_JOHN BASKERVILLE_

                            [Illustration:

 _From a picture after Miller in the National Portrait Gallery, London._
                         _Emery Walker Ph. x._

                          _John Baskerville_]




                                 _JOHN
                              BASKERVILLE_

                              TYPE-FOUNDER
                              AND PRINTER

                               1706-1775

                             [Illustration]

                                   BY
                      _Josiah Henry Benton, LL.D._

                             [Illustration]

                                 BOSTON
                          _PRIVATELY PRINTED_
                                  1914




                   _Copyright, 1914, by J. H. Benton_

              _D. B. Updike, The Merrymount Press, Boston_




                                _NOTE_


_I have, for some years, been interested in John Baskerville, and have
collected his imprints. Knowing this fact, the President of the Boston
Society of Printers asked me to prepare a paper on Baskerville, to be
read at a meeting of the Society on February 24, 1914. This I did, and
that paper formed the basis of this little book._

                                                                J. H. B.




                           JOHN BASKERVILLE


John Baskerville, a great English type-founder and printer, was born
in January, 1706, and died in January, 1775, having lived nearly the
full period of threescore years and ten. To understand him and what he
did, we must know something of the time and place in which he lived. It
was a time when the great middle classes of England were coming into
power. The divine right of kings was destroyed at Culloden in 1745.
England was slowly awakening from the deadly languor of the corruption
of Walpole’s government. Whitefield was preaching, and Wesley was
preaching and organizing. The middle classes grew stronger every day
and kept Pitt, with his intense patriotism and extravagance, in power,
in spite of the upper classes. The rule of England in the East began in
1757, when Clive, on June 23, fought the battle of Plassey. Frederick
the Great, aided by the liberal subsidies of Pitt, fought the battle
of Rossbach in November, 1757, and the battle of Minden in November,
1759, thus laying the foundation of the German Empire which has always
been at peace with England. The capture of Montreal in 1760 established
the English ascendancy in the New World. During this period the English
Empire came into being because of the rule of the commercial middle
class.

Birmingham was even then a great middle-class town; a place of about
30,000 inhabitants, noted for its varied manufactures, but more noted
for its freedom, by which it seemed to have the power of attracting
within its boundaries artisans of every trade and every degree of
skill. It accorded almost perfect freedom to all. Dissenters, Baptists,
Methodists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Quakers, and heretics of all sorts
were welcomed, and were undisturbed in their religious observances.
No trades unions, no trade guilds, no companies existed. The system
of apprentices was only partially known. Every man was free to come
and go, to found, or to follow, or to leave a trade, just as he
chose. Birmingham was emphatically the town of free trade, where no
restrictions, commercial or municipal, existed.

Into this community young Baskerville came. It was particularly suited
to him. He was a free thinker. He was active, industrious, inventive,
persistent. He thought out and did new things.[1]

His first occupation, when he was seventeen years old, was that of a
servant in the house of a clergyman, who discovered that Baskerville
was skilled in penmanship and set him to teaching the poor boys in the
parish the art of writing.

The post of writing-master at King Edward’s School in Birmingham fell
vacant, and Baskerville took it and taught writing and bookkeeping
there. In the mean time he had become very much interested in
calligraphy, and turned his skill in writing to the cutting of
stones. Of his actual stone-cutting work only two specimens have
been preserved, the most important of which is in the churchyard
at Edgbaston. There is also a small square slate slab with the
inscription: “Grave Stones Cut in any of the Hands by John Baskervill
Writing Master.” It is to be noted that the final e was not added to
Baskerville’s name until after he became more prosperous. In the fine
lettering of this inscription it is easy to trace the foundation of
those forms of type which Baskerville afterwards used in printing. He
practised writing during the years 1733, 1734, and 1735, being rated
for school taxes at a sixpence.

About the year 1736 one John Taylor came to Birmingham and introduced
japanned ware in the shape of indoor utensils and articles of personal
or other ornament. From the smallest beginnings Taylor created a
business out of which he had acquired a fortune of £200,000 when he
died at the age of fifty-four. To Taylor we owe the gilt button and
gilt snuff-box, the painted snuff-box, and the numerous race of enamels.

Baskerville had a great desire to obtain money, and as he was a good
draughtsman and had a turn for painting, it occurred to him that the
best thing he could do would be to produce goods painted and japanned
as they never had been painted and japanned before. He dropped his
writing-materials and set himself to learn the secrets of japanning.
It is said that he obtained his knowledge of Mr. Taylor’s cheap and
excellent varnish for snuff-boxes, which was a secret, by following him
to every place and shop where he went and ordering precisely the same
species, kind, and quality of articles that he had ordered. He thus
learned not only the ingredients of the varnish, but their proportions.

Baskerville had that which is rare,--business capacity in connection
with artistic taste,--and he soon built up a flourishing business.
In 1749 he carried on a great trade in the japan art, making such
useful things as candlesticks, stands, salvers, waiters, bread-trays,
tea-boards, etc., which were elegantly designed and highly finished.
His ingenuity continually suggested improvements both in the materials
of which he made use and in the methods adopted in the manufacture,
while he had a genius in selecting as workmen those who were best
fitted for their occupation. One of his advertisements reads as
follows: “Any boy of a decent Family who has a Genius and Turn for
Drawing will be taken on trial on moderate terms. Any Painters of
tolerable Abilities may have constant employment.”

In 1742 he obtained a patent for “a new method of making and flat
grinding thin metal plates and of working or fashioning the same by
means of iron rolls and swages.” The plates were japanned and varnished
to “produce fine glowing Mohogony Colour and Black no way inferior to
the most perfect India goods, or an imitation of Tortoise shell which
greatly excels Nature, both in Colour and Hardness.” It will be seen
that this patent embodied to a great extent the same principle that
Baskerville employed in his later treatment of paper. In the japan
business Baskerville competed with Taylor, not so much in making the
things Taylor made as in making better ones and different ones. A
curious thing about Baskerville’s japan work is that no authentic
specimen has come down to us.

In a few years he amassed a considerable fortune in that business.
He took a building lease of eight acres in the northeast part of
Birmingham, to which he gave the name of _Easy Hill_, and there he
built a house at an expense of about £6000, or $30,000, equivalent to
at least $60,000 to-day. This place is described by Alexander Carlyle
as follows: “Baskerville’s house was a quarter of a mile from the town,
and in its way handsome and elegant. What struck us most was his first
kitchen, which was most completely furnished with everything that
could be wanted, kept as clean and bright as if it had come straight
from the shop, for it was used, and the fineness of the kitchen was a
great point in the family, for here they received their company, and
there we were entertained with coffee and chocolate.”[2] Derrick, in
a letter written to the Earl of Cork, July 15, 1760, says: “I need not
remind your Lordship, that Baskerville, one of the best printers in the
world, was born in this town, and resides near it. His house stands
at about half a mile distance, on an eminence that commands a fine
prospect. I paid him a visit, and was received with great politeness,
though an entire stranger. His apartments are elegant; his stair-case
is particularly curious; and the room in which he dines, and calls a
smoking-room is very handsome. The grate and furniture belonging to it
are, I think, of bright wrought iron, and cost him a round sum. He has
just completed an elegant octavo Common Prayer Book, has a scheme for
publishing a grand folio edition of the Bible; and will soon finish
a beautiful collection of Fables, by the ingenious Mr. Dodsley. He
manufactures his own paper, types, and ink; and they are remarkably
good. This ingenious artist carries on a great trade in the japan way,
in which he shewed me several useful articles, such as candlesticks,
stands, salvers, waiters, bread-baskets, tea-boards, &c. elegantly
designed and highly finished. Baskerville is a great cherisher of
genius, which, wherever he finds it, he loses no opportunity of
cultivating. One of his workmen has manifested fine talents for fruit
painting in several pieces which he shewed me.”

A writer in the Birmingham “Daily Mail” of February 3, 1886, thus
describes the Easy Hill residence: “The pasture was luxuriant, great
elm trees shaded the parklike expanse of verdure, an ample fish-pond
stretched away westwards, and a picturesque disused windmill standing
upon a slight elevation was ready to be converted into the most
captivating of summer houses.... Of the house which he built for
himself we have engravings, and as many remains as one would care to
preserve of that particular style of architecture.”

Hutton, the historian of Birmingham, says Baskerville previously lived
at No. 22 in Moor-street, and that having obtained a building lease,
“two furlongs north of the town, he converted it into a little Eden,
and built a house in the center; but the town, as if conscious of his
merit, followed his retreat, and surrounded it with buildings....
Here he continued the business of a japanner for life: his carriage,
each pannel of which was a distinct picture, might be considered
the _pattern-card of his trade_, and was drawn by a beautiful pair
of cream-coloured horses.” This chariot was one of the wonders of
Birmingham, one section richly gilt and painted with little naked
cupids and flowers, drawn by two cream-colored horses with net hangings
almost to the ground. The panels were said to be each in the nature of
a picture, got up Japan-wise.[3] He became High Bailiff of Birmingham
in 1761. His duties were to inspect the market and rectify weights and
dry measures; also to make proclamation of two fairs each year; and to
give a dinner to the other municipal officers, at which it is said that
an expense of £40 was incurred. This dinner was intended for business,
but, in the quaint language of the historian of the time, “It was too
early to begin business till the table was well stored with bottles,
and too late afterwards.” He affected clothes of the most gorgeous
description. His favorite dress was said to have been green, edged with
a narrow gold lace, a scarlet waistcoat with a very broad gold lace,
and a small round hat likewise edged with lace. It is said that he
attended a funeral in a new suit of bright colors and gold lace.

All this show created a suspicion in the public mind that Baskerville
was in financial trouble, so that at one time he published a refutation
of some charges of that kind in the Birmingham “Gazette.” He sought to
find the author of the charges, declaring that “Whoever can discover
the author, or give a clue by which he may be traced, will by informing
me lay me under the highest obligations of gratitude.”

In these letters he said that he had “often wished an additional
Article in the Litany for the Use of Tradesmen,--From Bad Debts and
Bankrupts, Good Lord deliver us.”

A Mrs. Eaves went to live at Easy Hill about 1750. She took her
two daughters, and very likely her son, with her. She had made an
unfortunate marriage with one Richard Eaves, who, “having been found
guilty of some fraudulent practices in regard to a relation’s will, was
obliged to quit the kingdom.”[4] Her husband left her without money
or any means of support. Baskerville became interested in her, and
she went to his house probably as a housekeeper. Shortly afterwards
Baskerville and she were living together as man and wife. Although
her husband was not known to be dead, she passed as Mrs. Baskerville.
She accompanied him to London to visit Dodsley, and was everywhere
received as his wife. It does not appear that his social position in
Birmingham was at all impaired by this connection. He was very kind and
attentive to Mrs. Eaves, and when Eaves died, Baskerville married the
widow in June, 1764. They had one son, who died in infancy. Baskerville
was inconsolable, and in a letter to Franklin gave the death of his
son as one of the reasons for desiring to sell his type in France. He
said: “Let the reason of my parting with it be the death of my son and
intended successor.”

When Baskerville began the work that made him famous, he was a
middle-aged man, fifty years old, who had amassed a large fortune,
and was living in quiet comfort on his own estate. He was carrying
on a very large and lucrative japanning business, which he continued
to conduct during his life. He was a person of much consequence in
Birmingham when he took up the matter of type-founding and printing.

As for Baskerville’s private character, we have the accounts of his
friends and of his critics, and it is not easy to come to a just
conclusion. Hutton, in his “History of Birmingham,”[5] says: “In
private life he was a humorist; idle[6] in the extreme; but his
invention was of the true Birmingham model, active. He could well
design, but procured others to execute; wherever he found merit he
caressed it: he was remarkably polite to the stranger; fond of shew:
a figure rather of the smaller size, and delighted to adorn that
figure with gold lace.... Although constructed with the light timbers
of a frigate, his movement was solemn as a ship of the line. During
the twenty-five years I knew him, though in the decline of life, he
retained the singular traces of a handsome man. If he exhibited a
peevish[7] temper, we may consider good nature and intense thinking are
not always found together. Taste accompanied him through the different
walks of agriculture, architecture, and the finer arts. Whatever passed
through his fingers, bore the lively marks of John Baskerville.”

Chambers, in his “Biographical Illustrations of Worcestershire,” gives
an interesting sketch of Baskerville, in which his will is printed with
the exception of those portions where, as, Mr. Chambers regrets to
say, Baskerville “unblushingly avows not only his disbelief of, but
his contempt for revealed religion, and that in terms too gross for
repetition.” Chambers was evidently not a partial critic. He records
the fact that Mr. Noble,[8] who well remembered Baskerville, says he
taught his respected father to write, and he maintained an acquaintance
with him as long as he lived. “I have been very often with him to
Baskerville’s house, and found him ever a most profane wretch, and
ignorant of literature to a wonderful degree. I have seen many of his
letters, which, like his will, were not written grammatically; nor
could he even spell well. In person, he was a shrivelled old coxcomb.
His favourite dress was green, edged with a narrow gold lace, a scarlet
waistcoat, with a very broad gold lace; and a small round hat, likewise
edged with gold lace. His wife was all that affectation can describe:
she lived with him in adultery many years. She was originally a
servant: such a pair are rarely met with. He had wit; but it was always
at the expense of religion and decency, particularly if in company
with the clergy. I have often thought there was much similarity in his
person to Voltaire, whose sentiments he was ever retailing.”

Mr. Paterson, in a letter in Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes,” wrote:
“I could give you also a note on Baskerville, to demonstrate that he
knew very little of the execution of typography beyond the common
productions which are to be found every day in Paternoster-row, and
therefore, in a comparative view, might readily conclude that he had
outstript them all.” But, adds Chambers, “Dibdin, whose judgment in
these matters few will call in question, says that ‘Rowe Mores, in his
abuse of Baskerville, exhibits the painful and perhaps mirth-provoking
efforts of a man kicking against the thorns. Baskerville was a
wonderful creature as an artist, but a vain and silly man.’”

Many lies were told about Baskerville and his work.

