The Project Gutenberg eBook of Books in chains
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Books in chains
and other bibliographical papers
Author: William Blades
Release date: July 17, 2026 [eBook #79115]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Elliot Stock, 1892
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79115
Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BOOKS IN CHAINS ***
[Illustration]
The Book-Lover’s Library.
Edited by
Henry B. Wheatley, F.S.A.
[Illustration: BOOK-CASE OF CHAINED BOOKS IN HEREFORD CATHEDRAL.]
BOOKS IN CHAINS
AND
_OTHER BIBLIOGRAPHICAL PAPERS_
BY THE LATE
WILLIAM BLADES
_Author of “The Life and Typography of Caxton,” “The Enemies
of Books,” etc., etc._
LONDON
ELLIOT STOCK, 62 PATERNOSTER ROW
1892
PREFACE.
_It has been thought that a collection of some of Mr. Blades’s
Fugitive Pieces would form a volume acceptable to the readers of the
Book-Lover’s Library, as a companion volume to that distinguished
bibliographer’s_ Enemies of Books.
_A selection of these papers is now therefore presented to the public
in a more permanent form, and an Introduction containing a general
notice of Mr. Blades’s life-work has been added._
[Illustration]
INTRODUCTION.
The life of William Blades was an uneventful one so far as the
production of incidents that make a memoir interesting, but it was
none the less a full life and one that may with advantage be taken as
an example. In passing judgment upon his literary work it is necessary
to bear in mind that he was a hard-worked business man, and that the
work which has made his name renowned was undertaken in his hours
of relaxation. Another remarkable feature of his literary work is
to be found in its complete unity. Mr. Blades only dealt with those
subjects respecting which he had a perfect and practical knowledge. He
was born at Clapham on December 5th, 1824, and after a comparatively
short attendance at the Clapham Grammar School he, at the age of
sixteen, entered the office of his father, Joseph Blades, a well-known
printer of Abchurch Lane. Although he thus early learnt the trade of
printing, he did not commence to teach others through the press until
he had reached the age of thirty-four. In 1858 he contributed some
introductory remarks and notes to a reprint of Caxton’s edition of
_The Governayle of Helthe_, which was printed in imitation Caxton’s
type. At this time he was in the midst of his researches on the life
and labours of Caxton, which were soon to result in the production
of his monumental work _The Life and Typography of William Caxton_,
the first volume of which appeared in 1861 and the second in 1863.
This work exhibits an early instance of the new scientific method in
literary research, and it marks an epoch in English bibliography.
It is sufficiently strange that it was not until the middle of the
nineteenth century that an accurate record of the life and press
of England’s first printer was produced. In taking credit to the
country for Blades’s laborious work it should not be forgotten that
no bibliographer has yet arisen to follow his brilliant example. Will
no one arise with the necessary technical knowledge and a painstaking
devotion to his subject to do for Wynkyn de Worde and for Pynson what
Blades did for Caxton?
The value of the work of Ames and Herbert need not be minimised, but
too much has been discovered since their time to allow us to remain
content with the researches of a former generation. It is to be hoped
that the discredit of lacking a full and accurate account of the whole
of our early printed literature will not continue much longer. Blades
has set us a bright example, and his successor cannot do better than
follow in his steps. Blades was ever active, and he has left a large
number of fugitive pieces, a selection from which is now presented
to the public in this volume. His contributions to our knowledge of
bibliography range themselves under the following headings: I. Caxton;
II. Invention of Printing; III. Types; IV. Miscellaneous, such as
Signatures, Books in Chains, Numismata Typographica, etc. A few remarks
may be made here upon his works on these several subjects.
I. CAXTON.
The study of Caxton’s press was the chief work of Blades’s life and
that by which he gained distinction. Allusion has already been made
to _The Life and Typography of William Caxton_, 1861-63, and it may
be noted here that in 1865 he published “A Catalogue of Books printed
by or ascribed to the press of Caxton, in which is included the press
mark of every copy contained in the British Museum.” In 1869 he printed
fifty copies of a fac-simile of a small tract from Caxton’s press, _Ars
Moriendi_, which had shortly before been found in the Bodleian Library.
In 1870 appeared the useful little handbook entitled _How to tell a
Caxton, with some hints where the same may be found_.
Blades was the moving spirit in the management of the very successful
Caxton Exhibition of 1877. As Mr. Talbot Reed writes, “It was due
to him that the solecism of celebrating the Fourth Centenary of
the Introduction of Printing into England three years before its
time was avoided. When the true anniversary came Mr. Blades threw
himself heart and soul into the movement. What was his part in the
success of the celebration is already on record. He suggested both
the form the festival should take and the methods by which it might
be carried out. He undertook the collection and arrangement of the
unique display of Caxtons and early English printed books which were
brought together--perhaps the most complete collection ever seen at
one time. He organised and superintended the arrangement of the large
miscellaneous collection of books, specimens, autographs, portraits,
medals, and curiosities, to which he himself contributed the lion
share.”[1] He wrote the Preface to the first section of the Catalogue
devoted to “William Caxton and the development of the art of Printing
in England and Scotland.”
The _Life and Typography_ was an expensive book, and in the year of the
Caxton Exhibition Mr. Blades did the bibliographer who was unable to
purchase this work a great service by producing a condensed edition in
one octavo volume, entitled The _Biography and Typography of William
Caxton_, which forms a most useful guide to the student of the history
of Printing in England. A second edition of this work was issued in
1882. No one who has consulted these important works can doubt the
immense labour which the author devoted to his task, but it may be
mentioned in passing that Mr. Blades is said to have inspected four
hundred and fifty Caxtons during the course of his researches.
It was in connection with Mr. Blades’s work on Caxton that the writer
of this notice had the privilege of first making his acquaintance. In
the year 1868 it occurred to me that it would be possible by means of
a society to reproduce in fac-simile the whole of Caxton’s works, as
a monument to the memory of our first printer. Before proceeding in
the matter I sought an interview with Mr. Blades. He invited me to his
house near the Crystal Palace to talk the matter over, and he naturally
showed the greatest interest in the scheme. Although he was not very
sanguine of success, he entered pretty fully into calculations, and
the result of our consultation was that the cost of reproducing the
whole of the works would be £20,000, a sum which might be met by the
subscriptions of five hundred members at two guineas a year for twenty
years. I received many promises of support, but eventually the scheme
was abandoned as too risky an undertaking, more especially as the great
object to be attained was completeness, and there was no possibility
of guaranteeing the interest of five hundred subscribers in the work
for so long a period as twenty years. This may appear a mad scheme to
many, and I hope I shall be excused for introducing a mention of it
here, on the ground that Mr. Blades’s consideration of the proposal
evinced his judgment, patience, and kindliness of character, and so
helps to show my readers what manner of man he really was.
II. INVENTION OF PRINTING.
The burning question as to which country--Germany or Holland--the
invention of printing by movable types is due, was one which always
interested Blades, and in 1876 he published at his own cost a
translation of Dr. Van der Linde’s _Haarlem Legend_ by Mr. Hessels.
In the previous year, before Dr. Van der Linde’s essay appeared in an
English version, Mr. Blades set forth his view of the question in an
article in Berjeau’s _Book-worm_, which is printed in this volume. He
here suggested the possibility of an independent invention in the
two countries, and remarked that if Coster never lived yet Costeriana
certainly exist. He further showed that the Caxton printing pedigree
must be traced to a Dutch rather than to a German source.
In 1887 he returned to the subject in a paper read before the Meeting
of the Library Association at Birmingham, and in 1888 he contributed
to the _Book-worm_ a clear statement of the very complicated question
under the title of _De Ortu Typographiæ_, which was placed before
readers in its two aspects of Coster _v._ Gutenberg and Gutenberg _v._
Coster. Between the dates 1871 and 1887 a great change had occurred
in the field of the controversy. When Mr. Hessels translated Dr. Van
der Linde’s _Haarlem Legend_ he was at one with the author, but when
he came in 1879 to criticise Van der Linde’s _Gutenberg_ he found
strong reasons for doubting that author’s conclusions, and his doubts
were expressed in a remarkable book published in 1882 and entitled
_Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_ Mr. Hessels continued his
destructive criticism on Van der Linde’s great work on the Invention of
Printing in the _Academy_, and his articles were reprinted in December
1887 under the uncompromising title of _Haarlem the Birth-place of
Printing, not Mentz_. Unfortunately this controversy has been carried
on with considerable heat on both sides, and Mr. Blades endeavoured
in his articles to place the matter before his readers in a clear and
practical way, and he succeeded in giving a satisfactory statement of
the present condition of the controversy. He again returned to this
matter in his posthumous work entitled _The Pentateuch of Printing_,
and here he gives his judgment as follows: “Thus we float along the
stream of gradual development, until we reach movable types properly
termed Typography. This was never an invention pure and simple which
suddenly enlightened the mind of Gutenberg (as stated by Van der Linde
and echoed by Theo. de Vinne), but an end successfully accomplished
after numerous efforts and gradual advances.”
III. TYPES.
Mr. Blades’s researches on the varieties of types used by Caxton and
other early printers led him to investigate the history of specimen
books, and he collected much interesting information respecting these.
In 1881 he contributed to the _Antiquary_[2] an article on “The First
Printing-Press at Oxford,” in which he refers to the much-disputed-over
_Expositio_ of 1468, a date which he supposes to be a misprint for
1478. This Oxford press appears to have existed for eight years (from
1478 to 1486), during which period sixteen books that have come down
to us were produced. Blades divided these eight years into three
sections:--
1. 1478-1479: three books printed by one unknown printer, probably
Theodoric Rood.
2. 1480-1483: seven books printed by Theodoric Rood.
3. 1483-1486: six books printed by Rood and Thomas Hunte.
S. W. Singer published a pamphlet in 1812 in which he supported the
opinion that the date 1468 was the correct one, but as early as 1735
Conyers Middleton made the very probable suggestion that in printing an
X had been accidentally dropped out.
In 1860 Mr. Blades printed a pamphlet entitled _Some Account of the
Typography of St. Albans in the Fifteenth Century_ (1480-1486), which
however went no further than half a dozen proofs. This contains a
collation and description of the type of each of the books printed by
the printer of St. Albans. Mr. Blades writes: “Seven different works
printed at St. Albans about the close of the fifteenth century have
descended to modern times. From the colophons of these we learn that
the Press there produced _two_ Works in 1480, _two_ in 1481, _one_
in 1486, and _two_ without dates, one of which, however, must have
been printed after 1483, which was the year of its compilation. From
this it seems very probable that several works may have been printed
at St. Albans between 1480 and 1486, of which not a single copy is
now preserved. The fact that these seven Books present us with four
different Founts of Type leads to the same conclusion, which also
receives some confirmation from the colophon to the Essay on Rhetoric
by Laurentius de Saona. Laurentius wrote his work in the University of
Cambridge in 1478, and the fame of the St. Albans Press would seem to
have reached there so early as 1480, as in that year his compilation
was printed at St. Albans. But who was the St. Albans Printer? Not one
of his productions affords the slightest information. That he must
have been connected with the Abbey, or protected by the Abbot there,
seems almost certain, as the undertaking otherwise would have been too
perilous.”
An interesting article appeared in 1878 in _Macmillan’s Magazine_ on
the Plantin Museum at Antwerp, which was translated into French.
Mr. Blades made his first visit before the old printing-office was
purchased in 1875 by Town Council for £48,000. This will seem a large
sum to those who have not the privilege of knowing this interesting
relic of the past, with its many and varied treasures. Mr. Blades
describes (1) the Mansion; (2) the paintings and engravings--18 oils
by Rubens; (3) the Library; (4) the Archives; and (5) the Printing
Offices. Among the collections are fine specimens of Sevres, Chinese,
and Japanese porcelain. “Some years ago a well-known amateur,
distracted by the beauty of six cups and saucers in _porcelaine verte
de chine_, offered Mr. Moretus 15,000 francs for the set, but in vain,
and these cups, which £50 each would not buy, still grace the Plantin
Museum.” In conclusion, we are told of some of the most precious of the
stores in this wonderful place: “But what have we here in all these
curiously carved old cabinets, a single one of which would render a
Soho dealer famous? Shelves upon shelves of wood-cuts, over 15,000,
illustrating three centuries of the engraver’s art. All sizes of
floriated initials, ‘blooming capitals’ as the Dutch called them; an
infinity of head- and tail-pieces, vignettes, printers’ marks, and
what the French style _culs de lampes_. One magnificent set of large
illuminated initials, probably designed for a great Missal, is quite
fresh from the hand of the engraver, having never been used; while
numerous designs, although beautifully drawn upon the wood, have still
to wait for the skilled hand of the engraver. Not wood-cuts only, but
about 8000 copperplates are also carefully preserved, including many
splendid title-pages and other illustrations used in bygone ages.
In a specially designed and beautifully carved closet are kept all
the punches, matrices, and moulds which performed no small part in
enhancing the fame of the ‘Plantin Press.’ Probably nothing like it can
be seen in Europe, the major part having come from the graceful hands
of Guillaume le Bé and Claude Garamond. Close by, packed up in papers
ready for immediate use, are a ton or two of types of all sizes,
brand-new, covered with a hundred years of dust.”
It is remarkable that a great house should have lasted for so many
years, and have remained in the possession of a single family. “One
of Plantin’s two daughters married John Moretus, the chief associate
of her father in his typographical labours, to whom he bequeathed
the mansion and the business. From him through seven generations of
printers it has descended unchanged to Edward Joseph Moretus, the last
of his race, who has lately transferred it to the safe custody of the
city of Antwerp.”
In 1875 Mr. Blades contributed to the _Printers’ Register_ a useful
account of “Some early Type Specimen Books of England, Holland, France,
Italy, and Germany,” which was reprinted as a pamphlet. “The first
positive notice we have of type-founding in England is the fount of
Saxon cut by John Day for Archbishop Parker and used in 1567. The
next is found in a Decree of the Star Chamber in 1637, restricting
the foundries in England to four, and further restricting each
master-founder to two apprentices and one boy ‘to pull off the knots of
metal hanging at the end of the letters when they are first cast, _and
no more_.’ The first dated type specimen is a sheet of Moxon’s, who
was the earliest English writer on the practice of type-founding and
printing. His sheet is headed thus:--
Proves of several sorts of Letters cast by Joseph Moxon,
Westminster. Printed by Joseph Moxon in Russel Street at the
sign of the Atlas, 1669.
“English type-founding was in a very depressed state until an
accidental circumstance induced the first Mr. Caslon to try his hand at
punch-cutting. This was in 1720 upon a fount of Arabic for the Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and his complete success in this
determined his future life. He started an infant foundry, cutting his
punches with his own hand, and in 1734 published the following as a
Large Post Broadside:--
A specimen by William Caslon, Letter Founder, in Chiswell
Street, London.
This sheet is very interesting, as showing from what a small
commencement this celebrated Foundry took its rise.”
Mr. Blades proceeds to give an account of American Specimen Books, and
then describes specimens published in various parts of the Continent.
The earliest book with a date which he found has this title:--
Typorum et Characterum Officinæ Chalcographicæ Georgii
Leopoldi Fuhrmanni ... designatio. Nurimbergæ, 1616. 4to.
“In 1743 the Haarlem firm of Isaac and John Enschedé originated the
plan of presenting their patrons with a well-bound and well-printed
volume, in which their types were advantageously displayed.” In 1870
Mr. Blades communicated to Berjeau’s _Book-worm_ an interesting
article on this Type Foundry. He writes: “The elegant volume which has
suggested these remarks is a newly published Specimen Book of all the
old types anterior to the year 1800 now in the Enschedé Foundry, or
which is the same thing, now extant in Holland. Great pains have been
taken to show them off to advantage by excellent press-work; while
to add additional interest to the volume, the engraved title-pages
which ornamented the early specimen books of the same firm more than a
century ago, are here reproduced from the original plates.”
Mr. Blades contributed to Berjeau’s _Book-worm_ in 1869 a short article
on some Early Greek Types belonging to the Royal Printing Office,
Paris, which the University of Cambridge wished to purchase in the year
1700. This article is printed in the present volume.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS.
A short notice of some of Mr. Blades’s numerous contributions to
Bibliography which do not range themselves under the previous divisions
must be given under the somewhat unscientific heading of Miscellaneous.
When I started the _Bibliographer_ in 1882, I naturally asked Mr.
Blades to let me have an article for the opening number, and he was
good enough to send a curious little query, “Who was Bercula?” The
name of Thomas Bercula appears as the printer of _Vulgaria Whitintoni_,
1520 and 1525, and Mr. Blades asks if he was a sleeping partner
with Pynson, as his name is not otherwise known. Shortly after the
appearance of the number of the _Bibliographer_ I met the late Mr.
Henry Stevens, who said he could answer the question and would send me
a note for a coming number. Mr. Stevens, however, on account of his
full employment and also from ill-health, was unable to fulfil his
promise. His solution of the difficulty therefore did not appear until
after his lamented death, when his son sent his note to the _Athenæum_
(May 8th, 1886). Mr. Stevens suggested that Thomas Bercula stood for
Thomas Berthelet, the English diminutive being represented by the Latin
_cula_.
The article on “The First Printing-Press in England as pictorially
presented,” which Mr. Blades contributed to Berjeau’s _Book-worm_
in 1869, and which is reprinted in the present volume, contains an
interesting account of the technical errors and anachronisms which
artists have introduced into their representations of Caxton’s first
printing-press.
In 1883-85 Mr. Blades defended in the _Printers’ Register_ the claims
of John Nicholson to the honour of being the original inventor of the
Steam Press. His advocacy of the unfortunate Englishman lost him the
friendship of Herr Goebel of Stuttgart, who would not allow any of the
glory of this great work to be taken away from Frederick Koenig. Blades
puts the matter clearly in his _Pentateuch of Printing_ (p. 86), where
he shows that Nicholson took out a patent in 1790 “for printing by
machinery, in which he specified those very principles of action which
have been the basis of every successful printing machine since made.”
At the beginning of the present century Koenig, a young German, came
over to England, and was greatly assisted by Bensley the printer during
the period of his attempt to construct a printing machine.
“From 1806, when he came to London, to 1811, Koenig made two complete
machines (not including his first wooden trial), but both were
unsuccessful because they were founded on the false principle of the
old hand-presses, viz., impressions from a flat surface or platen.
Disheartened by failure, and, as he himself confessed, at his wits’ end
what to do next, an accidental occurrence put him on the right road.
Bensley, his partner, by chance visited Nicholson to obtain from him
some information concerning those patent laws with which a long and
sad experience had rendered him familiar. He found him in a debtors’
gaol, and then he heard for the first time of Nicholson’s patents.
Fluttered and anxious, Bensley took Koenig straight off to read the
particulars.... He at once set about constructing a new machine, in
which all his previous plans of impression were thrown aside, and ...
Nicholson’s method of pressure by means of a cylinder beneath which
the type ran was adopted.” Koenig himself acknowledged fifteen years
later that he had read Nicholson’s patents, but with great contempt
for their crudeness, and that he immediately forgot all about them.
Herr Goebel, his biographer, believes this very improbable statement of
Koenig’s.
Mr. Blades made an interesting collection of medals connected with
printing, and in July 1867 he contributed to the _Numismatic Chronicle_
an article on the subject entitled “Numismata Typographica.” In 1869
he printed twenty-five copies of “A List of Medals, Jettons, Tokens,
etc., in connection with Printers and the art of Printing,” and in
the following year he issued a privately printed pamphlet--“A List of
Medals struck by order of the Corporation of London, with an appendix
of other medals struck privately or for sale having reference to the
same corporate body, or the members thereof.” In 1872 he compiled
a “List of Medals connected with Printers and the art of Printing,
exhibited at the opening of the New Library and Museum, Guildhall,
London,” and in 1877 a list of the collection of medals shown at the
Caxton Exhibition. In 1878 he commenced in the _Printers’ Register_
a “Numismata Typographica,” which was reprinted as a volume in 1883
under the title of _Numismata Typographica; or, the Medallic History of
Printing; being an Account of the Medals, Jettons, and Tokens struck in
commemoration of Printers and the art of Printing_.
He commenced a “Bibliotheca Typographica” in the _Printer’s Register_
in 1875, but the completion of this list of publications in the English
language treating of printers and printing was suspended, and the
materials which he had collected were placed at the disposal of the
compiler of the _Bibliography of Printing_, published by Messrs. Wyman.
Mr. Blades contributed to the _Athenæum_ in January 1872 a valuable
article on “Common Typographical Errors, with especial reference to
the text of Shakespeare,” in which he pointed out the corruptions
in the text that might be attributed to errors in composition. This
was reprinted in his interesting volume entitled _Shakspere and
Typography; being an attempt to show Shakspere’s personal connection
with, and technical knowledge of the art of Printing_, which contains
the ingenious and half-serious suggestion that Shakspere spent some
time in a printer’s office.
The popular little work entitled _The Enemies of Books_, which first
appeared in 1881, was very successful, having passed through five
editions in all, and being honoured by translation into French. As this
book forms one of the “Book-Lover’s Library,” it is not necessary to
describe it further in this place.
Mr. Blades presented to the English reader in 1885 a very interesting
volume: “_An Account of the German Morality-Play, entitled Depositio
Cornuti Typographici, as performed in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, with a rhythmical translation of the German version of
1648._ By William Blades, Typographer.... To which is added a literal
reprint of the unique original version, written partly in Plaat-Deutsch
by Paul de Vise and printed in 1621.” In this work the author brought
together much fresh matter, and illustrated his subject with great
learning. He added a chapter in which it was shown that a survival of a
similar practice, though in a greatly mutilated form, still exists in
English printing offices.
In 1889 Mr. Blades sent three letters to the _Athenæum_[3] on the
subject of “Watermarks.” He pointed out that watermarks are but
fallacious evidence as to the place and date of books, but he laid
great stress on their importance as fixing their size notation.
After explaining the make of hand-made paper and the position of the
watermark, he enunciated the following three laws:--
Law 1. In any old book, if the chain-lines run down, and the watermark
is found about the centre of the page, that must be folio.
Law 2. If the chain-lines are across, and the watermark is found in the
middle of the back of a book, that book must be quarto.
Law 3. If the chain-lines are down, and the watermark is found at the
top edge of a book, that book must be octavo.
Mr. Blades considered that in dealing with this very difficult question
of size notation the year 1800 should be taken as the dividing line.
Before that date the rules that he laid down were to be observed; but
for the later period, when machine-made papers had become common, the
bibliographer might adopt any system of nomenclature that he found most
convenient.
Early in the year 1890 Mr. Blades commenced a series styled
_Bibliographical Miscellanies_, which promised to be of great value
and interest, but soon after No. 1 had been published the author was
called away from this world. He left, however, some materials ready for
the press, and Nos. 2 to 5 were published after his death. All these
_Miscellanies_, which relate to the Signatures in Books and to Books in
Chains, are reprinted in this volume, so that it is not necessary to do
more than commend them to the reader as containing a large amount of
useful information on two very interesting bibliographical points.
The ever-busy printer and author was taken all too soon from his
labours on April 28th, 1890. Although he was not an old man, he had
enjoyed a long life of work, and his jubilee as a printer was about
to be celebrated when his last illness came rather suddenly upon
him. He left ready for publication a popular work on the history of
printing, to which he had given the fanciful title of _The Pentateuch
of Printing_. This was published in 1891 under the editorial care of
Mr. Talbot Reed, who added a memoir of the author and a full list of
his published works as well as his contributions to periodicals.
Sufficient has been said of Mr. Blades’s literary work, but in
conclusion a few words must be added as to the man himself. He was not
one to put himself forward, and to appreciate his real worth it was
necessary to know him in private life. Although his name at once took
high rank, he can scarcely be said to have received sufficient honour
during his lifetime for the important work which he did, and this may
have been partly owing to his quiet and unobtrusive disposition. He was
a student who did his work for the love of it, and not to be praised of
men.
He took great interest in the Library Association of the United
Kingdom, and was a constant attendant at the annual meetings. The
writer of this notice well remembers his presence at the most
delightful of these meetings, which was held at Cambridge, when that
model bibliographer and distinguished man, the late Henry Bradshaw,
proved himself a model President and Chairman as well. At this meeting,
when the members visited the library of Corpus Christi College, he
took up his parable and discoursed about the Caxtons. At the dinner
which was given by the members to the President, Blades appeared in a
new character, for he added to the harmony of the evening by standing
up and singing with good effect the old song of “Down among the dead
men.” In going over the work of this true student and enthusiastic
lover of his profession, it is impossible not to feel the highest
admiration for a man who did so much to foster the same tastes in those
around him and to clear away difficulties in the path of those who were
to follow him.
H. B. W.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
CONTENTS.
BOOKS IN CHAINS
PART I. WIMBORNE MINSTER. 3
PART II. ENGLAND AND ABROAD. 17
THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SIGNATURES IN BOOKS 85
THE EARLY SCHOOLS OF TYPOGRAPHY 125
_The Book-worm (Berjeau), March, 1870._
ON THE PRESENT ASPECT OF THE QUESTION, WHO WAS THE
INVENTOR OF PRINTING? 133
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ
_The Book-worm, February-May, 1888._
PART I. INTRODUCTION. 165
PART II. COSTER _v._ GUTENBERG. 171
PART III. COSTER _v._ GUTENBERG. 179
PART IV. GUTENBERG _v._ COSTER. 192
EARLY GREEK TYPES OF THE ROYAL PRINTING OFFICE, PARIS,
AND THE CHANCELLOR OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY 203
_The Book-worm (Berjeau), January, 1869._
THE FIRST PRINTING-PRESS IN ENGLAND, AS PICTORIALLY
PRESENTED 209
_The Book-worm (Berjeau), October, 1869._
INDEX 223
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
BOOKS IN CHAINS.
PART I. WIMBORNE MINSTER.
In this our great Babylon where, in the arena of trade and
mammon-worship, every morning sees the renewal of fierce competitive
contests,--where the fight is to the strong and clever, and where
every night looks down on the vanquished, dead or wounded on the
field,--there are not a few, even among the combatants, who, when the
day’s toils and anxieties are over, find both refuge and recreation
in the soothing society of their favourite books. And this may be
noticed as a general tendency among all book-lovers--that whatever
complexion a thoughtful man’s first literary love may assume, whether
historical or poetical, whether the phases of religious thought or the
metaphysical subtleties of the schoolmen, his studies are almost sure
to develop within him a love for the books of bygone ages; and that not
merely for their old-world wisdom, but for them simply as old books,
as the very paper and print over which our wisdom-loving ancestors
pored,--streamlets of thought, which, in their onward course, have
developed into those mighty rivers of knowledge which now fructify the
whole nation. Doubtless there is an element of sentimentality in loving
a book just because it is old; but the feeling is akin to that which
makes all of us interested in knowing who our ancestors were; for,
after all, the Shakespeare-works we love and the Darwin-theories we
admire would never have existed but for the long chain of books behind
them, of which indeed they are but important links. These feelings are
natural, and they grow by what they feed on.
Some such sympathies stirred within me when looking, last spring
(1889), upon a photograph of the chained library at Wimborne Minster;
and, occasion offering, I paid a visit or two to the grand old church
in that interesting town--visits which prompted the present remarks.
