THE EARLY USE OF BOOK-PLATES IN ENGLAND
IN a short paper, which in 1882 I contributed to the _Antiquarian
Magazine and Bibliographer_, I wrote this passage:--'It is difficult to
believe that the general use of book-plates should have been a hundred
and fifty years in reaching this country from the Continent; and yet
there is rather more difference than that between the date on the
earliest-known German example (1516) and the time when English-dated
specimens appear at all plentifully. Surely the many English men of
letters who amassed large libraries in the sixteenth century, and the
first half of the seventeenth, must have possessed book-plates; and yet,
where are their book-plates now?
'Many, no doubt, have perished with the bindings to which they were
fastened, but some are doubtless still extant; and we may yet hope that,
when the interest in these labels becomes more widely diffused, more
than one or two specimens will be brought to light, bearing an engraved
date sufficiently early to dispel the idea that this country was a
century and a half behind its German neighbours in the general practice
of using book-plates.'
Mr. Daniel Parsons, who may be properly called the father of book-plate
literature,--his contribution, in 1837, to 'The Third Annual Report of
the Oxford University Archæological and Heraldic Society,' was certainly
the first paper on the subject that ever appeared,--commented on this
hope of mine in the number of the same magazine issued in the following
January, and was despondent as to evidence being forthcoming to prove
the early use of book-plates in England.
Well, in that I expressed the belief that investigation would bring to
light a number of sixteenth and seventeenth century _dated_ book-plates,
I was perhaps wrong--early English dated book-plates have not been found
in anything approaching plenty; but I was also wrong in suggesting that
proof of the early use of book-plates in this country could only be
proved by dated examples; the existence of examples which, from internal
evidence, are proved to be of early date is really equally valuable; and
as these have certainly come to light in considerable numbers, I think a
good case has been made out on behalf of our fellow-countrymen.
I do not pretend that early English book-plates are so plentiful as
those of Germany. Some individual specimens are known to exist; but
there are very few that are recorded as existing in more than a few
collections, and some are unique. From some cause or other, early
English book-plates are a rarity; and I propose, therefore, to speak
individually of the majority of them,--that is to say, of those
executed prior to the close of the seventeenth century.
But before doing this, let me say a word as to the date at which the
colours intended to be shown on the shield of arms were first
represented by lines or points. For instance, perpendicular lines from
the top to the bottom of the shield, thus:
[Illustration]
to express _gules_--red.
A number of small dots or points, thus:
[Illustration]
to express _or_--gold; and so on.
To whom may be attached the credit of inventing this useful system,
matters little; what we are now interested in--for the purpose of
considering the approximate dates of book-plates--is the time at which
it was first employed in heraldic engravings. Mr. Walter Hamilton, in
the pages of the _Ex Libris Journal_, realises the importance of the
subject. He speaks of the work by Father Silvester Petra-Sancta,
published at Rome in 1638, in which the proposal is advocated, and
refers to M. Henri Bouchot's allusion to a work by Vulsson de la
Colombière, written in 1639, which advocates the system.
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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration]
The next English book-plate which bears upon it an engraved date is that
of Sir Thomas Tresham. On this the inscription reads 'June 29, 1585,'
which no doubt refers to the date of engraving, or, probably, to the
date at which the design for the engraving was finished by the artist.
As a work of art it is poor, but its interest as a book-plate to
collectors is not lessened on that account. Tresham was knighted by
Queen Elizabeth ten years before the date of his book-plate. We know not
much of him, save what Fuller tells us that he was famous for 'his skill
in buildings.' One of his sons, Sir Francis, was involved in the
Gunpowder Plot, and another, Sir Lewis, was made a baronet in 1611.
These three examples are all the sixteenth century English dated
book-plates yet brought to light. Those in the seventeenth century are
far more numerous. We find one bearing the date '1613,' which was
prepared to place in the volumes given, in that year, by William
Willmer, a Northamptonshire squire, to his college library. The
inscription on it reads: 'Sydney Sussex Colledge--Ex dono Wilhelmi
Willmer de Sywell in Com. Northamtoniæ, Armigeri, quondam pentionarii in
ista Domi (_sic_), viz. in Anno Dñi 1599; sed dedit in Ano Dñi 1613.'
The book-plate is clearly early, and shows us fine bold heraldic work.
In style it nearly resembles the Bacon plate, and that of Sir Thomas
Tresham; but the mantling here descends to the base of the shield. The
Willmer plate is in Dr. Howard's Collection; a reproduction of it is
given in Mr. Griggs's _Examples of Armorial Book-Plates_.
