Third Series, 
No. 8, Vor. Il. Ocroser, 1911. 


THE LIBRARY. 
CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


Ke ae 2 N the afternoon of May 23rd, 1911, 
the Master of Christ’s sent me a 
message asking if I could call on him. 

7#. When I arrived he told me that in 
BA the work of restoration at the Lodge 
the workmen had found the original beams of the 
ceiling of the entrance hall, covered by a paper 
with a black and white design, on the other side 
of which there appeared to be some early printing. 
The Lodge had been ‘completed or nearly so’' by 
the end of 1509, so that I was prepared for 
anything. We were not able to go to the Lodge 
until after six o’clock, when the workmen had 
gone, and when we opened the door we found that 
all the paper, or nearly all, had been cleared away. 

It is easier to imagine than to describe our feel- 

ings; but luckily we soon found that Mr. Kett, 

who is carrying out the restorations, had very 
carefully preserved every fragment which had been 


* See Willis & Clark’s ‘ Archite€tural History of the University 
of Cambridge,’ Vol. ii, p. 200. 














340 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


removed. It was important to recover the pattern 
of the design, for which it would be necessary to 
employ a careful draughtsman, and Mr. Edwin 
Wilson undertook the task. The equally delicate 
operation of removing the more recalcitrant 
fragments on the beams was entrusted to Mr. 
A. Baldrey, of the University Library. On the 
following day it appeared that not only the beams 
of the hall, but those of the dining-room also, 
had been covered with this stamped paper; and 
eventually every scrap that could be saved was 
carried off into safe custody at the University 
Library. The design appeared to be printed from 
a wood-block, and on the verso was English black 
letter printing of the type, apparently, of Wynkyn 
de Worde or Pynson. 

One of the first fragments which we looked at 
contained a poem on the death of Henry the 
Seventh, the son of the Lady Margaret who had 
founded the college and died in the same year of 
1509; and very soon we found that on the recto of 
a great mass of the paper, on the side which had 
been affixed to the beams, was a proclamation 
announcing the accession of King Henry the 
Eighth. We found also fragments of another 
proclamation, and of an Indulgence. Incidentally 
we may remind ourselves that Lady Margaret 
was ‘a valuable and early patron to Caxton and 
Wynkyn de Worde, who undertook the com- 
position and printing of several books at her 
special desire and command,’ and that Wynkyn 
de Worde in this very year styled himself ‘ Printer 
unto the most excellent princess my lady the 








CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 34! 


King’s Grandame.’' All this can be found in the 
Diétionary of National Biography. 

But discoveries were not yet at an end. A day 
or two later, in searching under the boards of the 
floor of the Lady Margaret’s bedroom, which is 
over the dining-room, and under the boards of an 
adjoining room, the workmen found the mummi- 
fied remains of four rats,» which had taken to 
themselves coverings or shrouds; and upon in- 
vestigation these proved to consist of a vellum 
deed relating to the College, some paper docu- 
ments relating to Thomas Thompson, who was 
Master of the College from 1510 to 1517, and 
some fragments of printed matter which turned 
out to be part of an early Virgil; four leaves of a 
Horace; two leaves of a primer of Wynkyn de 





' Mr. Pollard reminds me, on the other hand, that Pynson was 
appointed Royal Printer in 1508, ‘and was thus the only man 
who could print Proclamations.’ 

* The Master of Christ’s sends me the following note on the 
four mummified rats: Under the floor boards, and between them 
and the ground-floor ceiling, were found four specimens of 
mummified rats. These were very well preserved, even to the 
tips of their tails. Various anatomical points showed quite clearly 
that these animals belonged to the species AZus rattus—the black 
rat—which is of slenderer build than the now common Norwegian 
rat Mus Decumanus, which only reached our shores two centuries 
later, has larger ears and a longer tail. These specimens were 
dried up, with the skin still covering the bones, except in places. 
According to Helm, this rat was not known in Europe till the 
‘Vélkerwanderung.’ There is no word for ‘rat’ in the Welsh 
language. Bell* states that this rat was unknown in our country 
before the middle of the sixteenth century; at least, he says, no 
author more ancient than that period has described, or even 
alluded to it as being in Great Britain, Gesner being the first to 


do so. 


* ‘A History of British Quadrupeds,’ znd ed. London, 1874. 








342 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


Worde; and finally a leaf by Caxton. In addition 
two or three playing cards of the seventeenth 
century were found, and scraps of a child’s book, 
printed early in the nineteenth century, which had 
been pasted on to a piece of thick paper. 

Such briefly was the nature of the find, and I 
believe that it is of sufficient interest to set out an 
account of each of these objects in detail. First, 
it must be understood that it was quite out of the 
question to leave the paper in position. The 
paper had perished where it had not been covered 
by the ink; and it was owing no doubt to some 
quality of the pigment, oily or otherwise, that 
anything was still left. The design was appar- 
ently printed from a single wood-block, measuring 
16 by 11 inches, and consisted of a conventional 
pine-cone centre surrounded by strap-work and 
flying birds. In the middle of the border of the 
long sides is the mark of the artist, a Lombardic 
*‘H’ on the left, and a bird, facing to the speéta- 
tor’s right, on the right. The design is Venetian 
in charaéter,' but who is the artist? I turned to 
Sir Sidney Colvin’s monumental ‘Early Engraving 
and Engravers in England,’ and almost the first 
name which met my eye (Introduction, p. 5) was 
the insidiously suggestive one of Hieronymus Cock 
(1510-70), ‘printseller-engraver,’ of Antwerp. 


A print seller-engraver like Hieronymus Cock, one of 
the earliest and most active of his tribe, received into his 
workshop instructors from Italy, sent pupils of his own 


«Mr. T. D. Barlow thinks that it is an imitation of the 
Venetian designs for stamped leather, which were copied from 
the Persian. 





es 











CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 343 


out to work there in return, and carried on an interna- 
tional commerce in engravings more extensive perhaps 
than any which has existed since.' 


Sir Sidney Colvin gives reproductions of speci- 
mens of the work of what I take to be another 
member of the same family, Pieter Koeck, of Alost 
(1502-50), and as to both of these men informa- 
tion may be found in Bryan’s ‘Di¢tionary of 
Printers and Engravers.’ There is a suspiciously 
fascinating trend in the direétion of an artist of 
the name of Cock, though this may be fatally 
misleading. Is it possible that the designer may 
have been an earlier member of the family? It is, 
moreover, well to remember that the date of the 
wood-block has not yet been ascertained. Sir 
Sidney Colvin himself, who has been consulted, 
suggests? a second theory. He thinks the block 
was made for stamping velvet, of which trace may 
be found at Lyons or elsewhere; that the mark 
is probably a marque de fabrique; and that the im- 
pressions on paper were sent round asa pattern. It 
is not easy, however, to see how this view is consistent 
with the fact that the impressions were printed on 
the back of English broadsides and regularly affixed 
in a prominent position in a building of so much 
importance. It is possible to claim that we have 
here the earliest known example of paper with a 
stamped design, in use for a decorative purpose 
in England. The earlier custom was to use a 
stencilled pattern on the surface itself, and Mr. T. G. 
Jackson has found an example at St. Cross, near 


' Op. cit. ? In litt., July 18th, 1911. 








































344 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


Winchester, as the work of Cardinal Beaufort 
about 1500." Dr. W. Morley Fletcher, who has 
paid particular attention to the history of interior 
arrangements in Cambridge at Trinity College, has 
found similar designs on the plaster, in the late 
sixteenth century. He has found no trace of 


paper.’ 

We come now to the second object of enquiry— 
namely, the printed matter upon the reéto of the 
paper. Very early came the welcome date, ‘the 
x day of Aprille the furste yere of our raigne’; and 
a reference to Lord Crawford’s new volume of 
Tudor and Stuart Proclamations showed us that 
we had a copy of ‘Steele No. 53° (as I propose to 
call it), hitherto not found in print, but of which 
four manuscript copies are preserved in the Record 


‘ In litt. to the Master of Christ’s, July 20th, 1911. Mr. 
Jackson adds that wall papers came in with Queen Anne. 

* He has given me the following extraét on room decoration in 
May, 1577: (From Lansdowne MSS. 25, f. 46 [quoted in 
‘Lives and Letters of the Devereux, Earls of Essex,’ by W. B. 
Devereux. London, 1853. Appendix D, p. 489, Vol. ii.]}). 
Among the parcels which Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl, bought at 
his entrance to his chambers at Trinity College, Cambridge, were, 
inter alia: 20 yards of new green broad serges, {2 16s.; 40 foot 
of quarters under the hangings, 2s.; new hangings in the study of 
painted cloth, 16s.; for painting both chamber and study overhead, 
5s.; Shelves in the study, 2s. 6d. And again: Painted cloths in 
the chamber and painting in the bed-chamber, {1 18s. 4d.; a 
great green cloth curtain in the chamber window, 6s.; a piece of 
new painted cloth in the chamber, 3s.; for painting the study, 6d. ; 
for a green cloth in the study window, 2s.; etc., etc. 

3 ‘Bibliotheca Lindesiana,’ Vol. v. A Bibliography of Royal 
Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns and of others 
published under authority, 1485-1714, with an historical essay 
on their origin and use, by Robert Steele. 2 Vols. Oxford, 
1910. 

















CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 345 


Office. The fragments were so brittle or decayed 
that immediate steps were taken to place them 
between glass, and in the process we found that 
we had the remains of no fewer than eight copies 
of this Proclamation. At the head are two cuts— 
one of the royal arms supported by angels, which 
also occurs in ‘Steele 54’; the other of the King 
and Council, at present not identified in any other 
book. Then we found that fragments belonged 
to another edition of the same Proclamation, more 
elaborately printed, with a woodcut ribbon at the 
top reading ‘The Newe Proclamation,’ with side 
ornaments, line endings, and another ribbon at the 
foot with the words ‘God save the Kynge.’ But 
with all these numerous copies it was still im- 
possible to reconstruct the complete text, and 
therefore impossible to fit in the unidentified frag- 
ments of this huge jig-saw puzzle. So I wrote to 
Mr. C. Hilary Jenkinson, of the Record Office, 
who, in collaboration with his wife, furnished us 
in a few days with a copy of the only known text. 
It appeared in the process that all the four manu- 
script copies there preserved differed verbally from 
one another, and further that our printed text 
contained a whole paragraph (lines 29-36) which 
is not in the manuscript. It is, therefore, worth 
while to reprint the whole Proclamation as now 
recovered, reconstructed from these fragments. 

If we take the plain printed copy as representing 
Edition A, Edition B may be identified by its 


' The cut is similar in charaéter to those in ‘The Destruction 
of Jerusalem’ [printed by Pynson]. ‘This book also contains the 
florets alluded to in the text. 





346 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


reading ‘mysteryes and ocupacyons’ in the last line 
but one, and ‘Kynge’ in the ribbon. 


We come now to the next fragment, that of the 
Proclamation of Pardon for all crimes committed 
before April 24th, 1509, of which the only copy 
previously known is in our University Library 
at Cambridge, and catalogued by Mr. Steele as 
No. 54. But again the new fragments are of 
another edition, and they are further useful as 
containing part of line 21, ‘@ Intrusyons / and 
entries in to the Temporaltyes of Archebusshopes / 
Busshoppes / Abbotes / Priours &,’ which is miss- 
ing in the edition in the library. This contains, 
as I have said, the cut of the royal arms at top, 
as in our newly-found Steele 53. The new edition 
of No. 54 starts with a large calligraphic initial, 
but of this very little remains.’ 

We may now pass to the poem on the death of 
Henry the Seventh. At the head are the royal 
arms of England and France, and below are two 
florets, which are so familiar in English printing 
of this date. There are four fragments altogether, 
the first containing the arms and florets and the 
beginnings of five lines. The other three preserve 
a substantial part of five and a half seven-line 
stanzas, and these are here printed in full, with a 
promise from the Editor that space shall be found 
in a future number to print any reasonable attempt 
to complete the mutilated lines. 


SS 


=, 








' I hope to be permitted to print the remaining text of this 
edition of the second Proclamation in the forthcoming number of 
the Christ’s College Magazine. 











—_ = 


oh Ayng Our souu/erain L jord F 
\J Name the . VIII [doeth you] t[o] und indfre}stan(d tha that 
god pdone of his [blessed dis]posicion And for the sue 
ted . to alle & euery of th[eym] A generall pdoii of Mi 
sanc’ & many other offensys d[oon and comytted] before y* 
q The King our souuerain lord that [now is] Kyng Henry the 
said Fader expired annétised and of noi effecte his grace for tl 
in good quietnesse of Mynde and oute of all doubt and fear to 
y offenc’ doon or comitted in the King his fadres daies or byfo 
good hart hath geuen & graunted to all his said subject of wha 
trespaces outlawries /forfacturies [and all other matters deptes 
neficiall then was the said pdonne [graunted by the King hi]s 
seal at any tyme that they shall list to sue for it to his Chaunce 
g Also our said souuerain lord comaiideth & ordeigneth that 
be shiref or Justic’ of y* peax within this Shire they all tosedl 
haue spe[cial] regarde: to the keping of the Kinges peax putty 
seruing of the same. And if any thing fortune to be attépted by 
mocon of his peple that then & in that case the said shiref & J 
represse & subdue the same & to comitte alle [suche] Misdoe 
prise till our said souuerain lord be thereof [adv ]tised . & his 4 
souuerain lordys comaundemét his highness wol that if the cas¢ 
the said shirif and Justices by the warnyng & calling of the said 
ofte & whasoeii it shalbe thought good to deuise treate comeii ¢ 
rain lordys comaundement & that they & euery of them [lay] 
thert rue diligéce in aboutes the pmisses(as] if they & euery of 
in the lif of the Kingz [said Fa]der : & as they wol diserue to } 
euery of theym for his meee, wol aunswere unto our said sq 
may be doon that shall send [h]is comissions. Wherby they 
q And ouer this our souuerrain lord wolleth & estroictly charge 
soeii he be for any occcasion cause or quarell of tyme passed r¢ 
owne hand : but that euery psonne Kepe the Kinges peax euer 
full assembles or co[mot]ions making of the Kinges peple whe 
most pille & payne that may ther upon ensue . And euery Ma 
lawe or to the Kinges grace : & his Coiisaill by bille of cdplayn 


q And ouer this our said souerain lord of his more habidaiit g 
of Englad the Justices of both his Benchis / the Tresorers / & 
Shirefs Maiers Escheatours and alle other his officers & minist 
a) doo / & execute their offices frely rightuously and indefere 
equitie & discrecon As wel ouer his highnes is thone ptie as al 
asour of our said souuerain lord nor for his lfes if it shall fortu 
nor for no speche wrytyng Monic6n or charge to be geuen to ¢ 
And inlikewise that non of his Subgietz forbeer no[r m]ake no 
highnes wol expresly & estraictly [charg]eth and comaundeth 
such trauerses : but also grau[nt] the fermes. Where the case § 
q Also his highnes for the auauncemét of the comen wele [of . 
of Marchaiitz denysens & straungers / clothiers / Artificers Ie fq 


ctés misteries occupacons craftes & marchaiidises frely oo Fate 


untrew iformacén or wrong surmyse of Custumiers Compj|troll¢ 
ason of any statute or ordenaunces made of long tyme past and 
shall puide for thereform [the reform]acion of the greate extre 
me past so that they shall [ ] mowe frely quietly & suerly 





race of God King of England] and of France/ and [Lord o 
i that for as moche as the King hi]s Fadre of moost noble [me 
e suertie and comfute of his louyng subgictis in his lyftyme ga 
of Misprisons felonyes trespases forfaytures outlawries certein 
y*. x. day of Aprillé last passed as more [p]laynly appereth b 
y the . VIII. césidering that the said pdone is by the deth of his 
for the teder zele / and entier loue that he bereth to his subgie 
par to be troubled or vexed in their bodies or goodys by hym o 
’ byfore the furste day of his Reigne of his Speciale grace Mereq 
f what estate codicdn or degre soeii they be A generall pdonne 
eptes & accomptes oonly excepted which is] more ample gracic 
hi]s said Fader euery of his subgietes . to haue his said pdonn 
auncellor of England 
at i such perso]nes as were auctorised by the King his Fade 
ped|er for t]he whole shire & euery of them apte in the quarter 
puttyng themself [to the b]est of their powers in full deuoir: ¢ 
ed by any misruled psofie or psones . to the breche of the King 
f & Justic’ and euery of the[y]m in their quarters put forthwith 
isdoers to warde withi[n the] next gaole ther to remaigne witha 
t his pleasur knoweii [in that beh Jalf & for the better acdplish 
he case soo require [& that it be] thought good expediét soo to 
e said shirif omits the ]mself togeders in some couenient p 
meii and coclude [for] the bett’ pformance & execucon of this 
lay] apart alle other busynesse for the season & geue their atte 
ery of theym stode at this tyme in suche auctorite cdm[ission & 
e to be [put] herafter to [semlable] auctorite & as they all to[ 
said souuerain lord at their pilles . & our said souuerain lord as 
they may be mor parfietly auctorised for the executing of the pj 
hargeth & comaiideth that no maii of pson what estate or condi 
psed reuenge his owne or any other psdnes cause by way of faite 
euery of them agenst other without any riotte affraies quarelle 
> wherby his peax may by in Any maner wise broké or trobled 
y Man that fyndeth hym greuyd and wronged sue for his remed 
jplaynt & they shal have Justice mistred with resonable spede & 


aiit grace woll & straitly chargeth & comaiideth that his said C 
s / & Barons of his Eschequier the Justices of Assises the Justic 
ministres of Justice from hésforth do / & ministre Justice / & in e 
deferently to euery of his [s]ubgiettys aftre the lawes of his [la 
p as also twixt ptie and ptie not letting so to doo neyther for fear 
fortune any suche [to be written to them in tyme to come to t 
en to any of th[em to the contrarie by any of his counsaill whats 
ke no [doubte nor difficultie in all causes leful to make them tr4 
ndeth his said Chaii[cellor Tresorer & Barons that they not onl 
case shall re[ quire according to the old true course of nts lawé 
of . his Royne and the universal wele and profitt of his] subg 
she folkes of almaner of misteries and occupacons do] exercisz 
[ietly & peasibly & without fear of forfeiture by reason] of any 
p[trollers or serchers or of any psones calling themself promoters 
ast and neuer put in u[se or execucon] till now [of late tyme . A 
extremitie & rigour wherewith his said subgietz haue be greafo 
erly without fere of any such wronges herafter occupie th{er fa 








to his subgiettis & to put them 
ys by hym or his officers by an 
le grace Meremocon frewill and 
erall pdonne of almaii offéces 
e ample gracioux & be= 

is said pdonne undre his great 


King his Fader Comissojis to 
in the quarter where they dwell 
full deuoir: & diligéce for the ob 
e of the Kinges peax or the cd 
put forthwith in their lyke deuoir to 
emaigne without bayle or Many= 
etter acoplishmét of this our said 
pediét soo to be done : that then 
e couenient place . or places as 
pcucon of this oure said souue 
peue their attendauncs and to do 
P com[ission & p]ower as they did 
as they all to[ geder] for the hole shire & 
uerain lord as sone as goodly 
uting of the premises. 
estate or condicion 
by way of faite of his 
raies quarelles unle 
ké or trobled upon the utter= 
> for his remedie at the com 
bnable spede & lawful fauour 


hat his said Chaiicellour 

bises the Justices of the peax 
ustice / & in euery cause / & 

nwes of his [land] good cdscience 
eyther for fear nor disple 

p to come to the c ]étrarie 
ounsaill whatsoeuer] he be 
make them trauerses]| For his 

t they not only sit} 

se of hi]s lawes 

t of hie} subgiet[s wol that almaner} 


s do] exercisz & oc[cupy ther fa] 

eason] of any [light and] 

self promoters or by re-] 

late tyme . And his Grace] 

aue be greafously vexed & troubled in ty-] 
cupie thfer faites of march]Jaundi 





CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


FRAGMENTS 2 AND 3. 


To wryte all his no 
But Englonde may say 
He hath do 

Iw 


But cryst on hym haue 
His subjet I was / and his bedeman shal dye 
Our est his son noble Seventh Henry 


O pang sed is my herte 
With th of mo a _ absence 
Ponder Kynge whiche lately did departe 
For all as of hym dyde seke prudence 
In sage sapyence 
A dyde afore 

my herte sore. 


tendre youth of our Kynge his sone 
that god hath hym lente 
more vertuously hath begone 
th all thynges conuenyente 
lyfe / may say that god hath lente 
wronge and to mayntayne the ryghte 
ral Kynge & goddes faythful K[nyghte] 


undesyr and his uncle a Kyoge 


oncle / whiche as a Kynges broder 
Kynge his fader of te dep cy 
was a quene and a queene was his mo[der] 
/ and a quene shall be the other 
natural souerayne lorde and Kynge 


to lou de a boue all lyuynge thyge 





348 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


FRAGMENT 4. 


For lyuynge thou [wert] called one of the worthy 
And now for all this [ther is] no remedye but deed 
Thy softe body lyeth / all [wra]pped in leed 


Golde suffyseth not to contente thy mynde 

For his honourable and precyous pure body 
Comen of no grosse blod but of gentyl kynde 

As ensample in his persone he shewed dayly 
Takynge his unde with liberte so demurely 
And his virtue and many other to wryte and rede 


No remedy [ ] out pray / for he lyeth dede. 


I may remark that fragment No. 2 was one of 
the first to come to light, and it gave us the only 
example of the Caxton ‘I’ (in line 4) which was 
found. While it was satisfactory thus early to 
have evidence of Wynkyn de Worde’s work, the 
‘malice of inanimate objects,’ to use Mr. J. W. 
Clark’s phrase, could hardly be better illustrated. 
I had expected to find this poem in Stephen Hawes’ 
‘Joyfull medytacyon to all Englonde of the corona- 
cyon of our moost naturall Souerayne lorde Kynge 
Henry the eyght,’ Wynkyn de Worde, 1509, 4°, 
the only known copy of which is in the Cambridge 
University Library. The two poems are in the 
same metre, and it is difficult not to hazard a 
guess as to the author of the newly-found lines. 
But at present we must be content to wait. 

