A Century and a Quarter of Hoyle

Abstract

Edmond Hoyle wrote the first instructional books on the strategy for card play in the 1740s. The copyright owners, the Proprietors, published them successfully as Hoyle’s Games for a generation. The 1774 decision in Donaldson v Beckett invalidated the copyright and the Proprietors faced legal competition for the first time. Competing booksellers published innovative gaming manuals, marketing them as improved versions of Hoyle, with clearer prose, treatment of additional games, and new formats.

Despite the loss of copyright protection and the resulting competition, an ever-changing group of Proprietors dominated the market for gaming literature until the 1860s. With a bibliographical examination of the books, supplemented by archival records of the book trade, this article documents the Proprietor’s success and the reasons for it. The study provides a nuanced perspective of the impact of the Donaldson decision on an unfamiliar genre of literature.

Edmond Hoyle (1672–1769) wrote and published A Short Treatise on the Game of Whist (Whist.1.1) in November 1742.¹ While previous books described the rules of various card games, Hoyle was the first to set out strategy for card play, relying on a growing understanding of the mathematics of probability. In February 1743 Hoyle sold the copyright to bookseller Francis Cogan, but before Cogan could print a second edition, two printers pirated the work. Elsewhere, I have described Cogan’s response to the illicit competition and his later sale of the copyright to Thomas Osborne.² This paper will tell the story of how later owners of the Hoyle copyright (here referred to as the ‘Proprietors’) responded to lawful competition. Lawful competition arose from the 1774 House of Lords decision in Donaldson v Beckett, limiting copyright protection to the twenty-eight years prescribed by the Statue of Anne.³

If you were to have visited a bookshop just before the Donaldson decision, you would have found but one instructional gaming book, the latest and copyright-protected ‘fifteenth’ edition of Hoyle’s Games (Games.6). (See below, Appendix I, for the labels used here.) A year later, in the summer of 1775, the bookseller might have shown you any of three books, all nominally editions of Hoyle. An unchanged ‘sixteenth’ edition of Hoyle’s Games (Games.7) was joined by two books titled Hoyle’s Games Improved, one by James Beaufort of Cavendish Square (Beaufort.1), the other revised and corrected by Charles Jones (Jones.1). The owners of the invalidated Hoyle copyright faced legal competition for the first time.

After 1775, the number of books marketed as Hoyle’s proliferated. In addition to those of Beaufort and Jones, rewrites and expansions containing the preponderance of Hoyle’s text include:

• Hoyle’s Games Improved, revised and corrected by ‘Thomas Jones’ (three editions from 1778)

• Pigott’s New Hoyle (four editions and numerous reissues from 1796)

• The New Pocket Hoyle (five editions from 1802)

• Hoyle Made Familiar, by ‘Trebor Eidrah’ (fourteen stereotyped versions from 1830)

• Hoyle’s Games, Improved and Enlarged, by G. H. (six editions from 1835)

To this list could be added a large but unknown number of abridgements—chapbooks and cheap editions in boards or wrappers— attributed to Hoyle or branded as Hoyle. These ephemeral items were not collected in public or private libraries, so that only a fraction of those pub- lished survive, often represented by only one or two copies. They sold at prices much lower than books with the complete text of Hoyle. In the online bibliography, nearly half of the Hoyles published in England after Donaldson are low-market abridgements and chapbooks. Judging from advertisements for books that do not survive, the actual percentage is higher. Except for the eighteenth-century chapbooks of Robert Withy, which influenced the text of the complete Hoyles, they will not be addressed in this study.

Together these books tell a story, though not the story one might imagine. As Hoyle’s innovation was to set out the strategy for card play, one might expect the improvements in a Hoyle’s Games Improved to be refinements in strategy. In fact, the improvements are not strategic, but rather in presentation: recasting Hoyle’s recommendations in clearer prose, adding rules for the treated games,⁴ and adding games undiscussed by Hoyle.

The story of the books published as Hoyle is the remarkable success of the Proprietors, who despite the challengers, published Hoyle continuously and profitably for a century and a quarter. The enterprise was continuous in the sense of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, with children born into it, the young marrying into it, and old booksellers dying out of it. While they were responsible for fewer than twenty per cent of the post-Donaldson Hoyles, the Proprietors were clear market winners.

Interestingly, it was not the Proprietors but the challengers who were the source of innovation in the market for gaming literature. The challengers refined the prose, treated new games, produced abridgements, and introduced new formats. The Proprietors were willing to leave the low end of the market to others but responded quickly and ruthlessly to challenges at their price point. They blatantly copied innovations and relied on superior financing to maintain market dominance. It is understanding the interplay between the challengers and Proprietors that allows us to make sense of the work trading as ‘Hoyle’.

It is not my intention here to assess published theories about the impact of Donaldson.⁵ Rather, this paper presents a case study of the impact of the decision on an important, but little studied genre of literature. Section I is a chronology of the publishing and share ownership of Hoyle from the monopoly period through the last of the Charles Jones editions of 1826. It documents the success of the Proprietors in responding to the first wave of post-Donaldson competition. Section II examines three later competitors who influenced the appearance and content of Hoyle: Robert Withy’s Short Rules, Charles Pigott’s New Hoyle, and The New Pocket Hoyle. Section III looks briefly at the Proprietors’ final Hoyle, one that extended their enterprise to a century and a quarter.

I. The Proprietors

This section traces the publication of Hoyle and Proprietors’ changing ownership of the property in as much detail as surviving records permit. The early ownership from Hoyle to Cogan to Osborne through the late 1750s is straightforward. During the 1760s, transactions in the copyright survive in catalogues of booksellers’ trade sales.⁶ Thereafter, until the 1790s, we are forced to rely primarily on imprints, supplemented by an occasional receipt preserved in the Upcott Collection at the British Library.⁷ After 1796, the Longman Archives provide precise ownership information.⁸

• (1) The monopoly period

Edmond Hoyle self-published Whist.1.1, registering it at Stationers’ Hall on 17 November 1742.⁹ The following February, he sold the copyright to Francis Cogan for the high price of 100 guineas. Cogan must have expected to sell the book for the same one guinea price that Hoyle did, but two printers pirated Whist before Cogan was able to print his own edition (Whist.2). Cogan was forced to meet the pirates’ price of two shillings and later obtained an injunction against them in Chancery. Cogan went on to print three more editions of Whist. Hoyle also wrote, and Cogan published, treatises on backgammon (Backgammon.1), piquet and chess (Piquet.1.1), and quadrille (Quadrille.1.1).¹⁰ Cogan had financial difficulties throughout his career and sold the Hoyle rights to Thomas Osborne Jr in 1745 before declaring bankruptcy in 1746.¹¹

Ownership of the Hoyle works remained solely with Osborne for a decade. Initially he reissued Cogan’s unsold copies of Piquet (Piquet.1.2) and Quadrille (Quadrille.1.2) with cancel titles, while reprinting Whist (Whist.6) and Backgammon (Backgammon.2). Later he published Quadrille.2, Piquet.2, and Whist.7. By 1748, he abandoned the printing and sale of the individual treatises, publishing only a collected edition that lacked a title page, but took its name from the half-title, Mr. Hoyle’s Treatises (Games.1.1).¹² Just as Osborne transformed the individual treatises into an anthology, he attached the copyright to the anthology even though the works were recorded individually in the Stationers’ Register. In late 1755, Osborne sold shares of the collected Hoyle to James Hodges and to Richard Baldwin.¹³ While no details survive of the Hodges or Baldwin purchases, we will see later transactions showing Osborne and Hodges each selling one- third shares in the copyright, so Baldwin must have owned the same fraction.