The following from the “European Magazine” (December, 1785, page
463) is a fair sample. A correspondent, whose name is not disclosed,
but who signs himself _Viator_, makes the following statement, to
which Mr. Chambers gives place in his “Biographical Illustrations of
Worcestershire:” “I was acquainted with Baskerville, the printer, but
cannot wholly agree with the extracts concerning him, from Hutton’s
History of Birmingham. It is true he was very ingenious in mechanics,
but it is also well known he was extremely illiterate, and his jokes
and sarcasms on the Bible, with which his conversation abounded, shewed
the most contemptible ignorance of eastern history and manners, and
indeed of every thing. His quarto edition of Milton’s Paradise Lost,
with all its splendour, is a deep disgrace to the English press. He
could not spell himself, and knew not who could. A Warwickshire country
schoolmaster, of some parish charity school, we presume, was employed
by him to correct this splendid edition, and that dunce has spelt many
words in it according to the vulgar Warwickshire pronunciation. For
example, many of the western vulgar clap an _h_ to every word beginning
with an open vowel, or even the _w_, as _hood_ for _wood_, my _harm_
for my _arm_, _heggs_ for _eggs_, &c., &c., and again as viciously
dropping the _h_ in verbs, as _ave_ for _have_, _as_ for _has_, &c.,
&c. Many instances of this horrid ignorance we find in the ingenious
Baskerville’s splendid Milton, where _as_ is often put for the verb
_has_, and _has_ for the conjunction _as_, with several others of
this worse than _cockney_ family. Nor can I by any means agree with
Mr. Hutton that ‘it is to the lasting discredit of the British nation
that no purchaser could be found for his types.’--What was the merit
of his printing?--His paper was of a finer gloss, and his ink of a
brighter black than ordinary; his type was thicker than usual in the
thick strokes, and finer in the fine, and was sharpened at the angles
in a novel manner; all these combined gave his editions a brilliant
rich look, when his pages were turned lightly over; but when you sit
down to read them, the eye is almost immediately fatigued with the
gloss of the paper and ink, and the sharp angles of the type; and it
is universally known that Baskerville’s printing is _not_ read; that
the better sort of the London printing is infinitely preferable for
USE, and even for real sterling elegance. The Universities and London
booksellers therefore are not to be blamed for declining the purchase
of Baskerville’s types, which we are told were bought by a Society at
Paris, where tawdry silk and tinsel is preferred to the finest English
broad cloth, or even Genoa velvet.”[9]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

This spiteful story has thus been in type and reproduced in one form
and another for more than a hundred years. Nobody appears to have
questioned it, and yet it is false, and maliciously so. An examination
of the quarto edition of Milton’s “Paradise Lost” shows that “as”
is never put for the verb “has,” and “has” is never put for the
conjunction “as.” There is no such word in the book as “eggs,” and no
such combination of words as “my arm.” It is impossible to find there
the mistakes which _Viator_ says are in this book and make it “a deep
disgrace to the English press.”

For some reason, probably because he did better work than other
printers, and produced books without so much regard to profit as they
were obliged to consider, Baskerville’s work was very much criticised
by other printers in his time. Dr. Bedford said: “By Baskerville’s
specimen of his types you will perceive how much the elegance of
them is owing to the paper, which he makes himself as well as the
types and the ink also; I was informed that whenever they come to be
used by common pressmen and common materials they lose their beauty
considerably.” It is now certain that he did not make his paper.
Certainly he made it for no books except Virgil and the Milton. Rowe
Mores,[10] in “English Typographical Founders and Founderies,” 1778
(page 86), said: “Mr. Baskerville of Birmingham, that enterprizing
place, made some attempts at letter-cutting, but desisted and with good
reason. The Greek cut by him, or his, for the University of Oxford is
execrable. Indeed, he can hardly claim a place amongst letter-cutters.
His typographical excellence lay more in his trim, glossy paper to dim
the sight.” In a note upon this passage John Nichols said: “The idea
entertained by Mr. Mores of the ingenious Mr. Baskerville is certainly
a just one. His glossy paper and too sharp type offend the patience of
a reader more sensibly than the innovations I have already censured.”

Nichols was a rival printer. He was apprenticed to William Bowyer, of
whom he was an executor and the residuary legatee. All his prejudices
were against Baskerville and his work. He wrote many books, but they
were mostly by hirelings, the blunders only being his own. He reached
the summit of his ambition when he became Master of the Stationers’
Company in 1804.

The following letter from Franklin explains the prejudice and ignorance
with respect to Baskerville’s work: “Let me give you a pleasant
instance of the prejudice some have entertained against your work.
Soon after I returned, discoursing with a gentleman concerning the
artists of Birmingham, he said you would be the means of blinding all
the readers of the nation, for the strokes of your letters being too
thin and narrow, hurt the eye, and he could never read a line of them
without pain. ‘I thought,’ said I, ‘you were going to complain of the
gloss on the paper some object to.’ ‘No, no,’ said he, ‘I have heard
that mentioned, but it is not that; it is in the form and cut of the
letters themselves, they have not that height and thickness of the
stroke which makes the common printing so much more comfortable to the
eye.’ You see this gentleman was a connoisseur. In vain I endeavoured
to support your character against the charge; he knew what he felt,
and could see the reason of it, and several other gentlemen among his
friends had made the same observation, etc. Yesterday he called to
visit me, when, mischievously bent to try his judgement, I stepped into
my closet, tore off the top of Mr. Caslon’s Specimen, and produced it
to him as yours, brought with me from Birmingham saying, I had been
examining it, since he spoke to me, and could not for my life perceive
the disproportion he mentioned, desiring him to point it out to me.
He readily undertook it, and went over the several founts, showing
me everywhere what he thought instances of that disproportion; and
declared that he could not then read the specimen without feeling very
strongly the pain he had mentioned to me. I spared him that time the
confusion of being told, that these were the types he had been reading
all his life, with so much ease to his eyes; the types his adored
Newton is printed with, on which he has pored not a little; nay the
very types his own book is printed with (for he himself is an author),
and yet never discovered the painful disproportion in them, till he
thought they were yours.”

Burton says: “A collector, with a taste for the inaccurate, might
easily satiate it in the editions, so attractive in their deceptive
beauty, of the great Birmingham printer, Baskerville.”[11] Reed says:
“Despite the splendid appearance of his impressions, the ordinary
English printers viewed with something like suspicion the meretricious
combination of sharp type and hot-pressed paper which lent to his
sheets their extraordinary brilliancy. They objected to the dazzling
effect thus produced on the eye; they found fault with the unevenness
of tone and colour in different parts of the same book, and even
discovered an irregularity and lack of symmetry in some of his types,
which his glossy paper and bright ink alike failed to disguise.”[12]

Both these statements are obviously untrue. An examination of
Baskerville’s books shows that they are accurate, or at least the
inaccuracies are only those of the editions from which they are
reprinted, and the combination of paper, ink, and type is necessary to
make a really fine book.

“In private life,” Reed remarks, “he was a bundle of paradoxes. He was
an exemplary son, and an affectionate, judicious husband, but full of
personal animosities.... In person he was a shrivelled old coxcomb, but
in spirit he was a worker of unquenchable energy. Peevish in temper,
he was a charming host.... The one thing that reconciled all was his
strong personality. Whatever else he was he was never commonplace.”

“He was one of those men,” says a writer in the “Secular Review,”
“who strove for excellence, and was not satisfied until he obtained
it. Whatever he undertook to do he not only did well, but better than
his predecessors, and he was in truth a genuine national reformer.”
The editor of the “Beauties of Worcestershire” calls Baskerville “a
most useful and _estimable character_,” and says he was of an “ancient
family, as old as the Conquest.” This may be taken with some salt.
Perhaps the best evidence of the sort of man he was is found in the
impression that he made upon the most eminent men of his time, by the
thoroughness and energy of his life, his originality of taste, his fine
pride in perfect work, his stoutness of courage, and his honorable
impartiality in printing works with which he coincided, and those which
represented the religious views of his countrymen from which he himself
dissented.[13]

Dr. Carlyle thus speaks of a visit to him: “We passed the day in
seeing the Baskerville press, and Baskerville himself, who was a great
curiosity.... Baskerville was on hand with his folio Bible at this
time, and Garbett insisted on being allowed to subscribe for Home and
Robertson. Home’s absence afflicted him, for he had seen and heard
of the tragedy of _Douglas_. Robertson hitherto had no name, and the
printer said bluntly that he would rather have one subscription to
his work of a man like Mr. Home, than an hundred ordinary men. He
dined with us that day, and acquitted himself so well that Robertson
pronounced him a man of genius, while James Adam and I thought him but
a prating pedant.”[14] Kippis adds “his own testimony concerning Mr.
Baskerville’s politeness to strangers, and the cheerful hospitality
with which he treated those who were introduced to him. He was well
known to many ingenious men.”

Baskerville belonged to the literary club in Birmingham, called the
“Luna Club,” which used to meet on the nights of the full moon, so that
the members might have a light to go home by. Hence the name of the
members--“the Lunaticks.” It had among its members many most famous
men. Wedgwood, the potter; Dr. Erasmus Darwin, the poet; Thomas Day,
author of “Sanford and Merton;” Sir William Herschel, the astronomer;
Sir Joseph Banks, the naturalist; Samuel Galton; Dr. Withering, the
botanist and physician to the General Hospital at Birmingham; and
others of like character were all members of it.

Baskerville had his own taste about the printing and decoration of his
books. When Dodsley sent a plate to him to be included in a volume he
was printing, Baskerville told him that his own taste would not permit
him to use the plate. He said: “If you will accept my judgment and
skill, it is at your service.”[15] In fact, Baskerville always had his
own way, and did things as he wished to do them, and whatever credit
there is for his productions is due to him alone. Tedder says that
“his social virtues were considerable--a good son, an affectionate
father and kinsman, polite and hospitable to strangers--he was entirely
without the jealousy commonly ascribed to the artist and inventor.
Birmingham has contributed many distinguished men to the industrial
armies of England; but there are few of whom she has more reason to
be proud than the skilful genius who was at once the British Aldus
Manutius and the finest printer of modern times.”[16]

He was very intimate with Dodsley, the bookseller, a man of great
property and of irreproachable character, who stayed with him when in
Birmingham, and with whom Baskerville stayed when he was in London.[17]
His correspondence with Shenstone is quite voluminous, and with
Benjamin Franklin he had very excellent relations. Franklin visited
him in Birmingham, advised him in his printing affairs, and in the
proposed sale of his type when he was about to give up business. It is
not likely, if he had been profane and ignorant, that he would have
remained on such terms with such people. The trouble seems to have
been that he refused to put himself on a par with other printers, and
insisted that he did much better work than anybody else; this of course
brought the whole clamjamfrie down on him.

Baskerville had probably very little taste for letters as such. He
printed the books which, in the estimation of the public, were most
important. He was a type-founder and printer, not a scholar. He printed
Bibles and Prayer Books not because he believed in Christianity, but
because they were the books which everybody used and which he thought
warranted the most effective treatment. I think he can hardly be
said to have printed a book which represented his ideas, unless it
be Shaftesbury’s “Characteristicks,” which was brought out in 1773,
and is a beautiful specimen of his printing. He admired the satire of
“Hudibras” and was fond of quoting it, and as Shenstone says, “was
seized with a violent inclination to publish ‘Hudibras,’ his favorite
poem, in a pompous quarto in an entire new set of cuts.” He liked
Voltaire, and is said to have quoted him constantly. He sent copies of
the editions of Virgil and Milton to Voltaire at Ferney, and proposed
to him to print some work of his. Voltaire replied in English, “I
thank you earnestly for the honour you do me. I send you an exemplary
by the way of Holland.” Baskerville set up some sheets from the copy
which was sent him and returned them to Voltaire, who replied, “The old
scribbler to whom you have been so kind as to send your magnificent
editions of Virgil and Milton thanks you heartily. He will send you as
soon as possible his poor sheets duly corrected. They stand in great
need of it.”[18] Beyond this fondness for “Hudibras” and admiration
for Voltaire, we have nothing to show that Baskerville cared anything
for letters. He was artistic, but at the same time mercenary and
vain. He meant to print books such as had never been printed, and he
expected that people would buy them and pay the expense. When they did
not, he became disgusted and gave up the work for two or three years.
Then, spurred into action by the attempt of Boden, a rival printer in
Birmingham, to print a Bible, he came again into the field and printed
some of his finest works. But all the time he was in bad temper because
his books cost him so much money and he got so little back. He wrote
Walpole that he should be obliged to sell his little patrimony, that he
had borrowed £2000 to print the Cambridge Bible. He continually looked
out for little expenses. In a letter to Dodsley he says, “As you are in
the Land of Franks, half a Doz would do me a peculiar pleasure, as a
good many things not worth a Groat might be communicated by, &c.” He
was excessively self-confident. He considered himself different from
others. He thought that whatever was brought into being by Baskerville
was therefore a fine thing, and truth compels us to say he was probably
right. His japan work was better than that of any one else, and his
printing was the finest that England had seen or has since seen.

So much for Baskerville the man. We have now to see what he did as a
type-founder and printer.

       *       *       *       *       *

At the beginning of the century there was no real type foundry in
England. Nearly all the type used was imported from Holland, but
in 1737 Samuel Caslon, who was a gunsmith’s apprentice, issued a
specimen sheet of his founts of type, and after that England could
depend upon her own resources for types. William Caslon, brother to
Samuel, afterward lived with a Birmingham type-maker named William
Anderton, who printed a little specimen of Great Primer, Roman and
Italic. Baskerville probably became acquainted with Anderton. At any
rate, there is here an explanation of the way in which the japanner’s
interest became aroused in the designing and making of founts of type
for purposes of printing. Much of the beauty of type depends upon
the printer, and therefore Baskerville soon came to see that he must
print with the types which he cut. From the very commencement of his
experiments in type-founding he was determined to occupy himself both
with type-founding and printing. It also occurred to him to introduce
a new kind of paper which had been finished in a certain way. In a
word, he wished to use processes for books very similar to those which
he had used for his japanned goods. His proposals, therefore, took
the following shape. There was to be a new typography, and for its
introduction four points were to be considered: First, the character of
the types themselves; secondly, the press; thirdly, the paper and ink;
and lastly, the actual mode of printing.

