Perhaps the most interesting and important printer in the eighteenth century in England was John Baskerville (1706–1775). Baskerville was of unknown and humble origin. At seventeen we find him a servant in the house of a clergyman at Birmingham. He was a good penman, however, and his employer soon set him to teach penmanship to the poor boys of the parish and afterwards got him a position as a teacher of penmanship and bookkeeping in a school. Baskerville was not only interested in penmanship but also in the cutting of letters in stone. Unlike Caslon, this interest did not lead him directly to take up type-founding or printing as his life work. In 1736 a man by the name of John Taylor set himself up in business at Birmingham as a manufacturer of japanned ware. Baskerville became interested in Taylor’s work and learned Taylor’s trade secrets by following him about and whenever he went into a shop and made a purchase going in himself and buying the same things in the same quantities. In this way he learned the composition of the japanning mixture and shortly set up a business for himself. This was his main business and source of revenue throughout his life and was very prosperous. Baskerville did not imitate Taylor and was hardly his rival, but won success in making other and better things than those made by Taylor. Curiously enough, although Baskerville remained in this business for many years and was very successful, not a single piece of work survives which is known to be his. Meanwhile he did not lose his early interest in the correct formation of letters and he became actively interested in type-founding about 1750. By this time, however, his ideas had spread beyond the mere designing and founding of type.
He conceived the idea of better books than had yet been made in England. He considered the matter in its broadest possible aspects. He realized the fact that a book is the result of many operations. He believed that the making of the best books, such as he had in mind, meant the best possible paper, type, ink, machines, and workmanship. Beginning with the type; he employed a skilful type-cutter to work from his designs and is said to have spent £600 or £800 ($3000 or $4000) before getting a font to suit him. He never attempted to cut many types. His roman differs from Caslon’s, but is equal to it in legibility. It is beautifully clear, regular, and well proportioned. Perhaps a certain lack of character and a too mechanical perfection would be the general criticism which could be brought against it. His italic was the best which had as yet been seen in England.
Baskerville also cut a font of Greek type. This experiment has been regarded as unsuccessful and his Greek type has been somewhat criticised. It was unsuccessful, but not through the fault of the type itself. His type was excellent, but it differed considerably from that to which the scholars were then accustomed and the learned world did not care to adopt it. Minor changes in the formation of English letters are not important, providing the general form of the letter is retained. In languages using a different character, however, even slight modifications are liable to be confusing and scholarly conservatism naturally shrinks from changes of this sort. It is probable, moreover, that the universities and the few persons doing printing in Greek did not encourage the new character as it would have involved a considerable expenditure for new type. With the comparatively small use for Greek type one font would last for a very long time.
Excellent as Baskerville’s types were, they were not generally adopted. The printers stuck to the work of Caslon and Jackson, partly from the fact shortly to be noted that Baskerville did not get on very well with the printers and publishers and partly because of the expense. They preferred sticking to the standard fonts and buying sorts which could be easily procured when necessary to undergoing the expense of buying new fonts from the new founder. Although the admirers of Baskerville consider his type better than Caslon’s, it was not enough better to drive it out of the market. Baskerville’s type, moreover, was much criticised on its own account. It was claimed that owing to its proportions and owing to its sharp contrasts it was hard on the eyes. This criticism, however, was probably very largely the result of prejudice and dislike.
Benjamin Franklin was a friend of Baskerville and tells an amusing story about this kind of criticism. He says that some printers were at his lodging in London and complained vigorously of the objectionable character of Baskerville’s type and of the eye strain and headache which it caused to its users. Franklin thereupon stepped into another room and came back in a moment with a sheet of Caslon’s specimens from which he had removed the heading. He handed this sheet to the critics who had been berating Baskerville and praising Caslon and said that he could not help thinking that they were influenced somewhat by their prejudice and he wished that they would examine this sheet and see if they actually did experience the unpleasant results of which they had complained. Supposing the sheet to be Baskerville’s type, they studied it with some care and unanimously declared that they found the same difficulties and experienced the same discomforts which they had always met with in reading Baskerville’s type. Franklin refrained from pointing out the trap into which he had betrayed them, but satisfied himself that their criticisms really were the result of prejudice.
