That, at an earlier date, lines running all in one direction were used only as shading, is shown over and over again. Take, for instance, the book-plate of Francis de Malherbe (reproduced over leaf), which, as the owner died in 1628, was engraved, probably, soon after the opening of the century. In this case we have a statement by De Malherbe that his arms are 'D'argent à six roses de gueules, et des hermines de sable sans nombre,'—a description obviously inaccurate. De Malherbe was a poet, and could no more be expected to describe a coat of arms than 'Garter' could be expected to write a poem. The proper blazoning of his family arms is: ermine, six roses gules. But, according to the lines depicted on his book-plate, the 'field' would be azure: clearly, in this case, the lines mean nothing at all.
The late Mr. J. E. Bailey points out that in the 1562, 1568, and 1576 editions of Gerard Legh's Accedens of Armory, sable (black) is expressed, as it would be now, by horizontal and perpendicular lines crossing each other; whilst the other colours are represented by the initials of their names. It is possible that this form of expressing sable may be merely the result of an attempt on the part of the engraver to produce as dark a tint as possible to represent it. In Vincent's Discovery of Brooke's Errors, 1622, such lines are certainly used as shading, or to distinguish colour from white; but, as shown from his verbal description of the arms he represents, these lines are used without any system whatever, perpendicular lines sometimes representing gules, and sometimes azure. Again, in the second edition of Guillim's Display, 1632, lines are used to denote the darker colours, though they are used without system. But in 1654, we find, in Bysshe's heraldic tracts, gules, azure, sable, and the rest expressed in the now orthodox manner, and an explanatory plate showing what colours are represented by the respective dots or lines, a conclusive proof of the novelty of the system in England. I think the reader will see, as he proceeds, that this has been a useful digression.
BOOK-PLATE OF FRANCIS DE MALHERBE.
We have said that the earliest English book-plate yet come to light is Cardinal Wolsey's. This is not a printed book-plate at all, but a carefully drawn sketch of the Cardinal's arms, with supporters, and surmounted by a Cardinal's hat, the whole coloured by hand. How many of these book-plates the Cardinal possessed, we do not know; but that this—the only example known—is undoubtedly a book-plate, is proved from the fact that it may now be seen in a folio volume which once belonged to Wolsey, and subsequently to his royal master. It bears no date, and may have been designed any time after the minister's elevation to the cardinalate in September 1514. It is a splendid affair in every way, and gorgeously coloured. The shield of arms rests on a platform (gold), the front of which is red, ornamented with an arabesque pattern, also red; pillars on the platform support a canopy, ornamented as the front of the platform, with the addition of Tudor roses; over the shield is the Cardinal's hat, and above that again the holy dove descends. The shield is supported by two dingy-looking griffins, whose wings and heads are red, and whose beaks, claws, and tail-tips are gold; the background is blue.
BOOK-PLATE OF SIR NICHOLAS BACON
Next in date, after Wolsey's book-plate, comes that which was, I believe, engraved at least contemporaneously with the date upon it, 1574, to place in the volumes given in that year by Sir Nicholas Bacon to the University of Cambridge. Bacon died five years after this date; he is familiar to us all as 'the father of his country and of Sir Francis Bacon.' This book-plate is engraved on wood; like Wolsey's, it is found coloured, but it is also—amongst the odds and ends in the Bagford Collection—found uncoloured, and without the inscription which records the gift to Cambridge. A facsimile of that in the Bagford Collection appears opposite: can it be the book-plate of Bacon himself, to which, on the copies used for the books that he gave to Cambridge, was added the donatory inscription? A close comparison shows that both shields of arms are struck from the same block. The arms shown are Bacon quartering Quaplode. The variety of this book-plate which bears the inscription belongs to what are termed 'gift' or 'legacy' book-plates, the dates on which—as they refer to the date of the 'gift' or 'legacy' commemorated—are considered earlier than the engraving. In the case of 'legacy' book-plates they may often be so, but they are not, I think, in many cases of 'gift' book-plates. For instance, if (as from the Bagford example seems probable) this was Bacon's own book-plate, the date upon it, 1574, may even be many years later than the time at which it was made for him. That the date on one of these 'gift' book-plates must be, within a very short space of time, the date of its engraving, will be shown presently when I come to speak of that recording a donation made by Lady Bath.