It is fortunate that in the preface to the second book which
Baskerville printed--Milton’s “Paradise Lost”--he took the world
into his confidence. It is the only preface written by him. He said:
“AMONGST the several mechanic Arts that have engaged my attention,
there is no one which I have pursued with so much steadiness and
pleasure, as that of _Letter-Founding_. Having been an early admirer of
the beauty of Letters, I became insensibly desirous of contributing to
the perfection of them. I formed to my self Ideas of greater accuracy
than had yet appeared, and have endeavoured to produce a _Sett_ of
_Types_ according to what I conceived to be their true proportion.

“_Mr. Caslon_ is an Artist, to whom the Republic of Learning has great
obligations; his ingenuity has left a fairer copy for my emulation,
than any other master. In his great variety of _Characters_ I intend
not to follow him; the _Roman_ and _Italic_ are all I have hitherto
attempted; if in these he has left room for improvement, it is probably
more owing to that variety which divided his attention, than to any
other cause. I honor his merit, and only wish to derive some small
share of Reputation, from an Art which proves accidentally to have been
the object of our mutual pursuit.

“After having spent many years, and not a little of my fortune in
my endeavours to advance this art; I must own it gives me great
Satisfaction, to find that my Edition of _Virgil_ has been so favorably
received. The improvement in the Manufacture of the _Paper_, the
_Colour_, and _Firmness_ of the _Ink_ were not overlooked; nor did
the accuracy of the workmanship in general, pass unregarded. If the
judicious found some imperfections in the _first attempt_, I hope
the present work will shew that a proper use has been made of their
Criticisms: I am conscious of this at least, that I received them as I
ever shall, with that degree of deference which every private man owes
to the Opinion of the public.

“It is not my desire to print many books; but such only, as are _books_
of _Consequence_, of _intrinsic merit_, or _established Reputation_,
and which the public may be pleased to see in an elegant dress, and
to purchase at such a price, as will repay the extraordinary care
and expence that must necessarily be bestowed upon them. Hence I was
desirous of making an experiment upon some one of our best English
Authors, among those _Milton_ appeared the most eligible. And I
embrace with pleasure the opportunity of acknowledging in this public
manner the generosity of _Mr. Tonson_; who with singular politeness
complimented me with the privilege of printing an entire Edition of
that _Writers Poetical Works_.

“In the execution of this design, if I have followed with exactness
the Text of _Dr. Newton_, it is all the merit of _that kind_ which
I pretend to claim. But if this performance shall appear to persons
of judgment and penetration, in the _Paper_, _Letter_, _Ink_ and
_Workmanship_ to excel; I hope their approbation may contribute to
procure for me what would indeed be the extent of my Ambition, a power
to print an Octavo _Common-Prayer Book_, and a FOLIO BIBLE.

“Should it be my good fortune to meet with this indulgence, I wou’d
use my utmost efforts to perfect an Edition of them with the greatest
Elegance and Correctness; a work which I hope might do some honor to
the English Press, and contribute to improve the pleasure, which men of
true taste will always have in the perusal of those _sacred Volumes_.”

This preface shows clearly the purpose with which Baskerville entered
upon type-founding and printing. He desired to advance this art, not
by printing many books, but only books of consequence or established
reputation, which the public would be pleased to see in an elegant
dress, and would, as he thought, be glad to purchase at such a price as
would repay the “extraordinary care and expence that must necessarily
be bestowed upon them.” He did not print for the many, but only for the
few, and he was sanguine enough to believe that the few would pay for
the books which he printed a price sufficient to reimburse him for his
expense.

Fortunately he obtained an artist for cutting the punches--John
Handy--who worked well with him, and yet with Handy to help him, days,
months, and years passed before a single fount was completed. It was
not until 1752 that he was able to report progress with a fount of
Great Primer.

About this time Baskerville became acquainted with the poet Shenstone,
and also met with the London publisher and playwright, Robert Dodsley,
who became a great admirer of Baskerville’s work.

During 1750 and until about the autumn of 1752, Baskerville quietly
proceeded with his type foundry, and in this time the apparatus for
printing was being set up in his house. He spent some six or eight
hundred pounds upon the types. Of these he said in a letter to Dodsley:
“They please me, as I can make nothing more correct. You will observe
they strike the eye much more sensibly than the smaller characters. The
R wants a few slight touches, and the Y half an hour’s correction. We
have resolutely set about 13 of the same sized italic capitals, which
will not be inferior to the Roman, and I doubt not to complete them in
a fortnight.” Then he adds, indicating that the time for publishing the
Virgil had been already set: “You need be in no pain about our being
ready by the time appointed.” Baskerville was not to be hurried. He did
his work regardless of time and, to an extent, of money. In a later
letter, in 1753, he said: “You may depend upon my being ready by your
time (Christmas), but if more time could be allowed I should make use
of it all in correcting and justifying. So much depends on appearing
perfect on first starting.”

Of course, the initial labor in preparing type was immense: “He had
at first to design his model alphabet letter by letter, so that each
letter should bear its due relation to the other letters, on a scale
of absolute proportion. The design fixed, the next step was to decide
the particular size on which he would begin.... Then came the critical
manual operation of cutting each letter separately in relief, on steel,
to form the punch.... Each punch would then have to be hardened and
struck into copper to form the matrix, and each matrix would need to
be justified and adjusted to the type mould, so as to produce a type
not only an xact counterpart of the punch, but absolutely square with
every other letter of the fount.... The moulds for casting the type
... would have to be constructed each of a large number of separate
pieces of iron and wood, fitted together with the most delicate
precision, so that every type would come out uniform in height and
body. When matrixes and moulds were ready the operation of casting
would ensue.... The types would require dressing before they could be
used: a delicate operation, consisting in the smoothing away of every
chance irregularity left by the casting, without interfering with the
mathematical height and squareness of the letter.”[19] Then there were
the press and the ink.

Baskerville constructed his own presses. From the beginning, even as
early as 1752, he had a press in operation on which he printed his
specimens. He wrote to Dodsley: “I have with great pains justified the
plate for the Platten & Stone on which it falls, so that they are as
perfect planes as it will ever be in my Power to procure, for instance,
if you Rest one End of yr plate in the Stone & let the other fall the
height of an inch; it falls soft as if you dropped it on feathers or
several folds of silk, and when you raise it, you manifestly feel it
such (if you’ll excuse so unphilosophical a term). Wet the two and
either would support the other with a couple of 500 weights added to
it, if held perpendicularly. To as perfect a plane I will endeavour to
bring the faces of the type if I have time. Nor do I despair of better
ink & printing (the character must speak for itself) than has hitherto
been seen.”

He said in a letter to France, that the presses were exactly of the
same construction as other people’s, but that he had made them better,
especially in the stone and the platen, all of which could be done with
a person who gave attention to it; and that in printing he used but
one double of finest flannel, other people used two or three double of
thick swanskin; and for a description and drawing of his presses he
referred to Palmer’s “History of Printing,” and “The History and Art
of Printing,” by Luckombe, in which he said there was a print of every
part of the press.

[Illustration: HAND-PRESS SUCH AS WAS USED BY BASKERVILLE

_From Luckombe’s “History and Art of Printing”_]

Baskerville appears to have kept a large number “of hot plates of
copper ready, between which, as soon as printed (aye, as they were
discharged from the tympan) the sheets were inserted; the wet was
thus expelled, the ink set, and the trim glossy surface put on all
simultaneously.”[20] The peculiar gloss which characterizes the
productions of the Baskerville Press is to be found in no other books
of the eighteenth century.

Again, as to ink, a black in an impure state had been used by printers
for nearly two hundred years, and it was not until Baskerville that any
attention was turned to this most essential article. It was reserved
for him to discover a superior kind of black for the purpose required.
Hansard thinks that to this success may be attributed, in a great
measure, the excellence of his printing.

Hansard gives the recipe of Baskerville’s ink: “He took of the
finest and oldest linseed oil three gallons, this was put into a
vessel capable of holding four times the quantity, and boiled with a
long-continued fire till it acquired a certain thickness or tenacity,
according to the quality of the work it was intended to print, and
which was judged of by putting small quantities upon a stone to cool,
and then taking it up between the finger and thumb; on opening which,
if it drew into a thread an inch long or more, it was considered
sufficiently boiled. This mode of boiling can only be acquired by long
practice, and requires particular skill and care in the person who
superintends the operation, as, for want of this, the most serious
consequences ... have very frequently occurred; the oil thus prepared
was suffered to cool, and had then a small quantity of black or amber
rosin dissolved in it, after which it was allowed some months to
subside; it was then mixed with the fine black, before named, to a
proper thickness, and ground for use.”[21]

The lamp-black of commerce is crude and impure, but for two hundred
years it satisfied the makers of printing-ink, who made no improvement
in their ink. “It was not until the days of the celebrated Baskerville
... that any attention was turned to this most essential article....
It was reserved for him to discover ... a superior kind of black, ...
and to this success it is said that the superiority of his printing may
be attributed.”[22] Certain it is that it stimulated rivalry in the
trade, and a few out of many other attempts to improve were partially
successful.

Finally there was the text. Baskerville wrote Dodsley his scheme for
obtaining absolutely correct texts of the works he was about to print,
as follows: “’Tis this. Two people must be concerned; the one must
name every letter, capital, point, reference, accent, etc., that is,
in English, must spell every part of every word distinctly, and note
down every difference in a book prepared on purpose. Pray oblige me
in making the experiment with Mr. James Dodsley in four or five lines
of any two editions of an author, and you’ll be convinced that it’s
scarcely possible for the least difference, even of a point, to escape
notice. I would recommend and practise the same method in an English
author, where most people imagine themselves capable of correcting.
Here’s another great advantage to me in this humble scheme; at the
same time that a proof sheet is correcting, I shall find out the least
imperfection in any of the Types that has escaped the founder’s notice.”

“Meanwhile he had laboured assiduously to complete his promised series
of the Roman and Italic faces. At the time of the publication of the
Virgil, he put forward a quarto sheet containing specimens of the Great
Primer, English, Pica, and Brevier Roman, and Great Primer and Pica
Italic, beautifully printed. This sheet, which is noted by Renouard,
and which is occasionally found bound up with copies of the Virgil, was
very shortly followed, about the end of the year 1758, by a larger and
more general specimen, consisting entirely of Roman and Italic letter
in eight sizes, viz.:--Double Pica, Great Primer, English, Pica, Small
Pica, Long Primer, Bourgeois, and Brevier. Of the last two, Roman only
is shown. The whole is arranged in two columns on a broadside sheet,
with appropriate titlings, and forms a beautiful display. Although the
only copy we have seen is printed on a greenish paper, somewhat coarse,
the specimen exceeds in elegance and uniformity most, if not all, the
productions of contemporary founders.”[23]

The Virgil was then advertised as follows: “John Baskerville proposes,
by the advice and assistance of several learned men, to print from the
Cambridge Edition, corrected with all possible care, an elegant edition
of Virgil. The work will be printed in quarto, on a very fine writing
Royal paper, and with the above letter. The price of the Volume in
sheets will be one guinea, no part of which will be required till the
Book is delivered. It will be put to press as soon as the number of
subscribers shall amount to five hundred, whose names will be prefixt
to the work.”

Finally, after many delays caused by the desire of Baskerville to have
the book perfect, the Virgil went to press in 1757, after seven years
of careful, patient, persistent work upon it. It was a surprise to the
literary world. It was the first fine book printed in England,--the
first of those magnificent editions which, as Macaulay said, “went
forth to astonish all the librarians of Europe.”[24] Every part
of the volume was in harmony with every other part. There was no
disproportion. The book has been well said to be a landmark in the
history of typography. In looking at it to-day we wonder how it was
done when it was done. It seems as though the Birmingham artist had
come before his time.

The list of subscribers printed in the book comprises 513 names, and it
is a wonderful list. Scholars and libraries throughout the country are
upon it. There is one subscriber from Copenhagen, another from Berlin,
and another from the Island of Barbadoes. Dr. Samuel Johnson ordered
one copy for his old Oxford College. It is interesting for us to see
that the Public Library, Philadelphia, subscribed for a copy, and that
“The Library Company at Charles-Town, South Carolina,” and “Mr. Isaac
Mazyck of Charles-Town in South Carolina,” took each a copy, while
Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia subscribed for six. The conservatism
of the English bookseller, however, was such that no bookseller
subscribed for more than one copy except Dodsley, who was concerned in
the making of the book, and took twenty copies.

This first issue of Virgil was in royal quarto, and it was the first
book printed on wove paper; that is, as I understand it, on paper
laid on flannel or flats, and showing no marks of wires. The critical
Harwood pronounced it “the best printed book that the typographical
art ever produced.”[25] Dibdin said of it: “I have always considered
this beautiful production as one of the most finished specimens of
typography. It was the earliest publication of Baskerville, and all the
care and attention of that ingenious printer were devoted to render it
unrivalled. He secured his reputation by it, and though it has a few
typographical errors, yet it is esteemed by all collectors.”

The original issue is distinguished from the subsequent issues of 1757
by the fact that in the original the supplementary names in the list
of subscribers numbered four only, while in the re-impressions they
numbered twenty-four. In the original the titles on pages 342 and
372 are “Liber Decimus Aeneidos, Liber Undecimus Aeneidos.” In the
re-impressions they are uniform with the other titles, “Aeneidos, Liber
Decimus; Aeneidos, Liber Undecimus.” It may also be noticed that on the
running-title of page 33, in the original edition, there is a space
between the I and R in VIRGILII.

Encouraged by the success of his Virgil, Baskerville sought another
book of importance to print with his types. Tonson, the London
bookseller, had the copyright of Milton, and he finally employed
Baskerville to print an edition. This was issued in 1758, and is of
signal merit and beauty. Reed says that “as a work of fine printing
it equals, if it does not excel, the Virgil.” It is worthy of note
that the very high gloss on the paper which characterized most of
Baskerville’s later work is not found either in the Virgil of 1757, or
the Milton of 1758. In the list of subscribers for Milton we again find
Baskerville’s friend, “Benjamin Franklin, Esquire, Philadelphia;” and
also “Isaac Norris, Esq., Speaker of the Assembly of Pennsylvania.”
There are subscribers from Leipsic, Dublin, Berlin, etc., and it is
interesting to note that the British bookseller subscribed for 159
copies out of 1113, the total list of subscribers. The first edition of
this book was 1500 copies, the second 700 on large paper, and it was
reprinted three times in the next two years.