Type-founding, however, was only a part of Baskerville’s scheme. As has been said, he had conceived the idea of the perfect book, or at least a book nearer perfection than England had yet seen. It is one of the most interesting things about Baskerville that he did not arrive at his conceptions by a process of experimentation and production of mediocre work. He conceived his idea and elaborated it in his mind first and then undertook to realize it in a product. He was the artist who conceives rather than the craftsman who slowly elaborates. The designing and cutting of new fonts of type was only one step in that direction. He determined that he would attempt to produce the whole book himself and he therefore set up a printing office of his own. He selected the paper for his editions with the greatest care. It is not certain that he did not even go so far as to make the paper for some of them, but whether or not this is true he gave it great attention. He took equal care with his ink, using every precaution to secure the production of a bright, clear ink which should work well and be permanent. He also had a special press built. This did not involve any innovations in design, but was built with the greatest care so as to secure the best possible impression. In order to give smoothness and shine to his pages and prevent the type from pressing into the damp paper and making an impression on the reverse side of the sheet he devised what is known as the hot press method of finishing. As soon as the damp sheets came from the press they were placed between plates of hot metal and subjected to pressure. This gave the paper a perfectly smooth, shiny surface. This was another of the points of criticism of Baskerville’s work. Those who were familiar with the coarse paper and rough impressions in common use declared that the shine of the smooth paper hurt their eyes. Baskerville also gave great attention to the typographical design of his books. He used ample margins and developed a style of dignified simplicity, free from extraneous ornamentation and extremely reserved in the use of all forms of ornament.
As a result of this care Baskerville produced the best books which had yet been made in England. They were very expensive. No cost was spared in their production and there was no catering to the popular taste which would enable him to reduce unit costs by publishing large editions. Baskerville frankly printed for the few. He believed that there were lovers of good books and good literature who were ready to pay what might be necessary to obtain their favorite authors in a fitting dress. In this he was somewhat disappointed. The number of such persons was less numerous than he had supposed and it is probable that on the whole Baskerville lost rather than made money by his printing and type-founding enterprises. He printed about sixty-seven books, all of which were reprints of the classics or standard authors. Not a single new book came from his press, although these were the flourishing days of Samuel Johnson, Goldsmith, Pope, Gray, Burke, Chesterfield, Young, Akenside, and other famous writers. The booksellers would not support him. He was not willing to cheapen his work or to lower his prices to meet their wishes, nor would he consent to being, like so many printers, a mere servant of the publisher. He felt that he had his artistic message to give to the world and he insisted upon giving it in his own way, making himself his own publisher as well as printer. Very likely his editions would have made a larger sale if he had had the support of the booksellers in putting them on the market, but this was denied him.
Disheartened and disgusted by the lack of appreciation and support, Baskerville tried to sell out his type-foundry, but was unsuccessful. He negotiated with several of the leading printers of the continent and with Franklin, but was not able to effect a sale. Twenty years after his death, however, his type was used in the famous Boydell Shakspeare. His type obtained partial recognition. His work has been called too artistic for his time. It is said that Baskerville was an artist, but the England of the eighteenth century was not artistic. Perhaps it might better be said that Baskerville’s standard of perfection was higher than his time could appreciate and that he failed because there was not yet a sufficiently large public ready to spend considerable money for de luxe book making. Baskerville unquestionably possessed great taste and a very high degree of mechanical skill. One does not find in his work, however, the artist’s spirit which manifests itself in the work of the old masters or their late nineteenth century followers. Baskerville’s work, nevertheless, was not in vain. No man can ever do anything better than it has yet been done without contributing to the progress of true art, even though his productions are appreciated by but few people. Unquestionably Baskerville’s work influenced the Whittinghams, who are the great figures in the world of printing in the early nineteenth century.
It is interesting to note, before passing to the consideration of the work of the Whittinghams, that several of the great English printing houses whose names are familiar to all readers of books run back far into the eighteenth century. The Rivington house was established in 1711, Eyre and Spottiswoode not much later, Longmans in 1724, John Murray in 1768, William Blackwood & Son in 1804, A. C. Black in 1815, to mention only a few of the more familiar. In many cases these firm names have been several times changed, but the firms have maintained continuous existence.