indicates a link to material not in the original print version. [GPL].
Chapter 5 ("Book Production: Manufacture and Bookkeeping"), part 4, of the author's Pegasus in Harness: Victorian Publishing and W. M. Thackeray, which University Press of Virginia published in 1992. It has been included in the Victorian Web with the kind permission of the author, who of course retains copyright.
indicates a link to material not in the original print version. [GPL].
[Decorated initial by W. M. Thackeray for Vanity Fair]
The combined examination of printed book and account ledger unravels secrets about The History of Pendennis also. The first edition exists in several impressions and substates. A superficial comparison of any copy in parts with any copy bound in two volumes shows that the book issue is composed of sheets printed from the same typesetting used for the parts issue. The two forms of the book, however, incorporate many differences. While the particular changes themselves are of little critical significance (and seem to be editorial in origin), the evidence they provide concerning printing practices is significant to bibliographers both textual and descriptive, to book collectors, and to printing and publishing historians.
In brief the situation is this: Pendennis in parts was first printed from type. Stereotype plates were subsequently cast from the same setting of type in anticipation of the printing for the issue in two volumes. During this process intentional changes were introduced (see Appendix E, table 2) and unintentional damage occurred. Finally, in 1865 - ten years after Bradbury and Evans had brought out a revised, cheap edition of Pendennis and nearly two years after Thackeray's death - Smith, Elder and Company acquired the plates of the first edition, repaired a few damaged pieces of type, furthered the unintentional damage, and printed the novel several more times. These last impressions are distinguishable from other printings by the substitution of the Smith, Elder imprint for the Bradbury and [186/187] Evans imprint at the foot of the last printed page in each volume. The title page and dates remained unaltered in all printings.
That summary glosses a multitude of complexities. Because the idiosyncrasies of bindings-up often resulted in mixtures of impressions within single copies of the novel and because new impressions of single numbers, as well as new general impressions, could occur, the printing history of Pendennis must be approached on the level of sheets. One cannot say categorically that a copy of Pendennis in parts represents the first printing or that a copy in two Volumes with Bradbury and Evans imprints represents the second or third. Furthermore, in dealing with the printing history of the novel, it is not possible to take the publisher's records at face value, for they do not tell the whole story. Stereotyping is entered with the initial cost of printing Pendennis, bur machine collations show beyond doubt that the first printing was from type. In fact, variants in copies of numbers 2 and 5 printed from type seem to indicate separate printings from the same setting of type before stereotyping. In addition, while I have seen one copy of the issue in book form composed partially of sheets printed from type (definitely not issued previously as parts), I have also seen four copies issued in parts with scattered sheets printed from plates. To complicate matters, I have noted four copies of the book issue of volume 1 composed of sheets printed from plates except for number 12 - [187/188] the last two sheets in the volume - which was printed from type. The problem that remains is to reconcile the records with the evidence of collation and to determine when the stereotyping occurred.
The one copy of the first book-form issue containing some sheets printed from type (other than those in number 12) is the most crucial in settling these problems. That this book belongs to the first issue in book form is not absolutely certain from external evidence though it is a presentation copy from Thackeray to Peter Rackham. The distribution records of the publisher show Thackeray receiving presentation copies early in 1851; in fact, Thackeray's presentation copy to Dr. Elliotson is dated 1 January 1851. However, it is certain that the Rackham copy is not a bound set of parts, for there are no telltale stab holes in the gutters. The records and the evidence of this book suggest an answer to the question of when stereotyping took place.
By 31 December 1849 the total number of copies printed of part 1 was 10,000 (in one printing); part 2, 9,500 (in two printings); parts 3-4, 10,000 (in two printings); and parts 5-12, 9,000 (in one printing)50. The initial 8,000-copy printing of part 2 was exhausted by May 1849, and the initial 8,000-copy printings of parts 3 and 4 were exhausted by August 1849, for reprints were required on those dates. It can be assumed on this basis that an average of 8,000 copies per number had been issued in parts before volume 1 was ready to be bound in book form. If the assumption is correct, only 2,000 copies of the first printing of part 1, none of parts 2-4, and only 1,000 of numbers 5-12 could have remained to be issued in book form. One might expect, then, that about 1,000 copies of the book issue were composed of sheets printed from type with the exception of numbers 2-4 and that about 1,000 more contain number 1 as well as number 12 printed from type.