Hansard says: “This work will, in my opinion, bear a comparison,
even to its advantage, with those subsequently executed by the
first typographer of our age.... There is a clearness, a soberness,
a softness, and at the same time a spirit, altogether harmonizing
in Baskerville’s book, that neither of the others, with which I am
comparing it, can, I think, fairly claim.”[26] Dibdin says: “These
lovely impressions of Baskerville appeared twice in octavo, 1758 and
1760--and once in 4to. 1759. But the octavos have a quarto aspect. I
find that a delicious copy bound in the morocco of the day, is priced
at £3.10. I know of no _parlour-reading_ like that of Milton in one of
the editions of Baskerville.”[27]

The folio edition of the Bible, printed at Cambridge under the
patronage of the university, was really Baskerville’s _magnum opus_. It
was the most ambitious of his undertakings, and I think one of the most
artistic of his productions, but it was a financial failure. In his
proposal for it he said: “The great expence, with which this Work will
necessarily be attended, renders it not only imprudent, but absolutely
impossible for the Editor to venture on it, without the assistance
of a Subscription. And he is encouraged to hope, as he has already
received the public approbation of his Labours, that they will continue
to favour his ambition, and to enable him to make this one Work as
correct, elegant, and perfect as the Importance of it demands. To this
end he is determined to spare no Expence, no Care, nor Attention. He
builds his Reputation upon the happy Execution of the Undertaking; and
begs it may not be imputed to him as a boast, that he hopes to give his
country a more correct and beautiful Edition of the Sacred Writings,
than has hitherto appeared.”

A specimen of this Bible was printed before the end of 1759, and was
followed by another specimen dated January 1, 1760. The price was
four guineas, in sheets, and the Bible was to be published in three
years. Some copies are said to have been printed with a border, but
I do not think this was so. In his specimen title-page of 1760 there
is a border, and he said it was his ambition to print with such a
border, which would appear “more agreeable” to every eye than the
coarse red lines commonly used. I think that, finally, Baskerville
concluded wisely to print the book with plain margins, and did so. At
any rate, so far as is known, no copy was ever printed with a border.
The proposal for the subscription stipulated that two guineas should be
paid at the time of subscription, but in a subsequent notice in 1761
it was announced that no money would be required until the volume was
delivered. In spite of all this, the number of subscribers was only
264, and Baskerville was forced to borrow money to proceed with the
book. In 1762 he said the work “is pretty far advanced at Cambridge,
which will cost me near £2000, all hired at five per cent.” The book
was ultimately published in 1763. A few more names came in and a new
list of subscribers was printed, but he could not sell half the edition
of 1250 copies, and in 1768 he sold the remaining copies, 556, at 36
shillings, to R. Baldwin, a bookseller in London, and even then he
had to bring a suit against Baldwin to get his pay. The expense of
this edition was doubtless increased by the fact that he was required
to print it at Cambridge, and to send his press and workmen there
for that purpose. The book itself is one of the most remarkable that
Baskerville printed. Dibdin calls it “one of the most beautiful printed
books in the world,” and says its title-page, “as a piece of printing,
is unrivalled, having all the power and brilliancy of copperplate.”
Cotton, in his “Editions of the Bible,” says that the beauty of this
book has caused it to find its way into almost every public library
where fine and curious books are appreciated; Lowndes also pronounces
it one of the most beautiful books ever printed.

In the meantime Baskerville was pushing forward the printing of a
Prayer Book, “as perfect as I can make it.” He said that he would make
a size “calculated for people who begin to want spectacles, but are
ashamed to use them in Church.” Perhaps this was the reason for the
old Oxfordshire Squire refusing to use a Prayer Book which was not a
Baskerville.

Baskerville obtained leave from the University of Cambridge to print
the Bible in royal folio, and two editions of the Book of Common
Prayer. But that learned body appear to have had a stronger inclination
for making their privilege conducive to their worldly gain than for
earning fame by the encouragement of printing. The university exacted
from Mr. Baskerville £20 per thousand for the octavo, and £12.10
per thousand for the duodecimo editions of the Prayer Book; and the
Stationers’ Company, which had a monopoly of printing, with like
liberality took £32 for their permission to print one edition of the
Psalms in metre, which was necessary to make the Prayer Book complete.

In a letter in 1757 Baskerville says: “I have pursued the scheme of
printing and letter founding for seven years, with the most intense
application to the great prejudice of my eyes by the daily use of
microscopes, and at the expense of about a thousand pounds, which
really makes me short of money.”

In 1759 Baskerville was ready to begin the Prayer Book printing at
Cambridge. He writes to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, saying
he was taking great pains in order to produce a striking title-page
and also a specimen of the Bible which he hoped would be ready in
about six weeks. He adds that “the importance of the work demands all
my attention, not only for my own reputation, but also to convince
the world that the University in the honour done me have not entirely
misplaced their favours.” In this letter he asks the Chancellor if he
could make “an interest to a few gentlemen, to whom the work would not
be disagreeable, to survey the sheets after my people have corrected
them as accurately as they are able, that I might, if possible, be free
from every error of the press, for which I would gladly make suitable
acknowledgments.” I suppose he means payment.

He says he procured “a sealed copy of the Common Prayer with much
trouble and expense from the Cathedral of Litchfield, but found it the
most inaccurate and ill printed work I ever saw, and returned it with
thanks.” All Baskerville’s Prayer Books are said by Dibdin to have been
lovely specimens of press-work. All the copies that remained when he
died, together with a considerable number of the Horace of 1762, were
purchased of his widow by Mr. Smart, the bookseller at Worcester, for
£100. But in a few years after that, not a copy remained unsold.[28]
Smart built a house and called it “Baskerville House.”

Dibdin says that “the prayer books of Baskerville are probably more
frequently seen within the pews of a church than any other, at least
they were so within these dozen years past; they are of two forms or
sizes, royal octavo and crown octavo. The crown octavo impression,
which is the rarer of the two, is executed in a small character, in
double columns, upon thin paper, but of a close and durable texture. I
do not remember to have seen more than one copy of the royal octavo in
an _uncut_ state, and of the crown octavo not a single copy, so popular
were these impressions upon a first appearance.”

The Addison was issued in 1761, and is a wonderful specimen of the
art of Baskerville. Speaking of this book, Dibdin almost goes into
ecstasies. He says: “He who hath the _Baskerville_ edition, 1760,
4to, 4 vols., hath a good and even a glorious performance. It is
pleasant (and of course profitable) to turn over the pages of these
lovely tomes, at one’s Tusculum [villa], on a day of oppression from
heat, or of confinement from rain--and if the copy be in goodly calf,
full charged, gilt binding--with marble edges to the leaves--such as
Posthumus discards, but which Atticus dearly doats on--why, so much
the better: so therefore hasten, gallant young Bibliomaniac, with six
sovereigns and six shillings to boot, to make yourself _master_ of such
a copy.”[29] Dibdin was a true bibliophile.

“Aesop’s Fables” were printed for Dodsley, who appears to have
prepared them, perhaps in collaboration with Shenstone. This edition
was ultimately published on February 9, 1761, and is a very beautiful
little production. The book is much marred by the cuts which Dodsley
insisted on putting in. However, it sold very well, and there was talk
of second and third editions. Speaking of it Warren says: “That book of
Baskerville’s is the most charming thing that I have ever touched.”

Dodsley found Baskerville too expensive. He maintained the warmest
interest in Baskerville’s work, but found his charges excessive for
ordinary purposes of trade. He never allowed him to print anything for
him except his “Selected Fables,” and he fussed very much about these.
He went to Baskerville’s house, where he stayed while the last sheets
of the “Fables” were passing through the press, and then he printed a
London edition in a cheaper form. He complained that he should lose
£30 by Baskerville’s impression, and that he should not be more than
£10 gainer on the whole, taking the Birmingham and London editions
together. In 1758 Rev. John Huckell’s poem “Avon” was printed by
Baskerville and sold by Dodsley, but at the printer’s expense and risk.
By the persuasion of Shenstone he was induced to permit Baskerville
to print another edition of the “Fables” in 1764.[30] The truth was
that Baskerville did not print commercially, while Dodsley published
commercially.

The prices charged by Baskerville were very high for the times. He
wrote to a man who inquired about prices: “My price for printing
your friend’s poem is Two Guineas a sheet without pressing, and Two
pounds Seven to be pressed as other books which I have printed are
pressed.” At this price the printing of the poem would have cost twenty
guineas. It is needless to say that Baskerville did not print it. It
appears that the expense of printing a sheet at a common press was 18
shillings, and the expense at Baskerville’s Press about £3.10. This is
quite sufficient to explain the disinclination of booksellers to give
orders to Baskerville for printing.

The reasons why Baskerville’s printing was a financial failure are
obvious to us, although they were not to him. In the first place, he
did something new, and that is always a great shock to the British
public. He produced type different from any which had been used, and
better, but the man whose office was stuffed with Caslon type and
Dutch type did not think so. He was not likely to throw away type
which printed his books well enough for sale, and buy new type which
this gentleman from Birmingham had cut. He said: “Let him cut type,
and get a new ink and a new kind of paper and print in a new way. The
old type, the old ink, the old paper, and the old way are good enough
for me.” Baskerville was artistic, the English public was not. In the
second place Baskerville’s books were so expensively produced that the
man who bought one of them as a specimen of Baskerville’s work did not
wish to buy another. It was the same thing that happens with every
printer who does artistic work,--each production of his press exhausts
his clientage more or less. And lastly, his books were reprints, and
they were brought out at a time when the press was overloaded with
productions of very brilliant men. Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, in two
volumes, was issued in 1755. Oliver Goldsmith, Pope, Chesterfield,
Horace Walpole, Akenside, Colley Cibber, Gray, Dr. Young, Burke, and a
host of others were then producing books for the printer.

Baskerville cut a fount of Greek type for the University of Oxford,
and cast 300 weight of type at two hundred guineas for the whole.
He delivered the types in March, 1761, and was paid the two hundred
guineas. His connection with the types ceased here. He did not print
the editions of the Greek Testament which appeared at Oxford in 1763.
He never visited Oxford, and there is nothing to show that he was ever
consulted about the types after they had been delivered. They were said
to be “not good ones.” William Bowyer, the printer, said that there
were two or three quarto editions on foot, “one at Oxford, far advanced
on new types by Baskerville--by the way, not good ones.” Reed says that
“the appearance of the book justified to some extent the criticism.”
Regular as the Greek type is, it is stiff and cramped, and, as Dibdin
says, “like no Greek characters I have ever seen.” At another time
Dibdin calls the letters large and distinct. The type was certainly
more English than the Greek types then in use, and was the precursor of
numerous types cut in England during the next century. To the student
of to-day Baskerville’s Greek type is far easier to read than any of
its contemporaries. The letters are far from being execrable, as Mores
called them. They are in effect cursive, well formed, and probably
modelled, like those invented by Aldus, upon some calligraphy of the
day. At the time they were condemned as hybrid, and were used for no
other books. The story is very plain. Oxford wanted a better Greek type
than then existed, and employed Baskerville to cut it. He did so, and
produced a type infinitely better than any in existence. Therefore the
English printers, of whom Bowyer was one, rejected it. The old type was
good enough for them. But Baskerville’s type held the field and gave us
a finer Greek type than we had before.

Dibdin wrote the following appreciative and discriminating notice of
Baskerville: “With the business of a japanner he united that of a
printer, to which latter he was led from a pure love of letters, and
an ambition to distinguish himself in an art, which he justly thought
superior to every other, and which has perpetuated his name, while the
perishable materials of his _japan ware_ have mouldered into dust. It
is said he was fastidiously nice in his attempts at a _perfect letter_,
that he did not attain the ‘eureka’ till he had expended nearly £800 of
his fortune. Finally when tired of printing, he tried every expedient
to dispose of his printing materials, but the caprice or inattention
of our booksellers induced them coldly to reject every overture on the
subject. Four years after the death of Baskerville, in 1775, these
types were purchased by a literary society at Paris, for £3700.[31]

“Baskerville is said to have been small in stature, and fond of making
the most of his figure by costly dress, and a stately deportment.
He was cheerful and benevolent; at times extremely idle, but of an
inventive turn, and prompt to patronize ingenuity in others; he
retained the traces of a handsome man even during the last twenty-five
years of his life; and his civility to strangers gained him the esteem
of all who came to inspect his office. Although he printed a sumptuous
English Bible and Greek Testament, he is supposed to have entertained
an aversion to Christianity; and with this view he directed his remains
to be interred in a mausoleum in his own grounds. The typography of
Baskerville is eminently beautiful--his letters are in general of a
slender and delicate form, calculated for an octavo or even quarto, but
not sufficiently bold to fill the space of an imperial folio, as is
evident from a view of his great Bible. He united in a singularly happy
manner the elegance of Plantin with the clearness of the Elzevirs: his
4to and 12mo Virgil, and small Prayer-book, or 12mo Horace of 1762,
sufficiently confirm the truth of this remark. He seems to have been
extremely curious in the choice of his paper and ink: the former being
in general the fruit of Dutch manufacture, and the latter partaking of
a peculiarly soft lustre bordering on purple. In his _Italic letter_,
whether capital or small, I think he stands unrivalled; such elegance,
freedom, and perfect symmetry being in vain to be looked for among the
specimens of Aldus and Colinaeus. In erudition, correctness, or in
the multiplicity of valuable publications, he is not to be compared
with Bowyer: there are some even who indiscriminately despise all his
editions of the classics; but his 4to and 12mo editions of Virgil and
Horace defend him from the severity of this censure. Upon the whole,
Baskerville was a truly original artist; he struck out a new method of
printing in this country, and may be considered as the founder of that
luxuriant style of typography which at present so generally prevails;
and which seems to have nearly attained perfection in the neatness of
Whittingham, the elegance of Bulmer, and the splendor of Bensley.”[32]

The quarto editions by Baskerville of Virgil, Horace, Terence,
Lucretius, Juvenal and Persius, and Catullus, etc., Sallust and Florus,
in seven volumes, were valued in 1825 at £29.18.6. The Virgil had proof
impressions of the plates of Hollar and Ponce; and the Horace contained
the engravings of Pine, with a head of the poet from Worlidge’s “Gems.”