Early in the reign of Charles I. may be placed a very beautiful example
of heraldic engraving, which Sir Wollaston Franks satisfactorily assigns
to a certain John Talbot of Thorneton, who died in 1659. It is inscribed
'Coll. Talbott,' and this John Talbot is called 'Colonellus ex parte
Regis'; the quarterings are those of the families of Ferrers, Bellars,
and Arderne.
In strange contrast to this fine work is the wood block book-plate of
'William Courtenay of Treemer, in the county of Cornwall, Esquire,'
who, in 1632, inherited the Treemer estate. We may note that, not only
is this book-plate, like all those yet described, free from any
indication of lines or dots to express the colours in the armorial
bearings, but below the shield is given a verbal blazon of the coat: 'He
beareth _or_, 3 Torteauxes.'
This seems to be the place to speak of a very puzzling pair of
engravings, which certainly appear to have been used as book-plates,
dated in 1630. They represent the armorial bearings of Sir Edward
Dering. One of these book-plates which I take to be the earlier, shows a
less number of quarterings, and contains no indication of a really
systematic expression of the metals and tinctures in the arms; but the
other and later example does. The same date appears upon each. The
second of the two plates occurs bound up in a volume of the Harleian
Collection of MSS.; and 'Mr. Humphrey Wanly, library-keeper to Robert
and Edward, Earls of Oxford,' in his description of the specimen in the
Harleian Collection, calls it 'A printed cut of the Arms or Atchievement
of Sir Edward Dering, Baronet, dated A.D. 1630, with a fanciful motto in
misshapen Saxon characters; but by the hatching of the arms in order to
show the colours, according to the way found out by Sir Edward Bysshe, I
guess that it is not so old.'
Now, the Harleian volume, in which this engraving occurs, is a copy,
written in 1645-46, of the Heralds' Visitation of Kent in 1619; and in a
later, but certainly seventeenth century, handwriting, is a description
of the numerous quarterings as they appear on the engraving; so that,
whilst rejecting the claim of this variety of the plate to be an
engraving of 1630, we may, I think, accept it as at least an early
example of the indication of the colours and tinctures by lines and
dots. As for the first of the two varieties, I do not see why it should
not be as early as the date upon it; there was no particular reason in
selecting that date; for I do not find that it refers to any special
event in Sir Edward's life. A writer to _Notes and Queries_, in 1851,
states that there were several 'loose copies' of the plate--which
variety, he does not say--in the Surrenden Collection, and Dr. Howard
saw it 'inserted' in several folio volumes of that collection, when it
was disposed of by Messrs. Puttick and Simpson. Very good facsimiles of
these book-plates have been given by Dr. Howard in his _Miscellanea
Genealogica et Heraldica_.
Another early instance of the expression of the metals and tinctures
occurs in the book-plate of Lord-Keeper Lyttelton, a plate which derives
additional interest from the fact of its being the work of William
Marshall, the famous frontispiece engraver. Sir Edward Lyttelton, the
owner of the book-plate, was made Lord-Keeper in 1641, under the title
of Baron Lyttelton of Mounslow. This book-plate, which shows us the arms
of Lyttelton of Frankley, was evidently engraved before Sir Edward's
elevation to the peerage. The book-plate, which is the earliest English
example bearing an engraver's signature, may be dated about 1640.
We know from the arms on dedication plates, and the like, that the
expression of colours on shields did not become at all general for many
years after 1640. Take, for instance, Hollar's cuts of arms in the
illustrations to Dugdale's _Monasticon_, or his _History of St. Paul's_.
Thus, we must not date every book-plate we find, on which the colours
are not shown in the new fashion, as before 1640. The small and
unpretentious book-plate of John Marsham of Whom's Place, near Cuxton,
in Kent, is an illustration of this. A representation of it is given by
Mr. Griggs in his _Facsimiles_. Marsham was made a baronet in 1663; so
the plate is earlier than that, but as it is exactly in the style of the
dedicatory plates in the works just noticed, we may place it somewhere
about 1655. It is perhaps by Hollar. Likely enough, other examples will
come to light.
After the Restoration, the number of English book-plates perceptibly
increases, though we must remember that the active supporters of
Cromwell did not object to a little heraldic display--there was a fair
amount of heraldic work one way and another, executed both with pen and
pencil, during the twelve years that the king was kept off his throne.
