[Next Project] The Adventures of Roderick Random by Tobias Smollett

[bak]

I really enjoyed the sebooks production of Gil Blas last year and so I figured I'd look at the picaresque novel written by that novel's English translator, Tobias Smollett. I think it's fairly well-known; he also later wrote a few more alliteratively titled picaresques in with the translations and nonfiction work.

Searching the group, I haven't seen any discussions of this one, and I suppose it makes sense as it's not currently in the Wanted List.

Here's the PG production: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4085 

I don't think it's a PGDP production, based on reviewing their Gold List: https://www.pgdp.net/c/list_etexts.php?x=g&per_page=50&offset=49750

This novel has a ton of transcripts on hathitrust and archive.org. I have found first/second/third/fourth edition scans that look to be from around its initial publication in 1748-1750, and scans from editions printed as late as 1920. After looking at The Mummy! as a production last year and noting quite a few changes between the first and second editions in that novel, I figured it might be wise to nail down a definitive version to work on.

According to a review in MUSE, the 4th edition of 1755 is the last one Smollett had a hand in revising: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/427/article/822526/pdf

Is there somewhere worthwhile to see if I could get a more definitive answer on "Where was this produced from?" Or is the next step just to compare PG production and a 4th edition scan and see if I can make it out?

Appreciate any help/advice/thoughts. Thanks!

[Vince]

The “Credits” line in the About this eBook on the PG page shows who transcribed that particular book; in this case it was Tapio Riikonen and David Widger, so no, PGDP was not involved.

PG famously does not indicate what edition their works are from, and sometimes it’s more than one edition, or the transcribers made edits as they transcribed, so sometimes there isn’t a single edition, and other times it can be hard to tell. (And sometimes what they present visually is misleading; The Count of Monte Cristo e.g. looks like it’s from the illustrated edition, but it’s not. The pictures are, but the text isn’t.)

We usually want scans of the latest edition of a work, as it is likely to have had more errors corrected, etc. For older works, newer editions also often have more modern punctuation practices (my working theory from producing a few is that authors in the 18th century were paid by the comma). So, the last edition an author worked on is generally not of importance to us; we want the latest edition, period.

From one of the most recent of Alex’s many comments on the list on the subject:

In general, don't get too hung up on “authorial intent". As I've said often on this list, that's largely a concept developed in 20th century academia that, with a few exceptions, mostly wasn't a huge concern for authors before then. It was extremely common for editors, publishers, and printers to rearrange and edit things as they saw fit, and looking back in history it's often impossible to say what the author wanted—if they even cared that much—vs what the publisher ended up doing. 

[Alex Cabal]

Sure, you can work on that. Vince has given you guidance on the edition
question. As he noted typically we prefer the latest possible edition,
however if there's research to suggest a different edition is better,
then we can go that route too. It just depends. For a book like this
which is the pulp of its era, latest edition probably works fine.

In Gil Blas we modernized the dialog so that there is one speaker per
paragraph, instead of vast paragraphs where multiple people speak. If
this book is like that, we should do the same thing. It's quite a bit of
work.

If you want to take it on, please send a link to your repo once you start.

On 11/10/25 3:16 PM, 'bak' via Standard Ebooks wrote:
> I really enjoyed the sebooks production of Gil Blas last year and so I
> figured I'd look at the picaresque novel written by that novel's English
> translator, Tobias Smollett. I think it's fairly well-known; he also
> later wrote a few more alliteratively titled picaresques in with the
> translations and nonfiction work.
>
> Searching the group, I haven't seen any discussions of this one, and I
> suppose it makes sense as it's not currently in the Wanted List.
>
> Here's the PG production: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4085
> <https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4085>
>
> I don't think it's a PGDP production, based on reviewing their Gold
> List: https://www.pgdp.net/c/list_etexts.php?

> x=g&per_page=50&offset=49750 <https://www.pgdp.net/c/list_etexts.php?
> x=g&per_page=50&offset=49750>

>
> This novel has a ton of transcripts on hathitrust and archive.org

> <http://archive.org>. I have found first/second/third/fourth edition

> scans that look to be from around its initial publication in 1748-1750,
> and scans from editions printed as late as 1920. After looking at The
> Mummy! as a production last year and noting quite a few changes between
> the first and second editions in that novel, I figured it might be wise
> to nail down a definitive version to work on.
>
> According to a review in MUSE, the 4th edition of 1755 is the last one
> Smollett had a hand in revising: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/427/

> article/822526/pdf <https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/427/article/822526/pdf>

>
> Is there somewhere worthwhile to see if I could get a more definitive
> answer on "Where was this produced from?" Or is the next step just to
> compare PG production and a 4th edition scan and see if I can make it out?
>
> Appreciate any help/advice/thoughts. Thanks!
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/8CFC1C28-463D-4B6C-8381-2C9924510D03%40picklefactory.org
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> standardebooks/8CFC1C28-463D-4B6C-8381-2C9924510D03%40picklefactory.org?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[bak]

Vince wrote:

We usually want scans of the latest edition of a work, as it is likely to have had more errors corrected, etc. For older works, newer editions also often have more modern punctuation practices (my working theory from producing a few is that authors in the 18th century were paid by the comma). So, the last edition an author worked on is generally not of importance to us; we want the latest edition, period.

Got it. It's more just that I was looking for a reasonable cutoff point, and the opinion of whichever scholars have been interested was enough for me to think "not a bad starting point for what the author produced." But I can definitely see the argument for going right to the other side of the timeline too.

In Gil Blas we modernized the dialog so that there is one speaker per paragraph, instead of vast paragraphs where multiple people speak. If this book is like that, we should do the same thing. It's quite a bit of work.