In the specimen of the folio Bible dated in 1760, Baskerville said:
“Many gentlemen have wished to see a sett of the Classicks from the
Louvre Edition in the Manner, Letter, and Paper, of the Virgil,
already published, if they could be purchased at a moderate price; J.
Baskerville therefore proposes to print the same, if he finds proper
encouragement; and to proceed with the Poetical Classicks first; and as
Juvenal and Persius in one volume is wanting to complete the Cambridge
Sett, he intends publishing that first, at sixteen shillings in sheets.”

The first of these, Juvenal and Persius, appeared in 1761, but the
publication of the others was delayed by the printing of Congreve,
Addison, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Bible. In fact, nothing
appears to have been done about the edition of the Classics until
1770, when there was issued an edition of Horace, with four plates
by Gravelot inserted. I think it is the finest of all Baskerville’s
books. It is certainly the most rare, and is the only volume issued
by Baskerville which has plates. The others, Lucretius, Catullus
with Tibullus and Propertius, and Terence, were issued in 1772, and
Sallustius et Florus was issued in 1773. These, with the Virgil, are
the Latin Classics in quarto printed by Baskerville. They are all
wonderful books, clear and perfect. They were printed in Baskerville’s
declining years, but they stamped him as the first printer of his time.

Catullus, Terence, and Horace were also issued in 1772, and Lucretius
in 1773, in 12mo. A 12mo Horace was issued in 1762. It is said to be
the most correct, and is thought by some to be the most beautiful, of
all the books that Baskerville printed. With the exception of Sternhold
and Hopkins’s Psalms in metre, and Tate and Brady’s Psalms, which were
printed in the same year, this Horace was the first 12mo book that
Baskerville printed. The text was chosen by a Scotchman by the name of
John Livie, whom Baskerville employed to edit the book. He took as a
basis for his work a little edition printed at Hamburg. Shenstone, who
always wanted his finger in every pie, said of this book: “It is really
a beauty, and upon the whole as good a text as any we have _yet_--but
excuse my vanity, who think I could have rendered it better, if they
had suffered me to have the _final_ determination of it.” In another
letter he said: “There may be fifty or more preferable readings to
what are received in this new Horace, yet you will find a better text
there, upon the whole, than in any one edition extant. As to the beauty
of type and press-work, it is too obvious to need vindication. The
accuracy of the latter almost exceeds what was ever found in any other
book.”

There was a good deal of fuss between Dodsley, who appears to have sold
the book in London, and Baskerville and Shenstone, about plates for
this book. Baskerville did not accept any of the designs which were
drawn for them, but caused Wale and Grignion to execute a frontispiece
and vignette. The book was dedicated to Lord Bute, and the King’s
drawing-master presented a drawing of the Bute arms, which figure on
the dedication page.

Dr. Harwood says that the first edition of Horace, printed in 1762, “is
the most beautiful little book, both in regard to type and paper, I
ever beheld. It is also the most correct of all Baskerville’s editions
of the classics; for every sheet was carefully revised by Mr. Livie,
who was an elegant scholar.” He also adds, “the Quarto edition of
1770 is a very beautiful and extremely scarce work, the rarest of all
Baskerville’s editions. A good copy, with Gravelot’s plates inserted,
is valued at £2.2.”[33]

In 1772 the Brothers Molini, who had branches in London and Paris and
in Florence, entrusted to Baskerville the task of printing Ariosto.
The prospectus that he printed for them in 1772 states: “The Brothers
Molini have undertaken to present an Edition which will satisfy the
desires of the Public, and correspond with the reputation of this
great man. They have used the presses of the famous Baskerville, whose
master-pieces of printing all the world knows and admires.” The work
was issued in 1773, with 47 plates by the most eminent artists of the
time. There were 491 subscribers to this book, of whom 230 were in
London, 121 in Paris, 8 in Madrid, 14 in Holland, Russia, and Germany,
and 118 in Italy. It was a great success.

Dibdin says: “The Baskerville edition of Orlando Furioso with the cuts
of Bartolozzi is more exquisite than the splendid edition of Zatta.
I never see, or even think of, the lovely edition of Baskerville, of
1773, 8vo, 4 vols., without the most unmixed satisfaction. Paper,
printing, drawing, plates--all delight the eye, and gratify the heart,
of the thorough-bred bibliomaniacal Virtuoso. This edition has hardly
its equal, and certainly not its superior, in any publication with
which I am acquainted. Look well to the _proofs_ of the plates, which
Brunet tells us are sometimes more brilliant in the first two volumes
of the octavo, than in those of the quarto, or LARGE PAPER form. But
for a drawing-room table, or satinwood book-case, aspire to the quarto:
for a companion in green fields, or along quiet lanes, select the
octavo.” A copy of the quarto impression, bound in green morocco, was
sold for £21.[34] “The engraver Bartolozzi grew weary of the delays
of the publisher of these beautiful volumes, who one day in a passion
called him an ass, a poltroon, an animal. The artist made no reply;
he was working at the moment on the plate of the 43d Chant; without
turning from his task, he lightly traced these three words upon the
tomb which was engraved upon that plate,--_d’asino, de poltrone,
d’animale_.”

Did Baskerville make the paper on which his books were printed?

His latest biographers, Straus and Dent, say: “There is no place,
so far as is known, where the printer himself acknowledges that the
paper used for his book is of his own manufacture.” Derrick says:
“He manufactures his own paper.” He states in several places that he
bought paper for the Bible and for other books; that he has it not in
his power to furnish paper which is required for the book, etc. But in
his introduction to Milton he said that it gave him great satisfaction
to find that his edition of Virgil had been so favorably received,
and then he adds, “The improvement in the manufacture of the paper,
the colour and firmness of the ink were not overlooked.” This clearly
indicates that he had improved the manufacture of the paper.

He advertised superfine post paper, gilt or plain, glazed or unglazed,
of his own manufacture, etc. He was a competitor for the prize at
Birmingham in 1772, “for making paper from waste silk.” His paper
was placed upon the market by Dodsley himself, and went by the name
of “Vellum paper.” Baskerville is frequently spoken of as having
invented that kind of paper. A vellum paper still bears his name. In
the “Dictionary of Inventions” there is this reference to Baskerville
in the article, “Papier Velin:” “This paper is English, at least we
presume it to be, and we believe that Baskerville is the inventor
of it; the first edition of his Virgil, which appeared in 1757, was
printed in great part on that kind of paper.” Augustin Blanché, in his
essay upon the “History of Paper and of its Manufacture” (Paris, 1900,
page 137), states that at the time of the French Exposition of 1851,
the paper manufactured in England was in great part wrapping-paper, but
he says: “In 1750, Baskerville invented the method needed to prepare
wove paper, on which he printed his famous edition of Virgil.”

This view is confirmed by the following from Mores, page 98, note
(Nichols): “When Baskerville came to Cambridge, we told him that the
exceeding sharpness of his letter, and the glossy whiteness of his
paper, both beyond any thing that we had been used to, would certainly
offend; and we spoke much in praise of, and shewed him, the paper with
an yellow cast, on which H. Stephen’s capital editions are printed.
This, he told us, he could easily imitate, and accordingly executed
some sheets; but they were by no means the thing, the colouring not
being uniformly dispersed but clouded or waved like a quire of paper
stained with rain.”

The paper on which Virgil and Milton were printed has no watermark,
and is of a thicker texture, more yellow in color and less glossy in
appearance, than the paper on which he subsequently printed. I think
he manufactured this paper, but that, finding it more expensive to
manufacture it than to buy Dutch paper, he abandoned making paper for
printing books, but continued making ornamented post paper for some
time. The paper upon which most of Baskerville’s books were printed
was made in Holland, and it bears four watermarks. These consist of
a fleur-de-lis (_cf._ “Edwin and Emma,” 1760, and Congreve, 1761),
and in another part of the sheet a star and shield with a bar dexter,
surmounting the letters L. V. G. This was a Dutch-made paper. Another
watermark is found in some sheets of Baskerville’s paper. It consists
of a crown, a shield bearing a horn, and certain letters of the maker.
This is very clearly seen in the end papers of the copy of Addison
in the original boards. A slight modification of this watermark is
found in a very finely laid paper used only in the second edition of
“Aesop’s Fables” (1764). The first edition of Aesop was printed on wove
paper furnished by Dodsley.

Franklin wrote Baskerville in 1773, acknowledging the receipt of some
specimens, and said: “The Specimen I shall distribute by the first ship
among the printers of America, and I hope to your advantage. I suppose
no orders will come unaccompanied by bills or money, and I would
not advise you to give credit, especially as I do not think it will
be necessary. The Sheet of Chinese paper, from its size, is a great
curiosity. I see the marks of the mould in it. One side is smooth,
that, I imagine, is the side that was applied to the smooth side of the
kiln on which it was dried. The little ridges on the other side I take
to be marks of a brush passed over it to press it against that face in
places where it might be kept off by air between, which would otherwise
prevent it receiving the smoothness.”

Baskerville delivered most of his books in sheets, as was the custom
of his day, but one or two were issued in blue paper covers, _i.e._,
“Avon,” and “Edwin and Emma;” and others in boards covered with marbled
paper. I do not think he issued any books in morocco bindings. They
were expensive volumes, and were probably bound up to please themselves
by persons who bought them.

All of Baskerville’s printing was done in about sixteen years.
During this period he printed, as near as can be ascertained, about
sixty-seven books. This number is reduced by reprints of the Virgil,
the Prayer Books, and some others, so that in reality only between
fifty and sixty original books were printed by him. They are not all
of equal merit, and I think his reputation as a great printer must
ultimately rest upon not more than twelve. These, I take it, will
be found to be, Virgil, of 1757; Milton, of 1758; the Book of Common
Prayer, of 1760; Folio Bible, of 1763; Aesop’s Fables, of 1761;
Addison, of 1761; Horace, duodecimo, of 1762; Horace, octavo, of 1770;
his editions of the Latin Classics, in 1772, comprising Lucretius,
Catullus, Terence, and Sallust and Florus, octavo, in 1774; and Terence
and Lucretius, duodecimo; and Orlando Furioso in 1773.

Kippis, in “Biographia Britannica” (1778), page 671, has an article
upon Baskerville. He says: “These publications rank the name of
Baskerville with those persons who have the most contributed, at least
in modern times, to the beauty and improvement of the art of printing.
Indeed, it is needless to say to what perfection he has brought this
excellent art. The paper, the type, and the whole execution of the
works performed by him are the best testimonies of their merit.”

Baskerville certainly brought the art of printing to a degree of
perfection till then unknown in England. He trusted nothing to the
manufacture of others. “He was at once his own manufacturer of ink,
presses, chases, moulds for casting, and all the apparatus for
printing, and he also made some of the paper upon which he printed his
books. The means by which he produced these masterpieces of printing
are excluded from the province of printing in these days, by the triple
incongruities of _fine_ as possible--_quick_ as possible--_cheap_
as possible,” and as has before been said, his trade of japanning
book-work was conducted as follows: “He had a constant succession of
hot plates of copper ready, between which, as soon as printed ... the
sheets were inserted. The wet was thus expelled, the ink set, and a
glossy surface put on all simultaneously.”[35]

Reed says that “However well the method of hot pressing may have
answered at the time, the discoloration of his books still preserved
in the British Museum and elsewhere, shows that the brilliance thus
imparted was most tawdry and ephemeral.” This is not true, as is shown
by the specimens I have. They are nearly all in perfect condition. Of
course some of them are foxed, or spotted, but no more than other books
of the time, while the most of them are in absolutely perfect condition.

“Baskerville first introduced into England what is generally termed
‘_fine printing_,’ by producing a type of superior elegance, and an
ink which gave additional beauty to the type. The peculiar excellence
attached to his types and the celebrity he consequently attained gave
a stimulus to the exertions and called forth the emulation of British
printers.”[36] Fine work has therefore been progressively improving.

In the “Bibliography of Printing,” published in 1880, Baskerville is
termed a celebrated printer. It is said his type is “admired for its
elegance even at the present day, and books printed by him now bear
a very high value. He introduced great improvements in nearly every
branch of printing, and produced many masterpieces of typography.”[37]

“Baskerville is the only English printer who, up to his time, had
received the stamp of foreign reputation or approbation. He was an
artistic printer, for to secure beauty in typography, art must be
applied to the paper, and tone of the paper, margin, ink, spacing, size
of type, &c. The secret is a finding out an elegant proportion in all,
_i.e._, in a small book the type should not be thick or too black, nay,
even in the shape, cutting of a letter, quality and fitness is evoked.
It should harmonise with the mass of letters, and yet be distinct.”[38]

In 1762 Baskerville found that he was carrying his type-founding and
printing at the expense of his japanning business; as he wrote to
Franklin, “Had I no other dependence than type-founding and printing,
I must starve.” Apparently he became tired of his typographic work,
considering it too expensive and too much unappreciated, and desired to
sell it. One of his friends suggested that he apply to the government
for aid, the result of which was that he wrote the following letter
to Horace Walpole, then a member of Parliament, and an author of high
repute:


                To the Honble Horace Walpole, Esq. Member
                   of Parliament: in Arlington Street

                                 London
                                  this

                  _Easy Hill, Birmingham, 2 Nov. 1762_

                                   Sʳ

 As the Patron and Encourager of Arts, and particularly of that of
 Printing, I have taken the Liberty of sending you a Specimen of
 mine, begun ten years ago at the age of forty seven, and prosecuted
 ever since with the utmost Care and Attention, on the strongest
 Presumption, that if I could fairly excel in this divine Art, it
 would make my Affairs easy or at least give me bread. But alas! in
 both I was mistaken. The Book-sellers do not chuse to encourage me,
 tho I have offered them as low terms as I could possibly live by; nor
 dare I attempt an old Copy, till a Lawsuit relating to that affair is
 determined.

