Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
background [ 4 July 2014 23:05 BST]
pftaylor
background [23 June 2018 11:29 BST] (current)
pftaylor
Line 19: Line 19:
 === 2. The Various Editions: === === 2. The Various Editions: ===
  
-== 2.1 Walker (1735-1807) published 4 editions in his lifetime ==+== 2.1 Walker (1732-1807) published 4 editions in his lifetime ==
  
 **1791** ​  1st Edition, republished in Dublin 1794 (and Philadelphia 1803?)\\ **1791** ​  1st Edition, republished in Dublin 1794 (and Philadelphia 1803?)\\
Line 53: Line 53:
 1809 5th and 6th Editions, edited by John Murdoch\\ 1809 5th and 6th Editions, edited by John Murdoch\\
 1810 7th(assumed) and 8th Editions\\ 1810 7th(assumed) and 8th Editions\\
-1811 9th, 10th and 11th Editions\\+1811 9th and 10th Editions\\ 
 +1812    11th Edition\\
 1813 12th and 13th Editions\\ 1813 12th and 13th Editions\\
 1814 14th Edition\\ 1814 14th Edition\\
Line 87: Line 88:
 The American 3rd Edition of 1807, ‘from the last London edition’, is the English 3rd Edition, despite the appearance of the 4th Edition the previous year, though with the Appendix incorporated into the whole. ​ It also has, as do all my other American editions, the words ‘In the last edition…..’ under DENIGRATE.\\ The American 3rd Edition of 1807, ‘from the last London edition’, is the English 3rd Edition, despite the appearance of the 4th Edition the previous year, though with the Appendix incorporated into the whole. ​ It also has, as do all my other American editions, the words ‘In the last edition…..’ under DENIGRATE.\\
  
-I have copies for the years 1822 and 1824 to 1829.  It is not unreasonable to assume a printing for 1823, especially as Cordell lists an edition for 1823 by J. Richardson and Co., G. Offer, J. Sharpe [etc], the same consortium as that res-ponsible ​for the 1822 and 1824 printings. ​ I have also seen offered an 1823 printing by T. Kelly, London, given as ‘A New Edition’, which seems unlikely as this wording does not otherwise appear until the 1830 Tegg, the Caxton Edition having ‘An Entirely New Edition’. ​ This may be a simple error or it may be an incorrect date.  Cordell lists printings by Kelly for 1832, 1835, 1840 and 1844, while I have the printings for 1829, 1832, 1840 and 1854.  They were all printed for Thomas Kelly, London, R.Griffin and Co., Glasgow, J.Cumming, Dublin, and M.Baudry, Paris, the same combination as for Tegg.  Additionally,​ my printings are all 3rd Edition reprints, suggesting that the earlier ones also were, and making it less likely, though not impossible, that Kelly would have produced a new edition in 1823.  What I also have, however, is an 1826 Tegg with an additional engraved title page, dated 1823 and printed for Thomas Tegg, T.Kelly, G.Virtue, J.Greaves, Manchester also E.Allen, Leicester. ​ This identical title page is in the 1832 Kelly, while the 1829 Kelly has the title page undated, published by Thomas Kelly alone. ​ The University of Exeter library catalogue has a London ‘new edition’ by J.Robins for 1823, but as the words are in brackets it may only mean ‘another printing’.\\+I have copies for the years 1822 and 1824 to 1829.  It is not unreasonable to assume a printing for 1823, especially as Cordell lists an edition for 1823 by J. Richardson and Co., G. Offer, J. Sharpe [etc], the same consortium as that responsible ​for the 1822 and 1824 printings. ​ I have also seen offered an 1823 printing by T. Kelly, London, given as ‘A New Edition’, which seems unlikely as this wording does not otherwise appear until the 1830 Tegg, the Caxton Edition having ‘An Entirely New Edition’. ​ This may be a simple error or it may be an incorrect date.  Cordell lists printings by Kelly for 1832, 1835, 1840 and 1844, while I have the printings for 1829, 1832, 1840 and 1854.  They were all printed for Thomas Kelly, London, R.Griffin and Co., Glasgow, J.Cumming, Dublin, and M.Baudry, Paris, the same combination as for Tegg.  Additionally,​ my printings are all 3rd Edition reprints, suggesting that the earlier ones also were, and making it less likely, though not impossible, that Kelly would have produced a new edition in 1823.  What I also have, however, is an 1826 Tegg with an additional engraved title page, dated 1823 and printed for Thomas Tegg, T.Kelly, G.Virtue, J.Greaves, Manchester also E.Allen, Leicester. ​ This identical title page is in the 1832 Kelly, while the 1829 Kelly has the title page undated, published by Thomas Kelly alone. ​ The University of Exeter library catalogue has a London ‘new edition’ by J.Robins for 1823, but as the words are in brackets it may only mean ‘another printing’.\\
  
