The Silmarillion — Billing First State (1977)

The UK ‘domestic’ first impression of The Silmarillion: published by GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN (GA&U), printed by BILLING & SONS, first impression, first state text (all textual errors present), cloth-covered boards, top page-edge dyed, priced dustjacket.[†] The pound sterling jacket price indicates the book was intended primarily for home market distribution in the UK and Ireland [‡]; and in this case the domestic designation—unlike the shaky ‘export’ tag (predicated on the absence of information)—is on far firmer ground. The copyright page is notable for stating that ‘offset lithography’ was used for the printing of this impression; this is only stated in copies of The Silmarillion printed by BILLING. I call this variant the Billing First State. 

 

GA&U home market reps (1977)

In 1977, BILLING & SONS was owned by BLACKWELL PRESS [1]; the 1970s were a time of significant consolidation within the UK printing sector. Blackwell's had a long association with Tolkien; Basil Blackwell published Tolkien's poem ‘Goblin Feet’ in 1915 (see Holford 11360). There were also close connections between the Blackwell’s and Tolkien’s publisher (GA&U); Rayner Unwin (like his father) knew Basil Blackwell, having briefly worked for Blackwell in the early 1940s after leaving school.[2] BLACKWELL'S BOOKSHOP (on Broad Street, Oxford) would also play a prominent role in selling some of the first copies of The Silmarillion on publication day in September 1977.[3] Faithfully observing the pre-publication embargo, they reportedly sold 850 copies on the first day; first buyers, it was later told, requested their copy be inscribed ‘First copy sold by Blackwell’s’, ‘Second copy…’ and so on.[4]

 

Original receipt (16th Sept. 1977)

 

In Descriptive Bibliography (St Paul's Bibliographies / Oak Knoll Books, 1993) Hammond & Anderson state the initial UK print order for The Silmarillion was 100,000 copies (in late April 1977); by September the print run had risen to 375,000 (still pre-publication). 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)’. I suggested, in the write-up for the Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant), that CLOWES were probably responsible for half of this ‘initial impression’, adding that it remained an ‘open question’ whether the three other printers had been engaged ‘at this early stage’ i.e. in late April when the book was ‘ready for press’. This comment was made in the context of the ‘unquestioning culture of bibliographical commentary’ (my words) which claims fairly unequivocally ‘that all Clowes first impression variants usurp all Billing (and other printer) variants in terms of printing priority.’

 

If this prevailing view were correct, presumably the answer to this ‘open’ question—for it certainly is an open question (in this writer’s opinion)—would be no; the assumption being that only CLOWES had started printing copies in early May, hence the claims of priority. My previous ‘export priority narrative fallacy’ invective (here) should make clear that I believe this to be, at best, unsubstantiated. A cursory reading of Descriptive Bibliography should make clear why: Hammond & Anderson clearly imply that the ‘initial impression’ included ‘domestic (Billings) copies’. It feels safe to assume, therefore, that the first 50,000 copies printed by BILLING must represent the Billing First State variant here described. BILLING were engaged early; the question is, how early?

 

A few points regarding printing priority.

 

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. Offset lithography describes several elements of machine printing: the manner of ink application (the ‘lithography’) and the indirect transfer of text in the press from plate to paper (the ‘offset’). Taken literally offset lithography describes only the printing process; it does not indicate method of typesetting or specifically how printing plates were produced, although the latter can be inferred. When printing involves offset lithography, we start to need more information to determine how something was also typeset.[5]

 

The question of how The Silmarillion was typeset and the presumption that BILLING used the CLOWES typesetting for the preparation of their own impression(s) is, again, worth considering, particularly if one wishes to engage in the minutiae of printing priority. (See Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) for a more detailed discussion of CLOWES' role as primary typesetter.) There is no evidence of BILLING having independently or separately typeset the text of The Silmarillion; that is, of rekeyboarding having occurred. No new or independent errors were—as far as this writer is aware—introduced to the texts of Billing variants. Hammond & Anderson’s error list (Descriptive Bibliography pp. 215–216) remains a foundational checklist of errata/corrigenda for all (first edition) variants, regardless of printer.