Mr. Strickland Gibson, of the Bodleian Library, 
has drawn my attention to a similar fragment of 
an elegy of Henry the Seventh among the Douce 
fragments (e. 20) there. ‘It is a small folio single 





cee 








RENT 


a a 











CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 349 


sheet,’ he writes, ‘printed on the back in quarto. 
Probably it was a proof.’ At the head are these 
cuts: (1) royal arms, as in our fragment, (2) the 
King lying dead, (3) Tudor rose crowned. These 
are separated from each other by apparently the 
same florets. The text, so far as it remains, has 
been printed by Dyce in an Appendix to his 
Edition of Skelton, Vol. ii, pp. 399 sg. In the first 
four stanzas the beginnings of every line have been 
cut off, but the next three stanzas are inta¢t, and 
of these the last may be quoted for comparison : 


And nowe for conclysyon about his *herse 
Let this be grauyd for endeless memorye 
With sorowfull tunes of Thesyphenes verse : 
Here lyeth the puyssaunt and myghty henry 
Hedétor in batayle, Ulyxes in polecy 

Salamon in wysdome, the noble rose rede, 
Creses in rychess, Julyus in glory, 

Henry the Seventh ingraued here lyeth dede. 


We may next turn to another broadside, the 
Indulgence. This contains the Della Rovere arms 
at the top, obviously those of Julius II. (1503-13). 
The fragment consists of a mere strip off the left- 
hand side, and the only other ornaments are two 
grotesque initial letters, such as were used by 
Wynkyn de Worde. No other example is 
known of the use in English of the arms of 
Julius the Second in contemporary printing. 


' To aid identification it may be noted that the following words 
come under each other in the lines 2-10 of the strip: prycypall : 
synger : kes y® sp: Lest th : where : bre of : to saye: der the s: 
of mon, 














350 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


Mr. Wordsworth’s list of Indulgences preserved 
in Yorkshire offers no clue.' 

We now come to the funeral piles of the rats. 
As if we had not had fresh fragments enough, it 
next appeared that the two leaves of the long 
duodecimo Primer, also in Wynkyn de Worde’s 
type, probably belonged to an unregistered edition. 
Only three editions are at present known, and all 
these only from single copies. The new fragment 
agrees neither with the copy in the University 
Library [Hoskins 46], nor with that in Clare 
College Library [Hoskins 44], and the third 
only known edition, in the British Museum, Mr. 
Pollard tells me, wants the part of the volume 
containing these leaves. It is worth while, there- 
fore, to put these also on record. The leayes are 
without signature, but the text of them occurs on 
signature bs and 6 in the edition in the University 
Library, and contains the Benedicite, the Bene- 
diétus, and other psalms. I give the first and last 
words of each page. 


bsa bs b6a b6b 
quesierunt diio cres bilatidis 
colles volu = iu= ipso. 


We may now turn to the handful of scraps—for 
it was no more—in Caxton’s type 5. Mr. Jenkin- 
son simplified the task of identifying these by 
placing in my hand a copy of the ‘Donatus Melior’ 
of Mancinellus, printed at Milan in 1499,” quarto. 

'¢The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal,’ Vol. xvi, p. 369 59. 
(‘On some pardons or indulgences preserved in Yorkshire.’ By 


the Rev. C. Wordsworth.) 
* Copinger II, 3802 (the only copy recorded by him). 








CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 351 


The only other fragments of Caxton’s edition of 
the ‘Donatus Melior’ were found by Mr. Robert 
Proétor in the binding of a book at New College, 
Oxford,’ and of these luckily Mr. Hessels had 
photographs, which he kindly allowed me to see. 
There are some discrepancies between this text 
and that of the Milanese edition, for while this 
leads off each declension with general remarks, in 
the Caxton edition these general remarks follow 
the examples. I hope to print the text of this leaf 
of the ‘Donatus’ also in the forthcoming number 
of the Christ’s College Magazine. The verso of 
the fragment is in large parts so badly discoloured 
with a brown deposit that it has not been possible 
to decipher all of it. The page of 31 lines was that 
adopted by Caxton in the ‘Speculum Vitae Christi’ 
and the ‘Royal Book,’ both of which were printed 
in the same type. The page of type in these 
measures 185 by 120 mm. Two kinds of initials 
appear: (1) the two-line initials O, M, P, with 
a white streak, used in the ‘Governal of Health’ 
and in the ‘Royal Book,’ (2) the two-line black 
initial P. 

Three small fragments remain to be described. 
The first is of a Virgil, for the rats were evidently 
determined to die like scholars. The edition 
selected by the rats contained 20 lines to the page, 
and may be identified from the top of ‘ Fol. lxxxij,’ 
where the first two lines end ‘q; reliéti’ and ‘) per 
tela / per hostes’ (Aen. ii, 357). If any reader of 
these pages should chance to have a Virgil so con- 
stituted, I should be glad of the information, for 

' Copinger II, 3801, corrected. S. De Ricci, Census No, 41. 





ee 


































352 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


I have searched the University Library and the 
libraries of Trinity College and St. John’s College 
in vain. 

The rats had a more plentiful supply of Horace, 
for of this poet they took four whole oé¢tavo leaves, 
with marginal notes, text and notes both printed 
in italics. The leaves are paged pp. 227-234, and 
the edition may be thus identified from the top of 
the first. 


SERMONUM LIB. Il. 227 


Aufidius forti miscebat mella Falerno _ iviuno stoma- 


Again, I have searched the three libraries men- 
tioned above in vain.' There is only one other 
printed scrap which it has been possible to identify, 
and that is part of a heraldic initial T (31 mm.), 
used by Pynson in ‘The Destruction of Jerusalem’ 
(sig. E 2), and in his editions of the Sarum Missal 
of 1512, and of ‘ Fabyan’s Chronicles,’ 1515, F°. 
For the sake of completeness I give a brief state- 
ment of the manuscript remains. The oldest of 
these is dated November 2gth, 1327, and is a 
Charter of Confirmation, on vellum, from a person 
unknown to John the son of Richard de Redham 
de Quarflet apud Brad[ ] and to Thomas 
] and his heirs.? 


The second document is an agreement, on paper, 


' The nearest I can find is the edition printed by Paul Etienne, 
Editio tertia,in 1600, The first edition printed by Henri Etienne 
about 1575 has no marginal notes. 

2 Mr. Alfred Rogers, of the University Library, has kindly 
deciphered the document, so far as it was possible. 














CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 353 


between Thomas Thompson yeoman of London 
and Thomas Thompson’ Master of Christ’s College 
and the fellows of the Society as to a certain 
number of marcs, dated 1520. On the verso the 
yeoman is described as ‘fermor of the prebend 
callid the Nore belonging to the Cathedral Chirche 
of Saynt Polle of London,’ and is ‘for certeyn 
londes belongyng to’—and there the writing stops, 
unfinished. A third document is a poorly-written 
appeal to ‘your Mastership,’ and refers to the 
‘Macypyll.’ A fourth is a Latin fragment, on 
paper, dealing with a geometrical problem.*? There 
are broken fragments of a theological exercise, but 
it is of no importance. The playing cards are, un- 
fortunately, not court cards, but a ten of diamonds 
and a ten of spades of one pack (85 by 45 mm.), 
and a five of diamonds (100 by 58 mm.) of another 
pack, all with plain backs, of the seventeenth 
century. 

Here I might bring these remarks to a close, 
but an indulgent Editor will permit me to place on 
record the remains of the child’s book of about the 
year 1820, with pictures, which the workmen 
found. The verses do not occur in Mr. Tuer’s 
volume,* nor have I been able to indentify them 
elsewhere. I will spare the reader more than two 
extracts, but these I give in the hope that someone 


* The contracting parties may have been cousins. 

? Dr. W. W. Rouse Ball informs me that this is of no special 
interest. It has also been examined by Sir G. H. Darwin, 

3 I am indebted to Dr. W. Morley Fletcher for information on 
this point, 

* Forgotten Children’s Books. 


II. AA 











354 CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 


may be able to tell me of another copy of a book 
which may have charmed the eyes of children of a 
bygone generation. 




















Filial Love. 


Miss Janz’s mamma was very ill," 

And felt such pain she could not sleep, 
And Jane would quietly sit still 

Or sometimes through the curtains peep. 


VIII. 
The Purloiner. 


As Joe was at play, 
Near the cupboard one day 
When he thought no one by but himself, 
How sorry I am 
He ate raspberry jam, 
And currants that stood on the shelf. 


There are pictures of Jane and Joe, and allusions 
to brother Henry, and Headstrong, and Ann, and 
Master Edward.? 


* * * * * 


The tale of the fragments of printed and other 
matter found in the Master’s Lodge at Christ’s 
College, Cambridge, in the spring of 1911, has 
now been told. The unravelling of their secrets 
has been an interesting task. I have more than 


' For the illness of Miss Jane’s mamma cf, A. W. Tuer, of. cit., 
p. 422. 
2 Cf. ibid., p. 404. 











CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENTS. 355 


once reminded myself of the find of the leaves 
printed by Wynkyn de Worde mentioned by 
Blades in the ‘Enemies of Books.’ The present 
discoveries, which we owe entirely to the reverent 
piety of the Master and Fellows of Christ’s College 
in endeavouring to restore to its original beauty 
the home of their Foundress, will, I hope, be 
considered of sufficient importance to justify them 
being recorded in the pages of the ‘ Liprary.’ 
CHARLES SAYLE. 






































356 


‘THE AUTOCRAT’ AS BOOK- 
LOVER. 


OS 


Mey \Xen) 


»! 





GOOD many years ago I was pre- 
paring a short lecture on the Poetry of 
the Bibliomania, and wanted to include 

\\Y in it a quotation which had long 
Ge =) Y remained in my memory from Oliver 
Wendell Holmes. But when, in obedience to the 
sagacious injunction given by the venerable Martin 
Routh, I tried to verify the verses floating in my 
memory, I found that the poem had vanished from 
the English and also from the American editions! 
So I refrained from this quotation, clear though it 
was in my memory. 

Mr. George B. Ives, in his ‘ Bibliography of 
Oliver Wendell Holmes,’ gives the history of this 
disappearance. ‘Astraea: the Balance of Illusions,’ 
was a poem delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa 
Society of Yale College, 14th August, 1850, and 
was published in pamphlet form in that year by 
Ticknor, Reed and Fields. It has not, with one 
exception, been reprinted as written. In ‘Songs 
in Many Keys’ there are some excerpts, and these 
are found in later colleéted editions. In the 
Cambridge (1895) and Cabinet (1899) editions 
the remainder of the poem is hidden away in the 
appendix, with references to the excerpts. 

The one exception to this rejection, or partition, 


of *Astraea’ is the First English Edition of the 
























‘THE AUTOCRAT.’ 357 


Poetical Works of Wendell Holmes, published in 
1852 at London, by George Routledge and Co. 
Reading it as a whole one wonders for what reason 
the ‘Autocrat’ desired to seclude this poem from his 
readers. It is no unworthy effort, and contains 
some striking pictures, as that of the Master, 
whose 


. . » kindness ripened, till the youth might dare 
Take the low seat beside his sacred chair, 
While the gray scholar, bending o’er the young, 
Spelled the square types of Abraham’s ancient tongue, 
Or with mild rapture stooped devoutly. o'er 
His small coarse leaf, alive with curious lore ; 
Tales of grim judges, at whose awful beck 
Flashed the broad blade across a royal neck, 
Or learnéd dreams of Israel’s long lost child, 
Found in the wanderer of the western wild. 


But what I chiefly valued ‘ Astraea’ for was the 
picture of the library : 


Such the warm life this dim retreat has known, 
Not quite deserted when its guests were flown ; 
Nay, filled with friends, an unobtrusive set, 
Guiltless of calls and cards and etiquette, 
Ready to answer, never known to ask, 
Claiming no service, prompt for every task. 


On those dark shelves no housewife tool profanes ; 
O’er his mute files the monarch folio reigns ; 

A mingled race, the wreck of chance and time, 

That talk all tongues and breathe of every clime; 
Each knows his place, and each may claim his part 

In some quaint corner of his master’s heart. 

This old Decretal won from Kloss’s hoards, 
Thick-leafed, brass cornered, ribbed with oaken boards, 














358 ‘THE AUTOCRAT’ 


Stands the gray patriarch of the graver rows, 

Its fourth ripe century narrowing to its close ; 
Not daily conned, but glorious still to view, 
With glistening letters wrought in red and blue. 


There towers Stagira’s all-embracing sage, 

The Aldine anchor on his opening page ; 

There sleep the births of Plato’s heavenly mind, 
In yon dark tome by jealous clasps confined, 

, Olim e libris ’"—(dare I call it mine ?) 

Of Yale’s great Head and Killingworth’s divine! ' 


In these square sheets the songs of Maro fill 
The silvery types of smooth-leafed Baskerville ; 
High over all, in close compact array, 

Their classic wealth the Elzevirs display. 

In lower regions of the sacred space 

Range the dense volumes of a humbler race ; 
There grim chirurgions all their mysteries teach 
In spectral pictures or in crabbéd speech ; 
Harvey and Haller, fresh from Nature’s page, 
Shoulder the dreamers of an earlier age, 

Lully and Geber, and the learned crew * 

That loved to talk of all they could not do. 


Why count the rest,—those names of later days 
That many love, and all agree to praise,— 

Or point the titles where a glance may read 

The dangerous lines of party or of creed? 

Too well, perchance, the chosen list would show 
What few would care and none may claim to know. 
Each has his feature whose exterior seal 

A brush may copy, or a sunbeam steal ; 


' This, Mr. W. C. Tillinghast informs me, is probably intended 
for Abraham Pierson, the first President of Yale (1701-7). The 
first edition reads ‘ great,’ the later ones ‘ grave.’ 

2 Some members of this bombastic tribe are further noticed in 
the opening chapter of ‘ The Poet at the Breakfast Table.’ 

















AS BOOK-LOVER. 


Go to his study,—on the nearest shelf 
Stands the mosaic portrait of himself. 


What though for months the tranquil dust descends, 
Whitening the heads of those mine ancient friends, 
While the damp offspring of the modern press 
Flaunts on my table with its pictured dress ; 

Not less I love each dull familiar face, 

Nor less should miss it from the appointed place ; 

I snatch the book along whose burning leaves 

His scarlet web our wild romancer weaves ; 

Yet, while proud Hester’s fiery pangs I share, 

My old Macnatia must be standing shere! 


This excerpt may now be read in some colleéted 
editions, under the title of ‘ The Study.’ 

Holmes’s rhymes indicate the feelings of a keen 
booklover. Very little is said on the subject in 
Morse’s ‘ Life’ of him. His father’s library was 
one of about 2,000 volumes, including many of the 
great writers, and great quantities of theology and 
of miscellaneous matter. The boy Holmes found 
much of his reading in Rees’s ‘ Encyclopaedia,’ and 
there was plenty of good food to be found in 
those ample tomes. By a process of reaction, the 
‘Family Bible’ of that pious, but narrow, person, 
the Rev. Thomas Scott, pushed Holmes to a more 
liberal spirit in theology. 

The allusions in ‘ Astraea’ are such as we would 
expect from a confirmed book-hunter.' 

* The‘ Autocrat” has faithfully described the book-hunger of the 
veteran book-hunter in the seventh chapter of ‘Over the Tea- 
cups.” And there is also the notable passage which occurs earlier 
in the same work, about Bernard Quaritch’s shop and catalogue. 


Nor should the account of the Master’s library in ‘The Poet at 
the Breakfast Table’ be overlooked. 


























360 ‘THE AUTOCRAT’ 


When the books of Dr. George Franz Burkhard 
Kloss were sold, in 1835, nine copies of the 
Decretal of Gregory IX.., all printed in the fifteenth 
century, changed hands. To which of these did 
Holmes refer? I have just looked again at the 
edition of Aristotle’s ‘ Opera’ issued by the famous 
house of Aldus, and it is indeed a magnificent 
specimen of typography. But it may be remarked 
that the folios of 1495-8 do not display the 
familiar mark of the anchor. Whilst Baskerville’s 
‘silvery types’ have retained their charm, it must be 
confessed that the dapper Elzevirs have fallen upon 
evil days, and can often be released by a few pence 
from the box of odds and ends at the shop door. 

His references to old medical literature may be 
illustrated by the pleasant fact that he presented 
‘this dearly loved collection’ of 965 volumes and 
many pamphlets to the Boston Medical Library. 
The occasion selected for this graceful aét was 
when, after thirteen years of service, he resigned 
the office of President. ‘These books,’ he said, 
‘were very dear to me as they stood upon my 
shelves. A twig from some one of my nerves ran 
to every one of them. . . . I am pleased that they 
can be kept together, at least for the present; and 
if any of them can be to others what they have 
been to me, I am glad to part with them, even 
though it costs me a little heartache to take leave 
of such old and beloved companions.’ 


* The essay on ‘ Medical Libraries,’ and that on ‘Some of my 
Early Teachers,’ contain much that is interesting and appropriate 
to the present subje€t. His warm and well-merited tribute to 
Dr. J. S. Billings as a medical bibliographer may be cited as an 


example. 

















AS BOOK-LOVER. 361 


The final allusions in the poem are to Hawthorne 
and Cotton Mather. The ‘Scarlet Letter’ has so 
entirely taken its place among the great classics of 
our language that it is almost a shock to have it 
thus mentioned as a ‘ damp offspring of the modern 
press.” Of the ‘Magnalia Christi Americana’ it 
was said by Nicholas Noyes, teacher of the Church 


at Salem: 


The stuff is true, the Trimming neat and spruce, 
The Workman’s good, the Work of publick use; 
Most piously design’d, a publick Store, 

And well deserves the publick Thanks and more. 


Some may doubt whether all the ‘stuff’ is true, 
but none will deny that it was ‘ piously designed,’ 
and is worthy of the heartiest thanks—and more. 

The ‘ Autocrat’ had one skill which more book- 
lovers desire than possess—he was an expert on 
book-binding. ‘I bound a book myself once,’ he 
wrote; ‘I don’t believe Sumner ever did.’ This 
was an allusion to an after-dinner speech, in which 
that statesman had talked learnedly on the biblio- 
pegic art, and ‘made almost a sensation’ by the 
use of the word ‘ forwarding.” On which Holmes 
gives this sound advice: ‘When you hear a dis- 
tinguished personage using long words or technical 
phrases that frighten you, and make you think how 
learned he is and how desperately ignorant you and 
all your acquaintances are, as soon as the speech is 
over and the company separates, go to your 
dictionary or cyclopedia and look out his poly- 
syllables, and ten to one you will get him off his 
horse in five minutes.’ It is evident that Dr. 











362 ‘THE AUTOCRAT.’ 


Holmes’s browsings in the many pages of Rees’s 
‘Encyclopaedia’ had not been without advantage. 
The flame that burned in ‘ Astraea’—that some- 
what neglected child of Wendell Holmes’s poetic 
genius—continues to burn, and has even a warmer 
glow, in the rhyming ‘ Epilogue to the Breakfast- 
Table Series.’ Although Oliver Wendell Holmes 
may not be the Poet Laureate of Bookland, he is 
sealed of the tribe of Bibliophiles. If a library 
had been built on Parnassus, he could easily have 
supplied a fitting dedicatory ode for the occasion. 
WiuiaM E. A. Axon. 











363 


THE EARLY HUMANISTS OF 
ELSASS. 







Ke) S the fifteenth century was drawing 
ec to a close we may trace in Elsass a 
product of the Renaissance which 
\\@ deserves some notice owing to its dis- 
2<tinctive features, differing from the 
manifestations of the new learning in Italy, and 
even from its offshoots in Nuremberg and Augs- 
burg. For the cult of paganism has no part in 
the movement in Elsass, and although stirred by 
the new enthusiasm for classical scholarship, and 
believing in the enlightening powers of sound 
learning, the disciples of the Renaissance in Strass- 
burg and Schlettstadt had no thought of revolt 
against constituted authority; they still held to 
the ideals of Church and Empire, desiring to 
purge the Church of the abuses which they 
exposed, but ready to wield their pens in her 
defence whenever a reformer should carry his zeal 
too far. There are episodes, in fact, as in the case 
of their ungenerous onslaught on the fallen Arch- 
bishop of Carniola, when the humanists of Elsass 
showed all the intolerance of the Middle Ages. 
The seed-plot of this movement was the school 
established at Schlettstadt, modelled on the more 
famous school of the Brethren of the Common 











364 THE EARLY HUMANISTS 


Life by its first reétor, Ludwig Dringenberg, a 
Westphalian, who had been a pupil at Deventer. 
Dringenberg was not himself a profound scholar, 
but schools of any kind were rare at this period, 
and Dringenberg’s course of instruéction, in spite 
of his own faulty latinity, was superior to that of 
any of the ecclesiastical seminaries of the neigh- 
bouring towns. His old pupils, many of whom 
advanced far beyond him in scholarship, looked 
back to their school days at Schlettstadt as the 
starting point in their careers. 

Chief among these Alsatian scholars was Jakob 
Wimpheling, descended from a substantial yeoman 
family, and destined on account of his delicate 
health for the Church. His life, 1450 to 1528, 
was a long one according to the reckoning of those 
days, and he lived on into the storms of the period 
of the Reformation, to which this movement in 
Elsass is, properly speaking, anterior. He was 
closely associated with Sebastian Brant, best known 
as the author of the ‘ Narrenschiff,’ and the arrival 
of these two men in Strassburg may be taken as 
the beginning of the literary activity there, 
although the new learning had already been intro- 
duced by their friend, Peter Schott, who had 
studied in Paris and in Italy, and had returned to 
his native city full of enthusiasm for a purer Latin 
and a more liberal kind of learning. But Schott, 
the son of a wealthy patrician, was essentially a 
man of leisure with scholarly tastes rather than an 
innovator and a leader. He left behind him the 
memory of a gentle and amiable student, whose 
attainments were probably exaggerated by his 











OF ELSASS. 365 


friends, Wimpheling among them, who mourned 
his early death at the age of thirty-two. His 
relations with his family give us a pleasant picture 
of a cultured and affectionate home-life, and his 
blameless and kindly character is in pleasing 
contrast to the loose morals and corruption which 
the satirists of the time have described to us, and 
to the rather bitter and irritable dispositions of 
many contemporary scholars and writers. He 
was not lacking, however, in earnestness of purpose 
or in zeal as a cleric. Under the influence of 
Geiler of Kaisersberg, the Strassburg Savonarola, 
he had deserted the profession of the law, for 
which he was destined by his very affectionate 
father, the patriotic and public-spirited ‘Ammeister’ 
of Strassburg, and was presented to a canonry. 
Following Geiler’s example, he had been outspoken 
in condemning some of the abuses of the Church, 
and had himself introduced some excellent reforms 
at Strassburg, being nevertheless untouched by any 
heretical ideas of change and strictly orthodox in 
his views. 