 The University of Cambridge has given me a Grant to print there 8vo.
 & 12mo. Common prayer Books; but under such Shackles as greatly hurt
 me. I pay them for the former twenty, & for the latter twelve pound
 ten shillings the thousand, & to the Stationers Company thirty two
 pound for their permission to print one Edition of the Psalms in Metre
 to the small prayer book: add to this the great Expence of double and
 treble Carriage, & the inconvenience of a Printing House an hundred
 Miles off. All this Summer I have had nothing to print at Home. My
 folio Bible is pretty far advanced at Cambridge, which will cost me
 near £2000. all hired at 5 p Cent. If this does not sell, I shall be
 obliged to sacrifice a small Patrimony which brings me in [£74] a Year
 to this Business of Printing; which I am heartily tired of & repent I
 ev[er] attempted. It is surely a particular hardship that I should not
 get Bread in my own Country (and it is too late to go abroad) after
 having acquired the Reputation excelling in the most useful Art known
 to Mankind; while every one who excels as a Player, Fidler, Dancer,
 &c not only lives in Affluence, but has it [in] their power to save a
 Fortune.

 I have sent a few Specimens (same as the enclosed) to the Courts of
 Russia and Denmark, and shall endeavour to do the same to most of the
 Courts of Europe; in hopes of finding in some one of them a purchaser
 of the whole Scheme, on the Condition of my never attempting another
 Type. I was saying this to a particular Friend, who reproached me with
 not giving my own Country the Preference, as it would (he was pleased
 to say) be a national Reproach to lose it. I told him, nothing but the
 greatest Necessity would put me upon it; and even then I should resign
 it with the utmost Reluctance. He observed, the Parliament had given a
 handsome Premium for a quack Medecine; & he doubted not, if my Affair
 was properly brought before the House of Commons, but some Regard
 would be paid to it; I replyed, I durst not presume to petition the
 House, unless encouraged by some of the Members, who might do me the
 Honor to promote it, of which I saw not the least hopes or Probability.

 Thus Sʳ I have taken the Liberty of laying before You my Affairs,
 without the least Aggravation; & humbly hope Your Patronage; To whom
 can I apply for protection but the Great, who alone have it in their
 Power to serve me?

 I rely on your Candor as a Lover of the Arts; to excuse this
 Presumption in

                                                 Yʳ most obedient
                                                 and most humble Servant
                                                 JOHN BASKERVILLE

 PS. The folding of the Specimens will be taken out by laying them a
 short time between damped Papers. NB. the Ink, Presses, Chases, Moulds
 for casting & all the apparatus for printing were made in my own Shops.

This letter is interesting as showing not only the embarrassments under
which Baskerville labored, but the relation which existed between the
type-founder and printer and the member of Parliament at that time.
Baskerville was a British tradesman, and dearly loved anybody that was
in power. Nothing came of this letter. I cannot ascertain that Walpole
paid any attention to it. Baskerville then went to Paris to endeavor
to sell his letter-founding and printing establishment. He asked
£8000, which was declined as being too much. Negotiations were again
renewed, in 1765, through the medium of Franklin, who was in Paris,
and the price was reduced to £6000. But Franklin wrote that the French
government was too poor to buy it; that they had not money enough
to keep their public buildings in repair, and so nothing came of the
attempt to sell during Baskerville’s life. Upon his death his widow
advertised the business for sale, and stated at the same time that she
continued the business of letter-founding in all parts. Apparently she
received no offer, and on December 11, 1775, she advertised all the
printing material for sale at auction on the third of January, 1776,
saying that it consisted of “Four accurate improved Printing Presses;
several large Founts of Type, different Sizes; with Cases, Frames,
screwed Chases, and every other useful Apparatus in that Branch of
Trade.” For some reason this auction was postponed until April 1, when
a few founts of type were sold. Apparently the printers were afraid of
the popular prejudice against Baskerville’s type.

It was then suggested by Dr. Harwood, the distinguished bibliographer,
that the nation should purchase the types as a nucleus of a national
typography, which he wished to see established. Unfortunately his
efforts came to nothing, and then Mrs. Baskerville advertised the types
for sale again, saying that she would “conform to sell them at the same
Prices with other Letter founders.” Only one purchaser appears to have
embraced this offer, Mr. James Bridgewater, who printed an edition
of Hervey’s “Meditations” “with a new type cast on purpose by Mrs.
Baskerville.” Having exhausted all efforts to sell the type in England,
Sarah Baskerville, in 1779, sold it for £3700 to a French society,
which was founded by Beaumarchais for the purpose of buying the type
and printing a complete edition of Voltaire. As, however, nearly
half of Voltaire’s works were prohibited in France at that time, and
frequently editions were burned, and men who bought and read them were
sent to prison, it was found necessary to establish the printing-press
at Kehl, near Strassburg, in a deserted fort. Toward the end of 1780
proposals appeared and were secretly circulated through France, and two
years later proposals in English were distributed openly in England.
Finally, after repeated delays from various causes, the edition of
15,000 copies was printed in 1789. Of these only 2000 copies found
subscribers, and the entire enterprise was a financial disaster.

Perhaps the greatest compliment paid to the memory of Baskerville was
this edition of the works of Voltaire. The Kehl Press was finally
broken up about 1810, although before that time some of the type was
sent to Paris and sold. This is shown by the fact that certain books
printed in Paris between 1790 and 1806 were printed with Baskerville’s
type, and an advertisement of the sale of Baskerville type, printed
with the types themselves in black and red, which is in the possession
of the Merrymount Press, Boston, was issued early in the nineteenth
century. This begins: “The store-room of the Foundry of Baskerville,
which presents to printers a new resource in this art, contains the
types hereafter mentioned,” and closes as follows: “We will send out
a sample of proofs of said types, with their price, while we are
completing a Specimen or Book of Proofs of all that the Foundry of
Baskerville contains.”

Reed also calls attention to four works of Alfieri, all bearing the
imprint, _dalla Tipografia di Kehl, co’ caratteri di Baskerville_, and
dated severally 1786, 1795, 1800, and 1809. These trace the survival
of the Baskerville types to a date twenty years later than that at
which they are commonly supposed to have perished. “It is to be
hoped,” says Reed, “that their discovery may in due time reward the
patience of those whose ambition it is to recover for their native
land these precious relics of the most brilliant of all the English
letter-founders.”[39] It is impossible to say precisely what became
of the Baskerville founts which had gone to France, but so late as
1891, a book appeared in France professedly printed _en Caractère
Baskerville du xviii siècle_. This may be a contemporary French copy
of Baskerville’s work. The last book printed in England with the
Baskerville imprint and with his types was a reprint of Berners’s
“Treatyse of Fysshinge wyth an Angle,” published by Pickering in 1827.

William Martin, who cut the types for the famous Shakespeare Press
of Boydell and Nicol, acquired his first knowledge of the art of
type-founding at the Baskerville, Birmingham, Foundry. He produced
the founts of type from which the works of the Shakespeare Press were
printed, and, regarded simply as type-specimens, the productions of
the Shakespeare Press justify his reputation as a worthy disciple of
his great master, Baskerville. His Roman and Italic types were cut in
decided imitation of the famous Birmingham models; although Hansard
points out with disapproval that in certain particulars he attempted
unwisely to vary the design. “As to the type,” he says, “the modern
artist, Mr. Martin, has made an effort to cut the ceriphs and hair
strokes excessively sharp and fine; the long ſ is discarded, and some
trifling changes are introduced; but the letter does not stand so true
or well in line as Baskerville’s, and, as to the Italic, the Birmingham
artist will be found to far excel.”[40]

When, on the 25th day of March, 1779, Charles Whittingham was
apprenticed to learn “the art and mysteries of printing, bookbinding
and stationery,” the “art and mysteries of printing” had very much
fallen into decay in England. Only one man, John Baskerville, seemed to
have had the ambition, the skill, or the courage to make the business
anything better than a plain trade. Even he, with money at his command,
after six years of experiment and ten years of production, abandoned
his attempt to create an English taste for fine printing. He produced
books that astonished people who were sufficiently interested to
examine them, and delighted the smaller number who purchased them,
but when one went into the manufacture of paper, type, and all the
apparatus of printing, it was not enough that he should be called one
of the best printers of the world, he needed profit. The fact was
that English people did not concern themselves with Baskerville’s
enterprise in printing because they knew little, and cared less, about
fine printing. The young Whittingham, who was learning his trade at
Coventry as an apprentice, undoubtedly heard of Baskerville’s strange
hazard at Birmingham, which was only a few miles away. A tradition
survives that he saw some of Baskerville’s admirable volumes and
conceived an ambition to excel in the same direction. It is probable
that Whittingham went from Coventry to Birmingham when he was free of
his apprenticeship, and studied at the famous Baskerville Press, which
was then in existence. However that may be, he went to London and set
up a press in a garret in Dean Street, Fetter Lane, hence the Chiswick
Press and the productions of Pickering.

Baskerville considered the title-page to be a part of the book which
required the most painstaking care, and he certainly produced a series
of title-pages that have never been excelled. It had been the custom
to crowd as much information about the book as possible upon the
title-page. On the other hand, Baskerville endeavored to make his
title-pages as concise as possible, and wherever a long title was
necessary, as it was in the Prayer Books, he so chose the type and
spaced the lines that there was no fault to be found. The title-page
to his Bible is probably the most beautiful of them all, although the
title-page to the New Testament is even more simple than the title-page
to the book itself. It is a beautiful page and fine printing, without
a superfluous line or an irritating decoration. It is a relief to turn
from the crowded and rubricated red-line title-pages of the period to
the restful simplicity of the title-pages of Baskerville.

And yet the master of the art of printing in the twentieth century
wrote of Baskerville’s title-pages as follows: “There was then and
there is now a rule obeyed by many printers that the main display line
of a title must always be a full line. If the letters are too few
the type must be widely spaced and one or more of these lines must
fill the measure. No printer observed this rule more rigidly than
Baskerville. Not only in his edition of Catullus, but in his quarto
editions of Virgil, Juvenal, and Persius, the letters of the titles
are spread over the page as if they had been dislocated by explosion.
Even in the title-page of his Book of Common Prayer, for which he
laid out more lines of display than could be gracefully put upon the
page with a needed relief of white space, the letters in some lines
are wedged widely apart in a useless attempt to give the lines the
desired prominence. It is a handbill, not a title.”[41] He should have
reproduced the title-page of the New Testament as an answer to this
harsh criticism.

In the early days, a printer’s type was his own. He made it and used
it. He did not sell it. English-cast types did not become a marketable
ware for more than a century after printing was introduced into
England. As late as 1799, it was the statute law in England that no
one should be allowed to possess or use a printing-press or types for
printing without giving notice to a justice of the peace and obtaining
a certificate, and any justice of the peace might issue a warrant to
search any premises and seize any press or printing-types not thus
certificated. This remained the law with regard to type-founding
until 1869; but happily the law was not enforced, except for a few
years after it was passed. Printers received patents and monopolies
for printing certain books. The result was great degeneracy in the
quality of printing. A privileged printer, sure of his monopoly, had
no inducement to execute good work at more cost or pains than was
necessary. Old type would do as well as new, and bad type as well
as good. The typography of the whole Stuart period is a disgrace to
English art.[42]

Printing in England in the early part of the eighteenth century was
in a sorry state. Official broadsides, political pamphlets, works of
literature, and even Bibles show a depression and degeneration so
marked that one is tempted to believe the art of printing was rapidly
becoming lost in a wilderness of what may be termed “Brown sheets and
sorry letter.” No foundry was contributing anything towards the revival
of good printing, with the exception of the Oxford University, and
Oxford owed its founts to gifts procured mainly from abroad. Scarcely
one good piece of printing was the impression of English type, and
even the Scotch printers were rebuked for not stocking their cases
with Dutch type. Tonson, the foremost English printer, is said on one
occasion to have lodged in Amsterdam while a founder there was casting
him £300 worth of type. James, the only English founder who showed any
vitality, owed his success chiefly, if not entirely, to the fact that
all his letters were the product of Dutch matrices, and even these, in
his hands, were so indifferently cast as to be often as bad as English
type. How far this decline was due to the printer or the founder, or
how far both were the result of that system of Star Chamber decrees,
monopolies, patents, restraints, and privileges which characterized the
illiberal days of the Stuarts, it is impossible to say, but the fact is
that English typography was in a very bad way.

William Caslon, a gunsmith’s apprentice, made the first attempt, about
1720, to found English type, and in 1730 his types were very much used.
But the condition of printing was still anything but satisfactory;
and although under the influence of Caslon’s genius the press was
recovering from the reproach under which it lay at the beginning of
the century, England was still very far behind her neighbors both in
typographical enterprise and achievement. Fine printing was unknown.
Once more it was left to an outsider to initiate a new departure; and
in 1750 the art of printing found its deliverer in the person of an
eccentric Birmingham japanner, Baskerville. To him is due the honor of
the first real stride towards a higher level of national typography; an
example which became the incentive to that outburst of enthusiasm--that
“matrix and puncheon mania,” as Dibdin terms it--“which brought forth
the series of splendid typographical productions with which the
eighteenth century closed and the nineteenth century opened.”

The magnificent works which between 1759 and 1772 continued to issue
from his press not only confirmed him in his reputation, but raised
his name to a unique position among the modern improvers of the art.
The paper, the type, and the general execution of his works were such
as English readers had not been accustomed to, while the disinterested
enthusiasm with which, regardless of profit, he pursued his ideal,
fully merited the eulogy of the printer-poet who wrote:

    “O BASKERVILLE! _the anxious wish was thine
    Utility with beauty to combine;
    To bid the o’erweening thirst of gain subside;
    Improvement all thy care and all thy pride;
    When_ BIRMINGHAM--_for riots and for crimes
    Shall meet the long reproach of future times,
    Then shall she find amongst our honor’d race,
    One name to save her entire disgrace_.”