 

Since I have argued (or suggested) elsewhere that it is likely CLOWES also printed using an offset (lithographic) process, it stands to reason that both printers, not just BILLING, would have been required to make printing plates e.g. ‘litho plates’ created from ‘repro-proofs’ (taken from the CLOWES metal typesetting).[6] Both printers could, therefore, have been in a position to start printing at around the same time; stated by Hammond & Anderson to have been the end of April 1977 (or more practically the first week of May).

 

It is also worth mentioning phototypesetting at this point. By the 1970s phototypesetting (‘cold composition’) had been widely adopted within the printing industry. This change saw the shift away from the setting of type by casting machines (‘hot-metal composition’).[7] Phototypesetting was presumably an option in 1977, but (as I have suggested elsewhere) CLOWES likely chose ‘hot-metal Monotype composition’ for the typesetting of The Silmarillion. However, what is interesting to note, is that early book cataloguers were already using the terms ‘offset lithography’ and ‘photo-offset’ interchangeably in respect to the printing of The Silmarillion.[8] It is not a stretch to suggest that by the early 1980s some people may have begun to conflate offset lithography and photo-offsetting—two terms only describing the process of printing [9]—with phototypesetting. Perhaps this conflation has played into the narrative of BILLING as secondary printer with “copied” typesetting. The publication of Hammond & Anderson’s Descriptive Bibliography, in 1993, did little to this unseat this idea.

 

My previous debunking of offset lithography as a significant determinant of printing priority (see ‘The offset lithography red herring’ here) was simply to make the point that if CLOWES printed by an offset (lithographic) process, then the significance of BILLING having also done so is negligible. Evidence of offset lithographic printing by BILLING (in isolation) does not confirm anything about printing priority in respect to The Silmarillion. Even conceding that CLOWES were the primary typesetter, it is still entirely plausible that both printers made printing plates from repro-proofs; the process of plate-making could have been virtually simultaneous between the two printers. Therefore, the idea—so well established in the minds of many—that the Billing First State post-dates all early CLOWES printed copies, does not stand up. The printing of the Billing First State and the Clowes First State were likely closely contemporary.

 

Some thoughts on printing location.

 

Industry reports from 1977 confirm that WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS (of ‘London, Beccles and Colchester’) printed their copies of The Silmarillion at their works in Beccles, Suffolk.[10] But where did BILLING & SONS of ‘Guildford, London and Worcester’ choose to print their copies? If—and this is still an if—BILLING printed and bound their copies of The Silmarillion at their Worcester facility, then this would be interesting; the specific press and prepress equipment used by BILLING in 1977, at Worcester, is known from contemporary descriptions of ‘Billings Book Plan’.

 

In the mid-1970s BLACKWELL PRESS were persuaded by the managing director of BILLING, David Hale, to invest in a ‘mass-manufacture process based on only two qualities of paper and an intelligent use of web-offset’; this ‘£5m. worth of hardware’ claimed book production—typesetting, printing, and binding—measured in days, not weeks (or months).[11] Hale named this ‘hardback technology’ revolution Billings Book Plan; it was based in BILLING's Worcester facility.[12] The first Billings Book Plan title was produced in October 1975.[13][§] BILLINGS BOOK PLAN would later be separately incorporated and limp on into the late 1990s, out-surviving its parent company, BILLING & SONS, LIMITED, which ceased trading in 1991 and was wound up in 1993.[14]

 

There are several reasons for suggesting a Worcester (Billings Book Plan) production location for The Silmarillion. Perhaps the speed and agility that BILLING claimed they could deliver, at their new printing set-up at Worcester, was exactly what GA&U were looking for when they sought to spread the printing burden of their huge first edition across multiple printing sites; BILLING were likely responsible for half of the 200,000 ‘initial impression’. Web-offset presses used rolls of paper (‘web-fed’) as opposed to single sheets; they were known for fast printing and long print runs. It is therefore probable that BILLING chose to the print The Silmarillion by web-offset at Worcester.