In 1756, Osborne, Hodges, and Baldwin printed a new edition of Hoyle, the first to bear the familiar title Mr. Hoyle’s Games (Games.2). The book, styled an ‘eleventh’ edition, is undated but was first advertised in the London Evening Post of 21 December for publication ‘the 1st of Jan. next [1757]’. The title page established a long-standing visual appearance for Hoyle: ‘Mr.

… J. Hodges … and R. Baldwin’.

Hoyle’s Games’ at the top, a list of treated games in multiple columns of black letter below, and Hoyle’s autograph as a guarantee of authenticity (Fig. 1).

A ‘twelfth’ edition of 1760, Games.3, bore a new imprint, Osborne, Crowder, and Baldwin, but the ownership had not changed. Hodges left the trade in 1757,¹⁴ and his business was carried on by his former apprentice

Stanley Crowder, who had been freed in 1755.¹⁵ In effect, Crowder acted as a trade publisher for Hodges.¹⁶

The section on whist included two new chapters, ‘New Cases at Whist, never publish’d ‘till 1760’ and ‘New Laws at Whist … 1760’. Two further cases on whist ‘added since this book was printed off’ appeared as the final leaf in a book that collates π1 A⁶ B–I¹² K⁸ L² χ1. The two cases are omitted from the table of contents and, unusually, appear after the section on backgammon.

Hodges further distanced himself from the book trade by selling his copyrights, including Hoyle, in 1763.¹⁷ He divided his share of Hoyle’s Games into two lots of one sixth each. Henry Woodfall purchased both lots, one for £30, the other for £32 10s. This is the first surviving documentation of the value of the Hoyle copyright since Cogan purchased Whist for 100 guineas in 1743. As Woodfall bought Hodge’s one-third interest, the implied value for the full copyright is £187 10s.

A ‘thirteenth’ edition (Games.4) appeared less than six months later, printed for Osborne, Woodfall and Baldwin, and was advertised on 13 December 1763 in the London Evening Post. This was the last edition to contain new material by Hoyle, ‘A Case of Curiosity, first publish’d 1763’. The new material in Games.3 and Games.4 is significant because a fixed- term copyright for the new writing would arguably outlast the main text.

Thomas Osborne left the book trade in 1767, selling both his copyrights and his books at a trade sale on 28 July that year. He died a month later, suggesting that his retirement was due to poor health. His one-third share of the Hoyle copyright was broken into four one-twelfth shares and appeared as lots 132 to 135 in the catalogue. An annotated copy of the sale catalogue records purchasers and purchase prices, as noted below in brackets:¹⁸

132.*Hoyle’s Games — one 12^th [Wilkie £21]

133.Ditto ——— ——— one 12^th [Woodfall £22]

134.Ditto ——— ——— one 12^th [Crowder £22]

135.Ditto ——— ——— one 12^th [Crowder £22]

The asterisk before ‘Hoyle’s Games’ refers to a printed note, ‘Those marked thus * are out of Print, or Reprinting’, the time at which the copyright would be most valuable.¹⁹

In all, Osborne’s one-third share sold for £87, establishing the value of the full copyright as £261. Given that Woodfall and Baldwin previously owned one-third shares in Hoyle, after the auction the share ownership is Woodfall 5/12, Baldwin 4/12, Crowder 2/12, and Wilkie 1/12. Crowder, who distributed the ‘twelfth’ edition for James Hodges, now held an interest in the ‘fourteenth’ in his own right.

The unchanged ‘fourteenth’ edition, Games.5, appeared before year end and was advertised on 12 December 1767 in St. James’s Chronicle of the British Evening Post. Oddly, its imprint appeared as Osborne, Woodfall, and Baldwin, not reflecting the change in ownership from the July sale. The newspaper advertisement was more accurate: ‘Printed by Assignment from

T. Osborne, for H. Woodfall, R. Baldwin, and S. Crowder … and J. Wilkie

…’. Table 1 summarizes the ownership of the Hoyle copyright through the ‘fourteenth’ edition.

As we shall see, Osborne’s death was the first of several events that affected the publication of Hoyle from the late 1760s into the mid-1770s. Henry Woodfall died on 4 March 1769 and his 5/12 share must have been divided among other booksellers.²⁰ More important was Hoyle’s death on 29 August 1769, forever freezing the authorial text.

• (ii) The run-up to Donaldson

Neither the deaths of Osborne nor Hoyle diminished the value of the copyright. In February 1771, Richard Baldwin sold a share to Thomas Lowndes at a price that values the entire copyright at £273.²¹ From this point, the documentation of copyright sales is much less complete, and we must rely on imprints to determine who were the Proprietors.²² When, later in 1771, an unchanged ‘fifteenth’ edition (Games.6) appeared, the imprint listed ten booksellers, rather than the four who appeared on the ‘fourteenth’.²³ With the death of Hoyle, his autograph was reproduced from a woodblock on the verso of the title page. As we shall see, the appearance of Samuel Bladon on the imprint as one of the Proprietors is ironic and noteworthy.

There are several possible explanations for the expanded number of Proprietors. First, the Hoyle property was no longer closely held by Thomas Osborne Jr. Once his share was sold, perhaps the other copyright holders felt freer to divide their shares. Second, the greater number of owners reduced the financial risk of publication, although admittedly Hoyle’s

Games was not a particularly risky book to produce. The costs were low— the ‘fifteenth’ edition was nine and a half duodecimo sheets—and it was a reliable seller. Finally, an increase in the number of owners reduced the risk of piracy. A printer contemplating piracy would risk the disfavour of ten booksellers rather than four.²⁴ Similarly, a larger group of proprietors would reduce the number of potential competing booksellers should perpetual copyright end.

As the chronology approaches the Donaldson decision, several things should be borne in mind about the protected property. First, the Hoyle property originally consisted of individually copyrighted pamphlets, but later came to be recognized and traded among the booksellers simply as Hoyle’s Games. Second, the work was an eighteenth-century bestseller, reprinted roughly every four years in runs of perhaps fifteen hundred copies. Even at the low retail price of three shillings, booksellers valued the Hoyle copyright highly. The 1763 Hodges sale implied a value of £187 10s, the 1767 Osborne sale £261, and the 1771 Baldwin sale £273. As the property increased in value it was divided into smaller and smaller shares. Finally, there are the minor additions to the section on whist made in 1748, 1760, and 1763, creating potentially newly protected text once perpetual copyright disappeared.

• (iii) Competition after Donaldson

By 1772, the last of Hoyle’s core texts was twenty-eight years old, protected only by the booksellers’ claim of perpetual copyright. In February 1774, the House of Lords rejected that claim and the Hoyle monopoly was ended. For the first time, there was a legitimate opening for someone to challenge the Proprietors. There remained unsold copies of the 1771 ‘fifteenth’ edition, which continued to be advertised as ‘this day was published’ as late as 8 December 1774 in the London Chronicle or Universal Evening Post. But if sales continued as they had in the past, a ‘sixteenth’ edition would be needed in 1775.

