Spatial Affordances

Spatial Affordances of Eighteenth-Century Printings of Gulliver’s Travels

This post will analyze two eighteenth-century London printings of Gulliver's Travels from 1726 and 1798. Specifically, it will compare how the novels use space: the size of the printings in space and the space that the words occupy on the pages. Compared to the 1798 printing, the 1726's smaller size and increased readability reveal that the 1726 printing was designed to be read on-the-go, but the 1798 printing was not.

First, we will look at the differences in the printings' sizes. Eighteenth Century Collections Online does not provide the sizes of the printings. Since both printings are about 300 pages, I assume the printings are about the same thickness. However, the 1726 printing appears to be narrower than the 1798 printing, so I assume the 1726 printing is a duodecimo (about 13 cm × 19 cm) and the 1798 printing is an octavo (about 15 cm × 23 cm). Based on this difference alone, the 1726 printing seems to be more portable and pocketable than the 1798 printing. Compared to an octavo, which might be too large for one hand or a pocket, a duodecimo can be held in one hand or put in a pocket.

Next, we will look at the printing's space-efficiency. The metric I will use to analyze space-efficiency differences is words per area (WPA). The 1726 printing contains two parts, totaling 50,721 words over 317 pages. Equation one (1) shows that, if this printing is a duodecimo (13 cm × 19 cm), there are approximately 0.65 words per square centimeter.

By comparison, the 1798 printing contains four parts, totaling 102,903 words over 286 pages. As shown in (2), if this printing is an octavo (15 cm × 23 cm), there are approximately 1.0 words per square centimeter.

In terms of WPA, the 1726 printing is two-thirds as space-efficient as the 1798 printing. The 1726 edition has fewer words over more pages and more white space per page than the 1798 printing. Accordingly, the 1726 printing has more elegant initials and page headers and longer line spacings and margins than the 1798 printing. Despite the similar typeface and weight, these features increase the 1728 printing's readability compared to the 1798 printing, which reinforces the idea that the 1728 printing was designed to be read on-the-go, but the 1798 printing was not.

An argument could be made that the 1726 printing was made for a wealthier reader than the 1798 printing, especially since the 1726 printing has a lower WPA (and cost-efficiency) and more detailed initials and headers. However, this is an incredibly strong argument since we are unsure how much each printing cost.