WHAT’S THE STORY?
MONDAY sees the 250th anniversary of the very first publication of the initial pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, arguably the most famous and successful book ever published in Edinburgh.
The capital is not going overboard in celebrating the anniversary of a book which helped gain it City of Literature title from Unesco, but do expect a major announcement on Monday from the National Library of Scotland.
WHO WAS BEHIND IT?
THE first edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica was produced by three young tradesmen, none of whom had published a book previously.
The two principal partners, who would retain the copyright of its first three editions, were printer Colin Macfarquhar (1744-1793) and engraver Andrew Bell (1753-1832).
Macfarquhar, a wig maker’s son, had just opened his printing firm in 1767. Bell, a baker’s son and an apprentice of Scotland’s leading engraver Richard Cooper, established his reputation as an engraver through pioneering work for the Scots Magazine, the oldest magazine in the world still in publication today.
It was there that Bell met William Smellie (1740-1795), himself a master printer, who was editor of the Scots Magazine from 1760 to 1765 and who would later be Robert Burns’ printer and co-found the Royal Society of Edinburgh. There is a plaque in his memory on the Royal Mile at Anchor Close acknowledging that he printed there both the Burns Edinburgh edition and Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Smellie was the originating genius of the book but he was not financially acute at that time. For he agreed to compile the Britannica’s first edition for a flat fee of £200, while Bell and Macfarquhar made £25,000 from the Britannica’s first three editions.
WHAT MADE IT SO POPULAR?
IT was recognised from the off as a “must have” masterpiece. It appeared in 100 instalments from 1768 to 1771 and cost sixpence per instalment, or eightpence for an edition made from better paper. By 1771, some 3000 full sets had been sold at £12 each.
It was not without controversy. Andrew Bell produced three full pages of anatomically accurate depictions of dissected female pelvises and of foetuses in wombs for article on midwifery.
These illustrations so shocked King George III that he commanded that the pages be ripped from every copy.
ANY ERRORS OR MISTAKES IN THAT FIRST EDITION?
SMELLIE admitted he borrowed from all sort of authors, but the prose is very much his. The entry for “Woman” is just four words: “The female of man.”
The first edition says that humans were divided into five categories: European, American, Asiatic, African and Monstrous.
The US state of “Callifornia” was spelt with two “L’s” and is described as “a large country of the West Indies. Unknown whether it is an island or a peninsula.”
The solar system was described as having six planets but that was not an error at the time – Uranus, Neptune and Pluto had yet to be discovered.
Smellie objected to biographies in the second edition and parted company with Macfarquhar and Bell, the latter becoming sole owner on the former’s death.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here