Early Printed Books

by E. Gordon Duff

In collecting or studying early printed books, one of the most fatal and common mistakes is the undertaking of too much. The day is past when one man will set himself to compile such works as Hain’s Repertorium Bibliographicum, or that very much greater book, Panzer’s Annales Typographici; both wonderful achievements, but unfinished and imperfect. No one who has not had practical experience can imagine the amount of information which can be obtained by taking a small subject and working at it carefully; or conversely, the amount of careful study and research that is requisite to work a small subject properly.

Take as examples Blades’ Life of Caxton and Edmond’s Aberdeen Printers, the two best monographs we possess. They contain a very great deal of most careful work, and sufficient material to enable any one who desires to study those particular subjects to do so thoroughly.

In collecting, in the same way, a beginner who wishes his collection to be of real value should not be too catholic in his tastes, but confine his attention to one subject. A collection of fifty miscellaneous fifteenth-century books has not, as a rule, more interest than may be associated with the individual books. But take a collection of fifty books printed in one town, or by one printer. Each book is then a part of a series, and obtains a value on that account over and above its own individual rarity or interest.

The arrangement and cataloguing of early printed books is a part of the subject which presents many difficulties, In many great collections, these books, for purposes of bibliographical study, are absolutely lost. They are not bought, at any rate not once in twenty cases, for their literary value, but simply and solely as specimens of early printing or curiosities. But, having been bought, they are treated as any other book bought solely for its literary value, and in no other way, i.e. they are catalogued under the author or concealed in mazes of cross-reference. If such books are to be bought at all, they should surely be treated in some way which would enable them to fulfil the object for which they were acquired.

In the University Library, Cambridge, the fifteenth-century books are all placed together arranged under countries according to size, with a press-mark indicating the country, the size, and the consecutive number. Thus any new acquisition can be added, and placed at once without disarranging the order on the shelves. Any further subdivision, as, for instance, under towns, is impracticable on the shelves, but must be done on paper.

The catalogue slips can then be arranged under towns and printers, so that any one wishing to study the productions of a particular town or printer can at once obtain all the books of the particular class in the library. If he knows his books by the author’s name, they can be found from the general catalogue of the library. In private collections, the number of books is, as a rule, so small that they can be arranged in any order without trouble.

In describing an early printed book, great care should always be taken not to confuse what is common to all examples of the book with what is specially the peculiarity of an individual copy. The description should always be in two parts, the first general and the second particular. The first part should give the place, the date, the name of the printer, the size, an exact collation; the second, an account of the binding, a list of the earlier owners, the imperfections, if any, and similar information.

As regards the place, there does not yet seem to be any fixed rule as to the form in which it should be written, whether in Latin or in English. Many of the older bibliographies having been written in Latin, and the colophons of the majority of early books being in the same language, we have grown familiar with the Latin forms of many names. But now that more books are being written in English, it seems more sensible to use the English forms. The pedantic habit of writing the name in the vernacular, as Köln for Cologne, Genève for Geneva, or Kjøbenhavn for Copenhagen, should be avoided; it simply tends to confuse, and serves no useful purpose. The great aim of a bibliographical description should be to give the fullest information in the most concise and clear form. Since English books are presumably written for English readers, it is best they should be written in English, and the exhibition of superfluous learning in the manner is almost always a sign of a want of necessary learning in the matter.

The date should always be given in Arabic figures; and if there is any peculiarity in the form of the date as it occurs in the book, it should be added between brackets. The day of the month, when it is given in the colophon, should always be put down in the description, as it is often of great importance. In countries where the new year began in March we are apt to get confused with the dates, and forget, for example, that the 20th of January 1490 is later than the 20th of December 1490.

The beginning of the year varied in different countries, and often in different towns. The four most usual times for its commencement were: Christmas Day (December 25), the day of the Circumcision (January 1), the day of the Conception (March 25), and the day of the Resurrection (Easter Day). The 25th of March was, on the whole, most common; but in dating any book exactly, the rule for the particular town where it was printed should be ascertained.