 

16-page gatherings (BILLING copy)

Another, not so obvious, reason is book structure. When dismantling different copies of The Silmarillion for bookbinding projects I make a note of binding structures. In a contemporary note for a BILLING rebind, I recorded that it was ‘evident that folios were sewn together as gatherings’, but these gatherings were ‘only glued to each other’ i.e. the gatherings (signatures) were not sewn to each other. The stitching was also notably non-aligned. This is all to say that the page-block was sewn, glued, and lined in a distinctive but rather non-conventional (to my eye) manner in comparison to other machine-made books of this era. This sewing (and binding) style is clearly described as ‘thread sealing’ in Morlok.[15] I have not noted thread-sealing in any other 1977 non-BILLING copies of The Silmarillion that I have dismantled.

 

David Hale wrote about Billings Book Plan at length. One of the technical aspects that helped differentiate it from other printers at this time—including BILLING's own Guildford works—was the use of an Ehlermann Fanflex GT5 adhesive binder ‘fed with 16-page signatures which have been thread-sealed’.[16] Hale described the process of thread-sealing as ‘unfamiliar to UK bookbinders’ i.e. new and relatively unheard of (at this scale).[17] Those of a bibliographical persuasion will probably have already noted 16-page gatherings as a collation feature of BILLING printed copies (CLOWES copies have 32-page gatherings). These Billings Book Plan technical specifics—smaller gatherings with thread-sealing—are observable (and distinct) features of Billing First State variants. While much of this does not disprove printing at Guilford, by BILLING, it does point towards the printing and binding of The Silmarillion having taken place at their Worcester site. 

 

Lastly, it is uncertain if BILLING printed dustjackets onsite or whether this was handled by another specialist printer.[18][¶] However, Hammond & Anderson's fairly nuanced observations in Descriptive Bibliography on dustjacket colour differences, plus the mention of an ‘auto-jacketer’ as an integral part of the Billings Book Plan forwarding operation [19], together make one think that each printer likely printed their own dustjackets. It would be interesting to find out more about their production.

 

Timeline(s). 

 

CLOWES started the process of typesetting—producing a specimen example—no later than February 1977; there is no evidence BILLING were involved at this early stage. By late April the book was ready for press. At this time (early May) there is no evidence to suggest that CLOWES and BILLING did not both start printing (and binding) copies of The Silmarillion, at Beccles and Worcester respectively; Hammond & Anderson's ‘initial impression’. BILLING copies—presumably Billing First State variants (only)—were in the hands of literary editors by late July; see July 29th 1977: The Café Royal (R.S.V.P. Rayner Unwin). 

 

By August 1977 the text was being corrected; CLOWES were printing—or beginning to print—second state copies, including the Clowes Intermediate Second State. While it is not impossible that BILLING were still printing first state copies at this time, it would seem unlikely; a Billing Second State variant (with third state text) would immerge before September publication. Even taking into account divergent printing timelines (in respect to textual variation and correction) between different printing sites, BILLING likely corrected their own printing plates—presumably (ultimately) under the direction of the publisher—between the end of July and late August. 

 

CLOWES were still printing copies of The Silmarillion—although, by this stage, possibly the Clowes Second Impression—potentially as late as the beginning of September.[20] Were BILLING still printing copies this late in the printing-publishing timeline of The Silmarillion? It feels like BILLING's own Silmarillion timeline may have been more narrow; in comparison to CLOWES' known February (typesetting) to September 1977 (publication deadline) production timeframe. I will leave speculation of where the Billing Second State variant fits in this timeline to a later, separate post.