Single books chained in churches were quite common in the Reformation
days, and may, even now, be seen occasionally. In this very town of
Wimborne a copy of Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_ was, in bygone days,
chained to a desk in the dissenting chapel,--a rather unusual
occurrence,--nor are there wanting records which tell of whole
collections, where each volume was chained in its place as it stood on
the shelf. Such libraries are, however, now very uncommon, and, with
the exception of the remarkable old library in Hereford Cathedral,
the writer is not aware of any collection in England approaching in
interest and extent that at Wimborne Minster.
Who can look at that old building without emotion? The grand Norman
arches, with the Gothic additions of later centuries, are, of
themselves, an abridged History of England; and, as a pre-Reformation
study, form no inappropriate introduction to the post-Reformation
collection of volumes, generally the last object of interest in the
whole building to which the visitor’s attention is directed.
Let us enter the Abbey; and, without waiting to discuss the changes
which generation after generation made in the appearance and
architecture of the building, let us wend our way with reverential
footsteps towards the sacristy, over which is the library. We cannot
pass quite without notice the tomb of the Duke and Duchess of Beaufort,
parents to the well-known patroness of all that was good in art and
literature, the Lady Margaret, Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry
VII., and patron of our proto-typographer, William Caxton, whom she
employed to print the _Fifteen Oes_. She it was who founded the
adjacent seminary (now the endowed school), built a chantry, and
conferred many other benefits on the town of Wimborne.
We just glance at the three old wooden benches occupying the place of
the altar-rails, and covered with a white eucharistic cloth, at which,
before the Reformation, the laity received the Sacrament--a custom kept
up to this day. Let us enter the sacristy. The room appears to be of
15th-century workmanship, has two Gothic windows, and must have had an
altar at the east end in bygone times, for the piscina is there still.
In one corner is a door which opens upon a spiral stone staircase,
every step of which demands foresight on the part of the visitor, so
worn and hollow are the stones with the feet of many generations.
At the top of this we reach the chamber over the sacristy, and find
ourselves in the midst of many books, nearly all of the 16th and 17th
centuries. ’Tis here we can realise the wide gulf which separated
the great leaders of pre-Reformation thought, who, through long dim
centuries, worked to express their creed and ideas in buildings of
sculptured stone and marble, from the still greater leaders, who, by
their fervent writings, conquered the creed of whole nations, and
elevated the aspirations of mankind by means of that greatest of all
inventions--the Printing-press.
Formerly this chamber was the treasure-house where the sacramental
plate and other valuables were preserved, among them being two pieces
of the real cross, the thigh of St. Agatha, a portion of the crib used
by our Saviour when an infant, some hairs from His head, a piece of
the alabaster box of Mary Magdalene, a tooth of St. Philip, a bone
of Melchizedek, a thorn from our Saviour’s crown, and numerous other
relics, of which, if the reader wants to learn more, let him refer
to Hutchins’s _History of Dorset_. The Rev. William Stone, a native
of Wimborne and a minister of the church, gave numerous books to
form a foundation for the parochial library. He appears first in the
church records as an “official” (now called a “surrogate”) in the year
1637. He took the degrees of M.A. and LL.D., was Principal of New Inn
College, Oxon., and died in 1680 at Wimborne, where a long epitaph in
Latin commemorates his acquirements and virtues. Another minister,
the Rev. Thomas Ansty, who was appointed in 1661 and died in 1668,
is mentioned as the donor of eight books. The names of Taylour and
Constantine, whose autographs occur in some of the books, are also in
the list of _Ministers of Wimborne_. The autograph of the Rev. Samuel
Conant, whose books formed probably part of the Stone collection, is
found in several volumes.
Against the walls of this old treasure-house are erected shelves.
Nearly all the books are chained. The chains are formed of rod-iron
bent into a figure of 8, with one end twisted round the middle for
strength. We know the date when the library was founded, and therefore
of these rude chains--it was 1686. Each chain is about 3 feet long,
and has at one end a ring like a curtain ring, which, running along an
iron rod, allows considerable play. Thus you can take any book from
its place to a desk at a little distance and there consult it, but
you cannot take it away. There must have been some advantages in this
plan, or it would not have been generally adopted; but, apparently,
great disadvantages must have been experienced also. If the chains
were a check upon stealing the books, they were certainly no preventive
against damage and mutilation, as many of the volumes unfortunately
prove. To lug out a heavy volume by the cover does not tend to preserve
the binding. The present shelving is modern (1856), the old boards
having become too rotten for safety. The old desks, too, which afforded
a resting-place for the volumes when consulted, have disappeared, so
that for purposes of reference it would be very inconvenient to really
_use_ a single book without unchaining it. Several volumes have been
unchained and are displayed in a glass case. The Church Committee in
1885 effected this change. The desk and chair had been abolished long
before: the glass case was simply placed over the table and unprotected
books. This I think is a mistake: it modernises its aspect, and gives
the chamber a cramped show-room appearance, very different from its old
aspect. The exposed books, too, really answer no useful purpose: they
teach nothing; people look and stare for a second, say “Dear me!” and
pass on without the gain of a single idea.
The books themselves form an exceedingly interesting and uncommon
collection; they represent very fairly the literary taste and religious
bias of the 17th century. There are about 240 works in number, many
incomplete, and many badly wanting the attention of a binder to
preserve them; but with all their deficiencies they include several
works very seldom seen, even at the best book-auctions, and with many
of which, it may safely be said, bibliographers are little acquainted.
The old fathers of the Church are well represented:--Ambrosius, Anselm,
Aretius, Augustine, Bernard, Basil, Chrysostom, Clemens, Cyril,
Cyprian, Gregory, Herodianus, Hilary, Ignatius, Isodore, Macarius,
Tertullian, Theophylactus, and others. Classical writers make a poor
show with only Cicero, Plato, and Pliny, although a large proportion
of the whole collection is in Latin. In general and ecclesiastical
history there are Bede, Camden, Daniel, De Serre, Dugdale, Eusebius,
Grimstone, Raleigh, Ross, and Trussell. Works on Divinity and Sermons
are too numerous to mention, and include the chief Elizabethan and
Caroline Divines. Lexicons are numerous, and the Eastern tongues well
represented. Among the authors which are now seldom met with are
Abraham, Aretius, Carion, Cassianus, Espencœus, Estius, Euthymius,
Fabius, Facundus, Gorranus, Haymo, Heresbachius, Musculus, Optatus,
Pintus, Sennertus, Spondanus, Trelcatius, Weinrichius, and Zonaras.
In Bibles the collection, where one would expect riches, is poor. The
Septuagint, a Hebrew Old Testament of 1635, the celebrated Polyglot
of 1657, Junius and Tremellius, 1617, and the Bishops’ Bible of 1595,
often called the _Breeches_ Bible, exhaust the list.
There is one early manuscript only, but that has the advantage of
a clear date (1343). It is on vellum, and was written for the use
of priests; its title is _Regimen Animarum_, and it contains a few
prettily illuminated initials.
We must not forget to notice that all the books, having the chains
fixed to the fore-edge, are placed back first on the shelves, and are
released by pulling the chain.
Several volumes have, or rather have had, beautifully embossed designs
on their sides. Such were the quarto _Pupila Oculi_, now nearly
destroyed; also a Theophylactus on the Gospels, the binding of which
is in excellent preservation, and a treat to the eyes. The tone of the
leather is a rich brown, and on one side are represented, in clear
relief, all the instruments of the Crucifixion surrounding a central
cross, with “Redemptoris Mûdi Arma” beneath in old black letter. The
reverse is a large Tudor rose, with a legend difficult in some parts to
decipher. The arms of the City of London appear in one of the corners.
An exactly similar binding from the old church library at King’s
Norton, near Birmingham, has recently excited much attention, and was
described by Mr. Brassington in the fifth number of _The Bookbinder_.
A catalogue of the books, made in 1725, exists in manuscript, under
lock and key. Another, made in 1863 by William George Wilkinson, was
printed, and a copy is kept in the library. From the latter, the list
of books at the end of the guide-book was taken. A copy of the preface
to the 1863 edition may appropriately close these remarks.
“This library was catalogued in July, 1725. There were then 200 works
in the library. There are now 185 works (in 240 vols.). Ten of these
are not mentioned in the old catalogue. Consequently, since 1725,
twenty-five works have been lost or stolen. Of these missing works,
five had a price attached to them in the margin of the old catalogue
in pencil. Others had titles more likely than many to attract the
purloiner, _e.g._, Markham’s _Way to get Wealth_, _Period of Human
Life_, _History of a Private Life_, Venner’s _Via recta ad Vitam
longam_ (Way to Health and Long Life).
“In the first column of the catalogue now issued will be found,
arranged alphabetically, the titles of all the works in the library, at
sufficient length for identification.
“In the second column the number of volumes is stated when more than
one, and the size of the book when other than folio. This is necessary
to enable any one to find a book in the library, as though the books
of each letter are placed together on the shelves, yet a further
alphabetical arrangement was found impracticable from the diversity of
the sizes of the volumes.
“In the fourth column will be found the names of the donors; of these
the most munificent were the Rev. Thomas Ansty, 1697, and the Rev. Sam.
Conant
“Lastly, it has been thought as well to give a list of the names of
former owners of the books, as it is possible that among them some
may be of interest to present inhabitants of Wimborne. These will
be found in the fifth column, together with remarks on the present
condition of the volumes. In some cases considerable depredations have
been committed with a sharp pen-knife, on the title-page and tables
of contents, apparently for the purpose of supplying missing portions
in other copies of the work. Dugdale’s _History of St. Paul’s_ and
Loniceri _Chronicon Turcicum_ may be taken as examples.
“Those books which are valued in the margin of the old catalogue
are marked ‘val.’ Below each letter will be found an account of the
differences between the present catalogue and that of 1725.”
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
BOOKS IN CHAINS.
PART II. ENGLAND AND ABROAD.
Why chain books?
It is certainly a distressing as well as a suggestive sight to see
books in chains. Distressing, because a good book is like a strong
man, and when chained is as shorn Samson among the Philistines. No one
nowadays would think of chaining books to desks or library shelves,
for our ideas about such matters have indeed altered from those
prevalent when such a custom obtained; so that the mere sight of a
single survival of this rude practice is strongly suggestive, not only
of national advance in education and literary enlightenment, but also
of the power of the printing-press, through whose influence alone her
offspring--as well as her parents, the manuscript books--have been
redeemed from their chains.
Before the invention of Printing, books were scarce and dear, and it
was the custom of the College authorities to lend single volumes to
students for one year, to be then returned with evidence of their
having been profitably studied. No doubt positive loss was one result,
and injustice to non-favoured students another; but books borrowed
have always been proverbial for not coming home to roost, and chaining
seemed a natural way of securing them for general use. This appears to
me more likely to have been the object of chaining than the prevention
of theft.
The custom of fastening books to their shelves by chains was common
at an early period throughout all Europe. When a book was given to a
mediæval library it was necessary, in the first place, to buy a chain,
and, if the book was of especial value, a pair of clasps; secondly,
to employ a smith to put them on; and, lastly, a painter to write the
name and class-mark across the fore-edge. Large collections of chained
books were for the use of particular bodies of students; but when
religious zeal made many people feel the want of spiritual food, it led
to the chaining of single volumes in churches, where any parishioner,
able to read, could satisfy his soul. The Bible was, of course, one of
the most common, and among others were Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_, the
various works of Bishop Jewel, and other Divines.
The old records of various Colleges have numerous entries concerning
the cost of chains, of rods, of rings, and of wages paid for
enchainment. In 1444 great inconvenience was felt from the overcrowded
state of the library at Oxford University, where, all the books being
chained, the students were continually jostling one another. So a
petition was got up to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, a book-lover
whose name is always green in the memory of bibliophiles, that he
would assist in obtaining an enlargement of the library.[4] The
petitioners state their grievance very tersely in good Latin, and
complain that “should any student be poring over a single volume, as
often happens, he keeps three or four others away on account of the
books being chained so closely together.”[5] Perhaps the most complete
account of the whole process of erecting the shelves and desks, and
chaining the books, will be found in the archives of Eton College for
the years 1519-20 _et seq._ These chains were all removed exactly two
centuries later. In the reign of Henry III. the whole library of Oxford
University consisted of only a few books, some of which were chained,
and some locked in chests in St. Mary’s Church.
In 1519-21 the Eton Library was rearranged, and the books rebound.
The cost, and all particulars, are entered in the “Audit Book.” The
following is extracted from Willis and Clark, III., 431:--
“In the first year, 24 dozen chains of three sorts (explained in the
next year’s account to mean of three different lengths) are bought; 48
iron bars for the rings to play upon; 12 locks, with a corresponding
number of hasps (_claustra_) to secure the bars, and 4 keys; and
lastly, a pair of pincers to cut the strips of brass or copper required
for the attachment of the rings to the boards.”
The following is the text of this portion of the account:--
“Et pro xxiv duodenis cathenarum trium generum ad libros in bibliotheca
cathenandos iiij^{li}. Et pro pari forpicum ad laminas eneas secandas
ad fixuram dictorum librorum, xvj^d. Et Roberto Oliuere fabro ferrario
pro xlviij vectibus ferreis ad chatenas continend’ pondere iij c et di
c^{li} lvij^s ij^d. Et idem pro xij seris et totidem claustris et iiij
clanibus precij capitis, xx^s xx^d.”
In the next year a bookbinder named Andrew Lisley is employed for 199
days to bind and repair the books. He receives fourpence per day in
wages, and one shilling per week in commons. The Bursar buys for his
use 20 calf skins, 36 white sheep skins, 3 large and 3 small doe skins,
5 pig skins (_pro quinque pellibus de la soure_), and 28 red skins, 100
plates of horn, 5000 copper nails (to be set round the edge of the
boards, like bosses, to protect the binding), 10 pounds and a quarter
of strips of brass, 7 pounds brass wire, 27 pairs of clasps, and a
quantity of green and red thread, glue and needles.
At Pembroke College, Cambridge, the books were reported by Dr. Matthew
Wren (1616) to have suffered severely, partly from the sloping form of
the desks upon which they were placed for perusal, and partly from the
weight of the chains (_ex inepta mole catenarum_).
1491. From the University accounts:--
Item pro cathenacione vij librorum et
howsing ac clasping ut patet per
billam M. Wodelark ij^s x^d
1574. From the same:--
Item for 27 chaynes for the newe
bookes in the librarye vij^s vj^d
For 34 rynges xxij^d
To John Sheres, setting on 72 chaynes ij^s
To Hillarye, helpyng hym viij^d
1506. Bishop Fisher, of Christ’s College, in the same
University, directs:--
In order that no scholar may be ignorant of the Statutes
of the College, we desire that two copies of them may be
fastened by a small iron chain to a stall in the Chapel, so
that every scholar may be enabled to have access to them.
1554. At Corpus Christi, Cambridge, it was ordered that the
books bequeathed by Peter Nobys, D.D., who was Master, 1516-23,
should be better taken care of for the future; and, if the
chains were broken, that they should be repaired at the expense
of the College.
1563. From St. John’s, Cambridge, College accounts:--
Item to Philip Stacyoner, for cornering,
bossing, and chayninge
Anatomiam Vessalii iij^s
Item for twoe chaynes for the bookes
given by Mr. Hollande xij^d
Item for 2 hookes for them iij^d
1580. At Jesus College, Cambridge, is recorded:--
Cheynynge xii bookes with staples to
them in the chapell vj
1600. From the accounts of Trinity College, Cambridge:--
Item receaved of Mr. Peter Shawe towards
the cheyninge and desking
of his bookes v^{li}
1683. The library of King’s College, Cambridge, was in chains, and
among the rules for the guidance of the scholars was this:--
For the rendering his business about the library more easy,
each person that makes use of any books in the said library is
required to set them up again decently, without entangling the
chains.
This entanglement must have been very incommodious, as it was a fault
easily committed when the chains hung so close together.
The Statutes of the College were, about the same period, also chained
in the Chapel, as were those of Queen’s College. The Statutes of St.
John’s College, Cambridge, were chained in the Vestry.
In 1555 Robert Chaloner, of Gray’s Inn, gave 40 shillings for chains to
fasten his gift of books in the library there.
In 1659 John Selden’s books which were sent by his executors to the
University Library, Oxford, were chained. In 1757 the chains were all
removed.
In the _Foreigner’s Companion through the Universities of Cambridge
and Oxford_, written in 1748, the inconvenience of chaining books is
noticed, and about this time the abolition of chains began, and, by the
end of the century, very few chained collections remained. At King’s
College, in 1777, a man was paid £1 7_s._ for nine days spent in taking
the chains off the books. Not a single chained book is now to be seen
in any of our Universities.
There are, however, a few chained collections still left in the United
Kingdom, viz.: Hereford Cathedral, about 2000 volumes; Wimborne
Minster, 240 volumes; All Saints’ Church, Hereford, about 300 volumes;
Bolton School, about 50 volumes; Grantham, 286 volumes; and Turton, 42
volumes.
Nichols, in his _Illustrations of Manners and Expenses_, says that
when Selden’s books were sent to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the sum
of £25 10_s._ was paid for new chains. Taking the chains at a cost of
sixpence each, they would serve for 1120 volumes. This was in the year
1659.
The University Library at Leyden was formerly in chains. A
representation of it is given in a curious copperplate, which occurs
in a history of the University, published in 1614.[6] It will be seen
that the books there were placed on single shelves, and not, as in
England, shelf over shelf--an arrangement which, although occupying
considerably more room, was much more convenient. The same arrangement
has been adopted at Florence.
Probably the largest collection of chained books in existence is in the
Laurentian Library at Florence, where they rest, large and small, upon
richly carved wooden desks.
The interior of this magnificent Library is rich, not only in books,
but in architecture, wood-carving, ceiling decoration, and stained
glass windows. There is only one row of books in each compartment, and
all are kept covered up, except when in use.
This building, designed by Michael Angelo, was begun in 1525, by desire
of Pope Clement VII. (Giulio dei Medici), to contain the collection of
books associated with the name of his ancestor, Cosmo dei Medici. The
book-cases were probably designed by Antonio di Marco di Giano, called
_il Carota_, and Gianbattista del Tasso. The material is walnut wood.
In the church of St. Wallberg, at Zutphen, in Holland, there is a
large collection of books, originally unchained, but which, being all
of a religious tendency, excited the animosity of the Devil, who, on
several occasions, gained admittance and stole the best of them. The
evidence was indisputable, for the marks of his cloven feet upon the
flagstones showed plainly, not only the personality of the thief, but
the very course he had taken in his sacrilegious visits. The matter
was serious, for no one could tell where the depredations would stop;
so a consultation was held, and the determination taken to secure the
whole of the residue with chains sprinkled with holy water, after which
his Satanic Majesty discreetly kept at a distance; and there the books
have remained ever since undisturbed, except by the ubiquitous tourist.
There are 268 chained books, and 75 unchained ones lying by them, now
in the Library.
The chaining of single books in churches doubtless originated in the
Injunctions given by Edward VI. to “the Clergie and the Laietie” in
1547, and printed by Grafton, in which they are ordered “to provide
within three moneths next after the visitacion one boke of the whole
Bible of the largest volume in English, and within one twelve moneth
after the saied visitacion, the Paraphrasis of Erasmus, the same to be
sette uppe in some convenient place within the churche.”
This Injunction was repeated by Queen Elizabeth in 1559, and, although
nothing was mentioned about chains, it seems very probable that the
Churchwardens would, for their own sake, adopt that plan of protecting
their property.
The mention of “casks” in the cost of carriage occurs in several
instances, as at Gorton, where the carriage of the cask from London
cost 16_s._ 4_d._ These casks were the usual mode of conveyance for
books both in Holland and England. No safer way than packing books in
a large cask, and filling the spaces with sawdust or paper-shavings,
could be devised.
The following list of books now in chains in the United Kingdom is
compiled in every case from direct information recently obtained. To
all who have kindly replied to his inquiries, the Compiler tenders
his best thanks. He must also confess how greatly he has laid under
contribution the admirable work by Willis and Clark, upon the
Architectural History of Cambridge University, and for the Lancashire
Libraries the exhaustive contribution by Mr. Chancellor Christie to the
Chetham Society’s publications.
That the list is nearly complete is not for a moment imagined. That
every reader who can correct or add to it will kindly do so is the
urgent request of the Compiler.
A LIST OF BOOKS NOW IN CHAINS.
ABINGDON, BERKSHIRE. ST. HELEN’S CHURCH.
The Vicar writes:--
The books are mainly in very bad condition. In old days they
were chained to the seats in one of the five aisles, which had
a defective roof.
_The Holy Bible._ (=Black letter.=) Printed by Robert Barker. 1611.
_Foxe, John._ (=Black letter.=) _Book of Martyrs._ (Imperfect.)
_Harris, Robert._ Works. 1635.
_Hall, Jos._ (=Black letter.=) _Contemplations._ 1620.
_Rogers, Richard._ (=Black letter.=) _A Treatise_, etc. 1604.
_Babington, Gervase_, Bishop of Worcester. (=Black letter.=) 1615.
_Liturgy, A, in answer to Dissenter’s Objections._ 1683-84.
_The same._ 1684-86.
_Rogers, Richard._ (=Black letter.=) _Sermons upon the Book of Judges._
1615.
_Hall, Jos._ (=Black letter.=) _Sermons Preached at Court._ 1611-12.
_Jewel, John_, Bishop of Salisbury. (=Black letter.=) _A Treatise
preached by._ 1570.
APPLEBY, ST. LAURENCE. WESTMORELAND.
Communicated by Charles Robert Rivington, of Castle Bank, Appleby:--
There are three chained =Black letter= volumes of Foxe’s _Book
of Martyrs_ in Appleby Church, which have lately been restored,
and are now in a fairly perfect condition. The chains are
missing, but the rings for the chains on one of the volumes
are preserved. These books were presented by Richard Moore
(or More), “Citizen and Stacioner” of London, to Appleby
Church in 1632. Moore was the son of an Appleby tailor, and,
in 1598, went to London and was apprenticed to Matthew Lownes,
a well-known printer. He afterwards set up for himself in or
near Fleet Street, and carried on a successful business between
1608 and 1636. At the latter date Moore joined with fifteen
other members of his Company in printing the seventh edition,
in three volumes, of _The Book of Martyrs_, and a copy of this
edition he presented to his native parish.
ARRETON, ISLE OF WIGHT. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar says:--
I cannot discover any trace of a chained book. Some old volumes
of Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_ are carefully preserved in the
church, which may possibly have led to the surmise.
_Venables’ Guide to the Isle of Wight_, p. 181, refers to the chained
books at Arreton, where, “on a desk in the south chancel, are preserved
copies of Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_, but of a comparatively modern
edition.”
BARBER-SURGEONS’ HALL, MONKWELL STREET, LONDON.
The following extract is from _The Annals of the Barber-Surgeons of
London_. Compiled by Sidney Young. 4to. London, 1890:--
In 1747 Mr. Whiston (the eminent Bookseller) was employed by
the Barbers’ Company to make a catalogue and valuation of the
Library and MSS. “A learned Physician” had offered the Company
twenty-five guineas for the Library, together with a skeleton
and some other curiosities, but the Court of the Barbers
“being desirous to manifest their esteem for and preserve the
friendship of the Surgeons,” gave them the refusal of the
Library and skeleton, etc., for twenty-five guineas. “And that,
in case of their acceptance thereof, the rich and ancient pall
belonging to this Company should be at their service as a free
gift.”
The Surgeons would not accept this offer, but said (for the
first time after a two years’ separation and division of the
property) that they considered the Library belonged to them
under the provisions in the Act of Parliament.
Various attempts were subsequently made by the Barbers’
Company to sell the Library, and in 1751 it was disposed of to
Mr. Whiston for £13! It is greatly to be regretted that the
Surgeons’ Company did not purchase it, and so preserve to the
Royal College of Surgeons what must undoubtedly have been a
most curious and unique collection. Dozens of these old books
had bosses and chains attached to them, and in the old days
were guarded with a jealous care. In 1701 Dr. Tyson made some
proposals to the Company for the regulation of its Library,
and a Committee of the Court being thereupon appointed
drew up a great many rules, all of which are set out in the
Barber-Surgeons’ Minute Book of that date. No list of the
books is now known; there were two in MS., but they have both
disappeared.
The following extract is from the United Company of Barbers and
Surgeons’ expenses for 1638-39:--
1638-39. =The charge= and settinge
upp o^r bookes and auntient Manuscriptꝭ
in o^r new Library.
Paid for 36 yardꝭ of chaine at 4^d
the yard & 36 yards at 3^d ob.* the
yard cometh to xxij^s vj^d
Paid to the Coppersmith for castinge
80 brasses to fasten the
Chaines to the bookes xiij^s iiij^d
To porters at sev’all tymes to carry
these bookꝭ ij^s
Paid to the bookebynders for new
byndinge 15 bookꝭ xlviij^s vj^d
Paid for Claspinge 19 large & small
bookꝭ & fasteninge all the brasses
to the iron chaines to Threescore
& foure bookꝭ in the Library,
new bosses for two great bookꝭ 8^s
setting on old bosses j^s mending
ould Claspes ij^s xxxj^s viij^d
Paid for makeinge Ringes swiffles &
fittinge all the iron chaines xij^s
------------------
=Som= is vj^{li} xviij^s
------------------
* Ob. = obolus, a halfpenny.
BARCHESTON, WARWICKSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Curate-in-charge supplies the following:--
_Erasmus, Rot:_ (=Black letter.=) _The Paraphrase on the New
Testament._ (Imperfect.) Part of the oak-bound covers is gone,
and the leather is greatly worn by age and decay, but the chain
is still attached.
_Musculus, Wolfgangus. Common Places of Christian Religion._
4to. London, 1578. (Translated from the Latin by Iohn Man.) In
oak boards covered with leather, with chain attached.
_Jewel’s Works_ are also here, but evidently never had a chain.
The Chained Bible has disappeared. The desk has decayed and
been removed; the books being now placed upon what, previous
to the restoration of the church, was the Altar Table in the
Wellington Chapelry.
BINGLEY, YORKSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
Communicated by A. W. Irwine:--
No chained Bible.
In _Notes and Queries_ for 1853 it is stated that “Bingley had a desk
and chain, but _The Book of Articles_ had given place to some more
modern volume.”
BOLTON-IN-THE-MOORS, LANCASHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
In 1651 Humphrey Chetham left by will certain books to be chained
in the church. It was not, however, until 1668 that the library
was completed. In the minute book of the feoffees are many entries
concerning them. These mention chains.
Also pd. for chains, claspes, carriedg,
caskes, &c. 03.10.00.
The books have now been placed in the Grammar School Library.
BOLTON GRAMMAR SCHOOL, LANCASHIRE.
In his account of the old Church and School Libraries of Lancashire
(Chetham Society), 1885, Mr. Chancellor Christie thus describes this
Library:--
“The books of which the library at present consists are in an
old oak chest or book-case, which stands upon legs, about three
feet from the ground. The chest contains two shelves divided
down the centre, with iron rods running along the front of each
shelf, evidently for the purpose of chaining the books, and
has folding doors opening at the centre. Along the outside,
above the doors, runs this inscription carved in wood, ‘The
Gift of Mr. James Leaver, Citison of London, 1694.’”