Schott’s letters to his friends, written in Latin, 
together with some verses and rhetorical efforts, 
were colleéted and published after his death, with 
a commendatory introduction by Wimpheling, 
under the title, ‘ Petri Schotti Lucubraciunculae.’ 
The letters are of value for the information con- 
tained in them, for Schott corresponded with many 
of the principal scholars of his time. The ‘Lucu- 
braciunculae’ have been largely drawn upon by 
Charles Schmidt in his two substantial volumes, 
‘Histoire Littéraire de l’Alsace a la fin du XV. et 




















| 
| 
7 


Wh 
a 
il 
» | 

{ 
i |} 
| 
j 
tt 


366 THE EARLY HUMANISTS 


au commencement du XVI. siécle,’ to which work 
I must acknowledge my indebtedness in compiling 
this little paper. 

Although, like Schott, an Alsatian by birth, 
Wimpheling’s earlier years were spent away from 
his native province. It was at the university of 
Erfurt in 1469 that he first encountered the new 
humanism, and it is characteristic of this northern 
type of humanism that its influence was accom- 
panied, in Wimpheling’s case, not by a spirit of 
levity, casting aside the old religious ties in the 
zest for the new joys of living, but by a resolve to 
cease from the careless life which he had been 
leading as a student at Freiburg in Breisgau, and 
to live with the words before him: ‘noli peccare, 
deus videt.’ Henceforward and to the end of his 
life Wimpheling was a man of serious mind. Not 
very long afterwards he took orders. 

Circumstances led to his continuing his studies 
at Heidelberg, not at that time an inspiring place 
of study, if we may believe Wimpheling’s account 
of it, for the battle of Nominalist and Realist was 
still raging there. He turned to canon law, but 
increasing seriousness made him leave this for 
theology, though he continued to study classical 
poetry at the same time. His essays in Latin poetry 
resulted in his becoming secretary to the Eleétor 
Frederick I. of the Palatinate, and under his suc- 
cessor, Philip, he became rector of the university. 
He endeavoured to instil something of the love 
of classical learning into the students, instituting 
exercises in the form of dialogues, after the manner 
of his old master Dringenberg at Schlettstadt ; and 














OF ELSASS. 367 


while presiding, according to the quaint custom of 
those days, at the facetious debates of the students, 
he took advantage of these frivolous occasions to 
point a moral, probably quite unexpected, and to 
warn the students against indulgence in the tempta- 
tions which surrounded them. 

Through the persuasion ot one of his friends, 
Wimpheling applied for and obtained the vacant 
post of preacher in the Cathedral at Speyer, being 
induced to take the post by the consideration that 
he would gain some practical experience which 
would be of use to him later in expounding theology 
in the university. 

While at Speyer he published an edition of the 
‘De restitutione Usurarum’ of Franciscus de Platea, 
with a prefatory letter from himself to the printer, 
directed against the ill-doings of princes and 
prelates, of dishonest traders and corrupt lawyers, 
of venal confessors and the mendicant friars and 
the ‘ collectors’ of the convents, who were guilty 
of every kind of fraud. 

These complaints were repeated by Wimpheling 
in his subsequent works; but while declaiming 
against the ill-deeds of the clergy he was active in 
defence of their privileges, addressing an appeal to 
the Pope and publishing a denunciation of those 
lords who took advantage of the disorders of the 
Empire to plunder the goods of the ecclesiastics. 
We have here no revolutionary; Wimpheling 
would purify the Church, but would maintain all its 
powers and privileges, and not only its privileges, 
but also its doétrines. In his poetical contest 
with Gaguin we notice the beginnings of that 











368 THE EARLY HUMANISTS 


enthusiasm for the Empire and the German race 
which afterwards embroiled him rather unfortu- 
nately. But he is at one with the Frenchman in 
defending against the Dominicans the ‘triple purity’ 
of the Virgin, always an article of faith in Elsass. 

Wimpheling had returned to Heidelberg when 
his friend Christoph von Utenheim, canon of Basel, 
reminded him of an old promise to retire to a 
hermit’s life in the Black Forest with Geiler of 
Kaisersberg. It was an idea which had attraéted 
Peter Schott and his friend Bohuslaw von Lobko- 
witz some years before, but now again the project 
came to nothing. 

Utenheim was elected Bishop of Basel, and 
Wimpheling, who had been staying with Geiler 
while waiting for the conclusion of the arrange- 
ments for the hermitage, decided to remain in 
Strassburg, probably being influenced by the arrival 
of Sebastian Brant. Henceforth he takes his place 
with Brant in the literary circle in Strassburg, of 
which several members of the different Chapters 
were the intelligent patrons. 

About the same time there arrived in Strassburg, 
after a ten years’ sojourn in Italy, the young 
Thomas Wolf, nephew of the elder Thomas Wolf, 
the intimate friend of Peter Schott, and himself a 
lover of letters and the arts. 

This Thomas Wolf is one of the most prominent 
and certainly one of the most attractive of Wimphel- 
ing’s circle. He belonged to a family of wealth 
and position, and being left an orphan his education 
was entrusted to his uncle just mentioned. Like 
Wimpheling before him, young Wolf imbibed the 














OF ELSASS. 369 


first draught of the Renaissance at Erfurt. Thence 
he was sent to Bologna, where he associated with 
the choicest spirits there, both German and Italian, 
being especially influenced by Beroaldo, the pro- 
fessor of Latin. In due course he took his degree 
as doétor of canon law. In addition to his other 
studies he turned his attention to theology, attend- 
ing the lectures of Bossio of Padua; for, true to his 
German upbringing, he preserved during these 
long years in Italy the same seriousness that we 
have noted in those who afterwards became his 
friends when he returned home. Giovanni Fran- 
cesco Pico della Mirandola was one of his Italian 
friends, and he went to Mantua to see Spagnuoli 
(Baptista Mantuanus), renowned for his Christian 
muse. 

He was shocked by the scandals which he 
witnessed at Rome, and wrote of them to Mutianus 
Rufus. He was loyal to the Church, but saddened 
and perplexed by what he saw. 

This disillusioning did not quench his zeal for 
antiquity. He had been drawn to archeology for 
some time, and at Rome he worked hard, studying 
monuments and copying inscriptions. When he 
returned to Strassburg he was laden with books 
and copies of manuscripts and a large collection of 
inscriptions. Besides the inscriptions which had 
been copied by himself or his friends, he transcribed 
a large part of a collection made by an Italian in 
different countries that Wolf had not visited, as 
far afield as Spain and Byzantium. The colleétion 
has been handed down to us in a copy made shortly 
after Wolf’s death. It is without any attempt at 


II, BB 








370 THE EARLY HUMANISTS 


order or arrangement. Probably Wolf’s early 
death—he died at the age of thirty-four—prevented 
his undertaking some kind of classification, for he 
was not without the critical faculty, and we have 
notes of the emendations which he suggested for 
doubtful texts. 

In Strassburg Wolf led the pleasant life of a man 
of scholarly tastes and great social gifts, combined 
with easy circumstances improved by his presenta- 
tion to two prebends. 

His own literary productions are not of much 
permanent value. He brought home with him 
from Italy some dialogues which he had composed ; 
he contributed his share of the prefaces and com- 
mendatory notices which were in fashion, and he 
took some part in the inky warfare of the time. 

It was his ambition to bea patron of men of 
letters, and he was full of enthusiasm for the 
classics. He was a general favourite with his 
circle in Strassburg, and was associated with 
scholars all over Germany and Italy, who admired 
his learning, his pleasant manner, and his charm 
asatalker. One feels that Wolf in his short life 
had tasted the higher pleasures to the full, and one 
might put forward this gifted scholar, combining 
the culture of Italy with the earnestness of Germany, 
as a happy example of the Renaissance in Elsass. 

Wimpheling and Brant were congenial to one 
another ; both have the same point of view. Brant 
was less of a poet than a preacher in verse; he is 
not a humanist in the striét sense, or a satirist who 
aims at a laugh. His purpose is didaétic, and his 
object as serious as that of his school. 








OF ELSASS. 371 


Brant was born in 1457, or thereabouts, the son 
of the proprietor of a large inn in Strassburg. His 
father, however, was clearly a man of more con- 
sideration than his occupation suggests, for Sebas- 
tian’s grandfather had been a member of the grand 
council for the Vintner’s Company. 

Young Brant was by nature grave and inclined 
to melancholy ; equable as a rule, but inclined on 
occasion to violent outbursts of dislike. He was 
the friend from boyhood of Peter Schott, and 
probably received part of his education from 
Johann Miller, of Rastatt, who had been sent in 
charge of Schott while he was a pupil at 
Schlettstadt. 

Brant matriculated at the university of Basel, 
where he decided to devote himself to law, but to 
allow himself at the same time sufficient leisure to 
assist in the furthering of letters. His serious 
views of life were strengthened by his meeting 
Geiler of Kaisersberg; his love of letters was 
stimulated no less by the arrival in Basel of the 
great Reuchlin, and we note the strange mixture 
of Catholic thought and mythological phraseology 
in his early poems. 

In due course Brant graduated as bachelor, and 
then as doétor of law, and in 1492 became dean of 
the faculty. Two years later he published his 
famous work, the ‘ Narrenschiff,’ the satire in verse 
which ran through many editions and was trans- 
lated into several tongues, among the translations 
being two English versions by Henry Watson and 
Alexander Barclay respectively, both printed in 


1509. 














372. THE EARLY HUMANISTS 


Brant remained at Basel till 1500 when he was 
appointed syndic of his native city and returned to 
Strassburg. As we have seen, Wimpheling had 
settled there about the same time, and the two 
friends became the leaders of the literary move- 
ment there. Not long afterwards appeared Wim- 
pheling’s rather unfortunate excursion into history, 
published after being submitted to Brant’s criticism, 
the ‘Germania.’ It was written with the patriotic 
purpose of combatting the French leanings which 
Wimpheling thought he detected in Strassburg, 
by proving that Elsass had always been inhabited 
by Germans, that Pepin and Charlemagne had 
been Germans not Gauls, and that the empire 
was essentially German, since no Gaul had been 
emperor from the time of Julius Cesar. This 
publication involved Wimpheling in a violent 
controversy with Thomas Murner, a Franciscan, 
who was afterwards one of the leading opponents 
of the Lutheran doétrines which took such a hold 
over Elsass, a controversy in which Wimpheling 
did not have the best of it, for if Murner’s histor- 
ical knowledge was not very much greater than 
Wimpheling’s, his pen possessed a satirical power 
which made him a formidable adversary. The 
episode brings out the contentious side of Wim- 
pheling’s character, for Murner had consulted him 
before publishing his reply, written to vindicate 
what he conceived to be the truth, and there was 
no need for the acrimonious quarrel in which it 
resulted, a quarrel into which Wimpheling’s dis- 
ciples, notably Thomas Wolf, rushed to defend 
their master. 














OF ELSASS. 373 


The publication of the ‘Germania’ was but the 
beginning of a series of controversies in which 
Wimpheling was involved. The appearance of a 
tract on the double purity of morals and faith 
which is proper to priests led to an outcry among 
the monks. Before publishing the book, Wim- 
pheling had shown it to Jakob Locher, a Wiirtem- 
berger who was professor of poetry at Freiburg, 
where Wimpheling was staying at this time. 
Strange to say, Wimpheling was shortly afterwards 
embroiled with Locher himself, who having been 
at one time much of a mind with the humanists 
of Elsass, now showed himself much‘ more akin to 
the more daring spirits of the Renaissance. Having 
been reproved for his pagan tendencies by a 
respectable but rather old-fashioned professor of 
theology at Ingolstadt, Locher made an outrageous 
attack upon him, and one of Locher’s followers 
dragged in the names of Wimpheling and Wolf, who 
certainly shared the theologian’s views upon pagan 
poets. The result was a battle of epigrams, actually 
affixed tothe notice-board of the Collegeat Freiburg. 
The warfare was continued by various partisans. 
Locher, threatening Wimpheling with personal 
violence, came across one of his disciples on his way 
to Italy, to fetch some manuscripts of Pico for Wolf 
to publish, and maltreated the unfortunate young 
man. Others entered the fray, Brant excelling in 
the violence of his abuse, and in time literary 
Germany became divided over the question. More 
than this: Locher was, as we have noted, a 
Wiirtemberger, and the ink-horns of Tiibingen 
were charged in defence of their compatriot, urged 

















374 THE EARLY HUMANISTS 


on by Locher, who called attention to the slighting 
allusions to Suabians in general in some of Wim- 
pheling’s writings. But Wimpheling was not 
ready to do battle with the whole race, and the 
storm was appeased by his protestations of regard 
for Suabians who do not place pagan poets on a 
level with the Evangelists. 

Another nation, however, had incurred Wim- 
pheling’s antipathy—the Swiss, who had broken 
loose from the Germanic Empire of which 
Wimpheling hoped so much. Roused by various 
events he attacked the Swiss with vigour, finding 
fault even with their assumption of the name 
Helvetia, which Wimpheling declared to belong 
of old time to Elsass. 

During this time the literary sodalitas was 
flourishing in Strassburg, chief among the younger 
men being Thomas Vogler (Aucuparius) and 
Mathias Ringmann Philesius, noted as the editor 
of the Ptolemy of 1507. Brant’s high reputation 
as a legal authority led to his being consulted by 
the Emperor, and he was the correspondent of 
many scholars, so that through him, as well as 
through Wimpheling and Wolf, the literary men 
of Strassburg were in touch with the humanist 
movement in Germany. Brant, indeed, numbered 
among his correspondents both German and Italian 
scholars, as well as such men as Peutinger of Augs- 
burg and Pirkheimer of Nuremberg, both colleétors 
of antiquities and works of art and permeated 
with Italian ideas, with whom one might have 
supposed that the serious-minded Alsatians had 
little in common. But one must not forget that 














OF ELSASS. 375 


if the Alsatians seem to be moralists more than 
anything else, they were eager for the dissemina- 
tion of learning properly conducted and fully alive 
to the value of scholarship. 

For three years Wimpheling was the guest at 
Strassburg of the knight Martin Sturm, and spent 
the summers at a castle in the country, where 
Sturm entertained the Strassburg men of letters. 

Very appropriately a Roman bas-relief was 
unearthed during one of these visits, affording an 
opportunity for speculation and learned disquisition. 
The treasure-trove was generously presented by 
the good knight to Wolf, who was probably the 
most interested in the find. 

This gives us a pleasant picture of the more 
genial side of the sodalitas, for it was not always 
given up to bickering and controversy. There 
were festivities sometimes, when distinguished 
literati from elsewhere were made welcome, and 
on one of these occasions Erasmus himself was 
entertained, when the great man was pleased to 
say pretty things of Strassburg and its citizens. At 
another time our friends were proud to receive 
Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola, the 
guest of his friend Wolf, who gave a banquet in 
honour of Pico and of Peutinger, who chanced to 
be passing through the city. 

Wimpheling never quite gave up his desire for 
a life of retirement, and he sought a kind of 
modified hermit’s life by taking charge of a monas- 
tery in the Black Forest, which he styles ‘in 
eremo’; but he was still a¢tive with his pen, and 
his renewed attacks upon the mendicant orders 











376 THE EARLY HUMANISTS 


naturally led to recrimination. Wimpheling’s 
irritability, aggravated by his sufferings from gout, 
increased as the years went by. 

One is surprised that he escaped being drawn 
into the great battle which was now raging in 
Germany—the Reuchlin affair. Wimpheling had 
a high regard for Reuchlin, who in turn had 
sought the advice of both Wimpheling and Brant. 
But"for some reason or other Wimpheling did not 
join the fray. Perhaps he was deterred by the fear 
that the Reuchlin party was too much identified 
with profane poets of the younger generation. 

In 1513 Wimpheling was at Schlettstadt, and 
was already beginning to feel the weight of years. 
At Schlettstadt a small benefice was found for him, 
and he remained there henceforth, save for a 
sojourn ‘in eremo,’ till his death, declining a 
pressing invitation to Basel from his old friend, 
the bishop. He was deterred by the gout and a 
dread of the ‘ferocity’ of the people of Basel, whom 
he had attacked so bitterly for their defection from 
the Empire. 

Wimpheling formed a literary sodalitas at 
Schiettstadt after the model of the Strassburg 
society, and had a position there of considerable 
influence. But the old man’s later years were 
clouded by the apprehension that the younger men 
were being drawn towards the paganism which he 
had opposed so fiercely. 

A greater change than anything Wimpheling 
had foreseen was now at hand, nor was its signifi- 
cance at first realised by him. The insistance by 
the Diet of Augsburg on the grievances of Germany 














OF ELSASS. 377 


was approved by him. It seemed the realisation 
of what he had been struggling for. A little later 
he was troubled, but joined the meeting of the 
sodalitas at Schlettstadt which did honour to the 
names of Luther, Melanéthon and Capito among 
other promoters of letters. 

Only when he saw what a great disruption was 
threatened did Wimpheling draw back. The old 
man found himself being deserted even in his own 
circle at Schlettstadt, to which Bucer and Johann 
Sapidus and others had formerly belonged. Wim- 
pheling experienced the tragedy of the man who 
has outlived his day. He wrote letters, but they 
were ignored—the letters of a man once so revered. 
This silence was harder than the anonymous railery 
which Erasmus counselled him to bear with as a 
part of the upheaval of the century. 

In 1525 Wimpheling witnessed an attempt to 
introduce the reformed doétrines at Schlettstadt 
itself. Strassburg had already received them. The 
old man was past any active participation in the 
contest, and three years later he died, in his seventy- 
ninth year. He had survived most of his contem- 
poraries, Brant among them, and the literary life 
of Elsass had entered upon a new phase. 

I have dealt at greater length upon Wimpheling 
than upon the other members of the circle, for he 
was the foremost and the most typical. He stands 
out as the accepted leader of the movement. 

In spite of their obvious faults, one cannot but 
feel some sympathy with these humanists of Elsass, 
and some admiration for their achievements. Their 
ideals were high; they were fervent and sincere in 














378 EARLY HUMANISTS OF ELSASS. 


upholding their faith in its purity; they were 
zealous for education and were lovers of letters and 
the liberal arts; they were patriots, and Wimphe- 
ling at least was inspired, as Dante before him, by 
the hope of universal empire in the hands of an 
emperor who should be a veritable instrument of 
God. 

Their bitterness, their intolerance, one might 
add their lack of humour, were the faults of their 
time and of their cloth. Truly the scholar’s gown 
has enveloped more of malice and vindiétiveness 
than the soldier’s tunic; the pen has been more 
steeped in venom than the sword. 

The Empire of which Wimpheling hoped so 
much has passed away, but of the awakening of 
the consciousness of a German nationality Wim- 
pheling was truly a forerunner; and the Empire 
of to-day might well do honour to this patriotic 
band of men, so essentially German in spirit and 


outlook. 
S. H. Scorr. 




















AN OLD DUBLIN STATIONER’S 
WILL AND INVENTORY. 





appear in this Bowser They were taken for 
me from the documents in the Public Record 
Office, Dublin. The term ‘Stationer’ included 
that of ‘ Printer’ in those days, but I have never 
met Grover’s name in any imprint, and I do not 
think he did printing. The values set upon his 
goods by the appraisers for probate purposes were 
probably low, but it must be remembered that a 
pound in 1663 was worth much more than {1 
now. It will be observed that no details of the 
books he had are given, only a general value. 


E. R. McC. Drx. 


WILL OF ISAAC GROVER. 


Diocese of Dublin Will 1663. 
Isaac Grover of the City of Dublin, Stationer. 
Dated 14k August 1663. 
To brother John Grover {5 


To sister Susanna Skeate, widow 40/- 
To sister Ann Smith, the wife of Richard Smith 20/- 














380 AN OLD DUBLIN STATIONER’S 


To cousin Grizell Grover 40/- 
To each of my overseers 20/-. 

All the rest of my goods, readie money, wearing 
apparrel & all other my chattels whatsoever to 
my brother Thomas Grover, whom I make sole 
executor. Overseers Thomas King of Dublin, 
Taylor and Isaac Chalke of the same, Plasterer. 


Isaac GROVER. 
Witnesses 
Ric. ANDERSON 
STEPHEN BLVCKNEY [Sea/: An anchor. | 
Wii. PripHaM. 


Proved 12th Sept 1663 
by Thomas Grover, brother 
& sole executor. 


Inventory of the goods of Isaac Grover, late of 
the City of Dublin, Stationer, deceased, taken & 
appraised by Robert Howes, Stationer & William 
Pridham, Scrivener, both inhabitants of the said 
city. 

10 Sep’ 1663. 


In the Shop, | om: Se” 
(List given) $3. 3. 2. 
In the Chamber 
(List given) 49. 4. 4. 





Total 71. 15. 7. 
Rosert Howes 
Wii. PripHAM. 

























WILL AND INVENTORY. 381 


In THE SuHop 


Fortie nine Reames of writing paper 
ordinarie, Murleaux & other mixt 


sortes at 3d. p Reame ~ % @ 
One Reame of Dutch Medium at 10. © 
Foure Reames of French Cap. & two 

Quires of blew paper 6. 6 
A pceell of course pchmt skinnes 

valued at I. & O 
Six Skinnes of vellum S « 
Halfe a gross of course pasboard 6. o 
A pceell of gilt paper large & small 

valued at 18. o 
Five dozen and eleaven small paper 

bookes bound in leather . & 6 
Sixteen bookes Dutch paper in fol. 

containing 51 quires at 2d a 

peece 1.12. © 
Eleaven books in fol. & six other 

bookes all ordinarie paper ie ae 
Thirtie three other bookes in parchmt 

containeing three Reames I. O& O 
Three grosse of small paper pictures 8. o 
Eight pound of soft wax 4. © 
Two pound of hard wax 4. 0 
Two dozen & two Rules all short 

but 4 s 2 
A pcell of old Mapps S © 


A Small quantitie of inke & another 
quantitie in making, wanting some 
ingredients 

















382 AN OLD DUBLIN STATIONER’S 


Eight small draw boxes, three shelves, 
six ink-hornes, not good, a small 
peell of pennes, foure dozen of 
lead pencills, three lead standishes 
& four Regalls 

Sand & other lumber in the shop 

In book debts 


In THE CHAMBER. 