About this time, Samuel Bladon, one of the Proprietors of Games.6 (the ‘fifteenth’ edition), sold his share of the Hoyle copyright and determined to compete against the remaining Proprietors. Before they published a ‘sixteenth’ edition, Bladon advertised a new title in Lloyd’s Evening Post of 2 June 1775:

This Day is published, Neatly printed in One Volume, 12mo. Price 3s. bound in Red, Hoyle’s Games Improved: Being practical Treatises on the following Fashionable Games, viz. Whist, Quadrille, Piquet, Back-gammon, Chess, Billiards, and Tennis. With the established Rules of each Game. By James Beaufort, Esq;... printed for S. Bladon …

Bladon’s publication (Beaufort.1) did not compete with the Hoyle Proprietors on price or format—like Games.6, it was a three-shilling duodecimo. The paper and binding are of lesser quality, so perhaps his costs were lower, but the salient difference is content. First, Beaufort reworks the text of Hoyle:

without disparaging the merit of [Hoyle’s] work, it must be obvious to every reader that his manner was greatly confused, and his meaning frequently unascertained. Therefore to methodize a similar performance, and convey the writer’s meaning in such language as is at least perspicuous, if not elegant, became another object of the present Editor’s attention. (pp. i–ii.)

It is difficult to disagree with Beaufort. While covering the same material as Hoyle, Beaufort’s prose is much clearer. Second, as noted in the advertisement, Beaufort rectifies an omission in Hoyle, adding rules for each game. Beaufort notes that Hoyle:

instead of teaching his games to those that are ignorant of them, seems only to aim at the improvement of those that have already learned them. (p. ii.)

The third difference between Beaufort and Hoyle is the addition of new games:

Besides the different games that Mr. Hoyle has treated upon, which are all here inserted, two other games are introduced that he never touched upon, though greatly in vogue, and much admired by the nobility and people of rank. These are Billiards and Tennis. (p. iii.)

Neither game is treated deeply, with nineteen pages on billiards and ten on tennis, but the additional games would appeal to a new, wealthier audience that could afford a billiard table or tennis court. Beaufort.1 demonstrates awareness of the twenty-eight-year protection afforded by the Statue of Anne by not including any of Hoyle’s ‘new cases at whist’ which were introduced in Games.1.1 (1748), Games.3 (1760), and Games.4 (1763).

One week after Bladon published his Hoyle’s Games Improved, on 9 June, the Proprietors advertised a book that would compete directly against it: Games.7, a ‘sixteenth’ edition of Hoyle’s Games unchanged from the ‘fifteenth’. As can be seen in Chart 2 below, the imprint shows some changes in ownership from the previous edition. Of course, Samuel Bladon was no longer one of the Proprietors. The advertising copy suggested concern about Beaufort.1 and attempted to distinguish the unchanged reprint from Beaufort’s new work:

This is the only genuine edition of Hoyle’s Games, with his last corrections and improvements; and the proprietors cannot help giving this caution, that any copy of this book, not signed ‘Edmond Hoyle,’ at the back of the title page, is not to be depended upon as Mr. Hoyle’s, whatever may be pretended to impose upon the public.²⁵

The Proprietors mentioned two selling points. First, their book contains the latest additions made by Hoyle in his lifetime, the additional cases on whist still protected by copyright. Second, the Proprietors referred to Hoyle’s ‘autograph’, although, as in the previous edition, it is a woodblock-printed reproduction of the deceased author’s signature.

The Hoyle brand was at a crossroads in the wake of Donaldson. For the first time, two texts competed in the market for gaming anthologies. How would the Proprietors fare against the new competition? How would readers choose between the books? One reviewer was not helpful:

Since Mr. Beaufort’s publication, the booksellers, who were proprietors of Hoyle’s Games, have advertised the sixteenth edition of that work; which they affirm to be the only genuine edition, with Hoyle’s last corrections and improvements. Mr. Beaufort may possibly have out-hoyled Hoyle; for our part we confess our ignorance in the science.²⁶

With Hoyle in the public domain and Beaufort.1 competing against their Games.7, the Proprietors took the surprising step of publishing a new work that would compete with both. On 15 July 1775, six weeks after the appearance of Beaufort.1 and five weeks after their own Games.7, the Proprietors published their own Hoyle’s Games Improved (Jones.1). The title page says that the book was ‘revised and corrected by Charles Jones, Esq.’, in contrast to the Beaufort Hoyle, which suggests new authorship (‘by James Beaufort’) rather than an improvement of the original text. The imprint is identical with Games.7, although it omits mention of the assignment from Thomas Osborne.

Textually, Jones.1 is a reprint of Games.7, with Hoyle’s new cases published in 1748, 1760, and 1763, augmented with improvements copied from Beaufort. Like Beaufort, it includes rules for each of the games and short treatments of billiards and tennis, plus four additional games: cricket, quinze, hazard, and lansquenet. The section on cricket is a reprint of the separately published new laws ‘Printed by Permission of Mr. Ridley in St. James’s-Street’ (p. 210). Ridley, one of the Proprietors, allowed his property to be included in the Jones Hoyle.²⁷

Of more significance is an addition to the section on whist. William Payne wrote the second book on whist strategy after Hoyle, Maxims for Playing the Game of Whist. His brother, bookseller Thomas Payne, had registered it at Stationers’ Hall just before the Donaldson decision.²⁸ Like Ridley, Thomas Payne was one of the Proprietors of the Jones Hoyle, and, like Ridley, he gave permission to include his property, Maxims, in it: ‘The following Maxims for Whist, by Mr. William Payne, are now added, by Permission of the Proprietor’ (p. 75). Payne’s Maxims sold for one shilling,²⁹ and was reprinted twice in 1778 at the same price, even as it was available as part of Jones.1.

Newspaper advertisements for the Jones Hoyle were surprisingly restrained, merely announcing that ‘This day is published, price 3s. neatly bound, Hoyle’s Games Improved … Revised and corrected by Charles Jones, Esq.’ with a list of the games treated.³⁰ Advertisements for Games.7 continued for the rest of July, with one straggler appearing as late as 7 September,³¹ though advertisements for Games.7 never appeared in the same issue as those for Jones.1.

• (iv) The market winner

The Jones Hoyle’s Games Improved was a dramatic response to Beaufort’s, a product with all its improvements and more. The work threatened to cannibalize the sales of Games.7, Ridley’s Cricket, and Payne’s Whist, all owned by one or more of the Proprietors, but the market for Hoyle was too important to ignore. Indeed, the Proprietors won the marketing wars—three important audiences voted for Jones over Beaufort. First were the reviewers:

To the games of Hoyle, contained in the former editions of his book, the reviser and corrector hath added those of billiards, cricket, tennis, quinze, hazard, and lansquenet: his directions, for playing each, being, as far as we are qualified to judge, deduced from the best practical authorities; so that the present edition seems to be the most compleat work of its kind extant.³²

Pirates, too, preferred Jones, publishing another book under the same title, Hoyle’s Games Improved (TJones.1) in 1778. The book is a straight copy of the late editions of Hoyle and clumsily plagiarizes the new material by Charles Jones. The book was ‘revised and corrected by Thomas Jones’, a name invented to create confusion with Charles Jones. The book was printed for ‘W. Wood’ in Fleet-Street, a fictitious imprint as there was no bookseller by the name of Wood. With the piracy, we finally see price

competition, with TJones.1 selling initially for two shillings and later for 1s 6d, while Jones.1 sold for three shillings.³³ A difference in format drove the lower price—TJones.1 was an 18^o while the Jones.1 and Beaufort.1 were 12^o. The price per sheet was virtually identical.³⁴ The piracy was reprinted as TJones.2 (1779) and TJones.3 (1782).

In the competition with Beaufort.1, it was the readers who spoke most convincingly in favour of Jones.1. Beaufort.1 was reprinted just once in 1788, but ten more editions of the Jones Hoyle appeared from 1779 to 1826, each with revisions. The Proprietors maintained market leadership even after Donaldson stripped them of copyright protection. They prevailed without competing on format or price, as imitators rather than innovators, copying Beaufort’s title and improvements.