 

I will (I'm sure) discuss specific copies of Billing variants that I have—that is, some actual book-chat—in a later post or posts. What I will say, here, is that I would seem to have amassed twenty-six examples of the Billing First State variant to date. Most of these have copy-specific features; I have written about or mentioned a few of these previously. They include review copies, signed copies, and association copies; date/place copies and bookplated copies; library copies, rebound copies, and copies with ephemera. Scarce or rare, they are not.

 

NOTES:

† The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland; abbreviated to ‘UK’ throughout. Used, in reference to the location of publishing and printing, in preference to the almost universal twentieth century publishing convention of ‘Great Britain’.

‡ GA&U certainly regarded Ireland as part of their ‘home market’ at this time. In 1977, pound sterling was an accepted currency in Ireland having the same value as the Irish pound. The use of the term ‘Great Britain’ in twentieth century publishing would seem to be a misnomer; the exclusion of Northern Ireland is assumed to be unintentional. In respect to geographical market, the term British Isles would be more accurate.

§ Billings Book Plan is variously described as a book production service, a printing system, a corporate concept and industry template, and a physical facility at Worcester.

¶ Some material based on discussions with Anthony Tanner; see REF. #18. KEMP HALL BINDERY (of Oxford) was part of BLACKWELL PRESS in 1976. Anthony Tanner was Managing Director of BILLING & SONS (working from Guilford) from 1977 to 1982. Tanner had no specific knowledge regarding the printing of The Silmarillion; conclusions drawn largely my own.

 

REFERENCES:

1. THOMPSON-NOEL, Michael. ‘The Book Revolution’ [in ‘The Printing Industry’ (part IV)]. Financial Times. (Monday) 24 October 1977, p. 42.

2. UNWIN, Rayner. George Allen & Unwin | A Remembrancer. Merlin Unwin Books, 1999, p. 30.

3. LANGLEY, Neville. Former employee of GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN. PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE with author, April 2011.

4. [N.A.]. ‘Oxonmoot Report’. Amon Hen. The Bulletin of The Tolkien Society. The Tolkien Society, Issue 29, October 1977, p. 14.

5. BOAG, Andrew. Director of VANBRUGH PRESS. PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE with author, January 2022.

6. BOAG, Andrew. PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE.

7. BANHAM, Rob. ‘The Industrialization of the Book 1800–1970’. A Companion to the History of the Book. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007, chpt. 20, p. 288. 

8. BIBLIOCTOPUS [pseud. of Mark & Melissa Hime]. Biblioasis Two or The Biblioctopii [catalogue]. Idyllwild, CA, 1981, p. 45, item 100.

9. BOAG, Andrew. PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE.

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

11. THOMPSON-NOEL, Michael. ‘The Book Revolution’, p. 43.

12. [N.A.]. ‘How Billings planned a fast service at modest cost’. Printing Trades Journal. August 1976, no. 1074, p. 21.

13. HALE, D[avid] R. ‘Technical aspects of book printing’. Professional Printer. July 1978, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 4.

14. BILLING & SONS, LIMITED (company no. 00066473). A selection of documents registered before 1 January 1995. COMPANIES HOUSE, 1995, p. 186.

15. MORLOK, Franziska; WASZELEWSKI, Miriam. Bookbinding | The Complete Guide to Folding, Sewing & Binding. Laurence King Publishing, 2018, pp. 201–205.

16. [N.A.]. ‘How Billings planned a fast service at modest cost’, p. 20.

17. HALE, D[avid] R. ‘Technical aspects of book printing’, p. 3.

18. TANNER, Anthony. Managing Director of KEMP HALL BINDERY, Oxford. PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE with author, June 2019.

19. HALE, D[avid] R. ‘Technical aspects of book printing’, p. 3.

20. [N.A.]. ‘Hardback record’, p. 4.

 

Also on SILMARILLION MINUTIAE

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

❆ The Silmarillion — Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant) (1977)

❆ Significant Variants