Fiftie Reames and some loose out side 
paper 

Fifteene Reames more of worse paper 

Seaventeene Reames & an halfe of 
French Cap. 

A dozen skinnes of parchment 

A Reame of French paper 

A grosse of pasboard 

Foure paper bookes containeing 16 
quires 

Two dozen & halfe of Rules, foure 
dozen of ruleing pennes & three 
pounds of soft wax 

Three small bookes of mapps 

Eleaven dozen & tenn small bookes in 
Oéte & duodec [at 4¢ each] 

An old small feather bed & bolster & 
an old green coverlett 

A turn’d chaire, hat brush, small 
lookeing glass a sword & an old 
pockett Bible 


oo0o°o 














WILL AND INVENTORY. 383 


Old lumber valued at 1. 6 

Two pairs of sheets & one odd, old & 
course 10. 0 
his wearing apparrel, lynnen & woollen 5. ©. © 
Two truncks & a small box 12. 0 
An old Bible new bound 5. 0 
In readie moneie twentie pounds 20. 0 0 
Due upon bond 2. & oO 
A small silver bodkin I. oO 
£49- 4. 4 


Totale is f71.15. 7. 


Rospert Howes 
Witt PripHam 











384 


THE CHURCH OF ST. MAGNUS 
AND THE BOOKSELLERS OF 
LONDON BRIDGE. 





ye books of accounts, vestry 
minutes, overseers’ and other books of amiscellaneous 
character, which form the records of every parish 
throughout the kingdom. 

To the clerical and lay mind alike, there is only 
one set of records worth preserving ‘n the parish 
chest, and that is the parish registers of baptisms, 
marriages and burials. This is a very grave 
mistake which in the past has led to the wholesale 
destruction of valuable records, and which is still 
responsible for the indifference shewn by so many 
of our clergy and churchwardens to any books 
but the parish registers, and for the failure of any 
sort of system for the preservation or arrangement 
of these other books, where they still exist. 

Invaluable as parish registers must always be, 
they do not tell us anything about the life of the 
parish, who were the most influential men in it, 
and what part they played in its history. They 
do not tell us anything about the events that 
brought joy or sorrow to the parishioners, what 














THE CHURCH OF ST. MAGNUS. 385 


set the bells ringing or the bonfires blazing; nor 
do they shew us how money was raised by the 
overseers, who paid it, how it was spent, or who 
benefited by it. For these and many other details 
of civic life you must go to the churchwardens’ 
books and other parish records mentioned above. 

Those who are interested in the history of 
London have cause to rejoice at the public spirit 
of the late Deputy White, who exerted himself 
with wonderful success to induce the clergy of 
the churches within the city of London to deposit 
their old church records, other than the registers, 
in the Guildhall Library. 

Amongst those who fell in with Deputy White’s 
scheme were the vicar and churchwardens of St. 
Magnus the Martyr, in Thames Street. The 
present church, though standing on exa¢tly the 
same site as the church of the same name destroyed 
in 1666, is some distance to the east of London 
Bridge, whereas the old building stood right up 
against the north-east corner of Old London Bridge, 
the explanation of this being that the new bridge 
was built some distance to the west of the 
old one. 

The parish of St. Magnus extended as far as the 
drawbridge on Old London Bridge, which, it will 
be remembered, had buildings upon it on both 
sides and in the centre down to the year 1760. 

It occurred to me that the records of this church 
might yield some interesting information about 
the booksellers who at one time and another carried 
on their business on Old London Bridge, and I 
was not disappointed. 


Il, cc 























386 THE CHURCH OF ST. MAGNUS 


The earliest churchwardens’ account-book, that 
escaped the fire of 1666, is that covering the 
period from 1638-1734, a massive folio volume in 
excellent preservation, into which the church- 
wardens’ annual statements were copied by a pro- 
fessional scrivener, who was paid for his labour. 
In one respeét this custom had its drawbacks— 
namely, in too much uniformity; on the other 
hand, it resulted in the entries being set out clearly 
and in detail. If the churchwarden for the year 
happened to be a man of some position, his coat- 
of-arms was tricked by the scribe in the initial 
letter of the heading at the beginning of the 
account. For the most part the items of receipt 
and expenditure are entered very fully, but this, of 
course, largely depended upon the churchwarden’s 
conception of his duty. Thus under the receipts 
for burials the name of the person buried, and for 
whom a knell was tolled, is almost always given, 
with the position of his grave in the church. 

Seeing at what a late date these accounts begin, 
it is useless to expect any mention of William 
Pickering, who was the earliest London Bridge 
bookseller of whom we have any record, or of his 
successors, Richard Ballard and Hugh Astley; but 
the opening page of the book yields a valuable 
note respecting the house in which they carried 
on their business. This was variously described 
as ‘at Saint Magnus Corner,’ or ‘under Saint 
Magnus Church,’ and was the shop occupied by 
John Tapp, bookseller, who died in 1631. There 
has always been some doubt as to whether this 
shop escaped the fire which destroyed the houses 














AND THE BOOKSELLERS. 387 


on the north-east side of the bridge in 1633. These 
accounts clear the matter up once for all. Amongst 
the entries of rents received by the churchwarden 
in the year ending 25th March, 1639, is a sum of 
twenty shillings paid by Edward Bellamy for a 
shop which is described as ‘late John Tapp’s under 
St. Magnus Church wall.’ Its position, then, is 
clearly defined. It faced the approach to the 
bridge from the north, and stood at the corner of 
Thames Street, and backed on to the church wall. 
Clearly, then, the fire of 1633 did not reach this 
shop, which appears annually in the accounts, 
described in exactly the same words, down to the 
great fire of 1666. Edward Bellamy, who occupied 
it from 1631 till his death in 1656, was not a 
bookseller. 

In this same year 1638-9, amongst the payments 
made by the churchwardens is the following item: 


Paid Mr. Hurlock staconer for worke done to the 
church Bible and for bossing the same ...... xjs. 


This was evidently George Hurlock, the son of 
Joseph Hurlock, to whom his father’s rights in 
certain nautical books were transferred by Elizabeth 
Hurlock, the widow, on 16th January, 1633/4. 
Where he was living at that time is not clear, but 
immediately after Edward Bellamy’s death in 1656 
he took the shop late John Tapp’s at St. Magnus’ 
Church Corner. 

George Hurlock was senior churchwarden of 
St. Magnus in the year 1660-61, and he continued 
to occupy these premises until he was burnt out 
in 1666. He then built a shed on the same spot, 








388 THE CHURCH OF ST. MAGNUS 


but died in 1668, and was buried in the middle 
aisle of the church on 3rd September, the débris 
being cleared away on purpose to allow of his 
interment. It is a remarkable fact in the history 
of this church, that though it was entirely 
destroyed, nothing but a few fragments of wall 
remaining, burials continued to be made there 
during the whole time of its reconstruétion. 

George Hurlock’s widow carried on the business 
and paid rent for the shed under the church wall 
for about eighteen months after his death, after 
which we hear no more of her or of the shed; but 
between 1670 and 1672 several books were pub- 
lished bearing the imprint, ‘ Printed for Benjamin 
Hurlock and are to be sold at his shop over against 
St. Magnus’ Church on London Bridge near 
Thames Street.’ 

This was no doubt the person whose burial is 
recorded in the accounts of the year 1673: 


June 16. 1673, Received for the buriall of Benjamin 
Hurlock in the middle ile...... 13s. 4d. And for 
the passing bell & knell. ..... 3s. 4d. 


There is nothing to indicate his relationship to 
George Hurlock, and as he is not found paying 
rent to the church, his premises were evidently 
not those previously known as ‘ John Tapp’s.’ 

In following out this history of the Hurlocks, I 
have passed over other entries of considerable 
interest, to which I must now return. 

In 1644 the church recovered, through the court 
of Chancery, a sum of £250 left by a certain 
Samuel Pettey or Petty, citizen and stationer or 








AND THE BOOKSELLERS. 389 


London, a name not hitherto met with by any 
student of this subject. 

In the accounts of the year 1666-67, the name 
of Thomas Passinger, the well-known bookseller 
who lived at the sign of the Three Bibles on 
London Bridge, is first met with, the entry being 
for the burial of one of his children. This coin- 
cides very nearly with the date of the first publica- 
tion bearing his imprint. In 1671 he is again 
referred to in another entry of the same character: 


Aug* 10. 1671, Received for the burial of a maid of 
Thomas Passinger in the Tabernacle ...... 2s. 


and again on 6th March, 1673/4: 


Received for the buriall of Mr. Passinger’s man in the 
Tabernacle ...... 2s. 


Thomas Passinger found time to take an active 
part in parish work, and he served the office of 
churchwarden of St. Magnus i in the year 1681-82. 

The building which had arisen from the ashes 
of 1666 was still far from complete, and amongst 
the numerous payments made to workmen during 
Passinger’s year of office, the following are worth 
recording : 


Spent in buying a hogshead of wine to present to Sir 
Christopher Ren. ..... 2s. 

Spent about attending S" Christopher Ren about the 
steeple ...+.. 45. 
Spent more attending S" Christopher Ren about ye steeple 
cow cee 2s. Id. 

Paid Collins upon S" Christopher Ren’s surveigh . 


» £3 














390 THE CHURCH OF ST. MAGNUS 


On 15th Oétober, 1683, the burial of Mr. 
Charles Passinger in the south aisle of the church 
is recorded. He carried on the business of a book- 
seller at the Seven Stars in the New Buildings, 
and was clearly a relative of Thomas Passinger’s, 
and this entry fixes the period of his occupation of 
these premises. In the same year the church- 
wardens 


Pd. Mr. Passinger for a booke of Cannons ts. 6d. 
Pd. Mr. Passinger for a common prayer 
book ‘ ‘ ‘ ; ; . a> 


these entries referring to Thomas Passinger. 
During the wardenship of Mr. Thomas Worley, 
combmaker, in 1684-5, Passinger’s name frequently 
crops up in such entries as these: 


July 15. Paid Mr. Passinger for a booke . 16s. od. 
Sept’. 3. Spent at ye Swanne tavern with 


Mr. Passinger and my partner ; . 3s. 10d. 
Nov’.27. Spent with Mr. Passinger & 
others about parish business ; - go od. 


We already know that Thomas Passinger died in 
1688, and the following entry in these accounts 
shews that he was buried in the Church of St. 
Magnus: 


1688. June 8". Rec* for the buriall of Mr. Thomas 
Passinger ...<.. £1 gs. 8d. 
His business was carried on for some time by his 
widow, and in the following year’s accounts it is 
recorded : 


1689. March 28. Paid M™ Passinger for some parch- 
ment leaves putt into the register booke ...... 18s. 














AND THE BOOKSELLERS. 39! 


She died in 1692, and was also buried in the south 
aisle of St. Magnus, and the business passed to her 
nephew, Thomas Passinger, who can be traced 
until 1695, when he was succeeded by Ebenezer 
Tracy. 

During the next twenty years several entries are 
met with in these accounts concerning booksellers 
on the Bridge, confirming what is already known 
of their history, and in some instances throwing 
fresh light upon it. Here are some of them: 


1703. July 3%. Rec* for the buriall of Mr. John 


Back in the cloyster...... gs. 10d. . 

1703. Jan” 24. Rec* for the buriall of a daughter 
of Mr. Tracey in the lower end of the South Ile. .... 
16s. 6d. 

1703. Jan’ 16". Rec* for the buriall of M*. Blair’s 
maid servant in the Churchyard Alley ..... 45. 

1704. Aug’ 30". Rec‘ for the buriall of M‘. Tracey’s 
child in the South Ile. ..... 14S. 

1705-6. Rec* for the buriall of Sarah, dau of Matthew 
Hootham, in the Green churchyard ...... gs. 10d. 

1706-7. Rec* for the buriall of M'‘. Joseph Blare, in 
the new vault...... £1 1s. 8d. 


1712-13. Paid & of 11s. for M‘. Tracy’s Common 
Prayer Book. 

1714-15. Rec* of M'. Ebenezer Need for his fine 
for churchwarden only ...... £12 

—  Rec* for the buriall of M'. Hothum’s child in the 
great vault. ..... £1 8s. 2d. 

— Rec* for the buriall of M‘. Blayer in the great 
WS w a's 0-5 £3 5s. 

1717. June 8. Rec* for the buriall of M". Tracey 
inthe church ...... £1 os. 10d. 


John Back, whose burial is recorded above, carried 
on business as a bookseller at the sign of the Black 











392 THE CHURCH OF ST. MAGNUS 


Boy on London Bridge, near the drawbridge. He 
was succeeded by Matthew Hotham, Hootham or 
Hothum, who was also buried in St. Magnus in 

1725. 

Sal Blare, whose burial is recorded above 
in the accounts for the year 1706-7, is no doubt 
identical with Josiah Blare, the first tenant of the 
Looking Glass on London Bridge, whose will was 
proved on 3rd December, 1706. The other Mr. 
‘ Blayer,’ buried in 1714-15, may have been his son 
Josiah, who was not of age at the time of his 
father’s death; but why so large a sum should 
have been charged for his interment is a mystery. 
Nor is it clear who the Mr. ‘ Tracey’ was who 
was buried on 8th June, 1717. It was certainly 
not Ebenezer Tracy, who was still at the Three 
Bibles in the year 1719, as appears from an ad- 
vertisement in the ‘Weekly Journal’ of 17th 
January of that year. It is quite astonishing what 
an amount of bibliographical information is con- 
tained in the sheets that did duty for newspapers 
in the first half of the eighteenth century. We 
are apt to look upon them somewhat contemptu- 
ously as being too insignificant to contain anything 
worth notice. And again many students are 
deterred by the weariness of searching these sheets. 
But the result fully justifies the labour. 

It is not generally known that there were two 
shops with the sign of the Three Bibles on London 
Bridge at the beginning of the eighteenth century. 
In the issue of the ‘Post Boy’ from Saturday, 
znd January, to Tuesday, 5th January, 173%, ap- 
peared the following advertisement : 











AND THE BOOKSELLERS. 393 


John Stuart, stationer, at the 3 Bibles, the corner house 
of the square, about the middle of London Bridge, having 
a large quantity of fine playing cards, viz. Whiske, Basset, 
Pickit and Ombro, with divers other sorts, made by the 
best makers, sealed according to the late A& of Parlia- 
ment continues still to sell at very reasonable rates (as 
many have already experienc’d) and gives as much 
encouragement to the buyer as any man. N.B. He has 
a variety or sorts of new figur’d paper for hanging of 
rooms, very cheap. 


But not only did Stuart take the same sign, but 
he also dealt in a quack medicine to which he 
gave the same name as a similar medicine sold b 
Ebenezer Tracy and his successors, and called the 
Balsam of Chili. 

In 1724 this called forth a vigorous protest from 
John Tracy, one of the firm of H. and J. Tracy, 
inserted in an edition of James Love’s ‘ Mariner's 
Jewel,’ which they issued in that year. In this 
he says: 

All persons are desired to beware of a pretended Balsam 
of Chili, which for about this seven years past hath been 
sold and continues to be sold by Mr. John Stuart, at the 
Old Three Bibles, as he calls his sign, although mine was 
the sign of the Three Bibles twenty years belore his. 


This last statement seems to throw some doubt 
on the hitherto accepted belief that Ebenezer Tracy 
and his successors occupied the same shop as that 
which had previously been held by Charles Tyus 
and Thomas Passinger, and whose history began 
in 1656. It is possible that Thomas Passinger’s 
kinsman who succeeded to the business may have 
carried the sign to another house on the bridge, as 








394 THE CHURCH OF ST. MAGNUS 


Ebenezer Tracy’s career began about 1694 or ’95, 
which would be just ‘ twenty years before.’ 

Later on John Stuart took into partnership 
Henry Woodgate, and the second volume of these 
churchwardens’ accounts of St. Magnus, beginning 
in Oétober, 1734, has pasted inside the cover the 
following printed ticket: 

John Stuart and Henry Woodgate stationers at y‘ 
Three Bibles y* corner of ye square on London Bridge. 

I think the preceding notes show that this firm 
were dealers in stationery rather than booksellers, 
and they probably continued to occupy these 
premises until the demolition of the houses on the 
bridge in 1750. 

Two other eminent booksellers are met with in 
these churchwardens’ accounts. In 1720 we read: 

July 11. Thomas Norris for a Bible for W™. Magnus 
apprentice ...... 38. 

This refers to Thomas Norris, the bookseller, 
who succeeded Josiah Blare at the ‘ Looking Glass,’ 
and it further illustrates a custom common in this 
as in other parishes of naming bastard children 
after the parish in which they were found. William 
Magnus was one of these unfortunates. 

In the year 1722-3 Thomas Norris was church- 
warden of St. Magnus, and the following entries 
in his account are worth noting: 

paid myselfe for a large Folio Bible for the church, 
very finely bound. Delivered Dec’ 24"1720...... 
£6 118. 3d. 

Paid ditto for five large common prayer, 4 for the 
churchwardens and 1 for the clerk, and new binding 
two old Bibles...... £3 13s. gd. 














AND THE BOOKSELLERS. 395 


About the following year he appears to have 
retired from business and settled at Highgate, 
where he died in the year 1732, but as these 
churchwardens’ accounts shew, he was buried in 
ground belonging to the united parish of St. Mar- 
garet, New Fish Street, on 6th June, 1732, and 
his will was proved in the Prerogative court of 
Canterbury on the following day (P.C.C. 174 
Bedford). 

Thomas Norris was succeeded at the Looking 
Glass by James Hodges, who also took an active 
part in the parish life of St. Magnus, to which he 
frequently supplied books, his yearly bill with the 
churchwardens amounting to between {2 and £3. 

He was churchwarden from Ladyday 1743 to 
Ladyday 1744, but his account is a very short one, 
and with little or no detail. It has the appearance 
of an account kept by a very busy man in the 
midst of other duties. On 17th June, 1755, he 
signed the statement of accounts presented by the 
outgoing churchwarden, Mr. Robert Hale, this 
being the last time his name occurs in the book. 
Soon afterwards he also retired from business and 
was appointed Clerk to the City of London. In 
1758 he became Sir James Hodges, being knighted 
on the occasion of presenting an address to the 
King. He died in 1774, but the place of his 
burial is not known. 

Henry R. Promer. 




















396 


THE SO-CALLED GUTENBERG 
DOCUMENTS.’ 


Ye s 
(*5 | 


u 
“om 


N considering Gutenberg’s capacity for 
executing the large amount of work 
attributed to him by his admirers, we 
35) must remember his position and cir- 
® cumstances before and during the five 
years 9 (14¢0 to 1455) covered by the Helmasperger 
document. We know that in 1450, when he 
obtained his first advance from Fust, he had already 
been in debt for eight years at Strassburg, and for 
two years at Mainz. After having lived in the 
former place in apparent luxury from 1436 to 
1439 (see above, Doc. No. ix.), he borrowed there, 
on 17th November, 1442, eighty pounds Strassburg 
denarii from the St. Thomas Stift (see above, 
Doc. No. xiii.), which he never repaid, though 
the annual interest of 5 per cent. (= four pounds) 
on this loan seems to have been regularly paid by 
him (or his surety ?) till the 11th November, 1457, 
when he defaulted (see below, Doc. No. xxii.). 
On 17th Oétober, 1448, he contracted a fresh 
loan,? borrowing from two Mainz citizens, through 





* Continued from page 313. 

? Zedler (‘Gutenberg-Forsch.’ p. 81) assumes that, with this 
loan, Gutenberg fitted up his work-shop, and made preparations 
for the printing of a Missal, so far that when, in about a year’s 
time, he came to the wealthy Fust for money, the latter lent him 
a willing ear. But this is against the evidence of the Helmasperger 
instrument, 




















GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 397 


his relative Arnold Gelthuss, 150 gold guilders at 
5 percent. This debt, too, remained unpaid, and 
was still outstanding in 1503 (five-and-thirty years 
after Gutenberg’s death), while there is no record 
of any interest having ever been paid on it. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that in August, 
1450, when he contracted a third still heavier 
debt with John Fust, he does not offer his money- 
lender as security any printing-office, or a press 
or presses, or types, patrices, matrices, or other 
printing tools, which he must have possessed if, as 
some bibliographers contend, he had already been 
printing, since 1443 or earlier, German Sibylline 
books, Donatuses, Astronomical Kalendars, and 
other works. No; he merely pledges ‘tools’ which 
he had still to make with the money which he 
then (in 1450) borrowed from Fust. Hence he 
must, in 1450, have been destitute of any property 
or any printing apparatus such as an ordinary 
printer would have mortgaged under similar cir- 
cumstances. Nor is it surprising that, in 1450, 
he implied by his (verbal or written?) agreement 
with Fust that he was penniless, and even unable 
to subsist, or to pay his workmen, his house-rent, 
etc., unless Fust furnished him with the necessary 
cash. Nor can we wonder that after the lapse ot 
barely two years (on 1st December, 1452) he asked 
Fust for more money. 

A man. thus situated may be a ‘genius’ or a 
person of ‘iron energy, he may be even an 
‘inventor,’ and possess all the fine talents attributed 
to him (see Zedler, ‘ Gutenberg-Forsch.’ pp. 56, 95, 
115, etc.; #d. in ‘Centralbl.’ 1907, p. 198). But 

















398 THE SO-CALLED 


experience teaches us that sooner or later his 
depressing circumstances begin to blunt his qualities ; 
from one debt he runs into another'; he lacks the 
energy to economize,’ were it only for a while, in 
order to extricate himself from his pecuniary 
difficulties; he begins to negleét his work; finds 
no longer anyone willing to lend him more money ; 
at last his creditors press him for repayment, and 
—the end is not far off. 