In 1778, Beaufort all but conceded defeat. With his book still available at three shillings, Beaufort complained about Jones.1:

Mr. Beaufort hopes the Public will not confound his Work with an obsolete Book of the same Kind, the Proprietors of which have not only stolen his Plan, but purloined his Title, as he is justly apprehensive his Reputation will suffer by the Mistake, besides the Superiority this Treatise can claim from the Manner with which every Subject is treated (being of the greatest Service to the most uninstructed, as well as to the deepest Connoisseur). The Addition of the polite Games of Billiards and Tennis, clearly decide which is the most worthy the Attention of the Public.³⁵

Two of Beaufort’s complaints ring true. Jones and the Proprietors did steal his title and his plan of including game rules. When Beaufort singles out the additions of billiards and tennis, his comparison is to Games.7, rather than Jones.1, which included those games and more.

Despite the Proprietors’ victory, there were financial consequences. They had to compete not only with Beaufort but with themselves. Jones.1 must have hurt the sales of Games.7 as well as their other properties, Maxims and the Laws of Cricket. Further, when the Hoyle copyright was traded, now as a new copyright of the Jones text, it was at a much lower price than before Donaldson. On 17 March 1778, Thomas Lowndes bought a one seventy- second share of the copyright in the Charles Jones Hoyle from William Goldsmith for £1 16s.³⁶ The sale suggests a total value of £129 12s, less than half the value of the copyright before Donaldson. Unsold copies of the book would have hurt the price—the Jones Hoyle was not to reprint until

November 1779—and extrapolating the full value of the copyright from such a small share can only be approximate. Nonetheless, the major reason for a lower value was the Donaldson decision and the resulting competition in the Hoyle brand.

Even as Jones.1 was winning in the marketplace, the Proprietors were planning a new edition with further improvements. To compete with Beaufort.1, Jones.1 had nine pages on billiards, but the Proprietors planned for a more substantial treatment of the game. In 1776, on behalf of the Proprietors, William Davis purchased the rights to a text by John Dew as detailed in a receipt in the Upcott Collection:³⁷

Received 6 August 1776 of Mr W^m Davis four guineas for the Copyright of my Treatise on the Game of Billiards; in consideration of which sum & of copies of the said treatise when printed to the value of four guineas more. I do hereby sell & make over to the said W^m Davis his heirs & assigns all my right & title whatsoever to the said Treatise for ever.

John Dew

The Proprietors bought a second property in early 1779. Recall that the Jones.1 included the text of the separately published Maxims for Whist by William Payne. Payne had written an earlier gaming book in 1756, An Introduction to the Game of Draughts.³⁸ As he did with Maxims, brother Thomas Payne sold the rights to Draughts for inclusion in Hoyle’s Games Improved:³⁹

London Feb. 11 1779 In consideration of the Sum of Five Pounds and five Shillings by me this day received from Thomas Lowndes I do sell Leave to the said Thomas Lowndes & Partners a right to print for ever in a Book called Hoyles Games a Pamphlet called the Game of Drafts as written by my late Brother William Payne

Witness my Hand

Tho. Payne

Perhaps in reaction to the Thomas Jones piracies, or in anticipation of the new material to appear in the next edition, the Proprietors entered the work in the Stationers’ Register, listing the owner as T. Lowndes & Co. The Proprietors deposited nine copies of the book with the Company but did not begin to sell it until high season.⁴⁰

On 13 November they advertised the new edition (Jones.2). The marketing of the book was precise, with asterisks in the advertisement distinguishing later additions from Hoyle’s original text:

This day was published … Price 3s. only. Hoyle’s Games Improved … Whist; Quadrille; Piquet; Chess; Back Gammon; *Drafts by Mr. Payne, with the figure of a Draft Table, *Cricket, as now played by the Nobility and Gentry; *Tennis;

*Quinze; *Mr. Payne’s Maxims of Whist; *Hazard; *Lansquenet; *Billiards, by Mr. Dew, with Plates….

Notes are given to illustrate the Games by Hoyle; and those marked * are additional improvements…

N. B. Mr. Dew’s Treatise on Billiards may be had separate, price 1s. sewed.⁴¹

Two things are to be noted in the advertisement. First, the Proprietors added illustrations, a woodblock of the draughts board and two etchings of a billiards table. While the entry in the Stationers’ Register discouraged competition by documenting a copyright, the plates made it more expensive to imitate the book, a technique that has been called ‘de facto copyright’.⁴² Second, the Proprietors took an unusual approach to publishing the Dew Treatise (Jones.2-1). It is the same setting of type as Jones.2, although the page breaks are different throughout the first dozen pages. Producing two books with one act of composition is a cost-effective way to reach two audiences simultaneously: those interested in a gaming anthology and those interested only in a treatise on billiards. The approach was not particularly successful in this instance—Dew’s Billiards continued to be advertised for sale as late as 1814 in Jones.9—but the Proprietors were to use it with much more success in future editions.⁴³

With the 1779 edition of Jones Hoyle, the Proprietors cemented their advantage and their Hoyle’s Games Improved appeared in eleven editions to 1826. While the text and the consortium of booksellers varied from edition to edition, there was a remarkable continuity in the Hoyle enterprise from the earliest editions in the 1740s until 1826 (see Table 2).

II. Challengers

I have discussed two important challenges to the Hoyle Proprietors: the illegal piracies of 1743, and Beaufort’s lawful effort after Donaldson. There were many others. Some the Proprietors ignored; others they imitated with the same ruthlessness that they showed in response to Beaufort.1. The next sections discuss three challenges that generated responses.

• (i) Robert Withy

A Century and a Quarter of Hoyle

The challengers we have seen so far produced books similar to the Proprietors’ Hoyles, with little variation in price, format, or even content. Robert Withy (1732–1803), however, wrote and published abridgements of Hoyle in different formats—as trade cards and chapbooks. His work sold well and, surprisingly, influenced the contents of subsequent Hoyles. Few copies of his earliest works are recorded—only one example of his trade card survives and while there are no copies of his next work on whist, what seems to be an unauthorized excerpt survives. Treating Withy bibliographically is consequently a challenge—reliance on newspaper advertisements and archival information is required, but should be viewed with caution.

Withy had a meandering career. He was apprenticed to bookseller John Rivington in 1747, freed in 1754,⁴⁴ and was a bookseller and print seller until he left the trade in 1766.⁴⁵ He then became a stockbroker and auctioneer, describing his services on a trade card, which likely dates from the early 1780s:

Robert Withy, Stock Broker and Auctioneer, Begs Leave to inform his Friends and the Public that he continues to Buy and Sell by Commission, at Public or Private Sale, Estates, Life Annuities, Mortgages, Reversions, Government and all other Securities, also the same valued, and Lives Insured on the most Reasonable Terms.