  
Line 168: Line 169:
 == 2.9   The Glasgow printing == == 2.9   The Glasgow printing ==
  
-In 1831 a pocket size edition appeared, published in Glasgow by Blackie, Fullerton, and Co., and A. Fullerton and Co., Edinburgh. ​ In 1834 the same printing appeared in London under the name of Alan Bell and Co., and Simpkin and Marshall. ​ Copac lists a printing in Glasgow for 1835 but with no other details, and as there was, according to Cordell, an octavo edition by Francis Orr and Sons in Glasgow in 1834, the 1835 could be by Blackie, Orr, or someone else entirely, but it turns out to have been Blackie and Son.  Glasgow appears again in 1846 and 1847, and a final appearance ​in 1854, all with Blackie and Son.\\+In 1831 a pocket size edition appeared, published in Glasgow by Blackie, Fullerton, and Co., and A. Fullerton and Co., Edinburgh. ​ In 1834 the same printing appeared in London under the name of Alan Bell and Co., and Simpkin and Marshall. ​ Copac lists a printing in Glasgow for 1835 but with no other details, and as there was, according to Cordell, an octavo edition by Francis Orr and Sons in Glasgow in 1834, the 1835 could be by Blackie, Orr, or someone else entirely, but it turns out to have been Blackie and Son.  Glasgow appears again in 18461847, and then in 1854, with a possibly final, undated, printing between then and 1865, all with Blackie and Son.\\
  
-The title page is, compared with octavo copies but in keeping with pocket editions, fairly minimal in terms of wording, but most noticeably there is no reference to a new edition. ​ On the reverse are the printers, Hutchison and Brookman, Villafield, Glasgow. ​ Then follows the Preface and the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition. ​ Unusually for a pocket edition the Rules to be Observed and the Principles of Pronunciation are given in full.  The dictionary itself has I and J, U and V combined, ‘ANTIQUE’ with the short ‘e’, and it ends with an appendix of words ending in ‘ose’.\\+The title page is, compared with octavo copies but in keeping with pocket editions, fairly minimal in terms of wording, but most noticeably there is no reference to a new edition. ​ On the reverse, apart from the undated copy, are the printers, Hutchison and Brookman, Villafield, Glasgow. ​ Then follows the Preface and the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition. ​ Unusually for a pocket edition the Rules to be Observed and the Principles of Pronunciation are given in full.  The dictionary itself has I and J, U and V combined, ‘ANTIQUE’ with the short ‘e’, and it ends with an appendix of words ending in ‘ose’.\\
  
 In 1830 Tegg published his ‘New Edition’, {[[background#​A new edition, carefully revised and corrected: ​ Tegg’s Editions|See 2.6 above]]}. ​ Apart from the comments regarding the title page everything-else is the same as for Blackie’s,​ most notably the same printers. ​ Only the portrait is different {[[background#​portraits_of_john_walker|See 3.10]]}.\\ In 1830 Tegg published his ‘New Edition’, {[[background#​A new edition, carefully revised and corrected: ​ Tegg’s Editions|See 2.6 above]]}. ​ Apart from the comments regarding the title page everything-else is the same as for Blackie’s,​ most notably the same printers. ​ Only the portrait is different {[[background#​portraits_of_john_walker|See 3.10]]}.\\
Line 225: Line 226:
 == 2.13 A New Edition, critically revised, enlarged and amended. ​ Nuttall’s Edition == == 2.13 A New Edition, critically revised, enlarged and amended. ​ Nuttall’s Edition ==
  
