is well known that over many years Strahan himself sent printing materials, including type as well as books to his protégé David Hall in Philadelphia. Confer Strahan to Hall, 9 March 1745: `I have sent the Fount of English by this Ship... ', American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia, quoted in J. A. Cochrane, Dr. Johnson's printer: the life of William Strahan (1964), pp. 64-65. In this instance Strahan was apparently acting as a printer's broker, by placing an order of type on Hall's behalf. See also The colonial book in the Atlantic world, (Vol. 1 of A history of the book in America), ed. Hugh Amory and David D. Hall (2000), p. 188.


Quoted in Eaves and Kimpel, p. 160.


Quoted in Eaves and Kimpel, p. 160.


Sale (p. 197), quoting Forster MSS, XI, f. 96, notes that volume 5 of this work was printed by Strahan. Sale also notes that this volume has no Richardson ornaments—see Appendix 2.


Quoted in Eaves and Kimpel, pp. 503-504.


Forster MSS, XIII, I, f. 117; Sale, pp. 84-85, and Eaves and Kimpel, pp. 503-504. In a subsequent letter of 30 August 1758 Richardson apologised to Mrs Chapone for his intemperate language of two months before: `When I said that the ingrateful Man I hinted at, went about propagating his Calumnies upon me, in the Word Calumnies I wrote too strongly perhaps—He avows his Business, and boldly pleads, tho' a prosper'd Man, Self-Interest for it' (Forster MSS, XIII, I, ff. 125-126).


Forster MSS, XIII, I, ff. 125-126.


For Richardson's printing of private bills see Maslen, `Samuel Richardson's private Acts', Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand Bulletin, 19 (1995), pp. 3-13; see also Order and connexion, pp. 1-16.


Sale, Samuel Richardson: a bibliographical record of his literary career with historical notes (1936), p. 38, reports a copy of this edition of the Letters in private hands said to lack a title leaf, and misdates it 1755 on the strength of an advertisement of 1 July 1755 in the Public Advertiser. However, a copy complete with title leaf at Smith College, Massachusetts, kindly reported by Martin Antonetti, Curator of Rare Books in the Neilson Library, bears the title-page date of 1754.


Forster MSS, XI, f. 96.