The utmost Value given for Household Furniture and other Effects, to be remov’d or Sold on the Premises. All Orders directed for him at Baker’s Coffee House, Change Alley, or at his House…⁴⁶

It is the other side of the trade card that brings Withy into the Hoyle story, with its ‘Twelve Short Standing Rules for short Memories at the Game of Whist’ (Withy.Whist.A). The maxims for play by the pseudonymous ‘Bob Short’ begin: ‘1. Lead from your strong Suit. 2. Lead thro’ an Honor.’ Although the rules are extracted from Hoyle, no mention is made of Hoyle on the card. A 1781 advertisement makes the Hoyle connection more explicit:

This day is Published, neatly printed on a Card. The Fourth Edition, with Additions. Price only 2d. or 1s. a Dozen. A New Year’s Gift for Grown Masters and Misses. Hoyle Abridged; or Twelve short standing Rules for short Memories, at the Game of Whist. By Bob Short. Printed for the benefit of Families to prevent Scolding, and sold by the Author, at Baker’s Coffee-house, Exchange-alley, where he attends daily to answer all Questions relating to the Game of Whist. Advice to the Poor gratis… N. B. Signed by the Author in such a manner as to defy all counterfeits.⁴⁷

The advertisement adds the words ‘Hoyle Abridged,’ but otherwise the wording matches that on the card. Withy’s offer to answer questions echoes a similar one by Hoyle in the first edition of his whist treatise: ‘… he will explain any Cases in the Book, upon Payment of One Guinea …’ (Whist.1.1,

p. 2). The surviving trade card lacks a statement of edition, so it may be even earlier than the advertised ‘fourth’ edition.

Withy published two further works on whist and one on quadrille all under the pseudonym ‘Bob Short’.⁴⁸ The bibliography of the second book on whist (Withy.Whist.B.1) is uncertain as no copies of its first edition survive. It appears to have been the book that Withy entered into the Stationers’ Register on 14 February 1785:

Then Enterd for his Copy … A present for grown Masters & Misses, Hoyle Abridged or short Standing Rules for short Memories at the Game of Whist with the laws of the Game. By Bob Short. Recd nine Copies. J. Wilkie.⁴⁹

However, an advertisement for what seems to be the same book appeared three years earlier in the Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser of 26 January 1782:

This Day is published, price only 3d. or 2s. a dozen. A Present for grown masters and misses this New Year. Hoyle Abridged; or, Short Standing Rules for Short Memories, at the Game of Whist. By Bob Short. With the laws of the game as played at White’s, and all public places.

The work seems to have been an expansion of the text from the trade card, adding laws of the game and selling for a penny more than the trade card.

Although no copies have been traced, there is one item at the British Library (Withy.Whist.B.2) that may have been excerpted from it. It is a single leaf, 125 × 80 mm, sold by J. Fowler, a printer in Salisbury.⁵⁰ While the leaf has ‘1801’ penned below the imprint, it is likely that it was printed before 1790, as that is when Fowler left Salisbury for London.⁵¹ The recto is titled ‘Twelve short standing Rules for Ladies, with short Memories at the Game of Whist, by Bob Short’ and contains the same short rules, word-for- word, as the Withy trade card. The verso is titled ‘Twelve longer Rules, for Gentlemen, with short Memories, by Bob Short’ and contains twelve additional rules. Comparing the Fowler leaf to the advertisement and entry at Stationers’ Hall, we see that it is addressed both to both sexes but lacks the promised laws of the game. I suspect it is an unauthorized excerpt from Withy.Whist.B.1.

Withy’s innovation was to reduce the text of Hoyle’s Whist to a concise, memorable list of rules of thumb. The Proprietors would soon seize that innovation, adding a new section of ‘Twenty-Four Short Rules for Learners’ in Jones.3 (pp. 3–4), published 8 December 1786. The first twelve are identical to those on the Withy trade card and nine of the next twelve match the Fowler reprint. It seems that the Proprietors stole the short rules from Withy.⁵²

The Withy bibliography becomes clearer in 1791 with Hoyle Abridged: or Short Rules for Short Memories at the Game of Whist. With the Laws of the Game, &c. Adapted either for the Head or Pocket (Withy.Whist.C.1). Withy entered the work into the Stationers’ Register on 14 December 1790 and advertised it in World on 24 December 1790 at sixpence. It is a chapbook, ‘printed on fine Writing Paper, the size to bind with Goldsmith’s Almanack’. The Bodleian copy (shelf-mark Jessel g.237) measures 112 × 53 mm, is bound in marbled wrappers, and has a single gathering in twelves. It was sold by the author at Baker’s Coffee-house and by several booksellers. It begins with a prefatory note to the public:

Your favourable reception of the former editions of this trifle in its rude state, has induced the Author to endeavour to make it more worthy of your indulgence; (p. 3.)

Withy presents rules for whist and defines terms used in the game. One minor novelty is found under the entry ‘Score’ (p. 11). At a time when paper was dear, whist players scored a ten-point game with metal tokens (Fig. 2). Withy’s is the first appearance in English of a system that came to be known as Hoyle’s Scoring Method,⁵³ something that the Proprietors copied in 1796 in Jones.5. Amusingly, their diagram of the tokens was unclear, and they felt the need to correct it in an erratum at the end of the table of contents.

Withy’s chapbook contained ‘Short Standing Rules’, now twenty-nine in number and continued with sections extracted from earlier Hoyles: odds for winning at intermediate scores, calculations, and the laws of the game. Withy offered the book annually at least through 1795 with minor changes. If his advertisements are to be believed, Withy was quite successful. The Morning Chronicle of 1 January 1793 offers a new edition of Whist at sixpence, or large-print copies for one shilling, noting that ‘upwards of 5000’ copies have been sold in one year.

In 1793, Withy wrote another book on the same design—Hoyle Abridged, Part II. or Short Rules for Playing the Game of Quadrille; with the Laws of the Game, by Bob Short, (Withy.Quadrille.1). The book sold for sixpence (large print one shilling). The address ‘To the Public’ noted:

The great demand for my ‘Short Rules for Whist,’ seven thousand having been sold in twelve months, has flattered me so much, that I cannot resist the solicitation of many friends to publish Short Rules at the Game of Quadrille, which I trust will also be found useful and convenient both to the proficient and learner. (p. 2.)

In general, the work is taken from Hoyle’s Quadrille.1.1, but the title points to a section of ten short rules for quadrille. Surprisingly, the first eight of these rules appeared three years earlier in Jones.4 (1790), published by the

Proprietors. With the Proprietors having stolen Withy’s short rules for whist, did Withy in turn steal their short rules for quadrille?

There are advertisements within Withy’s lifetime of short rules for other games, backgammon, chess, and billiards.⁵⁴ No early copies of these books survive, and they do not seem to have been written by Withy. The 1820s saw innumerable chapbooks with short rules for whist, chess, draughts, and backgammon, sometimes credited to Bob Short Jr.

What is notable is the interplay between Withy and the Proprietors. Withy reduced whist strategy to a list first of twelve short rules and then twenty-four rules. The Proprietors copied most of the longer list in Jones.3 (1786) and Withy expanded it to twenty-nine rules in 1791. Withy introduced a method of scoring with tokens to the English audience; the Proprietors would copy this in Jones.5 (1796). While the Proprietors stole Withy’s content, the one thing they did not do was challenge Withy on format or price. They left the six-penny chapbook market to him and continued to publish leather-bound duodecimos for a few shillings.

Withy had a further, indirect effect on the publication of Hoyle. Two anonymous authors did copy his format and produced their own gaming chapbooks. In 1792, ‘Robert Long’, a name derived from Withy’s pseudonym ‘Bob Short’, wrote Short Rules for Playing the Game of Cassino, apparently the first treatment of the game in print. It is a twelve-page chapbook, priced at six pence,⁵⁵ with content reminiscent of Withy. The chapter ‘Short rules for playing the game of Cassino’ offers nine recommendations of strategy and is followed by a description of the game. Another sixpenny chapbook, The New Royal Game of Connections printed for H. D. Symonds, describes a game said to have been invented by their Royal Highnesses Princess Elizabeth and the Duchess of York. It begins with a satiric address to the public by ‘Chas. Courtly’ dated 8 February 1794. The address discusses marrying off a daughter to make connections of influence or property. The rules describe a game that seems at best uninteresting and may themselves be satiric rather than a description of an actual game.⁵⁶ The pamphlet explicitly refers to Bob Short:

There not being the least probability, that any disputes can arise in this game, it will be unnecessary for the Editor to appoint any place where he may be consulted, which has been done by the ingenious author of ‘Short Rules for Short Memories at the Game of Whist,’ a work of equal magnitude with this; (pp. 19–20.)