Of a list of 44 works catalogued as belonging to the School in 1735, 18
remain (in addition to the volumes transferred from the Parish Church
Library, referred to above), of which the following still retain their
chains:--
_Foxe’s Acts._ Folio. 1684. 3 vols.
_Johannis Arndtii de Vero Christianismo--libri quattuor._ 8vo.
London, 1708. 2 vols.
_Collection of Psalms._
BORDEN, near SITTINGBOURNE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar writes:--
There is a _Book of Martyrs_, but I do not know if it was ever
chained.
“Esta,” in _Notes and Queries_ for 1853, says:--
In the Parish Church of Borden a copy of Comber _On the Common
Prayer_ is chained to a stand in the Chancel.
BOWNESS-IN-WINDERMERE, WESTMORELAND. PARISH CHURCH.
The Clerk supplies the following:--
_Erasmus, Rot:_ (=Black letter.=) _The Paraphrase upon the
Gospels._ 1516-20.
The chain is gone, but the iron ring to which it was attached
still remains on the cover.
_Jewel, John_, Bishop of Salisbury. _A Defence of the Apology
for the Church of England._ (=Black letter.=) Folio. London,
1611 (? 1561). (Imperfect.)
_Book of Homilies._ (=Black letter.=) 1543. (Imperfect.)
The last two in one cover.
BRIDLINGTON, YORKSHIRE. PRIORY CHURCH.
The senior Curate writes:--
There are four Books in the Priory Church which formerly were
chained; but they have been rebound (a pity), and the old
clasps are gone, but the chains are there yet.
_Heylin, Peter, D.D._ _De jure parentalis Episcoporum_; or, a
brief _Discourse asserting the Bishops’ Right of Peerages_.
Folio. London, 1640. (Perfect.)
_Comber, Thos., D.D._ _On the Prayer Book._ London, 1684.
(Imperfect.)
_Jewel, John_, Bishop of Salisbury. _A Defence of the Apologie
of the Church of England._ Folio. London, 1611. (Good copy.)
_Hooker, R., D.D. Ecclesiastical Polity._ Folio. London, 1682.
(Good copy.)
BRISTOL, REDCLIFFE CHURCH.
The Vicar states:--
The Bible has long disappeared, and no one remembers having
seen it. The desk is still in the church.
R. W. Elliott, writing to _Notes and Queries_ in 1853, says:--
In Redcliffe Church, Bristol, there is a small mahogany lectern
supported by a bracket with a brass chain attached, near the
Vestry, on the north side of the Choir.
BROMSGROVE, WORCESTER. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar writes to this effect:--
_Bishop Jewel’s Defence of the Apology for the Church of
England_, 1609, is chained to a desk in the Church, and is in
good preservation.
CANTERBURY. THE CATHEDRAL.
The Bishop of Dover writes:--
There is no chained Bible in Canterbury Cathedral. In the north
aisle of the choir we have an old wooden desk let into the
wall, on which (possibly) in the reign of Henry VIII. a Bible
was chained. I have put there a copy of the second edition of
the Bishops’ Bible from our library.
CARTMEL, LANCASHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
There are 294 books in this library, which is one of the most ancient
and perhaps the most interesting of our church libraries. It was in
existence in 1629, for in that year the churchwardens ordered “That
the books given unto the church may bee more convenientlie laid and
chained, according to the directions of the donors.”
The Vicar writes:--
There were certainly two chained volumes of Foxe’s _Book of
Martyrs_ in Cartmel Church until comparatively recent times.
The books now exist in the library, with the rings for chains
on the covers. Their date is 1610. I cannot find that any other
volumes in the library were chained at any time.
CHEDDAR, SOMERSET. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar states:--
There is no chained book now here. I have always heard that
there was one in former times, but I have not been able to
learn what has become of it.
CHELSEA, MIDDLESEX. PARISH CHURCH.
The Perpetual Curate writes:--
The five chained books in my Church are:--
_The Vinegar Bible._ Folio, 1716-17.
_Book of Common Prayer._ 1723.
_The Homilies._ 1683.
Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_. 1681.
Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_. 9th edition, 1684.
CHESTERTON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar says:--
I am very sorry to say that the book you refer to has not been
in the church since my incumbency, and I have never been able
to trace it.
R. W. Elliott, writing to _Notes and Queries_ (Vol. VIII., 1853),
says:--
In 1851 I noticed the upper part of a lectern in Chesterton
Church with a book lying upon it very much torn and wanting the
title-page.
CHEW MAGNA, SOMERSETSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Sexton (in default of the Vicar) states:--
There is a chained book in this church, entitled _The Defence
of the Apology of the Church of England_, 1560.
CHIRBURY, SHROPSHIRE.
In the PARISH SCHOOL-ROOM there are 207 books, ranging in date from
1530 to 1684. Originally, they were all chained on much the same model
as those in Hereford Cathedral. At the present time the chains remain
upon 110 only, although the plain signs are upon all the others,
showing that they were affixed to the upper and outer corner of each
book. (See _Journal of Brit. Arch. Assoc._, 1883, Vol. IX., p. 394,
where a catalogue of the books is printed.)
CIRENCESTER, GLOUCESTERSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar states:--
I am sorry to say that I have been told that the chained
books disappeared from our Parish Church at the time of its
restoration in 1867. Nothing remains but the old desk, now in
the choir vestry, and a large hook still in the wall of one of
the chapels, which was used to hold up, when required, the lid
of the desk.
CUMNOR, OXFORDSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Parish Clerk (in default of the Vicar) writes:--
There is a chained Bible here with the original chain. It has
lately been restored, and is now in perfect condition. It is
situated near the reading-desk, though not used for service.
The date is 1611.
DENCHWORTH, BERKSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The following communication is from the Vicar:--
There are only two books in the Vicar’s library still chained,
and both in good condition.
_Ball’s Power of Godliness._ 1657.
_Cartwright’s Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon._
Amsterdam, 1638.
All the books were originally chained, though of course this
does not apply to a few recent additions by later Vicars. They
were in a room over the church porch,[7] which, when Geo.
Street, the architect (as a young man), restored the church, he
swept away, bringing the books over to the Vicarage.
There was a _Caxton’s Golden Legend_, which an erring Vicar
sold to the Bodleian.
There is a beautiful copy of _Thos. Aquinas_, the earliest
volume of which is dated 1485; and a Cranmer’s Bible of 1541,
wanting the title-page.
The old chains are still in existence, and lie on the library
floor as a relic.
DURNFORD, WILTS. (_See_ GREAT DURNFORD.)
EASTON-IN-GORDANO, BRISTOL. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector writes:--
I have never heard of the existence of a chained book in this
Parish. In 1822 our old Church was pulled down, and I fear
hardly any care taken as to ancient things.
We have a board monument to Captain Samuel Sturmy, who, circa
1720 (says the inscription), left a book on Navigation to the
care of the Churchwardens, to be lent to the seamen in the
parish. I do not know that it was chained, nor has any one now
living here any recollection of hearing about it--it has quite
disappeared. Swift, in _Gulliver’s Travels_, quotes, I believe,
verbatim without acknowledgment from it in his description of
the Storm at Sea and how they escaped.
In Rutter’s _Somerset_, p. 258, is the following:--
Against the north wall of the old nave was a curious old
tablet, dated 1669. At the top was the portrait of Captain
Samuel Sturmy, of this parish, who published a mathematical
treatise, in folio, entitled _The Mariner’s or Artisan’s
Magazine_, a copy of which he gave to the parish, to be chained
and locked in the desk, until any ingenious person should
borrow it, leaving £3 as a security, in the hands of trustees,
against damage, etc.
EAST WINCH, NORFOLK. PARISH CHURCH.
I am indebted to Mr. W. H. Smalley for the following:--
_The Holy Bible._ (=Black letter.=) Folio, 1611.
It is imperfect, wanting the title-page, and has a MS. note on
a fly-leaf at the beginning: “This holy volume, interesting
for its antiquity as well as pre-eminently for the truths it
reveals, I have repaired with my own hands and fastened with a
chain, as was often done when Bibles were first ordered to be
set up. It is placed upon a portion of the ancient Rood-screen.
This Bible, and other books, I found some years since amongst
various discarded articles of furniture, altar cloths, etc., in
the old church chest.--E. J. ALVIS, Vicar, September, 1884.”
ECCLESFIELD, YORKSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar writes:--
The books are altogether removed. This was done in 1860, when
the Chancel was restored. The books were in a very dilapidated
condition, and I think there were about three short rusty
chains. Two or three of the imperfect books have been bound,
and are kept in the Vestry Safe.
The following was contributed to _Notes and Queries_ for 1852, by J.
Eastwood.
The accompanying list (remains of which, more or less perfect,
with chains attached, are still extant) will probably be
interesting.
From Ecclesfield Church Accounts: Books chayned in the Church,
25th April, 1606:--
_Dionysius Carthusian upon the New Testament_, in 2 vols.
_Origen upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans._
_Origen against Celsus._
_Lira upon Pentathucke of Moses._
_Lira upon the Kings, etc._
_Theophilact upon the New Testament._
_Beda upon Luke and other parts of the Testament._
_Opuscula Augustini._
_Augustini Questiones in Nouū Testamentū._
_The Paraphrase of Erasmus._
_The Defence of the Apologye._
_Prierius Postill upon the Dominical Gospells._
FRAMPTON COTTERELL, near BRISTOL. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector sends the following:--
The chained book is still in the Parish Church. When I was
instituted, in 1886, I found an old wooden lectern of rude
construction, with a chained book upon it, against the east end
of the wall of the south aisle. Considering that no care seems
to have been taken of the book all this century--as is shown
by the dog-eared condition of its leaves, and the frequent
inscriptions of parishioners’ names, from 1760 to 1879--and by
the book having been always open and uncovered--for it is so
chained that it cannot be closed--I think it is now in fair
condition. In 1886 I had it carefully covered over with strong
paper, and on the top I placed a great folio Bible; and since
then, this lectern and Bible--with the chained book covered
under the Bible--have been used in a Chapel, in the south
aisle, at Daily Prayers on week-days. I uncovered the chained
book to-day; it is a small folio, nearly perfect, and bound in
leather. Title and pp. 1-4 lost.
The Church also contains the following Works:--
_Correspondence between John Bishop of Sarum and Dr. Cole._
_Jewel’s Sermon at Paul’s Cross._
_Jewel’s Defence of the Apology._
_Treatise de private Messe and on the Holy Scriptures_, in 1
vol.
GORTON, LANCASHIRE.
Clause in the Will of Humphrey Chetham, Esq., dated 16th December,
1651:--
“Also I do hereby bequeath the sum of £200 to be bestowed by
my Executors in Godly English books ... most proper for the
edification of the common people, to be, by the direction of
my said Executors, chained upon desks, or to be fixed to the
pillars, or in other convenient places, in the Parish Churches
of Manchester, Bolton-le-Moors, and in the chapels of Turton,
Walmsley, and Gorton.”
In June, 1658, the Library at Gorton was completed; and it was agreed
at a meeting of the feoffees and executors:--
That ffor the ffixing there bee allowed for and towards the
shelveing and chaining the said books 30_s._ for every £20
worth of books.
At the end of the feoffees’ list of books occurs:--
The Chaines 14 shillings, and the carriage of Caske from London
26_s._ 4_d._, and claspinge of bookes 12_d._
The Vicar of Gorton Church writes that:--
There are no books chained in the Church, but there is what may
be termed a whole library of chained books, comprising about 48
vols. belonging to the parish. This library, in its original
oak case, is in the Committee Room of the schools, and the
books are in a good state of preservation. The gift of Humphrey
Chetham.
GRANTHAM, LINCOLNSHIRE.
In 1598 a chained library was presented to the Parish Church of
Grantham, in Lincolnshire, and placed in a room over the south porch,
approached by a circular stone staircase out of the Church. (_Willis_,
III., 432.)
The Vicar writes:--
The chained library still exists over the south porch of
Grantham Church. The room was new floored and ceiled with oak
about eight years ago. The old book-cases were also repaired,
for they had fallen into great decay. The chains are on the
books, and the other ends of the chains are fixed to an iron
rod on the book-case. The books, which are mostly the work of
17th-century divines, are in fair condition. There are 268
books, of which 74 have chains still attached to them.
GREAT DURNFORD, WILTSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
There is an imperfect copy of Jewel’s _Defence_, in a wooden chest in
the nave, having a chain attached; and in the chancel is an old double
lectern, to which it may have been chained.
HALES OWEN, WORCESTERSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector writes:--
There are no chained books in Hales Owen that I am aware of.
The following is an extract from the Will of Sir Thomas Lyttleton,
1481, quoted in _Testamenta Vestuta_:--
I wull and bequeth to the Abbott and Convent of Hales-Oweyn a
boke of myn called _Catholicon_ to theyr own use for ever, and
another boke of myn wherein is contaigned the _Constitutions
Provincial_ and _De gestis Romanorum_ and other treatis
therein, which I wull be laid and bounded wyth an yron chayn in
some convenyent parte within the said Churche at my costes, so
that all priests and others may se and rede it when it plesith
theym.
HANMER, FLINTSHIRE. ST. CHAD’S PARISH CHURCH.
The four chained books perished in the fire of February 3, 1889, when
Hanmer Church was burnt out. They were Foxe’s _Martyrs_, 3 vols., 1608,
and Jewel’s _Apology_, 1570; all without title-pages.
Archdeacon Weir, in 1855, reported:--
In the Church was a copy of Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_, in 3
vols. One was chained to a desk at the east end of the south
aisle, and the other two to a desk at the west end. (_Notes and
Queries_, XII., 479.)
HEREFORD. ALL SAINTS’ PARISH CHURCH.
The chained library in this Church is one of the most interesting in
England. It occupies three shelves along two sides of the vestry,
the total number of volumes being 285. It is interesting, too, as a
survival of an obsolete custom, for the books were bequeathed to the
Parish by William Brewster, M.D., so late as 1715, a period at which,
in most instances, the custom had been abolished, so that this may be
considered as the last known instance of chaining books.
It is not unlikely that the number of books in the neighbouring
Cathedral, all chained, was the moving cause of these being so treated.
The chains are evidently made in exact imitation of those in the
Cathedral library. The narrow escape, too, that this collection had
from being sent _en bloc_ to America, as narrated below, increases our
interest in it.
* * * * *
The following anecdote has been told me by Mr. Stibbs, bookseller, of
Oxford Street, London:--
About twenty years ago I was in the vestry of the Church of All
Saints’, Hereford, in which there are about two hundred chained
volumes of old Divinity. One of the Churchwardens accompanied
me, and I remarked to him, “How useless these old books must
be without any one to look at them!” “That’s true,” he said;
“they are quite useless.” “Well,” I replied, “why not let me
have them? I will give you £100 for them, which will obtain for
the use of the parish a really useful lot of books.” “Well,
that’s a good offer, and I’ll lay it before the Vestry,” was
his reply. A short time after, I was informed that the Vestry
meeting had been held, and my offer accepted. I went down to
Hereford, paid the £100, took possession of the books, chains
and all, and brought them up to London. I immediately made a
catalogue of them, but had hardly finished, when I received
an urgent request from one of the Churchwardens not to part
with one of them on any account, for that the Dean of Windsor,
whose consent ought first to have been obtained, had positively
refused to sanction the sale. Having been at considerable
expense in travelling to Hereford three times, besides time
wasted in cataloguing, I declined to deliver up the books; but,
as considerable ill-blood, and probably legal proceedings,
would have ensued, I at last sent them back, upon payment of
all expenses, and they are now restored to their original
position. I will only add, that arrangements had been partially
made for the sale of the whole to an American dealer.
HEREFORD CATHEDRAL.
The collection of books in Hereford Cathedral is an exceptional
instance of a genuine Monastic Library. It contains about 2000 volumes,
of which about 1500 are chained, being probably the largest chained
collection in existence. There are five complete book-cases, and the
ruins of two others, each being 9 ft. 8 in. long, 8 ft. high, and 2
ft. 2 in. wide. The books are for the special use of the Canons in
residence, who, however, cannot find it very convenient to consult
chained volumes. The Catalogue, also chained, classifies the books
in eight divisions, of which the manuscripts are by far the most
interesting as well as the most valuable. The printed books are ranged
under the following heads:--Bibles and Concordances; Fathers of the
Church; Ecclesiastical History; Civil History; Theology; Law and
Education; Miscellaneous. The collection, formerly in the Lady Chapel,
was removed, chains and all, in 1862, to the Archives Chamber. Each
chain is between 3 and 4 feet long, with a swivel in the centre which
is useful in preventing entanglement. Many books are, notwithstanding
the chains, missing; and all are more or less injured by the rough
usage which chains necessitate, thus strongly confirming the evidence
afforded by the Wimborne Minster Library.
* * * * *
The following from Willis and Clark describes the method of chaining:--
To attach the chain, a narrow strip of flat brass is passed
round the left-hand board and riveted to it in such a manner as
to leave a loop in front of the edge of the board, wide enough
to admit an iron ring, 1¼ inch in diameter, to which one end of
the chain is fastened. The book is placed on the shelf with the
fore-edge turned outwards, and the other end of the chain is
fastened to a second ring rather larger than the former, which
plays along an iron bar.
HULL, YORKSHIRE. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH.
W. Sparrow Simpson, writing to _Notes and Queries_ in 1853, states:--
Until within a very few years, a desk, with Foxe’s _Martyrs_
lying upon it, was in this Church, affixed to one of the
pillars in the Nave.
IMPINGTON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar states:--
On my accession to the charge, in 1882, being aware that
some chained books were said to exist, and not seeing them,
I made inquiry for them. I was told by the Sexton, who well
remembered seeing the books chained up, as described in _Notes
and Queries_, that in consequence of the books being subject
to constant mutilations, they were removed from the Church by
the Clerk, who for many years had charge of them in his own
house. At the time of my inquiry, the Clerk had been dead some
years, and the books had found their way into an old granary on
a farmstead, in close proximity to the Church. I secured their
remains, and after removing the cobwebs and filth to which they
had been exposed, they presented a very dilapidated appearance.
Happily there still remained a few links of the chains, and
other metal ornaments used in the binding, which stimulated the
idea to rebind the tattered fragments.
Through the kindness of the Squire of the Parish, W. B.
Caldwell, Esq., Impington Hall, these remains have been rebound
with the links and other ornaments attached as nearly in their
original position as could be judged. The volumes are now
carefully preserved in a very handsome church chest made of
yew, and presented by the Squire.
KETTERING, NORTHAMPTON. PARISH CHURCH.
Mr. Wrigley writes:--
I am sorry to say that the two books which were in the church
on the old desk have been destroyed, either by visitors or
children, and there is nothing left but the chains and the two
covers.
KIDDERMINSTER, WORCESTERSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar states:--
We have in the Vestry of our Church a _Defense of Jewel’s
Apology_, with a chain attached to it. It is in a very decayed
state. I had a box made for it some years ago.
KING’S LYNN, NORFOLK. ST. MARY’S CHURCH.
The Vicar writes:--
There is a chained Bible in a chest in my Church, which I am
sorry to say is in a very dilapidated condition.
KINVER, STAFFORDSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
Communicated by the Vicar:--
Here there is an oak desk, about 7 ft. long, within which were
chained the undermentioned books, which are now kept in the
iron safe, and for the chains of which there are holes in the
desk:--
_Actes and Monumentes of Christian Martyrs and Matters
Ecclesiastical passed in the Church of Christ from the
primitive beginnings to these our days, as well in other
countreys, as namely in this Realme of England, and also of
Scotland, discoursed at large. Newly enlarged by the author
John Fox. Folio._ (=Black letter.=) 1583. Printed by John Day,
dwelling over Aldersgate.
Has been rebound, and now has no chain or link.
_The Works of John Jewel, late Bishop of Salisbury._ London.
Printed by John Norton. Folio 1609.
Has an iron link, but no chain.
_The Whole Duty of Man._ London. Printed by William Norton for
E. Pawlet, at the sign of the Bible in Chancery Lane, near
Fleet Street. Folio. 1703.
Has brass chain and link, clasps and boss centre, with corners
to the covers.
_Expository Notes ... on the New Testament_ ... endeavoured by
William Burkitt, M.A., late Vicar and Lecturer of Dedham, in
Essex. The sixth edition, carefully corrected. London. 1716.
Has brass chain, link, clasps, boss centre, and corners to
covers.
LESSINGHAM, NORFOLK. PARISH CHURCH.
The learned antiquary, Dawson Turner, wrote to the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_ in 1846 (Part I., p. 151) about a copy of the _Book of
Martyrs_, which was chained to what he calls a “hutch” of unpainted
and almost unshapen boards, with a narrow shelf at the top to serve
as a lectern, placed by the north wall of the Chancel, adjoining the
Communion rails.
The Vicar of Hempstead (now united with Lessingham) writes:--
While Lessingham Church was in use there was an old copy of
Foxe’s _Martyrs_ with a portion of a chain attached to it. The
Churchwarden had a box made for the book some few years ago and
took it to his house. It is now in my keeping. The Church is in
ruin, but we are hoping to get it restored. The book is much
torn and imperfect.
LEYLAND, LANCASHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
Communicated by the Curate:--
There are four folio volumes, each secured by a chain to a thin
iron bar, which at some time was fastened into the masonry. At
present the volumes lie in the window within the Chancel, but
just outside the Communion rails. I am sorry to report that the
books are in a very poor condition, owing to the damp having
reduced the pages to tinder, and so to dust. The village people
talk of them with bated breath, as “Latin Bibles used in the
Church service when the Church belonged to the Catholics.” In
spite of all explanations, this ridiculous statement is held
to, and the ignorant Romanists (as it appears to me) have
carried off a piece now and again when unobserved. The books
are as follows:--
_A Preservative against Popery in several select Discourses
upon the principal heads of Controversy between Protestants and
Papists._ 2 vols. Folio. London, 1738.
[This is by Edmund Gibson, successively Bishop of Lincoln and
London. There should be 3 vols.]
_Foxe’s Book of Martyrs._ (=Black letter.=) Folio. (In very bad
state.)
_Controversies between Cole, Harding and Jewel._ Folio. London.
_Certain Sermons by the Bishop of Sarum._ Folio. London, 1611.
LINCOLN CATHEDRAL. THE CHAPTER LIBRARY.
An old desk preserved here, having two shelves, one below broad and one
above narrow, shows evidence of books having been at one time chained
to it.
LLANBADARN, ABERYSTWYTH, GLAMORGANSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar says there are no chained books in the Church, nor
has he heard of any having been there.
J. M. G., in _Notes and Queries_ for 1853, states:--
In a case in the Vestry of the Mother Church of Llanbadarn,
there were many volumes about 150 years old which had been
chained; but they were in a very dilapidated condition, arising
from the dampness of the room.
LONDON. ALL HALLOWS’, LOMBARD STREET. PARISH CHURCH.
Outside the Vestry door and within the Church is placed a glass case
which contains the following volumes. Folio.
_The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus vpon the newe
testament. Enpriented_ (sic) _at London in Flete-strete at the signe of
the Sunne by Edwarde Whitchurch the last daie of Januarie Anno Domini
1548_.
The second volume is dated “the ii daye of June, 1552.” They are both
in good preservation, in original binding, rebacked, with clasps and
bosses. On Vol. I. is a rude chain of 16 links, each about 1¼ inch
long, and attached to the top of the left-hand cover. A similar chain
is attached to the bottom of right-hand cover of Vol. II.
The third volume is _The Holy Bible_, 1613 (=Black letter=), being
the second impression of the 1611 edition. Both titles are well
preserved, but all is wanting at end after Rev. xviii. 12. The binding
is comparatively modern and there are no signs of chaining. Upon the
middle of one outer cover is a label let in, upon which is “ST. L.
E., 1696,” and the names of the Churchwardens, while a label on the
other side has “ST. B. G., 1696.” All Hallows is now the Parish Church
of four parishes, including St. Leonard’s, Eastcheap, and St. Bene’t
Gracechurch. The three books, according to a descriptive slip attached,
originally were chained to a desk in St. Leonard’s Church, Eastcheap.
They were saved when, in 1666, the Church was burnt, and the parish
after the Great Fire having been united to St. Bene’t Gracechurch, they
were deposited there, until St. Bene’t’s in its turn was, in 1864,
destroyed and united to All Hallows, when they were sent to occupy
their present position.
LONDON. ST. ANDREW UNDERSHAFT, LEADENHALL STREET. PARISH CHURCH.
Chas. Robert Rivington states:--
There are preserved in a book-case in the Vestry the following folio
(=Black letter=) volumes:--
_John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs._ Fifth Edition. Printed by P.
Short, London, 1596.
_The Paraphrases of Erasmus_, 1551 (?)
_Sir Walter Raleigh’s History of the World._ Printed by W.
Jaggard for W. Burr. London, 1621.
_The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury_, 1611.
One volume in a sadly dilapidated condition has attached to
it a chain about three feet long with a swivel in the centre.
The other volumes were some years ago “restored” by a zealous
churchwarden, who discarded the original bindings and encased
them in stout but inappropriate coverings which it is painful
to behold. The chains which were attached to the old covers are
preserved.
LONDON. ST. CLEMENT’S, EASTCHEAP. PARISH CHURCH.
Two books, once in chains, are preserved here.
Pearson _On the Creed_, 1st edition. The title-page and preface (4
leaves) are from the reprint of 1715. The original volume having become
much dilapidated, the present Rector, Rev. W. J. Hall, supplied a
title-page and three leaves. It is perfect at the end. A portion of the
original chain is still attached to a loop on the back of the book,
which is held in position by strong iron anchors, one on each side
of the volume, let into the boards. The anchor is the symbol of St.
Clement.
This copy was presented by the author himself, who preached the
substance of his work in a series of lectures at St. Clement’s, of
which Church he was rector for many years.
The other book is Comber’s _Companion to the Temple_. Several leaves
damaged at the beginning, but perfect at the end. On the binding
are the initials T. H., 1706. It has been rebacked. The remains of a
chain are attached to the right-hand cover. These two volumes and four
others, more modern and without any signs of chains, are deposited on a
long slanting shelf in the Choir. Near to them is a plain wooden double
lectern, upon which are evident remains of the places where chains once
were.
LUTON, BEDFORDSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
Communicated by the Vicar:--
_The Bible_ was chained to the S. Choir bench, and Foxe’s _Book
of Martyrs_ to a lectern, formerly. The staple and one link of
the chain are still in the bench. The staple was a few years
ago in the lectern, but has been removed. Both books are in the
chest in the Vestry, but in a partially mutilated condition.
LYNN, NORFOLK. (_See_ KING’S LYNN.)
MALVERN, WORCESTER. THE ABBEY.
One of the officials, failing the Vicar, states:--
There is a chained _Prayer-book_, of about the year 1670, in
the Abbey Church.
