Third Series, No. 7, Vor. Il. Jury, 1911. THE LIBRARY. THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. RDHERE is, among the Lansdowne ——— at the British Museum, a SNS folio volume of no great bulk, which, Ly if we believe the story it tells, is per- ZK haps the most pitiful of all monuments to the vanity of antiquarian endeavour. For it embraces, or at least purports to embrace, the entire remains of that extensive collection of the unprinted drama of the earlier seventeenth century brought together, or supposed to have been brought together, about a hundred years later by John Warburton, Somerset Herald, prefaced by a long list of the treasures that have perished. The story of that disaster is one of the best known of literary anecdotes: how the zealous antiquary laboriously gathered together this unique collection of pieces by Shakespeare and others; how he handed it over for safe custody to his cook, who made use of the precious leaves for some obscure process connected with her trade, and how the owner made no further inquiry on the subject till he had devoured all but three and a half out of a total of some fifty or sixty plays. The story has been told over and over again II. Q 226 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. with every kind of facetious adornment, till no history of literature is complete without it, and our national biography has to take serious account of the eccentric herald and his cook Elizabeth B. I wish someone would tell me who invented Elizabeth B. I write of her in this perhaps unduly familiar manner because I have to confess that I do not know her name. The earliest authority on the subject that I have been able to discover is a certain Cuthbert Clutterbuck, who, in a letter dated Kennaquhair, 1 April 1822, tells how the ‘Author of Waverley’ found the privacy of his bedchamber invaded by a distressed female, who introduced herself as ‘the spirit of . . . that un- happy Elizabeth or Betty Barnes, long cook-maid to Mr. Warburton, the painful collector, but ah! the too careless custodian, of the largest colleétion of ancient plays ever known.’ The curious reader will find this letter printed at the beginning of Scott’s ‘ Fortunes of Nigel,’ but I fear he will find no further indication of the source of the story thus circumstantially given. The only other credible witness I have been able to discover is the ‘Dictionary of National Biography,’ and there, in the article on John Warburton, the name of his servant is given, not as Betty Barnes, but as Betsy Baker. Unfortunately again no authority is quoted, and I have diligently searched all the general references given at the end of the article without being able to obtain any light on the subjeét what- ever. It only remains to point out that if the name Betsy Baker is correét, this play-burning cook was called by what has been almost a generic name THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 227 from the days of Langland to our own, and chose her parents with curiously prophetic insight. Apart from this matter of the name the original source of the story seems to be Warburton’s own memorandum appended to !the list of the lost plays. Warburton was, perhaps not without cause, one of the most unpopular of men, and any joke at his expense was sure to be readily believed and widely circulated. One must be prepared for ex- aggerations: and, indeed, in 1891 acontributor to * Notes and Queries’ (Ser. 7, xii. 15), signing himself A. Hall, went so far as to ridicule the whole story. That any statement of the Somerset Herald should command implicit belief can, it is true, hardly be maintained; but in the present instance the in- formation he gives is so little to his credit as an antiquary, that there is at least a strong presumption that he is telling the truth. It will be well to give Warburton’s list exactly as it stands, more particularly as none of the copies at present available are quite satisfactory. It was first printed, at a time when the manuscript was still in the possession of the first Marquis of Lansdowne, by Reed in his ‘ Variorum’ Shakes- peare of 1803 (ii. 371-2). The whole of his account, however, is very careless, and several titles are altogether omitted from the list. A much more accurate copy was contributed over the initials of J. Haslewood to Bridges’ ‘ Censura Literaria’ in 1807 (v. 273). After censuring both Reed and ‘the second part of the Catalogue of the Lansdowne MSS.’ for errors, he adds some inter- esting observations of his own. ‘The writing,’ 228 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. he says of the list, ‘is in a very different hand from his [Warburton’s], and did not the “‘ many years collecting” imply their being obtained at various times, I should have supposed had been an index to them, made sixty years or more before his memorandum was written. The orthography is certainly of an earlier period than the strange diction of Warburton, which is not that of old spelling, but of false spelling.” He further appends extracts from the catalogue of Warburton’s sale in Nov. 1759,' including, besides the Lansdowne volume, ‘The Tyrant, a Tragedy. 4to,’ which appears in the list, and ‘Demetrius and Marina, or the Imperial Impostor and Unhappy Heroine, a Tragedy. Fol.,’ which does not. The Lansdowne Catalogue mentioned by Hasle- wood is the sale catalogue of April 1807,* and when he speaks of ‘the Lansdowne MSS. No. 849,’ he is referring to the number of the lot. This has caused some confusion, since of course by ‘the second part of the Catalogue of the Lansdowne MSS.’ one now understands the second volume of the Catalogue made after the collection had found a home in the British Museum, and published in 1819, in which the manuscript is numbered 807. The sale catalogue prints Warburton’s list entire, and far more accurately than Reed. Haslewood indeed correéts some further errors (though in the I have been unable to find a copy of this. * The sale, of course, never took place, the nation acquiring the collection en bloc for £4,925. I presume that the sale was first postponed pending negotiations, for the money was not paid till the O€tober following. THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 229 particular point which he cites as evidence of in- accuracy in the Catalogue he is wrong) but he follows both his predecessors in the serious mistake of print- ing Warburton’s memorandum at the end of the whole list, instead of at the end of the first page only. In Sept. 1815, Frederick Thornhill reprinted Reed’s list inthe ‘Gentleman’s Magazine’ (p. Ixxxv. 217-22 and 424), with comments of his own, and corrections from a private transcript with which he had been favoured; but though this correspon- dent of the great Silvanus Urban had ‘been informed’ that the original document was now safely lodged at the British Museum, he apparently did not see the desirability of consulting it himself, and so robbed his communication of much of the value it might otherwise have possessed. In 1819 appeared the second part of the big British Museum Catalogue of Lansdowne Manuscripts, in which the list is printed with commendable though not quite consistent care, but in which Warburton’s note is again misplaced. The list given by Fleay in his ‘ Life of Shakespeare’ (1888) is less accurate than a comparison of accessible copies might have made it, even without recourse to the original.’ * Gifford, in the introduction to his edition of *‘ Massinger’ in 1805, recounts the usual tale, and ends by giving the titles of the three survivors as mentioned by Reed. He adds: ‘ These, it is said, are now in the library of the marquis of Lansdowne, where they will, probably, remain in safety till moths, or damps, or fires mingle their “ forgotten dust” with that of their late companions.’ For this piece of impertinence he was not undeservedly rebuked by his reviewers, to whom he retorted in the preface to his second edition in 1813 with more spirit than discretion. Nevertheless in that edition the offending passage still stands, despite the fact that the manuscripts in question had in the interval passed into public custody ! 230 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. The volume, as I have said, is now numbered 807 of the Lansdowne Manuscripts. It is a thin foolscap folio bound in russia. The end papers are modern. An original flyleaf is preserved, but not numbered; then comes a leaf with the Warburton and Shelburne book-plates on the verso, then Warburton’s list, mounted and reckoned as folio 1. The plays follow: the ‘Queen of Corinth’ occupy- ing folios 2-28, the ‘Second Maiden’s Tragedy’ folios 29-56, the ‘ Bugbears’ folios 57-77. At the end is an imperfect play in quarto occupying folios 78-88. It is a fragment of the ‘ Benefice’ by R. Wild containing III. iv. to the end. That com- pletes the colleétion as now extant. Here is the description of it as it is alleged to have once existed : Manuscripts [recto The Hon’. Loves by Will. Rowley’ Henry y* 1“. by Will. Shakespear & Rob. Davenport The fair favourit Minervas Sacrifise Phill. Masenger Duke Humphery Will. Shakespear Citty Shuffler S'. Jo". Suckling’s Workes Nothing Imposeble to love T. C. S' Rob. le Green The fore’d Lady A T. Phill. Massinger The Governer T. S'. Corfi. Fermido The Lovers of Loodgate The Flying Voice by Ra. Wood * The second word has been variously read as ‘ Hont.,’ i.e. honourable, or ‘ Hon4,,’ i.e. honoured. The superior letter resembles a ‘d,’ but a comparison with other cases shows that ‘r’ is certainly intended, THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 231 The Mayden Holaday by Chri. Marlowe The Fatal Love The Puritan Maid y*. Modest Wife & y*. Wanton Widow by Tho. Middleton The London Marchat (sic) A Coiii. by Jo" Ford. The King of Swedland Love hath found out his Eyes by Tho. Jorden Antonio & Vallia by Phill. Massinger The Dutches of Fernandina T. Hen. Glapthorn Jocondo & Astolfo C. Thé. Decker S'. Ged. for England by Will. Smithe The Parliam' of Love by W™. Rowley The Widows Prise C. W™ Sampson The Inconstant Lady W”. (sic) Wilson , The Womans Plott Phill. Massinger The [Marchants Sacrifice] Crafty Marchat (sic) C Shack. Marmio[n * An Interlude by Ra. Wood worth Nothing ~° The Tyrant A Tragedy by Phill. Massenger [The Yorkshire Gentlewoman & her Son T.]’* The None Such AC. W™. Rowley The Royal Combate AC. by Jo*. Forde. Philenzo & Hipolito A C. by Phill. Massenger Beauty in a Trance AC. Jo”. Forde. The Judge AC. by Phill. Massenger. A good beginning may have A good end by Jo". Ford Fast and Welcome C. by Phill. Massinger? Belive as yo". list C. by Phill. Massinger His‘. of Jobe by Rob. Green The Vestall A Tragedy by H. Glapthorn The Noble Tryall. T. H. Glapthorn * The title first written has been crossed out: the name is crowded in and the end is no longer visible. ? This entry is crossed out. 3 The *C,’ standing for Comedy, is interlined, 232 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. After I had been many years Collecting these MSS Playes, through my own carelesness and the Ignorace (sic) of my S[er' in whose hands I had lodgd them they was unluckely burnd or put under Pye bottoms, excepting y* three which followes. J. W. Manuscripts [verso Yorkshire Gentlewoman and her Son T The Hon’. of Women A C. by Massinger Alexias or y* chast Glallant (sic) T. P Massinger The vestal a Tragedy H. Glapthorn’ The Noble choise T.C. P. Massinger A Mask R. Govell 2%. p’. Maidens Trag. Geo. Chapman The Great Man T. The Spanish Purchas C. The Queen of Corsica T. by F. Jaques The Trag*. of Jobe Good The Nobleman T.C. Cyrill Turfiuer A Play by Will Shakespear Bugbear C. Jo". Geffrey Orpheus C. Tis Good Sleeping in A Whole Skin W. Wager Farry (sic) Queen’ There was a time when I entertained serious doubts as to the genuineness of a material part of "The catalogue gives the letters ‘Ser,’ but only the first is now clearly legible. The edge is frayed, but there can never have been room for the full word. 2 The ‘ H.”’ has been altered. 3 The second ‘r’ of ‘ Farry’ has been altered, but there does not seem any doubt as to the reading. THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 233 Warburton’s alleged memorandum, for I could not find it in the manuscript itself. The volume in question has been repaired at some comparatively recent date, and a list of plays mounted on a guard. Now if the slip on which the list of supposed manuscripts is written be carefully examined, it will be observed that the end of the memorandum as printed above is wanting, and there are indica- tions that suggest, what is indeed the case, that the slip can never have contained more writing than now appears. It was, therefore, very difficult to account for the entry in the catalogue. One day, however, I observed that at Some period the slip had been fastened down to the original flyleaf by means of wafers. This fact, which I might indeed have learned from the Catalogue or from Haslewood, gave the clue to the mystery. For on a Closer inspection I discovered that ;Warbur- ton’s writing had run off the slip on to the leaf to which it was attached, and there the end of the memorandum, though very faint, may still be traced. A careless binder had almost destroyed the evidence of the nefarious Betsy’s crime;! So far then the document bears examination. I should further say that after comparing several letters of Warburton’s written between 1750 and 1760 preserved in the British Museum, I see no reason to question the authenticity of the note, nor, in spite of obvious differences in the writing, to deny that the list itself may likewise be in his handwriting. To the point raised by Haslewood as to the archaic spelling of the list there is an obvious reply—namely, that the titles are of course 234 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. copies; and I would call attention to one small point in favour of their having been written by Warburton. For in the note he has accidently left out the second ‘n’ in ‘Ignorance,’ while in the list we twice find ‘ Marchat’ for ‘ Marchant.’ There remain, however, plenty of difficulties in connection with this list. It is written on the two sides of a long narrow slip of paper. At the head of each page is the word ‘ Manuscripts,’ but the list fills neither page. On the recto, however, the titles came down to within a few inches of the foot, leaving only a small space in which the note has been subsequently inserted. On the verso they fill less than half the page. The presence of the note has been taken to imply that the list must have been written out from memory. This may, I think, be at once dismissed as improbable. A man so little careful of his manuscripts as to leave them long unsought in the care of his servant, could never have sat down and written out a list of fifty or sixty titles and authors from memory. Moreover, the note is written in a different style and ink from the list, even supposing the hand to be the same. We shall, therefore, be justified in assuming that the list was among the papers rescued, and that it consequently dates from many years before the note. It may, in that case, have been compiled from the actual manuscripts enumerated, though there is nothing to prove that it was. It should be noticed that it is not quite clear whether the memorandum is intended to apply to the plays on both sides of the paper, or only to the list at the foot of which it stands. Nor does it appear + 8 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 235 what the relation of the two lists is. Is that on the verso a mere continuation of the other? If so, why was the verso used when there was still room on the reéto? Moreover, the ‘ Vestal’ appears in both lists, and so does the ‘ Yorkshire Gentlewoman,’ though this is struck out again on the recto. The ‘History’ and the ‘Tragedy of Job’ are also very likely the same. Are these mere oversights? After it had lain hid for many years did Warburton himself remember accurately the significance of the list? That he owned some of the plays in it we know, that others perished seems likely, but was there really the wholesale slaughter that the collector in his disappointment would have us believe? This is a question that probably can never be answered for certain, but it may be that a closer examination will at least suggest a possible solution. The investigation will take us rather far afield, but I hope that it may repay us for our wanderings by the light incidentally thrown on the bibliography of the seventeenth century drama in general. The dislocation of our knowledge ot the English book trade that occurs about the year 1640 is eloquent of the debt we owe to Professor Arber for his transcript of the Stationers’ Register, but is not in itself a good thing, and it is with keen anticipation that many students look forward to the now promised continuation of that great work. Our present ignorance is rather specially unfortunate in the case of the drama, since not only do the entries of individual plays continue, but there also | | 236 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. occur from time to time entries of whole batches of plays, mostly old ones, evidently made with a view to extensive publishing ventures consequent upon the closing of the theatres during the Civil War and under the Commonwealth. These entries, though neglected by recent critics, were utilized by some of the earlier biographers of the English stage, and many references will be found in the ‘Biographia Dramatica’ of 1812. From these scattered notes Fleay reconstructed the entries of 1653 and 1660 in his ‘ Life of Shakespeare’ (1880), and these lists, though inaccurate, have up to the present been by far the best at the disposal of students. They possess additional value through being printed in parallel columns with that of Warburton’s alleged collection. I propose in this place to print in full some of the chief play-entries from the later volumes of the Stationers’ Register. Of these the above- mentioned entries of 1653 and 1660 form perhaps the most important, for the reason that they were largely inoperative, and therefore preserve for us the titles of many plays which are not now dis- coverable. The real nature of the entry belonging to 1646 does not seem to have been previously recorded, and I have on my conscience a state- ment to the effect that the publishers of the Beaumont and Fletcher folio of the following year dispensed with the formality of entry. This is now seen to be incorrect. Fleay, however, only mentions four plays under this date, and it was a remark by the anonymous editor of Wilson’s ‘Inconstant Lady,’ printed in 1814, to the effect THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 237 that the entry contained forty-eight plays, that first long ago suggested further search. chance my friend Mr. Plomer happened at the time to be consulting the later Registers for other purposes, and kindly undertook to transcribe for me the entries now printed here." A. 4°. Sept. [1646]... By a lucky Liber E, Entred for their Copies vnder the hands of m‘ Langley & Mr Robin- m' whitaker warden these Seu’all Tragedies & Comedies herevnder men@oned (viz‘.) [(Saluo iure cuiuscu *Mad Lover Wild goose chase Litle french Lawyer Loyall Subiect Spanish Curate Custome of y* Country Double Marriage wife for a Month Island Princes Pilgrime *The Lawes of Candy Womans prize or the Tamer tam’d Knights of Malta The Captaine The Noble Enemie or the humerous Leiftenant *The Woemen pleased Bonducca or Boadicea [Mounsieur Perrollis]’ *mistaken Chaunces ) > son & mq]? Mr. Mozely. xxiii)". by m‘ Beamont & m‘ Flesher ‘In the 1646 entry there are certain additions in a different hand. These are distinguished by an asterisk prefixed. * These words in brackets are crossed out in the original. j ; { \ j } | 238 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. p- 54. Mr. Robin- Newes from Plymouth son & Mr. Mozeley. these entries clear. *The Sea Voyage Maid of the Mill Queene of Corinth Coxecombe Noble gentleman Beggars Bush Honest mans fortune Martiall Maid The Emperor Valentinian The Prophetesse The Lovers pilgrimage The Lovers progresse J Distresses Fair Favourite Love & honor )by S' W™. Davenant [By Ss". W™. | Davenant Country Captaine Varieties Doubtfull heire Imposture Brothers by M’ Shirley Cardinall The Sisters Maior of Quinborough The passionate Lover }/*1". & 2°. parts Spartan Ladies by Mr Carlile Switzer ee The Corporal} PY Be Wilson The princes by M’ Killegrew The fatall friendship by m‘ Burroughes by my Lord of Newcastle A few notes may serve to make the bearing of The first thirty plays will at once be recognised as constituting the entry for the folio of ‘Comedies and Tragedies Written by THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 239 Francis Beaumont And John Fletcher Gentlemen. Never printed before, And now published by the Authors Originall Copies’ printed for Robinson & Moseley in 1647. That volume, however, if we include in it the Wild Goose Chase, published as a supplement in 1652 and entered second on the above list, contained thirty-six pieces, none of which had been previously entered or printed. The omission of six plays does not appear to have been discovered at the time, but, as will be seen from a subsequent list (C), the missing titles were duly entered to the same stationers on 29 June 1660, perhaps in anticipation of the new and enlarged edition, which, however, did not appear till 1679, and was then published by Martyn, Herringman and Marriot. The alternative title of the ‘ Hum- orous Lieutenant’ looks as though there had been more than one MS., for no trace of the ‘ Noble Enemy’ is found in the folio text. I am unable to guess what ‘ Mounsieur Perrollis’ can be. Of Davenant’s plays, ‘Love and Honour’ was printed in 1649, while the other three first ap- peared in the folio published by Herringman in 1673. The five plays by Shirley were published, together with the ‘ Court Secret,’ in the ‘ Six New Plays’ of 1653. The ‘Mayor of Quinboro’’ first appeared, published by Herringman, in 1661, with a title-page ascribing it to Middleton. The two parts of Carlell’s ‘ Passionate Lovers’ were printed in 1655, but the ‘Spartan Ladies’ is not known, though it was advertised by Moseley along with the ‘ Discrete Lover’ and ‘Osman’ among ‘ Books I do purpose to Print very speedtly (sic)’ in a | | | | H | Liber E. p- 285. i} m*. Mosely. 