It would seem that Gutenberg’s career after his 
first appearance as a borrower in 1442, was no 
exception to the almost invariable rule. The 
course which he evidently had expected Fust to 
adopt towards him was somewhat analagous to 
that of a benevolent Maecenas, indifferent as to how 
much money he would spend on the particular 
work he cared for, provided he saw it done at 
some time or another by the person whom he 
favoured. Fust was first to lend him 800 guilders 


* It seems certain that Gutenberg was assisted also by other 
Mainz citizens, one of them being Johann Medinbach. Serarius 
states, in 1604 (‘ Moguntiacarum rerum libri quinque,’ p. 162 s9¢.), 
that ‘ Gutenberg, after having lost nearly all his substance through 
the difficulties of the art, at last accomplished the work by the aid 
of Johann Fusth, Johann Medinbach and other fellow citizens,’ 
and that he derived this information from a MS. of Trithemius 
and the Chronicle of Sebast. Minster. Bernard (‘ Orig.’ ii., 16), 
and Van der Linde (‘ Buchdruckerk.’ p. 113), discredited this 
statement, because they only knew Jacob Medenbach, a Mainz 
printer of the end of the fifteenth century. But Velke (‘ Fest- 
schrift,’ p. 415) points out that Johann Medenbach is now known 
from genuine documents, so that there is no longer any reason for 
rejecting Serarius’ statement (see also Zedler, ‘ Forsch.’ p. 86). 

2 We must not forget Gutenberg’s well-filled wine-cellar of 


1436 to 1439 (Doc. No. ix., above). 














GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 399 


to enable him to make tools preparatory to another 
work, and in the meantime give him annually 300 
guilders for his living, for paying his house-rent 
and workmen, and supply him besides with parch- 
ment, paper, ink, and other things (etceteras). 
Fust, however, appears not to have been such a 
Croesus as he is always depicted to us, but to have 
been compelled himself to borrow at the high rate 
of 6 per cent. the money which he advanced. He 
would, therefore, have acted recklessly if he had 
incurred additional heavy expenses for the second 
part of a work (parchment, paper, ink) before 
Gutenberg had finished the first part (the tools— 
that is, his types, a press, etc.) so necessary for 
starting. That Gutenberg asked for maintenance, 
and wanted a house while he was engaged on 
making his tools, seems natural, but workmen’s 
wages, parchment, paper, ink, etc., were not 
required until his types and press were ready. 
Fust is usually represented to us 


as a crafty, greedy money-lender, who saw the advantages 
of Gutenberg’s industrial work, and was determined to 
profit by it, no matter what injustice he would inflié on 
his victim, and, therefore, did not advance the money 
out of his own pocket, but purposely dorrowed it, as he 
wished to have Gutenberg completely in his grip, in case 
the latter should fail in his performances. 


But the verdiét shows that the Tribunal refused 
interest to Fust, unless he could prove that he had 
‘borrowed’ the money which he advanced. If 
such proceedings were possible at Mainz, -Fust 
acted properly and in self-defence by borrowing 











400 THE SO-CALLED 


the money with which he assisted Gutenberg. 
Why then should he be condemned for having 
done so? It is not improbable that Fust had no 
desire at first, as Gutenberg says, to charge any 
interest, but that as time went on, and Gutenberg 
produced no tangible result, he felt compelled to 
demand interest, if it were only as much as he 
paid himself. 

We know now enough of the art of printing as 
it must have been carried on from its invention— 
say, about 14465, till, say, 1480—to feel sure that 
the establishment of a printing-office required no 
exorbitant capital, as the early printers manu- 
factured their own types, and very likely made 
their own presses, wherever they settled. 

Van der Linde (‘Geschichte,’ p. 810) points 
out that the 1,600 guilders advanced by Fust (a 
large sum for the middle of the fifteenth century) 
ought to have sufficed for Gutenberg’s purpose, 
seeing that the records of the monastery of St. 
Ulrich at Augsburg (see Braun, ‘ Notitia de libris 
in Biblioth. Monast., 1788, p. 9) show that the 
Abbot Melchior von Stamhaim, when establishing 
a printing-office there in 1472, purchased five 
presses and some other tools from Johann Schiissler 
for 73 guilders; had five other smaller presses made 
for him; had types cast for him, and began to 
print in 1473. ‘The preparation of all necessaries 
had taken him a year, and cost him 702 guilders. 

This is the picture of an ecclesiastic fully 
acquainted perhaps with the art of printing, and 
no doubt living under happier conditions than 
Gutenberg. The latter, if we regard the 1455 














GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 401 


lawsuit as genuine, and take it as our guide, had, 
in 1450, to begin life as a printer, and before he 
could print anything had to manufacture his tools, 
and, while already handicapped by two outstanding 
debts, had to borrow fresh money for the purpose. 
A man in such circumstances could not progress 
like a well-to-do Augsburg Abbot, a quarter of a 
century later, when the art of printing was no 
longer a novelty. 

The authors of the ‘ Gutenberg-Gesellschaft,’ 
however, represent Gutenberg as much better off 
in 1450 than the Abbot Stamhaim in 1472. 
Gutenberg, they say, the inventor of the new art 
of printing, was already so fully experienced and 
equipped in this new art before 1448 that, towards 
the end of 1447, he could print an Astronomical 
Kalendar so ‘ masterly’ in his second type, that we 
must suppose it to have been preceded by many 
experiments (printed in this and his frst type). 

If we were to accept this view, and the 
‘experienced’ Gutenberg had had his heart in 
the business, the money advanced by Fust ought 
to have enabled him to cast a type for B+? and to 
print it, and likewise to cast a new type for B36 
and to print it.' But, says the Helmasperger 
instrument, Gutenberg demanded 800 guilders for 
his ‘tools’ alone, leaving, therefore, only 750 of 
the 1,550 guilders which Fust (in his sworn 
declaration) stated to have advanced, for the other 


* On the prices of material for books, parchment, paper, etc., 
about 1440-50, and the time which is supposed to have been 
required (not more than a year) for the printing of B*, see an 
interesting discussion by Zedler in ‘ Centralbl.’ 1907, p. 203 s¢9. 


Il, DD 

















402 THE SO-CALLED 


part of the ‘work’ mentioned in the document. 
This was not a large margin for Gutenberg’s own 
sustenance; it was certainly insufficient for the 
payment, during a period of five years, of work- 
men’s wages, house-rent, parchment, paper, ink, 
etc., which were all required for the printing of 
the Bible or Bibles ascribed to him. 

But suppose Gutenberg had, in November, 
1455, or earlier," progressed so far with the B4 
(not to speak of other work) that a complete copy 
of it could be in the hands of a rubricator by 
August, 1456 (the Mazarine copy in the Paris 
Nat. Library), barely eight months after the trial. 
In such a case Fust must have known what 
Gutenberg had accomplished, more particularly he 
must have been for a long time in possession of the 
pledge (Gutenberg’s tools), reserved to him by the 
1450 contract, for his first 800 guilders. Anyhow, 
he must have known it if Gutenberg had made 
these tools. So that, if Fust, in spite of all 
that he knew and must have seen with his own 
eyes, from 1450 till 1455, brought in 1455 an 
action against Gutenberg for the repayment of his 
advances and unpaid interest, Gutenberg could 
and should have pleaded that he had not only 
manufactured his tools, pledged to Fust for his first 
800 guilders, but had also, by means of them, 
printed a Bible in two folio volumes on vellum and 
on paper, as a more than sufficient equivalent for 
Fust’s second 800 guilders. Instead of taking such 
an obvious course, Gutenberg gives the Tribunal to 


* Zedler (‘Centralbl.’ 1907, p. 202 sgg.) thinks that B# was 
finished so early as 1453 (see below, p. 410). 




















GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 403 


understand that (1) practically he had done nothing, 
as Fust had failed to pay in full, or at once after the 
completion of the contract, the first 800 guilders, 
for which he was to make his tools; (2) that he 
hoped or trusted that he had not been obliged to 
lay out any part of this sum on the ‘work of the 
books’ (which can hardly mean anything but that 
he had not laid out anything on such work, ie., 
had not printed any books); (3) that Fust had also 
failed in furnishing him with various necessaries 
(such as parchment, paper, ink, etc.), so that he 
was not indebted to him for anything, and was 
ready to account for the second 800 guilders. 
Thus the plain wording of the Helmasperger 
document, combined with Gutenberg’s straitened 
circumstances, before and after 1450-5, force the 
conclusion on us that he had not made his tools or 
instruments (a press and types?) either in 1452, 
when Fust lent him the second 800 guilders, or 
in 1455, when he was summoned before the 
Mainz Tribunal for repaying Fust’s advances. The 
document seems also to show that Gutenberg 
could never have printed anything, certainly not 
large folio Bibles like B36 and B42, as Fust had 
apparently never supplied the paper, parchment, 
ink, money for maintenance, house-rent, work- 
men’s wages, etc., which Gutenberg had expected 
from him. If Fust had done so, he would have 
mentioned it at the trial, or added these extras to 
the amount of his two cash advances. Gutenberg, 
in his embarrassed circumstances, could not have 
contributed a penny towards these extras, even if 


he had wished to. 














404 THE SO-CALLED 


Some authors think that at the trial everyone 
endeavoured to keep the new art secret, and, 
therefore, avoided to mention particulars. Fust, 
for various reasons, might have wished to do so, 
But Gutenberg (who saw his secret in the hands 
of his enemy, eager to appropriate its fruit and 
glory to himself) should have told the judges, and 
all those interested in the trial, that he had invented 
the new art, if he had done so. At any rate, 
he might, in a few words, have explained the 
expression ‘the work of the books,’ and what 
portion of the first or the second 800 guilders he 
had devoted to it. Having already used once this 
phrase, he could not betray the secret of his 
invention much further by his explanation, and the 
world would have known whether he really had 
invented or printed anything. 

But it may be said Gutenberg must have pro- 
duced something satisfactory during the two years 
and three and a half months that elapsed after the 
first advance (in 1450), otherwise Fust would not 
have lent him more in 1452. Of this, however, we 
cannot be sure, not knowing Fust’s reason for 
making a second advance, except that he stated to 
have advanced it to please Gutenberg. The latter 
may have pleaded difficulties in preparing the 
work, and Fust may have thought that by helping 
him further he might prevent a collapse. Anyhow, 
neither in the lines 1 to 22, which are introductory, 
nor in the lines 22 to 47, which are the most 
important part of the Helmasperger document, as 
containing the statements which the plaintiff and 
defendant made on the first day of the trial, is 

















GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 405 


there one word to indicate that Gutenberg had 
produced anything for the money advanced by 
Fust. On the contrary, the faét that Fust claimed 
repayment of the whole of his advances, with 
interest thereon, seems to show clearly that he 
knew of no work having ever been done by 
Gutenberg. So far, therefore, there is nothing in 
the document to prevent us from assuming that 
from the 15th August,'1450, till the 1st December, 
1452, Gutenberg defrayed the cost of his own 
living, the rent of his abode or workshop, and the 
wages of his servant or servants, whoever they 
were, out of the first 800 (or 750) guilders 
advanced to him; and that in November or 
December, 1452, he gave Fust to understand that 
he was dissatisfied, and obtained a second advance 
of 800 guilders, which seems to have gone the 
same way as the first 800, during the two years 
and eleven months between 1st December, 1452, 
and 31st Oétober, 1455. We read that a servant 
and a workman of Gutenberg were present at the 
proceedings of the 6th November, 1455, but it is 
not stated how long they had been in his employ, 
or whether he had engaged any other workmen ; 
consequently we cannot calculate how much, if 
anything, he might have paid out on wages. 

The remaining part of the instrument is the 
Verdiét (lines 47 to 54) passed on a previous 
occasion, after the litigants had stated their case: 

(1) Whereas such claim, answer, reply and epilogue 
with these and many other words have thus been stated, 
we legally pronounce: (2) When Gutenberg has rendered 
[= shall have rendered(?)] his account of all receipts and 














406 THE SO-CALLED 


disbursements which he has laid out on the work for the 
use of them both; (3) whatever less’ money he then has 
received and taken in concerning it,’ that shall be reckoned 


* The clauses 2 and 3 read in the original: ‘Wan Johann 
Guttenberg sin rechnung gethain hat von allen Innemen vnd 
uszgeben dasz er uff daz werck zu irer beiden nocz uszgeben hait, 
was er dan men gelts dar uber empfanngen vnd ingenommen hait 
das,’ etc. Senckenberg and Kohler, followed by Van der Linde, 
erroneously printed nun for men, which latter is correct, though it 
has hitherto been misunderstood. Dziatzko (‘Gutenbergfrage,’ 
p. 34, note), and Schorbach (‘Festschr.’ 1900, p. 259, note 7), 
explain it as meaning more. Zedler (‘Gutenberg-Forsch.’ 
page 65, note 3) thinks that it is the same as mein, found 
in the compounds mein-kouf, mein-rat, . . . menrehte,and in Mod. 
Germ. mein-cid, and that it here means ‘unjustly ’ (widerrechtlich). 
The word men, however, is the same as the Mid. Dutch min, myn 
(see Verdam, ‘ Middelned. Woord.’ in voce; also Geo. Friedr. 
Benecke and Matth. Lexer, ‘ Mitt. hochd. Wérterbb.’; especially 
Schiller und Liibben, Mittel-Niederdeutsches Wéorterb.’ in voce, 
min)== Mod, Dutch minder, and can only mean /ess (Germ. weniger), 
a meaning which refers to Gutenberg’s pleadings that he had not 
received from Fust the whole of the first 800 guilders, and also the 
judges’ decision that the amount not received by Gutenberg shall 
be calculated in (deducted from) the (first) 800 guilders, i.¢., he 
shall not be held responsible for more than he could prove to have 
received from Fust. 

The above note has at my request already appeared in the 
‘Centralblatt fur Bibliothekwesen,’ 1910, p. 456, with two replies to 
it, one from Dr. H. Degering, another from Dr. Paul Schwenke, 
The former says that the change of 1 to e (in a closed syllable 
before liquids), which my explanation would presuppose, is not 
uncommon; the Helmasperger document itself has volnbrengen 
instead of volnbringen, so that men for min is possible. But he 
adds that I have overlooked that the comparative min (weniger) 
had, in 1455, been superseded by the fuller form minder (minner, 
minre, etc.), while by the side of this fuller form a new positive 
min, minne (of little value, less valuable = minderwertig) had arisen, 
which is here out of the question. He thinks, therefore, that 
men in this case is really me (mehr, more) with a final nasal sound 
(Nachklang) caused by the g of ge/ts following. 

It is difficult to accept Dr. Degering’s reasoning. He seems to 























GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 407 


in the 800 guilders; (4) but if it should be found in the 
account that he [Gutenberg] has paid out for him [Fust] 
more than 800 guilders which had not come in their 
common good, he [Gutenberg] shall return it to [Fust], 
(s) and when Fust adduces by oath or by reasonable 
evidence that he has borrowed the above money on 
interest, and not lent it of his own money, then Gutenberg 
shall also render and pay such interest, according to the 
tenor of the schedule. 


This verdié& is followed (in lines 54 to 65) by 
Fust’s sworn declaration regarding the amount of 
his claim, which he had been ordered to make in 
Gutenberg’s presence, but which he now (6th 
November, 1455) made in his absence. This 


have overlooked the faét that official and notarial documents of all 
countries retain old words and expressions, and old forms of words, 
long after their disappearance from the conversational and book 
language. He admits that at some time or other the comparative 
men, min, had, in Mid. German, the meaning weniger (less). 
Benecke says it occurs seldom in Mh. D.; it is by no means rare 
in Mid. D. (see Verdam, Kiliaen, Oudemans). We may, there- 
fore, take it for granted that when it occurs ina Mid. German 
document of not later than 1455, where a meaning weniger (less) 
is required to make sense, it is not any other word, certainly not 
the word more, Germ. mehr, as our document expresses this mean- 
ing, as Dr. Degering admits, four times—namely, three times 
(lines 24, 28, 51) by the usual me, and once (line 65) by the 
equally usual mer. As I requested two scholars—familiar with 
Mid. German, but knowing nothing of the Gutenberg question— 
to translate the above quotation without looking at anything else, 
and without a hint from me as to the word in dispute, and they 
both also translated men by ‘less,’ I adhere to my translation and 
to the above explanation. Dr. Schwenke, who also translated 
men by ‘more,’ is of opinion that the meaning ‘less’ is suitable 
only when ‘dar uber’ after ge/ts could mean ‘concerning it.’ 
But by this expression I translate ‘dar uber,’ and not by ‘above 
that,” as his version would have it. 














408 THE SO-CALLED 


declaration, preceded by the notary’s introductory 
statement (lines 54-56), 


When such verdict was read in the presence of the 
aforenamed her Heinrich etc. Heinrich and Bechtolff 
servants of the said johann guttenberg, etc., 


runs as follows (li. 56-64) : 


(6) the said Johann fust swore in my [the notary’s] 
hand that everything concluded in a schedule, according 
to the verdict, which he also handed to me, was entirely 
true and correct, and the schedule ran as follows: (7) I 
Johannes Fust have taken up 1550 (Sexhezendehalp) 
guilders whieh Gutenberg has received and which also 
have gone on our common work; (8) on which I have 
annually given interest and loss, and of which I still owe 
a part; (9) I calculate for every 100 guilders, which I 
have taken up in this way as is written above, annually six 
guilders; (10) what he has received of this borrowed 
money, which has not gone on the work of us both, 
which is found in the account, of that I claim from him 
the interest, in accordance with the verdict (11) and that 
this is also true I will maintain as is right in accordance 
with the verdict on the first article of my claim. 


Clause 2 of the Verdiét shows that Gutenberg 
was expected to produce an account of all ‘receipts’ 
and ‘disbursements laid out by him on the work 
for the use of them both.’ This account he 
appears not to have rendered; at any rate, he 
could not have handed it in personally on the 
6th November, 1455, as he then remained absent, 
and those who were present on that day on his 
behalf stated that they had only been commissioned 
by him to hear what would happen (see Tue 

















GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 409 


LiBRARY, 1909, p. 400). We do not know, there- 
fore, whether Gutenberg had made any ‘ disburse- 
ments on the work for the use (or good) of them 
both.’ 

The ‘receipts’ here alluded to seem to be the 
‘instalments’ of the first 800 guilders which Guten- 
berg acknowledged to have received from Fust 
from time to time [not at once], but which he 
said fell short of the full 800 for which he had 
asked. They could hardly be ‘receipts’ from the 
sale of books or broadsides or other documents 
printed by Gutenberg before November, 1455. 

Zedler (‘ Forsch.’ p. 91), however, thinks that 
Gutenberg had derived ‘ receipts’ from his smaller 
works, and utilized them for his ‘ master-piece’ 
(z.e., B42). He also tells us (éid., p. 96), without 
giving any authority, that in 1454 Pfister (un- 
acquainted with the art of cutting and casting 
type, iid., p. 102) purchased from Gutenberg the 
B3¢ type for an undoubtedly large sum, and used 
it for some time at Mainz. And he likewise 
asserts (‘ Forsch.’ p. 67 sgg.; ‘Centralbl.’ 1907, 
p. 200 sgg.) that the words, ‘das sich in rechnung 
erfindet ’ (=that is found in the account), in Fust’s 
oath (line 63, clause 10, above) show that Guten- 
berg had aéctually produced his account. 

The wording of the tenth clause is, indeed, not 
clear, and therefore capable of being interpreted in 
more ways than one. It stands to reason, however, 
that Fust speaks there of his own account, not of 
one rendered by Gutenberg. Clause 2 (of the 
Verdict), when read in its context, is not doubtful 
on this point: the words (‘ was er dan’) ‘ whatever 




















410 THE SO-CALLED 


he then,’ etc., plainly refer to an account to be 
rendered, not to one already handed in. Again, 
if Fust had referred, in clause 10, to an account 
actually produced by Gutenberg, he would have 
spoken of Ais (7.e., Gutenberg’s), not merely of ‘ the 
account.” Though this seems obvious enough, 
Zedler illustrates his strange interpretation of the 
tenth clause by such an ingenious explanation of 
this Gutenberg ‘account’ that it must be mentioned 
here. After having discussed the prices of parch- 
ment, paper, etc., about 1440-50, he calculates 
that the printing of B+? could have been accom- 
plished in twelve months, and, accepting the 
suspicious year 1453 written in the Klemm copy 
(at Leipzic) as genuine, he draws up the chief 
items of the ‘account’ which he believes Guten- 
berg to have handed in on the 6th November, 
1455, and to have contained his ‘ disbursements’ 
to the precise amount of 750 guilders laid out by 
him in one year on the printing of B4?. 

Here is this Gutenberg-account as drawn up by 
Zedler (‘ Centralbl.’ 1907, p. 207) : 


Subsistence of the workmen . . 300 guilders 

Parchment for 16 copies . ‘ ~ a. ow 

38 Reams of aad for 54 — om 

Wages . ‘1 »& 

Rent of Office ; , ; Se 

Printing-ink . ‘ : ‘ . ee “S 
750 guilders’ 


* On p. 88 sgg. of his ‘Gutenberg-Forsch.’ Zedler calculated 
that 240(!) copies were printed of B‘?; that, therefore, Gutenberg 
required 162(!) reams of paper; or 180 copies on paper and 20 on 

















GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 411 


Zedler explains that these expenses run over the 
one year which he supposes the printing of B¢? to 
have required. Elsewhere he seems to be of 
opinion that Gutenberg began to make his tools, 
say, in July, 1450, so that, if we assume with him 
that the year ‘1453’ in the Klemm copy is 
genuine, and refers to about the beginning of 
1453, Gutenberg would have accomplished the 
manufacture of his tools and the printing of B42 
in about two and a half years (July, 1450, to 
January, 1453), that is, eighteen months (and 
800 guilders) for the tools, and a year (and 750 
guilders) for the printing of the Bible. But 
Zedler does not explain the gap of about two and 
a ‘half years which his calculation leaves between 
the beginning of 1453 (when B¢#? is said to have 
been finished,’ and Gutenberg had so carefully 
husbanded Fust’s advances that only 50 guilders 
are not properly accounted for), and, say, Oétober, 
1455, when the law-suit may be supposed to have 
begun. If Gutenberg had finished his tools, say, 
in February or March, 1452, and about the 


parchment, to make a round 200; but Schwenke’s calculations 
induced him to assume an edition of 270 copies, of which 30 on 
parchment. 

* Trithemius relates that Peter Schoefter had told him that 
4,000 guilders(!) had been spent on the work before the third 
quire had been finished. 


* Schwenke (‘Gutenbergfeier,’ p. 57, 63 sgg.) calculates that 
200 copies were printed; that the work was commenced in the 
second half of 1453, and finished about the time of the lawsuit— 
that is, the middle of 1455. From 1450(!) to the end of 1453 
Gutenberg had been making ‘ experiments,’ which seems to imply 
that Schwenke dates Gutenberg’s career as printer from 1450(!). 