Straus and Dent say of him: “Baskerville is the English representative
of that Renaissance of printing which in a measure helps to distinguish
the second half of the eighteenth century. It needs but small bias to
place him above that trio of artists--Didot in Paris, Bodoni at Parma,
Ibarra at Madrid. Baskerville has been called the English Bodoni,
but it would perhaps be fairer to say that Bodoni is the Italian
Baskerville. His work cannot compare in bulk with that of the other
masters, but we have his reasons for confining his efforts to so small
an outlay. The subtle splendor of his work grants it a corner by itself
in the world’s book-shelf; his own peculiar genius is stamped upon
almost every one of his productions. The types themselves were cut
upon principles which might well be followed to-day by those who would
introduce into their making a geometrical exactitude. Whatever may
have been the popular dislike of his work in England at the time, there
can be no question that he has had a lasting influence upon all work of
the kind after his day. Printers and type-founders alike are indebted
to his inventive genius.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Baskerville made his will January 6, 1773, writing it with his own
hand. As near as can be ascertained, it disposed of about £12,000.
He gave £2000 to discharge a settlement made before marriage to his
wife. He also gave her £2000 to be paid out of his book accounts,
stock in trade, etc. He gave £500 to his “little favorite,” being the
granddaughter of his wife, if she lived to be twenty-one years old;
if not, the £500 to his wife. He gave £1400 in trust to pay to the
children of his nieces, “to become payable on the day of my wife’s
future marriage, which if she choose I wish her happy equal to her
merit, but if she continues a widow the last mentioned legacies are
entirely void.” He gave £500 to the Protestant Dissenting Charity
School in Birmingham towards erecting a commodious building.

Then follows that portion of the will which Dr. Chalmers deemed too
indecent to print: “My further will & pleasure is and I Hearby Declare
that the Device of Goods & Chattles as Above is upon this Express
Condition that my Wife in Concert with my Exᵒʳˢ do Cause my Body to be
Buried in a Conical Building in my own premises, Heartofore used as
a mill which I have lately Raised Higher and painted and in a vault
which I have prepared for It. This Doubtless to many may appear a Whim
perhaps It is so--But is a whim for many years Resolve’d upon as I
have a Hearty Contempt of all Superstition the Farce of a Consecrated
Ground the Irish Barbarism of Sure and Certain Hopes &c. I also
consider Revelation as It is call’d Exclusive of the Scraps of Morality
casually Intermixt with It to be the most Impudent Abuse of Common
Sense which Ever was Invented to Befool Mankind. I Expect some srewd
Remark will be made on this my Declaration by the Ignorant & Bigotted
who cannot Distinguish between Religion & Superstition and are Taught
to Believe that morality (by which I understand all the Duties a man
ows to God and his fellow Creatures) is not Sufficient to entitle him
to Divine favour with professing to believe as they Call It Ceartain
Absurd Doctrines & mysteries of which they have no more Conception than
a Horse. This Morality Alone I profess to have been my Religion and
the [Rule] of my Actions, to which I appeal how far my profession and
practice have Been Consistant.”

And finally he gave to his executors each “6 Guineas to Buy a Ring
which I hope they will Consider as a Keepsake.”

Some time before his death, being consulted by friends, who were aware
of his opinions, as to how he would be buried, Baskerville said they
could “bury him sitting, standing or lying, but he did not think they
could bury him flying.”[43]

He was buried in the conical building, previously used as a mill, which
he had raised higher and painted, and in a vault which he had prepared,
at Easy Hill. The epitaph, written by himself, runs as follows:

                               STRANGER--
            BENEATH THIS CONE IN UNCONSCRATED (_sic_) GROUND
                  A FRIEND TO THE LIBERTIES OF MANKIND
                    DIRECTED HIS BODY TO BE INHUM’D
           MAY THE EXAMPLE CONTRIBUTE TO EMANCIPATE THY MIND
                  FROM THE IDLE FEARS OF SUPERSTITION
                   AND THE WICKED ARTS OF PRIESTHOOD

When Baskerville House was sold to a Mr. Ryland in 1789, the owner
did not disturb the body, and it remained for nearly fifty years in
comparative peace. During the Birmingham riots of 1791, Baskerville
House was stormed, sacked, gutted, and burned. It was not, however,
until alterations were made on the property for business purposes that
Baskerville’s coffin was removed, and taken to a warehouse, where it
remained for some time subject to visits from the curious, and even
to scientific observations of the condition of the body. Mr. Ryland,
ascertaining that a show was made of the remains, insisted that they
should be suitably interred, and Mr. Marston, in whose shop the coffin
had been placed, applied to the rector of St. Philip’s for permission
to bury the body there. This was refused on account of Baskerville’s
atheism, when Mr. Knott, the bookseller, said that he had a vault in
Christ’s Church, and should consider it an honor to have Baskerville’s
remains rest there, and they were there placed about 1829. Even
here Baskerville’s body did not rest permanently, for the necessary
extension of Birmingham caused Christ’s Church to be demolished, and
his remains, which should have been placed in St. Philip’s Church
by the side of his wife, being again refused interment there by the
rector, were placed in one of the catacombs of the Church of England
Cemetery at Warstone Lane. And so, finally, after being turned out
of the garden at Easy Hill for a canal-wharf, exposed to neglect and
ignominy in a plumber’s warehouse, interred by stealth in the vaults
of Christ’s Church, and then again removed by the march of business,
Baskerville’s bones at last found permanent rest in a quiet cemetery of
the Church of England. It is in a spot remote, not easily discoverable,
and where few are likely to see the stone, which has been transferred
thither from Christ’s Church. The inscription upon it reads as follows:

                 IN THIS CATACOMB RESTS THE REMAINS OF
                            JOHN BASKERVILLE
                           THE FAMOUS PRINTER
              HE DIED IN 1775, BUT THE PLACE OF HIS BURIAL
                           WAS UNKNOWN UNTIL
                APRIL 12, 1893, WHEN THE OPENING OF THE
                     UNREGISTERED CATACOMB NO. 521
                 DISCOVERED A COFFIN, WHICH ON FURTHER
               EXAMINATION WAS FOUND TO CONTAIN HIS BODY

What is it that makes the life and work of this middle-aged, vain,
and silly Birmingham Englishman interesting to us? Why do we collect
his imprints, and why do we talk about him? I think it is because he
had the true artistic vision and courage. He conceived the idea of a
perfect book, such as had not been printed in England. He did not grow
into it. He did not make one book, and then a better one, and then a
better one, until at last he achieved the beautiful book. He conceived
the book as an artist conceives a statue before he strikes a blow with
his chisel into the marble. It was wonderful that he should have done
so. He had grown up in a manufacturing and mercantile business, making
japan work for sale, and profiting by its sale. Most men never get
out of the work and of the ideas of the work which they do until they
are fifty years of age. He did. Why was it? I think, as I have said,
it was because he had an artistic perception and conceived the thing
which he was to do, and adhered to his conception. Everything shows
that he wrought in the true artistic spirit: having conceived the thing
to be done, he proceeded to do it. All his work was executed upon a
hand-press. His printing-office was what we should call a private
printing-office in his house. He cut the type; he made the ink and
improved the press; he devised the paper; and from start to finish
the work was his. Everybody who will do better work than anybody else
must have this spirit and conception of the work he proposes, and must
adhere to it, or he will not produce perfect work. It is this that
makes Baskerville interesting to us, and makes the productions of his
little private press treasures in the world of art.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Birmingham and the Midland Hardware District, pages 211, 221._

[2] _Autobiography of Alexander Carlyle, D.D._

[3] _Hutton’s History of Birmingham (1783), page 90._

[4] _Gough’s British Topography (1780), volume ii, page 306._

[5] _Hutton’s History of Birmingham, page 90._

[6] _Frivolous._

[7] _Testy._

[8] _Mark Noble, who was born in Birmingham in 1754. His father
sold beads, knives, toys, etc., to the slave traders. In 1781 he
was presented to two “starvation livings,” as he called them, in
Warwickshire. He divided his interests then among his congregation,
his books, and his farm. His writings were those of an imperfectly
educated, vulgar-minded man. His ignorance of English grammar
and composition rendered his books hard to read and occasionally
unintelligible, while the moral reflections with which they abounded
were puerile._ (_Dictionary of National Biography._)

[9] _Chambers’s Biographical Illustrations._

[10] _Edward Rowe Mores was a crusty, crabbed clergyman, who collected
different founts of types, and obtained much information upon the
subject of type-founding. He printed eighty copies of the book quoted
above, and Nichols bought the whole of them. See Nichols’s Literary
Anecdotes, volume v, page 389._

[11] _The Bookhunter (1885), page 67._

[12] _Reed’s Old English Letter Foundries, pages 269, 271, 277, 279._

[13] _Dent and Straus, John Baskerville, page 64._

[14] _Autobiography of Alexander Carlyle, D.D._

[15] _Straus, Robert Dodsley, page 272._

[16] _Dictionary of National Biography._

[17] _Straus, Robert Dodsley, pages 219, 273._

[18] _Lettres inédites de Voltaire (1857), page 254._

[19] _Reed’s Old English Letter Foundries (1882)._

[20] _Hansard’s Typographia (1825), page 311._

[21] _Hansard’s Typographia, page 723._

[22] _Ibid., page 717._

[23] _Reed’s Old English Letter Foundries, page 276._

[24] _Macaulay’s History of England, volume ii._

[25] _Harwood’s Classics, page 172._

[26] _Hansard’s Typographia, page 311._

[27] _Dibdin’s Library Companion, page 716._

[28] _Dibdin’s Library Companion (1825), page 47._

[29] _Dibdin’s Library Companion, page 613._

[30] _Straus, Robert Dodsley, pages 289-292._

[31] _Baskerville’s work was greatly admired on the Continent,
especially in France. He was paid several very handsome compliments in
Pierre Didot’s “Épître sur les Progrès de l’Imprimerie,” published in
Paris in 1784; and in the notes to the poem attention is given to his
method of printing and to his glossy paper,--“qui fatigue la vue.” To
make such paper, says Didot rather loftily, “is not a secret, and if it
ever becomes one, will not be worth finding out.” This opinion did not,
however, prevent the Didots from attempting to imitate it._

[32] _Dibdin’s Greek and Latin Classics (1827), vol. ii, pages 555 et
seq._

[33] _Harwood’s Classics, page 176. See also Dibdin’s Classics, volume
ii, page 111._

[34] _Dibdin’s Library Companion, page 766._

[35] _Hansard’s Typographia, page 311._

[36] _Horne’s An Introduction to the Study of Bibliography, vol. i,
page 253._

[37] _Bibliography of Printing, page 37._

[38] _Fitzgerald’s The Book Fancier, page 77._

[39] _Reed’s Old English Letter Foundries, pages 286, 287._

[40] _Ibid., page 332._

[41] _Theodore Low De Vinne’s Title-Pages as seen by a Printer (1901),
pages 154, 155._

[42] _Reed’s Old English Letter Foundries, pages 134, 136._

[43] _Secular Review, September 8, 1877._


                                _FINIS_


                        _BASKERVILLE EDITIONS_

                   IN THE COLLECTION OF J. H. BENTON




                             _COLLECTION_

                       OF J. H. BENTON, U. S. A.

          [_Numbers refer to Straus and Dent’s Bibliography_]


                         BASKERVILLE EDITIONS

 _No._   _Date_                     _Title_

   7.     1757.   VIRGIL. Opera. Royal 4to. _Plates by Hollar.
                  Map inserted._

   8.     1757.   VIRGIL. Opera. Royal 4to. _Extra illustrated._

  15.     1758.   MILTON. Paradise Lost. Imperial 8vo.

  17.     1758.   MILTON. Paradise Regain’d, Imperial 8vo.

  20.     1758.   [HUCKELL.] Avon. 4to. _Sig. K2 printed 2K._

  22.     1759.   MILTON. Paradise Lost. 4to.

  23.     1759.   MILTON. Paradise Regain’d. 4to.

  31.     1760.   BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. [Long lines without borders.]
                  Imperial 8vo. _Finely executed painting on the
                    fore-edge. Price erased._

  32.     1760.   BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. [Long lines with borders.]
                  Imperial 8vo.

  38.     1760.   [MALLET.] Edwin and Emma. Royal 4to.

  40.     1761.   BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. [Double column without
                  borders.] Imperial 8vo.

  43.     1761.   BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. [Long lines with borders.]
                  Imperial 8vo.

  44.     1761.   ÆSOP. Fables. 8vo.

  45.     1761.   JUVENAL AND PERSIUS. Satyrae. Royal 4to. _Two copies,
                    2d copy has plates by Hollar inserted._

  46.     1761.   CONGREVE. Works. 3 vols. Imperial 8vo.

  48.     1761.   ADDISON. Works. 4 vols. Royal 4to. _Two copies, one
                    not trimmed and in original boards._

  52.     1762.   BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. [Long lines without borders.]
                  Imperial 8vo.

  54.     1762.   BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. [Double column without
                  borders.] 12mo. _Two copies, each with Psalms
                    bound in._ _See_ Nos. 55, 56.

  55.     1762.   STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS. Psalms in Metre. 12mo.
                    _Bound at end of larger copy of No. 54._

  56.     1762.   TATE AND BRADY. Psalms. 12mo. _Bound at end of
                    smaller copy of No. 54._

  59.     1762.   HORACE. Opera. 12mo.

  65.     1763.   HOLY BIBLE. Cambridge. Imperial folio.

  69.     1764.   JENNINGS. On Medals. 8vo.

  71.     1765.   BARCLAY. Apology. Royal 4to.

  75.     1766.   VIRGIL. Works. By R. Andrews. In English. Imperial
                  8vo.

  78.     1766.   VIRGIL. Opera. 8vo. _No frontispiece._

  86.     1770.   HORACE. Opera. Royal 4to. _Manuscript errata inserted._

  90.     1772.   LUCRETIUS. De rerum natura. Royal 4to.

  91.     1772.   CATULLUS. Opera. Royal 4to.

  92.     1772.   CATULLUS. Opera. 12mo.

  93.     1772.   TERENCE. Comoediae. Royal 4to.

  94.     1772.   TERENCE. Comoediae. 12mo.

  98.     1773.   ARIOSTO. Orlando Furioso. 4 vols. Imperial 8vo.
                    _Errata in vol. 4._

  99.     1773.   ARIOSTO. Orlando Furioso. 4 vols. Imperial 8vo.
                   _Corrections in text._

 102.     1773.   SHAFTESBURY. Characteristics. 3 vols. Imperial 8vo.

 104.     1773.   LUCRETIUS. De rerum natura. 12mo. _Two copies._

 105.     1773.   SALLUSTIUS. Opera. Royal 4to.