The presentation copy to Peter Rackham shows that, like all early issues in book form which I have examined, part 12 is printed from type. But, more significantly, unlike any other copy issued in book form which I have seen, volume 1 is composed mostly from sheets printed from type - the exceptions being numbers 2-4, which were reprinted before the first issue in book form. The evidence of the Rackham copy indicates that the initial printings entered in the publisher's records (10,000 for part 1, 8,000 [188/189] each for parts 2-4, and 9,000 each for numbers 5-12) actually equal the number of copies printed from type before stereotypes were cast. Copies of volume 1 issued as parts sometimes contain numbers other than 2-4 printed from plates. Of those numbers printed from plates, the one most often noted in copies of the parts is number 9 (signatures S and T). There is the possibility, of course, either that sets of parts with sheets printed from plates were issued after the novel became available in book form or, and this is more likely, that incomplete sets of parts were made up with later printed sheets.
As the novel established its popularity, which it did at a faster rate than did Vanity Fair, it apparently became necessary to print more copies of the early numbers to meet the demands of new readers picked up midway through the publication of the first volume, and these demands were met by reprints from the standing type. Variants in numbers 2 and 5 seem to indicate this. Then, perhaps anticipating the necessary reprinting for issue as a book but too rushed for time between Thackeray's submission of printer's copy and the publication deadline of each new part to allow for plating before any printing was done, the printer started plating immediately after the initial printing for the parts issue. And the early parts [189/190] until then kept standing in type also were plated. This scenario would account for the entry in the extant records for stereotyping in the initial
cost of publication.
When in September 1849 Thackeray's illness forced the suspension of publication until January 1850, only one number, the twelfth, was needed for the completion of volume 1. By this time plates of the first eleven numbers had been cast, and demands for back numbers may have been such that sheets printed from plates were sold as parts as early as 1849. (This is at least one explanation for the four sets of parts of volume 1 I have examined which contain sheets printed from plates.) Finally, when Thackeray had recovered sufficiently to write the twelfth number, sheets printed from type went into both the parts issue and the book issue. This accounts for the many book-form copies with only number 12, the last in volume 1, printed from type. It is impossible to hold that there were simultaneous printings from type and plates because in that case the plates would have had to have been cast from the type before the printings from type were
run off. Collation shows that the printings from type were made before the plates were cast, for damage occurring in late copies printed from type is carried over into the plates, And corrections made for the plates do not occur in copies printed from type.
A given set of parts of volume 1, then, instead of being the first printing, may be composed of the second impression (from type) of early sheets, the second or third impression (from plates) of the middle sheets, and the first impression of the last number. On the other hand, the first book issue of volume 1 may be composed of the third impression of some early sheets, the second or third impression of the rest through number 11, and the first impression of the last number.
Volume 2 is not so complicated. The publisher's records indicate a single 9,000-copy printing of each number from 13 to 24. There is no reason to believe otherwise. If the sale of parts of volume 2 matched that of volume 1 (that is, about 8,000 copies distributed, or at least bound, as parts before issue in book form), there should have been about 1,000 copies of the first book-form issue of volurne 2 made up of sheets printed from type. Three presentation copies in book form have been noted in each of which [190/191] volume 2 is composed entirely from sheets printed from type. The publisher's records of printings and distribution also tend to corroborate this hypothesis. First, only one entry is given for the 9,000-copy printings of numbers 13-24, and no reprint was required until 30 June 1853, two and a half years after the book-form issue. The distribution records are significant, even though they omit the record of sales at the date of issue in book form, December 1850, which would have made their use here much more precise. They show that by 31 December 1851 the publisher had disposed of 215,050 parts out of 228,500 printed. The number printed includes 11,000 copies of number 1, 10,500 of number 2, 10,000 each of numbers 3-12, and 9,000 each of numbers 13-24. If the 215,050 parts distributed were made up into as many copies as possible of the whole novel (not a likely occurrence), then about 8,950 copies of the book were out of the publisher's hands within one year after issue in book form. This figure, with a slight downward adjustment to allow for readers who may have discontinued the novel after a few numbers, fits in well with the 8,000-copy figure arrived at on the basis of the required reprints for numbers 2-4 mentioned above. Later copies of volume 2, of course, are composed entirely of sheets printed from plates.
As with sets of parts of volume 1, copies of volume 2 in parts have been noted time and again with sheets printed from plates. Again, I know of only two possible explanations - both of which may hold true. The first is that readers with incomplete sets of parts made up their copies after reprints from plates became available, and the other is that the publisher continued to promote the sale of the novel in parts even after the book-form issue.