Cuthbert Bede, in a letter to _Notes and Queries_, 1853, says:--
In Malvern Abbey Church is a stand to which two books are
chained: one is a _Commentary upon the Book of Common Prayer_,
and the other is a treatise on _Church Unity_.
To this the Rev. H. T. Griffith, of Hull, adds at the same date:--
In Malvern Abbey Church is a copy of Dean Comber’s _Companion
to the Temple_, chained to a desk, and bearing a written
inscription to the effect that it should never be removed out
of the Church, but should remain chained to its desk for ever,
for the use of any parishioner who might choose to come and
read it there.
Another correspondent says:--
The inscription is signed “H. Clements, 1701.” The book is in
rough calf binding. Age and damp have done their work upon it,
and it is fast dropping to pieces.
MANCETTER PARISH CHURCH. WARWICKSHIRE.
The Vicar supplies the following information:--
Books chained, with the original chain, on a desk in the
Church:--
_Foxe’s Book of Martyrs_, without title, but otherwise in good
condition. 2 vols.
_Erasmus Rot. Paraphrase._ Without title, but in good
condition. 2 vols.
_Jewel’s Apology._ 1 vol. 1560.
These books were rebound some years since, and are now in a
glass case.
These are probably the books given in 1651 to the Church by
Humphrey Chetham.
MANCHESTER. CHETHAM LIBRARY.
The gift of books by Humphrey Chetham, in 1651, was by his will ordered
to be chained.
“And my Will and Mind is that the Books be fixed or chained
as well as may be within the s^d library.” And they were so
chained (although no signs of it are now left), as is evident
from the old account books.
MANCHESTER. JESUS CHAPEL COLLEGIATE CHURCH.
According to the will of Humphrey Chetham, dated 1651, 202 books were
placed and chained in the Jesus Chapel. Their disappearance, says Mr.
Chancellor Christie, is one of the most discreditable chapters in the
history of the Wardens and Fellows. In 1830 the books were sent to the
Chetham Hospital, but nothing appears to have remained save the desks,
a few old tattered books, and remnants of loose chains. Soon after,
they (about 100 volumes) were sold to a bookseller of the town.
MARGATE, KENT. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar sends the information:--
There are three old Bibles at St. John’s Church, one being a
“Great Bible.” They are not now chained. They are imperfect,
but have been rebound and placed in a glass case.
MINSTER IN THANET, KENT. PARISH CHURCH.
When Margate Church was restored in 1876, there were four old Bibles
which had been chained. One of these was sent to the Mother Church at
Minster, whence an old Bible had been lost or stolen previously.
In _Notes and Queries_ for 1853, J. W. Brown writes:--
In Minster Church, Kent, there is an oak cover to a Bible
chained to a desk, temp. H. VIII. The whole of the letterpress
has been taken away (by small pieces at a time) by visitors to
the Church.
MONTGOMERY CASTLE.
A chained library was placed here in the 17th century by that
celebrated Divine and Poet, George Herbert. It exists no
longer. (See Walton’s _Life of Herbert_.)
NEWPORT PAGNELL, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar writes:--
There are two books with chains attached to them in one of
the cupboards of the Church. They are much dilapidated; the
title-pages and many other leaves are missing. One book is _The
Defence of the Apology of the Church of England_; and the other
the history of some early persecutions, and articles on persons
and things of Reformation times. (? Foxe’s _Martyrs_.)
NORTHWOLD, NORFOLK. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector writes:--
No information respecting a chained Bible belonging to this
parish. There is no book of the kind in the Church.
Mr. Hart, author of _Ecclesiastical Records_, saw a copy of Foxe’s
_Book of Martyrs_ in Northwold Church. (See _Gentleman’s Magazine_,
1846.)
OXFORD. ST. MARY’S CHURCH.
In 1300 there were a few Tracts chained or locked in chests in the
choir.
PRESTWICH, MANCHESTER. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector says:--
I have never heard of any chained book in the Parish Church.
A letter to _Notes and Queries_ in 1853, p. 273, signed John Booker,
says:--
In Prestwich Church the desk yet remains, together with the
_Book of Articles_, bound up with Jewel’s _Apology_, 1611; but
the chain has disappeared.
QUATT, SHROPSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector states:--
Although there is a circular reading-desk of very ancient
date in Quatt Church, supporting two volumes of Foxe’s
_Ecclesiastical History_ and Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_, I
can discover no trace of a chain, nor could my friend Canon
Creighton, of Worcester.
ROCHESTER, KENT. ST. NICHOLAS’ CHURCH.
The Vicar supplies the following information:--
There is one book chained here--_A Collection of Cases and
other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the
Communion of the Church of England_. By some Divines of the
City of London. London, 1717.
SALFORD, LANCASHIRE. CHURCH OF THE SACRED TRINITY.
Humphrey Oldfield, by will dated April 30th, 1684, left his Divinity
books to be placed in the Chancel, with three pounds for the wood-work
and chains that they might not be stolen. They became much dilapidated,
and early in the present century, says Chancellor Christie, many were
rejected and cast out as waste paper. The remnant, 72 volumes, are now
safely housed in the Salford Free Library.
SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.
The books here were chained long before printing was invented. One of
the Canons named Thomas Cyrcetur, who died in 1452, gave some books to
the Cathedral Library. In two of them occurs the following memorandum,
written in a 15th-century hand upon the inside of the cover: “Cathenādꝰ
in libraria noua eccłie ad dei honorē.”
SITTINGBOURNE, KENT. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar states:--
The only book here is a large one of Foxe’s _Martyrs_, bound in
wood, with leathern back. Very imperfect. It is now in a church
chest, and has been there for many years. There are no signs of
chains having been attached to the binding.
SOUTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE. ST. MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar has sent the following statement:--
Foxe’s _Martyrs_. (=Black letter.=) 2 vols. Folio. With curious
wood-cuts.
_Commentary on Old and New Testament._ 2 vols.
_An Illustrated Bible._ Folio. Not very old.
All chained.
STANMORE PARVA. (_See_ WHITCHURCH.)
STANDON, ECCLESHALL, STAFFORDSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector has communicated the following:--
We have not a chained Bible at Standon.
Mr. Chancellor Christie says:--
The _Book of Martyrs_ (1583), which was chained to the pulpit
at Standon, has this inscription:--
_William Lovatt gave this book to the Church of Standon, there
to be kept to the use of the parishioners to read in before
and after prayers, on Sundays, holidays, and other convenient
times. That they may see the great happiness they enjoy in
having the free exercise of religion. And if_ GOD _gives them
grace to rise it is to his glory they will be happy whilst
they live here; to all eternity. That so they might do was the
hearty prayer of W. L._
Lovatt was Churchwarden in 1685.
STRATFORD-ON-AVON. PARISH CHURCH.
The Assistant Curate supplies the following information:--
We have a large folio (=Black letter=) Bible with brass
corners, chased and embossed, brass clasps and leathern hinge,
one clasp gone. A brass plate near the top of the outer cover
has the following inscription:--
“WILLIAM WRIGHT AND IOHN NOBLE CHVRCHWARDENS FOR Y^E BVROVGH
STEPHEN BVRMAN AND RICH: GIBES CHVRCHWARDENS FOR Y^E PARISH.
Anno Dom̄ 1695.” A chain is attached to the outer cover near
the back. It has 19 links, each about 2 inches long.
The book is in fair condition except that the title-page to the
O. T. and Dedication are wanting, and all after Revelations,
ch. xx., which is supplied in (=Black letter=) MS. on vellum
leaves. The date is 1611, being the first edition of the
authorised version. There is a remarkable misprint in St. Matt.
xxvi. 36. where the text reads “Then cometh _Judas_ with them,”
instead of _Jesus_. The Bible is usually kept in a cupboard,
but the lessons on Harvest Festivals are read from it.
SUCKLEY, WORCESTERSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector states:--
There is no chained book in Suckley Church. (See _Notes and
Queries_, 1st Series, VIII., p. 596.)
TAVISTOCK, DEVONSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar says:--
Our chained book is Erasmus’ _Paraphrase of the New Testament.
Done into English by Nicholas Udall._ (=Black letter.=) Vol. I.
Folio. London, 1548. The Churchwardens’ Accounts show that it
was purchased for 15_s._ in 1561-62.
We have also a =black letter= volume of Jewel’s _Works_, 1560;
now, like the _Erasmus_, in a very dilapidated condition. This
was also once chained (though there are no signs of it left).
There was also an old Bible, as in the Churchwardens’ Accounts
for 1588-89 we have:--“_Item._ Paide William Trenaman for
Three chaynes of Ire with plates and for the fastenynge of
the Bible, Paraphras of Erasmus and Mr. Juell’s Booke in the
churche ... iij_s_ ij_d_.”
Jewel’s book is now kept locked up in a box and Erasmus in a
glass-covered case, also locked.
Extract from the Parish Registers 1588:--
“_Item._ Paide for a chayne and settinge in thereof, for the
fastenynge of the Dictionarrie in the Schole House ix_d_.”
No longer in existence.
TURTON, LANCASHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
In 1651 Humphrey Chetham, who frequently resided at Turton Tower, in
the immediate neighbourhood, left by will certain books to be chained
in the chapel of Turton.
The original Catalogue of the Chetham feoffees still exists, at the end
of which is the following respecting the cost of chaining, etc.:--
ffor carriedg, casks, &c. 02 08 00
7 dossin and 10 chains and clasps, and fixing 01 03 07
There now stands in the Church of Turton an oak case, with shelves
and folding doors, fitted with two iron bars, to which are chained the
books; above the folding doors runs this inscription, “The Gift of
Humphrey Chetham, Esq., 1655.”
In the year 1855, through the instrumentality of Gilbert J. French,
Esq., of Bolton, who personally superintended the work, the books were
restored (by rebinding) as nearly as possible to their original state,
the chains being fixed, cleaned, and the oak case polished. It now
stands in a conspicuous place near the chancel. Size of the chest, 7
ft. 6 in. long, 3 ft. 3½ in. high, 14 in. wide.
None of the books bequeathed to the Parish Churches of Manchester
or Bolton can now be found, nor does any trace remain of book-cases
corresponding with those still in use at Turton and Gorton.
The old chapel at Walmsley, about three miles north of Bolton, was
rebuilt in 1839; but long before that time the Chetham books had been
dispersed and lost, and all that remained of the oak case was a portion
bearing the inscription: this was removed to Manchester, and now forms
part of an oak sideboard in the Chetham Hospital there.
It is supposed that about 20 vols. have been lost or removed from
Turton, among them, probably, “a great Bible.”
This is inferred from the circumstance that just so many additional
volumes could be conveniently placed in the book-case.
The length of the chains admits of the books being placed on the flat
top of the oak case, which forms a desk where they may be conveniently
read; but no book can be removed without the use of considerable
violence.
It may be remarked as somewhat curious that the works of John Preston,
D.D., a voluminous and exceedingly popular author of his time, though
suggested for purchase by Chetham to his Executors, do not appear to
have found a place in the Libraries of Turton, Walmsley, or Gorton.
WALMSLEY, LANCASHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
In 1651 Humphrey Chetham ordered certain books to be chained in the
chapel, but the Vicar states:--
There are no chained books in this Church, which was built in
1839.
(_See_ under TURTON.)
WANTAGE, BERKSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar:--
No chained books in Wantage that I know of.
The Vicar of Cirencester says:--I remember, as a boy, the
chained books in Wantage Church.
WELLS CATHEDRAL, SOMERSET.
The Dean sends the following remarks:--
Our Cathedral Library was a chained one, and many of the chains
are still hanging on the shelf, and one or two on the bar over
the book-shelves, but no book is at present in chains. I am not
able to inform you when the chains ceased to be used.
WHISSONSETT, NORFOLK. PARISH CHURCH.
The Clerk, failing the Rector, says:--
He has been 60 years in the parish, and has never known of any
chained books.
The antiquary Dawson Turner, writing to the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ in
1846 says:--
My friend Mr. Hart, author of the _Ecclesiastical Records_,
tells me that ... he has seen Jewel’s _Apology_ in Whissonsett
Church, chained.
WHITCHURCH, LITTLE STANMORE, MIDDLESEX. PARISH CHURCH.
The Parish Clerk says:--
There are not any chained books here now; but there are many
chains on the pews where, at one time, people used chained
books.
Many of the Prayer-books given by the Duke of Chandos still
remain chained to the Pues, for the use of the poorer
Parishioners. (Sperling’s _Church Walks in Middlesex_, p. 104.)
WIGGENHALL. ST. MARY THE VIRGIN.
In _Notes and Queries_ for 1853 W. D. B. states:--
In this Church the following books may be seen fastened by
chains to a wooden desk in the Chancel:--
Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_, in 3 vols., all chained to the same
staple.
_Book of Homilies._
_The Holy Bible._
_The Works of Bishop Jewel_, in 1 vol.
The title-pages are lost from all; in other respects they are
in a fair state of preservation.
WIGTOFT, LINCOLNSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar writes:--
There is no book chained here, nor has been for 20 years.
Extracted from the Parish Accounts, 1549:--
Payd for the paraphrase of Erasmus 0 7 0
Payd for a cheyne 0 0 4
WIMBORNE, DORSET. THE MINSTER.
A copy of the Bible was formerly affixed by a chain in Wimborne Abbey;
now removed to the Library.
About 240 books are chained in a room over the Vestry, being the
largest collection of chained books in the United Kingdom, except that
at Hereford Cathedral. The volumes occupy three sides of the chamber.
_See p. 3 for account of this library._
WINDSOR. ST. GEORGE’S CHAPEL.
The Dean writes:--
I suppose the report to which you refer has reference to a
large copy of the _Bishops’ Bible_, which has been placed by me
in the niche of St. George’s Chapel, formerly occupied by a
chained Bible; and at an earlier date by some book or books of
devotion, as recorded in an interesting inscription below the
niche.
R. W. Hackwood, writing to _Notes and Queries_ in 1857, says:--
There is a =black letter= Bible chained in St. George’s Chapel,
Windsor. Originally, in an arch opposite the Tomb of Richard
Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, a Breviary of the Catholic
Church was deposited by his order for the service of both
clergy and laity. The Bible now supplies its place and the
original inscription remains.
WISBEACH, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
The late Dawson Turner mentions four or five volumes, all chained,
but reduced by time to covers, and nothing but covers. (_Gentleman’s
Magazine_, 1846, I., 151.)
WOLVERLEY, KIDDERMINSTER. PARISH CHURCH.
The Vicar writes thus:--
We have in the Vestry of our Church _A Defence of Jewel’s
Apology_, with a chain attached to it. It is in a very decayed
state. I had a box made for it some years ago.
WOOTTON WAWEN, HENLEY-IN-ARDEN, WARWICKSHIRE. PARISH CHURCH.
Communicated by the Vicar:--
The following books are chained, and placed on a desk in the
Church for reading:--
_Bishop Andrews’ XCVI Sermons._ 1632.
_Bishop Jewel’s Works._ 1611.
_Homilies._ 1673.
_Book of Common Prayer._ 1683.
_Marlorat on St. Matthew._ 1570.
_Calvin’s Institutes._ 1573.
_Topsell on Joel._ 1599. }
_Dod and Cleaver on the Commandments._ 1612. } In one vol.
_Byfield on St. Peter._ 1617. }
_Vicars, John. God on the Mount._ 1641. } In one vol.
_Sermons before the Commons._ 1641-42. }
_Hammond’s Practical Catechism._ 1646.
All rebound and in good condition.
The books were given to the parish by George Dunscombe, Fellow
of King’s College, Vicar, who died 1652, but not chained till
1693.
WORCESTER. ALL SAINTS’ PARISH CHURCH.
The Schoolmaster writes:--
There is a chained Bible in the Parish Church, imperfect at
beginning and end. It is dated 1603. It was rebound some years
ago, retaining, however, the two original covers, embossed
knobs, with centre one for chain.
WRINGTON, SOMERSET. PARISH CHURCH.
The Rector gives the following information:--
I send you a list of the books now in the Vestry, which were
once attached by chains to a desk in the South Chapel of the
Choir. The chains are still affixed to the backs.
When the Church was restored in 1857, they were removed from
the Church and placed on a shelf in the Vestry.
_The Bible._ (=Black letter.=) (James I.) 1617. (Imperfect.)
_Foxe’s Book of Martyrs._ 3 vols. (? date.)
_Roberts, Fras., D.D. Clavis Bibliorum._ 1650.
_Roberts, Fras., D.D. (Rector of Wrington, 1675.) God’s Holy
Covenant._ London. 1657.
_Bishop Jewel’s Apology._ (Imp.)
YORK. ST. CRUX PARISH CHURCH.
The Church of St. Crux has been removed, and the old lectern is
preserved in the neighbouring Church of All Saints’ Pavement. It has
chained to it the old edition of Jewel’s _Reply to Harding_, which is
in fair preservation.
[Illustration]
THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SIGNATURES IN BOOKS.
Signatures are the sign or mark which Printers place beneath
certain pages for the convenience of the Binder, and to
distinguish the sequence of the sections (sometimes styled
quires or gatherings) which they print.
The doctrine of development and the survival of the fittest has thrown
floods of light upon many dark places in the natural history of plants
and animals, and I believe the same doctrine may be made equally useful
in the study of bibliography. The halfpenny newspaper of to-day, with
its rotten material and blurred impression, seems, at first, to have
nothing in common with the beautiful vellum manuscripts of the middle
ages; and yet the one is the true descendant of the other, and it
was only by slow degrees that the printer’s progeny parted with their
family likeness to the aristocratic products of the professional scribe.
The survival of the fittest is plainly shown in the development of
signatures. The simple consecutive number which is used by modern
printers to indicate the sequence of the sheets, is the true survivor
of various ways of signing books from the 9th to the 19th century. It
has been customary among bibliographers, especially the older writers,
to consider the idea of signing sheets at all as the invention of
printers. M. de Marolles says that signatures were first used by
the printer Jean de Cologne in 1474; and that among all the ancient
MSS. which had passed through his hands, he had not found one with
signatures. He declares that many other bibliographers, even more
conversant with MSS. than he was, were of the same belief.[8]
De la Serna corrects Marolles, but only as to date, which he takes back
to 1472, in which year he says that J. Koelhoff, of Cologne, first used
signatures.
Meerman runs wild in his _Origines Typographicæ_; believes in
Corsellis, the first Oxford printer, and that he was earliest in using
signatures, referring to the well-known _Expositio_ of 1468-(1478) as a
proof.
Fischer, in his _Beschreibung typographischen Seltenheiten_, devotes
forty-two pages to the question, coming to the same conclusion as De la
Serna, and, like him, was quite unacquainted with the use of signatures
before the invention of printing.
In England, Conyers Middleton, T. Hartwell Horne, and others discuss at
length their origin and first appearance. Middleton, indeed, describes
a copy of _Baldi lectura super Codic._, in the University Library of
Cambridge (of which he was chief), in which there are no signatures to
the first half of the book, but regular signatures through the second
half. Although the worthy librarian was sadly out in considering this
volume as showing the earliest use of signatures, the fact that we
here find the first instance of printers removing signatures to a place
close up to the text is a curious instance of the transition from one
custom to another, and adds great bibliographical interest to the book.
Its teachings will be still further considered later on.
The chief use of signatures was and is for the binder. Binding is
certainly as old as books. Signatures are certainly as old as binders.
It is conceivable that the early monastic scribe, who made his own
parchment, concocted his own writing-ink, copied leisurely, with his
own hand, the Bible or Psalter, and, lastly, bound them _propriâ manu_,
might complete his work without wanting any signatures to help him; or,
at any rate, might be satisfied with placing a catchword at the end of
each section as a guide to their sequence. But when the manufacture
of books passed from the monk’s scriptorium into the hands of trade
guilds, and the increased demand for books caused a great subdivision
of labour; and when, instead of one, a manuscript would pass through
a dozen workmen’s hands before completion,--then signatures became a
necessity, as much for the scribe as for the binder, as necessary for
the collation of the early MS. as for the steam-printed novel of to-day.
Let us then begin with the professional scribe, and consider the use
of signatures to him. In commencing a book he had first of all to
calculate how many pieces of parchment or vellum he would require,
which he would then get from the “parchmenier,” who made it his
business to cure, dress, sort according to quality, and cut up skins
to size ready for his customers. The next process was to rule the down
margin lines and the cross lines, between which the text was written,
allowing for two pages on each side of the vellum sheet, and leaving
space in the middle, between the pages, for the folding. He would then
determine how many pieces should go to a section, and counting out
his vellum sheets in fours or fives, he would sign each piece at the
extreme bottom edge of the right-hand corner. If in quaternions, his
signatures were _a j_ for the first, _a ij_ for the second, _a iij_ for
the third, and _a iiij_ for the fourth sheet, and so on with every
four sheets, through the alphabet. Everything being now ready, the
scribe would take the piece marked _a j_, and having written that page
and its verso, would lay it aside, and do the same with _a ij_; and
not until he had passed the middle of the section would he return to
and complete the earlier written pieces, the signatures on which would
guide him as to sequence. Thus proceeding from signature to signature,
he would finish his manuscript, and hand it over to the binder, whose
first duty would be to carefully fold each piece in the centre, and
then, having got all his sections in order, he would scrupulously check
the sequence by the signatures before beginning to sew them on the
bands.
The intention of writing the signatures at the extreme edge of the
paper was that, being unimportant to the bound book, and impertinent to
the text, they might disappear under the knife of the binder. All the
workmanship of that period being honest and thorough, the binding was
expected to last as long as the book itself, so that the possibility
of a book being rebound and requiring the signatures a second time
was never thought of. This position of the signatures is why so few
manuscripts show them plainly; although they are still to be found,
half cut away, in many books, if the student knows how to look for them.
It is by no means uncommon to find in early books, both manuscript
and printed, which have all the rough edges, and have certainly never
been under the binder’s plough, that the signatures have altogether
or partially disappeared. This, at first, is very puzzling, but, in
fact, both parchment and paper varied somewhat in size, and often when
the sheets were sewn on the bands by the binder, the irregularity of
the edges would be so obtrusively ugly, that the shears were used
freely, and the redundancy, often including a part or the whole of a
signature, disappeared; yet, to the eye, the volume appears _uncut_.
Uncut by the binder’s plough it certainly was, for although the exact
date when the plough first came into use is unknown, there is evidence
that it was not used in the 15th century. In Jost Amman’s _Book of
Trades_ (Frankfurt, 1534) we have the earliest representation of a
binder at work. He has a book securely fastened between two strong
pieces of wood, by means of screws, and holding it between his knees,
he is “ploughing” with a sharp knife through the edges. This, of
course, would make the leaves perfectly even, a characteristic never, I
believe, found in any “fifteener” which retains its original binding.
In a splendid copy of an early 15th-century Missal at the Mazarin
Library, Paris, the scribe has adopted the unusual plan of placing all
the signatures in the very back of the sheets, where they could not
offend the eye; but, as the binding is loose, they can be collated with
little trouble throughout the volume, each signature consisting of four
sheets or eight leaves, the first four having bold signatures.
Dr. Ginsberg tells me that signatures are common in early Hebrew MSS.
and printed books, although, of course, they run the reverse way.
When printing was invented, no new method of signatures was at first
adopted. The Mazarin Bible, for instance, which is a large folio, was
printed page by page, and signed by the pen at the foot of the first
four rectos of each signature, just as if it had been a manuscript.
In the Perkins copy these signatures are visible throughout. When the
first printers wanted a smaller size than folio they treated their
paper at first just as the scribe treated his skins, cutting it up
in half sheets and printing their quarto pages one at a time. We
must remember that the first printing-presses were very small in the
“platen,” which is the flat surface lowered by the screw to squeeze the
paper upon the type; so small, indeed, that although a whole sheet was
put in the press, only half could be printed by the first, and half
by a second “pull.” Moxon, who in 1693 wrote the first book on the
Mechanics of Printing, gives the size of the platen in his “improved”
presses as 14 inches by 9 inches, which is much smaller than a sheet
of foolscap. This double pull was the source of much bad printing, and
made it easier to print single pages than two pages by a double pull.
Returning to the manuscript signatures on printed books, we note that
Caxton’s early books show the same treatment. The first book from his
Bruges Press, _The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, a fine copy of
which is in Her Majesty’s library at Windsor, is signed throughout at
the very foot of the pages. So is another book from Caxton’s press,
the _Quatre Derennieres Choses_, and a fine copy of _Gulielmi de Saona
Rhethorica_ in the Upsala library. Before me is a Cologne-printed
book, _Eusebius de morte sancti Jeronomi_, from the press of Ulric
Zell, circa 1470, and here the signatures are in MS. throughout,
although many of them are half cut away in binding. Perhaps the most
interesting instance is the work at Cambridge, already mentioned as
quoted by Middleton, who, while noticing the printed signatures, which
are not used till the work was partly printed, seems entirely to have
overlooked the manuscript signatures, which are all at the foot and run
through the work, the MS. signatures being correct, when those that are
printed are occasionally wrong. Perhaps nothing will be found to show
the transition more forcibly than this; for the printer blundered over
the plan of printing the signatures, which was new to him, and had to
fall back on the old system. We must here note that the printers could
not, without difficulty, copy the custom of the scribes, and print
their signatures at foot, because two or three types at a distance from
the body of the page would certainly be broken off by the pressure; so
finding the MS. signatures troublesome and often hard to read, they
tried the plan of stamping them in with types by hand at the extreme
edge, nearly always at foot, though sometimes at the fore-edge. This
development was scarcely an improvement, and is only found in a few
books from the Italian press of the years 1475-76. Then the printers,
instead of hand-stamping, tried printing them at the very foot, and
by the same pull of the press. This plan had no life in it, and it
was then that the bright and bold idea struck a Cologne printer to
ignore the ugliness and place his type signatures close up to the solid
page. The custom soon spread and became general, and curious it is to
notice how this slight development has given rise to numerous mistaken
arguments on the so-called “invention of signatures.”
_We may now safely conclude that the idea of books without signatures
is a bibliographical delusion._
* * * * *
The following is a list of books in several of our public libraries, by
which the reader may, if he so please, verify for himself the foregoing
statements. They show the various steps in signature development.
CLASS I.
MSS. WITH WRITTEN SIGNATURES AT FOOT OF THE PAGE.
1.--_Latin Theological Treatise._ XIII cent. (Bod. MSS. No.
1840.)
In quaternions. The sections are all numbered at foot of last
page, but have nearly all been cut away. The leaves were all
numbered _i_ to _viij_ in each section; see especially for a
plain instance section 8. This plan is also seen in Bod. MS.
1841 and others.
2.--_Bible in Latin_, with French illuminations. Early XIV
cent. (Bod. MSS. No. 1848.)
A small thick volume, made up in quinternions. The
illuminations are all deficient in the ornamental flourishes,
which are cut off at foot. The sections were all numbered on
the first recto, but some are gone. The first rectos of each
section are signed at foot _a_, _b_, _c_, _d_, _e_.
3.--_Wicliff’s Commentary on St. Luke._ English MS., XIV cent.
(Bod. MSS. No. 1913.)
The sections are all signed on the first folio, at top, in
red numerals, and signatures, letters with numerals, appear
throughout, at foot.