412 THE SO-CALLED 


beginning of 1453 had finished also the printing 
of B42, he could not have executed this work with- 
out Fust’s knowledge, as the latter had advanced 
the money for it. Fust must have known it 
if Gutenberg’s tools (pledged to him for his first 
advance) had been ready in 1452; he must have 
come to know it if, say, 200 copies of a large 
folio Bible, in two volumes, printed by a novel 
mechanism by the help of his own money, were, 
or had been, lying ready in their printing-office 
(ereéted also by his own money) since the beginning 
of 1453, for an eventual sale in the book-markets 
of the time. And yet, in, or shortly before, 
November, 1455—fully three or four years after 
Fust had seen, or could have seen, every day 
during that period this printing-office at work, 
with its store of types, presses, parchment, paper, 
and printing, say, 200 copies of a large folio Bible 
of more than 1,280 pages, all by means of his own 
money—Fust, as if he had seen nothing, takes it 
into his head to prosecute Gutenberg, the creator 
of all this work, and claims from him, not merely 
repayment of his capital by means of which all 
these marvels had been produced, but interest on 
this capital and interest on the interest. And 
Gutenberg, the victim, merely tells the tribunal 
what he had expec#ed from Fust five years ago, at 
the commencement of their relations, and that he 
himself had undertaken to make ‘tools’ as a pledge 
for the money advanced to him, but remains silent 
as to whether he had ever de/tvered or finished these 
tools or had actually printed anything with them, 
and finally, on the second day of the trial, merely 














GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 413 


absented himself without any further troubling 
himself about Fust or his printing work. Such 
strange things could hardly have happened at 
Mainz during the years 1450 to 1455! Having 
already explained above the reasons for ascribing 
B42, and all the books printed in the same type, to 
Peter Schoeffer, I do not dwell further on this 
point. 

Clause 2 of the Verdiét refers to the ‘ work for 
the use of them both,’ which seems to suggest that 
Gutenberg was supposed to have done ‘ work’ 
also for his own use, apart from ‘work’ for the 
common use of himself and Fust. This special 
work must have been the ‘ tools’ which Gutenberg 
had undertaken to make, and which, though he 
pledged them to Fust for the latter’s advances, he 
continued to regard as ‘his’ tools, having reserved 
to himself the right of redeeming them by repay- 
ing Fust’s first 800 guilders. It is strange that 
such separate work could have been intended or 
accepted by the latter, as with mere ‘tools’ he 
could do nothing. The clauses 3 and 4 of the 
Verdict as they stand suggest that the judges knew 
nothing of two sums of 800 guilders, only of one; 
that they decided that Gutenberg (who alleged 
not to have received from Fust the whole fret 
800 guilders) would not be responsible for more 
than he had received. But if he had paid out 
more than 800, and not to the ‘common’ good, he 
should repay the surplus. But as the plaintiff and 
defendant both speak of two advances of 800 
guilders each, and say that the first 800 had been 
for Gutenberg’s ‘tools,’ the Verdict could only 








414 THE SO-CALLED 


mean that if he could show that he had not 
received the whole of these 800, he would not be 
responsible for more than he had received of that 
amount, and that as regards the second 800, if he 
had paid out anything above that sum which had 
not gone on their common good, he would have 
to repay it to Fust, and the latter would be entitled 
to interest, if he showed or swore that he had 
borrowed the money, and not lent it out of his own 
pocket. In other words, if Gutenberg had received 
of the first 800 guilders no more than, say, 700, 
but had paid, say, goo on the second account, 
without being able to show that this surplus of 
100 guilders had all gone on the ‘common’ work, 
he would owe Fust 700+g00=1,600 guilders, 
besides the interest, if any. 

The wording and meaning of the fifth clause 
are clear, and show that Fust had nothing further 
to do than to state on oath whence he had procured 
the money which he had advanced to Gutenberg. 

In Fust’s oath (clauses 6 to 11) is mentioned 
another schedule (Zette/), which he had handed 
to the Notary Helmasperger. It seems to have 
stated, in compliance with the Verdiét, certain 
particulars the correétness of which Fust had to 
confirm on oath. He declares (clause 6) to have 
borrowed 1,550 guilders for Gutenberg, which 
had also gone on ‘our common work,’ whereas 
on the previous occasion, and in his account, he 
had mentioned 1,600. Zedler (‘ Centralbl.’ 1907, 
p. 200 sgg.) argues that Fust in his oath spoke 
only of 1,550 guilders, because he ‘ had seen from 
Gutenberg’s account’ that the second 800 guilders 





-_ uhm tema wt thi th bo ei on th Gh eee «9 os Ch a 6 ee 





GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 415 


advanced by him had not been entirely spent on 
the printing of B4+, but that 50 guilders ‘nit uff 
unser beder werck gangen ist’ (‘had not gone on 
the work of us both’); though he claims the 
interest for the 50 just as well as for the other 
money. In 1901 Zedler had told us (‘ Forsch.’ 
p. 86) that Gutenberg, in his ‘ account’ concerning 
B42, charged 50 guilders for the manufacture of 
the types of the 31-line Indulgence, paying himself 
for the 30-line Indulgence types, while the parch- 
ment was supplied by the ecclesiastics in charge of 
the Indulgence. These explanations, however, are 
incompatible with the tenor of the Helmasperger 
document. Fust speaking of 1,600 guilders prob- 
ably indicated his claim by a round sum. But 
when he had to confirm it by oath, he stated the 
exact amount—that is, 1,550 guilders. Or perhaps 
he had, in the first instance, borrowed and advanced 
no more than 750 guilders, and hence, probably, 
Gutenberg’s complaint that he had not received 
‘the whole’ of the first 800 guilders. The point 
seems to be immaterial to the question whether 
Gutenberg had done any printing, though it may 
perhaps be regarded as a proof of Fust having 
wished to avoid further commitments as much as 
possible. 

Of some importance seems Fust’s statement that 
the 1,550 guilders had ‘gone on our common work’ 
(clause 7). It could not mean, however, that 
‘our common work,’ or part of it, had been done 
or finished, as in such a case, as has been pointed 
out above, Fust would have had no claim on 
Gutenberg. It seems to mean only, ‘I [Fust] have 











416 THE SO-CALLED 


advanced [and Gutenberg has received] the money 
for our common work, but having as yet seen 
nothing of it, I claim my money back.’ 

This harmonizes with Fust’s statement in clause 8 
that he had paid annual interest and loss on the 
borrowed money, and sti// owed part of it, implying 
that Gutenberg had not repaid any part of his 
debt, or paid any interest on it, either in cash or 
in kind. 

Clause g we need not discuss, as we know 
the amount of these interest charges from the 
earlier parts of the document. Clause 10, as is 
said above, becomes obscure when it is compared 
with some statements in the earlier part of the 
instrument. Firstly, ‘account’ may be thought to 
refer to one rendered by Gutenberg, though it 
seems to be a wrong inference (see above, p. 408). 
Secondly, Fust refers here to his advances in 
somewhat indefinite language. He speaks not of 
2,026 guilders, as on the first day of the trial, nor 
of 1,550 guilders (with the interest thereon) which, 
according to clause 7, he had borrowed, but of 
‘the interest on whatever Gutenberg had received 
of this borrowed money (1,550 guilders) that had 
not gone on the work of us both.’ 

Had Fust then heard of Gutenberg having made 
disbursements for things unconneéted with what 
he regarded as the ‘work of us both’? There is 
nothing in the document to enlighten us, and the 
end of the law-suit is not known. If Gutenberg 
had made anything substantial with Fust’s money 
— if, for instance, he had manufa¢tured his ‘tools’ 
and ‘ printed’ anything—why did he not refer to it 








~ -«- - Fr les 22 OR Oe OS 


— ee as a OF 








GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 417 


on the first day of the trial, and plead that Fust 
had no right to prosecute him or to claim anything 
from him. Therefore the vague and indefnitely 
worded clauses 2, 3, 4 (the Verdict), 7, 8 to 10 
(Fust’s oath), of part iii. of the instrument, are the 
only clauses in the whole document from which 
we may infer that Gutenberg had done or intended 
to do ‘something’ which Fust regarded as the 
‘work of them both.’ Neither the plaintiff nor 
the defendant tell us how much this was, or what 
its nature. 

The remaining part iv. (the lines 65 to 77) is 
merely a final statement of the notary about the 
copies of the instrument to be supplied by him to 
Fust, his affirmation of the truth, etc., and, there- 
fore, immaterial to an interpretation of the docu- 
ment. It runs as follows (line 65) : 


As I have done to the aforenamed Johan guttenberg 
about and to all matters touched upon, the abovenamed 
Johannes fust desires from me public scrivener one or 
more open Instruments As many and often as he may 
need them And all the above written matters passed in 
the Year Indiction day hour papacy Coronation month 
and place above named in the presence of the honourable 
men peter gransz Johann Kist Johann Kumoff Johann 
yseneck Jacop fust citizen at mainz peter Girnszheim and 
Johannes Bonne clerics of Mainz City and Bishopric as 
witnesses specially asked and summoned. 


Here, after line 69, is a blank space of about ten 
lines, and then, indented towards the right, the 
notary’s final statement and signature : 


And I Virich helmasperger Clerk of the Bishopric 
Bamberg of the imperial power public writer, and of the 


II. EE 




















418 THE SO-CALLED 


holy see at Mainz sworn notary, as 1 have been present 
with the abovenamed witnesses atall the abovementioned 
points and articles as is written above and have heard 
them also—for this reason have I made this open 
Instrument, written by another, signed with my hand, 
and with my ordinary sign demanded about it and 
requested in testimony and true instrument of all 
aforewritten things. 


The document is endorsed : 


Instrument of an appointed day when Fust made his 
reckoning, and confirmed it with an oath, 


which some authors think emanated from Guten- 
berg; that, therefore, the present copy may be his, 
and the endorsement his handwriting. But as 
documents of this kind are always, even to the 
present day, officially endorsed, there seems, to be 
no ground for these speculations. The commence- 
ment, however, of the above statement, ‘ As I have 
done to,’ etc., may imply that the notary had also 
supplied Gutenberg with a copy or copies of the 
instrument. 

On the left of this indented subscript is Helmas- 
perger’s notarial mark, with his signature Vlricus 
Helmasperger Notarius. 

It is usually said that Fust managed to obtain a 
verdict so favourable to himself that he was able 
to appropriate the whole of Gutenberg’s work, and 
in this way to ruin his former partner. But there 
is nothing in the Verdict to justify such an opinion. 
On the contrary, it seems to have been rather 
favourable and considerate to Gutenberg, if we are 














GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. 419 


to believe all that Fust brings forward in his own 
behalf. The Verdict left Gutenberg free to dis- 
regard Fust’s claim to the first 800 guilders or any 
portion of it if he could show that, as he pleaded, 
he had not received the whole 800. And as 
regards the second 800, if Gutenberg had spent 
more than this sum on things which were not to 
their common good, he should repay the excess to 
Fust. The latter, by the fifth clause of his sworn 
declaration, practically agrees with the Verdiét, 
only stipulating that he should receive interest on 
all the money not spent on their common work. 
It is, therefore, not easy to see anything unfair 
towards Gutenberg in the tribunal’s decision. 

The above analysis of the Verdict will, it is 
hoped, make the tribunal’s decision clear regarding 
both the first 800 guilders (for the tools) and the 
second 800 (for their ‘common work’ or their 
‘common good’). We may analyze the Helmas- 
perger Instrument as much as we please, it gives 
us no ground for asserting that Gutenberg was the 
inventor of printing, or that he could have printed 
much between 1450 and 1455, if anything at all. 
Let us ask two questions and endeavour to answer 
them: (1) Did Gutenberg make the ‘ tools’ which 
he himself said he was bound to make for the first 
800 guilders borrowed from Fust? If he did, 
they must have been delivered to Fust, to whom 
they were pledged for his first advance of 800 
guilders, and if Fust had received them, he could 
not have sued Gutenberg for repayment of this 
first advance. Gutenberg had, indeed, reserved to 
himself the right of redeeming his tools by repaying 











420 THE SO-CALLED 


Fust the first 800 guilders; but there is no mention 
in the whole of the Helmasperger document of 
such a redemption, nor of any completion or 
delivery of the tools. On the contrary, Gutenberg’s 
pleading, in 1455, that the first 800 guilders, for 
which he had to make them, had not been paid to 
him, or not at once (at the time of borrowing, in 
1450), implies that he had all along considered 
himself released not only from delivering, but even 
from making, the tools. 

The second question to ask is: What was the 
‘common work’ or the ‘common good’ of which 
they talk? The document gives no details of it. 
Gutenberg, however, speaks once of the ‘ work of 
the books,’ at the very moment when he repudiates 
the idea of having to devote the first 800 guilders 
to such work. And the tribunal apparently decide 
that, if the cost of this work amounted to 800 
guilders or less, everything would be right; but if 
Gutenberg had laid out more on it, he should repay 
the excess. 

Now, if the first question asked above must be 
answered in the negative, we need not anxiously 
search for an answer to the second question, 
as, without having made the ‘tools’ (which are 
assumed to have been intended for ‘ printing’) 
neither Gutenberg nor Fust could have done any 
printing. And if we endeavoured to answer it in 
the affirmative, why then did not Gutenberg state 
that he had made and delivered, or redeemed, the 
‘tools,’ as in either case Fust would have had no 
grounds for bringing an action for the recovery of 
his money, at least of the first 800 guilders? 











GUTENBERG DOCUMENTS. —§ 421 


Whatever may have been the bearing and resul’ 
of the law-suit, one thing is certain: in 1457-8, 
barely a year after the date of the Helmasperger 
Instrument, Gutenberg was bankrupt, unable to 
pay even the comparatively small annual interest 
on the loan contracted by him fifteen years before 
at Strassburg (see below, Document xxii., etc.). 
Immediately after his failure to pay, the Strassburg 
St. Thomas Stift took steps to have him arrested, 
leaving him no peace, and following him and his 
surety wherever they saw the chance of apprehend- 
ing them. They appear to have traced him to 
Mainz, but were, for some reason or other, unable 
to lay hands on him; or perhaps he evaded his 
pursuers, being assisted in this course by the fact 
that Strassburg, as has been said, had no power 


over any Mainz citizen. 
J. H. Hessets. 


(To be continued. ) 











422 


RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 






4) novels exceedingly welcome, and even 
P=Xy the severest of critics would have been 
yy, in a lenient mood towards them. But 

yx novels of interest have been sadly 
lacking both in France and Germany during the 
last three months. Henry Bordeaux, from whose 
books pleasure is to be expected, has managed in 
‘Le Carnet d’un stagiaire. Scenes de la vie judi- 
ciaire,, to be almost dull. It consists of a number 
of short stories, each of which deals with some 
quite uninteresting experience in the professional 
life of a lawyer. Marcelle Tinayre, in ‘La douceur 
de vivre,’ tells a sad tale in beautiful language, but 
counteracts the charm of fine literary style by the 
introduction of an erotic episode quite needless to 
the main story, and described in unpleasant detail. 
‘Isabelle,’ by André Gide, is marked by all the 
beauty of this author’s style, especially in the vivid 
and arresting description of an old-world country 
house in a remote corner of Normandy. But 
every one of the characters is abnormal in body or 
mind, or in both, and the dénouement is unpleasingly 
cynical. Indeed, without the setting the story 
would scarcely be read with patience, In ‘Une 
ame de vingt ans,’ Daniel Lesueur tells three short 








RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 423 


stories, of which ‘ Le torrent d’écume’ is the best. 
The scene of events is the Lake of Como, near 
Varenna. The heroine is a native of the distrié, 
the hero a French artist, and the stuff is woven of 
love and jealousy, and smuggling and exciting 
adventure, quite possible even in these prosaic 
times in the many small villages still unspoilt by 
tourists, that may be found on the shores of that 
romantic and enchanting lake. 

Several German novels have come into my 
hands. ‘Du und ich,’ by Otto Overhof, is a kind 
of rhapsody on artist folk. There is the usual 
struggle of a woman who is a wife and mother 
between her wifely and maternal duties and her 
work as a successful and celebrated painter. The 
moorland setting is attractive, and the character of 
the heroine’s father, who remains faithful to his 
dead wife, is excellently drawn. Light and pleasant 
reading may be found in ‘ Vom bliihenden Da-sein,’ 
by El-Correi. The volume contains ten short 
stories, which are studies of charaéter, either of 
men, or dogs, or cats. Many of the scenes are laid 
in Italian towns. Paul Graben’s ‘ Die Herren der 
Erde,’ a novel of mining life, is particularly inte- 
resting at the present time. The hero is the owner 
of big coal mines. A strike of the miners takes 
place, and the novelist’s handling of the affair is so 
admirable, that more may be learned from such a 
novel about the relations of employer and employed 
than from a course of the leading articles of our 
newspapers. The events are described with 
remarkable vividness and impartiality, and while 
the risks and needs of the workers are never 

















424 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 


underrated, it is clearly shown that the employer 
and capitalist has by no means the easy time so often 
imputed to him by those ignorant of the difficulties 
of carrying on a big undertaking. It is a novel 
that should be read carefully by all interested in 
these problems, and who in these days is not? 

In ‘ L’attitude du lyrisme contemporaine,’ Tan- 
créde de Visan has produced a thoughtful study of 
lyrical poetry in France at the present time. It 
is an essay preliminary to a long treatise on the 
genesis and tendencies of contemporary ‘lyrisme’ 
in France. Here, by way of experiment, he shows 
(1) in what the ideal of contemporary poets differs 
from the ideal of those of the first half of the 
nineteenth century; (2) how the contemporary 
poets of whom he treats, in spite of their indi- 
vidualism and originality, all possess, even though 
it may be indistinétly, two or three essential prin- 
ciples which unite them in a common esthetic; 
and (3) in what degree this esthetic forms part 
of the leading tendencies of our contemporary 
mentality, and realises in lyrical poetry the ideal 
common to the different manifestations of intellec- 
tual activity. The poet of to-day leaves aside the 
abstract and tries to express ‘le ruisseau avec les 
murmures, le matin avec ses brumes et ses fraicheurs, 
la forét avec son mystere, la joie et la douleur dans 
leur spontanéité vivante et leurs accents vrais.’ 

‘Notre art n’est pas un art de lignes et de sphéres.’ 
De Visan chooses a few poets, and tries to bring 
out the particular quality of the ‘lyrisme’ of each. 
Francis Vielé-Griffin ‘rend lidée sensible au cceur,’ 
and his ‘idée’ is life or creative activity. Instead 











RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 425 


of analysing his thoughts, he sings them, and 
possesses a full measure of the characteristics of all 
lyric poetry—simplicity, sensuousness, and passion. 
His art illustrates Brunetiére’s di€tum that symbol- 
ism is the re-integration of ‘lidée’ in poetry. 

The poetry of Henri de Regnier illustrates what 
may be called ‘la vision centrale.’ Nature is a 
vast reservoir of sensations, and the artist chooses 
from them those that seem to him the most 
representative. But Régnier, in faét, symbolises 
the two kinds of vision, ‘la vision périphérique et 
la vision centrale,’ and is by turn romantic, Par- 
nassian, and symbolist. 

In the essay on Maeterlinck we get a definition 
of symbolisism that may help us a little to grasp a 
way of thought that enters so largely into con- 
temporary literature. ‘Le symbolisme est d’abord 
un grand souffle de liberté, et ensuite un mode 
de vision spécial qui colore chaque objet a la 
lumiére de nos états d’ame.’ But perhaps this is 
only another way of stating that all lyric verse is 
the outcome of the poet’s temperament and moods. 

Maurice Barrés and André Gide are both 
characterised as ‘ professeurs de lyrisme.’ While 
Barrés is a colleétivist, Gide is an individualist, 
who, like Madame Bovary, is ever striving to be 
something other than he is, and lives in a perpetual 
state of uneasiness. 

Another essay contrasts German and French 
romanticism. The former, according to De Visan, 
is based on idealism, the latter on liberty in art 
and the exaltation of the imagination. In both, 
however, is to be found a similar reaction against 














426 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 


naturalism, a similar esthetic basis, that is, idealism 
and intuition. In both are found similar rhyth- 
mical researches, similar reforms in prosody, similar 
love for folk-lore and the popular song. 

Biography in pieces, so to speak, does not, as a 
rule, commend itself to me; but André Tibal, in 
‘Hebbel sa vie et ses ceuvres de 1813 a 1845,’ 
deals exclusively with Hebbel the poet. Most 
of Hebbel’s critics forget the poet in the philo- 
sopher. Now Hebbel regarded philosophy as a 
function of poetry, and poetry, as he so often 
declared, is form. It is a poet’s gift to be able 
to create a life as individual, a reality as sensible, 
as the life and reality around us. But Hebbel set 
form above content. The most extraordinary 
ideas, he asserts, are only new for a quarter of an 
hour. Tibal attempts to show how these views 
were born and developed in the first thirty years 
of Hebbel’s existence. 

Interest in Verlaine’s personality will, I suppose, 
never cease; but it seems scarcely necessary to fill 
a volume about his last days on earth. Those who 
are curious on the subject will find all the informa- 
tion they need in ‘ Les derniers jours de Paul Ver- 
laine. Nombreux documents et dessins avec une 
préface de Maurice Barres.’ The authors are 
F. A. Cazals and Gustave le Rouge. But with 
it all, not much new light is thrown on Verlaine’s 
work. We are told that he was the victim of his 
own genius, and that he possessed by nature a sort 
of sensibility which enchants us, but which conceals 
death within itself. The golden apple which the 
fairy put in his cradle was poisoned. The metaphor 











RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 427 


certainly explains the peculiarities of Verlaine’s 
poetical gift. 

David Garrick’s cosmopolitanism is brought out 
in ‘Un aéteur cosmopolite. David Garrick et ses 
amis Frangais,’ by F. A. Hedgcock, to whose study 
of Thomas Hardy we drew attention in the last 
number of ‘Tue Lisrary.’ Garrick had almost 
as many intelligent admirers and warm friends in 
France as in his own land, and his close relations 
with them lasted all his life. This book deals 
specially with that side of the great actor’s career, 
and goes into careful details concerning his journeys 
and sojournsin France. A reproduction of Liotard’s 
portrait of Garrick, painted in Paris, forms the 
frontispiece. 