The identification of impressions combined with the current practice of examining wrappers, bindings, and advertisements may make it possible to know with some certainty just what copy of Pendennis one has. But to elaborate Michael Sadleir's hypothetical case [Sadler, p. xiv], it is not only possible for the last 500 copies of sheets from one printing to remain for some time in the storeroom to come forth at a later date in an alternate binding or with new advertisements but also for, say, the last 200 copies of sheets of one impression to come forth dressed identically with, and mixed with, the first 200 copies of sheets from a new impression. In fact, as my [191/192] examination of Pendennis seems to show, the combination of sheets from different printings bound together could be almost endless. Even the one set of parts I have examined which is composed entirely of sheets printed from type is not a first printing, for in the case of at least three of the sheets, earlier printings (or at least earlier printed copies within an impression) are bound into other sets containing some sheets printed from plates.
The reprinting from type of isolated sheets of early numbers produced several variants. Like the readings which are defective in all examined copies but were apparently correct at one time (see Appendix E, table 1), some of these variants may be attributed to type batter. However, gathering D of number 2 does exist in three states, if not printings. Early printings read where, in the at page 42.27 and have a clear semicolon after ear at 43.46. The second state reads where, i h e at 4.2.27 but still has the clear semicolon at 43.46. The third state restores the correct reading at 42.27, but all copies of this state so far examined have a chip off the top of the semicolon at 43.46. This evidence may indicate a stop-press correction rather than separate printings, but gathering K of number 5 seems definitely to exist in two printings before plating. The lines at 143.2-6 and at 144.2-6 have been reset for no apparent reason; there are no textual variants in the reset lines, only respacing. On page 143 the printings are most readily identified by the position of the L of London at line 6 in relation to the space between the words and frets at line 5. In the first printing the L is under the space; in the second and all subsequent (including plated) printings the L is to the right under the f of frets. On page 144 the printings are identified by the position of the y in they at line 6 in relation to the space between the words were by in line 5. In the first printing the y is slightly to the left, half under the second e of were; in the second and all subsequent printings the y is to the right under the space. The distinction is an important one. By indicating the necessity for reprinting early numbers, it forms a partial basis for concluding that the readership of Pendennis was growing. One reason for this may have been pressure from readers made unpatient by the three-month delay in the publication of volume 1 as a whole, imposed by Thackeray's illness.
Of less importance, perhaps, but of interest is the evidence the first edition of Pendennis presents for the fact that plating does not fix the text of a book. In addition to the damage sustained through reprinting and plating, there is evidence of activity in gathering H (pp. 97-112) of Volume 1. Just before or in the process of the second printing (from plates), resetting became necessary for the portion of page too below the illustration. At 100.1 (above the illustration) the first impression (from [192/193] type) reads Digby; the second (plated) and all subsequent impressions read the correct Derby. In some copies printed from plates, the lower part of page 100 (below the illustration) exists reset (with respacing) and printed from type with no textual changes. Copies also exist reset a second time and plated, introducing three textual changes. The first impression of H, then, is from type and reads Digby at 100.1. The second impression, printed from plates and reading Derby at 100.1, exists in two states: (1) with the lower part of 100 plated without change: (2) with the lower part of 100 reset (respaced) without textual variants but printed from type. A third impression of gathering H is from plates with the lower part of 100 reset again, plated, and introducing champion" for champion," (100.10), young" for young," (100.12), and Milly
(turned semicolon) for Milly;(100.13).
Only one oddity breaks the textual simplicity of volume 2. The two conjugate leaves at the center of gathering U in number 22 (pp. 295-98) are plated in one copy examined. The rest of the signature is from type. Type damage at 296.19b (defective r on nor) persists in the Smith, Elder impression, indicating that the same plates were used. This copy may be part of a late binding-up and issue in parts. And possibly it represents an anomaly created by an owner who replaced a torn page in this copy (printed from type) with a conjugate leaf taken from another, perhaps otherwise defective, copy (printed from plates).
While the foregoing description of impressions is necessarily imprecise, enough is known to avoid an editor's uncomfortable feeling "that in his bibliographical ignorance it is quite possible for him to base his text on ... an unrecognized late impression containing possible alterations of dubious authority." [Bowers, p. 359]
Anesko, Michael. Friction in the Market: Henry James and the Profession of Authorship. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
Barnes, James J. Free Trade in Books: A Study of the London Book Trade since 1800. Oxford, 1964.