240 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. catalogue found at the end of some copies of Middleton’s ‘Two New Plays’ of 1657." Wilson’s ‘Switzer’ is extant in manuscript (BM. Add. 36759), and has been edited by Professor Feuillerat ; while of the ‘ Corporal’ unfortunately nothing but a list of dramatis personae remains (Bodl. MS. Rawl. Poet. 9). The ‘ Princess,’ by Thomas Killi- grew, was included in the colleéted folio of his plays published by Herringman in 1664. Neither of the ‘ Fatal Friendship’ nor of Mr. Burroughes does anything further appear to be known. A tragedy bearing the same title was later written by Catherine Trotter and printed in 1698. B. September. y*. 9": 1653... . Entred also for his Copies the severall Playes following. xx[j]*. vj*.? ' As pointed out by Baker (‘Comp. to the Playhouse,’ 1764). The only copy that I have seen which has the catalogue is that at Trinity College, Cambridge. The catalogue is in two quires, a® b?. Later the two leaves of b were cancelled, and a full sheet, B®, appended to the remaining copies of a. I have a copy of the catalogue in this form at the end of Massinger’s ‘Three New Plays’ of 1655. In this among the ‘ Books lately Printed’ appear Carlell’s ‘ Discrete Lover’ and ‘Osmond.’ The‘ Spartan Ladies’ has vanished, but its place is taken by the ‘ Deserving Favourite.’ This was an old play printed as early as 1629, of which Mosely issued an edition in 1659. I suspeét that the ‘Spartan Ladies’ was the title borne by another manuscript of this play. ‘The name would be appropriate enough to the ladies who resolve to die with their lover and brother, while there are points which would even make Sparta not unsuitable as the scene of the aétion. * It should be noticed that the sum has been altered from 215. 6d. to 20s. 6d. This brings it right for forty-one plays. ‘Henry I & Henry II’ is counted as one piece. THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 241 The Widdowes Prize. by M'. W™. Samson Witt in Madnesse The Louesick Maid, or the honour } Rich: Brome. of Young Ladies. by The Discreet Louer, or The Foole would bee a Fauourite. b Osman, the Great Turke, rl Lod: Carlel. The Noble seruant. both by The Countrey man. The Siege. by W™: Dauenant The lew of Venice, by Tho: Decker. The Woman's mistaken. by. Drew, & Dauenport. The History of Cardennio, by M'. Fletcher. & Shake- speare. The Gouernour. by S'. Cornelius Formido. The Kings Mistresse Beauty in a Trance. by M‘. In®. Ford. More Dissemblers besides Women. } A right Woman, or Women } beware of Women. \ M'. Tho: No Witt, no helpe like a Woman , Midleton. The Puritan Maid, modest Wife & Wanton Widdow. by. 4 The Noble Choice, or y* Orato" ) p. 286. The Wandring Louers, or y* Painter more to The Italian Night peece, or M*. Mosely The Vnfortunate, Piety Alexius the Chast Gallant or. The Bashfull Lover. | A very Woman, or y* Womans Plot. > The ludge, or Beleiue, as yo" list The Prisoner, or y* Faire Anchoress The Citie honest man, or y* Guardian The Spanish Vice Roy, or y* Hono’: of Women. Minerva’s Sacrifice, or y* Fore’d Lady J By Phill: Massinger. II, R Liber F. p. 193. M’. Hum Robinson & M’. Hum: Moseley. 242 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. The Maid’s Tragedie. 2°. part The Crafty Merchant. or the Souldred Citizen The Politique Bankrupt, or | which is y*. Best Girle. | toy Shakerly Marmion. The Foole without Booke. {by Ww"; A Knaue in Print, or One for another. Rowley. The Polititian, by Iames Shirley. The spanish Duke of Lerma. The Duke of Guize The Dumbe Bawde & Giraldo, y* Constant Lover The merry Deuill of Edmonton. by W™: Shakespeare. Henry y*. first, & Hen: y* 2°. by Shakespeare, & Dauenport. The Nobleman, or Great man. by Cyrill Tourneur. The Inconstant Lady by M*. Arth. Wilson. by Henry Shirley. C. [29 lune 1660.] : Entred for their Copies (under the hand of M* Thrale Warden) these severall Plays following. vizt The ise one. The Nice Valour or the passionate Madman. Witt at severall Weapons. The Faire Maid of the Inne. A Maske of the Gentlemen of Graies Inne and | _iijs the Inner Temple at y* marriage of the Prince and Princesse Palatine of the Rhene. Foure Plays or morall Representations in one. all Six Copies written by Fra: Beamont & lohn Fletcher. : THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 243 D. The 29" of Iune 1660. Entred for his Copies (vnder the hand of M* Thrale Warden) the severall Plays following. That is to say The Faithfull Friend a Comedy.) by Francis Beamont A right Woman. a Comedy. t Iohn Fletcher The History of Madon King of Brittain by F: Beamont. The Womans Plott. a Comedy. ) The Prisoners. a Tragi Comedy. The Honour of Women, a Comedy. Beleive as you list. a Tragedy The forced Lady. a Tragedy. =" The Tyrant. a cath ‘ pbs: The Bashfull Lovers. ——_ The Gardian. Philenzo & Hypollita. a Tragi Comedy. Antonio & Vallia. a Comedy. Fast -& Welcome. a Comedy. J The History of King Stephen. Duke Humphrey. a Tragedy. Iphis & Iantha Or a marriage without a man. a Comedy. The Vestall. a Tragedy. The noble Triall. a Tragi Comedy. by Hen: Glap- The Dutchess of Fernandina | thorne. a Tragedy. The Sodered Citizen. a Comedy. by Shakerley Marmion. The Fatall Love. a French Tragedy. By Geo: Chap- by Will: Shakspeare. A Tragedy of a Yorkshire Gentlewoman and her sonne — The Royall Combate. a Comedy. An ill beginning has a good end, & a bad | by Iohn beginning may have a good end. a Comedy Forde. The London Merchant. a Comedy. J Liber F, p- 196. M‘. Hum: Moseley. 244 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. (This page is bracketed and summed ‘ xiij s.’) The 29" of Iune 1660. Mr. sag Entred for his Copies (vnder y* hand of M* Thrale * Warden) the severall Plays following. That is to say The None such. a Comedy. The booke of y* 4. Hon®*. Loves. a Comedy. The Parliament of Love. Gustavus King of Swethland. The Tale of Iloconda and by Tho: Decker. Astolso. a Comedy. The fatall Brothers, a Tragedy. The Politick Queen. Or murther by Witlm Rowley. by Rob‘. Daven- will out. — Nothing impossible to Love. »Trag’ Comedy by S‘ Rob*. Le Greece The Prodigall Scholar. a Comedy. by Tho: Randall. The Christmas Ordinary. a Comedy by Trinity Colt. Oxford Love hath found his Eyes. by Thomas Jordan. (This page is bracketed and summed ‘ v*. vj*.’) It will, of course, be noticed that there are a number of titles common to the lists of 1653 and 1660, and we cannot do better than, with the full copies of Moseley’s entries and Warburton’s cata- logue before us, to reconstruct the parallel table given by Fleay. The entry of the six plays by Beaumont and Fletcher has already been mentioned above, and need not occupy us further. w + N THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. ‘uote = ‘juryouoyy Ayes) oy], ‘soSursseyy L “Apery poouog 24, “s93uisse "QOYLIIG § LAIOUILY *s93uisse Baye y jo <«anouoy 241 *s9ZuIsse “> ‘28pnf oy, *sosuistyy «SD “3st] NOA sv DAdI;og “s9Z uIsse "JO[g 8,ueWIO Ay 24. “s9Zuisse wee ’ DISEYD 9Y} JO soIXoTV NOLUNGEV MA uI INd90 xis “s93uisse yy “uOTULIe Ay *raBusse jo "soBursseyy “URIPsIENs) YT ‘se8uiseyy *S-, “ss2u0sIIg OY] ‘AVA “D “wemoy 3y8u y 2 ‘soSuissepy = “Ape’y poss0g oy], ‘SO ‘“"BemIOKA anouo}yy TL ‘soduissepy yy, “3s nod se oAat[og ‘soSuissepy “S) “20[g 8,urWO Ay OY] “sOAOr] [NJYSEG OY], 099! asoy3 JO pue ‘sorJjU2 OM} 9Y} 0} “uo [PPI { “uvIpsens) 2Y3 JO | ‘avpy asouozy Arijoyy, * “r93uIsse nays cons : 243 Jo ‘s9UOSIIg Oy] “U9UIO AA a1eMo2q UsmIO KM 30 ‘urwo,y, 343 y * “uz “BID P42P[Os ay 40 ueyoueyy Ayessa oy * “Apey psosog ay 40 ‘a0Yy129"g S,eAIOUI * “USUIO AA “so8uisse yy | snouoyy 243 410 ‘horsa1A ysiueds oy * "ys1] NOA se aasipeg 40 ‘a8pnf oyy, * "20[g S,ueWO A, 243 zo ‘uewoyy, AIA Y * *12A0'T ["yyseg 242 Jo Query] ~[B£) 23seY> O43 sIxeTy * £S91 23ST] $,uOJINGIE AA uowwos ose seid douIN “s98ursse py on ™ “UOIULIE —— —] satay | ~”“" t+ "19Zursse “ “so3uisse *raSuisse | yay 2% uLWIO (1) ’ ; seman - ae , es ‘ ‘ : > peer ee poy | [ey oar urudry> - cnlintes LHL o190N uL | nm (x) aient US Fie IQON UL | ausoyide 3 % uLWOME}UD <7 ~ “yo8ut "IN iL *hor Pines, VL ‘guioyid IS . ° "oD a1lysyso . Iss JA — 4 yauinpy ‘ou. wo L ‘eu L DA0'] | AV’ JoZuisse aul09]9 oyng soyidey Ipueusa,y jeaeg 2 gz ice *yo3ul W os "eITTeA M pue isey *91vadsoxe 5 ‘7-1 * jo ssayong UL ‘le oO Issey — ‘oyjoddiyy ee o1uojuy a tan 219°N = ‘gt i . v OZ e ° 2 . . 28 . wn pe sade “sodurryy x ane ol ba © 45 M WL pera es a “2UIO2]2 A H nq ‘fz 4 TT S$ uoJINGJe Issey ‘>-L ae “uA pur eee. 22 wv, : insusNo 7 » M pue Any : I zs H pue fe mad "18 < wos AA “AA -. “> us 099! ‘ogg! L “wuesk Id “oz Pal *yodusarq O71 ‘urwio aE) PUL ) he 0} UO L Pa. “61 “urudey asvadsayeys Ape] pre e1L j . WIWIOD 1B S os -ApoBes I, 8,u9p wy he. — apn Auom T , : uepie ° oie u022|PPI . +t pti, weg senate qrodusar. UOSTITAA “VW JW 38215) 10 fais oa "1% MOP AA UO: YD 19° °S Cl 8 ested WPIION _ wa FL AA SAPO 2 uOIUe MA, — UL STEYS ' “Apery juris *4L 8! Cees “*y , prey uez pue *yoSuiss “ue il Asuoypy uoouy 247, * uosdureg "sours | . any UL ; Issv yA] aaa puz ‘kpaSes pur | Aauayy ete 4 ‘5 c ad pe, 4033[PPIA O 242 40 ‘3210 3 ‘PrN 11. ‘9 e Zid oy A an 1q° I = NOLUNEAY MA d SOP! wan ein Pure az 3s9po] MOPI MA TION ML.“ ‘ puso] u “Pre wean M ° 3ST] s uojin UOSUIeS sourly & o- 1d OL Cr que pure £ ‘32 “OU2AOH OU, “11 aqua £$ “€SQ1 lg $,MOpL yy oy 1 gi 943 0} UowW ‘MA PHL “OF wo 1} QUINT 247 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. “arvadsoyeys ‘uojuoUIpy jo [laogq Auepy 2yy, “19 “Aayrys *H *IQAO'T JUE}SUOD FY} ‘OplEsIZ) “OQ “£aqatys *H “pmeg quing oy, “6S “£a1s1yS “H *‘asing) Jo aynq] ay,7, “gS “4a|a14S *H “BULIa] jo ayn] ysiuedg ayy, “L$ “aRIIaOg 241, “9S *hajmo ew ION ) soy vuQ 30 Guug ut saeuy y °SS *hajmoy *‘yoog ynoyyM joog syy “FS "BID 380q By 81 yorymM Jo dasyueg onyog oy “£S *Ayaig ayeunziojus) 24) 30 fa001g IYSINN URYEIy oy “ZS *£aqaiys *[ *s19Zuisse yy on "s9UIeg WSUISEN } ay 10 “s19A07] Suuepuryy oy 1S “UOJIPPIY = “wEUIOAA & 941; dyozy OU “3144 ON “OS ‘UOI|PPIJY —«—“UITO AA SOptsog sJd]|qQuIossic] WOW] *ssosasty S$ Bury oy 7 *gavodsaytys 29 19423214 “Oluspsesd jo AsoysI FT 2Y] ‘yuodusarq 2% eng “UDFLISIA] SULWIO A YT "32999 "201U9A jo maf U7 ‘qurUsArG "a391g 9U] ‘uryy Anunosd oy] { "JURAIIG 2IGON ? ‘aulmnoary & oq pynom uPEeD | JOOg 242 JO ‘19A07J DIZI281C7 24 2 ‘soipey Zuno,x ay a AInouoYy 3Y3 JO ‘pieyy YIIs-9a0'T *smIOIg “ssoupeyy Ul JM “6% “gb ‘LY ‘gb ‘Sb “+ “t+ *zP “1% ‘oF *6€ : Ajuo Asyua £$91 dy} UT INd90 saz31) 90143-AJUIM J, ‘uepiof *soAq Sty INO puNo; YIFY 2A077 *U9BIL) FB] *D-L, “2A0'T 03 a]qissodurt Zurpsony “9972 ‘D ‘osfosy 2g Opuorof ‘purpomg jo Bury oy,7, *fa]moy “QA0'T JO JuSUIEIEG Oy] “ha moy *“S2AO'T 2]QeINOUOTY OY] *hapmoy “) "yonsouon oy] “ploy ‘) ‘queyoey_Y] UopuoT oy], — j ‘pus poo3 PHOd ) © oavy Ava SuiuuiZ9q poos y “prog ‘D “WquIod jedoy oy], ‘uepsof *soAQ SIy PuNoy YIeY DA0°] *209015) 9] “)-L “PA0'T 03 a[qissodur Buryony "129932q ‘} ‘osjosy 29 epuoccof *19942Q] “purlyiemg jo Bury ‘snarjsnsy *fapmoy "QA0'] JO JUOWIEIALY OY] *fajmoy "S) “SPAT BIQEINOUOP] INO oy] *fapmoy “) ‘yonsouoyy oyy "ploy ‘) ‘wLyue~y UOpuOCT oy], ‘) ‘pue “paog 4 pooS e sary Aeur SuruuiZeq prq & 2% ‘pus pood e sey SuruuiZeq | uy ‘prog ‘D “wud jedoy 24,1, “gf “LE “9f SE “+E “€€ *zé “r€ ‘of “62 ukraine ~ oe —— ——— i THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 248 ‘styoing ystueds oyy “2g ‘D ‘snaydig “9g ‘ayeSpn'y] jo sr2a07y ayy, “Sg *usend Arey oy, “hg ‘auimoary seg oy “fg “woynys AND ey], “7g ‘Poom “Y ‘a10A Surdty ey], “18 “POOM “UY “opnjssiul Uy "Og "rode My “AA “ULyS Boy & ul Buidoajs poos s1y, “62 “‘Buryyong “sO “YRIUIS "11M *purl3uq 10; 281025) “1g ‘aavadsayrys “held y "IMOLIEY ‘Aepyopy Ss uopieyy 247, ‘sonborf *4 "J *BOISIOT) JO DENT) 24], ‘qof jo Apodery, “Us2I5) “Y *qof{ jo Asoysipy oy] TRA°D “A ‘you y *haiyory *[ ‘) ‘savoq3ng oy], “gl “LL “gl *$Z “vl £2 *zZ “1Z ‘o£ Quoye si] SuOJINGIe AA UT Jeodde yoryM sud} 9974319 1e dI1943 ‘ATISE'T "u0xO M9 “UAL ‘D “Areurpao seunsiryD ey, “69 “Tepury ‘D “aejoyrg [eBtporg a4], “89 . = woduasac Jopinfy JO ‘usvenG 2yOg x4 “49 *ysodusarg “L ‘sieyiolg [eivyg 24 “99 *gavadsaye rane. Segre SAFES -yiim a8eseyy & JO “eyury 2 stydy ‘aavadsoyrys ‘usydaig Bury jo Aroysipy oy 7 “uIeyUIg ‘uounreg jo 3ury ‘uepey jo Asoysipy oy "S9qo[ J 3B wouNveG “DY “py” [Yyley 24,1 “Sg “tg *f9 “29 : Ajuo A13uU2 OQgI IY} UT INd90 saII19 I4SIT THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 249 Many of these pieces are not otherwise known: this is the case with nos. 12, 13, 22-9, 32, 35, 36, 38, 43, 46, 48, 53-5, 57-60, 62, 64-8, 72, 78, 80-2, 85, 86, 88. Concerning the rest brief notes may be desirable. I have mainly followed the references given by Fleay. 1. The ‘Bashful Lover’ was licensed by Herbert g May 1636, and printed in 1655 together with nos. 2 and g. ‘Alexius, or the Chaste Lover,’ was licensed 25 Sept. 1639. There is extant in the Bodleian (MS. Donce 171, fol. 48) a fragment of an English comedy on the loves of Alice and Alexis. It is described as the author’s draft, extending as far as III. i, but with an argument of the whole, and as belonging to the early seventeenth century. I have not seen it. Alexis was, of course, a very common name in fiction. 2. ‘A Very Woman’ was licensed 6 June 1634, and printed as above. The ‘ Woman’s Plot’ was acted at Court in 1621 (a statement, however, for which there seems no better authority than Reed, ‘Biog. Dram.’ 1782). 3. The ‘ Judge’ was licensed 6 June 1627. ‘Believe as you list’ was licensed 7 May 1631, apparently as reformed from an earlier piece to which licence had on political grounds been refused on 11 Jan., and the manu- script is preserved (B.M. Egerton 2828). 4. The ‘Honour of Women’ was licensed 6 May 1628. The ‘Spanish Viceroy’ was admitted by the King’s players, 20 Dec. 1624, to have been performed by them without licence. 5. *‘ Minerva’s Sacrifice’ was licensed 3 Nov. 1629. 6. The ‘Cra[fty] Merchant, or Come to my Country House,’ by William Bonen, was licensed 12 Sept. 1623. 7. Printed with Middleton’s name in 1657, together with no. 49. 250 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 8. The ‘Fair Anchoress of Pausilippo’ was licensed 26 Jan. 1640. The ‘ Prisoners’ was properly the title of a play by T. Killigrew printed in 1664. g. The ‘Guardian’ was licensed 31 O&. 1633, and printed with Nos. 1 and 2 as above. 10. Said on doubtful authority (Halliwell’s ‘ Dictionary’) to have been licensed 25 Jan. 1625. 11. Extant in the British Museum (Add. 10419). The manuscript, dated 1656, was purchased at the Heber sale, and bears the inscription, ‘This Play formerly belonged to John Warburton, Somerset Herald.’ 14. The ‘ Orator’ was licensed 10 Jan. 1635. 15. One of the plays preserved from Warburton’s collection. It bears Buc’s licence dated 31 O&. 1611. 16. Licensed as by ‘ Damport,’ 10 Apr. 1624 (Malone, 1794, li. 189). 17. By Arthur Wilson: preserved in a manuscript in the Bodleian (Rawl. Poet. ga). 18. The ‘Nobleman,’ by Tourneur, was entered in the Stationers’ Register 15 Feb. 1612, and acted at court 23 Feb. following, and again in 1612/13. 19. This play, a manuscript in quarto, was in War- burton’s sale in Nov. 1759. 20. A ‘Philipo and Hippolito’ was a new play of the Admiral’s Men, 9 July 1594, and a ‘Julio and Hyppolita’ is in the German collection of 1620. A manuscript is said by Collier (‘Henslowe,’ xxxi) to be among the Conway papers. 21. ‘Antony and Valia’ was a play of the Admiral’s Men in 1595. A manuscript (of the second half of the seventeenth century) with Antonio of Ragusa as a character is in the Bodleian (Rawl. Poet. 93), but the chief characters are said to be Odtavio and Alessandra. 30. ‘Abad beginning makes a good ending’ was acted at court by the King’s men in 1612/13. 31. This is the name of the play disturbed by the Citizen in the ‘ Knight of the Burning Pestle.’ THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 251 33- ‘Die 4 bestendigen Liebhabers’ was a play of English origin current in Germany (Mecklenburg) c. 1660 (Herz 68). 34. Licensed as Massinger’s 3 Nov. 1624: the manu- script (imperfect) is preserved (Dyce, MS. 39). 39. ‘ Wit in a Madness’ had been previously entered, together with the ‘ Sparagus Garden’ and the ‘ Antipodes,’ 19 Mar. 1640. 40. Licensed in Feb. 1629, and acted at court the same year. 41-2. Printed together in 1657. 44. Printed in the folio of 1673. 45. There is extant in manuscript a German play, ‘Josephus, Jude von Venedig,’ which:is no doubt in some way related. 47. *Cardenna’ was acted 8 June 1613, ‘Cardenno’ at court in 1612/13. 49. Printed in 1657 with no. 7. 50. Printed in 1657. 51. The ‘Wandring Lovers’ was licensed as Fletcher’s, 6 Dec. 1623. 52. The ‘Unfortunate Piety’ was licensed 13 June 1631. 56. Printed in 1655. 61. Entered 22 Oé. 1607 and printed four times before Moseley’s entry, while even the edition of 1655 was not issued by him, but by W. Gilbertson. 62. The ‘ Faithful Friends’ is preserved in manuscript (Dyce, MS. 10). 68. Presumably Thomas Randolph is the author in- tended: nothing is known of the play. 69. Printed, as by ‘W. R. Master of Arts,’ in 1682. 70. The ‘ Bugbears,’ one of the rescued manuscripts. At the end is the inscription, ‘lohannus (sic) Jeffere scribebat hoc,’ but he may have been only the scribe, or one of them, for the manuscript is in several hands. 71. There seems to be no other mention of this writer. i | 252 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 72-3. These are presumably the same. The play was not entered in 1594 as stated by Stephen Jones (‘Biog. Dram.’ 1812), so that Warburton remains our ae authority. Therefore ‘Rob. Green’ is very likely the same as ‘S‘. Rob. le Green,’ i.e. Le Grys (cf. no. 37). There was a piece called ‘Job’s Afflictions,’ written by R. Radcliffe in the first half of the sixteenth century. 74. One of the rescued plays. 75. Entered as by Marlowe and Day, 8 Apr. 1654. 76. Most likely one of the plays mentioned in the other lists: either 47, 64, or 65. 78. Suckling’s ‘Fragmenta Aurea’ had been various times printed, but other matter was left in manuscript till the ‘ Last Remains’ of 1659. After that there was more than one complete edition. 80-1. Of Ralph Wood nothing more seems to be known. 82. The ‘City Shuffler’ was aéted at Salisbury Court and stayed by Herbert in O&. 1633 (Collier, 1831, ii. 54). 83. By Davenant, licensed 17 Nov. 1638, and printed in the folio of 1673. 86. A fragment is said by Reed (‘ Biog. Dram.’ 1782) to be in the British Museum, but I have been unable to find it. Now anyone who studies the above lists with care will find ample food for reflection. For my own part I feel it extremely difficult to make up my mind as to whether Moseley was a knave or Warburton a liar. Each alternative is intrinsically probable, and yet there seems hardly evidence enough to substantiate both charges. Could we indeed call general evidence of character, it might not be hard to do so, but we must stick to the case before us. THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 253 It is chiefly the alternative titles in Moseley’s 1653 entry that excite suspicion against him, bre in several cases there is independent evidence which suggests that the alternative titles really belonged to different plays. The implication, of course, would be that Moseley was trying to smuggle through two plays for a single fee. In three cases Warburton enters, as belonging to separate plays, titles given Moseley as alternative. This, as we shall see when we come to cross-examine Warburton, is not very serious, but there is better evidence to follow. The first four plays of 1653 are each entered with double titles, and in every case each title is known separately from Herbert’s accounts. Moreover in the case of several plays which are extant there is nothing to suggest the alternative title at all. The ‘ Very Woman’ con- tains no woman’s plot; ‘ Believe as you list’ con- tains no judge; the ‘Guardian’ deals with the court and not the city. The ‘Great Man,’ too, seems a foolish second-title to the ‘ Nobleman.’ It might be suggested that Moseley meant each as an alternative entry, leaving himself the option of publishing either play. This, however, seems very unlikely, and there is no evidence that the Sta- tioners’ Company would ever have sanctioned such a proceeding. Moreover, ‘Henry I and Henry II’ is clearly entered as one play, though such a title is almost incredible. In no less than nine cases plays entered under double titles in 1653 were re- entered under one title only in 1660. This almost forces us to the belief that not nine but eighteen plays were really involved, whether we suppose 254 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. that Moseley discovered his mistake and reétified it of his own accord, or that the Company discovered it and forced him to do so. There is something to be said in Moseley’s favour. The fraud supposed would have been a dangerous one to practice, for had the Company discovered it, it is unlikely that they would have been satisfied with mere re-entry. Moreover in two cases (1 and g) the title re-entered in 1660 is that under which Moseley had himself published in play in the interval. This looks like mere blundering. A solution is perhaps suggested by the case of the ‘ Spanish Viceroy,’ for it will be observed that there is nothing to prevent our supposing that the play acted without licence in 1624 was subsequently revised and licensed under another title in 1628. Even though we may not be inclined to follow Fleay in all his hazardous identifications, it still seems probable that a great deal of revision and re-writing did take place in the Massinger plays, and it is conceivable that this may account in part at least for the difficulties noticed. Even in the case of ‘ Believe as you list’ it may be submitted that the political events upon which the plot was based were not recent, that a play presumably founded upon them is recorded by Henslowe as early as 1601, and that there is no gross improba- bility in supposing that Herbert licensed in 1627 a play substantially the same as another which he refused in January 1631, when the peace with Spain was a tender babe of a few months only. It is more than probable, therefore, that divergent versions of certain plays existed under different THE .BAKINGS OF BETSY. 