THE STAR CHAMBER FOUNDERS, AND THE LONDON POLYGLOT.
Prior to 1637, letter-founding is not specifically mentioned as a
distinct industry in any of the Public Documents. We are not on that
account however, (as we have endeavoured to point out), to assume
either that the restrictive provisions of previous enactments which
regulated printing did not apply to letter-founding, or that, as a
trade, it had no separate existence before that date. The divorce of
letter-founding from printing was in all probability a long and gradual
process; and although it would be difficult to fix any precise date to
the completion of that process, we may yet infer from the fact that the
Decree of 1586 (which includes by name almost every other branch of
industry connected with printing) makes no mention of letter-founding,
while the Decree of 1637 particularly names it, that between these two
dates printers ceased generally to be their own letter-founders.
As we have elsewhere noticed, the Stationers’ Company as early as 1597
took cognisance of letter-founding as a distinct trade, when it called
upon Benjamin Sympson to enter into a bond of £40 not to cast any
letters or characters, or to deliver them, without previous notice to
the master and wardens. And that there was a certain body of men known
in the trade as “founders” owning the authority of the Stationers’
Company in 1622, is evident {165} from the fact that in that year the
Court called upon “the founders” to give bond to the Company not to
deliver any fount of new letters without notice.
It would be erroneous, therefore, to imagine that the Star Chamber
Decree of 1637 in any sense created letter-founding as a distinct
trade. Its purpose, as in the case of printing, was to restrict the
number of those engaged in it, which had probably grown excessive under
the milder regime of the Decree of 1586.
In the curious little tract, to which allusion has already been made,
entitled _The London Printer, his Lamentation_,[297] the author,
writing in 1660, after highly commending the Decree of Elizabeth (23
June, 1586), limiting the number of printers, says that about 1637,
notwithstanding the above Decree, “printing and printers were grown to
monstrous excess and exorbitant riot,” and that the law was infringed
at all points. In this “monstrous excess and exorbitant riot,” it
is highly probable that the letter-founders of the day figured. And
it seems equally probable that John Grismand, Thomas Wright, Arthur
Nicholls (or Nichols[298]) and Alexander Fifield, who were appointed by
the Decree of 1637 as the four authorised founders, had already been
founding types for several years, with or without the sanction of the
authorities.
In the Registers of the Stationers’ Company, the names both of John
Grismand and Thomas Wright occur as publishers of certain works,
the former in 1635, the latter in 1638; from which it would appear
that both before and after 1637 they may have combined the trade of
bookseller and printer with that of letter-founder.[299]
And in another curious document, preserved among the Bagford
collections, and entitled _The Brotherly Meeting of the Masters and
Workmen Printers, began November 5, 1621; the first Sermon being on
November 5, 1628_, {166} _and hath been continued by the Stewards,
whose names follow in this Catalogue to this present third of May
1681_,[300] the names of Thomas Wright, Arthur Nichols, and Alexander
Fifield all appear as having served their Stewardship, although
unfortunately the list does not assign dates to the respective terms of
service.[301]
In the lists of the Stationers’ Company, however, we find that the four
founders took up their freedom in the following order: John Grisman
(_sic_), December 2, 1616; Thomas Wright, May 7, 1627; Arthur Nicholls,
December 3, 1632; and Alexander Fifield, July 20, 1635.[302]
Respecting Wright and Fifield, after their nomination as Star Chamber
founders history records nothing. It is probable that they continued to
combine the callings of printer and founder, as John Grismand certainly
appears to have done, for we find him named in a State Paper in 1649 as
having on the 19th October of that year entered into a bond of £300,
and given two sureties, not to print any seditious work.[303]
Of Arthur Nicholls there remains a record of a more ample and
satisfactory nature, which we are glad to lay before the reader (as we
believe) for the first time, being undoubtedly one of the most valuable
and interesting memorials of early English letter-founding which we
possess.
It appears that Nicholls, at the time of his nomination as Star
Chamber founder in 1637, was also a candidate for the vacant place of
printer at Oxford, at that time at the disposal of Archbishop Laud,
who, as we have seen in the {167} preceding chapter, had been reserving
it for a printer well versed in the Greek language. Nicholls, being
unsuccessful in this matter, and driven by his straitened circumstances
to seek some addition to his slender pittance as letter-founder
thereupon made application to Laud to be admitted as a licensed
master-printer in London, that so he might make use of his own type.