As we shall see in the next section, these two Withy-inspired chapbooks soon offered their text to editions of Hoyle.

• (ii) Charles Pigott

On 1 February 1796, bookseller James Ridgway advertised the New Hoyle, or the General Repository of Games (Pigott.1.1), purportedly from the manuscript of the late Charles Pigott, Esq.⁵⁷ It included all the games from Jones.4 (1790) plus material on four additional ones. The new material marked the beginning of an escalation in content between Ridgway and the Proprietors.

Before looking closely at Pigott’s work, something must be said of the author and the publishers. Charles Pigott was a ‘gentleman gambler’ in the 1770s and 1780s. In the 1790s he became a champion of the French Revolution and began a writing career as a radical satirist. His most notable work, published anonymously, was The Jockey Club, a series of satiric attacks on members of the ruling class, including the Prince of Wales.⁵⁸ The imprint of The Jockey Club, ‘printed for H. D. Symonds’ identified only one of the two publishers. The other, a frequent partner of Symonds, was James Ridgway.⁵⁹ In 1793, Ridgway was sentenced to four years, and Symonds to two years, in Newgate prison for publishing The Jockey Club and works by Thomas Paine.⁶⁰ The two managed to carry on their trade while imprisoned.⁶¹ Pigott himself spent five weeks in Newgate in 1793 while awaiting trial for seditious toasting, and though exonerated by the Grand Jury, his health declined rapidly, perhaps leading to his death in 1794.⁶² The three are seen together in a 1793 print by Richard Newton, Promenade in the State Side of Newgate.⁶³

Pigott apparently left two manuscripts at his death. A Political Dictionary was published in 1795 and the New Hoyle in 1796. Jon Mee suggests that ‘Pigott was obviously desperate to make money by selling books on his release … he seems to have drawn on his gaming past to edit New Hoyle, or the general repository of games, eventually published after his death by

Ridgway in 1795’.⁶⁴ Given the close relationships among Ridgway, Symonds, and Pigott, it seems likely that Symonds was also an owner of the Pigott property. Although he never appeared on the imprint of New Hoyle, an advertisement for a later edition does include his name.⁶⁵

A single copy of Pigott.1.1 survives at the Bodleian Library, shelf-mark Jessel f.613. The preface makes plain its goal:

The general esteem in which Mr. Hoyle’s Games have long been held, may, perhaps, influence many to consider the present volume as unnecessary; the Editor, therefore, thinks it his duty to point out the superior advantages of this publication. Though Mr. Hoyle’s treatises are invariably recurred to for information, it will be readily admitted they are too prolix, and oftener perplex than inform; the frequent repetitions also with which they abound render their perusal tiresome;

neither are his calculations always correct.

In this production, these defects are removed, every valuable particular from Mr. Hoyle is here concentrated, to which are added, Rules and Instructions for playing the games of Faro, Cribbage, Rouge et Noir, and Matrimony. The whole forming the completest collection of games ever published, and in price cheaper than Mr. Hoyle’s Games.

It is necessary to add, that the alterations and arrangements were made by the late Charles Pigott, Esq. (pp. iii–iv.)

The marketing points here are, first, a simplification of the prose, the same claim that Beaufort had made earlier. Second is price, although that claim is a little specious—Jones.4 (1790) sold for three shillings bound in red leather,⁶⁶ while Pigott was 2s 6d sewed or three shillings bound.⁶⁷ In fact per sheet, Pigott, an 18mo, was more expensive.⁶⁸ More significant is the appearance of four games for the first time in any edition of Hoyle.⁶⁹ Finally, Ridgway and Symonds sought to capitalize on the notoriety of Pigott. A reviewer dismissed the work for that very notoriety:

We apprehend that we shall not be expected to do more than announce this publication. Our tribunal is not that before which these instructions must be confirmed, or rejected. We believe, however, that the late Mr. Pigott was well known in the earlier part of his life, as a frequenter of these fashionable scenes of dissipation, which he afterward so severely satirized in the persons of those who countenanced and appeared in them. He therefore, probably, was qualified to write on the subject; —he who had largely paid for his experience, and dearly bought his cynicism.⁷⁰

When Ridgway and Symonds published Pigott.1.1 on 1 February 1796, they were guilty of bad timing. Jones.4 (1790) was nearly out of print and the Proprietors had time to respond to their innovations. Five weeks later, on 4 March, they published Jones.5. We learned from their 1775 response to Beaufort.1 how much the Proprietors could do in five weeks. Here, Jones.5 matched Pigott’s four new games, and added two additional ones taken from the Withy-inspired chapbooks discussed above, cassino and connections (called ‘connexions’ in Jones.5). It is ironic that connections first appeared in a Jones Hoyle when the original pamphlet was published by Symonds.⁷¹ Ridgway soon countered, reissuing Pigott’s New Hoyle (Pigott.1.2) in April with a cancel title and addenda, catching up with casino and connections, and adding two new games—all fours and put—and a short treatise on the statutory laws of gaming.⁷²

When Jones.6 appeared in 1800, it included all fours and put, and added dummy whist, cock-fighting, reversis, speculation and vingt-un. In a technique we have seen previously, the Proprietors extracted the section on game cocks and issued it as a separate work with the same typesetting (Jones.6-1). This fourteen-leaf pamphlet retailed for sixpence and included a copper engraving that did not appear in Jones.6. Jones.7 continued the escalation in 1803, adding the games of loo, lottery, commerce, domino and mediateur. After Ridgway caught up in 1804 with Pigott.3.3, the back and forth between Ridgway and the Proprietors was at an end. Further Pigotts appeared in 1810 and 1811, with no change in content.

There are two points to be made about the ping-pong between Pigott and Jones.⁷³ First, at least initially, the competition was over content, not price or format. Pigott sold for 2s 6d sewn or three shillings bound, maintaining the price until 1804. Jones.4 (1790) sold for three shillings bound, but the Proprietors raised the price with each new edition: Jones.5 (1796) 3s 6d, Jones.6 (1800) four shillings, and Jones.7 (1803) five shillings. Second, Pigott’s work was acknowledged to be published posthumously, but was frequently updated, presumably by Ridgway and Symonds. One wonders whether there was a Pigott manuscript at all, or whether Ridgway and Symonds were simply trading on Pigott’s name to sell gaming literature.

• (iii) The New Pocket Hoyle

At the turn of the nineteenth century, the dominant Hoyle was Jones.6 (1800) selling for four shillings, challenged by Pigott at three. In August 1802 the firm of Wynne and Scholey, together with James Wallis, brought out another competitor in a new format. The New Pocket Hoyle (Pocket.1) was available in morocco with a silver lock at eight shillings, in calf elegant for 5s 6d, and, most importantly, in a slipcase for four shillings.⁷⁴ The version in a slip case was priced to match Jones.6, and the publishers argued for its superiority in the preface:

The deservedly high estimation in which Mr. Hoyle’s Games have been long held, has induced the Proprietors of this volume to present the Public with an elegant Pocket Edition of the said work; such a one as might form in itself a Complete Companion to the Card Table, and render a reference to any works of a similar nature totally unnecessary.