-In 1855 G. Routledge and Co. published the 1st Edition of Nuttall’s Walker. ​ Nuttall omitted the introduction,​ principles and notes and, like Smart, but using a simpler system, introduced diacritic marks. ​ The dictionary begins with a preface which turns out to be a complete reprint of the preface from Enfield’s Walker, with an addition by Nuttall to account for his edition. ​ Like Enfield’s the dictionary proper is headed ‘General Pronouncing Dictionary’ and the Key to the Diacritics is identical with his.  On so far only a superficial inspection the Routledge Edition of Nuttall appears to be a revision of the Enfield. ​ The vocabulary is larger, and I and J, U and V, are completely separated alphabetically,​ but the definitions are either identical or very close. ​ Further printings followed in 1856, 57, 58, 59 and 60, then in 1862 a copy by Routledge,​Warne and Routledge. ​ There was another in 1864, and in 1866 both Routledge and Warne published separate editions, Warne’s being titled the Pearl Edition, ‘With Webster'​s definitions and Worcester'​s improvements,​ thoroughly remodelled, enlarged and adapted to the present state of English Literature.’ ​ Unlike Routledge it appears to be much less reliant on Enfield. ​ They continued to go their separate ways and the following year Routledge produced a new printing, with a preface and this codicil: The Stereo-plates of this work, owing to the numerous impressions which had been called for, having been completely worn out, and the great demand still increasing, the Publishers, without regard to expense, have had this edition printed from a fresh set of electrotype plates, taken from a new and beautiful type, cast expressly for the present edition.\\+George Routledge founded his publishing firm with WH Warne in 1836.  ​In 1851 George Routledge and Cowas started with Frederick Warne. ​ This became Routledge, Warne and Routledge in 1858, and when Warne left to start his own company in 1865 it became George Routledge and Sons.\\ 
 + 
 +In 1855 George ​Routledge and Co. published the 1st Edition of Nuttall’s Walker. ​ Nuttall omitted the introduction,​ principles and notes and, like Smart, but using a simpler system, introduced diacritic marks. ​ The dictionary begins with a preface which turns out to be a complete reprint of the preface from Enfield’s Walker, with an addition by Nuttall to account for his edition. ​ Like Enfield’s the dictionary proper is headed ‘General Pronouncing Dictionary’ and the Key to the Diacritics is identical with his.  On so far only a superficial inspection the Routledge Edition of Nuttall appears to be a revision of the Enfield. ​ The vocabulary is larger, and I and J, U and V, are completely separated alphabetically,​ but the definitions are either identical or very close. ​ Further printings followed in 1856, 57, 58, 59 and 60, then in 1862 a copy by Routledge,​Warne and Routledge. ​ There was another in 1864, and in 1866 both Routledge and Warne published separate editions, Warne’s being titled the Pearl Edition, ‘With Webster'​s definitions and Worcester'​s improvements,​ thoroughly remodelled, enlarged and adapted to the present state of English Literature.’ ​ Unlike Routledge it appears to be much less reliant on Enfield. ​ They continued to go their separate ways and the following year Routledge produced a new printing, with a preface and this codicil: The Stereo-plates of this work, owing to the numerous impressions which had been called for, having been completely worn out, and the great demand still increasing, the Publishers, without regard to expense, have had this edition printed from a fresh set of electrotype plates, taken from a new and beautiful type, cast expressly for the present edition.\\
 London 1867\\ London 1867\\
 This edition, complete with its dated preface, was still being printed at least up until 1901, sometimes with, sometimes without, a date on the title-page.\\ This edition, complete with its dated preface, was still being printed at least up until 1901, sometimes with, sometimes without, a date on the title-page.\\
Line 243: Line 246:
 == 2.14 The Mozley Edition ==  == 2.14 The Mozley Edition == 
  