4.--_Prayers, etc._ Small vol., XIV cent. (Bod. MSS. No. 1851.)
Cut in binding, but some signatures left, which appear thus,
the top numerals showing the sequence of the sections, and
the bottom, the first four rectos of the section, the former
changing, and the latter the same in every signature:--
[Illustration]
5.--_Poor Caitiff._ English, XIV. cent. (Bod. No. 1843.)
All the quaternions signed on first four pages at extreme
bottom corner.
6.--_Hannapes, N. de. Exempla Virtutum._ Small volume, written
about 1400. (Bod. No. 1860.)
Signatures throughout at extreme bottom corner.
7.--_The Old Testament and Apocrypha._ Englished by John
Wicliff. Written about 1420. (Sion Coll., London.)
Signatures nearly all cut away, but plainly visible at
signature _g_ and onwards, when the following notation is
adopted:--
[Illustration]
8.--_Psalterium._ Large folio, dated 1327. (Sion Coll., London.)
This splendid XIV cent. MS. is now nearly deficient in
signatures, although they are still visible at _s_ and _t_.
9.--_Biblia._ 2 vols. large folio, dated 1360. (Guildhall
Library, London.)
A beautiful MS. with a few of the signatures remaining in the
second volume. All those in the first volume have been cut away
in the rebinding.
10.--_Albertus Magnus._ Large vol., XV cent. (Bod. No. 1897.)
Signatures throughout at extreme bottom corner.
11.--_The Chronicles of England._ Folio, XV cent., on vellum.
(Lambeth Palace.)
Sections in quaternions, signed in MS. at bottom right-hand
corner.
12.--_Speculum Vite Cristi._ Folio, early XV cent. (Brit. Mus.,
Arundel, 112.)
Sections in quaternions, signed in MS. with Arabic figures, at
extreme edge of bottom right-hand corner. On the first recto of
each section the number of the quaternion is also given thus:
_ij q_, _iij q_, _iiij q_, and so on, _q_ meaning “quire” (?).
13.--_Boethius de Consolatione Philosophiæ._ Translated into
English. Vellum, XV cent. (Brit. Mus., Harl., 2421.)
Sections in quaternions, signed in MS. on the first four
rectos, at bottom right-hand corner.
14.--_Oriental Manuscript._ “Markemath Pettrī,” “Making wise
the simple.” Arabic, vellum, XI cent. (Brit. Mus., No. 2568.)
Each quaternion is signed with letters and Arabic figures on
the first four leaves.
15.-- _Opus Bedæ_, and other pieces. Vellum MS., IX cent.
(Brit. Mus., 15 B xix.)
The sections, but not the leaves, signed with the Greek
alphabet.
16.--_Joh. Scolastici Scala cœli._ MS. on Vellum, dated 1473.
(Sold at Sotheby’s, Feb. 25, 1889.)
Signed throughout, at the extreme foot of the page, and often
thus, _1 d_, _2 d_, _3 d_, _4 d_, instead of _d j_, _d ij_, _d
iij_, _d iiij_.
CLASS II.
MANUSCRIPT SIGNATURES IN EARLY PRINTED BOOKS.
17.--_Biblia_ (_Fust and Schœffer_). Large folio. Mentz, 1462.
(Bod. Show Case.)
Signed throughout in plain MS. at the extreme corner of the
first five rectos in every section.
18.--_Plinius Secundus. Historia Naturalis._ Jenson, Venice.
Large folio, 1472. (Bod. Auct., N. 1, 2.)
Signed in MS. at extreme edge all through. A copy at the
University Library, Cambridge, is the same.
19.--_Platea, F. de. De restitutione._ Large 4to. Venice, 1472.
(Bod. Douce, 147.)
MS. signatures throughout at extreme corner, although many have
been cut away.
20.--_Plinius Secundus. Historia Naturalis._ Large folio. Rome,
1473. (Bod. Auct. Q. I 1.)
Much ploughed, but remains of MS. signatures plainly visible.
21.--_Gerson, J. Super Magnificat._ (Types of Fyner,
Esslingen.) Folio, 1473. (Bod. Auct. VI Q. III 43.)
A few MS. signatures left.
22.--_Sermones notabilis Magistri Alberti._ Folio. Coloniæ,
Arnoldus Therhoernen, 1474. (Cam. Univ.)
The peculiarity of the signatures here is that they are not
quite at the foot, but written about half an inch from the
bottom.
23.--_Repertoriū Milis de Verona._ Folio. Impressū ꝑ Nicolaū Gotz
de Sletzstat, 1475. (Cam. Univ.)
Signed at extreme corner in MS.
24.--_Panormitanus._ Louvain. Folio, 1475. (Bod. Auct. III Q. V
10.)
MS. signatures at extreme foot.
25.--_Gerson, Joh. Opuscula._ Folio (Strasbourg?) 1475. (Bod.
Auct. .)
MS. signatures throughout at extreme bottom corner.
26.--_The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye._ Folio. Printed
at Bruges by Caxton, c. 1475. (H.M. Lib., Windsor.)
In quinternions, with MS. signatures at foot of every first
five rectos.
27.--_Les Quatre Derennieres Choses._ Folio. Printed at Bruges
by Caxton, c. 1476.
Signed throughout at foot in MS. (Sold at Messrs. Sotheby’s a
few years ago, where I examined it.)
28.--_Epistola Sācti Jeronomi Presbiteri ... de Libris
Salomonis._ Folio. No place or date, but with the types of C.
de Homberch of Cologne, c. 1475. (Cam. Univ.)
Volume II only in the library, which begins at Proverbs.
In quinternions, the book beginning with signature _JJ_,
written at the extreme bottom corner. A peculiarity worth
noting, although by no means uncommon, is the use of a +
upon every fifth recto, to show the middle of the section.
Another peculiarity, not noticed by me in any other book,
is the originality displayed by the scribe who added the
signatures. They run through the alphabet of double capitals,
then follow the double small letters, as usual, up to zz, ⁊
and ꝰ; but instead of then commencing the alphabet afresh,
with another series, the scribe beat his brains as to what
he should do next. _ZZ_ (which was really a duplicate) did
for one, and then a sign like the Greek letter ξ, thus:
| ξj | | ξij | etc.,[9] followed by the words “est” and
“per.” His imagination now exhausted, he bethought him of
the Lord’s Prayer, the use of which I should never have
imagined, till the sequence of the words forced itself upon
me. It is used thus, with contractions: _p’ter j--p’ter
ij--p’ter iij--p’ter iiij_--four leaves unsigned; _qui j--qui
ij--qui iij--qui iiij_--four leaves unsigned; and so on
through--_es--Jn--celis--sāficet’--nomē--tuū--adūerat--r’gnū
--tuū--fiat--volūtas--tuā--sicut_--and here the book ends.
29.--_Aristotelis Ethica._ Folio. Louvain, 1476. (W. B., from
the Klemm Sale.)
Plain MS. signatures through every quaternion.
30.--_Platea, F. de. De restitutionibus._ 4to. Venice, 147-.
(Bod. Auct., Q. inf. I 15.)
In Roman type. Signed throughout in MS. at extreme bottom
corner. Many cut away.
31.--_Quatuor Novissima._ Folio. Cologne. P. de Olpe, n.d.
(Cam. Univ.)
Signed at extreme corner in plain MS.
32.--_Legenda Sanctorum._ Large folio. Printed at Toulouse
about 1480. (Sion Coll., London.)
Signed throughout in bold MS., beginning with _a_, and ending
at _mm_.
33.--_Historia Scholastica._ Folio. Sine ullâ notâ. Types of
Homberch, Cologne (?), no date. (Cam. Univ.)
In double columns, signed in MS. throughout at extreme foot.
The leaves are also numbered in MS. in a peculiar way. The
first 100 folios are numbered 1 to 100; the second lot _a_1
to _a_100; the third _b_1 to _b_101, which ends the volume.
Another copy has MS. signatures also, but well up on the page.
34.--_The earlier Prophets._ A printed Hebrew book. Folio.
Soncino, 1485. (Brit. Mus.)
Signed throughout in quaternions in Hebrew MS.
35.--_Balbi de Janua Catholicon._ Folio. Gutenberg. Moguntiæ,
1460. (Sold at Sotheby’s, Feb. 25, 1889.)
About half an inch having been ploughed off the foot, only
portions of the signatures are here and there to be traced.
In the original state a bold MS. signature, at the bottom
right-hand corner, went through every section.
36.--_Calderini, J. Filii Consilia._ Folio. A. Rot, Rome, 1472.
(Sotheby’s, Feb. 25, 1889.)
MS. signatures throughout at extreme foot.
37.--_Joh. de Imola._ Folio. Venice. J. de Rubeis, 1475.
MS. signatures throughout at extreme foot.
CLASS III.
MS. AND PRINTED SIGNATURES IN THE SAME BOOK.
38.--_Aquinas, Thos. Summa Angelica._ Per Albert Standael.
Folio, 1473. (Bod. Auct. I Q. IV 30.)
Ploughed, but MS. signatures at _b_ 1 and _b_ 5. On _c_
signatures stamped in by hand begin.
39.--_Horatius Flaccus._ Folio. Milan, 1474. (Brit. Mus. C 3, b
3.)
Up to _d_ the signatures are all inserted by the pen, after
which printed signatures are used, both being at the extreme
edge. There are manuscript catchwords.
40.--_Panormitanus._ Folio. Venice, 1475. (Cam. Univ.) Printed
by Johannes de Colonia.
Both MS. and printed signatures run on together through the
volume, and their capricious character must have troubled
the binder. The printed signatures are close up to the text,
and the MS. signatures quite at the foot of the paper. The
printed signatures have Arabic figures, thus _a_ 2, and the
MS. signatures Roman numerals, thus + ij. The two sorts run
together thus:--
Printed MS.
Sigs. Sigs.
a +
b _a_
c _b_
d _c_
e _d_
f _e_
g _f_
h _g_
i _h_
k _i_
l _k_
m _l_
n _m_
o _n_
p _o_
q _p_
r _q_
s _r_
t _s_
u _t_
w _u_
x _w_
y _x_
z _y_
aa * _z_ *
bb ⁊
cc ꝰ
dd ∴
ee _est_
ff _amē_
gg _aa_
hh _bb_
ii _cc_
kk * _dd_ *
ll _ee_
mm _ff_
* = _wanting_
Note the curious custom often seen in manuscripts, where,
instead of sig. _z_ being followed by a series of capitals or
duplicated small letters, certain contractions and signs are
interpolated, and then the new alphabet is begun. The most
common are ꝰ the contraction for “us,” ∴ an algebraical mark,
and “et” or “est,” both very common words in Latin books. The
abnormal use of the letter _w_ in both, as a manuscript and
printed signature, is certainly against typographical custom,
which has always followed the Latin usage.
41.--_Baldi, Ubert._ Lectura super 123 Cod. Folio. Venice, J.
de Colonia et J. Manthen de Gherez, 1474. (Sold at Sotheby’s,
Feb. 25, 1889.)
Manuscript signatures _A_ to _J_; _K_ to _N_ have normal
printed signatures; _O_ to _U_ have signatures in MS.; while
_X_, _Y_, _Z_, ⁊, ꝰ, _aa_, and so on to _nn_, which is the
last, have printed, with occasional MS. signatures.
42.--_Augustinus. Cita d’ Dio._ Without place, printer, or
date, but c. 1478. (Bodl. AA. c 7.)
Normal signatures throughout, but supplemented by MS.
signatures, which are placed at extreme foot.
CLASS IV.
SIGNATURES STAMPED IN WITH SEPARATE TYPES.
43.--_Platea, F. de. De restitutionibus Usurarum et
Excōicatorum._ Folio. Venice, 1473. (Bod. Auct. II Q. inf. I
40.)
The signatures to _De restitutionibus_ are stamped in by hand
with single types. They are at the extreme edge of the sheet
and always close on the “point holes,” the position of which
at that time was always at the extreme top and bottom of every
folio, making four holes for each sheet. At signature _g_ the
plan is altered, and signatures written in by hand, in the same
place, supersede the hand-stamp. Many signatures have been cut
away.
44.--_Horatius Flaccus._ Folio. Milan, 1474 (?) (Brit. Mus. C
3, b 3.)
Here there are MS. signatures up to _d_, where the stamping
begins at the extreme edge of the paper, many having
disappeared under the binder’s knife.
45.--_Seneca. Tragœdiæ._ (_Ferrariæ_), Per Andream Gallicum.
Large Folio. 1474 (?) (Cam. Univ.)
Stamped signatures at the extreme edge of the bottom corner,
rugged, uneven, sometimes upside down, and plainly stamped
in by hand. Signature _a_ is all there; _b_ is all cut away;
_c_ is omitted; _d_, which follows _b_, is all there; _e_ is
signed 2 _d_ on the first recto, and _dd_ on the third recto;
_e_ all cut away; _f_ all there; _g_ all there, and so on up to
_n_. Upon _n_ 3 for the first time the signature is raised up
to the line beneath the text, and so continues to _u_, which
is the last. Brunet notices the copy in the National Library,
Paris, thus: “Nous y avons remarqué, à l’extrémité inférieure
des feuilles des 12 premiers cahiers, et d’une partie du
13^{me} cahier, des signatures qui y ont été apposées après
l’impression, avec des caractères d’imprimerie.”
46.--_Propertius._ Folio. Milan, 1476 (?) (Brit. Mus. C 19, a
9.)
Signatures plainly stamped in.
47.--_Horatius Flaccus._ Folio. Venice (impensis P. de Lavagnia
civis Mediolanensis), 1476. (Bod. Auct. O. 2. 2.)
The signatures begin with cap. _A_, stamped in, and this plan
is pursued through all the quaternions. The signatures are at
various distances from the foot of the text, and all at extreme
edge, many being cut off.
48.--_Aquinas, T. de. Summa Angelica._ Per Albert Standael.
Folio. No place. 1473. (Bod. I Q. IV 30.)
The volume has been ploughed, but MS. signatures remain at
signatures _b_ and _b_ 5. On signature _c_ the signatures are
stamped in by hand, many, however, being cut away.
49.--_Conradus de Allemania. Concordantiæ bibliorum._ Folio.
Strasbourg. Mentelin. No date. (W. B.)
This volume is very peculiar in its method of signature, and
shows in an interesting manner the transitional period between
the manuscript and printed methods of signing. The book is a
large folio, and the sections are quinternions. On the margin,
at the foot of the first recto of each section, the number
of the section is written boldly in black ink, thus: 1^{us},
2^{us}, 3^{us}, etc. = primus, secundus, tertius, etc. Lower
down, in Arabic numerals, is the number of the sheet, which
runs from 1 to 5 in each section, there being five sheets to
each section. Thus, the first sheet of each section has its
specific place plainly marked upon it, while the succeeding
four sheets have a figure only, and nothing to identify them
with any particular section. There are type signatures also,
but these do not assist in this respect, for they are all
stamped in by hand at the extreme edge of the paper, and
consist of four varieties only. Thus all the first quarter of
the _Concordance_, occupying 12 sections, are stamped _a_ 1,
_a_ 2, _a_ 3, _a_ 4, _a_ 5, leaving five leaves unsigned; all
the second quarter, from 13 to 24, are _b_ 1, _b_ 2, _b_ 3,
_b_ 4, _b_ 5; the third quarter, from 25 to 32, are all _c_;
and the fourth, 33 to 42, all _d_. These stamped-in letters
are not true signatures, for, with the exception of the first
sheet of each section, which bears its rotation number, there
is nothing to discriminate them. The type-letters are stamped
very carelessly, often quite omitted, often so close to the
fore-edge that there was no room for them on the sheet,
varying in position with every leaf, and sometimes half an
inch and sometimes two inches from the bottom line. This
irregularity may account for the sheets having MS. numbers,
identical with what are, or should be, the type numbers.
Occasionally, at the extreme foot, is also a third repetition
of the numbers in bright red ink, evidently added by the
rubricator. It is difficult to perceive what particular use
either the MS. or type numbers could serve in this instance.
There is certainly no difficulty in concluding that the
printer’s plan was useless, in case the sheets became mixed, to
himself as well as the binder.
CLASS V.
SIGNATURES NOT STAMPED IN BUT PRINTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE
TEXT, A LONG DISTANCE BELOW IT, LIKE THE MS. SIGNATURES.
Every one practically acquainted with Typography will see the
difficulty of printing one or two letters standing alone at a distance
from the page of type; they were certain to be battered from want of
support and the wonder is that any printer ever tried the plan.
[Sidenote:
Text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-----+
| Sig.|
+-----+
]
50.--_Uberti, Fazio degli, etc._ Folio. Vincent. (Lyons?) 1474.
(Brit. Mus. C 6, b 7.)
There are type signatures throughout, but all at the very
bottom of the page, and at the distance from the text here
given. The exactitude of the distance in consecutive pages
points to the signatures being printed at same time as text.
51.--_Catullus. Opera._ 4to. Venice, 1475. (Brit. Mus. C 19, d
9. Cracherode copy.)
The third book in this volume is _Propertius_, and here,
although they might easily escape the eye, are bold signatures,
printed so near the corner that only a few have escaped the
binder’s knife. They are _B_ 1, _B_ 2, _B_ 3, _C_ 1, _C_ 3, _D_
2, _D_ 3, _D_ 4, _E_ 1, _E_ 2, _E_ 3, and _F_ 1. In the first
two and last books there are no signatures remaining.
[Sidenote:
Text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-----+
| Sig.|
+-----+
]
52.--_Uberti, Ditta._ Folio. Rome, 1474. (Brit. Mus.)
The signatures are all printed at this distance from the bottom
of the text, and all at the same distance. If they were stamped
in, they would certainly show some variation.
53.--_Nider, J. de. De contractibus._ 4to. Homborch, Cologne.
No date. (Bod. 2 Q. VI 25.)
Signature _a j_ is blank; _a ij_ is without signature; _a iij_
is signed in type, but at a distance of two full lines below
the text. Type signatures also appear at signatures _b j_, and
_b iij_. The volume has been ploughed.
[Sidenote:
Text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-----+
| Sig.|
+-----+
]
54.--_Uberti, Ditta._ Folio. Rome, 1474. (Bod. Auct. II Q 3,
50.)
This is a copy of the same book noticed above, and agrees in
all respects with it; the distance of the signatures from the
bottom line of the page being always the same.
CLASS VI.
THE NORMAL SIGNATURE, PRINTED IN THE LINE JUST BENEATH THE TEXT.
55.--_Mamotrectus._ Folio. Printed at Ergow (Switzerland),
1470. (Bod. Auct. V Q. V 41.)
A book quoted as the earliest known instance of printed
signatures; but this is a mistake, for the numeration of
the various columns of text by a series of letters under
each column has nothing in common with signatures. The MS.
signatures, if any, have been cut away.
56.--_Nider, Johann. Expositio Decalogi._ Folio. Lubeck.
Printed by John Koelhoff, 1472. (Brit. Mus. C 14, b 2.) Also in
the Bodleian.
This is a puzzling book, for it is at least two years earlier
than any other book so signed. In this city, too, many works
were issued with MS. signatures with a later date than this. It
is dangerous to assert that a book is wrongly dated because you
cannot make it fit into a bibliographical theory; but I feel
inclined, from the general aspect of the book, to date it as
1482, rather than 1472.
57.--_Platea, F. de._ Folio. Cologne, 1474. (Brit. Mus. 1275, d
5.)
Here the signatures are printed close up to the text in the
usual way.
58.--_Lucan’s Epigrams._ Folio. Venice, 1475. (Brit. Mus. C 16,
i 9.)
Here the signatures are printed close up to the text in the
normal way.
* * * * *
From these examples, it appears that (1) the scribes, who made books
before the rise of printers, used signatures; that (2) the printers
began by signing like the scribes, at the very foot of the pages; that
(3) for some years they used both MS. and stamped signatures; which (4)
gave way to stamping the signatures in by hand; then (5) by printing
them in at extreme corner; and, lastly, in 1474, by placing them up
close to the page, where they have remained ever since.
We have seen how every book had its signatures, and that the law was to
sign the leaves of the first half of every section. We will now trace
the development of signatures caused by printing more than one page at
a time, and its effect upon the size notation of books.
Paper, although invented many centuries before the discovery of
printing, was little used for library books, being looked down upon
as inferior in every way to vellum. It was used for school-books such
as Donatuses and Cato’s distichs, but not for good books. With the
advent of the press this was soon changed. Even if the expense had not
been too great, all the skins of Europe could not have supplied the
rapacious jaws of the new giant book-maker. So it is that the use of
paper for standard books is synchronous with the invention of printing.
But with sheets of paper a new development arose: the scribe writing
on, page by page, section by section, required his vellum already cut
to size, and in this the early printers followed suit--from necessity
where the pages were large, and from old custom where small; but paper,
being made in moulds, differed from parchment in being always regular
to certain fixed sizes; and being easily folded, a new nomenclature for
the various foldings became necessary.
Until the invention of printing there appear to have been no particular
names for the sizes of books. There are numerous catalogues extant of
large manuscript libraries, especially those of Burgundy and France in
the 14th and 15th centuries; but although the catalogue writers are
minute as to certain particulars, such as the character of writing
and the ornamental binding, there is never any mention of size beyond
the vague “ung grand liure” for a big History of the World, or “ung
petit liure” for a diminutive Horæ. With the use of paper, however,
subdivision came in the natural course of events, and sheets folded
in half were called folio, in half again, quarto, and in half again,
octavo,--a nomenclature as precise as it was novel. Another development
was printing two pages at a time, followed soon by four pages. This
was done by an arrangement which allowed one half of the sheet to
be printed by a first pull, and the other half by a second pull,
without lifting the sheet from the press. It also required a special
arrangement of the pages of type, which had to be placed head to head,
in order to make them read aright when folded.
We have seen how, with folio books, the various sheets were placed
inside one another like a quire of paper, and now with the printing in
quarto a system of signatures arose which has puzzled bibliographers,
viz.: where the first recto of a section is signed _a j_, the second
recto blank, and the third signed _a ij_, with all the rest blank.
Let the reader take two sheets of common note paper, and folding
each, separately, in half, make a representation of quarto. Now mark
on the first recto of the first sheet the signature _a j_, leaving
three leaves unmarked, and on the first recto of the other sheet _a
ij_, and then place the second sheet inside the first, and at once you
have a quaternion, with the following series: sig. _a j_--none--sig.
_a ij_--none--none--none--none--none. This was really an excellent
plan: it answered all the purpose of the binder in collating, and was
a natural development It did not, however, take deep root, and the
old plan of signing the first four leaves prevailed long after its
usefulness had vanished. The octavo size was treated in a similar
manner. It is common to find 16th and 17th century books printed in the
whole sheets octavo, and signed like the folios and quartos on each
of the four first rectos. We may here just notice another peculiarity
of signing, and that is where, although the sections have eight
leaves only, they are signed upon the fifth as well as the first four
rectos, leaving only three rectos unsigned. This had a slight use in
telling the binder which was the central sheet of each section, and
that he need look no further. It was also a distinct imitation of the
scribes, who used a + mark for the same purpose, as already noticed.
The Aldus family did not print smaller than 8vo, but the Elzevirs and
Plantins used 16mo and 32mo abundantly, the old custom of signing still
surviving, and the small alike with the large sections consisting of
eight leaves, of which four were signed and four not signed.
The tendency to print small books developed another practice which
ought to be understood. Say that it is decided to print a volume in
24mo; this, of course, is 24 pages on one side of the sheet and 24
pages on the other. Take now a sheet of any size, a sheet of note paper
will show the working of it as well as any: folded once it is folio,
making 4 pages; now fold carefully across into three, that makes 6to,
with 12 pages; fold into half again, and that is 12mo, with 24 pages;
and again in half is 24mo, with 48 pages. Here the back is too thick
and clumsy for binding, so cut the paper into three even parts where
you made the second fold, and then treating each third part as if it
were a distinct sheet, and signing each on the first four rectos, you
have 16 pages to each third. Thus, three complete signatures were
printed on one sheet, and then cut up into thirds when bound, with the
result that the 32mo book, if judged only by the visible signatures,
ought to be classed as 8vo, all the signatures having four signed and
four unsigned leaves.
_We now see that all sizes being signed alike, the signatures
cannot with early printed books be any guide as to size._
So much for signatures. There are many other peculiarities which might
be noticed, but when the above are understood, other variations explain
themselves.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
THE EARLY SCHOOLS OF TYPOGRAPHY.
The celebrated cause of “Mayence _v._ Haarlem,” which has occupied more
or less the attention of all the literary courts in Europe for the
last three centuries, has still to wait for anything like a unanimous
verdict. German writers listen with contempt to any argument in favour
of Coster’s claims; and, shutting their ears, keep shouting, like the
Ephesians of old, “Great is Gutenberg of the Germans.” On the other
hand, our Dutch friends hold fast to their “beloved” but shadowy
Coster, and, while admitting that Gutenberg’s efforts were successful,
raise after him the cry of “Stop thief!” Let me, then, as one who
claims neither nationality, suggest that it may be just possible--nay,
probable--that the invention was truly but independently made in both
countries.
With regard to the claims of Haarlem, it appears to me that Dutch
bibliographers place too much reliance upon the _external_ testimony,
such as the historical evidence of Junius and the old bookbinder, the
occurrence of the name of Coster in old records, old portraits, _et
hoc genus omne_. All these are open to doubt, or even to denial. It
is possible that the story of Junius is entirely fictitious: there
is certainly no evidence to establish the identity of the Coster who
figures in certain contemporary documents with Coster, the asserted
inventor of movable types. In fact, the denial of Coster’s very
existence may be accepted, even by his friends without any real damage
to the claims of Holland, because the _internal_ evidence, as it seems
to me, is unassailable. Some one printed those early specimens of the
_Speculum_ and _Donatus_, and printed them with Dutch-cut letters, in
the Dutch language, and with a rudeness which no one who had learnt in
the far superior school of Gutenberg would have adopted. Whatever his
name may have been, the relics of his workmanship remain; so, if only
for the sake of precision, let us call him Coster.
One of the earliest towns in the Low Countries to receive the
printing-press was Bruges; there is strong evidence that Colard Mansion
was at work there so early as 1471-72, and there are so many evidences
(slight in themselves, but very convincing to a practical eye) in
his earlier books of customs more primitive and technical practices
more rude than can be found in any of the productions of the German
school of printing, that the careful observer is driven to one of two
conclusions. Either the Bruges printer learnt the art in an advanced
school, such as that at Cologne, and then, returning to his own town,
adopted purposely primitive customs which he had never been taught,
returning in after years, by slow degrees, to the advanced stage of
his original tuition; or he found the art established already in his
own country by the successors of Coster, just emerging from its rude
infancy, and ripe for any improvements that might be suggested by the
far superior productions of the German school, which by that time had
become scattered throughout Europe. I need not state what must be the
conclusion, and will here only describe _one_ of the internal evidences
which to a practical man will amount to a demonstration that they were
two distinct centres from which the art originally spread.