In order to obtain this object, the whole has been carefully revised, and newly arranged; every writer of merit has been consulted with the greatest caution, and such additions and corrections have been adopted as were found necessary to the perfection of the work.

With these advantages, the Proprietors look forward with confidence, to its introduction into all fashionable circles, and its general adoption by the Public at large, as they are conscious that it will be found more convenient in its form, more elegant in its execution, and more correct in its matter, than any edition of the same work which has hitherto appeared. (sig. A2r.)

Similar language appeared in advertisements for the book.⁷⁵

Whether by accident or design, Pocket.1 appeared while Jones.6 (1800) was only two years old and nowhere near ready to reprint. It included no material on games that had not appeared in earlier Hoyles; the publishers were not competing in the same way that Ridgway and Symonds did. What was novel and triggered a response, an urgent response, from the Proprietors was the format—a book containing only card games and issued in a slipcase.⁷⁶ The Proprietors would not advertise the next edition of the Jones Hoyle, Jones.7, until January 1804, but they found a way to respond much more quickly to the new challenge.

As early as September 1802, only weeks after the appearance of Pocket.1, the Proprietors planned the next edition of the Jones Hoyle (Jones.7) with some interesting changes. They reordered the contents, moving all the card games to the front, with board games (chess, backgammon, and draughts), outdoor games (tennis, cricket), and other game (billiards, hazard) at the end. For the first time, the Proprietors’ book did not begin with the five games originally treated by Hoyle (Fig. 3).

They engaged Charles Whittingham to print 4,000 copies of what were to be the first five sheets of Jones.7. The printing started on 10 September 1802 and concluded in January 1803. One thousand copies were bound in a paper wrapper and issued in a slip case to be sold as A Companion to the Card Table (Jones.7-1).⁷⁷ The book and its format were designed to compete with the New Pocket Hoyle, but at a lower price. As detailed in Appendix II, the sharing of type between Jones.7 and Jones.7-1 saved the Proprietors nearly three pence a copy in production costs. The Proprietors passed that savings on to their readers—Jones.7-1 sold for 3s 6d while Pocket.1 sold for four shillings.

The earliest advertisement in February 1803 suggested that like Pocket.1, Jones.7-1 was to appear in multiple formats:

This day was published, A Pocket Edition, printed on fine Wove Paper, Hot- pressed, Price 3s. 6d. in a Case like an Almanac, or at various other Pices [sic] in different elegant and fancy Bindings; of Hoyle’s Games improved and selected as a Companion to the Card-Table …⁷⁸

Interestingly, the advertisement also offers Jones.6 (1800) at four shillings; Jones.7 would not appear for another year at five. The Proprietors soon dropped the idea of multiple bindings, offering Companion only in a slip case (Fig. 4).⁷⁹

While the Proprietors conceived of Companion (Jones.7-1) as a competitive response to Pocket.1, the introduction lays out a pretextual and gendered intention:

The Proprietors of Hoyle’s Games Improved, ambitious of retaining that patronage which those who endeavour to serve or amuse the public generally acquire, have had the whole work carefully revised and enlarged with, as they hope, material corrections throughout; and supposing that the same might with propriety be divided into nearly two equal portions, one calculated for the card table, and most suitable to the ladies, the other appropriate to the male sex, as containing games that require stronger exertion or more intense application; the proprietors consequently now first publish, in a convenient size and elegant manner, that part which they trust will prove most acceptable to their fair country-women, intending soon to print the rest in a similar form, so as to give a complete edition of a book containing the most fashionable games, both of skill and chance. (sig. A2r.)

With Jones.6 still in print, the Proprietors were not in a hurry to complete Jones.7 and offer it for sale. As noted, the first five sheets, shared with Jones.7-1, were printed by January 1803. Whittingham printed the remaining six sheets in the Spring and was paid on 22 May.⁸⁰ The earliest advertisement for Jones.7 is in The Star of 30 January 1804, nearly a year after Jones.7-1 appeared. The Proprietors warehoused the first five sheets for a year, and the next six for half a year as they hoped to sell out the prior edition. They were not completely successful—the Longman Archives record an expense for Jones.7 and Jones.7-1 of £7 4s for 72 copies of Jones.6 on hand.⁸¹

Both the Jones Hoyle and The New Pocket Hoyle were successful, though Jones had greater longevity and a higher value in the trade. Five editions of The New Pocket Hoyle appeared by 1807 and in 1808 a second volume covering table games and sports was published at 4s 6d. Together, the two books constituted ‘a complete and improved edition of Hoyle’ and could be purchased bound in one volume for 7s 6d.⁸² The combined volume was more expensive than Jones.8 (1808), which was priced at six shillings. Nevertheless, a transaction in the copyright of The New Pocket Hoyle showed it to be a much less valuable property than Jones. On 10 June 1803, James Wallis sold his one-third interest to the firm of Vernon and Hood for eight guineas, implying a value for the whole of £25 4s.⁸³ A 1/24 share of the Jones copyright, on the other hand, traded for £6 18s in 1799 and a 1/18 share for £9 17s 6d in 1802, extrapolating to total values of £165 12s and

£177 15s.⁸⁴

Jones.7-1 was a success, as was the strategy of sharing type with Jones.7. When Jones.8 was published in 1808, the Proprietors again extracted the card games into Jones.8-1, and used the same approach with Jones.9 (1814) and Jones.10 (1820). The final Jones edition, Jones.11 (1826), did not have any separately published extracts.

III. After Jones

The Proprietors’ enterprise did not end with the final Jones Hoyle. As the machine age was coming to the book, there were new competitors such as the stereotyped Hoyle Made Familiar (Hardie.1) by ‘Eidrah Trebor’ (Robert Hardie), which first appeared in 1830. In 1835, the Proprietors hired a new editor to refresh their property. He appears on the title page of Hoyle’s Games Improved and Enlarged (GH.1) as simply ‘G. H——’. The microfilm of the Longman Archives can be difficult to decipher, but it shows payment of twenty pounds to an editor whose surname appears to be Hermon.⁸⁵ Six editions of the new work appeared. The final undated one, GH.6, appeared in a small print run of one thousand copies in 1868.⁸⁶ With that final book, the Proprietors had published Hoyle continuously for a century and a quarter, from 1742 until 1868 (see Table 3).

Conclusion

This paper has looked closely at an unfamiliar genre of literature, instructional gaming books. Until Donaldson, these books were the output of the single author Edmond Hoyle. After Hoyle died and Donaldson invalidated the copyright, Hoyle became a brand rather than an author. Notably it was owners of the invalidated copyright, the Proprietors, and not the challengers, who most profited from Hoyle. They thrived for an astonishingly long time without any intellectual property protection through either copyright or trademark.

Several factors contributed to their success. First, just before Donaldson, they greatly increased their membership, from four Proprietors for the ‘fourteenth’ edition of 1767 to ten for the ‘fifteenth’ of 1771 and thirteen for the ‘sixteenth’ of 1775. The increase limited the number of potential competitors and reduced the financial investment of each Proprietor. The group could afford short-term expense such as cannibalizing the sales of Games.7 and Payne’s Maxims or warehousing on the sheets of Jones.7, so they could retain market leadership in the long term.

