| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| background [23 June 2018 11:12 BST] – pftaylor | background [ 9 February 2023 15:22 GMT] (current) – pftaylor |
|---|
| == 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. | 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#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. |
| |
| |
| This appears to be the last of the various editions of Walker, and, on the basis of the additional words and a superficial examination, a properly revised edition. The new words are inserted into the body of the text and not simply added on as with Smith.\\ | This appears to be the last of the various editions of Walker, and, on the basis of the additional words and a superficial examination, a properly revised edition. The new words are inserted into the body of the text and not simply added on as with Smith.\\ |
| |
| Francis R. Sowerby was the stepson and subsequent partner of William Milner, a Halifax printer and publisher. In 1861 their Walker was published, having been preceded in 1844 by Milner’s printing of the Davis Edition, repeated in 1845. Whether this was the inspiration for Sowerby’s own edition remains to be seen. There were further printings in each of the next five years, and a copy for 1867 may yet appear, but after that year no more of their books were dated. Nor were any of these first six given an edition number. Nevertheless some time after this a 9th Edition, ‘revised, corrected and modernised’, was published. I would like to think that this was first published in 1869, and that I shall one day discover an undated non-9th Edition. I have two copies of it in identical binding to that of the 1866 copy.\\ | Francis R. Sowerby was the stepson and subsequent partner of William Milner, a Halifax printer and publisher. In 1861 their Walker was published, having been preceded in 1844 by Milner’s printing of the Davis Edition, repeated in 1845. Whether this was the inspiration for Sowerby’s own edition remains to be seen. There were further printings in each of the next five years, and a copy for 1867 may yet appear, but after that year no more of their books were dated. Nor were any of these first six given an edition number. Nevertheless some time after this a 9th Edition, ‘revised, corrected and modernised’, was published. I would like to think that this was first published in 1869, and that I shall one day discover an undated non-9th Edition *. I have two copies of it in identical binding to that of the 1866 copy.\\ |
| |
| There are small differences to be seen between the early editions but all the 9th Editions seem to be identical, having stopped modernising. In 1882 the firm changed from Milner and Sowerby to Milner and Co., but there are no discernable differences except to the bindings between early and later copies, and Sowerby himself died in 1885, presumably putting a stop to any further revision.\\ | There are small differences to be seen between the early editions but all the 9th Editions seem to be identical, having stopped modernising. In 1882 the firm changed from Milner and Sowerby to Milner and Co., but there are no discernable differences except to the bindings between early and later copies, and Sowerby himself died in 1885, presumably putting a stop to any further revision.\\ |
| |
| This, then, would appear to be the end of Walker’s Dictionary. It may have lived on in the guise of Nuttall’s Dictionary, and as Walker it was still being advertised on fly-leaves and end papers into the 1920s. Whether you could actually buy it, or whether firms were just using up pre-printed sheets is another matter.\\ | This, then, would appear to be the end of Walker’s Dictionary. It may have lived on in the guise of Nuttall’s Dictionary, and as Walker it was still being advertised on fly-leaves and end papers into the 1920s. Whether you could actually buy it, or whether firms were just using up pre-printed sheets is another matter.\\ |
| | |
| | * I have now found an edition that has no date and no claim to be the 9th-Edition. However, it is published by Milner and Co. of Paternoster Row, London, and has no mention of Francis Sowerby on the title page either. These facts would suggest that it was published after 1882 and probably after 1885, but quite how it fits with the other editions will take some investigation.\\ |
| |
| |