Bolas, Thomas. Cantor Lectures on Stereotyping. London: W. Trounce, 1890
Bowers, Fredson. Principles of Bibliographical Description. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1949.
Bradbury, Henry. Printing: Its Dawn, Day and Destiny. London: Bradbury and Evans, 1858
Catalogue of an Exhibition of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray…Held at the Library Co., of Philadelphia…1940. Philadelphia: priv. ptd., 1940.
Lewis Caroll and the House of Macmillan, eds. Cohen, Morton N. / Gandolfo, Anita. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.
Colby, Robert. Thackeray's Canvass of Humanity. Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press, 1970.
Collins, A. S. The Profession of Lettes: A Study of the Relations of Authors to Patron, Publishers, and Public, 1780-1832. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1928.
Feltes, N. N. Modes of Production of Victorian Novels. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1986.
Fields, James T. Yesterdays with Authors. 1871; rpt. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1925.
Flamm, Dudley. Thackeray's Critics. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1967.
Gaskell, Philip. A New Introduction to Bibliography. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1972.
Gettmann, Royal A. A Victorian Publisher: A Study of the Bentley Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1960.
Glynn, Jenifer. Prince of Publishers: A Biography of George Smith. London: Allison and Busby, 1986.
Hagen, June Steffenson. Tennyson and His Publishers. London: Macmillan, 1979.
Hansard, T.C. Treatises on Printing and Type-Founding. From the seventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1841.
Harden, Edgar. "The Writing and Publication of Esmond" Studies in the Novel 13 (1981), 79-92.
Hepburn, James. The Author's Empty Purse and the Rise of the Literary Agent. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968.
Huxley, Leonard. The House of Smith, Elder. London: priv. ptd. 1923.
Knight, Charles. Passages of a Working Life during Half a Century: With a Prelude of Early Reminiscences. 3 vols. London: Bradbury & Evans, 1864-65.
Martin, Sir Theodore. Memoir of William Edmondstoune Aytoun. Edinburgh and London, n.d.
McKerrow, Ronald B. An Introduction to Bibliography. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928.
Mumby, Frank / Norrie, Ian. Publishing and Bookselling. London: Jonathan Cape, 1974
Mumby, Frank. The House of Routledge. London: Routledge, 1934.
Paston, George. At John Murray's: Records of a Literary Circle, 1843-1892. London: John Murray, 1932.
Patten, Robert. Charles Dickens and His Publishers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
Plant, Marjorie. The English Book Trade: An Economic History of the Making and Sale of Books, 3r ed. London: Allen & Unwin, 1974.
Pollard, Graham. "Notes on the Size of Sheets". Library, 4thser. 22 (Sept.-Dec. 1941), 105-37.
Randall, David A. "Notes towards a Correct Collation of the First Edition of Vanity Fair", PBSA 42 (1948), 95-109.
The Letters and Private Papers of William Makepeace Thackeray, ed. Gordon N. Ray. 4 vols. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1946.
Ray, Gordon. Thackeray: The Uses of Adversity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955.
-----. Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.
Sadleir, Micheal. Trollope: A Bibliography. 1928, rpt. London: Dawsons, 1964.
Shillingsburg, Peter. "Thackeray and the Firm of Bradbury and Evans." Victorian Studies Association (of Ontario) Newsletter, no. 11 (March 1973), 11-14.
-----. "Detecting Stereotype Plate Usage in Mid-Nineteenth Century Books." Editorial Quarterly 1 (1975), 2-3.
-----. "Textual Introduction" to Vanity Fair. New York: Garland, 1989, 651-54.
Smith, Charles Manby. A Working Man's Way in the World: Being the Autobiography of a Journeyman Printer. London: William and F. Cash, n.d.
Southward, J. "Collection of MS. and Printed Matter relative to Stereotyping." St. Bride Technical Reference Library, London.
Sutherland, John. Victorian Novelists and Publishers. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1976.
Tillotson, Kathleen. "Oliver Twist in Three Volumes" Library 18 (1964), 113-32.
Van Duzer, Henry S. A Thackeray Library. 1919; rpt. New York: Kennikat Press, 1965.
Der Verlag Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1837-1912. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1912.
Vizetelly, Henry. Glances Back through Seventy Years. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., 1883.
Waugh, Arthur. A Hundred Years of Publishing: Being the Story of Chapman & Hall, Ltd. London: Chapman and Hall, 1930.
Last modified: 8 April 2001