BLOWEN.
THE CAXTON MEMORIAL.
(Vol. iv., pp. 33. 69.)
Whatever be the fate of The Caxton Memorial, as suggested by myself, the proposition is clear of interested motives. I neither aspire to the honours of a patron, nor to the honours of editorship. To revive the memory of the man, and to illustrate the literature of the period, are my sole objects.
I have to thank MR. BOTFIELD for his polite information. I was aware of the meeting of the 9th of July 1849, but not aware that the proposal of a statue of Caxton had been entertained at so early a date. The proceedings of the meeting, as reported in The Times, were confined to the question of subscriptions: on the statue question there is not the slightest hint.
The advocacy of a fictitious statue by so eminent an antiquary as MR. BOTFIELD, and the assurance which he gives that this object has been under consideration for at least two years, make it the more imperative on me to state my objections to it; and this I shall do with reference to his own arguments.
A maxim of the illustrious sir William Jones very apposite to the point in dispute, has floated in my memory from early life. It is this: "The best monument that can be erected to a man of literary talents is a good edition of his works." Such a man was William Caxton; and on this principle I would proceed. He would then owe the extension of his fame to the admirable art which he so successfully practised.
In the opinion of MR. BOTFIELD, the expense attendant on my project would be "fatal to its success." Now, as the Shakespeare Society prints at the rate of four volumes for a subscription of 1l., the committee of the Caxton Memorial could surely produce one volume for 10s. 6d. I should not advise any attempt at splendour. Paper such as Caxton would have chosen, a clear type, and extreme accuracy of text, are more important objects. Competent editors would soon offer their services; and, proud to have their names associated with so desirable an enterprise, would perform their parts with correspondent care and ability. Besides, it is easier to collect subscriptions, when you can promise a substantial return.
To the other objections of MR. BOTFIELD, I shall reply more briefly. The biography of Caxton by Lewis is a very scarce book; and, in the opinion of Dibdin, "among the dullest of all biographical memoirs." As to that by MR. KNIGHT, only one fourth part of it relates to Caxton. In the Typographical antiquities we certainly have "copious extracts from his works;" but they are mixed up with much superfluity of disquisition. Whether such a memorial would be "hidden in a bookcase," must depend on the taste of the possessor. It would be accessible in the four quarters of the globe—which is as much as can be said of other books, and more than can be said of a statue.
I cannot admit the propriety of viewing Caxton as a mere printer. By continental writers he is more correctly appreciated. M. de la Serna calls him "homme de lettres, artiste renommé," etc.; and M. Suard observes, "dans presque tous les ouvrages imprimés par lui, il a inséré quelques lignes qui toujours attestent la pureté des intentions dont il était animé."
The advocates of a fictitious statue of Caxton have been apprized of my intention, and if certain estimable antiquaries should prove to be of the number, they must consider my opposition as the consequence of general principles.