255 titles. If then it be supposed that the manuscripts in Moseley’s hands bore both titles, or that he was aware of the double nature of the plays he hoped to secure, and also that the duplicate entries of 1660 may be explained as mere oversights, it may not be impossible to account for the puzzles of the entries in the Registers. That grave difficulties do not remain, in view of the apparent irrecon- cilability of the alleged duplicate titles of extant pieces, cannot be contended, but I must content myself with suggesting possibilities in a case in which I have admittedly no satisfactory theory to offer my readers. Should it have chanced that Moseley acted honestly in the matter, and that his entries are correét, it follows, of course, that the authenticity of Warburton’s list must go by the board. For the close agreement between that list and the entries has been generally and necessarily held to indicate that Moseley’s collection must have formed the bulk of Warburton’s, and probably came into his hands en d/oc. If then Moseley’s alternative titles are genuine, how comes it that in three cases Warburton has made separate plays of them? We are at once confronted with the question: Is Warburton’s list what it purports to be, a genuine catalogue of a collection of manuscript plays, or is it a fabrication from various sources? And it becomes at this point important to know whether Warburton was acquainted with the Stationers’ Registers or not. There is definite evidence that he was. For one of his plays which has survived is headed the ‘The Second Maiden’s Tragedy.’ 256 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. The heading is late, and has been borrowed from Buc’s license of 31 Oét. 1611, at the end: ‘This second maydens tragedy (for it hath no name inscribed) may w" the reformations bee aéted publikely.’ This is almost certainly the play entered as ‘The Maid’s Tragedie. 2‘. part,’ in 1653, and there surely can be little doubt that War- burton had this entry as well as the manuscript play before him when he entered the latter in his own list as ‘2°. pt. Maidens Trag.’ Warburton thus knew a source which would account for perhaps three quarters of his own list. We must therefore scrutinize his evidence somewhat closer. If his complete collection came originally from Moseley, it could hardly be, as he represents it the result of many years’ collecting ; it must have come en bloc. There is, however, the possibility that he added to it from other sources, so that this point should not be pressed. The entries of 1653 and 1660 account for thirty-eight out of a total ot fifty-six items in the list, so that only eighteen remain. Two are entered under other dates. One, ‘A Play by Will Shakespear,’ is also probably one of those entered. One is known from Herbert’s licenses. Suckling’s Works imply no special know- ledge. The two ‘Jobs’ are most likely identical. There remain twelve which we can only account for as representing actual manuscripts. Two ot these manuscripts actually exist in the Lans- downe volume. As regards the ten others, it must be borne in mind that Warburton may have had a better knowledge of the Registers from 1640 onwards than we as yet can boast, and the THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 257 same may even possibly apply to the licenses of the Masters of the Revels. We are therefore by no means bound to assume that they all represent actual manuscripts. And there are certain sus- picious points about the list. Of the twelve plays just mentioned, nine occur in the shorter list on the verso of the leaf, and these nine include the two out of three plays rescued complete which are not otherwise recorded: moreover, the last few entries on this side are somewhat irregular, and many have been added later. Of the last ten titles, the only one previously recorded is Tourneur’s ‘Nobleman,’ while in the list on the recto of the leaf there are only nine items not in Moseley’s entries, and of these four are known from other sources. The fragmentary play of Wild’s rescued is not entered in the list at all; nor is ‘ Demetrius and Marina,’ which appeared at Warburton’s sale ; but these may have been acquired later. On the other hand, the ‘ Tyrant,’ which is represented as having been destroyed, was also in the sale, and is presumably still extant somewhere. So again with Formido’s ‘Governor,’ which is extant in the British Museum. It may be a different manu- script, of course, but it bears a note, possibly in Heber’s own hand-writing, stating that it is the same. Again, ‘ Believe as you list,’ entered both in 1653 and 1660, is in Warburton’s list of victims, yet it too is now safe in the British Museum. Here again we may suppose two manuscripts, but it will be well to remember that Moseley’s collec- tion must have consisted mostly of official playhouse copies bearing the Master’s licence, that we II, Ss 258 THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. know that this was the case with one early play preserved—the ‘Second Maiden’s Tragedy ’—and that it is just the official licensed copy of ‘ Believe as you list’ that has survived. There is also a slight difficulty that arises if we suppose Moseley’s alternative titles to be genuine, and Warburton to have inherited his collection. For some of the plays had been printed, and if Moseley had sent a play to the press, it is most unlikely that he would have ever seen the copy again, still more unlikely that he would have replaced it among his unprinted stock. There is one point on which Warburton clearly had some authority independent of the Register. In the 1653 list we find ‘ Alexis the Chaste Gallant,’ in Warburton’s ‘ Alexias or the Chaste Gallant.’ Now ‘ Alexias’ is jsupported by the ‘ Alexius’ of Herbert’s licence, but Herbert has ‘ Lover’ for ‘Gallant.’ If Herbert is correét, we have another instance in which Warburton followed the Register and not the manuscript. He may have concoéted the title from the 1653 entry and either Herbert or some other source now lost. If Herbert was right! We cannot tell; but as Moseley added a second title, the ‘ Bashful Lover,’ he would have had a motive for altering ‘Lover’ to ‘ Gallant,’ while Herbert would have no reason for a change. This, I think, concludes the evidence I have been able to extract from the lists. That it amounts to a disproof of Warburton’s extraordinary claim I do not for a moment pretend. But taken all together, I think that it does throw considerable doubt upon the story. My own idea of what THE BAKINGS OF BETSY. 259 happened is somewhat as follows. Warburton in the course of his antiquarian researches came across a few manuscript plays and grew interested in the subject. He colleéted notes, probably from various sources, but chiefly from Moseley’s entries, and made out a list containing the titles of such pieces as he thought it might be possible to recover, in addition to those of the plays of which he had already become possessed. Some he actually did succeed in finding, and a few further manu- scripts coming into his hands were added at the end of the list. The colleétion and list were then laid aside, a few manuscripts finding their way among the rest of the colleétor’s archaeological litter, the bulk, however, within reach of the parsimonious fingers of Betsy the baker of pies. Long afterwards her master discovered his loss, and no longer in the least remembering either the extent of his collection or the nature of his list, added in a fit of not unnatural vexation the famous memorandum. If this be so, we have undoubtedly to lament the loss of a few pieces, perhaps of considerable interest, but not by any means the dramatic holocaust that has made famous the name of the ‘ pie-eating Somerset Herald.’ W. W. Gres. 260 AN HISTORIC BIBLE AT HEIDELBERG. (fil possesses a very early copy of the 4| Bek) English Authorised Version of the Vee)| KSeYl Bible, not indeed of the editio ) : BZE princeps, but of the first quarto edition, published in 1612. As the Tercentenary has reminded us, there were two sets of early editions of the 1611 versions, distinguished as the ‘He’ and ‘She’ Bibles respectively according as they read in Ruth iii. 15 ‘he went into the citie’ or ‘she went into the citie,’ the former being the correct rendering. All the 1612 quartos are ‘ He’ Bibles, but again there are two issues, readily distinguishable by the headline of sig. [H.5] verso. The Heidelberg copy is one of those which read, ‘The Galatians reproued. To the Galaitans. The Law a scholemaster to Christ ’"—that is to say, it has the characteristic misprint ‘Galaitans.’ In it the following errata of the 1611 ‘He’ Bible still remain uncorreéted: ‘Emorite’ for ‘ Amorite’ in Gen. x. 16; ‘ hoopes’ for ‘ hooks’ in Exod. xxxviii. 11; ‘ offred, offered’ for ‘ offered’ in Ezra iii. 5; ‘that he may have’ for ‘that ye may have’ in Ezek. vi. 8; ‘ poured it’ AN HISTORIC BIBLE. 261 for ‘ poured it not’ in Ezek. xxiv. 7. The Bible is a complete one, including genealogies, map of Canaan, and the Apocrypha, and is preceded by ‘The Booke of Common Prayer, with the Psalter or Psalmes of David, Of that Translation which is appointed to be vsed in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie. 1611.’ At the end of the volume is the metrical version of the Psalms (Sternhold and Hopkins), ‘Imprinted for the Companie of Stationers. 1612.’ The Prayer Book is in black letter, but all the rest is in Roman type. If this were all, there would be nothing par- ticularly remarkable about this Heidelberg Bible; and as a matter of fact, until a short time ago it was standing all unheeded along with much dusty Old Testament literature in the theological division of the library (pressmark Q. 397). Now, how- ever, it has been withdrawn from obscurity, and it will be accorded a place in the permanent exhibi- tion of choice books and MSS. which is at present undergoing re-arrangement at the hands of Professor Sillib, one of the librarians. It is beyond doubt a relic of the unfortunate Elizabeth, Eleétress Palatine and Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our James I. If it was not used by her personally, it at least belonged to a member of her household. The book is battered now, but it was once a handsome volume. It is bound in calf, and both covers are stamped in gold with a design occupying almost the whole surface and surrounding the royal arms as borne by James I. and his Stuart successors. The edges are gilt and impressed with a dotted 262 AN HISTORIC BIBLE scroll-work pattern. The fastenings that the book apparently once possessed have disappeared. The first internal feature to be noted is in the Litany, where one of the petitions runs: ‘ That it may please thee to blesse and preserue our gracious Queene Anne, Prince Charles, Frederic Prince Eleétor palatin, and the lady Elizabeth his wife, the words in italics being neatly written in imitation of Roman type on two narrow slips of paper, which are pasted in so as to hide the printed words which followed ‘ Prince.’ On the next page, also in the Litany, there is ‘A prayer for the Queene and Prince, and other the King and Queenes children,’ which has been similarly altered, so that it reads: ‘ Almighty God, which hast promised to be a Father of thine eleét and of their seed, we humbly beseech thee to blesse our gracious Queen Anne, Prince Charles, Frederic Prince Eleétor Palatin, & the Lady Elizabeth his Wife.’ This time the paper slips, though still adhering to the margin, have been so loosened that it is possible to read the underlying printed text. The words designed to be obliterated are: ‘Henry, and all the King and Queenes Royall Progenie.’ Prince Henry, it may be remarked, died on 6th Novem- ber, 1612. The Princess Elizabeth and the Eleétor Frederic V. went through the ceremony of be- trothal on 27th December, 1612, and Mrs. Everett Green (‘Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia,’ new edition, revised by Mrs. S. C. Lomas, 1909, p. 46) says that ‘from this time the Prince [Frederic] was prayed for publicly in the churches among the children of the King.’ Elizabeth, however, could hardly have AT HEIDELBERG. 263 been called his wife until after their marriage, which took place on St. Valentine’s Day, 14th February, 1613. Even if those paper slips were pasted in the Litany originally for use in England, there is little doubt that the handsome Bible and service book made its way to Heidelberg and was used by some- body in Elizabeth’s private chapel at the Castle there. And afterwards, when the Princess and her husband moved to Prague (Oétober, 1619), to take possession of the crown of Bohemia, the book must have accompanied them. At any rate it was there when, scarcely more than a year later, after the battle of the White Hill, 8th November, 1620, the Winter King and Queen fled to Breslau, leaving a considerable quantity of their belongings behind at Prague to fall into the hands of the victorious Imperial troops. An inscription in faded ink on the flyleaf of the Bible says, in a hand which the Chief Librarian, Professor Wille, does not doubt to be contemporary, ‘Ex Arce Pragensi post victoria Cesaream. A° 1620.’ In these words, with many a flourish of his pen, the unknown writer has recorded the fact that this book was part of the loot which the Imperialists got at Prague. A subsequent owner has copied out the inscription immediately below in a more legible script. A third owner has appended to this the note: ‘v. Moshemii Histor. eccles. p. 863.’ Mosheim’s ‘Institutiones’ were not published until 1755, and the part of his work referred to is devoted to an account of the ecclesiastical condition of England under James I. A little lower down on the flyleaf 264 AN HISTORIC BIBLE there are two more references in the same hand- writing: ‘S. Nachrichten von einer Hallischen ° Bibliothek, 7. band, p. 95. sqq. 101. sqq. Walchii Bibliotheca Theolog. Seleéta, Tom. IV. p. 124.’ The ‘ Nachrichten’ quoted appeared at Halle in 1751; J. G. Walch’s ‘ Bibliotheca’ was published at Jena in 1765. At both places information will be found respeéting the English translations of the Bible. On the back of the flyleaf, in the same hand, a passage in praise of the English Prayer Book has been copied from a French translation of the ‘Tatler.’ ‘Cette Liturgie est parfaitement belle. Il n’y en eut jamais, ni dans aucune nation, ni dans aucune Langue, dont les sentimens et les expres- sions repondent mieux a la petitesse de |’ home, et a la grandeur de la Divinite. v. Steele Babillard, ou Le Philosophe Nouvelliste,’ Tom. II. art. 31. p- 338. I have not been able to verify this quota- tion, as the French translation is not accessible here in Heidelberg; but the thought is repeated by Steele in No. 147 of the ‘ Speétator.’ The same hand again has written in the margin at the beginning of the Communion Service: ‘v. Bayle Diétionn. Tom. ii. p. 842 b au fin.’ The 1740 edition of Bayle contains at that place a quotation from Burnet on the Communion Service in the Elizabethan Prayer Book. In Aéts vi. 3 the word ‘we’ in the phrase ‘whom we may appoint’ has been underlined, and the same writer has noted in the margin: ‘ Butler Hudibras . p. 381. Baumgarté Hallische Biblioth. vol. VII. p. 105.’ That is to say, the owner, Da Hata. erm 2 ars ‘ AT HEIDELBERG. 265 having read in Siegmund Jacob Baumgarten’s ‘Nachrichten’ for February, 1751, that some copies of the English Bible as late as 1689 still contained the misprint ‘ye’ instead of ‘we’ in Aéts vi. 3, turned like a good bibliophil to the passage in his own copy to see what the reading was there. This misprint originated in the first Cambridge Bible of 1629, and lent fictitious aid to the anti-episcopalian arguments of some seétaries. What edition of Hudibras is referred to, I do not know, but presumably the passage intended is Part III., canto ii., ll. 7-10: So e’er the storm of war broke out, Religion spawn’d a various rout Of petulant capricious seéts, The maggots of corrupted texts. I conjecture ithat all these notes in the third hand are the work of the only former owner of the volume whose name can be stated with certainty —Erhard Riedlin. His engraved armorial book- plate in rococo style, with the inscription ‘ Ex Bibliotheca Erhardi Riedlin,’ and signed J. A. Fridrich jun. A.V., is pasted inside the cover. Jakob Andreas Fridrich, the younger, of Augsburg (A.V. = Augustae Vindelicorum), was engraver to the court of Wiirttemberg, and a frequent designer of book-plates. Count Leiningen-Westerburg in his work on German Bookplates seleéts the Riedlin bookplate for reproduction as the most character- istic specimen of this artist's work. The facsimile is given on p. 229 of the German edition (‘ Deutsche 266 AN HISTORIC BIBLE und oesterreichische Bibliothekzeichen Ex Libris,’ Stuttgart, 1901), and is no doubt to be found also in the English translation by G. R. Dennis (Bell and Sons, 1901). The learned author dates it circa 1750, and this agrees with the dates of the books cited in the MS. notes, and with the only other faét that I have been able to discover about Erhard Riedlin, viz., that he graduated at Géttingen in 1742, for the British Museum possesses his ‘Dissertatio Historica sistens vitam, itinera et scripta Fr. F. Fabri’ (pressmark T. 1519/10). Perhaps he was a relative of Veit Riedlin, a physician of Ulm, who is the only person of the name in Jécher’s ‘Gelehrtenlexicon.’ I find no mention of him in Meusel’s ‘ Gelehrtes Teutsch- land.” How or when Riedlin’s old English Bible was acquired by the Heidelberg University Library is unknown. It has certainly been there for forty years, and probably a good deal longer, to judge from the handwiiting of the slip on which it is catalogued. Possibly it was offered for sale and bought with full appreciation of its historical significance, but if so its importance has been overlooked and forgotten. It is not at all surprising that a royal book should have passed into private hands after the battle in 1620, but that it should have come back after more than a century, perhaps after two centuries, to such an appropriate abiding place as Heidelberg is indeed strange. At least one other of Elizabeth’s books has undergone a similar fate. There is in the British Museum Library (pressmark C, 38. i. 10) a folio copy ot Raleigh’s AT HEIDELBERG. 267 ‘History of the World,’ 1614, of which the cata- logue says: ‘From a series of MS. notes on the title-page and following leaf, it appears that this volume originally belonged to the Princess Palatine Elizabeth, daughter of James I., and was left behind her at Prague on her flight from that city, November, 1620, when it fell into the hands of a Spaniard named Verdugo. At the recapture of Prague by the Swedes, 1648, it was recovered by a German of the name of Klee, who restored it to John Philip Frederick, son of the Princess.’ The Heidelberg Bible seems to have been used at some time before the period of Riedlin’s owner- ship by somebody who was learning English. In the early chapters of Genesis the words nostrils, aprons, belly, bruise, heele, sorow, shalbe, hearkened, coates of skinnes, euer, thoughts, are underlined in faded ink; and against the word deguiled there is written in the same ink ‘seducere. decipio.’ But, as so often happens, the industry of the careful marker gave out before he had got very far—no farther than chapter VI1—and the few other mark- ings in the book seem to indicate another sort of reader. The man who underlined in Isaiah liii. 6 ‘layd on him the iniquitie of vs all,’ and the mar- ginal note there, ‘Heb. hee hath made the iniquitie of vs all to meet on him,’ and in Hebrews ix. 15 ‘for the redemption of the transgressions,’ hardly had philological or linguistic ends in view. Those two underlinings, and the occasional ink-blots here and there, enable the imagination to conjure up a picture of Elizabeth’s chaplain preparing his sermons with this volume open before him. 268 AN HISTORIC BIBLE There is one other MS. entry, and one only, to speculate about. It is the first one of all in the book. Inside the cover, in the middle of the top edge of the paper, there is written in yet another early hand: ‘15 of August.’ There is no date of the year, and though a long worm-hole comes rather close to the end of the word ‘ August,’ it is practically certain that there never was any. One is tempted to think that the 15th of August was the date on which the book was received by its original owner. The earliest possible year would then be 1612; the latest 1618, because when the day came round again Frederic was on the eve of being elected King of Bohemia, and in this book he is only the Eleétor Palatine. Mrs. Everett Green (op. cit., p. 24) gives an undated extract from the account book kept for Elizabeth by her governor, Lord Harrington, recording a payment for ‘a great Bible’ and other books ‘ by her High- ness specially appointed to be provided.’ But ‘a great Bible’ would naturally mean a folio, and apparently (0p. cit., p. 20, n. 1) the accounts refer only to the period from Michaelmas, 1612, to Lady Day, 1613. Some authorities give the date of Elizabeth’s birth as 15th August, 1596, in which case it would be easy to suppose that the Heidel- berg Bible was a birthday present, but other authorities say it was 16th or 19th August. Mrs. Everett Green, with charming impartiality, gives 16th August at the beginning of her book (p. 2), and 19th August elsewhere. Her footnote, how- ever, on p. 106, shows pretty clearly that really the Eleétor’s birthday was on 16th August (she says AT HEIDELBERG. 