The flat piece of brass called by compositors a “setting-rule” appears
to have been unknown to the first printers in both schools, and up
to the time of its adoption the lines of type (except in the case of
large letters) varied in length like the lines of MSS., because the
workman was unable, without frequently breaking the line, to shift the
words in order to increase or decrease the normal space between them.
But when the “setting-rule” was devised, it so eased the operations
of the compositor, and, by making all the lines of an even length, so
improved the symmetrical appearance of the pages, that no printer after
once trying it ever recurred to the old plan. In 1467 Ulric Zell, of
Cologne, was unacquainted with this improvement; but as, out of the
numberless works which issued from his press, it is a great rarity to
find one with lines of an uneven length, we may safely conclude that
he adopted it about 1468-69. Of course all who learnt the art in the
Mayence school would adopt it also, as in fact we know they did by
their works. But Colard Mansion at Bruges did not until 1478, ten years
later; while it took nearly two years more for the improvement to cross
the sea to Westminster, where our Caxton[10] adopted it in 1480.
Other peculiarities tending to the same conclusion have convinced me
that the school of typography, as shown in the works issued from the
Bruges and Westminster presses, was more archaic than, and entirely
distinct from, the German school. Whence, then, did Mansion obtain his
knowledge of the art? I know not, unless it were from the successors of
Coster, who had struggled on through the intervening period, until the
superior school of Germany by degrees raised them up to its own level.
Before concluding I will draw attention to a fact which I believe has
hitherto received no notice. The type-moulds of Holland, Flanders,
and England are alike, but very dissimilar to, and not so complicated
as, the moulds used in Germany and France. Here, again, the existence
of two schools is suggested to the mind. It would also be well worth
noting, before they die out, the various names of tools, trade terms,
and customs used by typefounders in the above countries;[11] as I have
little doubt that the division into two distinct schools would here be
plainly seen, even after the lapse of four centuries.
[Illustration]
ON THE PRESENT ASPECT OF THE QUESTION, WHO WAS THE INVENTOR OF
PRINTING?[12]
It has occurred to me that, as a great deal has been written since the
year 1870 upon the Origin of Printing, and that as the whole subject
is upon a much more definite foundation than it was twenty years ago,
it would not be uninteresting to those, whose profession is to deal
scientifically with volumes of all ages, to discuss the latest views as
to the genesis of the printed book.
Next to religion, there is perhaps no subject that has excited more
personal animosity and hatred than this--Who invented movable types?
The seeds of the dispute were sown in 1499, nearly 400 years ago,
when the celebrated _Cologne Chronicle_ was published, but did not
spring into active life until 300 years ago, when in 1588 Junius’s
_Batavia_ was issued, thirteen years after the author’s death. There a
definite shape to the claims of Coster, of Haarlem, to the invention of
printing was given, and from that period onward the question of Coster
or Gutenberg has been fiercely debated by the rival factions among the
bibliographers and literary antiquarians of Europe.
Passing over the periods of acute warfare, namely, 1740, when Europe
celebrated the tercentenary of the invention; 1823, Holland’s mistaken
Coster quarcentenary; 1836 and 1840, Germany’s Gutenberg celebrations;
at all of which periods Europe was flooded with books and essays, we
will review the state of general opinion in 1870, and then show how the
fight was renewed in that year, with more fierceness than ever, upon
quite new ground, giving a short notice of every work of any importance
issued since then, and concluding with a summing up of the present
aspect of the question. Pardon me for introducing so warlike a subject
into a meeting with aims so peaceful.
The whole question, however, needs no apology for its discussion. It
must always command the attention, even the deep interest, of every
person who loves literature, and at the same time realises that in
England, as in all civilised countries, a power has arisen mightier
than Queen, Lords, and Commons, more potent than the pulpit and
stronger than the bar--the fourth estate--THE PRESS.
As already noticed, the rival camps are those of Coster and Gutenberg.
In 1870 the Costerians were never stronger, nor were they at all an
ignoble band. On their side were Bernard, a host in himself, Ottley,
Holtrop, Campbell, Berjeau, Noel Humphreys, myself, and others. They
accepted Junius’s account of the Invention of Printing as veritable
tradition, even if in some parts inaccurate, and they sided with
the Dutch writers Köning, De Vries, and Noordziek, to the extent of
believing that Holland was the birth-place of types. Some years,
however, before that period, it was known to a few that certain
damaging revelations concerning the entries of Coster’s name in the
Haarlem Archives were certain sooner or later to be made public: but
the many were in the dark, and when, in 1870, Dr. Van der Linde,
himself a native of Haarlem, published a masterly series of letters
in the _Nederlandsche Spectator_, in which the documents in favour
of Coster were declared to be false, and the arguments in his favour
without any historical or bibliographical support, the consternation
among Costerians was great; they threw down their arms, and their rout
was considered complete and final. Van der Linde was master of the
field; his friends exclaimed, “Exeunt Coster, Haarlem, Holland, and
all their followers, never to reappear,” and enter triumphantly, with
a full brass band and kettle-drum, the statue of Gutenberg, crowned by
Dr. Anthon Van der Linde and surrounded by all Germany, crying “Lou is
dood! Lou is dood!” (Coster is dead.)
The real good done by Van der Linde in his Haarlem Legend was to
draw attention to the frauds of Köning and Dr. Abr. de Vries, who,
wishing to support the story of the invention of types as narrated by
Junius, quoted the Haarlem Registers in a thoroughly deceptive manner,
extracting only what seemed to favour their purpose, and ignoring most
important entries which would upset their theories; while, as side
supports, some minor forgeries were unscrupulously perpetrated, and
issued to the public in a distorted or garbled fashion as pieces of
evidence. Starting with this advantage, Van der Linde brought great
acuteness and clever ridicule to bear upon all other evidence in favour
of Holland, and it must be confessed that for a few years the current
of opinion ran all in his favour.
The real harm done by Van der Linde to history and to bibliographical
research is that his unequalled powers of argument and of sarcasm
have not been used wisely nor fairly. Had he been satisfied with
exposing the frauds of the guilty ones, and re-stating the evidence
_pro et contra_, the question might have been debated without
acrimony. Instead of this, he has exhausted his vocabulary of abuse
indiscriminately upon all supporters of the claims of Holland, who
are, according to him, without exception, rogues and liars. He has
no medium place for mistaken writers who honestly believe in their
erroneous opinions. Especially is he fierce against his own countrymen:
the anathemas, the torrent of abuse, and the biting sarcasm which he,
a born Dutchman, although now a naturalised German, delights to throw
upon them, creates a suspicion that his invectives proceed from some
other motive than his love of truth; at the same time their repetition
wearies and annoys the reader, who feels that the subject should be
treated from a higher standpoint, and in a graver and more judicial
manner.
The only rejoinder to Dr. Van der Linde’s articles in the
_Nederlandsche Spectator_ worth noticing was a brochure by Dr. P.
Van Meurs, who, taking his stand on the _Cologne Chronicle_ of 1499,
claimed that as Holland’s all-sufficient evidence. The defence,
however, though well argued and well worked out, fell flat upon the
minds of people who had just been deluded by writers on their own side;
and so then as now Dutch bibliographers seem afraid: they turn their
backs to the smiter and open not their mouths.
Very shortly after the appearance of the articles in the _Nederlandsche
Spectator_, they were reprinted, with additions, in an octavo volume,
entitled _De Haarlemsche Costerlegende_, 1870, which in 1871 was
translated by Mr. Hessels into English. So impressed was I with the
importance of this work, that, at some expense, I printed it, so that
English readers might keep abreast with the new learning. This was
issued with the title, _The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of Printing
critically examined_.
In 1876 Theodore de Vinne, the well-known printer of New York,
published an excellent and comprehensive work, called _The Invention of
Printing; a collection of facts and opinions_, etc. In this book, which
has had a large circulation, he adopts all the conclusions of Van der
Linde, and, of course, condemns the Costerians and all their works.
American writers, however, unless they visit Europe for the purpose,
are under a serious disadvantage, as they must depend upon fac-simile
plates instead of a personal inspection of the originals.
About this time Mr. Madden, of Versailles, in a series of contributions
to the trade organ of the Parisian printers (_La Typologie Tucker_),
wrote some interesting articles on Gutenberg and his successors, which
should be read in evidence, and which were reprinted in the volumes
entitled _Lettres d’un Bibliophile_, 1868-1878.
In 1878 Dr. Van der Linde produced a companion volume to his Haarlem
Legend. Its title is _Gutenberg; Geschichte und Erdichtung aus den
Quellen nachgewiesen_. There is little that is new in this work
except its increased bulk. The story of the legend is retold, and, if
possible, with more bad taste than before. Great ability is shown in
his treatment of the subject, and the author argues throughout like a
clever barrister whose fame and future depended upon success. This
book, indeed, may be described as rewarded by the German government,
who, impressed with the service rendered by him to the national pride
in Gutenberg, appointed Dr. Van der Linde “Oberbibliothekar” of the
Royal Library, Wiesbaden. After this we know him no more as _Van_
der Linde, but as Dr. Antonius _Von_ der Linde, more German than the
Germans.
We must now enter upon another and the reverse side of the subject.
Mr. Hessels, also a native of Haarlem, and equally at home in the
English, French, and German languages, is well-known as the author of
a remarkable work upon the _Lex Salica_, for which, in combination
with his work on Gutenberg, to be mentioned presently, the University
of Cambridge conferred upon him the honorary degree of M.A. His long
apprenticeship in palæotypography under the late Mr. Bradshaw, and his
studies of the incunabula in the chief libraries of Europe, made him
well acquainted with the subject of early printing, and, as already
mentioned, he translated the Haarlem Legend into English. In 1879 he
undertook to review critically the _Gutenberg_ of Dr. Van der Linde,
which had appeared the previous year. He had not read far into the
work before he found strong grounds for doubting the good faith of
the author, and the result of his labours was not a mere criticism,
but a re-statement of the whole Gutenberg question in a work called
_Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_ 1882. Mr. Hessels
declares that Van der Linde is not at all trustworthy; but I had better
quote from his preface:--“He takes all his documents at second, third,
or fourth hand, rarely telling his readers upon what authority he
himself prints any single document; and from not investigating a single
point in the whole question, his book presents a more complete chaos on
the subject than any of its predecessors” (p. 99).
Mr. Hessels took nearly three years to examine, at their sources in
the various cities and towns of Germany, all the documents connected
with the history of Gutenberg. It was known already that several
falsifications and forgeries had been made by Schœpflin and Bodmann
in the Gutenberg interest, and Mr. Hessels goes so far as to say, “In
the case of Gutenberg far more forgeries have been perpetrated than in
that of the Haarlem inventor.” For instance, the letter of March, 1424,
is a forgery; the celebrated breach of promise case between Gutenberg
and Anna zu der Iserin Thüre, about which so much romantic nonsense has
been written, is a forgery; the relic of Gutenberg’s press, accepted by
a good many Germans, is a palpable forgery; the Notarial Act of July,
1453, is a forgery, as is the letter of 1459; so is the MS. rubric of
1463 which mentions Gutenberg, and which Van der Linde accepted. But
why go further? The scorn with which these forgeries, and they are now
admitted as such by Van der Linde himself, would have been treated had
they been made by a Costerian is altogether wanting in Van der Linde’s
narrative; and why? because the forgers are Germans, and the forgeries
made in the cause of Gutenberg.
The result of Mr. Hessels’ researches was more negative than positive.
He says: “I have not found anything which enables me to answer the
question, Was Gutenberg the Inventor of Printing? with either a Yes or
a No. Of the three principal documents, one is lost entirely, and the
other two only preserved in transcripts. In ordinary cases transcripts
may be safely relied on, but, considering the extraordinary forgeries
and frauds perpetrated on this subject, caution is more than ever
necessary. But even if we accept these transcripts, and base ourselves
on what we have, I can only see that these documents point to Gutenberg
as a printer, but not as the inventor of printing, and that is the main
question. The Incunabula, which are usually ascribed to Gutenberg, tell
us nothing about him; and what is still more remarkable, they may, with
the utmost facility, be ascribed to other printers, and have actually
been so ascribed.”
Following the list of books chronologically, it is quite a relief
to take up Mr. Conway’s book _The Wood-cutters of the Netherlands_,
issued in 1884. This book has a direct bearing on the early history of
printing, not in any way on account of the author’s opinions, for he
advances none, but because of the numerous personal observations and
facts about the block-books and the earliest typographical wood-cuts,
all taken from actual inspection. The work is a storehouse of useful
information arranged on a scientific basis for the use of students.
Again we must devote some space to Dr. Van der Linde, who, the
German government having consented to bear the cost, issued last
year (1886) an enormous work entitled _Geschichte der Erfindung der
Buchdruckerkunst_. It is in three large volumes, and is a notable piece
of book-making, sheet after sheet being occupied with mere padding.
There is nothing except luxurious printing and a lot of unimportant
plates to distinguish it from his former work _Gutenberg_. We need,
therefore, notice it no further than to express a strong opinion that
the only person in connection with this work to receive praise should
be the printer. One of the author’s outcries against Costerians was,
that they issued “works of luxury, the mere appearance of which imposed
upon the unlearned.” This puts one in mind of the old proverb “Curses
often come home to roost.” These “Livres de luxe” of Van der Linde had
not been out long before Mr. Hessels began in the _Academy_ a series
of letters on the Invention of Printing, with especial reference to
the position held by the “Costeriana.” They were continued through the
months of April, May, and June of the present year, and deal severely
and efficiently with the blunders and erroneous readings of Van der
Linde, who, professing to have studied the originals, did no such
thing, but depended upon other writers for his quotations. Mr. Hessels
enters minutely into the early manufacture of MSS., block-books, and
type-books, showing how certain signs prove an earlier or later date.
The early works ascribed to Gutenberg are then examined, and most of
them attributed to Pfister. He disproves the dates 1471-74 as the
period when the “Costeriana” were printed, and shows how very out of
place, typographically speaking, these “Costeriana” would be at so
late a period, and urging with a great show of likelihood that 1446-74
would be a period much more in consonance with their typographical
aspect. Several reasons are adduced for attributing to Haarlem the
earliest attempts at types.[13]
Turning now from the heated controversy of opposing authors, let us
honestly and seriously consider the facts, so far as we can get at
them, which are adduced by each side, and weigh their evidence.
Omitting all reference to documents connected with Gutenberg which bear
only upon his personal history, and have nothing to do with typography,
the first we find is a lawsuit, in 1439, between Geo. Dritzehen and
Gutenberg. The authenticity of this document is doubtful. Schœpflin,
who forged two or three other documents, was the first to publish
this, and it was partly seen by De Laborde. Dr. Dibdin, who, about
1820, saw one of the three volumes which contained them, doubted their
genuineness, and all chance of verifying them is now gone, for in the
siege of Strasbourg two of the volumes were burnt, one having been
already destroyed in 1793 during the French Revolution. The suit was
to define the rights of partnership in a certain business: polished
stones are mentioned; secret arts known to Gutenberg; implements;
four pieces laying down in a press; while one witness speaks of work
connected with “printing,” and another of polishing mirrors. This seems
to point to trials at some kind of printing, though the evidence of a
witness that the partnership had been profitable points strongly the
other way. Printing from blocks was, of course, known before 1443; but
our question is as to printing with movable types, about which the
document says nothing. Again, in 1455, we find Fust, who had lent money
to Gutenberg, bringing an action to recover wages, rent, vellum, paper,
and ink. He gained the action, and Gutenberg had to yield up all his
material. There is little doubt that this is genuine, and that the
work in hand was type printing. These two seem the only documents that
can be produced as to Gutenberg’s connection with the new Art.
The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of the
invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a very strong
argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not the first to invent
and use movable types, but the clever man who brought to perfection
what already existed in a crude state, we can quite imagine his fame
to have spread everywhere as the real inventor. As a master in the
art of printing, Gutenberg’s name was known in Paris so early as
1472. This interesting fact will be found in the admirable work of M.
Jules Philippe on the Origin of Printing in Paris, published in 1886.
Examining carefully all the known copies of _Gasparini Pergamensis
Orthographia_, printed at Paris about 1472, M. Philippe tells us
that, in the copy preserved in the Heylin Collection at Basle, there
is a unique Prologue by Guil. Fichet, printed with the same Sorbonne
types that were used for the rest of the volume. This was originally
discovered by Dr. Sieber of Basle. The portion which interests us reads
thus: “I imagine that the friends of literature will receive great
benefit from the Art invented by the new sort of Printers, who in these
our days have (like the warriors from the Trojan Horse) issued from
the womb of Germany and scattered themselves abroad. In this country
(France) the story is, that a certain John Gutenberg, not far from
Mayence, was the first inventor of the Printing Art, by means of which
books are made, not with a reed as of old, nor with a pen as in our
days, but with metal letters, and that rapidly, evenly, and elegantly.”
This is a plain testimony, but proves nothing more than we knew before,
viz., that Gutenberg invented a more perfect method of printing than he
had found to his hand in Holland. Fichet, indeed, distinctly mentions
Gutenberg as celebrated for inventing “a new kind of printing.” This
Association will remember an interesting Paper read on this subject by
Mr. Pullen, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, at our
Dublin meeting. Numerous other writers and chroniclers bear the same
witness, just as in all our biographical dictionaries Watt is spoken
of as the inventor of the steam engine, which we know he only greatly
improved.
Still another and very important witness is the writer of the _Cologne
Chronicle_, who in 1499, while praising Gutenberg and attributing the
discovery to him, adds, “Although the art was discovered at Mentz in
the manner as it is now generally used, yet the first idea (vurbyldung
= voorbeelding) was found in Holland in the Donatuses, which were
printed there before that time. And from these Donatuses the beginning
of the said art (as used by Gutenberg) was taken. And it was invented
in a manner much more masterly and subtle than this, and became more
and more ingenious.”
This evidence, which it should be remembered was taken direct from
the mouth of Ulric Zell, the first printer at Cologne and disciple
of Gutenberg, is very strongly in favour of Holland, and can hardly
be explained away by saying that the writer meant the Netherlands
or Flanders, or meant by “Donatuses” engraved blocks of wood, as
maintained by Van der Linde and his followers. A reference to
block-books would be contrary to the whole tenor of the remarks. The
writer is speaking of movable types as used by Gutenberg, and states,
if words mean anything, that the very badly type-printed Donatuses of
Holland excited in him the desire to print in the same way, only more
masterly: this he certainly did.
But then comes the natural question, Are there such Donatuses known?
I need only refer you to the list in your hands of the Costeriana, as
catalogued by Mr. Hessels. While Donatuses printed in Holland in a rude
manner were almost unnoticed by bibliographers, there were some grounds
for throwing doubt on the meaning of Zell. Now that at least twenty
editions of early Dutch-printed Donatuses, as well as many similar
works, are known, the reference of the Cologne Chronicler has much
greater weight.
We must note, too, that Gutenberg’s name does not appear on a single
production of his press, nor does any one of his associates or patrons,
not even the Archbishop or his money-lender, Doctor Homeyr, connect him
with the original invention.
To what then does the evidence so far point? This--that Gutenberg was a
famous printer, who was the first to bring his art to that perfection
which we trace in the Mazarin Bible and in the beautiful Mayence
Psalter printed by his associates and successors, Fust and Schœffer.
Turn we now to the Costerian view of the subject; and here, to start
with, we must rid our minds of the cobwebs and falsifications imported
into the question by partisan writers.
There is no need to tear one’s hair, as Dr. V. der Linde does, over
the misdeeds of the Haarlem archivists and antiquarians: he is silent
enough over the German falsifications. Let us take the Dutch evidence
as we know it now, since the investigations of Holtrop, Campbell,
Hessels, and others.
Junius was a learned man of high character, and respected throughout
all Europe. As his account is very distasteful to Dr. Van der Linde,
a foolish attempt is made to discredit both the good name and talents
of Junius. In 1588 he gave an account in his _Batavia_ of the Invention
of Printing at Haarlem by Coster. This account, which must have been
written about 1568, he had heard as a tradition handed down to his
time, and it is corroborated in part by documents, the existence of
which was unknown to him. He gives the name of the inventor as Laur.
Janszoon Coster, and Coster’s name is found just at the right date
in the Haarlem Registers. He mentions an old man--Cornelis, and sure
enough modern writers have turned up the name as a bookbinder in the
town archives. We certainly are not bound to take the whole of the
narrative as true,--Junius gives it as a tradition,--but wherever
unexpected confirmation turns up it gives a stronger support to the
whole. Mr. Hessels, indeed, believes that the Coster mentioned in the
archives as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and
that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is substantially
correct. Personally I should like to wait for more evidence.
There is no doubt that the back-bone of the Dutch claim lies in the
pieces and fragments of old books discovered for the most part in the
last few decades, and which give support to, at the same time that they
receive support from, the Cologne Chronicler. As you will see by your
list, these now amount to forty-seven different works. Their number is
being added to continually now that the attention of librarians has
been strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving them.
They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr. Hessels, and
for the first time classified by internal evidence into their various
types and classes. But, it may well be asked, what evidence is there
that all these books were not printed long after Gutenberg’s press was
at work? The first printed date which appears in any German document is
on an indulgence dated 1454, and if the opinion of Dr. Van der Linde
is right, all these “Costeriana” rank naturally at least twenty years
later. The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a
single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any printer’s
name or place or date. To this the reply is, that these small pieces
were school-books or absies and such-like works, in the production of
which there was nothing to boast of, as there would be in a Bible.
Such things were at all times “sine ullâ notâ,” and certain to be
destroyed when done with, so that the wonder would be to find them so
dated, and the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove
them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all discovered in
15th-century books, printed mostly in various towns of Holland. One
indeed--a Donatus--was extracted from the binding of an account book
of 1474, belonging to the Cathedral of Haarlem, an entry in which
shows that the book was bound by Cornelis, the very man mentioned by
Junius as having been the servant of Coster. Another was found in an
account book of 1476, belonging to the same Cathedral, and bound also
by Cornelis. Several other fragments of these Costerian Donatuses have
been used by this same Cornelis in strengthening his bindings for the
Cathedral. All these are now duly preserved at Haarlem. This points at
any rate to Costeriana “waste” being in Haarlem when the books were
bound.
Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different books as “Costeriana,” which
include four editions of the _Speculum_, nineteen of _Donatus_, and
seven of _Doctrinale_. The Donatuses are in five different types,
probably from five different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest
dated books of 1473 onwards, printed in Holland, they have nothing in
common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS. and block-books of
about thirty years earlier is apparent.
Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain aberrations
of the planets without surmising a missing link in the chain of their
knowledge, so is it with early typography. That such finished works as
the first editions of the Bible and Psalter _could be_ the legitimate
predecessors of the Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press,
and others, I cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their
workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much ruder
school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious. Side by side,
the weakest gave place and the fittest survived, and soon, as in all
survivals, the existence of the former became traditionary.
It is impossible in the short space of a lecture to adduce more than a
portion of the evidence which could be brought forward--evidence which
each year grows more and more strong. The onus of further research lies
with the Germans. They have done very little as yet in this field,
although they have many old libraries, the contents of which have never
been examined with an eye to the ancient bindings where the evidence
for or against is most likely to turn up. Other countries also have
treasure-houses of old 15th-century books. To mention one only, Sweden:
who has thoroughly examined the numerous incunabula in the great
libraries at Lund, Upsala, and Stockholm? The more these are examined
the longer will be the list of “Costeriana,” and it is quite probable
that somewhere will be discovered a date or a fact which will turn
the probability, that Holland was the birth-place of printing, into an
acknowledged historical fact.
In conclusion, we must admit that, however strong the circumstantial
evidence in favour of Holland may be, the verdict cannot be given
positively to either party, although I have little doubt as to which
side all future evidence will tend.
A LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED UPON THE SUBJECT SINCE 1868.
HOLTROP, J. W. Monuments Typographiques des Pays-Bas au
quinzième Siècle. Collection de Fac-simile d’après les
originaux conservés à la Bibliothèque Royale de la Haye et
ailleurs. xiii pp. + 126 pp. + 12 pp. of Table + 180 fac.
Plates + 1 Map. Folio. La Haye, 1868.
This is the most important book ever published for the study
of Dutch incunabula, as the fac-similes are most excellent and
represent many of the very books and fragments of books upon
which Costerians rely.
LINDE, DR. A. VAN DER. De Haarlemsche Costerlegende
wetenschappelijk onderzocht. Tweede, omgewerkte Uitgaaf. 8 +
352 pp. and 1 plate. 8vo. ’sGravenhage, 1870.
The first edition appeared in the _Nederlandschen Spectator_,
Dec., 1869, to May, 1870.
MEURS, DR. P. VAN. De Keulsche Kroniek en de Costerlegende van
Dr. Van der Linde. 8 + 65 pp. 8vo. Haarlem, 1870.
A criticism upon Van der Linde’s treatment of the _Cologne
Chronicle_.
LINDE, DR. A. VAN DER. The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of
Printing, by Lourens Janszoon Coster, critically examined.
From the Dutch, by J. H. Hessels, with an introduction and a
classified list of the Costerian Incunabula. xxvi + 170 pp.
8vo. London, 1871.
VINNE, THEO. L., DE. The Invention of Printing. A collection
of facts and opinions descriptive of early Prints and Playing
Cards, the Block-books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend
of Laurens Janszoon Coster of Haarlem, and the work of John
Gutenberg and his associates. Illustrated with fac-similes of
early types and wood-cuts. Frontispiece and 556 pp. 8vo. New
York, 1876.
MADDEN, J. P. A. Lettres d’un Bibliographe. 6th series. 8vo.
Paris, 1868-78. Atlas separate.
Contains many interesting articles on Gutenberg and his school,
and adopts entirely the conclusions of Van der Linde.
LINDE, DR. A. V. D. Gutenberg. Geschichte und Erdichtung aus
den Quellen nachgewiesen. x + 583 + xcviii pp. 8vo. Stuttgart,
1878.
HESSELS, J. H. Gutenberg: Was he the Inventor of Printing? An
historical investigation. xxviii + 201 pp. 8vo. London, 1882.
CONWAY, WILLIAM MARTIN. The Wood-cutters of the Netherlands
in the Fifteenth Century. In three parts:--I. History of the
Wood-cutters. II. Catalogue of the Woodcuts. III. List of the
Books containing Woodcuts. xx + 359 pp. 8vo. Cambridge, 1884.
PHILIPPE, JULES. Origine de l’Imprimerie à Paris, d’après des
documents inédits. viii + 256 pp. + 19 facs. 8vo. Paris, 1885.
Contains the earliest known notice of Gutenberg as a Printer.
LINDE, A. VON DER. Geschichte der Erfindung der
Buchdruckerkunst. 3 Vols. 1020 pp. Large 4to. Berlin, 1886.
REED, TALBOT BAINES. A History of the Old English Letter
Foundries, with Notes, historical and bibliographical, on the
rise and progress of English Typography, xiv + 379 pp., and 17
plates. 4to. London, 1887.
Has an introductory chapter on “The Types and Type-founding of
the First Printers.”
HESSELS, J. H. The History of the Invention of Printing. A
series of articles in _The Academy_, April to June, 1887.
HESSELS, J. H. Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz.
Title + 78 pp. 8vo. London, 1887. (Elliot Stock.)