His letter and the “Cause of Complaint” annexed are preserved among the
State Papers,[304] and are so important that we make no apology for
quoting them _in extenso_:
“_To the Right Reverend Father in God_, WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP
OF CANTERBURY, _his Grace, Primate and Metropolitane of all
England_.
“The humble peticion of Arthur Nicholls. Showeth unto your grace:
“That the said peticioner hath spent much tyme and paines in
cuttinge and foundinge of letters for divers of the printers in
London, and at this tyme hath greate store of letters ready cast
lying upon his hands, they refusing to take them from him att any
rate.
“Besides this his imployment of founding letters is of soe small
gaine that alone it will not mainteyne him and his familie but
that of necessitie hee must betake himself to some other course
whereby to be freed from extreame povertie, and utterly to quitt
himself of that, unless your Grace be pleased out of your wonted
goodness to comiserate his case.
“May it therefore please your Grace, since you have otherwise
determined to dispose of the printers place att Oxford, to give
him leave, for the better encouragement of that course wherein he
hath so long exercised himself, to bee a printer here in London,
That soe he may make use of his owne letters for the elegant
performance whereof hee doth promise to use his best care and
industry And ever to pray for your Grace’s honour and happinesse.”
The “Cause of Complaint” gives a lively picture of the tribulations of
letter-founders at that time:
“_The Cause of Complaint of_ ARTHUR NICHOLLS” (endorsed “_Mr.
Nicholls his reasons to be made printer_.”)
“The Complainant being the cutter and founder of Letters for
Printers is 3 quarter of a yeares time cuttinge the Punches and
Matrices belonginge to the castinge of one sorte of letters, which
are some 200 of a sorte, after which they are 6 weekes a castinge,
that done some 2 monthes tyme is required for triall of every
sorte, and then the Printers pay him what they themselves list;
thus he is necessitated to lay out much money and forebeare a long
tyme to little or noe benefitt.
“Likewise for the Greeke the Printers came unto him promisinge him
the doinge of all the common worke, which drewe him to doe 400
Mattrices and Punches for 80 _l._ which weare truly worth 150 _l._:
“Further they caused him to spend 5 weekes tyme in cutting the
letters for the small Bible, it beinge finished was approved for
the best in England, notwithstandinge they put him off aboute
it from tyme to tyme for 15 weekes till (as they pretended) Mr.
Patricke Yonge came out of the contry. {168}
“All which tyme he kept his servants standinge still, in regard
whereof he refused to doe it, except he might doe the common worke
likewise, when for feare of the displeasure of my lord his Grace,
they came to him agayne but told him that if they should lett him
have worke enough, he would growe to ritch.
“Albeit, of soe small benifitt hath his Art bine, that for 4
yeares worke and practice he hath not taken above 48 _l._, and had
it not bine for other imploymente he might have perrisht.
“He seeinge himself soe slightly regarded by them, was the rather
annimated to sell off the proffitablest of his worke thinking to
take some other businesse in hand, whereby to free himselfe from
want, being not able to subsist by workinge only for 2 or 3.
“Notwithstandinge his longe tyme spent in that Art, wherein he
hath brought up his sonne to bee soe expert and able that if it
please God to call him, the other is able exactly to performe
anythinge touchinge the same.
“Wherefore he requesteth my lorde Grace not to confine him to
these miserable uncertainties, but promiseth if he will bee
pleased to grant his peticion, he shall see more done in one yeare
than was ever done in England for all kindes of languages which he
is assured will bee for the good of the commonwealth in general
and his Graces particular content.”