I undertook this already with The Indiscreet Jewels, it was indeed a bit of work, but on the other hand it was such a pleasure to read with un-bunched typography (and the same with Gil Blas) that I feel like it was totally worth it.

Looking at a scan from a 1911 edition, the typography changes do not extend to modernizing the dialogue paragraph style. ( https://archive.org/details/adventuresofrode0003smol ) so I think I will proceed with that one (or if I can find a later public domain one that looks acceptable on HathiTrust), and first take a bit of a closer look to make sure it's a goodish match to the PG production. 

Will respond with a repository link and the Most Appropriate Scans once I actually get underway.

Thanks

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/ec84aa60-25d5-4b6b-beec-956cdf54f34d%40standardebooks.org.

[bak]

I had a look around HathiTrust and archive.org and found an omnibus Smollett from 1929 that opens with Roderick Random:

https://archive.org/details/worksoftobiassmo0001smol/

It's a really nice scan, it seems to match well with both Gutenberg and the 18th century scans in terms of having the same words in the same order, while omitting all the usual annoying ligatures, ſs, and modernizing a lot of the same words we would (to morrow -> tomorrow, etc).

Interestingly, it says:

The principles of editing adopted in this issue of Smollett are the same as those which the editor applied in his presentations of Fielding and Sterne, edited for Messrs. Dent. No annotation is attempted, and the text is reprinted from the standard version. Smollett was much more of a professional man of letters than either of his contemporaries, and after he had, as in the case of Peregrine Pickle, once settled on the form in which his work should be presented, there is not usually much need for conjectural emendation. The text has, however, been carefully read throughout to guard againt those slips which sometimes hold their ground in, and occasionally steal into, frequently reprinted matter.

I did a readthrough of the first eight chapters side-by-side with the Gutenberg and the changes I saw were all punctuation changes such as using semicolons instead of colons sometimes. One other early-20th c. edition I saw put a comma before every em dash.

From everything I've seen on this list, such differences that don't impact the meaning of a sentence are seen as inevitable / not worth nitpicking over. So I am going to run with this one unless I bump into a reason I should do otherwise.

Vince wrote:

(my working theory from producing a few is that authors in the 18th century were paid by the comma)

It's true and you should say it. What a profusion of 'em!

Github repo: https://github.com/picklefactory/tobias-smollett_the-adventures-of-roderick-random

Just to be complete:

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_adventures_of_roderick_random

Project Gutenberg production: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4085

Thanks

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/8F4704C2-AB2C-424B-9B2B-FC2CC1728F04%40picklefactory.org.

[Alex Cabal]

OK, great research!

Robin will manage this with Vince reviewing.

On 11/11/25 2:13 PM, 'bak' via Standard Ebooks wrote:
> I had a look around HathiTrust and archive.org and found an omnibus
> Smollett from 1929 that opens with Roderick Random:
>

> https://archive.org/details/worksoftobiassmo0001smol/ <https://
> archive.org/details/worksoftobiassmo0001smol/>

>
> It's a really nice scan, it seems to match well with both Gutenberg and
> the 18th century scans in terms of having the same words in the same
> order, while omitting all the usual annoying ligatures, ſs, and
> modernizing a lot of the same words we would (to morrow -> tomorrow, etc).
>
> Interestingly, it says:
>> The principles of editing adopted in this issue of Smollett are the
>> same as those which the editor applied in his presentations of
>> Fielding and Sterne, edited for Messrs. Dent. No annotation is
>> attempted, and the text is reprinted from the standard version.
>> Smollett was much more of a professional man of letters than either of

>> his contemporaries, and after he had, as in the case of /Peregrine
>> Pickle/, once settled on the form in which his work should be

>> presented, there is not usually much need for conjectural emendation.
>> The text has, however, been carefully read throughout to guard againt
>> those slips which sometimes hold their ground in, and occasionally
>> steal into, frequently reprinted matter.
>
> I did a readthrough of the first eight chapters side-by-side with the
> Gutenberg and the changes I saw were all punctuation changes such as
> using semicolons instead of colons sometimes. One other early-20th c.
> edition I saw put a comma before every em dash.
>
> From everything I've seen on this list, such differences that don't
> impact the meaning of a sentence are seen as inevitable / not worth
> nitpicking over. So I am going to run with this one unless I bump into a
> reason I should do otherwise.
>
> Vince wrote:
>> (my working theory from producing a few is that authors in the 18th
>> century were paid by the comma)
>
> It's true and you should say it. What a profusion of 'em!
>
> Github repo: https://github.com/picklefactory/tobias-smollett_the-

> adventures-of-roderick-random <https://github.com/picklefactory/tobias-
> smollett_the-adventures-of-roderick-random>

>> archive.org/details/adventuresofrode0003smol <https://archive.org/
>> details/adventuresofrode0003smol> ) so I think I will proceed with

>> standardebooks/8F4704C2-AB2C-424B-9B2B-
>> FC2CC1728F04%40picklefactory.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
>> standardebooks/8F4704C2-AB2C-424B-9B2B-
>> FC2CC1728F04%40picklefactory.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:standardebook...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> standardebooks/CB3518C2-6C95-4D70-BCBF-18C635EB1B1E%40picklefactory.org
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/CB3518C2-6C95-4D70-
> BCBF-18C635EB1B1E%40picklefactory.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Robin Whittleton]

I’ve had this on my list for a while, happy to manage it!

-Robin

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/42a6926f-a1a8-4179-bea7-a6fb7b46b9f2%40standardebooks.org.