ii

The Book-Lover’s Library.
Edited by
Henry B. Wheatley, F.S.A.

iv

BOOK-CASE OF CHAINED BOOKS IN HEREFORD CATHEDRAL.

v

# 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

vii

## 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.

ix

## 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 xthe 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 xicredit 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; xiiIII. 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 xiiiExhibition 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 xivthe 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.

xv

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 xvithere 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 xviipossibility 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 xviiiand 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. xixde 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.

xx

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 xxiprinted 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 xxiiinto 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 xxiiithree 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 xxivof 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 xxvfour, 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.

xxvi

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 xxviiadvantage 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 xxviiilittle 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 xxixan 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, xxxto 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 xxxiwith 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 xxxiiExhibition. 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 xxxiiientitled 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 xxxivprinted 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.

xxxv

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 xxxvithem 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 xxxviihigh 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 xxxviiiand 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.

xxxix

## 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. xl | 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

3

## 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, 4whether 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 5at 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 6study, 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, 7and 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 8of 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 9appointed 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, 10great 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 11look 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, 12Raleigh, 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 13the 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. 14Another, 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.

15

“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 16of 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.”

17

## 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 18offspring—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 19class-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 20their 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 21play 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 iiijli. Et pro pari forpicum ad laminas eneas secandas ad fixuram dictorum librorum, xvjd. Et Roberto Oliuere fabro ferrario pro xlviij vectibus ferreis ad chatenas continend’ pondere iij c et di cli lvijs ijd. Et idem pro xij seris et totidem claustris et iiij clanibus precij capitis, xxs xxd.”

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 22horn, 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 | ijs | xd

1574. From the same:—

Item for 27 chaynes for the newe bookes in the librarye | vijs | vjd
For 34 rynges |  | xxijd
To John Sheres, setting on 72 chaynes | ijs |
To Hillarye, helpyng hym |  | viijd

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 23 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 | iijs
Item for twoe chaynes for the bookes given by Mr. Hollande | xijd
Item for 2 hookes for them | iijd

1580. At Jesus College, Cambridge, is recorded:—

Cheynynge xii bookes with staples to them in the chapell | vjd

1600. From the accounts of Trinity College, Cambridge:—

Item receaved of Mr. Peter Shawe towards the cheyninge and desking of his bookes | vli

24

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 25chaining 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 7s. 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 10s. 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 26occurs 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 27Medici. 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.

28

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 16s. 4d. 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.

29

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.

> 30

> 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” 31of 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 32by 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 33the 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 or bookes and auntient Manuscriptꝭ in or new Library. |  |  |
> Paid for 36 yardꝭ of chaine at 4d the yard & 36 yards at 3d ob.* the yard cometh to |  | xxijs | vjd
> Paid to the Coppersmith for castinge 80 brasses to fasten the Chaines to the bookes |  | xiijs | iiijd
> To porters at sev’all tymes to carry these bookꝭ |  | ijs |
> Paid to the bookebynders for new byndinge 15 bookꝭ |  | xlviijs | vjd
> 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 8s setting on old bosses js mending ould Claspes ijs |  | xxxjs | viijd
> Paid for makeinge Ringes swiffles & fittinge all the iron chaines |  | xijs |
> Som is | vjli | xviijs |
> * Ob. = obolus, a halfpenny. |  |  |

> 34

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.”

35

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 36the 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.

37

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 38the 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 39(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, 40but 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 41 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.

42

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.

43

> 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 44curious 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. 45The 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 46wooden 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 47to 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 30s. 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 26s. 4d., and claspinge of bookes 12d.

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.

48

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.

49

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.

50

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, 51too, 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 52been 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 53under 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.

54

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.

> 55

> 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.

56

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 57and 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 58was 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 59narrow, 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.

60

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 61burnt, 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 62which 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. 63On 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.

64

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:—

65

> 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 sd 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 66sent 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.

67

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.)

68

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:—

69

> 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.”

70

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.

71

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 ye Bvrovgh Stephen Bvrman and Rich: Gibes Chvrchwardens for ye 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, 72and 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 15s. 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 73plates and for the fastenynge of the Bible, Paraphras of Erasmus and Mr. Juell’s Booke in the churche ... iijs ijd.”

> 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 ixd.”

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 74Turton 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 75forms 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 76certain 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 77to 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.

78

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. 79George’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.

80

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. |  | In one vol.
> Dod and Cleaver on the Commandments. 1612.
> 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, 81imperfect 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.

85

## 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 86the 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]⁠

87

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 88use 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 89workmen’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 90third, 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, 91so 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 92the 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. 93The 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.

94

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 95the 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 96curious 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.

97

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:—

5.—Poor Caitiff. English, XIV. cent. (Bod. No. 1843.)

> All the quaternions signed on first four pages at extreme bottom corner.

98

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:—

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.

99

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.” 100Arabic, 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.

101

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.

102

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. 103No 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 104here 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 105in MS. in a peculiar way. The first 100 folios are numbered 1 to 100; the second lot a1 to a100; the third b1 to b101, 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.

106

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:—

107

Printed Sigs. | MS. Sigs.
a | +
b | a
c | b
d | c
e | d
f | e
g | f
h | g
i | h
k | i
l | k
m | l

Printed Sigs. | MS. Sigs.
n | m
o | n
p | o
q | p
r | q
s | r
t | s
u | t
w | u
x | w
y | x
z | y

Printed Sigs. | MS. Sigs.
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 108et 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 109at 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 110du 13me 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.)

111

> 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: 1us, 2us, 3us, 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 112them 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.

113

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.

114

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.

115

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 116by 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 117the 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 118could 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 119liure” 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 120sheets 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 121use 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, 122so 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.

125

## 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 126was 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 127his 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 128that 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, 129was 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 130school. 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.

133

## 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 134the 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 135of 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, 136before 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 137attention 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 138without 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 139and 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 140Costerians 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 141success. 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 142Legend 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 143been 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 144was 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 145has 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 146was, 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 147speaking, 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. 148Dr. 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 149little 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 150that 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 151Printed 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 152hardly 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 153name 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 154Europe. 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 155substantially 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 156date 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 157Cornelis 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 158of 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 159discovered 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.

160

> 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.

161

> 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.

162

> 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.)

165

## 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; 166and 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 167for 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 168crude 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 169of 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? 170which 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.”

171

## 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 172many 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 173obtained 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 174our 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 175nation 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, 176Anno 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 177art 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 178complete, 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.

179

## 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 180are 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 181be 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 182remain 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 183Nos. 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 184then 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.”

185

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 186his 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 187of 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 188had 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 189than 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; 190“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 191a donné Gutenberg, et Gutenberg nous a donné la Typographie.”⁠[15]⁠

192

## 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 193is 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 194the 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 195illogically 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 196world 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 197who 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 198can 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, 199if 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 200reign 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.

203

## 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 204cut 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, 205when 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.

209

## 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 210been 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. 211Engraved 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 212wooden 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 213Catalogue (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 214Almonry, 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. 215Behind 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 216a 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 217truth 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 218in 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 219still 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. 220The 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 221 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.

## 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.

223

## INDEX.

Transcriber’s Notes.

Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected silently. Inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has been normalised.

Black letter font may appear simply as a bold sans-serif font on some devices.

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.