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ.
PART I.
INTRODUCTION.
“Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labour and to wait.”
“For Time will teach thee soon the truth.”
I heartily welcome the new serial, _The Book-worm_, and I see in the
words of the American poet quoted above the very “image” (to use
Hooke’s word in _Micrographia_) of a Book-worm, whether belonging to
the genus _homo_ or _anobium_. In fact the anobium has the advantage
of man: he pursues, he labours, he waits, and knows naught beyond the
restricted boundary of his paper tunnel, until time in due course
develops the winged truth to him. Alas for us human worms! we too
grub, we achieve (sometimes), we pursue, we wait, and we call time and
history to help us; and at every turn, instead of eating wholesome,
natural truths, we feed perforce on adulterated documents, loaded with
fibreless gypsum and historical pipe-clay. “Anything,” cried Walpole,
“but history, for history _must_ be false,” and if Walpole could say
this of history in general, what pungency of satire would have escaped
him had the bent of his mind led him to study the most deceitful of
all--Typographical history.
For 300 years have writers of all nations in untold abundance been
contradicting and vilipending one another; and still the wordy war
goes on. Time has, however, in the last few years, taught us some
truths and exposed many fables concerning the origin of printing. So
many Dutch figments and falsities about Coster and the Haarlem press
have lately been swept away by the trenchant pen of Dr. A. von der
Linde of Wiesbaden; and so many German forgeries and fallacies about
Gutenberg and Mayence have been exposed in the more efficient, if
less brilliant, publications of Mr. Hessels of Cambridge, that a much
clearer battlefield is now left for the opposing forces. One excellent
result of the exposures on each side is that we can afford to ignore
the bulk of the old writers on printing, as the data upon which they
trusted were incomplete or fallacious. This reduces the books necessary
for the study of the subject to a number which can be reckoned upon
one’s fingers.
One cause, and perhaps the chief one, why so little progress was made
by the older bibliographers in any true criticism of the subject, was
the great difficulty of judging from actual inspection of either the
original historical documents or the original productions of the press.
Dispersed in various libraries throughout Europe, and separated from
each other by long distances, the time and money necessary to personal
inspection were prohibitory; so that any one wishing to study the
origin of printing had to satisfy himself with an examination of the
few specimens within his reach, and with adopting the arguments and
conclusions of former writers, who in their turn had already done the
same.
Thus the subject became encrusted with crude notions and legendary
ideas, most of which have been consigned to oblivion by modern
criticism. Nowadays the comparative facilities enjoyed by travellers,
the ease and speed with which libraries widely separated can be
visited, and the greatly developed interest taken by the librarians
of all countries in the “incunabula” under their charge, render the
examination of any bibliographical treasures both pleasant and easy.
Again, the extreme accuracy of the best modern fac-simile plates is
another advantage possessed by the present generation over their
predecessors, though no plates, however good (and certainly no
photographic plates), can ever be to the critic what the originals
should be.
The new school of criticism was started in 1870 by Dr. A. van der
Linde, who since his German naturalisation has altered the “van” to
“von.” In that year appeared _De Haarlemsche Costerlegende_, which
was issued the next year in an English translation as _The Haarlem
Legend of the Invention of Printing_. This was a heavy onslaught upon
the very existence of printing or printers in Haarlem anterior to
1483. De Vinne followed on the same lines in 1876 with _The Invention
of Printing_, published in New York. M. Madden, of Versailles, in his
_Lettres d’un Bibliophile_, 1868-78, is also a disciple of the same
school. In 1878 Dr. Van der Linde issued a work of nearly 700 pages
upon Gutenberg, in which he again treats the Dutch claims with extreme
contempt. Nor was this enough, for in 1886, under the patronage of the
German Government, he again sent out three prodigious volumes on the
same subject, entitled _Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst_.
These works contain the very latest pleadings on the Gutenberg side.
Meantime, the first shock of Dr. Van der Linde’s attack having been
overcome, Mr. Hessels opened the case for Coster with a clever
introduction to the Haarlem Legend, in which a very useful list of
Costerian Incunabula were classified under their various types. Having
discovered many blunders and inaccuracies in Van der Linde’s dealing
with his subject, he issued in 1882 _Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of
Printing?_ which was followed by a series of articles in the _Academy_
for 1887 on the same subject, in which the writer stoutly maintains
that not only was Holland the birth-place of printing, but that Coster
invented it at Haarlem. These have been enlarged and reprinted under
the title, _Haarlem, not Mentz_.
Italians, and Italians only, maintain that their countryman, Panfilo
Castaldi, of Feltre, was, about the year 1450, the originator of cast
movable types; and that his pupils were Gutenberg and Fust, who carried
to Germany his ideas, and there perfected them. But the claim rests
upon no foundation, and need only be mentioned and then dismissed as
unworthy of serious examination.
I do not propose, even were it possible, to discuss the origin of
printing in the short space of this article, but will as curtly as
is compatible with a clear understanding of the subject state the
position now held by each of the opposing camps, giving in the next two
articles the case of “Coster _v._ Gutenberg,” and in the following one
“Gutenberg _v._ Coster.”
[Illustration]
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ.
PART II.
COSTER _v._ GUTENBERG.
The ebb and flow of opinion, even upon the most important questions,
upon which one would suppose everybody would agree, is a remarkable
psychological fact. Upon no question has this alternation of opinion
been more noticeable than “On the Origin of Printing.” Indeed, from
the earliest times up to now there have been divergent opinions. That
movable types were used in Holland before the earliest specimens of the
Gutenberg school appeared has been maintained with more or less success
ever since 1499, when the author of the _Cologne Chronicle_ published
his important history. And that belief was held by many learned
bibliographers when Dr. Van der Linde in 1870 issued his remarkable
book, known in England as _The Haarlem Legend_. The vigour of his
attack in that work upon the Dutch claims, and his wonderful skill in
the use of his materials and the marshalling of his arguments, made his
readers shut their eyes to the savage personality of his warfare and
the gross unfairness of his statements. Nevertheless, he did good by
sweeping away many literary cobwebs and erroneous ideas by which former
writers had been entrapped, and by placing the facts of the debate upon
a firmer basis. In stating the case for either Holland or Germany,
theory must to some extent be introduced, but theory must always be
grounded on a good substratum of fact, and then the reader must judge
for himself whether the facts are sufficiently strong to support the
superstructure.
The first fact adduced in favour of Holland as the birth-place of
printing is the _Cologne Chronicle_ for 1499. This evidence, coming
as it does from a writer who lived and wrote in the 15th century, and
who obtained his information from “Master Ulric Zell,” a celebrated
Cologne printer of the Gutenberg school, demands the most serious
consideration. Unfortunately there are certain discrepancies in his
narrative, which, however, are not in that portion which concerns
the positive invention, so much as in the sequence of the places in
which the art was introduced. We must remember, too, that the account
was written at a time when criticism or bibliography was unborn. The
passage, which is quoted from _The Haarlem Legend_ (1871), page 8, is
as follows:--
“When, where, and by whom was found out the unspeakably useful
art of printing books?
“Here we have especially to observe that of late the love
and ardour of mankind have decreased very much, or have
been polluted, at one time by vain glory, at another time
by covetousness, idleness, etc., particularly reprehensible
in the clergy, who are more watchful and anxious to gather
temporal good, and to seek the enjoyments of the flesh, than
the salvation of the soul; whereby the common people fall into
great error, for they and their leaders seek only temporal
good, as if there were no eternal good or eternal life
hereafter. In order, therefore, that the negligence of our
leaders, and the evil example and corruption of the Divine
Word by all preachers in general, who cause their immoral
covetousness to be heard and observed, at the same time might
not be too great an impediment and injury to good Christians;
and in order that nobody might excuse himself, the Eternal
God has produced out of His impenetrable wisdom the present
excellent art, whereby books are printed and multiplied, so
that every person himself is able to read, or hear read, the
way to salvation. How should I attempt to write or to relate
the praise, the advantage, and the bliss which arise, and have
arisen, from this art? for they are inexpressible. Let all who
love letters testify it. God gives it to laymen who are able to
read German, to the learned who make use of the Latin language,
to monks and nuns, in short to all. Oh, how many prayers,
what unspeakable edification, is derived from printed books!
How many precious and wholesome exhortations are given in
preaching! All this arises from this noble art. Oh, how great
an advantage and blessing proceed, if they choose, from those
who either make, or are instrumental in making, printed books.
And he who wishes to read about this may peruse the little
book, written by the great and celebrated Doctor Joh. Gerson,
_De laude scriptorum, or the book of the spiritual father and
abbot of Spanheim, Joh. von Trittenheim_. This highly valuable
art was discovered first of all in Germany, at Mentz, on the
Rhine. And it is a great honour to the German nation that
such ingenious men are found among them. And it took place
about the year of our Lord 1440, and from this time until the
year 1450 the art, and what is connected with it, was being
investigated. And in the year of our Lord 1450 it was a golden
year (Jubilee), and they began to print, and the first book
they printed was the Bible, in Latin. It was printed in a large
letter, resembling the letter with which at present missals are
printed. Although the art, as has been said, was discovered at
Mentz, in the manner as it is now generally used, yet the first
pre-figuration (_die erste vurbyldung_) was found in Holland,
in the Donatuses, which were printed there before that time.
And from these the beginning of the said art was taken, and it
was invented in a manner much more masterly and subtle than
this, and became more and more ingenious. One named Omnibonus
wrote in a preface to the book called _Quinctilianus_, and in
some other books too, that a Walloon from France, named Nicol.
Jenson, discovered first of all this masterly art; but that is
untrue, for there are those still alive who testify that books
were printed at Venice before Nic. Jenson came there and began
to cut and make letters. But the first inventor of printing was
Junker Johan Gutenberg. From Mentz the art was introduced first
of all into Cologne, then into Strasbourg, and afterwards into
Venice. The origin and progress of the art was told me verbally
by the honourable Master Ulrich Zell, of Harran, still printer
at Cologne, Anno 1499, by whom the said art came to Cologne.
There are also some confident persons who say that books had
been already printed before; but this is not true, for we find
in no country books printed at that time.”
We have here the account of a writer who is eminently German in his
sympathies, and is proud of the position held by his countrymen in
the early stage of printing. He lived in the midst of an extensive
book manufactory--Cologne--and his ideas are large and biblical.
When he speaks of Gutenberg’s art, he refers to Bibles and Psalters
and Classics, books of literary and religious importance, and not to
school-books for boys. His account reads thus: “This highly valuable
art (that is, the perfected state of which he had been speaking) was
discovered first in Germany, and the first book printed was the Bible,
in Latin. But although the art was discovered at Mentz _in the manner
now generally used_ (the manner of the first great Bible), yet the
first pre-figuration was found in Holland, in the Donatuses, which
were printed there _before_ that time. And from these the beginning
of the said art was taken, and it was invented (by Gutenberg) in a
manner much more masterly and subtle than this (viz., the Holland
school-books), and became more and more ingenious.”
Surely this is easy to understand, notwithstanding the learned mists
by which it has been enveloped. The Donatuses referred to, says Dr.
Van der Linde, were block-books, engraved on, and printed from, wood.
But a block-printed Donatus of Dutch make does not exist, while early
Dutch Donatuses in movable types are among the most common on the
list of “Costeriana.” It is to me plain that Gutenberg could not have
taken the idea of separate types from a Dutch block-book which did
not exist, while German ones were within his reach; but that seeing a
type-printed Donatus which had come from Holland, he was struck with
the novel process, saw that it was capable of great improvement, and
after years of trial and experiment, produced books in a manner “much
more masterly and subtle” than the poor Dutch Donatus. This argument
formerly was much less complete, because the type Donatuses were then
unknown. Now, there are at least twenty editions in various types all
belonging to Holland. The only question is, Are there reasons for
believing that these Donatuses, or some of them, are products of the
Dutch press anterior to the first German-printed dated piece, viz., the
_Indulgence_ of 1454? This and other arguments we will discuss in a
future article.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ.
Part III.
COSTER _v._ GUTENBERG.
In Mr. Hessels’ last work, _Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not
Mentz_, he gives a most interesting list of forty-seven books and
fragments of books, all connected together typographically, and all
without doubt printed in Holland at a very early stage of the art.
For these, eight different founts of type were used, and the proofs
of their origin are in the language of some, which is Dutch; in the
shape of the =t= and =r=, a form peculiar to Holland, and especially
peculiar to Dutch MSS. of the first half of the 15th century; and in
the typographical treatment. All are rude in workmanship, though not
contemporaneous, and twenty-one out of the forty-seven are editions of
the school-book known as _Donatus_, the very book which the Cologne
Chronicler refers to as having suggested to Gutenberg the idea of
improved movable types.
Forming as these do a group of books having similar peculiarities all
their own, we want a general title by which to speak of and identify
them; and the word “Costeriana,” by which already some of them are
known, seems a fit designation for the whole class.
Of these forty-seven “Costeriana,” thirty-five are printed on vellum
and twelve only on paper. Now, this great prevalence of vellum
over paper undoubtedly points to an early period of printing.[14]
Seven editions of the _Alex: Galli Doctrinale_, another well-known
school-book, are also among the “Costeriana.” Being all in Latin,
they would be equally useful as school-books in other countries, and
would naturally travel away from the seat of their production. It is
therefore nothing extraordinary to find them in towns outside Holland.
When they became injured by use, or, in the course of time, obsolete,
they naturally fell into the hands of the book-binders, who, according
to a well-known custom, cut them up and used them to strengthen the
backs and sides of any books they had to bind. Thus the great bulk of
“Costeriana” have been rescued from the sides and backs of old books,
and from the covers of a variety of 15th-century works. They have
turned up at Haarlem, Delft, Deventer, Strasbourg, Reutlingen, and even
at Cologne. Haarlem supplies five varieties, all found in the town or
cathedral archives, the earliest of which is a manuscript volume begun
in 1474, which belongs to Haarlem Cathedral. Of course a book which
begins in 1474, and is partly made up of fragments of a utilised book,
must have been bound earlier and with material already old. How far
back this would take us must remain a matter of conjecture: if we
reckon it as twenty years, we should just precede the Indulgence of
1454-55 attributed to Gutenberg.
Reverting to the eight varieties of type found in the forty-seven
“Costeriana,” there are no data at present by which to determine their
sequence. They ought all to be studied side by side by an expert in
early types,--apparently an impossibility, as they are scattered
through various libraries in Europe,--for, if their typographical
peculiarities were carefully and scientifically observed, I feel sure
that they would yield very important data, and probably supply us
with evidence of a true chronological sequence. There is no certain
evidence of their issue from one press, or even from one town. They
are, however, in one way or another closely related. When two sorts
of type, as happens with types 1 and 2, are used in the same book, we
may safely attribute them, as is the case with others, to the same
printing-office. Types 3, 4, 5, and 6 are in like manner closely
related, and with the same Gothic peculiarities as Nos. 1 and 2; while
types 7 and 8, though distinct, are plainly of the same class, and with
the others form an interesting family group.
Again, we must note that not one of these “Costeriana” has catchwords,
or signatures, or headlines, or hyphens. Four editions of the _Speculum
Humanæ Salvationis_ are printed by using the “froton,” and therefore
upon one side only of the paper, in a manner similar to that used by
our modern wood-engravers when they want to prove their work. These
rank among the “Block-books.” Certain pages in these books are entirely
cut in wood, certain others have a wood-block printed separately in the
upper part of the sheet, while the text beneath is printed at a press,
and with movable types. It would be absurd to place these typographical
customs anywhere in Germany so late as 1470--a period when books
printed with types were being sold in every capital of Europe.
But suppose that an early date is admitted for these “Costeriana,” can
we then place them before 1454, which is the date written upon an
Indulgence admittedly of German printing? Honestly speaking, I think
the direct proofs insufficient; but if we study the typographical
evidence by the light of the _Cologne Chronicle_, the probabilities
seem to me quite on the side of the “Costeriana.” Time, however, will
show. Mr. Hessels, reckoning the Donatus editions backwards from
1471, thinks that the demand which necessitated so many as twenty-one
editions must have been spread over a series of years long enough to
bring back the earliest edition to a period before the Indulgence of
1454. I am afraid this is a weak argument; and I would rather rest upon
the fact that these early Dutch prints fit in exactly with the allusion
to them in the _Cologne Chronicle_--that is, before 1450; that, try as
much as you like, you cannot place them in any other period, or with
any other group of Dutch typography. Bring them up to 1470, or near it,
and they are anachronisms; leave them, or some of them, anterior to
Gutenberg, and they “fit in.”
We should also remember that the evidence is not, and cannot for many
years to come, be complete. There are many collections in Europe
which have never been searched for “Costeriana,” and it is not often
that bibliographers can boast of a good “hunter,” who unites will,
knowledge, and devotion to the search. Several “Costeriana” have been
discovered within the last few years, and looking at the spoils already
snatched from the hands of time, we may well exclaim--
Quanta fuisti si tanta sunt reliquia!
We must now refer shortly to the account of Coster, given by the
historian Junius. This writer’s character and work have been most
unfairly treated by Dr. Van der Linde. Junius narrates the story of
the Dutch invention of printing as it was current in Holland in 1568,
and because his account overthrows Dr. Van der Linde’s pet theory, he
is accused of every base artifice and historical deceit. Now, who was
Junius? The Dutch form of his name was De Jonghe; but as he lived in
a scholarly age and wrote mostly in Latin, and as the fashion in his
time was to Latinise surnames, he was universally known as Junius. Few
men had a more extended fame in the latter part of the 16th century
than he. Wherever throughout all Europe men of culture and learning
congregated, his name was known and respected; and in any collection
of letters from and to literary men of that period, you are sure to
meet with his name. His career was brilliant, and it has been left for
one of his own countrymen to bolster up a weak cause by attributing
base motives to him after the general consent of 300 years had agreed
to yield him honour. Junius, writing in 1568, the true date of his
_Batavia_, gives a rather lengthy account of the origin of printing
in Haarlem--not as a proved historical narrative, but as reported to
him on trustworthy testimony. He states the general belief of the
Dutch people at that time, which was that a native of Haarlem, named
Laurens Janszoon Coster, about the year 1440, discovered the means
of printing from separate wooden types, which shortly afterwards led
to the use of metal types, and that he printed small books with them.
This is the pith of the story; for whether he was a tallow-chandler or
Custos of the Cathedral, whether he had children and grandchildren,
or whether his types were years afterwards cast into wine-pots, is of
no moment whatever. What is of moment is this: When Junius wrote the
story of Coster, he depended upon what had been handed down through
three or four generations to his time, and was quite unaware that the
Town Registers of Haarlem sustained his account in some important
particulars. For instance, Junius gives the name of the man who
invented printing as Coster of Haarlem, and sure enough, between 1436
and 1483, the name of Laurens Janszoon Coster appears frequently in the
Haarlem Town Records. Coster there is a tallow-chandler, and of course
the occurrence of such a name is no evidence that the Coster of Junius
was the Coster of the Haarlem Records. Still it is worth remembering.
Again, Junius says Coster had a servant named Cornelis, and here again
is a curious agreement in name, for the Cathedral Records of Haarlem
mention several times the employment of “Cornelis, the book-binder.”
Here, too, we must remember that several fragments of “Costeriana” have
been extracted from volumes bound by this very Cornelis. Many minor
arguments and coincidences might be adduced to show that if the story
of Coster has not been handed down with that accuracy of statement we
so much desire in old history, but which, alas, we so seldom get, there
is nevertheless a foundation for it stronger than mere rumour, and in
it a history free from intentional misrepresentation.
Turning now to Gutenberg, we have much firmer ground to stand upon. We
have, to begin with, abundant evidence of his existence, and of his
having been a printer. We have the general consent of Germany, Italy,
and France as to the art, as practised by them, having been derived
from him, and the natural tendency is to attach greater weight to this
evidence than upon critical examination it will bear. Workmen whose
tuition had come more or less directly from him, and book-buyers, who
were naturally in ignorance of the steps which led up to Gutenberg’s
success, attributed to him, not only priority in producing the
books which called forth their admiration, but believed him to have
been the first to use movable types. And yet, as we have seen, the
testimony is not given with that perfect assurance of its truth that
one might expect if they spoke of things within their own knowledge.
The weak part of Gutenberg’s case is that, notwithstanding several
opportunities, he never claimed the invention, although others around
him were taking the honour to themselves; that there is not a single
piece bearing his name; and that the earliest efforts attributed to him
may with just as much probability be put down to Pfister, the first
printer at Bamberg. Not indeed until 1472 do we meet with a direct
mention of Gutenberg’s name in connection with the discovery, and
then (it is Prof. Fichet, of Sorbonne, who is writing) the statement
is not positive; “_ferunt enim illic_,” which may be rendered by the
French “_on dit_.” In the sense that he improved so far on his Haarlem
originals as to enable him to print grand instead of unimportant books,
Gutenberg was an inventor; but had the question been put to him,
“Had you any idea of movable, separate types before you saw a Dutch
Donatus?” his answer would, I believe, have been “No!”
Perhaps the best verdict upon the whole question has come from the
pen of M. Madden, of Versailles. This biographer is a strong adherent
of Dr. Van der Linde, yet this is the conclusion of an article in the
February number of _La Typologie Tucker_:--
“Sans les humbles Donats de Haarlem nous n’aurions pas l’admirable
Bible de Trente-six lignes, et sans les persévérants et féconds efforts
de Gutenberg pendant dix ans, de 1440 à 1450, l’humanité ne jouirait
pas de l’art que son génie créateur a élevé à une perfection qui laisse
très loin en arrière les premiers et nécessairement très imparfaits
produits des essais de Laurent Coster. En un mot: Coster nous a donné
Gutenberg, et Gutenberg nous a donné la Typographie.”[15]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ.
PART IV.
GUTENBERG _v._ COSTER.
Coster of Haarlem the inventor of Printing? ’Tis a mere figment born of
national vanity. There is not an atom of real evidence to prove that a
man named _Coster_ ever existed as a printer. “Stat nominis Umbra,” and
very shady is the whole story, being nothing more than empty theory,
supported by phrases such as “in all probability”--“irresistible
deduction”--“must have been,” and similar empty words, which sound big
to the ear, but which added all together = 0. Applying the usual laws
of evidence to the arguments of Costerians, there is simply “no case.”
The evidence of the _Cologne Chronicle_ is twisted and strained to
support the claims of Holland. The writer of that work had no idea that
his words would in future ages become a battlefield for nations, or he
would have taken good care to have made himself better acquainted with
the early chronology of the art. Costerians admit that he is wrong in
his account of the towns to which the art was first taken; why then do
they insist so strongly on his verbal accuracy just where it tells in
their favour?
It is now admitted that on each side various documents have been
forged or falsified. More’s the pity, for they have confused and
mystified the question greatly. Mr. Hessels says that “in the case of
Gutenberg far more forgeries have been perpetrated than in that of
the Haarlem inventor.” But supposing this absurd dictum to be true
(which it is not) the character of such forgeries is very different
in the two cases. On the one side they are unimportant as regards
the invention--on the other, vital. The false documents concocted by
Bodmann, the Archeviste of Strasbourg, and others, in the Gutenberg
interest, concern points of family history only, with scarcely the
remotest interest typographically. They would add materials, if true,
to his biography, but would not add an iota to his claim to be the
first printer with types. On the other hand, the Coster typography
rests entirely on a padded legend, cooked up for the national palate
by Junius--on the Costerian pedigree concocted by Gerrit Thomaszoon
and the bare-faced falsifications of Meerman, De Vries, and others.
Compare such an impostor with _Gutenberg_! a real man of flesh and
blood about whose existence there is no doubt; and whose abilities as
a printer even Mr. Hessels does not deny, although he dates them later
than his opponents. He uses some clever arguments to show that the
early books hitherto attributed to Gutenberg were printed at Bamberg by
Pfister; but here he is evidently conscious that his argument proves
too much, for, carried out consistently, it would prove that Gutenberg
never printed at all. This would be such a flying in the face of
universally received evidence, that he wisely if illogically stops in
his destructive career. It would indeed be a difficult task to explain
the spread of Gutenberg’s fame, not only as a printer, but as the first
printer, if we eliminate from his history the Donatuses in the Bible
type, the Indulgences, and the first Bible. But as an historical fact,
we find his name and his fame spread through Germany, Italy, France,
England (see Caxton’s _Chronicle_), and we may say all Europe, a
century before any one ever heard of Coster. Mr. Hessels pretends that
Gutenberg himself spread the rumours about himself; but the argument
is very weak and untenable, for surely if Gutenberg had wished at all
to uphold his fame, a simple claim at the end of his great Bible would
have been much more efficacious than a roundabout plan of getting
his friends Ivo Wittig, A. Gelthus, and others, to proclaim him the
inventor of printing. Two words, “Gutenberg fecit,” at the end of any
of his works would have served the purpose. His omission to do this
was probably owing to his pride, which persuaded him not to boast of
what all the world knew, and for which all the world at that very time
gave him credit. Mr. Hessels’ whole argument is here weak--weak in the
extreme--especially in supposing that debt would make him reticent.
Here, too, we must note the difference of tone in the earliest notices
of the invention. The _Cologne Chronicle_ mentions Holland, but not
a word of Coster--Gutenberg is the hero. For a century and a half
no record mentions Coster, but after Junius wrote his _Batavia_ the
legendary figure fills Dutch literature. On the other hand, there is no
doubt as to Gutenberg’s first appearance. A good deal of his biography
unconnected with printing is known, and when as a printer he is first
spoken of, we find his name and fame the common property of the nation.
The earliest positive notice connecting Gutenberg by name with
typography appears in an interesting Latin preface to a special copy of
_Gasparinus_, printed by Gering, at Paris, in 1472. It was written by
Prof. Fichet, of Sorbonne,--he who with Jean Heynlin started the first
printing-press on French soil. He there speaks at great length of the
immense importance to mankind of the newly invented art which had been
discovered in Germany. The important part is thus translated: “People
say[16] in these parts (_i.e._ Paris) that a man named Gutenberg,[17]
not far from Mayence, was formerly the first inventor of the Printing
Art, by means of which, with rapidity, precision, and elegance, books
are made by means of metal letters, and no longer by means of a
reed-pen as of old, nor with a quill as in our days.... Gutenberg has
discovered the way of engraving letters by means of which all that
can be said or thought is at once reproduced, so that it descends to
posterity.” When these words were printed, the Sorbonne printers,
Gering, Friburger, and Crantz, had been at work about two years. They
were pupils from the German school of typography, and we can hardly
resist the conviction that they gave Fichet his information, and that
they had personal knowledge of its accuracy.
The expression, “people here say,” which has been taken to prove
hearsay only, does not mean that the writer had any doubt of the truth
of his information--it was simply a colloquial phrase for “the general
belief.” This discovery, therefore, of Fichet’s evidence is of great
interest and importance in the history of the invention. Mr. Bullen
plainly showed this in the interesting paper read by him on the subject
at a meeting of the Association of Librarians.
After Fichet in 1472, the next notice of Gutenberg is found in the
_Chronicon_ of Lignamine dated 1474. He mentions Gutenberg as a
printer, and from that time onward there is an unbroken testimony in
every age and in every country to the same effect.