269 19th on p. 97), and Elizabeth’s on 19th August. On 15th August, 1615 (or was it in 1616? Mrs. Everett Green’s account is not quite clear, p. 106) Frederic and Elizabeth returned to Heidelberg from their tour in the Upper Palatinate. Did she find this Bible, a present from England, awaiting her then? 15th August, if not a red-letter day in Elizabeth’s family history, was very near to several. It was on his birthday, 16th August, 1619, that Frederic’s eleétion as King of Bohemia took place. If we give up the riddle of ‘15th August’ as insoluble, we may still conjecture that the Bible was supplied for the use of some member of Elizabeth’s suite. If so, for whom more naturally than for the chaplain? By her marriage contract (signed 16th May, 1612) she was to have forty- nine servants, to be kept at her husband’s expense, and among them was mentioned a chaplain with a salary of {50 (op. cit., p. 61). Asa matter. of fact, in the suite that accompanied her to Germany there were two chaplains, Dr. Alexander Chapman (who got called Scapman by the Germans, and died in 1629 a Prebendary of Canterbury, where he is buried), and Mr. Twyst (op. cit., p. 416). On her arrival at Heidelberg Elizabeth, staunch Churchwoman as she was, demanded a chapel of her own (#. 89, n. 2). Colonel Schomberg, who was Frederic’s factotum, visited England at the close of 1613, and on his return succeeded in obtaining certain privileges for Elizabeth—e.g., ‘that her chaplain should reside at the castle gate, and have a suitable place prepared near her apart- ments, in which to conduct the English service’ 270 AN HISTORIC BIBLE (%. 95). According to Schomberg’s regulations for her household (1615) all requests for alms were to be laid before the chaplain (#4. 102). On her journey out from England she had given away £26 in charity, the chaplain acting as almoner (#. 74). Though constant in attendance at her own chapel, she was anxious to communicate at least once a year in the ‘great church’ with her husband, to show the people that her creed was not essentially different from her husband’s (#. 104), and she evinced the same desire at Prague (7. 147). Dr. Donne, the poet, was at Heidelberg in June, 1619, as chaplain to Lord Doncaster’s embassy, and preached twice before Elizabeth and her husband. He, no doubt, brought his own books with him, though it is just possible that he may have seen or handled the volume now at Heidelberg. He preached once from Rom. xiii. 11—but there are no blots on that page! and the verse is not marked. Perhaps it was the ‘zealous and godly’ Dr. Chapman who, on the same page, in Rom. xii. 17, has supplied neatly in ink the all-important missing word no before man in the sentence which there stands printed, ‘Recompence to man euill for euill.’ Though less glaring, the error is really as serious as the omission of the negative particle in the seventh commandment, which cost the printers of the so-called ‘Wicked’ Bible (8vo, 1631) confisca- tion and a fine of £300. Chapman’s last sermon at Heidelberg, 26th September, 1619, just before his mistress set out for Prague, was from James iv. 13 (op. cit,, 132), but again there are no blots or scorings to indicate that he used this Bible in AT HEIDELBERG. 271 preparing his sermon. He accompanied the court to Bohemia, but how or when he returned to England Mrs. Everett Green was unable to discover. Frederic attended Elizabeth’s English service right up to the last, 15th Oétober, 1620 (of. cit. 161), at a time when goods were already being packed up or sent on in advance in anticipation of their leaving Prague (p. 162). The enemy were already in the neighbourhood. Twenty baggage waggons of Frederic’s, in one of which were his garter insignia, were seized in the battle of the White Hill (p. 165). ‘In the haste of the flight, many valuable things were left behind, including not only a large portion of the wardrobe and per- sonal property of Elizabeth, but the royal crown and ornaments and all Frederic’s private papers’ (p. 166). Nethersole, Elizabeth’s secretary, re- turned to Prague at some risk to fetch his books and papers (p. 167). And actually on the flight Elizabeth’s own attendants are alleged to have pillaged some of the baggage waggons. But the Heidelberg Bible, it must be supposed, fell into the hands of the enemy. The prayers in Elizabeth’s handwriting which Mrs. Everett Green (pp. 122-3, uncorrected by Mrs. Lomas) says are in Heidelberg University Library (Cod. Pal. Germ. 661, 690, 694) are, unfortunately, apocryphal. They are prayers of the ‘Eleétress Elizabeth,’ it is true, but of that Elizabeth who was wife of the Eleétor Johann Casimir (see J. Wille, ‘Die Deutschen Pfalzer Handschriften des xvi. und xvii. Jahrhunderts der Universitats-Bibliothek in Heidel- berg,’ Heidelberg, 1903). The Bible is, therefore, 272 AN HISTORIC BIBLE. unique at the University Library as a relic of the Queen of Hearts, ‘th’ eclipse and glory of her kind,’ whose short residence there brought so much gaiety into the old capital of the Palatinate, whose cheerfulness never deserted her in all her trials, and whose memory even now casts a glamour over the castle ruins which they would otherwise not possess for the English visitor to Heidelberg. Lionet R. M. STRACHAN. 273 THE COVERDALE BIBLE OF 1535. vay) HE question where and by whom the N of} Coverdale Bible of 1535 was printed Dee) has long remained one of the puzzles 3, of English bibliography. Mr. A. W. > K Pollard, in his ‘Records of the English Bible’ (pp. 12 and 13), sums up the existing evidence in the following words: ‘Coverdale graduated as Bachelor of Canon Law at Cambridge in 1531, but thereafter until 1536 his move- ments are unknown.’ There has consequently been much dispute as to where and by what firm his Bible was printed in 1535. Early in the eighteenth century, how- ever, Humphrey Wanley, the librarian of Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, suggested that the printer was small Christopher Froschouer of Zurich, who fifteen years later produced another edition of it. Investigation showed that two of the larger types of the English Bible of 1535 were in the possession of Froschouer, but these were used also by other German printers, and the matter remained undecided until, in his article on Coverdale in the “Dictionary of National Biography,” Mr. H. R. Tedder, by the kindness of Dr. Christian Ginsburg, was enabled to state that he had seen two leaves of a Swiss- German Bible printed in the same German type as the text of Coverdale’s English version. The complete book, ‘« If the story that he was subsidized while translating by Jacob van Meteren of Antwerp be believed, he was probably part of the time at Antwerp.’ Il. T 274. THE COVERDALE BIBLE OF 1535. an unrecorded edition of 1529-30 from the press of Froschouer, had once been in Dr. Ginsburg’s possession, but I learn from Dr. Ginsburg himself that this dis- appeared from his library in a very painful manner, and only these leaves remain. While it is regrettable that the complete evidence can no longer be produced, they may be taken as sufficiently establishing that it was at Zurich and by Froschouer that the first printed English Bible was issued.’ Some time ago, when cataloguing the Swedish section of the Bible Society’s Library, I had occasion to collate carefully the first Swedish Bible, printed in folio by Georg Richolff at Upsala in 1540-1. The types used for the text and the headlines seemed strangely familiar, and it was not long before I recognized that they were closely similar to, if not identical with, those employed in print- ing the English Bible of 1535. So far as I am aware, no writer has hitherto drawn attention to this fact. Recently, at the British Museum, I showed the two books side by side to Mr. Pollard, and he and Mr. Scholderer very kindly examined them with expert eyes, and gave me the benefit of their opinion upon the text-type. Their verdict is that the letters and signs (pun¢étuation marks, etc.) appear to be the same in the two books, with the following trifling exceptions: (1) the E in the Swedish Bible is perhaps a little broader than that in the English Bible; (2) the interrogation marks differ; (3) the Swedish Bible has a large double hyphen, while the English Bible has a small single hyphen. Before the printing of the Swedish Bible, however, the type must have been re-cast NR, + NTR tia Bieta OE Se LE etme THE COVERDALE BIBLE OF 1535. 275 on a smaller body, twenty lines of text in this Bible measuring 88mm. against 92 mm. in the English Bible. Now, whence did this type, or the materials for producing it, come to Upsala? Dr. Aksel Andersson, the Chief Librarian of the Royal University Library of Upsala, who has generously supplied my colleague, Mr. Darlow, and myself with valuable notes on Swedish editions down to the year 1800, informs me that the printer, G. Richolff, was specially summoned from Lubeck to supervise the production of the first Swedish Bible at Upsala, and it may perhaps be presumed that he brought his materials with him. The significance of this information in regard to the question of the provenance of the English Bible of 1535 is obvious. The ascription of that important book to the press of Christopher Froschouer of Zurich rests mainly on the fact that Froschouer had used the same text-type five years earlier in printing a Swiss-German Bible. It is remarkable, however, that no book issued from Froschouer’s press subsequently to 1 530 is known to exhibit this particular type. With the new evidence before us, therefore, the conjecture may plausibly be made that soon after 1530 Froschouer sold the punches for this type to a Lubeck printer, and that the type was used at Lubeck for printing the English Bible of 1535, before being transferred to Upsala. It should not be difficult to obtain further informa- tion about Richolff, and about the books produced by his firm at Lubeck. And if we could discover that the type in question was used in any editions 276 THE COVERDALE BIBLE OF 1535. printed there before, or just after, 1535, we might lay our hands on the key to the problem of the origin of the Coverdale Bible. I have written this rather hasty note in the hope that someone better qualified than myself, and familiar with the presses of Zurich and Lubeck, may be tempted to follow up the clue—if it can be called a clue—and may win the gratitude of bibliographers by ultimately solving one of the most obscure riddles in the history of the English Bible. H. F. Moute. a ee 277 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. (a : striking excellenee. Pierre Mille’s oy, ‘Caillow et Tili’ is a penetrating study . Ay of little children, written with a perfect understanding of, and sympathy with, the childish mind. With all the care taken of the child in these modern days, few realize either how children are affeéted by the things they hear said by grown-up people, or how absolutely children take things for granted. That is really one of the most important things that those responsible for the bringing up of children need to know, and Pierre Mille proves it with great insight, and in clear and simple, yet pointed language. ‘Les Exilés’ is an Alsatian novel, in which the author, Paul Acker, seeks to show how Alsace still remains French. It is not very interesting as a work of fiction, but helps us to realize that the feeling of French nationality persists in Alsace even after forty years. ‘La Prison de Verre,’ by Gaston Chérau, is an interesting study of bourgeois psychology, and of the persecution and tyranny that it is in the power of parents-in-law in France to exercise on a daughter-in-law even after her husband is dead. 278 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. The character of Aristide Chevallier, the father-in- law, an egoist and hypocrite of the Pecksniffian order, is admirably drawn. So far I only know André Gide as the author of the very interesting and beautifully written novel, ‘La Porte Etroite.’ In a book of leétures and essays, entitled ‘ Nouveaux Prétextes: reflexions sur quelques points de littérature et de morale,’ he shows himself a critic of much freshness and originality. The most striking are the two leétures dealing with ‘lévolution du théatre’ and ‘limportance du public.’ In the first the three faces of the subject, so to speak, are dealt with: the point of view of the dramatist, of the actor, and of the spectator. Art, Gide declares, is always the result of restraint. For example, take the sonnets of Shakespeare, Ronsard, Petrarch, Michel Angelo, or the Terza Rima of Dante, the fugues of Bach. In faét, ‘la force d’expression du souffle lyrique soit en raison de sa compression . . . art nait de contrainte, vit de lutte, meurt de liberté.’ The plays now presented in our theatres are poor art; they are too episodic, too close to the spectator; the artist must preserve the distance between the stage and the spectator if he is to create the illusion without which no stage play can successfully attain its object. The coming dramatist must set aside realism and give us new forms of heroism and new heroic figures. Gide is quite certain that the artist has duties to the public, just as the public has duties to the artist. The great exponents of art in the time of the Renaissance invariably thought of their public, ee RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 279 and would not have understood what was meant by art for art. Goethe held a similar view when he denounced the nature/ in atting. We call it sincerity to-day to act as if there were no one in the theatre. I remember seeing a great actress who prides herself on her naturalness; the whole time she was on the stage she was either crouch- ing behind a big sofa, or hiding her face behind a big fan. The artist should know whom he is addressing. Nowadays he either breaks with his epoch and shuts himself up, as it were, within himself, or flatters the mob, and so scarcely deserves the name of artist. Gide’s argument is interesting and is eloquently stated. But it must be confessed that both irony and paradox have their part in it. Gide is a frank pagan: he declares that the Greeks drew the portrait of their ideal in their art, and that with them heaven touched earth, gods became men, and men became gods. Then when society demanded that art should be Christian, the artist served up what was asked of him. If Gide is right, it would be hypocrisy and not sincerity that produces great art. But however that may be, he is probably right in thinking that art must respond to some need of society, or it will not flourish. Six months ago I noticed here a book on Meredith by a Frenchman, and now M. F. A. Hedgcock devotes five hundred pages to a minute, almost a scientific, study of the work of *‘ Thomas Hardy. Penseur et artiste.’ The book has ob- tained for its author the degree of ‘ Doéteur-es- lettres.” He begins with a chapter of biography. Then follows a study of the early verses, which 280 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. are characterised as containing the expression of Hardy’s temperament; but I imagine this is not peculiar to Hardy. Poets usually express their temperament in their verse, especially in the lyrics of their youth. In a chapter headed ‘In search of a method,’ the conclusion is reached that Hardy’s method is a combination of realism and imagina- tion. Hardy’s fatalism and pessimism have each a chapter. Another deals with his attitude to nature, in which his critic declares that Hardy’s imagina- tion seeks to pass beyond the veil—that he is a believer without faith. The chapter on Hardy as a writer is perhaps the most satisfactory. Much is said as to his care for form, in which he shows a most exacting aesthetic sense. His method of composition is dramatic. The accessory characters are everywhere subordinated, the interest is concentrated on a little group, the principal figure of which is generally a woman. The style is very individual, and the charm of Hardy’s prose is due to his wide knowledge, his imagination, and his penetrating artistic perception. M. Hedgcock declares in conclusion that as a thinker Hardy takes rank among the great modern pessimists, like Leopardi, De Vigny, Schopenhauer, and Renan. He has given the most beautiful expression to be found in English literature to ‘la philosophie desespérée.’ The last pages con- tain a comparison between Hardy and Meredith, and Hedgcock considers Hardy the greater artist. He sums up thus: ‘Il est de mode aujourd’hui d’exalter Meredith comme philosophe et de rabaisser Hardy au rang des simples RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 281 conteurs. C’est un Pee hatif et qui manque de profondeur. Que la philosophie du premier soit, par sa limitation méme, plus pratique et plus utile, nous n’en doutons pas. Mais le paralléle que nous venons d’instituer montre combien la pensée de M. Hardy dépasse celle de son contemporain et avec quel courage elle aborde le probléme de l’absolu. Meredith ressemble 4 Fielding et 4 Thackeray, il s’astreint a la stricte réalité, retranchant de sa considération tout ce qui n’est pas visible; et dans ses tableaux, qu’éclaire un Bee bon sens, il enseigne par l’exemple; son systéme positif simplifie les probleémes en en amoindrissant la portée. Derriére l’ceuvre de M. Hardy il y a un systéme universale et complet, qui la rend solide et homogéne; ce n’est pas 1a son moindre titre a étre considéré comme le romancier le plus éminent de son époque.’ I do not know that much is gained either for knowledge or for criticism by comparisons of this sort; but sometimes they are suggestive, and when they lead to thought are justified. But it is open to question whether such an elaborate analysis of the work of any novelist, living or dead, whatever his greatness, is needed for the right understanding and appreciation of him. Drama and fiction, if they are to touch our hearts, must make an immediate and direct appeal, and can, better than any other form of literature, dispense with guides and interpreters. Mademoiselle Lydie Morel has chosen as the subject of a thesis presented to the faculty of letters at the University of Neuchatel the life and work of Jean Ogier de Gombauld. As poet he is the subject of an essay by Faguet, but as prose writer and moralist he is almost unknown. Too much 282 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. admired in his own day, so is he too much for- gotten now. But although he was not a great author, he could occasionally be charming, often witty, and was never negligent. He wrote prose which, if generally cold, was elegant, and which sometimes vibrated with passion. He was best in his sonnets, which were little inferior to those of Desportes and Du Bellay. Boileau certainly said that only two or three of them were worth any- thing, but it must be remembered that it was also Boileau who wrote, ‘ Un sonnet sans défaut vaut seul un long poeme.’ Mlle. Morel concerns herself rather with the man than the writer, and sets herself to show how Gombauld reconciled his protestantism with his funétions of ‘ poéte- courtesan.’ Hermann Sudermann has just published a volume of short stories, entitled ‘Die indische Lilie.’ The tales are either erotic and ugly, or fanciful and dull. The elderly libertine who, grown tired of his dissolute life, determines to ask the woman who has cared for him in silence all along to marry him, and finds himself too late in the field, is not a new figure in fiction, nor is he treated here with any freshness. But Sudermann makes the evil of such a life abundantly clear. The tale entitled ‘Der Lebensplan,’ however, is on a higher level, and contains one of those portraits of a wicked, unscrupulous woman which Sudermann draws with so much skill and truth. A girl and boy meet; the boy is ambitious, and desires to study for a doctor; the girl is greatly attracted to him, and, desiring to help him, devises a plan of life which RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 283 will enable her to do so. A child is the result of the boy and girl adventure, but she cleverly conceals the condition of things and manages to secure another man as her husband, who natur- ally passes as the father. Other schemes are equally successful, and she is able to send con- siderable sums of money to the boy, whom she does not see again until a much later period, when by foul means she has got rid of all the obstacles, her husband included, in the way of her marriage with this idol of her youth. When they do meet she finds him to be a successful medical practitioner of the most ordinary type, fat, honest, common- place. He had never realized her feeling for him, had accepted the money as a loan, which he now pays back; but discovering her wish, and learning the existence of the child, he is ready to marry her. The woman, however, is too clever not to under- stand that no power in heaven or on earth could break down the barriers or raze the walls that stand between them everlastingly. Another volume of short stories, ‘ Schwache Helden,’ by Hugo Salus, is delightful reading. It contains four tales, the hero of each being the victim of some weakness of charaéter. In one he suffers from invincible shyness, but the girl he loves comes to his aid; in another he is equally shy, but the woman who might have helped him fails him, and both miss the best in life. In yet another overweening vanity is the weakness, and the translator who sets out to improve on Byron comes to utter grief. In the last tale the hero has a kind of cruelty not unknown in weak characters, but 284 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. through a woman he is led to better courses. All are admirable sketches, and cannot fail to please the most critical reader. They are full of charm and wit, and written in a beautiful lucid style. Otto Ernst is better known as playwright and novelist than as critic. But in ‘ Bliihender Lorbeer. Plaudereien und Andachten iiber deutsche Dichter,’ he has produced an original and unconventional volume of criticism—although in his preface he denies that the book contains criticism at all—that is well worthy of attention in these days, when we hasten to forget the work of a past generation, and unduly laud that of a new. The authors he discusses all belong to the past, Lessing, Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Hebbel, Reuter, Keller, Anzen- gruber, and Fontane, to arrange them in something like chronological order. But Ernst, and quite rightly, does not trouble to doit. He begins with Fontane and ends with Lessing. Ernst’s desire is to make his readers love the writings of the men he describes. To love a poet is a different thing from admiring him. And I believe that no one can read Ernst’s pages without the desire to know more intimately through their work the poets of whom he treats. He points out one of the great gifts of Heine— often too little noted—the wonderful way in which he handled the German language, a fact of which Schubert and Schumann were quick to take advantage, for they understood that speech is not only the expression of soul, but soul itself. He shows, too, how Goethe is more than a poet, he is a whole world, a man in whom all the great Feat tion Seek sant ano RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 285 features of human existence came to splendid fruition. The lesson Goethe teaches is joy in life, with all its beauty and splendour. Yet, as a rule, Germans prefer Schiller to Goethe. Ernst thus explains the preference: ‘In Schiller’s verses the storm and the sea mingle their organ tones, drums are heard, and bells ring. Every ear can easily hear drums and bells. Goethe demands a more refined ear. If he is read with that ear, it is soon felt how with him the rocks and the trees make music, the flowers and the herbs, the clouds and the stars sing, and life and human fate sound as a great holy hymn, and to the reader, as to the poet, ‘Sein Ohr vernimmt den Einklang der Natur. Das weit Zerstreute sammelt sein Gemat, Und sein Gefihl belebt das Unbelebte.’ One of the most interesting essays is on Gottfried Keller as alyric poet. Keller’s prose is well known, and most people who read German are acquainted with ‘Der griine Heinrich.’ But his charming lyrics are sometimes neglected. Poems like ‘ Die Spinnerin’ and ‘ Die Zeit geht nicht’ ought to find a place in every anthology of German verse. In the latter he expresses the thought that it is not time that goes, but it is we who go. * Die Zeit geht nicht, sie stehet still, Wir ziehen durch sie hin; Sie ist ein Karawanserai, Wir sind die Pilger d’rin. QS — 286 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. ‘ Es blitzt ein Tropfen Morgentau Im Strahl des Sonnenlichts ; Ein Tag kann eine Perle sein Und ein Jahrhundert nichts.’ Ernst is an idealist: he believes in romance and beauty and fancy and the things of the spirit, and to read him and learn about the poets whom he reverences is most refreshing and inspiriting. * * * * * The following recently published books deserve attention :— Silhouettes historiques. Par le Marquis de Ségur. Sketches of history and of literary history from the time of Louis XIII. onwards, including Bourdelot, the physician of the Grand Condé, Madame Lieven, and Guizot. Correspondance inédite de Marie-Caroline reine de Naples et de Sicile avec le Marquis de Gallo, publi¢e et annotée par le commandant M. H. Weil et le Marquis L. Di Somma Circello. There is a preface by M. H. Welschinger. Vol. I. covers the years 1785-98, and Vol. II. 1799-1806. The correspondence is an historical document of the first order, since it was not destined for publication. Shakespeare und der deutsche Geist. Von Friedrich Gundolf. The author deals very fully with the way in which Shakespeare has penetrated into German literature up to the Romantics. He divides his book into three parts—Shakespeare ‘als Stoff, als Form, als Gehalt.’ RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 287 Max Reinhardt. Von Siegfried Jacobsohn. An account of the talented and accomplished direétor of the Deutsche Theatre in Berlin. It is of interest that in eight years he has produced a number of Shakespeare’s plays in a fashion, both as regards acting and artistic setting, worthy of the great dramatist. The plays are ‘The Merry Wives of Windsor,’ ‘The Merchant of Venice,’ ‘The Winter’s Tale,’ ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ ‘ Twelfth Night,’ ‘ Lear,’ ‘ Hamlet,’ ‘Midsummer Night's Dream,’ and the ‘ Taming of the Shrew.’ Adolf Fischhof. Das Lebensbild eines dster- reichischen Politikers. Von Richard Charmatz. An Austrian statesman, well known but little understood. Grillparzers Werke. Herausgegeben von August Sauer. The first volume of a new, good critical edition, much needed by the lover and student of German drama. Grillparzer is a classic, and perhaps the greatest German dramatist after Schiller and Goethe. This volume promises well, and seems to possess all the characteristics required by such an edition, Une carriére d’artiste au XIX°* siecle. Charles Landelle 1821-1908. Par Casimir Stryienski. Landelle drew in chalk many French poets of the nineteenth century. He visited England in 1849, in company with Gautier and de Nerval. Reproductions of his chalk drawings of Gautier, de Musset, and de Nerval appear in this volume. Ordres et Apostilles de Napoléon (1799-1815). Vol. I. Par Arthur Chuquet. These notes were found while searching the ‘ Archives de la guerre,’ and serve as a sort of supplement to Napoleon’s corres- pondence, They show how a word, a brief sentence, sufficed both the Consul and the Emperor to express his will, settle a question, remove a difficulty, pronounce a verdict, sum up a man’s character. 288 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. Les femmes de Témigration. Par Joseph Turquan. A very interesting account of the women emigrées from the beginning, when they only expected to be away a few weeks, and it was the fashion to ask, ‘Quand partez-vous? Oud comptez- vous aller?’ and so through all their adventures in the different lands in which they settled. Uber Goethes Gedichte. Von Viktor Hehn. Aus dessen Nachlass herausgegeben von Eduard von der Hellen. Leétures given in 1851, and now published for the first time. Preceded by a valuable essay on German poetry after Schiller and Goethe. The lyrics of Goethe are classified according to subjects, and each poem interpreted and criticised, and the whole forms a useful and inspiring guide for those beginning to study Goethe. ELIzABETH LEE. ib ie 289 THE SO-CALLED GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS.’ KS} T is difficult to follow the arguments % of the German bibliographers. They s write in the belief that Gutenberg is | the inventor of printing; that all the ; Sa books and types mentioned above are his work, and that no other opinion is possible. Hence they refer us for evidence of his activity, genius, skill, etc., often on one and the same page or in one and the same sentence, to various letters or signs of contractions or printers’ habits, occur- ring in different books printed in different types, so that they mingle the characteristics of the Paris ‘Donatus’ with those of the ‘ Turk-kalendar’; those of B36 with those of B42; those of B42 with those of the ‘ Astronomical and Turk-kalendar,’ the ‘ Cisi- anus,’ etc.; the types of the two Indulgences of 1454 are compared with those of the Psalter of 1457 (‘ Verdffentl.’ i, 8, 9, 40, 44, 45; iii, 8). And all this to prove that, though there may be differ- ences between the types in size and form, some of their peculiarities show that they are all the work of one master. Yet, after having read pages of such intricate ‘evidence’ for attributing books to Gutenberg, you may find doubts expressed as to whether he could, after all, have printed them ' Continued from page 211. II. U 290 THE SO-CALLED (ibid. iii, 18). In none of the discussions, in which even the early Dutch incunabula are mixed up (ibid. i, 16), is there any systematic arrangement or classification of the types or ‘ phases’ of types. It is true, Dziatzko (‘Gutenberg’s Drucker- praxis,’ pp. 51-53, 60, 61, 64-66, 68) gives valu- able tables of letters, contraétions, etc., extracted from B3¢ and B4?, for the purpose of showing the great ‘likeness’ between them. And Zedler has done the same (‘ Verdffentl.’ i.) for the types of the (1) Paris ‘Donatus’; (2) ‘Astronomical Kalendar’ ; (3) ‘ Turk-kalendar’; (4) ‘Cisianus’; (5) ‘Laxier- kalendar’; (6) British Museum ‘Donatus’ of 27 lines; (7) B36 But his tables are incomplete, omitting, for instance, the combined letters, though he speaks of them at some length (sid. i, 17). And on p. 15 of his treatise on the ‘Weltgericht’ (ibid. iii.) he says that the ‘ Astronomical Kalendar’ for 1448 has only the ? with a slanting stroke above' it (see also sid. i, 7, 8, and Schwenke, bid. ii, 9), though his photograph (hid. i.) shows that it has also an i with a bow in li. 2 (ist), another in li. § (sm), and other places. One thing is clear, the ‘method’ adopted by the chief German bibliographers of the present day in examining, describing and grouping the earliest German incunabula, has buried the subject under a mass of learned dissertations, without enabiing us to realize who printed them. Guten- berg is credited with ‘fine aesthetic feelings,’ various ‘conceptions of art, symmetry, harmony, etc.’; but it is difficult to see how he could have executed the large amount of work attributed to him if we GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 291 believe the documents that speak of him and his doings (see above Documents No. xiii, and below Nos. xxii, xxiii, xxiv, etc.), from, say, 1442 to his death in 1468, all proving that during these years he was in serious financial difficulties. As regards Gutenberg’s genius and qualities, none of the three authors specially named above seems to have taken into account, during their minute researches, that the art of printing is the development and continuation of the art of writing (perhaps more immediately of that of Blockprint- ing), and that its inventor, whoever he was, invented the moveable metal types, but not the shape and form of his letters, which he modelled, necessarily and as a matter of course, on the hand- writings in vogue in his time and locality. Occasionally they speak of manuscripts having been the models for Gutenberg’s types (‘ Veréffentl.,’ i., 20, 21), but at the same moment they represent him as having created independent! forms of type for B42 and his other books, and assert that the types of B3® are nothing but a rough imitation of those of B4, though their founder, if he was not Gutenberg, took pains to follow as much as pos- sible Gutenberg’s principles (Schwenke, ‘ Festschr.’ p. 81; id. ‘ Verdffentl.’ ii, 27, 30). * Zedler says (‘Gutenberg-Forsch.’ p. 117): ‘ The influence of the Schoeffer (!) type of the 31-line Indulgence on the Catholicon- type is unmistakable, only the latter, regarded as a whole, is an entirely independent (!) creation, etc.’ (see my remarks on the Catholicon-type, in my ‘ Haarlem not Mentz,’ p. 21). Again (in ‘ Verdffentl.” iii, 19), ‘It certainly took Gutenberg many years of troublesome labour (!) to perfect not only the casting of types, but also a proper system of letters,’ i | i | Ht! | i | ir) | 1} i i | 1 {| d| 1 | | i HT | 292 THE SO-CALLED The ‘method’ of minutely examining and describing types, their varieties and different forms, watermarks, quires, printers’ habits, etc., which Dr. Schwenke thinks was initiated and perfected by Dziatzko, may bear some fruit. We have seen above (page 209) how Schwenke’s own study of early types enabled him to realize that the ‘ Missale speciale’ could not have been printed in the earliest period of Mainz printing, as it lacks the combinations of letters, and chief and secondary forms of letters, which are characteristic of that early time, but disappear gradually when the type- founders became a little more independent of manuscripts, and dispensed with combinations of letters which caused them more trouble than ordinary insulated forms. But the ‘method’ is bound to cause, and is already causing, great confusion in bibliography, by ascribing two or more incunabula to one and the same printer, simply because there is some ‘resem- blance’ between their types, marks of punctuation, paper, watermarks, the arrangement of quires, etc., as Dziatzko did with regard to B42 and B3®, while he also attributed the two Letters of Indulgence of 1454-5 to Gutenberg, merely because their small text types resemb/e each other. He even regarded an x which he had noticed in a Costerian ‘Doétrinale, as an ‘imitation’ of the ‘ Guten- berg’ x found in B+? and B36 (or of the x in the 1457 Psalter, he says), for no other reason than that he saw a resemblance between them. Schwenke, Zedler, etc., also take a resemblance between types, etc., as their guide, and if they see ee hae, Me GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 293 a ‘likeness’ between some of the letters, no differ- ences in the shape and size of the others seem to prevent them from ascribing two or more founts to Gutenberg. These proceedings are disapproved of even in Germany ; see ‘ Literar. Centralbl.’ 1902, col. 1405. It is true that something similar is done with respeét to the Costerian types, some of which are only linked to the others by a ‘family- likeness.’ But this family-likeness is not the mere ‘resemblance’ on the strength of which a number of otherwise dissimilar types are attributed to Gutenberg. The Costerian types stand apart from all others, and yet are linked among themselves, not only by a general striking likeness between them, but also by a characteristic ¢ with a perpen- dicular stroke attached on the right-hand side to its cross-stroke; further, by a minute stroke con- necting the signs of contra¢tion with the letters over which they stand (see below, p. 298), and by an equally characteristic 7, with a small stroke or curl, which are all imitations from indigenous handwritings. The so-called Gutenberg-type (that of B36, a large Gothic or Church- or Missal-type), with its so-called ‘ phases,’ cannot be called peculiar when it is used for Divine Service books, but its large size appears strange when used for a school- book (Donatus) or a Kalendar. In 1461, however, and later, this large type is employed by Albr. Pfister, at Bamberg, for a somewhat similar pur- pose—that is, a set of popular books. Hence, according to Dziatzko’s ‘Method,’ the Paris Donatus, Weltgericht, Astronomical Kalendar, etc., should be attributed to Pfister, who printed other 294 THE SO-CALLED books in a similar, if not the identical type, rather than to any other printer. But Schwenke and Zedler, by ascribing an earlier date to the Donatus, etc., separate them from the Pfister books, and ask us (1) to ascribe to Gutenberg three books, said to have been printed between 1443 and 1447, two in the earliest, the third in the second ‘phase’ of his type; (2) to believe that he printed all the others mentioned in the above list ; and (3) that, in manu- facturing his ‘third’ phase of this type (for B39), which is described as a reproduction of the forms of the ‘first’ and ‘second’ phases, he ‘roughly imitated’ the type of B42, which materially differs from that of B36, If I do not misunderstand them, this is what the arguments of Schwenke and Zedler, based on the ‘Dziatzko-Method,’ come to, though the latter suggests some other theory as well (see above, p. 210). By thus basing themselves on a ‘like- ness’ between types, they ascribe to Gutenberg a number of types and books (even one which bears the name of Peter Schoeffer in the colophon), because in these books they recognise, they say (‘ Veréffentl.’ i, 49; ‘Gutenberg-Forsch.’ 76), the ‘Gutenbergian’ type, which means, from their point of view and according to their ‘method,’ not that there is any evidence that Gutenberg ever cast or used this type, but that they see in them some features (‘simplicity’ and the ‘total absence of superfluous strokes’) which they say are peculiar to Gutenberg. Gutenberg is praised for his ingenuity and skill in cutting and casting the types of B4?, but the scribe GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 295 whose manuscript was the model for the peculiari- ties and contrivances for effecting that symmetry and harmony which are admired in the types is hardly alluded to. Without disparaging the merits of the cutters and founders of the B3® and B# types or any other types, much greater praise is due to the scribes who produced the models for them long before the art of cutting and casting types was known, and who formed every letter they produced by hand. Our three authors appear to have overlooked the late Will. Blades’s ‘ Life and Typography of William Caxton,’ published in two volumes in 1861, in which he discusses and exhibits, on the plates xi, xili, Xvi, Xvili, xxi, xxiii, all the chief and secondary forms of the letters, and combinations of letters, ever cast and used by Caxton. On page 31 of Vol. I. Blades explains that ‘the first printer, when forming his alphabet, was never troubled as to the shape he should give his letters. The form which would naturally present itself to him would be that to which he and the people to whom he hoped to sell his productions had been accustomed. The types used in the first printed books closely resemble the written characters of the period, and this imitation was extended to all those combinations of letters which were then in use by the scribes. Thus the Psalters and Bibles which appeared in Germany, among the first productions of the press, were printed in the characters used by the scribes br ecclesiastical service books, while more general literature was printed in the common bastard-Roman. . . . Caxton’s types bear the closest resemblance to the handwriting in the Mercers’ books, and to the volumes of that era in the Archives of Guildhall.’ 296 THE SO-CALLED Blades repeated this in his ‘ Biography and Typo- graphy of W. Caxton,’ published in 1877, and again in the second edition of this work published in 1882. It is true, the printer of B+? worked some fifteen years earlier than Caxton, but he was not, on that account, more original than the latter, because Caxton and his contemporaries still followed that universal custom of the earlier printers (no matter whether we ascribe the origin of the moveable type to Haarlem or to Mainz) of Holland, Germany, Italy, France, etc., of imitating, when casting their types, as closely as possible, the handwriting indigenous to the region (province or town) where they settled. This imitation they extended, as Blades says, not merely to the size and forms of the letters (small or capitals), but to every other feature or characteristic of the letters, the ligatures, signs of contraétions, etc., which they found in the manuscripts. In the same way the Blockbooks and their pictures were nothing but imitations of contem- porary manuscripts or those which had preceded them. This imitation was likewise a matter of course and necessity for the Dutch inventor of printing with moveable metal types; it remained a matter of course and necessity for all the printers who came after him, at Mainz, Bamberg, Strassburg or any other place, and it may no less be observed in the gradual development and changes of the hand- writings anterior to printing, from the earliest period and from one generation to another, however GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 297 much the writings of one century or one locality may seem to differ from those of another. After the appearance of Mr. Blades’s book, my own researches led me to realize these facts inde- pendently, and I called attention to them in ‘ The Academy’ of 11th Oétober, 1884, in the 1888 edition of the ‘ Encyclopedia Britannica’ (article ‘Typography ’), and more at length in my ‘ Haarlem not Mentz,’ 1887, pp. 18-23. Schwenke, therefore, when he said (see above, p. 208 sg.) that earlier authors on printing had hardly noticed any of ‘Gutenberg’s contrivances,’ and that Dziatzko was the first to point out the differences between the chief and secondary forms of the letters, must have forgotten or overlooked what Blades and I had said as to MSS. having been the models for the earliest types. It is true, neither Blades nor I pursued the subject beyond general observations as to the printers having derived the forms of their types from the MSS. Consequently, I would not describe as superfluous a treatise on the ‘contrivances’ of the early printers, and the ‘chief and secondary forms’ of the earliest types. On the contrary, it might, as has been remarked above, be useful and necessary, provided such an enquiry is conducted with the full knowledge that the types are nothing but imitations from manu- scripts, and that, therefore, the handwritings are the proper and ultimate bases for research and study of this interesting subject. This imitation of handwritings by the earliest typefounders is clearly shown by what Zedler calls (‘ Veréffentl.’ I., 34) a ‘characteristic peculiarity’ of 298 THE SO-CALLED the types of the earlier Dutch Incunabula—namely, a small, thin, perpendicular stroke,’ which conneéts the horizontal strokes or signs of contraction with the letters or types above which it appears. Several instances of it may be seen in his photograph of the Hague 31-line Donatus (‘ Verdffentl.’ I., pl. iv.) ; exx. gr. 2 page, li. 2 tamq; li. 3 qlitatis, li. 6 meci, respodédi, etc. Zedler says that this con- necting stroke is not everywhere distinétly visible, though originally, no doubt, it was, as there are examples of each letter which has a stroke of contraction. The original of the Donatus, though it has suffered much, shows this better than even the facsimile. This peculiarity occurs in all the early Donatuses and other Incunabula figured in Holtrop’s ‘Monuments,”* and is a characteristic of the early typo- graphically printed Dutch Incunabula, because nothing is seen of such a connecting stroke in the xylographically printed books. Whenever it is not visible in the Donatus-fragment, it is, no doubt, owing to the type, after ' To be precise, this connecting link or stroke is not always perpendicular, but often slanting, and comes down either from the right side of the mark of contraction (which is sometimes a hori- zontal, sometimes a wavy stroke, and often has the form of a semi-circle) on to the right side of the type, or from the left side of the horizontal stroke, on to the left side of the type. On the o and a it generally rests on the central point of these letters. In certain cases this link is nothing more than a small point. ? See his roth (a xylographic Donatus) to 33rd plate, which all happen to be facsimiles of Costeriana, in the well-known Costerian types. On pl. 33° only one or two instances occur. But we have it again on pl. 34 and 35 (Jacob Bellaert, Haarlem, 1483-4), though perhaps not on pl. 36 (Joh. Andreas, Haarlem, 1486). It does not occur in the Utrecht Incunabula figured on pl. 37, 38, 39, but Ger. Leempt’s (Utrecht) type has it. It is also found on pl. 54, 56, 59 (Louvain), 60, 61 (Bruges), 82 (Delft), 90, 100 (Antwerp); see further plates 106, 110, 111, 113, 122. GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 299 casting, having been trimmed, whereby the connecting stroke, required by the nature of the stamp (patrix), was deliberately removed, as militating against the written form of the letter. This trimming was necessary, for instance, in the case of i, which otherwise would have been indistiné. But even the i shows traces of this link, as in Awic (li. 29), /egenti (li. 31). When we examine the contemporary Dutch manuscripts, we find nothing (!) analogous to this peculiarity of the printing-type. It would, indeed, be strange if this connecting stroke . . . was based on manuscript custom; it was rather required by the mode of manufaéturing the type. The stamp used for the making of the matrix cannot have been a staff, on the lower part of which the letter was cut in an inverted order ; it must have consisted of a mere letter without a bottom. Therefore, the material of which it was made was not wood, but metal, that is brass, &c., &c. If Zedler, before he wrote this, had examined Dutch Blockbooks and Dutch Manuscripts, he would have seen that the peculiarity of which he speaks, far from being absent, is a special feature in them, in the same way as it is in the earliest Dutch Incunabula. It may be seen in nearly every line of the Xylographic pages of the ‘Speculum humanae Salvationis,’ perhaps not everywhere so clearly as in the three or four typographic editions (Latin and Dutch) of this work, but still plainly enough to show that the woodcutter did his best to copy his manuscript model. It may also be seen in the Dutch Xylographic ‘ Canticum Canti- corum’ (see two instances on Plate 10 of Berjeau’s edition), and in the Dutch edition of the ‘ Ars Moriendi’; see Cust’s edition, Pl. I*, or p. 40, 47, last line (naqua), 49, second line, and traces of the 300 THE SO-CALLED system on p. 57, li. 18, 20 (quam, quantum), and p- 59. It occurs likewise, not in any haphazard way, but as a regular system, in the Dutch Manu- scripts. In July, 1908, I saw in the showcases of the Museum Meerman-Westreenianum at the Hague, five MSS. all having this peculiarity—namely, AA 123 (Latin Breviary, in the Netherlands, c. 1450) ; AA 187 (Nederl. Getijdenboek, in the Netherlands, 1489); AA 193 (Nederl. Psalter, in the Nether- lands, c. 1450); AA 69 (Dietsche Doctrinaal, in the Netherlands, 1374). I saw it likewise in a richly illustrated ‘Biblia Pauperum’ of the four- teenth century preserved in the same museum. It is, therefore, not surprising that it was imitated by the printer of the ‘ Costeriana.’ Zedler discusses this point when dealing with some theories as to the more or less defective mode of manufac- turing types supposed to have been adopted, as a necessity, by the Inventor of Printing at one or by Gutenberg at Mainz (see ‘ Veréffentl.’ 5qq.). One of these theories, advanced by Dziatsko in his treatise on B36 and B42, would have it (Zedler, in ‘ Ver6ffentl.’ 1., 30, 47) that the signs of abbreviation, so numerous in early prints (in imitation of the MSS. and Blockbooks), were not cast on the same staff as the letter above which they appear, but separately, and were subsequently fixed, by some mechanism, over the letter. Schwenke (‘Veréff.’ ii., 5) opposes this theory, though he seems to accept it with regard to the letter p, with sign of contraction for ‘ pro,’ in B36, which Zedler (‘ Verdff.’ i., 46) thinks consisted of two types. It seems unnecessary to discuss this theory here; it GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 301 militates against all that we see in the early German prints. Anyhow, as regards the Dutch incunabula, it is disposed of by the characteristic peculiarity described above. Another theory regarding the casting of the earliest type, which Zedler discusses at great length, was published a few years ago by the well-known type-founder Dr. Ch. Enschedé, of Haarlem. He called it the ‘ Abklatsch-Method,’ and thought that Gutenberg was led to the invention of this method by seeing one of the earlier Dutch ‘ Donatuses.’ By this method, according to Enschede, after the patrices and matrices had been manufactured, the types were cast in two operations ; first, the letter itself on a small plate, and then a small staff or shank added to it by means of a casting-form. I have dealt with this theory in my article ‘Typography ° in the ‘ Encycl. Britannica.’ Suffice it to repeat here that the above peculiarity, which is so conspicuous in the early Dutch types (and also in the Dutch Blockbooks), is a faithful imitation of the same peculiarity in the Dutch handwritings, and for this reason cannot be attributed to any imperfect mech- anism of the early Dutch typefounders. To return to the B3® and B4? types, there is nothing in them to lead us to think, or to assume, that the former was an imitation of the B+ type, or vice versd. Both are clearly independent imita- tions of two different but unmistakably ‘Gothic’ manuscripts. This script, which may also be called the ornamental Gothic or Church-hband, has been employed for ages for Bibles, Missals, and other ecclesiastical books, and is fully developed in the B42 302 THE SO-CALLED and B36 types. It begins to make its appearance in the tenth century, if not earlier, and runs its course till long after the invention of printing.’ Its beginning, development, and perfection may be clearly traced by the facsimiles in the 3rd Volume of ‘The (London) Palaeographical Society,’ plates 32 (Charter of 966), 35 (Benedictional, c. 963-984), 54 (Bible, twelfth century), 60 (Bible, thirteenth century), 65 (Psalter, a.p. 1284, with fine strokes as in the Cambridge MSS. mentioned above), 67 (Somme le Roi, c. 1300), 72 (Psalter, early four- teenth century), 75 (Psalter, c. 1339), 78 (French Coronation Service, 1365), 86 (Horace, 1391), 95 (Burgundian Breviary, c. 1419), 100 (Psalter, 1442), 106 (Breviary, c. 1500). Also by facsimiles in the 2nd Volume of the same Society’s Second Series, as 18 (1158), 20 (twelfth century), 23 (1218), 25-27 (1269, etc.), 29 (1322), 32 (1330), 42-44 (early fifteenth century), 48 (7d.), 54 (1446), ' In the Cambridge University Library (pressmark Dd. 7. 1, 2) are two large folio volumes, the writing of which (ascribed in the Catalogue to the somewhat late date 1490) resembles the type of B# so much, that at first sight one might mistake them for copies of this Bible. It has all the (primary and secondary) forms of letters, all the combinations of letters, and all the contraétions above and through certain letters, which Dziatzko (/. ¢.) and Schwenke (‘Festschrift’) have selected from B% and B#, and figured in their texts and on separate plates. The capitals in these MSS. differ only slightly from those of B*, less than the latter differ from those of B3°, The small letters of the MSS. resemble in every respect those of B#, except that many letters of the former end in or begin with a fine stroke, which also does duty to mark the i. Generally speaking, the writing of these MSS. resembles the type of B+? much more than the B3° type resembles that of B#*, But would anyone ascribe these MSS, to ‘Gutenberg’ or to his ‘school’? GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 303 63; Franz Steffens, III. 83 (fourteenth century), 87 (1404), 88 (1410), etc., all showing that the printers of B3® and B42, in engraving and casting their types, exercised no ‘inventive’ or ‘creating’ genius, but merely imitated the writing of one or other of the manuscript Bibles or Missals, which were ready at their hands, in the same way as the block printers before them imitated handwritings in cutting their blocks for their texts and pictures. The MSS. referred to above, all written between circa 963 and 1500—that is, for the most part before Gutenberg’s appearance as an artisan or a would- be printer—show the same‘ contrivances’ and the same ‘chief and secondary forms’ as the books ascribed to him. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is a ‘resemblance’ between the types of B+? and B3®, just as there is between the various scripts mentioned above. The capitals of the two types, however, differ materially from each other in form and size, and so do the small (lower-case) letters, the signs of interpuncétion, etc,, though, per- haps, to a less extent. But we could hardly assume that for the latter the founder of the B36 types took B+? as his model, when it is evident that for his capita/s he must have had another (that is, a MS.) model. On this ground alone we may safely treat B+ and B36 as two separate works of two different printers. Nor can the arrangement of the two Bibles in quires of the same number of (ten) sheets, nor their division into Volumes at the same place, nor the identity of paper and watermarks in both, be 304 THE SO-CALLED taken as evidence that they were printed by one and the same printer, as the manuscript models of that period were similarly arranged. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the same kind of paper which was bought (at Mainz?) by the printer of B+, was not purchasable at another place by another printer. But even if all these resemblances and coincid- ences could be considered as evidence regarding the printer or printers of the two Bibles, on biblio- graphical grounds (already mentioned on p. 166 of my ‘ Gutenberg’) we must attribute B42 to Peter Schoeffer. He used the B¢4? type probably before 1457 (not long after B4? had been issued), in printing a ‘Donatus’ of 35 lines, which bears his name in the colophon: ‘per Petrum de gernssheym, in urbe Moguntina cum suis capitalibus’' (see IT.°, 7, of the above list, and my ‘Gutenberg,’ p. 171). The employment of these capita/s in the Psalters of 1457 and 1459, in the colophons of which Fust and Schoeffer print their names, links them on to the ‘Donatus.’ Some authors contend that, as Schoeffer does not mention Fust in the colophon ' These last three words cannot mean ‘ with /ts capitals’ (that is, of the Donatus), as some authors interpret them, but ‘with Ais capitals,’ that is, ‘of (the printer) Peter de Gernssheym.’ Schoeffer, in his colophons, repeatedly uses the somewhat analogous ex- pression: ‘suis consignando scutis,’ in the Iustinianus of 26th Jan., 1475, 23rd May, 1476, 21st Aug., 1477; the Bernardus of 14th April, 1475; the Clemens of roth Sept., 1476; the Hor- borch of 4th Jan., 1477; the Paulus of 7th Jan., 1478; the Breslau Missal of 24th July, 1483. Here suis could not possibly be translated by its, or mean that the shields were the book’s shields. GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 305 of the ‘ Donatus,’ he must have printed it after Fust’s death in 1466. But the sequence of Schoeffer’s work, in connection with Az capitals, is this: 1457-1466 he prints in partnership with Joh. Fust ; 1467 he prints alone ; 1457 and 1459 (August) he issues the Psalter with the capitals printed in colours ; 1459 (Oct.) the Durandus, with the capitals printed (but in some copies only) in colours ; 1460 the Clementinae without printed capitals ; 1460-1489 no printed capitals in books ; 1490 and 1502 the Psalter is reprinted, with the printed capitals (as an antiquarian reprint). No books are known after this date with printed capitals. Seeing, therefore, that Gernsheym’s capita/s occur only in the first two dated books and some copies of the third, and in none of the subsequent books, except the merely antiquarian reprints of the Psalter in 1490 and 1502, it is more consonant to method to place the ‘ Donatus’ before 1457, that is in 1456, together with B42 printed in the same type and probably issued the same year. For other Donatuses (of 26, 32 and 33 lines) printed in the same type, perhaps before that of 35 lines, see the above list and my ‘ Gutenberg,’ p. 168 sqq. For bibliographical reasons also, we must ascribe the 30-line Indulgence of 1454-5 to Peter Schoeffer. Its two headlines to the two forms of absolution (Forma plenissime absolutionis, etc.), and three or four other words (Paulinus ; Misereatur, etc.) are printed, for the sake of distinétion, in a (Church or Missal) II. x | ; ; i Hi 406 THE SO-CALLED larger type than the bastard Roman type employed for its text. It is doubtful whether this large type is identical with that used for B42. It is known that the P of the Indulgence (in the word Paulinus) differs from the P in B4?. I also fail to find the capital F of the Indulgence in any of Schwenke’s facsimiles of B42 (in ‘ Festschrift’), or in his tables at pp. 32, 33. Even the F, which he gives (among the capitals in li. 3) as a later form in B42, differs from the Indulgence F, though its straight left top much resembles it. Moreover, the semi-bows and slanting strokes above the 7’s in the Indulgence’ differ from those in (the first impressions of) B42, but less in the latter’s final type, though it is hard to see how this final type could differ in form from its former two states (B+° and B+!), if we accept the filing-down theory. This Church-type would seem to have been specially cast for the 30-line Indulence, just as the Church-type of the 31-line Indulgence seems to have been specially manufactured for this one document, as certain of its letters appear also to differ from the B3° types. And as neither of the small or brief-types used for the texts of these two Indulgences have been traced in any other work, it seems not unreasonable * Long after this had been written, I noticed that Schwenke (‘Festschrift,’ p. 58) had already observed these differences, But when he says that he would ascribe the Indulgence type to the founder of that of B* on account of the similarity between the two, I cannot agree with him. A similarity between types is no evidence; I ascribe the two types to Schoeffer on bibliographical grounds, GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 307 to suppose that the four kinds of types employed for these two broadsides were exclusively cut and cast for them, and, for some reason or another, discarded afterwards. Anyhow, on bibliographical grounds, it is certain that Peter Schoeffer printed the 30-line Indulgence, as the initial M of its first absolution is identical with the initial M of the second absolution in a 33-line Indulgence unques- tionably printed by him and issued in 1489, at the order of Pope Innocent VIII., by ‘Raymundus Peyraudi archidiaconus Alnisiensis in ecclesia Xanton pro tuicione orthodoxe fidei contra Turchos’ (copies of which are in the British Museum, and the Culemann colleétion at Hanover; see my ‘Gutenberg,’ p. 166). Therefore, whether we regard the Church-type used in the 30-line Indulgence as identical with that of B4? or not, the printing of the document must be ascribed to Peter Schoeffer. And hence, if bibliographical rules and docu- mentary evidence carry any weight, B+? and the books printed in the same type, together with the 30-line Indulgence and its two types (all mentioned in List B), must be attributed to Peter Schoeffer, and not to Gutenberg or any other printer. As regards the types and books in the above List A, our course is not so clear as with the books in List B; firstly, it is not easy to examine the types of the ‘ Weltgericht,’ and the Paris ‘ Donatus,’ as the photographs of them, published by the Gutenberg-Gesellschaft, are none too clear, pro- bably because the condition of the documents is unfavourable to photographic action. Secondly, 308 THE SO-CALLED that of the ‘Donatus’ is reduced in size, so that we can neither measure nor minutely examine its types. Thirdly, the text of the ‘Donatus’ is in Latin, that of the ‘ Weltgericht’ (of which no more than 22 lines are preserved) in German, which latter language requires some letters, combination ot letters, contractions, etc., which are never or rarely employed in a Latin book, and vice versa. How- ever, the similarity between the forms and size of their types may easily lead bibliographers to con- sider them identical. Zedler draws attention (‘ Ver- Offentl.’ iii., p. 10 59g.) to two 7’s and two é’s, which slightly differ in form, but all occur, he says, in the ‘Weltgericht” as well as in the ‘ Donatus,’ wherefore he thinks that the two works are printed in one and the same type. He likewise minutely describes (iéid., p. 13 599.,i., 16) seven different 7’s, all observed by him in the ‘ Weltgericht,’ the ‘Donatus,’ the Astronomical Kalendar, the Turk- kalendar, the Laxier-kalendar, etc. For the seventh, he says, Gutenberg had made a special matrix, and four of the 7’s he regards as ‘ develop- ments’ (therefore, not as ‘identical’) of the type (p. 14), while he takes the differences between them as a guide to the chronological order to be assigned to the books attributed to Gutenberg. It has already been remarked above (p. 201) that, if the Helmasperger document is genuine, Gutenberg could not have begun to print before 1450, as in that year he, by his own admission, borrowed money, not for ‘ printing’ anything, but for ‘making tools’ or an ‘apparatus.’ The authors of the Gutenberg-Gesellschaft, however, contend GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 309 that Gutenberg intended to prepare these ‘tools’ for B42, but that he had already printed various works before 1450. They place the ‘ Weltgericht’ c. 1443, the Paris ‘Donatus’ before 1444 or shortly after, and the Astronomical Kalendar at the end of 1447, and profess to prove that the first two books are in the ‘first phase,’ the third in the ‘second phase’ of Gutenberg’s oldest type. But is is difficult to accept these assertions, as the contraction for us (9), the dots, small horizontal marks and bows over the 7’s and the V (used as U and V) in the ‘Donatus,’ when compared with the same signs or letters in the Astronomical Kalendar, make it clear that the types of these two works differ from each other, and that, though resembling each other, they cannot, on account of small but material differences in form and size, be described as two ‘phases’ or ‘developments’ of one and the same type. And types materially differing from each other in form and size cannot have been cast from the same patrices and matrices. In this case the differences can be attributed neither to the worn-out condition of the ‘ Donatus’ (see ‘ Verdffentl.’ i., 16), nor to the freshness of the Kalendar-type. For instance: the contraction for us (9) in the Kalendar cannot have been cast from the patrix and matrix used for manufacturing the same sign for the ‘ Donatus,’ as the former is longer and thinner than that of the ‘ Donatus,’ and has a more angular top than the latter, which is perfectly round (°). Nor could the z’s of the Kalendar, with dots or small horizontal marks or bows at a material distance from their top, have been cast 310 THE SO-CALLED from the patrices and matrices used for the 7’s ot the ‘ Donatus,’ which have these marks much closer to their top. Another feature in the evidence of Schwenke (‘Centralbl.,’ 1901, p. 290 sgq.) and Zedler is a tall t in the Turk-kalendar for 1455, which is preceded, in all words where two 7/’s come together, by an ordinary shorter ¢; exx.gr. ‘bittern’ (Wyss’ ed., Taf. 31%, li. 6); gelitten . . . erstritten (srd., li. 8), and various other words (sid., Taf. 31°, li. 15; 32°, li. 13; 32°, li. 17, etc.). The second ¢ over- tops the first ¢, and its left side is straight, appar- ently so made that it might not interfere with the crossbar of the first. In some cases the two 7s seem to form a ligature (Taf. 31°, li. 8, erstritten), but in the majority of cases they are disconneéted, and do not always range in the line; cf. mittage (31°, li. 15), dritte (32*, li. 13). Both authors point to a somewhat similar ¢ in the Paris ‘ Donatus,’ exclusively preceded by c, though the two do not seem to be a ligature; see Zedler’s Facs., in ‘Verdffentl.’ i., Taf. II.*, li. 4 (produda), 6 (produdfam), g (Adfiua), 11 (adfiua), and in other words (sid., li. 12, 14, 16, 24, 25; Taf. IIT.*, li. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, etc.). But the length- ened ¢ of the Turk-kalendar cannot typographic- ally be called a ‘phase’ or a ‘development’ of the lengthened ¢ of the ‘ Donatus,’ as the two differ in form and size; nor can the two 7/s have been cast from the same matrix, that of the Turk-kalendar being larger than that of the ‘ Donatus.’ It is to be observed that there is no trace of this peculiar ¢ in the Astronomical Kalendar, though there were GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 311 occasions for using it, as in mittage (2nd February) ; dritten . . . mittage (1st April). An examination of the types of the ‘ Weltgericht’ is more difficult, as we have only a small portion (reéto and verso) of one leaf. Each side contains no more than eleven lines, of which the first are slightly cropped by the binder. Ten lines measure 8-1 cm. (=8,, mm. to aline) ; or 8:2 cm. from the foot of the upper (truncated) line. The facsimiles of the Paris ‘Donatus’ being on a reduced scale, the height or the width of the lines cannot be measured. But ten lines (of January) of the Astron. Kalendar measure 8°3 cm.; of March and April, 8-2 cm. Some of the letters in both documents, as 4, g, /, especially the bows on the letter 7, also show that those of the ‘Weltgericht’ differ from those in the ‘Donatus.’ Therefore, if these differences, observ- able in the photographs, do exist in the originals, then the ‘Weltgericht,’ the Paris ‘ Donatus,’ the Astronomical Kalendar, and the Turk-kalendar of 1455, are printed in four different types, which may have been used or manufactured by one and the same printer, but are not, and cannot be called, phases of one and the same type, or developments of one original type. The above List A shows that (apart from the types and books in List B) six types (I., II., V., VI., VII., VIII.) are attributed to Gutenberg, and about four-and-twenty different works, not to mention the ‘many experiments’ which, accord- ing to Zedler, must have preceded Gutenberg’s ‘masterly ’ printed Kalendar of 1447, nor the ‘many 312 THE SO-CALLED experiments’ which, according to Schwenke, must have preceded B42. Of type I. (called sometimes the ‘Gutenberg,’ sometimes the B3® type), three ‘phases’ or ‘varieties’ (i*, i> and ic) are said to exist. For reasons stated above, however, they cannot be taken as such, as they are really three different types, and must, therefore, from a bibliographical and typographical point of view, be kept separate, even if the differences between them were smaller than they really are. Moreover, in the absence of all evidence of their having been used by one and the same printer, they must be ascribed to three different printers. Zedler tells us, that Alb. Pfister bought the B36 type from Gutenberg at a high price, continued to use it at Mainz, and had after- wards, while still there, a new fount made of it (by Gutenberg), with certain patrices and matrices modified. But there is no authority for this asser- tion, which is, moreover, incompatible with the Helmasperger document. Hence, after ascribing, on clear bibliographical evidence, B4, and the eight other works of List B, to Peter Schoeffer, Guten- berg would still be credited with having manufac- tured no fewer than eight' different types (i. the ‘Donatus’ type; ii. the ‘ Kalendar’ type; iii. the * Zedler (‘ Verdffentl.’ i., Taf. XIII.) gives tracings of seven different ‘phases’ of the oldest (!) Gutenberg-type (i. the ‘ Donatus’ type; ii*, the ‘Kalendar’ type; ii>, the ‘ Turk-kalendar’ type; ii‘, the ‘Cisianus’ type; ii¢, the Laxierkalendar type; ii*, the London 27-line ‘Donatus’ type; iii. the B%* type). If now we add to these seven the two types of the 31-line Indulgence, the two of the Psalter and that of the ‘Catholicon,’ Gutenberg is credited with twe/ve types, not to speak of the three ascribed above on safe grounds to Schoeffer. GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 313 Church type and iv. the text type of the 31-line Indulgence; v. the B3® type; vi. and vii., the large and small types of the Psalter of 1457; viii. the Catholicon type), and with having printed at least twenty-four different works, including a large folio Bible (B3°) in two volumes, the large folio ‘Catho- licon’ and other important works. Schwenke, indeed, thinks that some unknown printer printed B36, but—in Gutenberg’s printing office. J. H. Hessets. (To be continued.) FISHER’S SERMON AGAINST LUTHER. mY N the Auction Catalogue of books & belonging to the late Professor S. H. § Butcher, M.P., sold at Cambridge Mythe 25th of May, 1911, was this ‘Fysher’s Sermon against Luther, Wynkyn de Worde, black-letter, n.p., 4to, morocco.’ I did not see the copy until the day before the sale. On examination I found it to be imperfeét, and that it was included with other lots of books, which formerly belonged to the late Professor John E. B. Mayor, whose library was sold at Cambridge in March previously. That evening I looked up various authorities, and found in Mr. E. Gordon Duff’s list of Wynkyn de Worde’s books (in ‘ Handlists of English Printers,’ part i., 1895) amongst the ‘ Undated books, 1 501- 1535, the following: Fisher against Luther 4to. B.M. Fisher aganist Luther 4to. B.M. Consulting library catalogues I then found that the Cambridge University Library possessed a copy in the Samuel Sandars Colleétion, The entries in the SERMON AGAINST LUTHER. 315 British Museum Catalogue state that their two copies varied. In the Cambridge University Library Catalogue (I. 49) ‘B.M. 524’ is placed against their copy. Whilst examining the other lots in this sale I came across a portfolio of odds and ends, and in it found some facsimiles which I thought were of the same work. At the sale I purchased the Sermon of Bishop Fisher, and also the portfolio of odds and ends. Examining the Sermon I was puzzled to find it agreed with no description of the work as printed by Wynkyn de Worde. I had the description (1) of the two editions in the British Museum Catalogue, where two varying issues are given, and (2) of the copy in the Cambridge University Library Catalogue. The title given in the Cambridge University Library Catalogue differed from the first one men- tioned in the British Museum Catalogue, and I therefore concluded that the Cambridge copy was the ‘another edition’ mentioned in the British Museum Catalogue. Then remembering the portfolio of odds and ends, I secured a copy of the facsimile contained therein, and, to my surprise, found it agreed with neither of the copies whose titles were given in the two catalogues mentioned, by reason of the variances of the letterpress. And as I could see through the facsimile part of the British Museum stamp at the back of the title-page, I concluded that it was a facsimile of the ‘another edition’ mentioned in their catalogue. This left the issues thus: 316 FISHER’S SERMON 1. The edition described in the British Museum Catalogue. 2. The ‘other edition’ in the British Museum Catalogue, represented by the photographic facsimile I possessed. 3. The copy in the Cambridge University Library. The copy in the Cambridge University Library agrees more with No. I, with the following variances : B.M. again doétryn assygnement. Cardynal. C.U.L. agayn doétryne assingnement. Cardinal. But all this did not help to identify my copy, and I was intending to write to someone at the British Museum about it, when I casually looked up my own Index to Hazlitt’s Colleétions and Notes, noted one reference to Fisher’s Sermon, looked it up, and found to my great surprise the title-page of my copy accurately given from Herbert’s Ames, and with the imprint of Thomas Berthelet! I looked in Herbert’s Ames, and found the descrip- tion there given, agreeing with my copy, was taken from a copy in Herbert’s possession. Failing to find a copy described I turned to Mr. W. W. Greg’s list of Berthelet’s ‘ Undated Books’ (in ‘ Handlists of English Printers,’ part iii., 1905), and found ‘Fisher. Sermon at St. Paul’s, 11 Feb. 1525. 1529(?) 4to. Bodl.’ The date 11 Feb. 1525 does not appear on the Sermon. AGAINST LUTHER. 317 As this was the only copy I could find, I wrote to Mr. F. Madan, at the Bodleian, giving a few rough notes, and he kindly answered, giving me a ‘test’ which I found differed in my copy. I may say now that the Bodleian copy formerly belonged to Herbert. I then sent the copy to him for examination, and his reply (3rd of June) is, ‘They are different issues. . . . Every sheet differs in small details, and I think yours is the earlier,’ and then quoted certain vari- ances from which could be drawn the conclusion that mine is the earlier issue. Also, of the four different border-pieces round the title-page, the one used at the top of my issue is used at the foot of the Bodleian copy, and the bottom block in mine is at the top of the Bodleian copy. A few variances noted are: Mine. BopDLglan. A 3° th 1. from foot saint saynt B 4‘ 12th 1. from foot secdde...muste seconde... must G 3° 1. 16 sowerh soweth The Bodleian copy consists of signatures A-H*; mine consists of A-F+, Gi, Gi*iv and H are wanting. Such is the hunt I have had to fix the edition of the work so casually purchased, sent in the wrong direction by the lettering of the volume, where it is definitely stated, ‘Wynkyn de Worde.’ The copy has all the appearance of having been found in the binding of some book, and has been most skilfully mended, and bound by F. Bedford. The 318 SERMON AGAINST LUTHER. autograph of ‘John S. Wood, a.p. 1879’ appears on the end-paper. I think Spicer Wood was Librarian of St. John’s College, Cambridge, and he it was, no doubt, who had the work bound. It is a great pity he did not place on record where these sheets came from. The result of this interesting hunt can be summed up as follows : (1) Instead of two undated issues of Fisher’s Sermon printed by Wynkyn de Worde, we havethree—two at the British Museum and one at the Cambridge University Library—all unique. (2) Instead of one undated issue printed by Thomas Berthelet, we have two—one at the Bodleian, and one (imperfect) not yet placed—both unique. With regard to the date of printing (1529?) in Mr. Greg’s list, I should like to know when this Sermon was preached. In the article on Fisher in the D. N. B. is the statement: ‘He preached in the vernacular, before Wolsey and Warham, at Paul’s Cross, on the occasion of the burning of the reformer’s writings in the churchyard (12 May, 1521), a discourse which was severely handled by William Tyndale.” The title of the Sermon says it was preached on Quinquagesima Sunday. This could not have been in May. Is the D. N. B. right, and, if so, does it refer to this or to another Sermon of Fisher’s against Luther? G. J. Gray. 319 ‘THE ATHEIST CONVERTED.’ THE FIRST BOOK PRINTED IN LINCOLN. Mone of the quaintest productions of the journeymen poets whose rhymes YZ in ballads or chap-books. The earliest known edition, a duodecimo of twelve pages, is also notable because, so far as has been ascertained, it is the first effort of the press in the city ot Lincoln, in whose Public Library a copy is preserved. As was then the fashion the title-page furnishes an ample bill of fare, and reads: ‘ The/Atheist / Converted/or/The Unbeliever’s / Eyes open’d. / Being / A full and true Account of one Mr. Wright, a Gentle-/man, living in the Island of Guernsey, who was/a profest Atheist, and would not suffer his children to go to/to Church, and how he was converted by his little/Daughter of ten Years of Age./The following is the text of his Funeral sermon preach’d/by the Rev. Dr. Dry. from Psalm the soth, Ver. 14./ 1 will teach thy ways to the Unjust, and the Wicked shall / be converted to thee. / Lincoln: / Printed and sold by W. Wood. /In the Year MDCCXLVIII.’ There is a copy of a much later edition in Harvard University Library, in which the preacher 320 *‘THE ATHEIST CONVERTED.’ has the less allegorical style of ‘The Rev. Dr. ones.’ The Lincoln booklet is a curiosity. In doggerel rhymes we are told that one Sunday as the con- gregations were returning from the services, * Unto her Father thus the child did say, Why dy (sic) these People go to Church I pray? Why will you not let me go in to see What they do there? I'd fain a Christian be. With threatening words the Father did reply, The moment you go there you sure shall die, Such superstitious Folly I disdain. For I know that all things by Nature came.’ The story is divided into six parts, and supplied with prose arguments. Thus: ‘Part Second. How the child being disturb’d in her Mind went wandering in the Fields, where seeing the Flowers springing, and the birds singing she consulted (sic) there must be a God, tho’ her Father told her to the contrary.’ Then an angel appears, and direéts her to go to a village where a pious family would care for her religious education. ‘Part Third. How this Child as she was read- ing the 27th of St. Matthew’s Gospel mediating (sic) on our Saviour’s Passion her Father came to her and tore the Book out of her Hand and beat her in a most cruel Manner, and turn’d her out of door. Part Four. How the Devil appeared to the Child, proffering her two purses of Guineas to curse her Father and take his Council, but the Child instead of accepting the golden Bate (sic), instanly fell down on her knees to pray. Part ‘THE ATHEIST CONVERTED.” 321 Fifth. Shewing how her Father confin’d her in a Garrat, allowed her nothing to live on but Bread and Water. Part Sixth. Shewing how the Ghost of the eldest son appeared to his Father, and declared to him the Torments of Hell.’ This Dantean vision affected Mr. Wright’s conversion, and ‘ None but the Child must his companion be, They spent their time in Prayer constantly ; In three Months time her Father sick then fell, And bid this sinful World indeed farewell. © Two thousand Pounds he left his Daughter fair, Who, tho’ she’s young in tender years, Is very charitable to the Poor, Her daily thirst is after heavenly store.’ So ends this remarkable ‘poem,’ which is decorated by seven woodcuts which, as usual in chap-books, seem to have little connection with the text they are supposed to illustrate. There is another edition, printed about 1790, in which some curious changes have been made in the title, which reads: ‘The Atheist converted; or the Unbeliever’s Eyes opened. Giving a full and true Account of one Mr. Wright, a gentleman at Liverpool in Lancashire, who was a professed Atheist, and would not let his children go to Church, told them all things came by Nature. How an angel appeared to his daughter about ten years of age, telling her to go to a family at the next village, who would instrué her in the Scriptures. How her father finds her in the garden with a little book in her hand at prayer, banish’d her from his house. She was sitting in a Grove. The devil came in human shape, Il. Y 322 *THE ATHEIST CONVERTED.’ tempting her to curse her Father, and he would give her a purse of Gold. How she resisted the temptation, and converted him to Christianity. Being proper to be had by all families. ‘Price one Penny: or given for Linen.’ It will be seen that Mr. Wright has removed his residence from the island of Guernsey to the populous and prosperous city of Liverpool.' There is a copy of the Liverpool story in the British Museum (Pressmark: 1075. 1. 25/4). Mr. Wright suffered a further translation and removal back to the Channel Islands, as will be seen by this entry of a Welsh version in the catalogue of the British Museum (Pressmark: 872. d. 52/3): ‘ Troeadigaeth yr Atheist, neu lygaid yr angrhedadyn wedi ei hagor. Gan roddi . . . hanes un Mr. Wright . . + yr hwn oedd yn bwy’n Nhref Guernsey . . . Trefriw (1820). 12° pp. 8.’ We may now leave ‘The Atheist Converted’ in the peaceful recesses of his island home. WititramM E. A. Axon. ' A notice of this edition appeared in the ‘Liverpool Daily Post,’ 17th April, 1911. 323 THE RED PRINTING IN THE 1611 BIBLE. P erapkene who care for an exact know- ledge of how the early printers worked, but, rash as it may seem to differ from so great an authority on practical printing, I venture to question whether he has not in certain respects been too much influenced by his familiarity with modern methods of work. Little seems to have been written about red printing in the seventeenth century, but there has been a certain amount of discussion of the methods followed at a somewhat earlier date, and there is now, I believe, little difference of opinion regarding them.' I wish to suggest that the printer of the 1611 Bible worked on exaétly the same lines as his predecessors. The usual process of printing in red and black ' At any rate as regards the second half of the sixteenth century, The process is described in Mr. Robert Steele’s ‘ Earliest English Music Printing,’ 1903, pp. 4-5. There is considerable doubt as to how some of the earliest printing in two or more colours was done; of. R, M. Burch, ‘ Colour Printing,’ 1910, pp. 4-6. 324 THE RED PRINTING during the sixteenth century seems to have been as follows:' 1. The printer set up and proved the whole forme, red and black together. 2. He then cut out a frisket so as to allow only the red to print.» The soft packing used in the tympan would drive the paper down sufficientl to allow it to reach the type through the holes in the frisket. 3 * Leaving out of account the possibility of the forme having sometimes been disse€ted according to the method most commonly employed now-a-days. It has been stated that this method was also used, but the evidence for it does not seem to be conclusive. Irregularities in the casting of the type and in the furniture would, one might suppose, have made it difficult to obtain perfect register from two formes, 2 A number of frisket sheets used in printing certain sixteenth century service-books were found some years ago by Mr. Robert Steele. I am indebted to Mr. R. A. Peddie for showing me one of them now in the Technical Library of the St. Bride’s Foundation. From their condition Mr. Steele infers that the printer inked the whole forme with red ink, not merely the im- mediate neighbourhood of the red words, as one might have supposed. The method seems wasteful of ink, besides being very messy, and one would have expected the ink to creep along the edges of the frisket holes and impress the outline of them on the paper, unless, indeed, ink was used which dried extremely quickly. More might perhaps be learnt from these frisket sheets if the work in the production of which they were used could be identified, Of a suggested alternative method—namely, inking through a similarly cut stencil or mask—I have seen no evidence, but as the inking was done by balls, it might have been a workable plan, and there would have been no difficulty in devising an attachment so that such a stencil could be quickly placed in position for each inking. ’ It may be remarked that the underlaying method described by Mr. Hart necessitates the paper being driven down at least as much, for otherwise how did the rules, etc., which were not underlayed, contrive to print? IN THE 1611 BIBLE. 325 3. The red having been printed, the forme was cleaned and the portions that had been printed in red were taken out, and the spaces left by them were filled with quads. The frisket was also removed. 4. What was left of the forme was then inked with black ink, and the sheets were run through again. The points of difference in the method described by Mr. Hart are: (1) That, according to him, the black was printed first ; (2) that underlays were used to bring up first the black and then the red above type height; (3) that the red portions remained in the forme throughout the whole process. To take these in their order. Whether the red or the black was printed first can often be determined by examination, for unless the register is quite perfect it will usually be found that here and there one ink is on the top of the other. In the case of many sixteenth century books it is quite clear that the black ink is on the top of the red, and that the red, therefore, must have been printed first.' I believe that if Mr. Hart will have another look at the 1611 Bible he will find that this is the case there also. In a copy which I have examined at the British Museum the black seems to be quite clearly on the top, and Dr. Greg tells me that the same is true of a copy which he has examined at Cambridge. ' I have not come across any book in which the black appears to have been printed first; but, of course, if a forme was’ to be principally in red, with only a few black words here and there, one would expeét the usual order to be reversed. 326 THE RED PRINTING That underlaying was not necessary may be seen by inspection of some of the folio Bibles printed by Barker towards the end of the sixteenth century.'. These have a woodcut border to the title and, at the end of the preliminary matter, a full-page woodcut of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Parts of both these woodcuts, such as the royal emblems and the hair of the putt in the corners of the title-page, and the faces of the lions, etc., in the Garden of Eden, are printed both in red and black. The slight error in register causes the red lines to appear alongside the black, pro- ducing a peculiar brown or bronze-like effect. In this case underlaying was obviously impossible, for the parts printed in red and black are on the same block as those printed in black alone, and, there- fore, cannot have been raised above the general level. Underlaying is a troublesome process, and if the printer could do without it in this case, why not in others? That the red portions were removed after the first printing seems to me to be deducible from a careful examination of the calendar of almost any red and black Bible of the time—including that of 1611. When horizontal rules print accidentally both in red and black, it will, I think, almost always be found that, on any one page, the red lines are either all above or all below the black ones, showing that the arrangement of the forme ' I may refer to the one dated 1591. This has the interesting peculiarity that in the heading of August in the calendar the month was first stated (in red) to have xxx. days. Im the black printing a j was printed over the full-stop of the xxx, IN THE 1611 BIBLE. 