Two of the earliest post-Restoration book-plates are those of Sir Edward
Bysshe and his brother-in-law, John Greene. Sir Edward Bysshe became
Garter King-at-Arms, and John Greene was of Navestock, Essex. Both are
curious oblong plates, having fancifully shaped shields surrounded by
palm branches, and held up by ribbons. There is no crest shown in
either. They are evidently by the same artist, which, as Bysshe and
Greene were brothers-in-law, is perhaps natural. A somewhat similar,
though plainer, form of ornamentation surrounds the shields on two other
anonymous book-plates, one bearing the arms of Southwell, and the other
those of Eynes or Haynes.
[Illustration: BOOK-PLATE OF THOMAS GORE BY MICHAEL BURGHERS.]
Thomas Gore of Alderton, Wilts, the author of _Catalogus de Re
Heraldicâ_, is a man who might be expected to use a book-plate, and he
did. Three varieties are known. The first, which dates about 1660,
though a more elaborate piece of work than those last described, is
somewhat similar in style, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say
dissimilar to the style in which other book-plates prior to the
Restoration were designed. Whoever engraved this plate for Gore also
engraved the arms of Edward Waterhouse--most probably the engraving was
intended for Waterhouse's book-plate--which appear as a frontispiece to
his _Discourse and Defence of Arms and Armory_, 1660. In his second
book-plate Gore called to his aid the foreigner's art, employing Michael
Burghers, a Dutch artist, who had recently come from Holland and settled
at Oxford. Michael produced the book-plate figured opposite, which
introduces some rather wild allegory, singularly plain cupids seated on
the backs of flying eagles. Perhaps Gore did not care for this
allegory,--allegory seems never to have been popular with English
book-plate owners (see Chapter IV.),--and for his third plate went to an
Englishman, and to a no less eminent one than William Faithorne. The
famous portrait-engraver produced as beautiful and bold a book-plate in
the Simple Armorial style as could well be: the peculiar 'depth' of his
touch is apparent here and in his other book-plates, of which there are
several.
[Illustration: BOOK-PLATE OF THE MARRIOTT FAMILY BY FAITHORNE]
It is interesting to note that Faithorne reverts to the pre-Restoration
style, and improves upon it. The mantling is much richer than that shown
in earlier examples in the same style, and it more completely surrounds
the shield. To Faithorne may be assigned two other magnificent
book-plates, that of Sir George Hungerford of Cadenham (anonymous), and
the one here reproduced of a member of the family of Marriott of
Whitchurch, Warwickshire, and Alscot and Preston, Gloucestershire.[4]
The Hungerford book-plate is noteworthy. The name of Sir George
Hungerford, its possessor, does not occur in any list of baronets, yet
he evidently considered himself to possess that dignity, as the 'bloody
hand of Ulster' figures on his arms. Dugdale, too, in speaking of Sir
George's marriage, refers to him as 'baronet.' Faithorne also produced a
book-plate to commemorate a gift of books made by Bishop Hacket, who
died in 1670--it is particularly curious as showing us the Bishop's
portrait. I shall speak of it later on, under the heading 'Portrait
Book-Plates' (pp. 216-220); such plates are comparatively few in number.
Dated, and most probably engraved, in the following year, 1671, is
another 'gift' book-plate, prepared to place in books presented by the
then Countess-Dowager of Bath. The inscription reads: 'Ex dono Rachel
Comitissæ Bathon: Dotariæ An: Dom. MDCLXXI.' This lady was born in 1613;
she was a daughter of Francis Fane, first Earl of Westmoreland, and
became the wife of Henry Bourchier, Earl of Bath, who died in 1654; and
soon afterwards of Lionel Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex, who died in
1674; she herself dying in 1680. There is no reason to doubt the date on
this book-plate, 1671, though, at first sight, it may look a little
suspicious. True, she had become the wife of the Earl of Middlesex (a
title only dating from 1622) in 1654, and was still his wife in 1671;
but she had apparently little reason to be proud of him or his title,
for he left her and made hay of her fortune, spending it to use the
words of a contemporary letter,[5] 'in play and rioting.' We cannot,
therefore, feel much surprised at her desire to pass by her former title
which would give her rank at court as the widow of an Earl whose
creation was hard on a century earlier. 'Our cousin, Lady Bath,' writes
Lady Newport, in April 1661, 'hath got her place of being Lady Bath
again; it cost her 1,200_l_ . . . her Lord is very angry at her changing
her title; he says it is an affront to him.' That is why she calls
herself, on the book-plate under notice, Countess-Dowager of Bath in
1671. A curious feature about the book-plate is, that it does not seem
to have been prepared to place in books included in one particular gift
to a particular person or institution, but rather to have been the
outcome of my lady's fancy to place such a remembrance of herself in any
volume she gave away at that or at any subsequent date. The Countess
also used a book-stamp of the same design as the _ex libris_, but
without the inscription.