-I have recently acquired an edition published by John and Charles Mozley of Derby. ​ It is undated, but the earliest dated work of theirs I have so far found is 1849, before which the firm appears to have been Henry Mozley & Sons, with at least one other copy of Walker dated 1842, while a work dated 1863 has the addition of Joseph Masters & Son.  A further complication,​ however, is that the 1842 edition has ‘A New Edition’ on the title page, suggesting that it may be the Nelson edition, while this printing has nothing. ​ The only other edition with nothing specific is the 3rd Edition reprint {[[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829|See 2.4]]}, and this is not another of those, having the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition, as in the Tegg New Edition {[[background#​a_new_edition,​_carefully_revised_and_corrected:​_tegg_s_editions|See 2.6]]} and the Glasgow Edition {[[background#​the_glasgow_printing|See 2.9]]}, as well as the later reference under ‘Denigrate’ {[[background#​the_stereotype_edition|See 2.2]][[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829| & 2.4]]}, but there is no obvious link in layout with any of the other editions of Tegg, Davis or Young. ​ Perhaps most significantly,​ it has the letters I/J and U/V separated completely, something otherwise found only in Young (1849) at this assumed period {[[background#​the_separation_of_i_and_j,​_u_and_v_in_alphabetical_ordering|See 3.3]]}. ​ It has a portrait, found, so far, in no other copy, ([[portraits#​fig.28]]). ​ Facially it seems to be somewhere between the Heath engraving and the later Tegg but not identical with either, while the coat is unbuttoned as in Tegg, but with five buttons visible on the waistcoat. ​ Below it is a facsimile signature, which looks as if it has been copied, by hand, from the one in the Caxton Edition. ​ ​Further investigation is needed.  ​{[[background#​Portraits of John Walker|See also 3.10 below]]}\\+I have recently acquired an edition published by John and Charles Mozley of Derby. ​ It is undated, but the earliest dated work of theirs I have so far found is 1849, before which the firm appears to have been Henry Mozley & Sons, with at least one other copy of Walker dated 1842, while a work dated 1863 has the addition of Joseph Masters & Son.  A further complication,​ however, is that the 1842 edition has ‘A New Edition’ on the title page, suggesting that it may be the Nelson edition, while this printing has nothing. ​ The only other edition with nothing specific is the 3rd Edition reprint {[[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829|See 2.4]]}, and this is not another of those, having the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition, as in the Tegg New Edition {[[background#​a_new_edition,​_carefully_revised_and_corrected:​_tegg_s_editions|See 2.6]]} and the Glasgow Edition {[[background#​the_glasgow_printing|See 2.9]]}, as well as the later reference under ‘Denigrate’ {[[background#​the_stereotype_edition|See 2.2]][[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829| & 2.4]]}, but there is no obvious link in layout with any of the other editions of Tegg, Davis or Young. ​ Perhaps most significantly,​ it has the letters I/J and U/V separated completely, something otherwise found only in Young (1849) at this assumed period {[[background#​the_separation_of_i_and_j,​_u_and_v_in_alphabetical_ordering|See 3.3]]}. ​ It has a portrait, found, so far, in no other copy, ([[portraits#​fig.28]]). ​ Facially it seems to be somewhere between the Heath engraving and the later Tegg but not identical with either, while the coat is unbuttoned as in Tegg, but with five buttons visible on the waistcoat. ​ Below it is a facsimile signature, which looks as if it has been copied, by hand, from the one in the Caxton Edition. ​  ​{[[background#​Portraits of John Walker|See also 3.10 below]]}\\ 
 +I have located what appears to be the family on various censuses. ​ That of 1841 shows the parents, Henry and Jane Mozley, living at Friar Gate, St Werburgh, Derby, with their children John, born 1806, Charles, born 1811, Anne, also 1811, Maria, born 1816, and Fanny, born 1821, together with a number of servants. ​ There may also have been another son, Thomas, who became a clergyman. ​ In 1851 John was probably the person listed as a visitor to William and Mary Greaves, who appear to have run a hotel in Matlock Bath.  John is given as '​annuitant'​. ​ By 1861 he is married, to Jemima, and has five sons and a daughter. ​ They live at 101 Friar Gate, St Werburgh, Derby, and John's occupation is publisher. ​ In 1871 he is living with just his wife and servants, a printer and publisher, still at Friar Gate.  It seems possible that he died in 1872, and Jemima the same year.
  
  
background.1404511503.txt.gz · Last modified: 4 July 2014 23:05 BST by pftaylor
[unknown link type]Back to top
www.chimeric.de Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki do yourself a favour and use a real browser - get firefox!! Recent changes RSS feed Valid XHTML 1.0