French literature of the present day is particu- 
larly strong in history, both politica’ and social. 
Alfred Franklin, in ‘ La vie privée au temps des 
premiers capétiens,’ gives a fascinating account 
of the social conditions of French life in the 
thirteenth century. The founder of the dynasty 
of the Capets was neither a clever politician nor 
a valiant soldier, nor was his wife endowed with 
eminent qualities. But their posterity is not yet 
extinét, and they furnished a succession of thirty- 
five kings who governed France well or ill for ten 
centuries, and formed French national unity. There 
was never wanting a male heir to take his father’s 
place. The author’s purpose is to draw 


‘d’une société peu raffinée, mais déja avide de luxe et 
de plaisirs, un tableau aussi exact que possible, la recon- 
stituer avec ses habitudes, ses moeurs, ses modes, ses 
vertus et ses vices, en un mot décrire sa vie privée.’ 











428 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 


Research shows that it was not, as is commonly 
thought, a period of barbarism. The humblest 
worker had his rights clearly set forth in the 
statutes of the trade or occupation he had chosen. 
The ‘ Corporations ouvriéres’ were never organized 
in a more democratic fashion than in the thirteenth 
century. Domestic servants, both men and women, 
were kindly treated. Justice was, it is true, not 
the same for all classes, but it was not as a rule 
rendered only by the king himself, nor under an 
oak. There existed a formal criminal and civil 
procedure which was rarely ignored. In spite of 
the difficulties of travelling, the East sent fine 
stuffs and spices, and the Parisians were not obliged 
to be extraordinarily wealthy to be able to eat 
fairly fresh sea-water fish. A crowd of students 
from all parts rallied round the professors at the 
different universities. Good libraries were every- 
where accessible, and we should not forget that it 
was at the end of the thirteenth century that the 
Sainte-Chapelle, that masterpiece of Gothic art, 
was built. This is truly a delightful book, and 
with it in our hands we can reconstruct in detail 
the social life of the period. 

An equally interesting book, though in a different 
way, is Edmond Lepelletier’s ‘ Histoire de la 
Commune de 1871. Le dix-huit mars.’ It has 
for motto ‘lhistoire est une Résurreéction, a dit 
Michelet; elle est aussi une Révision.’ It is a sort 
of fragment, but of no mean size, of a large work to 
appear later, entitled ‘ Revoltes et Guerres Civiles.’ 
The purpose of the book before us is to show 
that republican France of the twentieth century 





coal 
~~ 


awe = PD A ot eI O 


_— _ gl lee hOU COO 








RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 429 


would never have existed without the events of 
1871. In spite of its aristocratic and bourgeois 
repugnance to accept such a filiation, the mother 
of the third French republic is the Commune of 
Paris of 1871. The author was an eye-witness of 
the events he relates. The available works on the 
Commune (18th March to the last days of May) 
are really only fragments of history. It is generally 
regarded as an isolated event, whereas it had its 
precedents, and its preliminaries, and its roots can 
only be found in searching the past. 

But the preface is perhaps the most attractive 
part of the book. It is a veritablé treatise on 
rebellion, on civil war in general. Lepelletier 
finds that historians do not, as a rule, treat such 
events with sympathy, whether they are dealing 
with an insurrection in the family for personal 
independence, for an inheritance, for a marriage, 
or with fighting round palaces, or under the 
ramparts of cities, for the conquest of power, 
for emancipation from slavery, for a change of 
government. Everyone who has written on the 
French Revolution has deplored its ‘ excesses.’ 
But revolutionary phenomena ought to be stated 
and explained with the same scientific accuracy 
and the same impartiality as a seismic disturbance 
or the eruption of a volcano. All social progress 
has ‘insurrection’ for its basis. Insurreétion, 
according to Lepelletier, is a proof of vitality, 
futurity, and hope. By this light alone does he 
consider that the history of civil wars should be 


written and studied. 
* * * * * 








430 RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 


The following recently published books deserve 
attention :— 


Les Anglais a Paris, 1800-50. Par Roger 
Boutet de Monvel. 
Chiefly compiled from English books of memoirs, but contains 


some information hidden in out-of-the-way French books, dealing 
with society in Paris at the period treated. 


Etudes sur le XVIII* siecle. Par Ferdinand 
Brunetiere. 

This contains the first chapters of a book Brunetiére had under- 
taken to write on Voltaire. ‘There is a short essay on Voltaire 


himself, and others on ‘ Les Philosophes et la société francaise,’ 
and ‘ Les origines de l’espirit encyclopédique.’ 


Lamennais et le Saint-si¢ge, 1820-34. D?’aprés 
des documents inédits et les Archives du Vatican. 
Par Paul Dudor. 


A sketch, as exact and clear as possible, of Lamennais’ relations 
with Rome, written for the purpose of showing what a man of 
genius lost in grandeur and strength by not remaining a papist. 


Viétoria I., Edouard VII, Georges V. Par 
Jaques Bardoux. 


An interesting study of the lives and characters of these monarchs 
from a French point of view. 


Le peste de 1720 a Marseille et en France. 
D’apreés des documents inédits. Par Paul Gaffarel 
et M. de Duranty. 

The documents on which this book is based have never before 
been used in this way or for this purpose. It should be remem- 


bered that it was the plague at Marseilles that probably inspired 
Defoe’s ‘ Journal of the Plague.’ 





— > 





RECENT FOREIGN LITERATURE. 431 


Un frére d’armes de Montalembert. Adolphe 
Dechamps (1807-75). 


A Belgian statesman too little remembered. A volume in the 
excellent series published by ‘l’Ecole des Sciences politiques et 
sociales de l’université de Louvain.’ 


Le modernisme Bouddhiste et le Bouddhisme 
de Bouddha. Par Alexandre David. 


A manual destined for those desirous of learning something 
about this subject, but who have little time at their disposal for 
such studies. A volume of the well-known ‘Bibliothéque de 
Philosophie contemporaine.’ 


Villon et Rabelais. Notes et Commentaires. 
Par Louis Thuasne. 


Studies that will form the basis for a national definitive and 
critical edition of the earliest French modern poet and the earliest 
French prose writer. 


Geschichte der Englischen Romantik. Von 
Helene Richter. 


The first volume of an elaborate work on the subject. It is 
entitled ‘ Die Anfange der Romantik’; it contains a careful study 
of Goldsmith, and chapters on the revival of Shakespeare, on ballad 
literature and Percy’s Reliques, on the supernatural in the novel 
(H. Walpole, Clara Reeve, Mrs, Radcliffe), and on poetical 
forgeries (Chatterton). The volumes to follow will deal respeét- 
ively with ‘Die Blate der Romantik,’ and ‘Die Klassiker der 
Romantik ’ (Keats, Shelley, Byron, Scott). 


E.izABETH LEE. 

















432 


REVIEWS. 


Illuminated Manuscripts. By F. A. Herbert. 
Methuen & Co. (The Connoisseur’s Library. 
General Editor: Cyril Davenport.) pp. xtv., 
356. With 51 plates. 







«R. HERBERT'S book on Illuminated 
f Manuscripts, by its excellent balance 
4 ¥ and proportion, recalls the old ideal of 
pthe British Museum Library, to re- 
aS present the literature of every other 
country more adequately than it could be found 
represented anywhere save in that country itself. 
It is impossible for the general historian to write 
at the length or with the detail and intimacy 
which may be expected from the specialist who 
devotes himself to a single school, but Mr. Herbert 
writes of one school after another with as com- 
plete a mastery of its characteristics as is possible 
for anyone who has not specialised on it, and the 
result is a general history of illuminated manu- 
scripts, which may confidently be claimed as the 
best and most comprehensive in any language. 
To one class, and one class only, will his book bring 
heavy disappointment—the colleétors who never 
get beyond (or rather behind) the shop-made 











REVIEWS. 433 


French MSS., mainly Horae, of the fifteenth 
century, and worse still, of the early sixteenth. 
‘Specimens of these “shop copies,”” writes Mr. 
Herbert, ‘may be seen in nearly every library in 
Europe, and form the nucleus of most private 
colleétions, being comparatively easy to acquire, 
and at the same time pleasing to behold.’ In little 
more than half a page he sums up the character- 
istics of the better ones, and then proceeds serenely, 
‘Of work of a higher class there is enough to fill 
many chapters,’ and begins to talk of Pol de 
Limbourg and his brothers and the ‘trés riches 
heures,’ which they painted for the Duc de Berri, 
of the Bedford and the Sobieski Horae, and of Jean 
Foucquet, of whom he writes that he ‘fell into 
negleét for nearly three centuries, but has been 
amply rehabilitated in recent years,’ though the 
‘amply’ does not lead up, as we rather thought it 
might, to any deprecation of the Foucquet cult. 
By not worrying over the collector of French 
shop-work Mr. Herbert has been able to lay a 
good foundation by devoting separate chapters to 
classical, early Christian, and Byzantine illumina- 
tion, to which last, indeed, he allows more pages 
than to any other chapter in his book. His fourth 
chapter deals with Celtic work, and we had half 
hoped to find some encouragement for our private 
heresy that the much-praised Celtic ornament is 
just as ‘barbaric’ in its dexterity, just as far re- 
moved from any true standard of beauty, as the 
Celtic figure-drawing in all its uncouthness. Like 
everyone else, however, Mr. Herbert is content 
to contrast the two, instead of treating them as 


Il, F F 














434 REVIEWS. 


complementary one of the other, and he almost 
makes us forgive him by the extraordinary skill 
with which he describes and classifies the ornament. 
In the subsequent chapter on the Carolingian 
Renaissance, he mainly follows the late Dr. 
Janitschek, though with due note of the protests 
of M. Leprieur that the three manuscripts ‘based 
on all that was best in classical art,’ which 
Janitschek places at the beginning of the renais- 
sance, were all executed after Charlemagne’s death. 
Through the Carolingian school at Rheims, we 
get to the famous ‘ Utrecht’ Psalter, and thence to 
the delightful English outline drawings of the 
eleventh century, mainly executed at Winchester. 
These are well illustrated by a plate from the 
Newminster ‘Liber Vitae,’ showing S. Peter wel- 
coming the righteous to heaven with hospitable 
hilarity, and prodding with his double-key the 
head of a sturdy devil who is trying to steal a nice 
little soul. Another illustration to the same chap- 
ter, from Cotton MS. Tib. C.VI., shows a splendid 
S. Michael transfixing a too submissive dragon, 
and the plates to each of the three later chapters, 
dealing with English work, do full justice to its 
achievements. In much of what he writes on this 
subject Mr. Herbert naturally follows the same 
lines as Sir E. M. Thompson in his pages in 
‘Bibliographica,’ but in the last sixteen years new 
ground has been broken, and Mr. Herbert has the 
privilege of telling, for the first time in any general 
history, the full story of the East Anglian school 
of the early fourteenth century, which produced 
some of the finest English Psalters. From about 














REVIEWS. 435 


the middle of the century, when this school, after 
showing some signs of decadence, suddenly died 
out—probably owing to the Black Death of 1348 
—there is for some forty years a great dearth of 
good English work. That the brief revival at the 
end of the century was due to the influence of 
foreign artists arriving with Anne of Bohemia 
in 1382 had been already conjectured, and Mr. 
Herbert reports a confirmation of the theory in a 
discovery by Sir George Warner of Low German 
inscriptions in the great Bible of Richard IL., 
among the Royal MSS. in the Museum. 
Alternating with these chapters on English 
work are two on German, French, and Flemish 
illumination, from goo to 1200, and again in the 
thirteenth century, after which Germany becomes 
negligible; another on Italian illumination before 
1300, which begins with a clear indication of the 
reasons for its slight importance; and a very inter- 
esting chapter on Illustrations of the Apocalypse, 
in which this favourite subject is traced from its 
first rough treatment in Spain to the fine achieve- 
ments of France and England. Mr. Herbert does 
not hesitate to say, without reservation, ‘the best 
thirteenth century Apocalypse manuscripts are of 
English origin,’ and perhaps generally up to 1300, 
as between France and England, honours may be 
considered to have been equal. But interesting as 
we may find the East Anglian school and the 
revival after the coming of Anne of Bohemia, 
when pitted against the genius with which the 
French illuminators changed one excellence for 
another during the fourteenth and early fifteenth 











436 REVIEWS. 


century, they left England far behind in the com- 
petition, and the English nobles who fought and 
lived in France under Henry V. and VI. patro- 
nised French artists and allowed illumination in 
England to perish for lack of encouragement. 
Thus all of the last five chapters in Mr. Herbert’s 
book are devoted to foreign work—two to France 
two to Italy, and one to Flanders. 

To the knowledge and sense of proportion which 
has enabled him to use the space at his disposal so 
successfully, Mr. Herbert has joined an admirable 
general style, and a command of simple technical 
terms which give his descriptions an enviable neat- 
ness and lucidity. When writing of two exquisite 
little Paris Psalters closely connected with S. Louis, 
he notes : 


> 


Both books are remarkable, among other things, for 
their exquisite architectural backgrounds, consisting in 
every instance of two or four bays of a Gothic interior, 
with gables, wheel or — windows, and fretted 
arcadings and pinnacles above ; forming as it were a scenic 
setting before which the personages of Bible-history play 
their parts like actors in the muiracle-plays, which were 
actually performed in churches. These personages indeed, 
full of that gentle and ingenuous gaiety of which Gothic 
painters held the secret, seem less historical characters than 
the delighted actors of a pious play. One thinks of a 
Morality, or of the ‘Gestes’ of Moses, Abraham, or 
Solomon, not of the solemn periods of the Vulgate text. 
The grave, ascetic faces met with in paintings of the time 
of Philip Augustus are replaced by gentler, more rounded 
and cheerful types; showing how the simple and joyous 
spirit of S. Francis, ‘the little troubadour of God,’ had 











REVIEWS. 437 


netrated to the arts, and banished the awe and terror 
with which the older miniaturists approached the sacred 
mysteries. 


To possess so general and accurate knowledge 
of so wide a field, and to be able to produce it in 
so clear and pleasant a style, make a very enviable 
combination. Mr. Herbert has written a fine 
book, and one which will not easily be displaced. 


Catalogue raisonné des premieres impressions de Mayence 
(1445-67). Par Seymour de Ricci. Veroffentli- 
chungen der Gutenberg-Gesellschaft. VIII.-IX. 
Mainz. 1911. pp. ix., 166. 


Mr. Seymour de Ricci’s register of the past and 
present ownership of all recorded copies of the 
first hundred pieces of printing connected with 
Mainz possesses all the merits of his ‘Census of 
Caxtons,’ and makes a much larger new contribu- 
tion to knowledge. It was high time that the 
information given by Blades as to copies of Caxton’s 
should be revised and supplemented, and a new 
point of departure taken. Still the information 
given by Blades was considerable, and his plough 
went pretty well round the field, though not 
always very deeply. In his present book Mr. de 
Ricci has for the most part broken new ground, 
previous attempts to enumerate copies having 
only been made in the case of the 42-line Bible, 
the Catholicon and quite a few other books and 
documents. The basis of the arrangement adopted 











438 REVIEWS. 


is by types. Type 1, that called after the 36-line 
Bible, in its four states covers 33 impressions, 
the last ten being printed at Bamberg by Albrecht 
Pfister. Type 2, that called after the 42-line Bible, 
covers the Bible, liturgical Psalter, ten Donatuses, 
and the Coronatio Maximiliani of 1486, Nos. 34-46. 
Types 3-5, used in the two Indulgences of 1454-55, 
cover the four editions of the one and three of the 
other, already enumerated by Dr. Hessels, Nos. 
47-53. Types 6, 7, were used for the Psalters of 
1457 and 1459, and the five editions of 1490-1516, 
also for the separately printed Canon Missae of 
14.58, and for the canons in thirteen missals printed 
during 1483-1513, here counted as one, altogether 
Nos. 54-62. Type 7°, a variety of the small 
Psalter type, covers the ‘ Missale speciale’ and 
* Missale speciale abbreviatum,’ of which so much 
was heard a dozen years ago, Nos. 63-64. Types 
8 and g, the Durandus and 1462-Bible types, cover 
between them twenty-five books and documents 
printed by Fust and Schoeffer in the year 1459- 
1466, Nos. 65-89. Type 10, that of the Catholicon 
of 1460, accounts for seven impressions, including 
the first two Eltvil editions of the Vocabularius 
Ex quo, Nos. go-96. Types 11, 12, are the later 
Eltvil types, used for two more editions of the 
Vocabularius, the ‘Summa de articulis fidei’ and 
an indulgence, Nos. 97-100. It will thus be seen 
that Mr. de Ricci’s plan is to follow the use of the 
types even when employed elsewhere than at 
Mainz, or at Mainz beyond the limits of the 
fifteenth century. The crowd of Donatus frag- 
ments, hardly any of them known to Hain and 








REVIEWS. 439 


only a few to Copinger, are for the most part 
unique; only in two or three cases have different 
fragments of the same edition been recovered. The 
various calendars are in much the same case, the 
indulgences and the various briefs and bulls of 
1461 and 1462 being only a little less rare. Of 
the Psalter of 1457 ten copies are known, of that 
of 1459 thirteen; of the later editions only about 
four apiece can now be traced, though it is pro- 
bable that a good many more may have escaped 
record. Of the Missals, those of Breslau are the 
most common, while of those for Cracow, Meissen 
and Gnesen only three or four copies apiece are 
known. Of the Bibles, Mr. de Ricci has traced 
to their present home thirteen copies of the 36-line, 
forty-one of the 42-line, sixty-one of that of 
1462; of the Catholicon he knows of sixty-five. 
In the case of all these high-priced books the list 
of ‘exemplaires disparus’ is strikingly long, often 
holding out the possibility of another 50 per cent. 
being added to the copies known, though the 
possibility is very unlikely indeed to be realised, 
even in the most fragmentary form. 

Turning to statistics of another kind, we find the 
Bibliothéque Nationale holding the pride of place 
with as many as sixty-eight references, the British 
Museum coming second with fifty-nine. Berlin 
has thirty-two references, Munich twenty-seven, 
the John Rylands library thirty-one, Bodley twenty, 
Cambridge thirteen; Mr. Hoe and Mr. Huth six 
apiece, Mr. Morgan thirteen. 

Statistics being fascinating we have busied our- 
selves mostly with these, but Mr. de Ricci has 











440 REVIEWS. 


not contented himself with registering and describ- 
ing copies—he gives useful bibliographical references 
to the best sources of information as to each piece 
of printing he describes, and epitomises much of 
this information in his text. Here and there, 
moreover, he offers valuable notes from his own 
observation. Thus he has applied to the Donatus 
of thirty-five lines ‘ per Petrum de gernszheym in 
vrbe Moguntina cum suis capitalibus absque calami 
exaratione effigiatus’ the results of Herr Wallau’s 
examination of the Psalter capitals, and finds that 
the P which was perfeét in the Psalter of 1457 is 
here broken, and that the C has the breaks which 
were caused during the printing of the Psalter of 
1459. If this be so, the Donatus must be later 
than both these books, later also than the death of 
Fust, with whom Schoeffer worked continuously 
from 1457 to 1466, and thus some ten years later 
than the date 1456 recently claimed for it by Dr. 
Hessels, a matter of no small interest. 


Old English Libraries, the making, collection, and use 
of books during the Middle Ages. By Ernest A. 
Savage. With fifty-two illustrations. Methuen 
& Co. pp. xv., 298. 


In the opening sentence of his preface Mr. 
Savage explains that (despite its title) ‘with the 
arrangement and equipment of libraries this essay 
has little to do, the ground being already covered 
adequately by Dr. Clark in his admirable mono- 
graph on “The Care of Books.”’ For his own 











REVIEWS. 441 


subject he has taken ‘the making, use and circula- 
tion of books considered as a means of literary 
culture,’ and round about this topic he has gathered 
a really considerable amount of information, which 
he has handled very pleasantly and easily in his 
text. Not content with this he has compiled three 
really valuable appendixes—(a) a series of notes of 
prices of books and materials for bookmaking, each 
with its date; (b) a list of certain classic authors 
found in medieval catalogues; (c) a list of medieval 
colleétion of books, this also being dated. The 
first of these appendixes might have been extended 
with the aid of papers by Abbot Gasquet and Mr. 
Plomes read before the Bibliographical Society, 
but all three are of considerable length, and each 
forms a nucleus which any specialist can extend as 
much as opportunities permit. Mr. Savage’s book 
thus appeals both to the general reader and to the 
expert, and being most liberally illustrated should 
have a prosperous career. 


The National Library of Wales. Report of the Council 
on the progress of the library from April, 1909, 
to September, 1910. Aberystwith. 1911. 
pp. v., 68. 

National Library of Wales. Catalogue of Tracts of 
the Crvil War and Commonwealth period relating 
to Wales and the Borders. Aberystwith. 1911. 


pp. i., 85. 
Both these publications testify in various ways 


to the rapid strides which under the guidance of 
Mr. Ballinger the National Library has already 














442 REVIEWS. 


made during its short existence. In May, 1910, 
the valuable collection of books and manuscripts 
made by Mr. E. H. Owen, of Ty Coch, near 
Carnarvon, was acquired by purchase, and there 
are long lists of manuscripts and books pre- 
sented by numerous friends of the library and 
shorter ones of individual purchases, with illustra- 
tions of a few of the rarities. The colleétion of 
Civil War traéts relating to Wales is at present 
only a small one, comprising 264 separate pieces, 
but it is already representative, and as all librarians 
know from the point of view of the library, a 
catalogue of an incomplete colleétion is far more 
useful than of a complete one, since it attracts 
donations and facilitates purchases. The titles are 
set out in full, or with very little abridgment, and 
the excellence of the printing reflects great credit 


on the National Library’s private press. 
A. W. P. 














Academies, persistence of, as a 
heading in catalogues, 224 

Acrostic, revealing authorship of 
* Modus Legendi Abbreviaturas,’ 
181 59. 

Amphlett, James, his recolleétions, 
especially of Coleridge, 34-7. 
Antwerp, books with Marburg 
imprint probably printed at, 

119 59., 124 59. 

Astraea, poem by O. W. Holmes, 
history of, 356 s99. 

‘Atheist Converted, The,’ W. E. 
A. Axon on, 319-22. 

Autocrat of the Breakfast Table 
(O. W. Holmes) as Book-lover, 
paper by W. E. A. Axon, 356- 
62 


Axon, W. E. A., on James Amph- 
lett and S. T. Coleridge, 34-9 ; 
on ‘The Atheist Converted,’ 
the first book printed at Lin- 
coln, 312-22; on ‘ The Auto- 
crat’ (O. W. Holmes) as Book- 
lover, 356-62. 