Examining critically the earliest remains of the German press, we get
into great confusion if we dethrone Gutenberg. Who could have printed
the early Indulgences, one of which bears the year 1454, if Gutenberg
did not? His efforts there and upon the large type Donatuses, of which
several fragments have been preserved, would be a fitting and useful
prelude to such grand works as the Bible and Psalter, and they afford a
complete reply to those who say that these magnificent specimens could
never have been the first efforts of any infant press. Depend upon it,
if time, as Costerians say, is to prove so much in favour of their
theory, it is still more likely to unfold new Donatuses and unknown
editions of the _Speculum_ in the types of Gutenberg, and possibly with
his name or some note of their origin. It is a weak cause that takes
unknown discoveries for evidence.
No! Gutenberg is king. Mr. Hessels may spin out his fine-drawn and
prolix arguments--may arrange his regiments of “must-have-beens” and
probabilities; but “an ounce of fact is worth a ton of probabilities,”
and fact and history and general belief down to the present day are all
against him. His shady Costeriana will never be supported by a real
date, and in spite of him and them Gutenberg will reign through all
ages as the great inventor of Typography.
* * * * *
And now, as the writer of the foregoing articles, I feel that, having
stated the arguments on each side with as much fairness as I can, a
personal opinion may be expected from me, and without hesitation I will
give it.
The evidence on each side may be enlarged in the course of years, but
so far as it goes at present it is strongly in favour of a first rude
invention of movable types in Holland by some one whose name may have
been Coster. The claim of Gutenberg upon the respect of posterity rests
on his great improvements--so great as to entitle him in a sense to be
deemed the inventor--foremost in excellence if not first in time.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
EARLY GREEK TYPES OF THE ROYAL PRINTING OFFICE, PARIS, AND THE
CHANCELLOR OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.
Francis I. was perhaps the most literary monarch of which the French
nation can boast. It was he who, in 1540, promoted the printing of
Classic and Hebrew Authors, by appointing special printers for each
language, and bestowing upon them personal protection and numerous
privileges. Thus the celebrated Robert Estienne was appointed by
Letters Patent “Greek Printer to the King.” The better to carry into
effect the King’s wishes, he determined, with assistance from the
royal purse, to cut entirely new founts of various sizes. For this
purpose he engaged the services of Claude Garamond, who was the most
skilful engraver in France, to cut the punches, the designs being
contributed by a young Cretan in the King’s employment, celebrated for
his beautiful Greek handwriting. The result was a great success; and,
ever since, these types have been known as “the Royal Greek.” They
derived their fame from the picturesque beauty of their outline, and
their curious varieties of ligatures, each fount having a minimum of
536 matrices.
In the year 1700, the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge opened
negotiations with the Court of France concerning the terms on which a
complete set of these matrices might be obtained; engaging on his part,
not only to pay all expenses, but to acknowledge in the Prefaces of
the first works for which they might be used the favour conferred. The
arrangements made satisfactory progress on both sides until the matter
came before the Warden of the King’s Library, who had the custody of
the punches, when he stipulated for a new and stringent condition,
as follows: “The Chancellor of Cambridge shall engage to place the
following notice in the Title-page of every work for which the type
is used: _Caracteribus græcis e typographio regio Parisiensi_.” All
French printers who used these types were compelled to conform to this
condition; it was too much, however, for our English “amour propre,”
and so the negotiations were broken off and never after renewed. These
interesting punches formed part of the earliest material of the French
Imperial Printing Office, but at the present day they are not to be
found, nor does any record remain of their fate.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
THE FIRST PRINTING-PRESS IN ENGLAND, AS PICTORIALLY PRESENTED.
There have been, I believe, only three attempts to treat in a pictorial
manner that interesting subject, the introduction of the Art of
Printing to England; of these, two may be dismissed with a brief
notice, while the third, as issuing from the brain, and illustrated by
the genius of, a very popular artist, will be discussed more at length.
I.--A Painting in oil, by JAMES E. DOYLE, 1848. Engraved by W.
WALKER: entitled, “Caxton submitting his Proof-sheet to John
Esteney, Abbot of Westminster, in 1477.”
In this the aim of the artist has not been high; there are in all but
four figures, viz.: _Caxton_, who stands leaning upon an old wooden
press; _Abbot Esteney_, who is sitting upon a stool examining the
fresh-pulled proof of a half-sheet of quarto (4 pp. on one side of the
sheet); _Earl Rivers_, one of Caxton’s patrons; and, in the background,
_Wynken de Worde_, Caxton’s successor. A Gothic door and window, and
part of some stone groining in the roof, are intended to represent a
portion of Westminster Abbey. All accessories are omitted, the artist
depending upon his figures only for effect, feeling probably that, as
very little of the subject was accurately known, the details might be
left to imagination. With this idea the types, inking apparatus, and a
large portion of the press, are either entirely hidden from view, or
placed very indefinitely in the dark. The figure of Caxton is drawn
too young by some ten or fifteen years; as, if born in 1412, he was at
least sixty-five years of age when he began printing at Westminster.
II.--A Painting in oil, by E. H. WEHNERT. Engraved by
F. BACON: entitled, “William Caxton examining the First
Proof-sheet from his Printing-press in Westminster Abbey, 1474.”
This is much bolder in design than the former. We can see Caxton
as the central figure, wearing the conventional cap and streamers
invented for him about the year 1750 by Bagford, who was the first
to draw his likeness. He is seated before an old-fashioned wooden
press, Wynken de Worde looking over his shoulder at the printed sheet
which has just been pulled and placed in the hands of his master.
Three workmen--Machlinia, Pynson, and Lettou--are eagerly looking
on, while others are variously employed. The stone-pointed roof of a
long Gothic aisle denotes the scene to be placed in the Abbey. The
artist has evidently paid attention to the technical details of early
printing--the press is well designed, only the bar-handle should be a
fixture, and not made to take in and out like a binder’s press. The
types are placed as they should be: not in an iron chase, but in an
oblong wooden coffin, only one page at a time being put to press. The
compositor’s case, too, is correct, the boxes in Caxton’s time being
all of one size. All these minutiæ are good, and show careful research.
III.--A Painting in oil, by D. MACLISE, R.A. Engraved by
FRED. BROMLEY: entitled, “Caxton showing the First Specimen
of his Printing to King Edward the Fourth, at the Almonry,
Westminster.”
This large and grand picture was exhibited at the Royal Academy
in 1851, where it attracted daily crowds of admirers. The critics
were unanimous in praising its poetical composition, its accurate
anatomy, and its wonderful colouring. The artist, however, has aimed
at perfection, not in these qualities alone; but by the extraordinary
care he has taken to present in detail all the mechanical operations
and every tool in use by the workmen, he has challenged the criticism
of the artisan as well as the connoisseur. This, indeed, is almost
stated in the Exhibition Catalogue (1851, No. 67), where the
following remarks are appended: “The designer, the illuminator,
the wood-engraver, and the bookbinder, all worked at their several
trades in the office of the First English Printer; combining with the
Compositors and Pressmen to achieve the first complete book published
in England”; and with reference to it the _Art Journal_ critic
pronounced the drawing of the tools to be “fastidiously careful” and
“exquisitely rendered,” ending by the declaration that “the subject
never could be treated in a manner more masterly.”
Accepting, therefore, the challenge, not at all as an art critic, but
simply as an artisan who has paid some attention to the antiquities of
his craft, I beg to submit the following remarks:--
“This scene, so memorable in the history of English literature, took
place in the Almonry at Westminster,” says the Catalogue. No doubt the
fancy of a royal visit adds great life and interest to the subject,
but the fact is purely imaginary, without the slightest historical
basis. The Almonry, too, I take to have been a place outside the
consecrated walls but inside the abbey precincts, where almshouses and
other tenements were. In one of these houses, the “Red Pale,” Caxton
was placed, as he himself states in the handbill upon the side of the
press. Permission to carry on a trade, and that often a very dirty
trade, within the walls of any consecrated building, would never have
been asked of, nor granted by, the Abbot.
Upon approaching the painting, the first thing that attracts the eye
is the great wooden press, which occupies a large portion of the
canvas, thus striking at once the key-note to the whole subject. On
the further side of the press are grouped the principal characters, an
arrangement admirably adapted to show their features and action. Caxton
has just raised the tympan, upon which is a sheet of paper bearing the
impression of two folio pages, which the title to the engraving informs
us is “The _first_ specimen of his Printing.” The King and Queen with
three young princes are looking at it with interest. Behind them is
the Earl of Clarence, to whom Caxton, when abroad, had dedicated the
First Edition of his Chess-book, and by their side in full armour is
Earl Rivers, a constant patron of Caxton, who has brought in his hand a
roll of paper, upon which is revealed part of a title-page, displaying
in a bold 19th-century hand the word “Dictes.” This is plainly “copy”
which, with an eye to business, the Earl has brought with him, and
which Caxton actually put to press the next year, viz., 1477. Two
fly-boys (or Printers’ Devils) are waiting by the tympan to hand up
and take off the sheets--they are beautifully painted with delicately
clean hands and faces, and with snow-white linen shirt-sleeves, their
hair carefully brushed and parted, and with spotless lay-down collars.
To the right are four compositors--one, an old man, is puzzling,
spectacles on nose, over a crabbed piece of copy; one is composing;
one correcting; and the fourth moving a galley. To the left is a
table, at which a multiplicity of operations are going on: one man has
a paint-brush, and is taking colour from a pretty white enamelled
tray of saucers, keeping his hand in as future “rubrissher” to the
forthcoming sheets; another is binding a book; while a third and fourth
are engraving “illustrations on wood-blocks.” Tools of all kinds are
placed here and there. The Abbot, fat and stolid (the conventional
stage monk), stands with crossed hands near the wall, his shadow hiding
and darkening a copy of the Bible, which, with a block-book or two, he
has had chained to a shelf for the use of the workmen. Six soldiers
keep guard at the door. In a niche behind is an image of the Virgin and
Child, before which a lamp is burning.
Such is the best account I can give of this clever and ambitious
composition. Where much that is excellent exists the task of
fault-finding is not agreeable; yet, looking at it from a common-sense
point of view, I confess that the painting not only disappointed but
pained me. Every artist should feel that his mission is to instruct
the mind as well as gratify the eye; and that, above all things,
truth--not truth of colour and drawing only, but truth historical and
mechanical--truth in small as well as great things must be sought for.
With a feeling, apparently, that he possesses intuitive knowledge,
and with a lofty disregard of possibilities, Mr. Maclise paints
anachronisms and mechanical untruths, which must always prevent any
one who has the least practical acquaintance with the subject enjoying
the work. In more than one instance it puts me in mind of the Dutch
painter, who depicted Isaac bound upon the altar, and Abraham, in baggy
Dutch costume, firing a blunderbuss to kill his son, a catastrophe
prevented only by a naked angel, who, in a very natural way, is wetting
the powder in the touch-hole. As some of the most evident untruths and
anachronisms take the following:--First, as to the tools, etc. The
compositor to the right is using a brand-new _steel_ composing-stick,
with latest improvements. The oldest “sticks” we know of are of wood,
intended to hold one line only. Such may still be found in the rural
towns of both Germany and France. Then the compositor is placing his
types _face downwards_ in the stick![18] Another workman is correcting
a page of loose matter upon a galley, and the galley is laid flat upon
the stone!--alas, for the pie! it is unavoidable.
The earliest representation of a Printing-press is that of Ascensius,
1508. Several writers have given fac-simile copies of it, and it is the
nearest approach we have to presses of the 15th century. Mr. Maclise
makes Caxton use the press with _iron_ screw instead of wood, with
the platen “slung,” and not fixed,--in fact, the press, as improved
in the middle of last century by Blaew, which, after superseding the
old wooden press, was in its turn superseded by the iron Stanhope. But
what can we say of the “forme” upon the press? the _first_ “forme”
worked by the _first_ English printer? Chronology and the laws of
mechanics are equally violated. The chase is iron,--and _cast_ iron
too,--the first invention and introduction of which are in the memory
of many still living. The painting of this chase is so good, that the
peculiar grain of cast iron is easily recognised, if the fixed cross
and strengthened corners did not unmistakably betray the fact. It is,
in fact, an admirable copy from a cast-iron folio chase as seen in any
modern printing-office. With such a chase the quoins, of course, would
be at each side and foot; but our artist, probably copying blindly from
an octavo form with double cross, has put quoins at the head and foot
too, making the pages lock up all round the chase--truly a mechanical
puzzle. After this, minor untruths seem hardly worth remark--though
there is no lack of them. The foot-block of the pressman is on the
wrong side, and quite useless unless fastened down in its proper
position. The little fat bottles with _ground-glass_ stoppers, used in
modern times for holding coloured inks in powder, were as unknown to
Caxton as the electric light.
Leaving the mechanical aspect of the painting, let us now look for a
minute at the literary--or rather the bibliographical--information
offered for public acceptance. The sheet just pulled is, as the
Catalogue says, “a proof of that famous production, _The Game of
Chesse_.” A fine copy of this First Edition is openly shown in the
British Museum, where any one who cares can examine it. Why, then, does
Mr. Maclise give us the Second Edition? The printed sheet on the tympan
shows a wood-cut of a man in a state chair, with the chess-board before
him: this is the third folio of the edition of 1480, the first edition
being entirely without wood-cuts. How absurd to see the King and Queen,
their children and courtiers, looking with admiration at a book which
did not exist till the majority of them were in their graves! Looking
further, so many similar anachronisms occur, that I begin to think they
must be intentional, and meant to convey an abstruse, hidden meaning,
not to be understood by matter-of-fact men. I will, therefore, without
remark, note a few others. The well-known handbill about the sale of
“pyes of Salisbury use,” printed in 1480-81, is pasted on the cheek
of the press. Numerous specimens of _future_ works are hung upon a
rope, stretched from one pillar of the Abbey to another, while upon
the pillar itself is seen a sheet bearing the device of Wynken de
Worde, who succeeded Caxton in 1491-92. No artist can be expected to
know the peculiarities of every trade; but, if not too self-contained
to ask, he can always obtain the opinion of a sensible workman, who
would certainly have pointed out most of the above blunders. Some of
the anachronisms last mentioned may, perhaps, be justified by the
conventional rules of Art; but surely truth is of more value than any
amount of sentimental painting.
[Illustration]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Memoir by Talbot B. Reed prefixed to _The Pentateuch of Printing_,
by William Blades, 1891, p. xv. _The Dictes and Sayings of the
Philosophers_, 1477, was the first book printed in England. _The
Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, 1471, although the first printed
English book, was really printed at Bruges, where also was printed _The
Game and Playe of the Chesse_, 1474.
[2] Vol. iii., pp. 13-17.
[3] March 16, 30; May 18.
[4] Students of old MSS. may often come across the bold autograph
“_cest a moy Homfrey_.”
[5] Macray, p. 7.
[6] _Illustrium Hollandiæ et Westfrisiæ Ordinum Alma Academia Leidensis
Icones._ Lugduni Bavatorum, 1614. 4to. B. M. (Acad.), 731, g. 16.
[7] Built for the purpose in 1693, when the chained books numbered 100.
(_Notes and Queries_, Ser. VI., Vol. IV., p. 304.)
[8] “Je n’ai vu les signatures dans aucun ancien manuscrit, et
plusieurs personnes bien plus familiarisées que moi avec les
manuscrits, m’ont assuré la même chose.”
[9] This is found as a signature in one of the early Block-books.
[10] In Vol. I. of _The Life and Typography of William Caxton_, I have
given the evidences of Caxton’s connection with the Bruges Press. It
is a great mistake to suppose that Caxton printed his first book, _The
Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, in 1471; that is merely the date
of translation. It was not till about 1474 that Caxton learnt the art,
Colard Mansion being his instructor.
[11] Italy should also be included.
[12] A Paper read at the meeting of the Library Association of the
United Kingdom, at Birmingham, September 20-23, 1887.
[13] These _Academy_ letters were revised with additions, and published
by Elliot Stock in 1887 under the title of _Haarlem the Birth-place of
Printing, not Mentz_.
[14] This is used as an argument for the antiquity of the two or three
Donatuses printed with the types of Pfister or Gutenberg, and therefore
is equally good when applied to Dutch Donatuses.
[15] Without the humble Donatuses of Haarlem we should never have had
the wonderful Bible of thirty-six lines; and without the persevering
and fruitful efforts of Gutenberg during the ten years from 1440 to
1450, mankind would never have been blessed with that art which his
creative genius has raised to a perfection which leaves far behind the
first and necessarily imperfect attempts of Coster. In a word: Coster
gave us Gutenberg, and Gutenberg has given us Typography.
[16] The Latin is “ferunt enim illic,” which M. Philippe translates “on
rapporte dans cette contrée.”
[17] The Latin is “Bonemontanus.”
[18] The engraver appears to have noticed this, and as far as possible
rectified it in the print, by a masterly indistinctness just at that
point.
[Illustration]
INDEX.
Abingdon, chained books in St. Helen’s Church, 29.
All Hallows’ Church, Lombard Street, chained books in, 59.
Appleby Church, chained books in, 30.
Arreton Church, chained books in, 31.
Barber-Surgeons’ Hall, chained books at, 31.
Barcheston Church, chained books in, 34.
Bercula (Who was)? xxviii.
Berthelet (Thomas), supposed to be Bercula, xxviii.
_Bibliographical Miscellanies_, xxxv, 1-122.
Bibliography, scientific method in, 85.
Binding expenses at Eton, 20.
Bingley Church, chained books in, 34.
Blades (William), his busy life, ix;
his earliest work, x;
his Life of Caxton, x;
his contributions to bibliography considered under four headings:
(i) _Work on Caxton_, xii-xvi;
Caxton Exhibition, xiv;
proposed Caxton Publication Society, xv;
(ii) _Invention of Printing_, xvi-xix;
(iii) _Types_, xix-xxvii;
Plantin Museum, xxii;
Type specimen books, xxiv;
(iv) _Miscellaneous_, xxvii-xxxviii;
Who was Bercula? xxviii;
pictorial representations of the first Printing-Press in
England, xxviii, 209;
Nicholson the inventor of the steam press, xxix;
_Numismata Typographica_, xxxi;
Shakspere and typography, xxxiii;
_Enemies of Books_, xxxiii;
German morality-play, xxxiii;
Watermarks, xxxiv;
_Bibliographical Miscellanies_, xxxv, 1-122;
_Pentateuch of Printing_, xxxvi;
at the Library Association Meetings, xxxvii.
Bolton-in-the-Moors Grammar School, chained books in, 35.
Books in Chains, 1-81.
Borden Church, chained books in, 36.
Bowness Church, chained books in, 37.
Bridlington Church, chained books in, 37.
Bristol, Redcliffe Church, lectern with chain, 38.
Bromsgrove Church, chained book, 38.
Cambridge, application of the University for Greek types of the Royal
Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.
---- chains for books in the College libraries, 4.
Canterbury Cathedral, chained Bible there formerly, 38.
Cartmel Church, chained books in, 39.
Caslon (William), specimens of his types, xxv.
Caxton (William), _Life and Typography_ of, x.
Caxton (William), Blades’s researches on the history of his press,
xiv.
---- signatures in his books, 94.
Caxton Exhibition, xiii.
Caxton Publication Society, proposed, xv.
Chained books, 1-81.
Cheddar Church, chained book formerly there, 39.
Chelsea Old Church, chained books in, 40.
Chesterton Church, chained book formerly there, 40.
Chetham (Humphrey), chained books left by him to the Parish Church of
Bolton-in-the-Moors, 35;
to Gorton Chapel, 46;
to Jesus Chapel, 65;
to Turton Chapel, 73;
to Walmsley Chapel, 75.
Chetham Library, Manchester, books formerly chained, 65.
Chew Magna Church, chained book in, 40.
Chirbury Parish School-room, chained books in, 41.
Cirencester Church, chained books formerly there, 41.
Colard Mansion at Bruges, 127.
Conway (W. M.) on the wood-cutters of the Netherlands, 144.
Cornelis, assistant to Coster, 154, 188.
Corsellis, supposed Oxford printer, 87.
Coster’s claims to be the inventor of printing, 126, 134.
Coster _v._ Gutenberg, 171-191.
Costeriana, 157, 180.
Cumnor Church, chained Bible in, 42.
Denchworth Church, chained books in the vicar’s library, 42.
De Vinne (Theodore) on the invention of printing, 139.
Donatuses in Holland, 151, 177, 180.
Doyle’s (J. E.) painting of the printing-press, 209.
East Winch Church, chained Bible at, 44.
Easton-in-Gordano Church, chained book formerly in, 43.
Ecclesfield Church, chained books formerly there, 44.
Enschedé Type Foundry, xxvi.
_Enemies of Books_, xxxiii.
Florence, chained books in the Laurentian Library, 26.
Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_ common among chained books, 19.
Frampton Cotterell Church, chained book in, 45.
Fuhrmann (G. L.), specimens of his types, xxvi.
Gloucester (Humphrey, Duke of), honoured by book-lovers, 19.
Gorton Church schools, chained books, 47.
Grantham Church, chained books in, 48.
Great Durnford Church, chained book in, 48.
Greek Types of the Royal Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.
Gutenberg, his name does not appear in any production of his press,
153.
---- _v._ Coster, 192-200.
Hales Owen Church, chained books formerly there, 49.
Hanmer Church, chained books burnt in 1889, 49.
Hereford, All Saints’ Church, chained library in, 50.
---- Cathedral, chained books in, 5, 52.
Hessels (J. H.), translated Van der Linde’s _Haarlem Legend_, xvi.
---- _Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_ xviii.
---- _Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz_, xviii, 179.
Hull, Holy Trinity Church, Foxe’s _Martyrs_ formerly there, 54.
Impington Church, chained books in, 54.
Jewel’s (Bishop) works common among chained books, 19.
Junius on the Dutch invention of printing, 185.
Kettering Church, chained books formerly there, 55.
Kidderminster Church, chained book in, 55.
King’s Lynn, St. Mary’s Church, chained Bible in, 55.
Kinver Church, chained books in, 56.
Koenig (F.), introducer of the steam press, xxix.
Lessingham Church, chained book in, 57.
Leyden, chained books in the University Library, 25.
Leyland Church, chained books in, 57.
Library Association Meetings, xxxvii.
Lincoln Cathedral, chained books formerly in the Chapter Library, 58.
Linde (Van der), _Haarlem Legend_, xvi, 168.
Llanbadarn Church, chained books formerly there, 59.
Luton Church, chained books in, 63.
Maclise’s (D.) painting of the printing-press, 212.
Madden (J. P. A.) on Gutenberg, 140;
on Coster, 190.
Malvern Abbey, chained books in, 63.
Mancetter Church, chained books in, 64.
Manchester, Jesus Chapel Collegiate Church, chained books formerly
there, 65.
Manuscripts with written signatures at the foot of the page, 89, 96.
Margate Church, chained books in, 66.
Medals connected with printing, xxxi.
Meurs (P. Van), his answer to Dr. Van der Linde, 138.
Minster Church, chained Bible from Margate, 66.
Montgomery Castle, chained library formerly there, 67.
Morality-play (German), xxxiii.
Moxon (Joseph), Proves of Letters cast by him, xxv.
Newport Pagnell Church, chained books in, 67.
Nicholson (John), the inventor of the steam press, xxix.
Northwold Church, chained Bible formerly there, 67.
_Numismata Typographica_, xxxii.
Oldfield (Humphrey), 69.
Ortu (De) Typographiæ, 163-200.
Oxford, first printing-press at, xix.
---- St. Mary’s Church, chained books formerly there, 68.
Paper, use of, for books, 117.
_Pentateuch of Printing_, xxxvi.
Plantin Museum, Blades’s account of, xxi.
Prestwich Church, chained book formerly there, 68.
Printing, Blades’s researches on the history of the invention of, xvi.
---- common typographical errors, xxxii.
---- De Ortu Typographiæ, 163-200.
---- Early Greek Types of the Royal Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.
---- Early Schools of Typography, 123-130.
---- invention of the steam press, xxix.
---- List of Books on the Invention of Printing published since
1868, 159.
---- medals connected with, xxxi.
---- proposed Bibliotheca Typographica, xxxii.
---- Type specimen books, xxiv.
---- Who was the Inventor of, present aspect of the question,
131-162.
Printing-Press, the first in England, as pictorially presented,
209-221.
Quatt Church, 68.
Reed (Talbot B.), his Memoir of Blades, xiii (_note_).
Richmond (Margaret, Countess of), patron of Caxton, 6.
Rochester, St. Nicholas Church, chained book in, 69.
St. Albans, Typography of, in the fifteenth century, xx.
St. Andrew Undershaft Church, chained books in, 61.
St. Clement’s, Eastcheap Church, chained books in, 62.
Salford Free Library, chained books, 69.
Salisbury Cathedral, chained books in, 69.
Selden’s books in the Bodleian, 25.
_Shakspere and Typography_, xxxiii.
Signatures in Books, Use and Development of, 83-122.
---- idea of books without, a bibliographical delusion, 96.
---- (written) in manuscripts, 90, 96.
---- in early printed books, 92, 100.
---- (manuscript and printed) in the same book, 106.
---- stamped in with separate types, 108.
---- not stamped in but printed at the same time as the text, 112.
---- (normal) printed in the line just beneath the text, 115.
Sittingbourne Church, 70.
Southampton, St. Michael’s Church, chained books in, 70.
Standon Church, chained book in, 71.
Stevens (Henry), his answer to the question “Who was Bercula?” xxviii.
Stratford-on-Avon Church, chained Bible in, 71.
Suckley Church, 72.
Survival of the fittest in the study of bibliography, 85.
Tavistock Church, chained book in, 72.
Turton Church, chained books in, 73.
Type specimen books, xxiv.
Types, Blades’s researches on the history of, xix.
Typography, Early Schools of, 123-130 (see also Printing).
Walmsley Church, 75.
Wantage Church, chained books formerly there, 76.
Watermarks, Blades’s researches on, xxxiv.
Wehnert’s (E. H.) painting of the printing-press, 211.
Wells Cathedral, chained books in, 76,
Whissonsett Church, 76.
Whitchurch, Little Stanmore, 77.
Wiggenhall Church, chained books in, 77.
Wigtoft Church, 78.
Wimborne Minster, chained library, 1-16, 78.
Windsor, St. George’s Chapel, chained Bible formerly there, 78.
Wisbeach, chained books at, 79.
Wolverley Church, chained book in, 79.
Wootton Wawen Church, chained books in, 80.
Worcester, All Saints’ Church, chained Bible in, 80.
Wrington Church, chained books in, 81.
York, St. Crux Church, chained book, 81.
Zutphen, chained books in the Church of St. Wallberg, 27.
[Illustration]
Transcriber’s Notes.
Italic text is indicated with _underscores_, black-letter text with
=equals=. Small/mixed capitals have been replaced with ALL CAPITALS.
Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected
silently. Inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has been normalised.
Half-titles and reiterations of chapter titles have been discarded.
End of page footnotes have been sequentially numbered and placed at the
end of the text.
Cover art created for this eBook is granted to the public domain.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BOOKS IN CHAINS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