Second, the Proprietors constantly studied their competition and responded decisively. They copied the improvements of Beaufort, the short rules of Withy, the games introduced by Pigott, and the slipcase format of The New Pocket Hoyle. It was typical for the Proprietors to address innovations by the multiple challengers with one book. For example, Jones.7 introduced new games to compete with Pigott and the slipcase to compete with The New Pocket Hoyle. All the while, the Proprietors managed to maintain their price and margins. If it was the competitors rather than the Proprietors who were innovators, the Proprietors did occasionally update their product preemptively. The clearest example was Jones.2 (1779), where they added treatises by Dew and Payne.

Third, the Proprietors were clever engineers. Not only did they publish edition after edition of the Jones Hoyle, but they published extracts of it from the same setting of type. The first extract, Dew’s Billiards in 1779 was not a good seller, but they published Companion to the Card Table four times and a handful of others less frequently. On the one hand this allowed them to segment the market, selling one title to those interested only in card games and another to those interested in all the games. On the other, it gave them a cost advantage against competitors by sharing the costs of composition over multiple books. In the case of Jones.7-1, the engineering allowed the Proprietors to reach market quickly in response to a competitive challenge.

What was the impact of Donaldson on Hoyle and gaming literature? There was not a sudden drop in prices as monopoly protection for Hoyle disappeared. The price remained at three shillings from 1748 (Games.1.1) until 1790 (Jones.4) and edged up slowly from there. Instead, the end of monopoly and its resulting competition brought innovation—the books trading as Hoyle changed dramatically from 1775 with improvements of many kinds. Hoyle had been a stagnant, but profitable property for a generation. After Donaldson it became a vibrant, evolving book driven by competition between the Proprietors and multiple challengers. The readers were getting more for their money, even if prices did not drop per se.

I am reluctant to draw broad conclusions about the overall impact of Donaldson based on a case study of Hoyle. The many factors that combined to create the Hoyle story cannot be typical. Hoyle was hugely popular, reprinted frequently with only minor modifications. First appearing in the mid-1740s, its statutory copyright expired just as Donaldson eliminated perpetual copyright. Readers were less interested in Hoyle’s prose than they were in gaming instruction and were therefore receptive to the plethora of post-Donaldson improvements. It would be instructive to contrast the Hoyle example with other case studies to develop a broader and more nuanced perspective on the impact of Donaldson v Beckett.

San Francisco USA

Footnotes

APPENDICES

Appendix I. Editions of Hoyle discussed

I am in the process of compiling a descriptive bibliography of Hoyle. Nearly three hundred descriptions are on my website <https://booksongaming.com/hoyle/ bibliography/index.xml/>. Readers can navigate from there to individual entries or go directly to an entry based on the labels used throughout this article. For example, Whist.1.1 is Hoyle’s first book, A Short Treatise on the Game of Whist, and the descriptive details can be found at <https://booksongaming.com/hoyle/ bibliography/books/whist.1.1.xml>. (It is possible to substitute any of the labels for Whist.1.1.) Note the suffix ‘xml’ rather than the more familiar ‘htm’ or ‘html’. A short-title index can be found at <https://booksongaming.com/hoyle/bibliography/ shorttitles.xml>.

In general the labels are of the form work.edition. When there are multiple issues of an edition, the label is of the form work.edition.issue. Accordingly, Whist.1.1 is the first edition, first issue of Hoyle’s treatise on whist. Whist.1.2 is a reissue and Whist.2 is the only issue of the second edition. There is one reference herein to a translation of Hoyle, and the label is of the form work.language.edition, where language is the two-character ISO 639-1 Code.⁸⁷

An unusual feature in the history of Hoyle, described more fully in Appendix II, is that extracts of larger works were published separately, but with the same setting of type. For example, in 1803, Companion to the Card Table was a separately published extract from the Charles Jones Hoyle’s Games Improved. I used the work.edition formulation for the full work, here Jones.7. I have then sequentially numbered the extracts, so Companion becomes Jones.7-1. The numbering scheme is not to suggest priority in printing or publication, which in general I have been unable to determine.

Table 4 lists the books discussed in this article. Included are the label, the date published (from the title page if it is dated, from newspaper advertisements otherwise), and a short title. Where the title page statement of edition differs from bibliographical standards, the label follows bibliographical standards and the short title includes the stated edition in quotation marks. Also included is pricing information for each book, with supporting evidence to be found in the online bibliographical description. The retail price is generally taken from the title page or a newspaper advertisement. The format is from the collation formula in the online description. Price per sheet is the retail price divided by the sheet count as derived from the collation formula.

Appendix II. Hoyle in the Longman Archive

The Longman firm bought into the Hoyle copyright in 1798 while Jones.5 (1796) was in print. They remained as one of the Proprietors through Jones.11 (1826) and through all the editions of Hoyle’s Games Improved and Enlarged (GH.1 through GH.6) from 1835 to 1868. The University of Reading holds Longman’s business records as part of The Archive of British Publishing and Printing and they are available on microfilm.⁸⁸ These records provide rich detail about the books Longman published, including seven of the Charles Jones Hoyles, eleven separately issued excerpts from the Jones Hoyles, and all six of the later books edited by Mr. Hermon. Details include expenses (paper, printing, engraving, advertising), suppliers, print runs, ownership shares, and inventory over time.

Merging that information with prices taken from title pages and newspaper advertisements, Table 5 details the potential retail revenue (retail price times the number of copies printed), gross profit (revenue minus expense), and gross margin (gross profit as a percentage of expense). The numbers assume all copies were sold. Indeed, most of the books did sell out and were reprinted within a few years; the poor sellers (detailed below) were smaller books with smaller print runs. The books were quite profitable for the Proprietors. Costs for binding and distribution (selling to retail bookshops at a wholesale price) are not apparent from the Longman archives and would reduce gross profit and gross margin.⁸⁹

It is apparent from bibliographical examination of the books and from the Longman Archive that the Proprietors engaged in an unusual practice, one that I have not encountered elsewhere or seen discussed in bibliographical or book- historical literature. The Proprietors frequently published excerpts from the gaming anthologies as separate works using substantially the same setting of type. The first instance predates the Longman involvement—in 1779 Dew’s Treatise on Billiards (Jones.2-1) was extracted from Hoyle’s Games Improved (Jones.2). The Longman Archive shows Game Cocks (Jones.6-1) was extracted from Jones.6 (1800), and from 1803, there were frequent separately published excerpts. Two of the excerpts were successful: Companion to the Card Table appeared four times from 1803 to 1820 and Whist and Quadrille twice in 1813 and 1820. The others, less successful, continued to be advertised well after their publication date.⁹⁰

It is worth digging more deeply to understand the cost advantage of the practice of sharing type between two books. Section II discussed the example of Hoyle’s Games Improved (Jones.7) and A Companion to the Card Table (Jones.7-1). Jones.7-1 consists of the first five sheets of the larger eleven-sheet work. The Longman Impression book shows the Proprietors printed 3,000 copies of Jones.7 and 1,000 of Jones.7-1 and details two charges for printing. Composing the five sheets appearing in both books and working four thousand copies cost £49 10s. Composing the additional six sheets for Jones.7 and working three thousand copies cost £48 12s.⁹¹ This lets us calculate a cost of £2 14s per sheet for composing and eighteen shillings per ream for presswork.⁹² Allocating the costs between the two books based on print runs, Jones.7 would bear three quarters of the cost of composition, Jones.7-1 one quarter. Absent the shared type, composing the five sheets of Jones-7-1 would cost £13 10s; with the shared type a quarter of that, only £3 7s 6d. On a print run of 1,000, the savings is a bit less than two and a half pence per copy. The savings allowed the Proprietors price Jones.7-1 at sixpence less than the challenger’s The New Pocket Hoyle while maintaining their normal margin.