327 has not been disturbed vertically. In the case of vertical rules printing in both colours, however, we very frequently find that the red line appears sometimes to the right and sometimes to the left of the black one,' showing that there has been some lateral disturbance of the forme between the two printings. Now, surely, this is just what would happen if the red words or letters had been taken out, and the quads, or spaces, inserted to fill up the room of each had not exaétly done so?; and otherwise it seems difficult to account for. Further, the red portions seem never to be partially dupli- cated in black ink, as the black portions are in red. If they remained in the forme during the whole process it is not easy to understand this, especially as these red portions are generally surrounded by black, and the use of a frisket to prevent them from printing is therefore out of the question. R. B. McKerrow. ' Even when on any one page all the red lines appear on the same side of the black ones, the space between them will generally be found to vary considerably. 2 If, I mean, in filling up the spaces left by two or more red words in a line the printer had put rather too much in one space and too little in another, so that the intervening portions of the line were moved to left or right. Of course the teta/ amount inserted would have had to be equal to the total length of the words removed, 328 REVIEWS. The Golden-Latin Gospels in the Library of Ff. Pier- pont Morgan, formerly known as the Hamilton Gospels and sometimes as King Henry the VIII.’s Gospels. Now edited for the first time with critwal introduction and notes, and accompanied by four full-page facsimiles. By H. C. Hoskier. New York. Privately printed. 1910. Folio. pp. cxvt., 363. % for the Commission (presided over by Abbot Gasquet) for re-establishing the true text of S. Jerome’s translation of the Gospels, a fine manuscript now in the possession of Mr. J. P. Morgan. The manuscript is written in letters of gold on purple vellum, and was un- doubtedly prepared for presentation to some person of rank, or some other very special purpose. It belonged at one time to Henry VIII., but found its way into the Duke of Hamilton’s collection, was purchased with other Hamilton manuscripts en bloc by the German Government, resold and bought by Quaritch, who found a customer for it in an American collector, from whom it passed, like so many other fine books, to Mr. Morgan’s library. Mr. Hoskier’s collation is now printed with an elaborate introduction and four plates, two of them reproducing the purple and gold of the original. REVIEWS. 329 In his collation Mr. Hoskier has not confined himself to indicating how the Morgan manuscript differs from the Clementine text. He has collated also the texts, published or unpublished, of a number of other manuscripts of the Gospels, and has drawn up tables to show with which group of manuscripts that of Mr. Morgan agrees, and in respeét to which readings. As soon as collation is carried to this point the way is cleared for very fascinating, but at the same time very hazardous, inferences as to the history and genealogy of the manuscript according to the com- binations of different readings which it contains. The drawing of inferences from these combinations must be reckoned as hazardous, because every scribe who copied an existing text of the Gospels probably knew the Latin pretty well by heart in some text on which he had been brought up, and the extent to which the text which he had in his head may have caused him to modify the text which he was copying defies all calculation. The longer the pedigree which it is sought to assign to any manuscript the more these uncertainties must be multiplied by each other, so that the compilation of a genealogical tree, such as Mr. Hoskier bravely constructs, seems to us more interesting than convincing. Such small experi- ence as the present writer has gained in dealing with Chaucer texts has inspired him with a pro- found distrust of all genealogies. The earliest extant Chaucer manuscripts must date from only a very few years after the poet’s death, and yet they present problems which so far have defied 330 REVIEWS. solution. Of course scribes would approach the copying of the Gospels with much more reverence than Chaucer’s copyists, from Adam Scrivener downwards, seem to have felt for his verses. But what we may call their external or independent knowledge of the text would be much closer, and this, with the substitution of centuries for decades in the length of the pedigree, fills us with distrust. It is only fair to Mr. Hoskier to note that he repudiates the mechanical use of test passages ; nevertheless the pedigree in which he traces his manuscript to a ‘parent’ written under Graeco- Syriac influences about 200 A.D., and suggests, with approximate dates, the influences by which it was subsequently affected, seems to run far in advance of safe deduction. In another respect his introduction appears hardly likely to win assent. In a life of S. Wilfred, Arch- bishop of York (d. 709) there is an account of how he caused a manuscript to be written in letters of gold on purple vellum and gorgeously bound, and the theory had long ago been put forward by Wattenbach that these Hamilton-Morgan Gospels might be identified with this manuscript written by S. Wilfred’s order. The theory has not won acceptance, and Mr. Hoskier himself can hardly be said to support it whole-heartedly. Nevertheless, he has allowed himself to be fascinated by the pos- sibility. In this connection we must refer, also, to his startling contention that the manuscript was the work of some forty different scribes, ‘a whole monastery.’ That every brother in a monastery should be so skilled a calligrapher as to be entrusted REVIEWS. 331 with the task of writing on purple vellum in letters of gold is a large assumption; but the idea of a Gospel-book in which every brother had borne his part certainly catches the imagination. Had the book, indeed, really been so written, we may be pretty sure that S. Wilfred’s biographer would have told so edifying a tale. Mr. Hoskier was at one time inclined to account for this hypothetical division of labour by the rather prosaic theory that S. Wilfred wanted the manuscript in a hurry to take asa present to Rome, but he withdraws this suggestion in a footnote. The Hamilton-Morgan manuscript is undoubt- edly an important one. Mr. Hoskier appears to have made his collation with commendable care. His theories as to the pedigree of the manuscript, its date, and the manner in which it was written show pleasing enthusiasm. But they are certainly a little rash. Shakespeare Bibliography: a dictionary of every known issue of the writings of our national poet and of recorded opinion thereon in the English language. By William "faggard. With historical introduc- tion, facsimiles, portraits, and other illustrations. Stratford on Avon, at the Shakespeare Press, tv Sheep Street, MCMXI. pp. xxi.729. Price Three Guineas. How best to arrange the great mass of material which he has here brought together must have caused Mr. Jaggard much anxious thought, and 332 REVIEWS. there is not much profit to be gained from any elaborate demonstration of how and why we should have disposed it differently. Since the heading ‘Shakespeare’ occupies very nearly half the book, we should have preferred to see it raised to the dignity of a separate section; nor do we like the interruption of the sequence of Shakespeare’s plays by such entries as ‘Cupid’s Cabinet Unlockt,’ ‘Double Falsehood,’ ‘ Fifth of November,’ etc., nor the burial of useful Concordances and Glos- saries among elegant extraéts and ‘Tales from Shakespeare.’ Weare also sorry that Mr. Jaggard transliterates upper-case V in the middle of words by v instead of u, that he writes ‘ Shakespearean’ instead of ‘Shakespearian’ (why not Gladstonean, or Swinburnean ?), and that he has thought it con- sonant with the respect due to his subject to let off some very small squibs in order to annoy a dis- tinguished living scholar. Having satisfied our critical conscience with these remarks we are left free to express our admiration for an immensely laborious and immensely useful piece of work. If space and time were at our disposal, it would be easy to extract from Mr. Jaggard’s seven hundred and fifty closely printed pages a whole series of articles which only gross lack of skill could fail to make interesting. We might trace from them the growth of Shakespeare’s fame, compare the popu- larity of different plays, note the first appearance of the Shakespeare colleétor and the ever-increasing liberality of his bids, discourse on the various attempts to add to the ‘canon’ of Shakespeare’s plays as set forth in the Folio of 1623, and the REVIEWS. 333 small success with which they have met, or moralize on the vagaries of his critics, and the follies, forgeries, and frauds by which the mere fool, the conceited fool, and the dishonest fool have all tried to make their private profit out of his fame. A bibliography as thorough as this is inevitably a new starting-point as well as a record. The amount which has been written about Shakespeare is so vast that even the special student of any one section of it may be thankful for the guide here provided to what has been written on this, and the material which has to be reckoned with. The present writer is bound to confess, damaging as it may be, that he has learnt for the first time from Mr. Jaggard of the existence of seventeenth-century transcripts, preserved at Warwick Castle, of ‘ Julius Cesar,’ and the ‘ Merry Wives of Windsor,’ besides that of ‘ Henry IV.,’ published in the last volume of the old Shakespeare Society. A smaller piece of ignorance now relieved is that the British Museum copy of the first quarto of ‘ Hamlet’ was sold to a Dublin bookseller by an undergraduate at Trinity College for a shilling. The grass should not grow green on the grave of this bookseller, who knew what he was about, since he sold the book to Boone for £70, and might have given the lad a sovereign. A (to him) new fact of another kind which has caught the writer's eye is that Authority continued to look with disfavour on ‘King Richard II.’ long after the days of the Earl of Essex, Nahum. Tate’s version, though prepared under the name of ‘ The Sicilian Usurper,’ having been prohibited in 1681 under 334 REVIEWS. Charles II., and stopped after two representa- tions in 1691 under William III.! To produce ‘Richard II.’ as ‘The Sicilian Usurper’ indicated an ill conscience which almost invited prohibition, but Authority was clearly sensitive, as Cibber’s well-known version of ‘ King Richard III.’, which held the stage for a century in preference to Shakespeare’s, had for several years to be produced shorn of its first aét, lest the misfortunes of Henry VI. should arouse sympathy for the exiled King James. Other notes by Mr. Jaggard recall the struggle, about 1734, between Jacob Tonson, who claimed the copyright of Shakespeare’s Works, and ‘R. Walker and his accomplices,’ who infringed it, and maintained that their editions followed ‘ the copies made use of at the theatre,’ whereupon Tonson procured and printed a statement from the prompter at Drury Lane that ‘no person ever had, direétly or indirectly, from me any such copy or copies, neither would I be accessory on any account to imposing on the publick such useless, pirated, and maimed editions.” This notice occurs in an edition of the ‘Comedies of Errors,’ and in the same year we find Tonson publishing the ‘ Merry Wives of Windsor’ at a penny to undersell Walker, who was offering it for fourpence. But we are beginning to pick out plums from Mr. Jaggard’s pudding, and though the plums are plentiful enough to bear much sampling, an earlier remark about space and time forbids us to continue. Doubtless Mr. Jaggard’s bibliography might have been better if he had done various things differently ; but only REVIEWS. 335 pedantry will stint its recognition of the service which he has rendered to the study of Shakespeare. A. W. P. Tables Générales des Cinquante premitres Années de la Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1859-1908. Par Charles Du Bus. Tome I. Table des Articles. Imp. 8v0, 172 pp. 1910. It is indeed a worthy enterprise on the part of the publishers to endeavour to make available the vast amount of valuable material to be found in the long series of volumes of the ‘Gazette des Beaux Arts,’ and there can be nothing but praise for the industry and accuracy (as far as it has been tested) displayed in the compilation of the index named above. Besides gratitude, however, another feeling obtrudes itself on the mind of the librarian using the volume—namely, doubt whether the best means have been adopted for the end in view, quick, ready, and complete reference to any matter required. It may be worth while to examine its structure more closely in order to find out where lies the weakness of this type of index. The bulk of the volume consists of a classified list of the articles which have appeared in the ‘Gazette’ down to 1908, the entries being numbered consecutively. The list is divided primarily into two sections— ‘art’ and the ‘arts’—and further divided into various seétions, themselves subdivided chrono- logically and topographically. The classification 336 REVIEWS. itself is adequate enough, but is necessarily not such as can be carried in the head—and there is no alphabetical index to it, only a synopsis of the headings. It follows that in tracking down an article, the subject only of which is known, it may be necessary to glance through the whole synopsis and try several possible headings before the right one is hit on. The classified section is followed by no fewer than four separate alphabetical indexes: (1) of authors and writers (including titles of anonymous or colleétive publications); (2) of artists; (3) of places, towns, museums, sales, colle¢ctions, colleétors, patrons, and generally all names evoking the idea of the localization of works of art; (4) of subjects, titles of works, and matters not coming under the preceding categories. This last index does not include the subjeét headings of the various se¢tions of the classified part, e.g. there is nothing under ‘ Architeéture,’ ‘Ivoires.’ It is a distinét loss of time and effort to have to think in which of these four indexes to look upa given name. For example, if one were trying to find an article on Moliére’s coat of arms, one might not turn at once to the first index, which is chiefly confined to writers of articles in the ‘Gazette’; or for references to De Goncourt to the Topographical Index (No. 3). The idea of an index in the form of a classified and numbered series of titles is a good one in itself, and it only needs the addition of a single, amplified name and subject index to become a handy biblio- graphical tool. W. R. B. P. A tem eae sites hy re - nat ot ‘sooxsarinks BY seroorined: T¢: BM. THE RIG pete ; 390 OXFORD. STREET, LONDON, w Special. Department Geroria Fioar) for, Old’ Books, First Editions of Popular Literature, Best Library Editions, ot Standard Worx, etc. Re = iz ed Also (rinse Hioor for the Eanibition and Sale of Bain Standard: and Popiilar Literatere, Handsomtly. Bound nay Morocco, Cals, et afl ‘executed by able and experienced :: workmen: > ; , Posabiniog in all its branches. i ae Libraries Puevibhess, Catatogued’ and Arranged "MESSRS. ELLIS Dealers in OLD and. RARE BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS. and ENORAVINGS 2 NEW BOND STREET, LONDON, W, (Busiticss established by John: Brindley tna: 1728} J LIBRARIES: ‘arranged and ¢alalogued ; “5 or suialt collections of > Saree BY AvCT al} ‘desert: "OF tak - : : VELIG ca 4 ioe ee rivogues ae ae rurcbases tyept yeaa inspection of Bisa - oe ee A eh} a. ot Pas }- ay & ne THE LIBRARY. A QUARTERLY REVIEW. EDITED BY J. Y. W. MacAussrsr and A. W. Pottaarp. Advisory Committee: Joun Bariincer, G. F. Barwicx, Kowrap Burcer, Metvit Dewsy, W. W. Grec, Roserr Sreere, H. B. Wueatier, J. Dover Witson, T. J. Wise. CONTENTS. Camsripce Fracments; by Cuarzes Sayie ‘Tur Autocrat’ as Boox- -Lover; by W. E. A. Axon Tur Earty Humanists or Exsass; by S. H. Scorr Ax Orv Dusuix Srationsr’s Witt ann Inventory; by E. R. McC. Dix Tus Cuurcn or St. Macnus anv THe Booxseuiers or Lonpox Brivce; by Henry R. Promer , Tue So-cattep Gutenserc Documents; by J. H. Hesssis. Recent Forgicw Lirerature; by Exizaseru Lee Reviews ; ” A. W. P. : Inpex Ss DUSTLESS LIBRARIES. 339 For the effective LAYING of DUST and DIRT, not only during each sweeping, but throughout all the intervening periods—which is of greater hygienic importance, USE the unequalled ODOURLESS, or powerful GERMICIDAL (A Regd. Name suggested by : Floor—Hygiene) ened On all Library, Museum, etc., Floors and Linoleums of every description. “Florigene ” is a great labour-saver, as each application lays the dust for two to twelve months, according to wear. No Scrubbing (unless preferred) or Sprinkling of any kind—the ordinary daily dry sweeping alone required. “Florigene” is an aid to the Prevention of Throat and other Diseases, and has been awarded the BRONZE MEDAL of the ROYAL SANITARY INSTITUTE. aan well-known Medical Officers have jointly ed on the advantages “ Florigene "—as the result of bacteriological experiments—as follows : 1. Economy of labour in cleaning the room. 2. Prevention of the rising of dust once deposited ; hence a healthier atmosphere for breathing. They also favour its more general adoption. Send for particulars, Medical Reports and Testimonials to the Sole Manufacturers— “ DUST-ALLAYER” co. 165, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C. CONTRACTORS to the ADMIRALTY, H.W. OFFICE of WORKS, WAR OFFICE, etc. i e IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO LIBRARIANSHIP. .... LIBRACO LIMITED beg to announce the early publication of an im- portant new work by Mr. James Duff Brown, Librarian of Islington, entitled MANUAL OF LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION AND CATALOGUING This work which is urgently needed in view of the fact that the text books on these two subjects are out-of print, has been prepared to cover every aspect of classification and cataloguing in the clear and concise manner which characterises the writings of the author. The theoretical, historical and practical sides of both subjects will be adequately dealt with, and a series of facsimile pages of all the world’s great catalogues will render the book indispensable to everyone connected with libraries. In addition to the code of rules for cataloguing which the author supplies, a complete digest of the Anglo-American International Code of Rules will be included by special permission of the Council of the Library Association. The book will be well illustrated and will be provided with bibliographies and other appendices of value to students. About 280 pp. 72 Facsimiles & Illustrations. Demy 8vo, Cloth. 7s. 6d. post free. Orders should be sent at once to :— LIBRACO LIMITED, 60, Wilson Street, Finsbury Square, E.C. one GE anane 95, Bridge Street, Deansgate, Manchester. li THE DE LA MORE PRESS SECOND EDITION—REVISED Burma: a Handbook of Practical, Commercial, Political Information By Sir J. Gzorce Scorr, K.C.L.E. (“Shway Yoe”), author of “ The Burman : His Life and Notions.” Special cover design, with many illustrations and map, appendices on the Shan States, and other subjects. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10/6 net. “ Unassuming in appearance, yet packed full of the most practically valu- able material, Sir J. George Scott’s Handbook must take at once an impor- tant place among works of reference dealing with the Indian Empire. .. . The volume is altogether thoroughly business-like and highly informing. Photographs form a valuable accessory, and the appendices contain much useful statistical and other material.” —Glasgow Herald. “The present work . .. is to be recommended . . . for the accuracy, completeness, and careful arrangement of its information, although there are flashes here and there of the power of graphic description that made the author’s earlier works, under the pseudonym of “ Shway Yoe,” conspicuous.” — Athenaeum. Hypnotism : Its History, Practice, and Theory By J. Mitne Bramwewt, M.B.,C.M. Demy 8vo, cloth 18)- net. The chief aim of this monograph is to draw the attention of medical men to the therapeutic value of hypnotism. The author has devoted the last twelve years to hypnotic practice and research, and his personal observation of the practical work done in France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, and Belgium, should also make the volume a valuable addition to the science of a subject which is exciting much interest at the present time. The historical part of the book contains much important and little-known matter regarding the work of Elliot- son,’ Esdaile,and Braid. ‘The methods of inducing hypnosis are exhaustively dealt with, and full instructions are given as to the management of the hypnotic state, together with details regard- ing the causes which influence susceptibility to hypnosis. Many interesting hypnotic experiments are recorded, as well as numerous cases illustrative of surgical and medical uses of hypnotism. Hypnotic theories are outlined and discussed, and much attention is devoted to the question of the existence of a subliminal or secondary consciousness. ALEXANDER MORING LTD., 32 GEORGE ST., HANOVER SQ., W. iii PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENGLISH GOETHE SOCIETY NO. XI. Goethe in England & America Bibliography by Eucenz Oswatp, M.A., Ph.D., secretary to the Society. Second Edition, revised and enlarged by L. and E. Oswald. Demy 8vo, wrappered, vi. and 75 pp-, dj- net. NO. XII. Schillers Freundschaft mit Goethe Vortrag gehalten in der ,, English Goethe Society“ zur Feier von Schillers 150. Geburtstage, von H. G. Figpier, Taylorian Professor der deutschen Sprache und Literatur an der Universitat Oxford. Demy 8vo, 2/6 net. THE DE LA MORE PRESS, 32 GEORGE ST., HANOVER SQ., W. DELICIOUS COFFEE. PURE HIGHLAND MALT RED PEATMOOR WHITE WHISKY. GUARANTEED 12 YEARS OLD « BLUE ron For Breakfast & after Dinner. HANSON'S, London, Eng. iv And II.