The Silmarillion — Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) (1977)

This Clowes variant of The Silmarillion is perhaps viewed by many as the archetypal copy exhibiting all the requisite features of a “true first”: published by GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN (GA&U), printed by WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS, first impression, all textual errors present (first state), cloth-covered boards, top page-edge dyed, decorative headband, and an unpriced dustjacket. Follow-the-flag collectors, however, might take issue with the idea that a version of the first edition destined for foreign shores—in respect to the UK—should be the copy to possess over all others. Further, the Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) can hardly be considered—in bibliographical terms, if such a label is appropriate for a modern first edition—an ‘ideal copy’ (exhibiting the final intention of author, publisher, and printer) since it harbours the full range of textual errors (as do all first state copies) identified by Hammond & Anderson. The slightly inferior (in this writer's opinion) dustjacket colouring, and clearly less than ideal Realms map orientation and placement, are further points worth noting when considering final intention. (The bookbinder in me also finds the binding structure, with 32-page gatherings, unsatisfactory.) 

 

The absence of a printed jacket price on this Clowes variant merits specific comment. An unpriced jacket seems to be inextricably linked, in the eyes of booksellers and collectors alike, to original destination market—i.e. non-UK distribution—and also, by connection, to priority. This seemingly unequivocal link to priority is not correct in all cases, even if the rationale behind unpriced books for export markets is a sound one in principle. Put simply: conformation of ‘export’ status by jacket pricing only is an unsound bibliographical assumption; the link between ‘export’ and priority more nuanced. 

 

In Descriptive Bibliography (St Paul's Bibliographies / Oak Knoll Books, 1993) Hammond & Anderson state the initial UK print run (or ‘order’) for The Silmarillion was 100,000 copies; assumed to be around late April 1977 when the book was ‘ready for press’. This was increased to 300,000 in late May, raised later to 325,000, and finally to 375,000 copies in September. The rationale behind the use of four separate printers was to mitigate against production disruption that might arise from ‘feared industrial action’ due to the ongoing Grunwick Dispute of 1976–78. Hammond & Anderson's total print run figure of 375,000 copies—across four printers—is also the figure given by Rayner Unwin.[1] In November 1977, the trade press reported that The Silmarillion had set the record for the ‘largest hardback book run in UK publishing history’ (outside of the New English Bible), quoting a print run size of 360,000 copies, all printed ‘at Clowes of Beccles’.[2][†] It is difficult to reconcile this figure with the final figure given by Hammond & Anderson (and Rayner Unwin), unless the 375,000 print run total perhaps excludes the Clowes Second Impression; the division of printing responsibilities is never alluded to. 

 

Hammond & Anderson state that each printer was ‘working in blocks of 50,000 copies’ and the ‘initial impression seems to have been 200,000 copies (export and domestic combined)’. How this relates to the Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant), its closely related binding variant the Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant), and the Clowes Intermediate Second State (while also ignoring what BILLING & SONS were printing)—all of which are marked first impressions, all printed by CLOWES—is unclear. At best guess it feels safe to assume that at least the first 50,000 copies printed by CLOWES must represent the Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) here described. (See also Clowes Methuen discussion here.) 

 

The offset lithography red herring.

 

The question of how The Silmarillion was typeset (and the method of printing) by CLOWES—and the wider presumption that the other printers (in particular BILLING) used the CLOWES typesetting for the preparation of their own impressions—is worth close consideration, particularly in respect to printing priority. The specific press and prepress equipment used by CLOWES in 1977 is unknown to this writer, therefore a detailed understanding of the methods employed, in typesetting, plate-making, and printing, is difficult to establish. An examination of the books themselves can only reveal so much.

 

Clowes Monotype Specimen

That CLOWES undertook the task of primary typesetting appears beyond doubt; CLOWES produced a specimen example for GA&U no later than February 1977, early proofs appear to be of CLOWES origin (see previous discussion here), and GA&U themselves claim the 1982 Collector's Edition—printed by CLOWES—was bound from the first copies (of the first edition) ‘off the press’ (see Plate Image Archive). The Monotype specimen prepared for GA&U suggests CLOWES used hot-metal Monotype composition for the typesetting; the set of proofs (mentioned) have printed references to ‘rack’ numberings, again suggestive (I think) of standing metal type.

 

Proof copy ‘rack’ example

The reference to printing by ‘offset lithography’—appearing (only) on the copyright page(s) of Billing variants—is frequently cited as evidence of printing priority in respect to other first edition variants of The Silmarillion, particularly those printed by CLOWES. However, what little evidence there is of method of printing also points towards CLOWES having printed by an offset (lithographic) process. This seems reasonably clear with a copy of the book in-hand; CLOWES printed copies do not appear to show (to my untrained eye) a page of text printed by letterpress. Therefore, evidence of offset lithographic printing does not, I believe, tell us anything about printing priority.

