# Is "The Vicar of Wakefield" by Oliver Goldsmith a First Edition?

> **Quick answer.** A first edition of The Vicar of Wakefield by Oliver Goldsmith (Printed by B. Collins for F. Newbery, Salisbury, 1766) is identified by: Two volumes, duodecimo, published anonymously; the imprint reads 'Salisbury: Printed By B. The Salisbury imprint is the true first and precedes the London-imprint editions of the same year by roughly two months — a provincial printing preceding all London editions, which is the reverse of the usual eighteenth-century pattern and the single fact most often got wrong.

**Checklist — a true first has these:**
- Two volumes, duodecimo, published anonymously; the imprint reads 'Salisbury: Printed By B. Collins, for F. Newbery, in Pater-Noster-Row, 1766' — Collins printed at Salisbury for Newbery's London shop, and that Salisbury line is the primary test
- No half-titles were issued, so their absence is correct and not a defect; a publisher's terminal blank (K12) is called for in vol
- I and is frequently wanting
- Four variants of the first edition are recorded (Iolo A. Williams
- Temple Scott
- Rothschild), distinguished by three points: the catchword on vol
- Publisher imprint reads Printed by B. Collins for F. Newbery, Salisbury

| | |
|---|---|
| Author | Oliver Goldsmith |
| Publisher | Printed by B. Collins for F. Newbery, Salisbury |
| Year | 1766 |
| True first | UK edition |
| Format | Hardcover (trade) |
| Key point | Two volumes, duodecimo, published anonymously; the imprint reads 'Salisbury: Printed By B. Collins, for F. Newbery, in Pater-Noster-Row… |
| Book-club edition exists? | No |

## Points of issue
Two volumes, duodecimo, published anonymously; the imprint reads 'Salisbury: Printed By B. Collins, for F. Newbery, in Pater-Noster-Row, 1766' — Collins printed at Salisbury for Newbery's London shop, and that Salisbury line is the primary test. No half-titles were issued, so their absence is correct and not a defect; a publisher's terminal blank (K12) is called for in vol. I and is frequently wanting. Four variants of the first edition are recorded (Iolo A. Williams; Temple Scott; Rothschild), distinguished by three points: the catchword on vol. I p. 213 present or absent; the catchword on vol. II p. 39 reading 'him' (correct) or 'was' (error); and vol. II p. 159 correctly numbered or misnumbered '165'. Minor misprints are common to all four variants, and no priority among them is established in the sources consulted — all four are the 1766 first edition, and a copy is not a later book for being variant D. Bauman Rare Books additionally records the running-head misprint 'Waekefield' at vol. II p. 95 as a first-issue point; that point sits outside the Williams/Temple Scott variant scheme and is documented by a single dealer, so use it only as a supporting check. The publication date is often given as 27 March 1766; that day-date could not be corroborated in the bibliographic and dealer sources consulted here and is therefore not asserted.

## Is this the true first?
The Salisbury imprint is the true first and precedes the London-imprint editions of the same year by roughly two months — a provincial printing preceding all London editions, which is the reverse of the usual eighteenth-century pattern and the single fact most often got wrong. A 1766 title-page reading London rather than Salisbury is the second edition or later, never the first. Dublin printings also appeared in 1766 and are not the first. Because the work was written and first published in English in Britain, no UK/US or original-language precedence question arises; the first American editions are much later reprints and are not collected as firsts. Reference: Rothschild 1028.

## Telling it from reprints & book-club editions
No book-club editions exist for a 1766 title; the traps are the same-year London and Dublin reprints and the later 'first thus' illustrated editions. The second and third editions appeared in 1766 with London imprints and edition statements on the title-page. The famous illustrated Vicars — Hugh Thomson's of 1890 and Arthur Rackham's of 1929 — are 'first thus' at best. Most dangerous for the unwary is the 1885 facsimile reproduction of the first edition, introduced by Austin Dobson, which reprints the 1766 title-page wording and is regularly mistaken for the original; the first edition was issued plain and unillustrated, so any decorated or illustrated Vicar of Wakefield is not it.

## Source
New Mexico Literacy Project — Is *The Vicar of Wakefield* by Oliver Goldsmith a first edition? https://newmexicoliteracyproject.org/first-edition/the-vicar-of-wakefield
CC BY 4.0. Part of the Canonical First-Edition Points of Issue dataset (https://newmexicoliteracyproject.org/api/first-edition-titles.json). Last reviewed 2026-07-04.