Baker, Betty, see Betty, 

Bale, John, Bishop, ‘ Marburg’ 
type recast for his books, 123, 
130 sg.; his share in Leland’s 


* New Yeares Gift,’ 141 49. 
Balsam of Chili sold on London 
Bridge, 393. 
Barnes, Betty, see Betty. 
Beam-Papers, 
Christ’s 
338 sgg. 


discovery of, at 


College, Cambridge, 


INDEX. 





443 





Bembo, Pietro, Aldine italics per- 
haps based on his hand, 69; 
his ownership of Petrarch’s 
autograph of the ‘ Opere volgari,’ 
71 599. 

Berthelet, Thomas, his bills for 
books supplied to Katherine 
Parr, 40-8.. 

Betty (Baker or Barnes?), John 
Warburton’s cook, article by 
W. W. Greg on her bakings, 
i., destruction of old plays, 
225-59. 

Bible, English, Coverdale’s version, 
type of 1535 edition found at 
Upsala, 274; wersion of 1611, 
red printing in, 173-80, 323- 
27; copy of 1611 edition 
bought for Worcester Cathedral, 
9; Elizabeth of Bohemia’s copy 
of quarto of 1612 at Heidel- 
berg, 260-72. 

Bible, Latin, called Bibliotheca, 4 ; 
— of the 42- and 36-line 

ibles, 202 s9., 403; types used 
in, copied from manuscripts, 
302 5g. 

Bibliotheca, the word used for a 
Bible, 4. 

Bibliotheca Celtica, notice of,222 59. 

Bodleian Library, its 1674 catalogue 
adapted to other libraries, 19 s¢. 

Book Prices Current, notice of 
vol. xxiv., 109. 

Booksellers of London Bridge, 
references to in accounts of St. 


Magnus, Thames Street, 384-95. 














444 


Botfield, Beriah, on Worcester 
Cathedral Library, 19, 29. 

Brant, Sebastian, his influence at 
Strassburg, 370 s¢g. 

British Museum, Lansdowne MSS. 
acquired by, 228. 

Bronte, the Sisters, a French criti- 
cism of, 51 59. 

Burton, William, his ownership of 
Leland MSS., 147. 

Bury St. Edmunds, Leland’s visit 
to, 145. 


Cambridge Fragments, article by 
C. Sayle, 339-55. 
Cannons, H. G. T., his Biblio- 
graphy of Library Economy 

noticed, 221. 

Canterbury Libraries, Leland’s visit 
to, 144. 

Carpenter, Bishop, his foundation 
of a library at Worcester Cathe- 
dral, 7. 

Caxton, W., fragment of the 
Donatus Melior of Mancinellus 
printed by, found at Cambridge, 
35° #9. i 

Chained Books, a mark of a public, 
as opposed to a monastic, library, 
7 note. 

Chambers, F. W., his catalogue of 
the Dante Colleétion at Uni- 
versity College, London, noticed, 
224. 

Chapman, Alexander, chaplain to 
Elizabeth of Bohemia, 269. 

Chaucer, Geoffrey, notice of M. 
Legouis’s book on, 151 59. 

Child’s book (c. 1820), fragment 
of, found at Cambridge, 354. 

Chivers, Cedric, notice of his 
pamphlet on the paper of lend- 
ing library books, 110. 

Christ’s College, Cambridge, dis- 
covery of fragments of Early 

English printing at, 339-55. 








INDEX. 


Churchwardens’ Accounts, their 
interest, 384 ; reference to book- 
sellers in those of St. Magnus, 
Thames Street, 385-95. 

Clarke, Archibald, on John Leland 
and Henry VIII., 132-49. 

Civil War Traéts in National 
Library of Wales, catalogue of, 
noticed, 441, 

Clerk of the Closet, duties of, 


Cock, family of engravers at Ant- 
werp, suggested attribution of 
design of Cambridge beam- 
papers to, 342. 

Coleridge, S. T., recolleétions of, 
by J. Amphlett, 34-9. 

Colvin, Sir Sidney, on early beam- 
papers found at Cambridge, 343. 

Copinger, Dr., quoted as to John 
Leland, 139 s99. 

‘Coster’ types, how they are 
linked together, 293; their 
peculiarities found in contem- 
porary manuscripts, 298 sg. 

Coulon, Marcel, his ‘ Témoign- 
ages,’ $2 s¢. 


Dante Colleétion, at University 
College, London, notice of 
catalogue of, 224. 

Devereux, Robert, znd Earl of 
Essex, decoration of his rooms 
at Cambridge, 344 note. 

Dix, E. R. Mc, note on Old Dublin 
Stationer’s Will and Inventory, 
379-83. 

Dring, E. H., his communication 
as to False Dates in Shakespeare 
Quartos, 105-7. 

Dringenberg, Ludwig, master of 
fifteenth century school at 
Schlettstadt, 364. 

Dublin Stationer’s Will and In- 

ventory, 379-83. 











INDEX. 


Dziatzko, Dr., his views on Guten- 
berg criticized, 290 s¢g¢. 


Elizabeth of Bohemia, her copy of 
an English 4to Bible of 1612 at 
Heidelberg, 260-72. 

Elsass, Early Humanists of, paper 
by S. H. Scott, 363-78. 

Enschedé, Ch., his theory as to 
early types, 301. 

Ernst, Otto, his essays of German 
poets, 284 sg. 

Estienne, H., his eulogy of the 
Frankfort Book-Fair, 220. 


Fisher, Bishop, different issues of 
his sermon against Luther, 31459, 

Floyer, J. K., his work as librarian 
of Worcester Cathedral, 3, 5, 7 
note, 14, 28. 

Fowler, Mary, on the autographs 
of Petrarch’s ‘Rerum Vulgarium 
Fragmenta,’ 61-100. 

Franceso da Bologna, as Aldus’s 
typecutter, 69. 

Frankfort Book Fair, notice of 
translation of H. Estienne’s 
eulogy of, 220. 

Franklin, Alfred, his ‘ La vie privée 
au temps des premiers capétiens’ 
praised, 427 59. 

French Literature, see 
Foreign Literature. 

Frisket sheets for red printing, 324. 

Fust, Johann, his loans to Guten- 


berg, 397 599. 


Recent 


Gazette des Beaux Arts, Index to 
Vols, 1-50 noticed, 335 s¢. 

Geiler von Kaisersberg, his influ- 
ence on early Strassburg human- 
ists, 365, 368. 

German Literature, see Recent 
Foreign Literature. 

Gide, André, his leétures on the 
drama discussed, 278. 








445 


Gilson, J. P., his defence of Henry 
VIII. as a book-lover, 136 s¢. 
Glastonbury Abbey Library, Le- 

land’s visit to, 145. 

Godiva, wife of Leofric, Duke of 
Mercia, her gift of a Bible to 
Worcester Cathedral, 4. 

Graben, Paul, criticism of his 
novel ‘Die Herren der Erde,’ 
423 #9. 

Gray, G. J., on different issues of 
Fisher’s Sermon against Luther, 
314 499. 

Greg, W. W., on The Bakings of 
Betsy—i.¢., the supposed de- 
struction of old plays by John 
Warburton's cook, 225-59. 

Griffin, J., his work as librarian of 
Worcester Cathedral, 22 s9g. 

Grover, Isaac, stationer of Dublin, 
note of his will and inventory, 
379-83. 

Gutenberg, Johann, articles by Dr. 
Hessels on the so-called Guten- 
berg documents, 183-211, 289- 
313, 396-421 ; list of books and 
types attributed to, 184 s99.; 
Zedler’s imaginary balance-sheet 
for, 410. 


Hardy, Thomas, a French criticism 
of, noticed, 279 s9. 

Harper, William, clerk of the closet 
to Catherine Parr, 40, 44-8. 

Hart, Horace, on the red-printing 
in the 1611 Bible, 173-82; 
criticized by R. B. McKerrow, 
323-27. 

Hauptmann, Gerhart, notice of his 
* Der Narr in Christo,’ 56. 

Hedgecock, M. F. A., his book on 
Thomas Hardy, 279 s¢. 

Heidelberg, Elizabeth of Bohemia’s 
copy of the English 4to Bible of 
1612 at, 260-72. 

















446 


Helmasperger, Ulrich, discussion 
of his notarial document as to 
Gutenberg and Fust, 396-421. 

Henry VII., poem on the death 
of, found at Cambridge, 346 
sgqg.; compared with similar 
poems at the Bodleian, 348 sg. 

Henry VIIL., article by Archibald 
Clarke on his employment of 
Leland, 132-49; copies of two 
early proclamations of, found at 
Cambridge, 340, 345 s99. 

Herbert, J. A., his ‘ Illuminated 
Manuscripts’ reviewed, 432 59. 

Hessels, J. H., articles on ‘ the so- 
called Gutenberg documents’ 
by, 183-211, 289-313, 396-421. 

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, as a 
book-lover, 356-62; as a book- 
binder, 361. 

Hooper, J. H., librarian of Wor- 
cester Cathedral, 8, 27 s9¢. 

Hopkins, William, services to Wor- 
cester Cathedral Library, 14 s9g. 

Hoskier, H. C., review of his 
edition of the Hamilton Gos- 
pels, 328 sg¢. 

Humanists, the early, of Elsass, 
paper by S. H. Scott, 363-78. 
Hunnis, William, review of Mrs, 

Stopes’s life of, 217-19. 

Hurlock, G., stationer, reference 

to, 387 59. 


Incunabula, at Worcester Cathe- 
dral Library, 29. 

Indulgence, of Julius II., fragment 
found at Cambridge, 349. 


Jaggard, William, review of his 
Shakespeare Bibliography, 331-5. 

Jane, Miss, poem on her Mamma’s 
illness, 354. 

Joe, his theft of jam, 354. 


Julius II., fragment of Indulgence | 


of, found at Cambridge, 349. 





| 
| 
| 





INDEX. 


Koeck, family of engravers at 
Antwerp, see Cock. 


Lansdowne MSS., their sale to the 
British Museum, 228. 
Laurent, Raymond, French critic, 


49- 

Lee, Elizabeth, articles by, on 
Recent Foreign Literature, 49- 
60, 150-63, 277-88, 422-31. 

Legouis, M., notice of his book on 
Chaucer, 151 59. 

Leland, John, article by Arch. 
Clarke on his commission from 
Henry VIII., 132-49. 

Lepelletier, Edmond, his ‘ His- 
toire de la Commune de 1871’ 
discussed, 428 s¢. 

L’Estrange, Sir R., one of Sir 
E. Peirce’s pamphlets wrongly 
ascribed to, 169. 

Lincoln, the first book printed at, 
Pies Atheist Converted,’ 319- 


ry ieny version of ‘ The Atheist 
Converted’ at, 321. 

Locher, Jakob, his quarrel with 
Wimpheling, 373. 

London Bridge, references to its 
booksellers in accounts of St. 
Magnus, Thames Street, 384-95. 

Luft, Hans, English books pro- 
fessedly printed by, at Marburg, 
113-21. 


Magnus, St., Church of, Thames 
Street, references to booksellers 
in its churchwardens’ accounts, 


384-95. 


| Mainz, De Ricci’s census of first 


incunabula printed at, reviewed, 
437 599. 

Malcolm, C. A., on the library of 
a Forfarshire laird (in 1710), 
212-16. 


| Mancinellus, fragment of Caxton’s 








INDEX. 


edition of his ‘ Donatus Melior’ 
found at Cambridge, 350. 

Manutius, Aldus, his edition of 
Petrarch’s ‘ Trionfi,’ 62, 68-78 ; 
his italics, 69 mote. 

Marburg, English books professedly 
printed at, 113-31. 

Mather, Cotton, his * Magnalia,’ 
359» 361. 

McKerrow, R. B., on red printing 
in the 1611 Bible, 323-27. 

Medinbach, Johann, probably 
helped Gutenberg, 398 nove. 

Men, meaning of the middle- 
German word, 406 nofe. 

Meredith, George, a French criti- 
cism of, 50. 

‘Modus Legendi Abbreviaturas,’ 
its authorship, 181 39. 

Molinier, H. J., his books on O&, 
and Mellin de Saint-Gelays 
noticed, 153 sg. 

Monastic libraries, their treatment 
by Henry VIIL., 137 s¢¢. 

Moore, Prior William, his gift of 
books to Worcester Cathedral, 
8, 30 s9¢. 

Moseley, Humphrey, lists of plays 
copyrighted by, 237 s7., 240599. 
oule, -» on the use at 
Upsala of the type of the first 
English Bible, 273-6, 

Mumby, F. A., his ‘ Romance of 
Bookselling’ noticed, 108. 

Murner, Thomas, his controversy 
with Wimpheling, 372. 


Neidig, William J., his new evi- 
dence as to False Dates in Shake- 
speare Quartos, 101-7. 

Nicolaus Bambergensis, fanciful 
imprint, 123. 

Nolhac, Pierre de, his discovery 
of Petrarch’s autograph of the 
* Opere volgari,’ 87 s¢¢. 


447 


Norris, Thomas, bookseller on 
London Bridge, 394 s¢. 


Orsini, Fulvio, his bequest of 
manuscripts to the Vatican, 65, 


79 #99. 


Pakscher, Arthur, his discovery 
of Petrarch’s autograph of the 
* Opere volgari,’ 87 59. 

Parr, Katherine, paper on Two 
Book-bills of, 40-8; copies of 

| her Prayers and Meditations 
supplied to, 43 59. 

Passinger, Thomas, bookseller on 
London Bridge, references to, 


389 599. 

Pater, Walter, a French criticism 
of, 49. 

Peirce, Sir Edmond, royalist 


pamphleteer, 164-72. 

Petrarca, Francesco, paper by Mary 
Fowler, on the autographs of 
his Rerum Vulgarium Frag- 
menta, 61-100; legend that the 
Aldine italics were based on 
his hand, 69. 

Philpotts, Bishop, his gift of books 
to Worcester Cathedral, 27. 

Pierson, Abraham, first President 
of Yale(1701-7),O. W. Holmes’s 
reference to, 358 and nove. 

Plateanus, Theodoricus, see Straten, 
D. van der, 122 59. 

Plays, list of those copyrighted by 
H. Moseley and H. Robinson, 
237 59.5 240 599. 

Plomer, H. R., on Sir Edmond 

| Peirce, royalist pamphleteer, 





164-72; on the Church of St. 
Magnus and the booksellers of 
London Bridge, 384-95. 
Pollard, A. W., additional notes 
by, on False Dates in Shake- 
speare Quartos, 101-7; Notices 











448 


and Reviews by, 108-12, 217- 
21, 328-35, 432-40. 
Prague, Elizabeth of Bohemia’s 
Bible looted at, 263, 271. 
Prideaux, John, Bishop of Worces- 
ter, many of his books in 
Worcester Cathedral Library, 


13. 

Prideaux, W. R. B., review of 
‘Table Générals to Gazette des 
Beaux Arts’ by 335 s9. 

Printing in red and black, early 
methods of, 173-80, 323-27. 
Proclamations of Henry VIII. 
(1509), discovery of, at Christ’s 
College, Cambridge, 340, 345 

599. 

Psalms and Prayers taken out of 
holye Scripture, copies supplied 
to Katherine Parr, 41. 

Pynson, R., fragments of proclama- 
tions from his press found at 
Cambridge, 341 s¢9. 


Quentell, Peter, reasons against his 
having printed Tyndale’s first 
New Testament, 114 59. 


Rats, mummified bodies of, wrapt 
in printed fragments, found at 
Cambridge, 341, 350 59. 

Recent Foreign Literature, articles 
on, by Elizabeth Lee, 49-60, 
150-63, 277-88, 422-31. 

Ricci, Seymour de, review of his 
census of early Mainz books, 
437 599. 

Richolft, Georg, used type of first 
English Bible at Upsala, 274 


599. 

Riedlin, Erhard, at one time owner 
of Elizabeth of Bohemia’s Bible, 
265 59. 

Robinson and Moseley, plays copy- 
righted by (1646), 237 59., 242. 





INDEX. 


Rose-Troup, F., paper on Two 
Book-bills of Katherine Parr, 
40-8, 


Saint-Gellays, Mellin de, notice of 
Molinier’s book on, 153 59. 

Savage, Ernest, his ‘ Medieval 
Libraries’ reviewed, 440 s9. 

Sayle, Charles, adviser ito the 
library of Worcester Cathedral, 
29 sg. ; paper by, on Cambridge 
Fragments, 339-55. 

Schlettstadt, famous fifteenth cen- 
tury school at, 363 sg. ; literary 
sodalitas at, 376. 

Schoeffer, Peter, reasons for attri- 
buting the 42-line Bible to, 
304 59. 

Scholderer, J, V., discovers author’s 
acrostic in ‘ Modus legendi ab- 
breviaturas,’ 181 sg. 

Schott, Peter, early Strassburg 
humanist, sketch of, 364 s9¢. 
Schwenke, Dr., his writings on 
Gutenberg criticized by Dr. 

Hessels, 183 s¢7., 209, 292. 

Scott, S. H., paper by, on the 
Early Humanists of Elsass, 363- 
78. 

Scott, Sir Walter, calls Warburton’s 
cook Betty Barnes, 226. 

Shakespeare Quarto, False Dates 
in, Notes by A. W. Pollard, 
101-7. 

Shipley, A., Master of Christ’s 
College, Cambridge, note on 
mummified rats found there, 
341. 

Singing Breads, meaning of the 
term, 47. 

Size-notation, 223. 

Steele, Robert, on Hans Luft of 
Marburg, 113-31. 

Stopes, Mrs, C. C., review of her 
‘William Hunnis,’ 217-19. 








INDEX. 


Strachan, L. R. M., on an Historic 
Bible (1612, 4to) at Heidelburg, 
260-72. 

Strassburg, literary sodalitas at, 
374 599. 

Straten, Dirck van der (Theod. 
Plateanus), uses ‘ Marburg’ type 
at Wesel, 122. 

Stuart, John, stationer on London 
Bridge, 393. 

Sudermann, Hermann, his ‘ Die 
indische Lilie,’ 282. 

Swiss Literature, notice of a history 
of, 156. 


Thompson, Thomas, Master of 
Christ’s College, Cambridge 
(1510-17), find of documents 
concerning, 341, 352 59. 

Three Bibles, two shops with sign 
of, on London Bridge, 392. 

Tracy, John, stationer on London 
Bridge, 393. 

Tyndale, William, his conneétion 
with English books with Mar- 
burg imprint, 113-31; his first 
New Testament probably not 
printed by Quentell, 114 59.; 
the printing of his Pentateuch, 
120 59. 

Types, early, their close connection 
with manuscripts, 295 s¢.; 302 
sq.; similarity between different 
founts no evidence of common 
origin, 294, 306 more. 


Ulrich and Afra, Monastery at 
Augsburg, expenses of starting 
printing there, 400, 

Upsala, type of first edition of 
Coverdale’s Bible, found at, 
274 599: 


Vindel, Pedro, notice of his Biblio- 
grafia grafica, 111 59. 


Q 





449 


Visan, Tancréde, de, criticism of 
his ‘ L’Attitude du lyrisme con- 
temporaine,’ 424 599. 


Wales, National Library of, notice 
of its Report and Catalogue of 
Civil War Tracts, 441. 

Warburton, John, the supposed 
destruction of old plays by his 
cook, article by W. W. Greg, 
225-59. 

Wedderburn, Sir Alexander, article 
on his library (1710), 212-16. 
Wernher of Schussenried, author 
of Modus Legendi Abbrevia- 

turas, 181 59. 

Wesel, ‘ Marburg’ ty 
before 1548, by b. 
Straten, 122. 

Westminster Abbey, Chapter 
House Library, duplicate manu- 
scripts from Worcester Cathedral 
given to, 10, 

Wilson, }. M., on the Library of 
Printed Books in Worcester 
Cathedral, 1-33. 

Wimpheling, Jakob, early Alsatian 
humanist, sketch of, 364 sg¢. 
Wolf, Thomas, friend of Jakob 

Wimpheling, 368 s9¢. 

Women writers, notices of books 
on, 154 59. 

Worcester Cathedral, the library 
of printed books in, 1-33. 

Worde, Wynkyn de, fragments 
printed by, found at Cambridge, 
34° 599- : 

Wren, Sir Christopher, entries as 
to, in accounts of St. Magnus, 
Thames Street, 389. 


used at, 
van der 


Zedler, Dr., his writings on Guten- 
berg criticized by Dr. Hessels, 
183 s99., 290 s99., 396 note, 397, 
401 mote, 409, 410 59. 414 59. 























PRINTED BY THE DE LA MORE PRESS LTD. 
32 GEORGE STREET, HANOVER SQUARE, LONDON, W. 








THE DE LA MORE PRESS» 
The. Sarum Missal in. English” 


Newly: trapslated bythe. Rev. Canon: Waneew, Two” 
volumes; Demy vp, red cloth, gilt top; 4}. 2s: Gd. m 


This 152 néw. translation based on the 1526 folio edition, of 
which, with @ few omissions mentioned. in’ the Introduction, - 
it ie.am €xact reprodiction in Eniglish. “In order to keep the 
size of the volumes within bounds the texts of the Eelicies and 
Gospels have been, abbreviated, but otherwise the translation “is - 
a faithful pteventation of the chief  hissal of the English Charch 
= the. i the Reformation, “It thos, differs from M, A. 

eet sere ‘translation, i ag edition, "¥868; sécond 
a from the edition. i 15 495 
ecti rth in re Gariision < some masses 





that al! thé pets, 

Church are arrayed against thei 
apgutnents as these could be 

aisle sie ee ee ees 


aie, Wickh: Legg, wh ith 

coke a athe force = p> Be bs a: 
‘of Prayer-dook sevision.”——Stagdar 

Tice Siti sell Putcon: Standard PE ae 


aah of print 
Scenics and Yenirswd ee the - 
Middle | 


By the Rev. ay Som BA; late: Hom: $ec,of © 
the Essex Atchitologiéal Seviety. With ‘afl the original 
182 woodout iinetrarions....Demy Byo, cloth, 7)6 set., 


“ALEXANDER MORING LTD. 32 GEORGE ST, HANOVER 3Q.,W. 





en . y aes 








| TRE DE LA MORE Panes LTD. ¢ 94 cpOkon erxtnt, Ranover 4@uAns, toweoxs-y,