 

Sitting between these two processes (of typesetting and printing)—and really beyond the scope of this write-up—there is also the connected process of plate-making; in particular, plate-making from hot-metal composition with the intention to print by offset. Numerous techniques were developed to convert letterpress typeforms (raised hot-metal printing surfaces) into ‘flat, high-contrast photographic’ images suitable for offset lithographic plate-making. Collectively termed ‘conversion methods’, techniques included photographing the typeform itself or producing camera-ready reproduction proofs.[3] CLOWES must have employed one of these techniques if using hot-metal composition with the intention to print by offset lithography. The fact that METHUEN were in possession of ‘typesetting film’ (see here)—possibly positive film images for plate-making (and presumably of CLOWES origin)—is further evidence that conversion methods were likely employed by CLOWES at this time in respect to The Silmarillion. 

 

Although this was a period of great transition in the world of printing—some of the above is speculative and several possibilities exist as to how exactly CLOWES printed and typeset (including plate-making)—it seems reasonable to suggest that in 1977, for The Silmarillion, CLOWES chose hot-metal Monotype composition for typesetting and offset lithography for printing.[‡] Had publication been later in the decade, circumstances would have forced the choice of methods to be employed. The final demise of hot-metal technology was looming; by July 1980 CLOWES had made the decision to close their ‘hot-metal department’.[4]

 

Why does this matter?

 

CLOWES were likely still printing copies of The Silmarillion—having started production no later than early May—into early September 1977 [5]; BILLING copies are known (but see previous discussion here) to have been in the hands of literary editors in late July. CLOWES were also responsible for producing another separate first state (text) binding variant, the Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant); the priority of these (often misidentified) binding states remains unclear. 

 

It seems curious, therefore, that an unquestioning culture of bibliographical commentary has become established within the bookselling community which claims, fairly unequivocally, that all Clowes first impression variants usurp all Billing (and other printer) variants in terms of printing priority. From this assumption, nonsensical terms like “true first” emerge; a phrase frequently encountered in booksellers' listings, and in discussion of The Silmarillion more widely by book-collectors. This simplistic view comes, I think, from two places. One, the BILLING copyright information already discussed; and secondly, and more importantly, from a reading of Descriptive Bibliography.

 

Hammond & Anderson's entry in Descriptive Bibliography for the UK first edition of The Silmarillion is, for me, problematic. The placement of A15a ‘First edition (British), export copies’ (CLOWES printed copies) before all others—before A15b ‘First edition (British), domestic copies (1977)’ (BILLING printed copies)—implies priority. A careful reading of A15a shows that the printing history is more complicated, but the implication remains. 

 

Dyed page-edges and decorative headbands

Hammond & Anderson also list various book features (points) within A15a that can clearly be shown to be connected to Clowes variants exhibiting a later textual state e.g. the Clowes Intermediate Second State. While it is still true that these unpriced Clowes variants may well be ‘export’ copies, books that were bound for non-UK markets, it also remains the case that some of them were likely not. It is questionable whether this division—the separating of the UK first edition entry into ‘export’ (A15a) and ‘domestic’ (A15b), while discussing the complexity within A15a—was (and is) the most effective way to describe The Silmarillion bibliographically. A drawback of imposing this order is that it belies the more complex reality—which is certainly touched upon—of the pre-publication printing of The Silmarillion in 1977. And it has, I believe, fuelled a false narrative around ‘export’ priority which is not born out by the facts.

 

Hammond & Anderson suggest that it is perhaps ‘pointless to make much of a distinction’; a suggestion that further analysis of printing priority is without further merit or interest. Perhaps. It is certainly splitting hairs. However, the establishment of a detailed printing timeline for The Silmarillion is one of this writer's bibliographical ambitions. Whether this is of any use to anyone or achievable, is questionable; some of the nuanced detail may now be irretrievably lost to the passage of time.

 

The closely associated Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant) merits its own post; I will discuss this variant in a separate write-up in due course.

 

NOTES: 

† The article quotes the publisher (GA&U) as its source.

‡ The Printing Trades Journal article (ref. 2 and 5) actually states that CLOWES printed by ‘litho’ i.e. offset lithography. I do not directly reference the article (regarding method of printing specifically) as it errs in another small point of detail; it is not, therefore, clear if it can be relied upon.

 

REFERENCES:

1. UNWIN, Rayner. George Allen & Unwin | A Remembrancer. Merlin Unwin Books, 1999, pp. 248, 259. 

2. [N.A.]. ‘Hardback record’. Printing Trades Journal. November 1977, no. 1089, p. 4. 

3. KLEPER. Understanding Photo Typesetting. North American Publishing Company, 1976, pp. 145–146. 

4. GILLIVER, Peter. The Making of the Oxford English Dictionary. OUP, 2016, p. 516.

5. [N.A.]. ‘Hardback record’.

 

Also on SILMARILLION MINUTIAE

❆ The Silmarillion — Clowes Dummy (1977)

❆ The Silmarillion — Clowes Methuen (1977)

❆ The Silmarillion — Clowes Book Club (1977)
❆ The Silmarillion — Collector's Edition (1982)

❆ Proof of Typesetting: Fëanáro[.] and Ulmo's Troublesome Italics