 109.     1774.   SALLUSTIUS. Opera. 12mo.


UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD

 113.     1763.   NEW TESTAMENT, GREEK. Imperial 8vo. _676 pages._


SARAH BASKERVILLE

 116.     1777.   HORACE. Opera. 12mo. _No dedication._


ROBERT MARTIN

 117.     1767.   SOMERVILE. The Chase. Imperial 8vo. _This copy reads
                    “chace” on page 43._




_INDEX_


 A

 Adam, James, 16.

 Addison, Joseph, works of, printed, 34, 46.

 _Aesop’s Fables_, edition of, 34, 46.

 Akenside, Mark, 36.

 Aldus Manutius. _See_ Manutius, Aldus.

 Alfieri, Vittorio, Conte, works of, printed with Baskerville types, 52.

 Anderton, William, type-maker, 19.

 Ariosto, edition of, for the Brothers Molini, 41-42.


 B

 Baldwin, R., London bookseller, buys remainder of edition of
  Baskerville’s Bible, 31.

 Banks, Sir Joseph, 16.

 Bartolozzi, Francesco, 42.

 Baskerville, John, birth and death, 1;
   settles in Birmingham, teaches writing and practises stone-cutting, 2;
   builds up great trade in japanned ware, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19;
   his estate, Easy Hill, 4-6;
   High Bailiff of Birmingham, 6;
   his dress, 6, 8, 9;
   his connection with Mrs. Eaves, marriage, death of son, 7;
   his private character and habits, 8-9;
   lack of education, 9, 10;
   general remarks and quotations on his character and work, 11-19;
   probable origin of his interest in printing, 19;
   his statement of his purpose to improve the arts of type-founding and
    printing, 20-22;
   his tribute to Caslon, 20;
   his type-making, 22-24, 27;
   construction of presses, 24;
   his improvement of printing-ink, 25-26;
   his edition of Virgil, 27-29;
     of Milton, 29-30;
     of the Bible, 30-32;
     of the Book of Common Prayer, 32-34;
     of Addison, 34;
     of _Aesop’s Fables_, 34-35;
     of Rev. John Huckell’s _Avon_, 35;
   his prices, 35;
   reasons of the financial failure of his printing business, 35-36;
   his Greek type, cut for the University of Oxford, 36-37;
   notice of, by Dibdin, 37-39;
   his quarto editions of the classics, 39-41;
   prints Ariosto, for the Brothers Molini, 41-42;
   his paper-making, 43-45;
   does little binding, 45;
   duration of his printing business, 45;
   books upon which his fame rests, 45-46;
   his influence upon the art of printing, 46-47, 57-58;
   his efforts to sell his business, 48-50;
   these efforts continued by his widow, 51;
   sale to a French society, 51;
   printing-press reëstablished at Kehl, for printing of Voltaire’s
    works, 52;
   business broken up and type scattered, 52-53;
   Baskerville’s title-pages, 54-55;
   provisions of his will, 59-60;
   his tomb and epitaph, 60, 61;
   successive removals of his remains, 61-62;
   inscription over last grave, 62;
   his artistic vision, 62-63;
   list of his works in collection of J. H. Benton, 67-69.

 Baskerville, Sarah, wife of John, 7, 9;
   advertises her late husband’s business for sale, 51;
   sells to a French society, 51.

 Baskerville House. _See_ Easy Hill; _also_ Smart, Mr.

 Beaumarchais, Pierre Augustin Caron de, forms society for printing
  Voltaire’s works with Baskerville’s types, 51.

 Bedford, Dr. John, quoted, 12.

 Bensley, Thomas, 39.

 Berners, Juliana, her _Treatyse of Fysshinge wyth an Angle_ printed with
  Baskerville’s types, 53.

 Bible, edition of, 5, 21, 30-32, 46, 49, 55.

 Birmingham, in the early eighteenth century, 1;
   noted for freedom in religion and in industry, 1, 2.

 Blanché, Augustin, quoted, on Baskerville’s improvement in paper-making,
  43.

 Boden, Nicholas, 18.

 Bodoni, Giambattista, 58.

 Bowyer, William, 13;
   criticises Baskerville’s Greek type, 36-37.

 Boydell and Nicol, press of, 53.

 Bridgewater, James, buys some of Baskerville’s type, 51.

 Brunet, Jacques Charles, 42.

 Bulmer, William, 39.

 Burke, Edmund, 36.

 Burton, John Hill, quoted, 14, 15.

 Bute, Lord. _See_ Stuart, John, 3d Earl of Bute.


 C

 Cambridge, University of. _See_ University of Cambridge.

 Carlyle, Alexander, describes visit to Baskerville, 4, 15-16.

 Caslon, Samuel, type-founder, 13, 19.

 Caslon, William, type-founder, 19, 57;
   Baskerville’s tribute to, 20.

 Catullus, edition of, 39, 40, 46, 55.

 Chambers, John, quoted, 8, 9, 10.

 Chesterfield, 4th Earl of. _See_ Stanhope, Philip Dormer, 4th Earl of
  Chesterfield.

 Chiswick Press, 54.

 Cibber, Colley, 36.

 Classics, Baskerville’s quarto editions of, 39-40, 41, 46, 55.

 Clive, Robert, Lord Clive, 1.

 Colinaeus, Simon de, 38.

 Common Prayer, Book of, 5, 21, 32-34, 46, 48, 49.

 Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley, 3d Earl of Shaftesbury, Baskerville’s
  edition of his _Characteristics_, 17.

 Cotton, H., on Baskerville’s Bible, 32.

 Culloden, battle of, 1.


 D

 Darwin, Dr. Erasmus, 16.

 Day, Thomas, 16.

 De Vinne, Theodore Low, quoted, on Baskerville’s title-pages, 55.

 Dent, Robert K. _See_ Straus, Ralph, and Robert K. Dent.

 Derrick, Samuel, quoted, 5, 43.

 Dibdin, Thomas F., quoted, 10, 28, 30, 32, 33-34, 37-39, 42, 57.

 Didot, François Ambroise, 58.

 Didot, Pierre, quoted, on Baskerville, 38 _n._

 Divine right of kings, collapse of, 1.

 Dodsley, James, 26.

 Dodsley, Robert, his edition of _Aesop’s Fables_ printed by Baskerville,
   5, 34, 35;
   Baskerville’s acquaintance and correspondence with, 7, 16, 17, 18, 22,
    24, 26, 28;
   business relations with, 35,41.

 _Douglas_, tragedy of, 15.


 E

 Easy Hill, Baskerville’s residence, 4-6, 61, 62.

 Eaves, Richard, 7.

 Eaves, Sarah, wife of Richard. _See_ Baskerville, Sarah, wife of John.

 Elzevir family, 38.

 Enamel, invention of, 3.

 English power in the East and in the New World, 1.

 Epitaph, 61.


 F

 Fitzgerald, Percy Hethrington, quoted, 48.

 Florus, edition of, 39, 40, 46.

 Franklin, Benjamin, 7, 17, 28, 29, 48;
   letters of, on Baskerville’s work, 13-14, 45;
   undertakes negotiations for Baskerville with French government, 50.

 Frederick the Great, 1.


 G

 Galton, Samuel, 16.

 Garbett, Samuel, 15.

 German Empire, foundation of, 1.

 Gilt buttons, boxes, etc., 3.

 Goldsmith, Oliver, 36.

 Gravelot, Hubert François Bourguignon, 40, 41.

 Gray, Thomas, 36.

 Greek type, cut by Baskerville, 36-37.

 Grignion, Charles, 41.


 H

 Handy, John, works for Baskerville, 22.

 Hansard, Thomas Curson, gives recipe of Baskerville’s ink, 25-26;
   quoted, on Baskerville’s edition of Milton, 30;
   on his processes of work, 46;
   his criticism of Martin’s types, 53.

 Harwood, Edward, quoted, on Baskerville’s edition of Virgil, 28;
     of Horace, 41;
   suggests that English nation should purchase Baskerville’s types, 51.

 Herschel, Sir William, 16.

 Hervey, James, his _Meditations_ printed in Baskerville type, 51.

 Hollar, Wenzel, 39.

 Home, John, 15.

 Horace, edition of, 33, 39, 40, 46;
   Dr. Harwood’s remarks on, 41.

 Horne, Thomas Hartwell, quoted, 47.

 Hot-pressing, Baskerville’s process of, 24-25, 46.

 Huckell, Rev. John, his _Avon_ printed, 35.

 _Hudibras_, Baskerville’s admiration for, 17-18.

 Hutton, William, 10;
   quoted, 6, 8, 11.


 I

 Ibarra, Joachim, 58.

 Ink, printers’, 25-26.


 J

 James, Thomas, type-founder, 57.

 Japanned ware, 3, 19.

 Johnson, Dr. Samuel, 28, 36.

 Juvenal, edition of, 39, 55.


 K

 Kehl, printing-press at, 52.

 Kippis, Andrew, 16, 46.

 Knott, Jonathan, 61.


 L

 Livie, John, edits Horace, for Baskerville, 40, 41.

 Lowndes, William Thomas, on Baskerville’s Bible, 32.

 Luckombe, Philip, 24.

 Lucretius, edition of, 39, 40, 46.

 Luna Club, Birmingham, 16.


 M

 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, Baron, quoted, 28.

 Manutius, Aldus, 37;
   Baskerville compared to, 17, 38.

 Marston, Mr., of Birmingham, 61.

 Martin, William, type-cutter, disciple of Baskerville, 53.

 Mazyck, Isaac, 28.

 Merrymount Press, 52.

 Middle classes, rise of influence of, 1.

 Milton, John, edition of his _Paradise Lost_, 10-12, 20, 21, 43, 46.

 Minden, battle of, 1.

 Molini Brothers, Ariosto printed for, by Baskerville, 41-42.

 Montreal, capture, by English, 1.

 Mores, Edward Rowe, his abuse of Baskerville, 10, 37;
   quoted, 12, 44;
   note upon, 12 _n._


 N

 Newton, Thomas, Bp. of Bristol, 21.

 Nichols, John, quoted, 12;
   printer and author, 13.

 Noble, Mark, his description of Baskerville, 9;
   sketch of, 9 _n._

 Norris, Isaac, 29.


 O

 _Orlando Furioso_, 42, 46.

 Oxford, University of. _See_ University of Oxford.


 P

 Palmer, Samuel, 24.

 Paper, Baskerville’s manufacture of, 43-45.

 _Paradise Lost_, 10-11, 20.

 Paterson, Samuel, 9.

 Persius, edition of, 39, 55.

 Pickering, William, 54;
   prints last English book with Baskerville’s types, 53.

 Pine, John, 39.

 Pitt, William, 1st Earl of Chatham, 1.

 Plantin, Christophel, 38.

 Plassey, battle of, 1.

 Ponce, Nicolas, 39.

 Pope, Alexander, 36.

 Prayer Book. _See_ Common Prayer, Book of.

 Printing, in England, in seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries,
  56, 57.

 Propertius, edition of, 40.

 Protestant Dissenting Charity School, Birmingham, bequest of Baskerville
  to, 59.

 Psalms, versions of, printed by Baskerville, 32, 40.


 R

 Reed, Talbot Baines, quoted, on Baskerville’s work, 14, 29, 37,
 47;
     on survival of his types, 52, 53;
     on Martin’s types, 53.

 Robertson, James Craigie, 15.

 Rossbach, battle of, 1.

 Ryland, John, 61.


 S

 Sallust, edition of, 39, 40, 46.

 Shaftesbury, 3d Earl of. _See_ Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley.

 Shakespeare Press, types used in, 53.

 Shenstone, William, 34, 35;
   Baskerville’s acquaintance with, 17, 18, 22;
   quoted, on Baskerville’s edition of Horace, 40-41.

 Smart, William, bookseller at Worcester, buys Baskerville prayer books,
  33;
   builds house called “Baskerville House,” 33.

 Snuff-boxes, 3.

 Stanhope, Philip Dormer, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, 36.

 Stationers’ Company, payment to, for permission to print the Psalms, 32,
  48, 49.

 Stephen, H., 44.

 Sternhold and Hopkins, their version of the Psalms printed by
  Baskerville, 40.

 Straus, Ralph, quotation from his _Robert Dodsley_, showing relations of
  Dodsley and Baskerville, 16.

 Straus, Ralph, and Robert K. Dent, their memoir of Baskerville, quoted,
  43, 58.

 Stuart, John, 3d Earl of Bute, 41.


 T

 Tate and Brady, their version of the Psalms printed by Baskerville, 40.

 Taylor, John, carries on large business in japanned ware, 3, 4.

 Tedder, Henry R., quoted, 16.

 Terence, edition of, 39, 40, 46.

 Tibullus, edition of, 40.

 Title-pages, 54-55.

 Tonson, Jacob, London bookseller, employs Baskerville to print an
  edition of Milton, 21, 28;
   procures type in Amsterdam, 57.

 Type, Baskerville’s process of making, 23-24.


 U

 University of Cambridge, dealings of, with Baskerville, concerning
  printing of Bible and Prayer Book, 32, 33, 48, 49.

 University of Oxford, Baskerville makes Greek type for, 36-37.


 V

 _Viator_ (pseudonym), quoted, 10-11.

 Virgil, editions of, 20, 23, 27-29, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 55;
   subscribers to, 28.

 Voltaire, François Marie Arouet de, Baskerville compared to, 9;
   Baskerville’s admiration for, 18;
   edition of his works in Baskerville’s types, 51-52.


 W

 Wale, Samuel, 41.

 Walpole, Horace, 36;
   letter of Baskerville to, 48-50.

 Walpole, Sir Robert, 1st Earl of Orford, 1, 18.

 Warren, Mr., quoted, on Baskerville’s _Aesop_, 34.

 Wedgwood, Josiah, 16.

 Wesley, Rev. John, 1.

 Whitefield, Rev. George, 1.

 Whittingham, Charles, printer, 39, 54.

 Withering, Dr. William, 16.

 Worlidge, Thomas, 39.


 Y

 Young, Edward, 36.


 Z

 Zatta, Antonio, 42.




                          Transcriber’s Notes

Page 10: “creature a an artist” changed to “creature as an artist”