Whilst speaking on the subject of gift book-plates, reference may
appropriately be made to a curious woodcut used as a book-plate by the
St. Albans Grammar School, which is figured opposite the next page. It
is a quaint bit of, no doubt, local work, and, as pointed out to me by
the Rev. F. Willcox, the headmaster, during a long and dusty hunt,
occurs only in the volumes given to the school by Sir Samuel Grimston.
The plate shows us a combination of the arms of the city of St. Albans
and the motto of the Bacon family, adopted by the Grimstons.
I have no doubt that, if a thorough investigation of the too often
neglected libraries of our old foundation grammar schools were made,
other early and curious book-plates might be discovered.
Between 1670 and 1680 quite a number of book-plates were designed,
evidently by the same man. The work is feeble, but it is very distinct.
The most interesting of these book-plates, from its possessor, is that
of Samuel Pepys. Altogether, I know of eight examples: Charles Pitfield,
Sir Robert Southwell, William Wharton, Sir Henry Hunloke, Samuel Pepys,
Justinian Pagit, Walter Chetwynd, and Randolph Egerton.
A point of interest about them all is that, as well as expressing
heraldically the blazon of the different shields, they also indicate
with an initial letter the colour intended to be shown: 'a' for argent,
'g' for gules, and so on. The initial of the heraldic term is used in
every case except that of 'azure,' when 'b' for blue is used; 'a,' as we
have seen, standing for argent.
Though they differ in the arrangement of the mantling, there can be
little doubt that all these book-plates are by the same hand, and that
whoever engraved the plates in Blome's _Gwilim_, engraved these also.
The book-plate of 'Fettiplace Nott,' which bears the date 1694, is a
fair type of the book-plate that was in use in England for the next
twenty years; indeed, these might all be the work of half a dozen
artists.
[Illustration: BOOK-PLATE OF THE ST. ALBANS GRAMMAR SCHOOL, SEVENTEENTH
CENTURY.]
I have not yet mentioned a very numerous and very uninteresting class of
early English book-plates--I mean those which are nothing more than
'name-tickets'--the owner's name and date printed within a border more
or less ornate. These occur quite early in the seventeenth century, and
run all through it. Of course, it may be that the owner is an
interesting person, and then his or her name-ticket becomes interesting
by reflection, but in themselves these tickets are merely dull. Of
English Armorial plates, I have referred in detail to the majority of
those bearing an engraved date--when that date is not obviously
misleading--prior to the year 1698. I have also spoken of several,
though by no means all, of the undated examples, which have been proved
to belong to the seventeenth century. To this second list a patient
working out of the internal evidence on early-looking, but undated,
book-plates would, no doubt, add very considerably; and the
illustrations, verbal and otherwise, that I have given may, I hope, be
sufficient to indicate the kind of book-plates that are worth such
investigation.
I have used the date 1698 as a stopping-point, because from that year we
have dated examples of English book-plates, yearly, down to the
commencement of the present century. Here let me say a word on the
subject of dated book-plates generally. The date is certainly an
advantage, especially when it clearly refers to the date of the
engraving, and not, as we have seen it sometimes does, to an event in
the owner's career; but I cannot understand why the 'market value' of a
book-plate should be enhanced to such an extent as it is by the presence
on that book-plate of an engraved date. There are probably few
book-plates which do not bear some mark by which an approximate date can
be safely affixed to them, and the study of these marks is a very
desirable undertaking. The great value of a printed date on a book-plate
is that one can see from it the style of decoration in vogue at a
particular period, and thus obtain the means for arranging,
chronologically, undated examples. For there were during certain years
certain marked styles of decoration adopted by book-plate engravers; but
of these I propose to speak later on under the heading of 'Styles.'
Let me also mention _misleading_ dates on book-plates, and for this
purpose it will be sufficient if I take principally the examples cited
by Mr. J. Paul Rylands, F.S.A., in his Notes on Lancashire and Cheshire
examples. The date on Sir William St. Quintin's book-plate, 1641, is
that at which the baronetcy was created; the book-plate was engraved in
the last century. Sir Francis Fust's book-plate, one remarkable for its
size and ugliness, is inscribed 'S^{r} Francis Fust of Hill Court in the
county of Gloucester, Baronet, created 21st August 1662, the 14 year of
King Charles 2d.' Now this plate cannot be earlier than 1728, the year
in which the first 'Sir Francis' succeeded to the baronetcy. Here,
however, the context of words, 'created 21st August 1662,' renders the
inscription less likely to mislead people into supposing that 1662 was
the year in which the plate was executed. In other instances we have not
this help.
The date 1669, on the book-plate of Gilbert Nicholson of Balrath, merely
refers to the date at which Gilbert acquired his Irish estates; the
example itself must be later than 1722, as the same copper was employed
for it as that on which the book-plate of Thomas Carter, dated in that
year, had been engraved. Again, some collectors hold, and have
maintained in print, that the book-plate of Sir Robert Clayton, of which
we must speak again hereafter, was not really engraved in 1679--the date
which appears upon it. 1679 is the year in which Sir Robert was Lord
Mayor of London, and it is thought probable that the book-plate was
engraved later--perhaps in the early years of the eighteenth century,
when, as we have seen, the fashion of having a book-plate was so
prevalent--and that Sir Robert placed the date 1679 upon it in order to
commemorate the date of his mayoralty. For my part, I see no particular
reason for holding this view; the style in which the plate is executed
does not seem to me contradictory to the date upon it. Still, as the
doubt exists, it is better to mention it.
Attention has been called to a book-plate of 'David Paynter of Dale
Castle, Pembrokeshire, 1679,' which is probably nearly a century later.
The book-plate of 'William Twemlow of Hatherton, Cheshire, Esquire,
1686,' was engraved for a Mr. William Twemlow, who died in 1843.
[Illustration]
On the other hand, there are certain book-plates which were engraved
earlier than the dates which appear upon some impressions of them. The
book-plate of the statesman Charles James Fox (see opposite) is one
instance of this. It is inscribed 'The Hon^{ble} Charles James Fox,' and
was used by the great statesman, but the plate was engraved in 1702--as
its style suggests--for his half-uncle, and the inscription, before its
alteration, read:--'Charles Fox of the parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields,
Esq., 1702.'
There is a large book-plate, shown by its style to have been engraved in
the early years of the eighteenth century, but which is inscribed
'Martin Stapylton, Esq. of Myton, in the county of York, A.D. 1817.' The
book-plate was evidently engraved for Sir Bryan Stapylton, who died in
1727. The Martin Stapylton who altered and used it was one Martin
Bree--nephew of the last baronet, who died in 1817--who succeeded to his
uncle's property, but not to his baronetcy; hence he was not justified
in leaving the helmet of a knight or baronet upon it; he removed the
'bloody hand of Ulster' from the shield, but the mistake in the helmet
does not seem to have struck him. On a small variety of this book-plate,
the inscription on which is similarly altered, the 'bloody hand'
remains.
Again, the book-plate of 'S^{r} Will^{m} Robinson, Baronett, of Newby,
in the county of York, 1702,' was altered--by turning the '0' into a
'6'--into 1762, and was used by his grandson; that inscribed 'John
Peachey, 1782,' designed in the Chippendale style, is quite twenty years
earlier; and that of 'Fr. Dickens Armig. 1795,' was certainly engraved
half a century before.
During the ten or twelve years immediately following the year 1698, the
number of English dated book-plates is exceedingly large. Taking the
list printed for private distribution by Sir Wollaston Franks in 1887,
we find sixteen examples in 1698; seven in 1699; fifteen in 1700;
sixteen in 1701; forty-four in 1702; fifty-eight in 1703; twenty-seven
in 1704; and many, but not so many, in the succeeding years.
Something--what, I have failed to discover--must have given a stimulus
to the fashion of using book-plates just at the close of the seventeenth
and opening of the eighteenth century; and not only to using them, but
also to putting a date on those used. It is a fact that it is more rare
to find book-plates engraved in this particular style without dates than
with them.
The fashion of 'dating,' as a rule, went out about the year 1714, about
the time at which, as we shall see, a new 'style' in book-plates became
generally adopted. Anonymous book-plates are rare after this date,
though, both in England and on the Continent, they were, in early times,
certainly common--a fact which bears silent testimony to the much
greater intimacy which people in the good old days had with their
neighbours' armorial bearings. The coat of arms of a man of position was
almost as well known to those dwelling about him as were the features of
his face; and if a volume, having within it an Armorial book-plate,
happened to be found in wrongful custody, the finder might recognise the
heraldry of the owner, even if he could not read the inscription
recording that ownership.
So much for the early use of book-plates in England. In the next chapter
I propose to say something about the leading styles of decoration
employed by their designers.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] There are two sizes of this book-plate.
[5] Report by the Historical MSS. Commission on the papers of the Duke
of Rutland.