Whether Nicholls’ application was successful or otherwise, is not
known. In the disastrous times which immediately followed the four
Star Chamber founders are lost sight of. It is scarcely likely,
judging from the dismal account given above of the trade in times of
peace, that they were able, any of them, to keep a business together
in times of civil war. Nor is there any certainty that when, in 1649,
the Commonwealth re-enacted the main provisions of the Star Chamber
Decree, that the four founders then appointed were the same who had
been licensed in 1637. Mores, however, leads us to suppose that they
were, and for the purpose of enumerating the Oriental and learned
matrices which about the year 1657 were in use in the country, treats
their four foundries as one. There is, however, no reason for supposing
that they worked in partnership, or that their business was in any way
connected. But in one great undertaking they were associated; and the
London _Polyglot_ of 1657 has generally been regarded as the product of
the types of some, if not all, of their number.
“By these or some of them,” observes Mores, “we may suppose to have
been cut the letter used in _The English Polyglott_: but as we cannot
assign to any of them their particular performances we shall till we
are better able to ascertain them, call their labours by the name
of the POLYGLOTT FOUNDERY, which, as nearly as that work and the
_Heptaglott_ which accompanies it instructs us, is described at the
bottom of the page.[305] But it is not to be doubted, considering
the elegance and simplicity of the assortment which we see, that the
foundery {169} was as completely furnished with that which we see not,
and which, for that reason we cannot mention.”[306]
* * * * *
The _London Polyglot_ ranks deservedly as one of the most conspicuous
landmarks of English typography. Great works had gone before it,
and greater followed. But in few of these has the learning of the
scholar, the enterprise of the publisher, the industry of the editor,
the ability of the printer, and the skill of the letter-founder been
combined to so extraordinary a degree as in the production of this
_magnum opus_ of the Commonwealth press.
A brief sketch of the typographical history of this famous work may be
interesting, and not out of place here.
The _London Polyglot_ was the fourth great Bible of the kind which had
been given to the world.[307]
In 1517[308] the _Complutensian Polyglot_ had been printed at Alcala,
at the charges of Cardinal Ximenes, in six volumes, containing the
Sacred Text, in Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Chaldean, including an
“Apparatus” consisting of a Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, etc. This work
will always be famous, if for no other reason, for the grand, bold
Greek type in which the Septuagint and New Testament are printed.
In 1572 the _Antwerp Polyglot_ of Arias Montanus was printed, in eight
magnificent volumes, by Christopher Plantin. It comprises the whole
of the Complutensian texts, with the addition of the Syriac, and an
Apparatus containing Lexicons and Grammars of Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac
and Greek.
In 1645 the _Paris Polyglot_, edited by Le Jay and others, was
published in ten sumptuous volumes. It comprises the whole of the texts
of the _Antwerp Polyglot_, with the addition of Arabic and Samaritan.
Owing to the abrupt completion of this work, no Apparatus was included
of any description. This work was seventeen years in the press.
The _London Polyglot_, as we shall observe, added to the languages
used in the _Paris Polyglot_, the Persian and Ethiopic, with an
Appendix containing additional Targums, also a complete “Apparatus”
and Prolegomena, with alphabetical tables of the various languages
employed, and others besides. {170}
The following table will show clearly the gradual advances made by the
four great _Polyglots_ in respect of the versions they comprise[309]:―
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ │COMPLUTUM, 1520.│ ANTWERP, 1572. │ PARIS, 1645. │ LONDON, 1657. │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 1│Old Test., │Old Test., │Old Test., _Heb._│Old Test., _Heb._ │
│ │ _Heb._ │ _Heb._ │ │ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 2│Vulgate, _Lat._ │Vulgate, _Lat._ │Vulgate, _Lat._ │Vulgate, _Lat._ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 3│Septuagint, │Septuag. _Gr._ │Septuag., _Gr._ │Septuag., _Gr._ │
│ │ _Gr._ _Lat._ │ _Lat._ │ _Lat._ │ _Lat._ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 4│Pentat., │Old Test., │Old Test., │Old Test., _Chal._ │
│ │ _Chal._ _Lat._ │ _Chal._ _Lat._ │ _Chal._ _Lat._ │ _Lat._ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 5│New Test., │New Test., _Gr._│New Test., _Gr._ │New Test., _Gr._ │
│ │ _Gr._ _Lat._ │ _Lat._ │ _Lat._ │ _Lat._ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 6│ ..... │New Test., │New Test., │New Test., _Syriac_ │
│ │ │ _Syriac_, │ _Syriac_, │ │
│ │ │ _Heb._ _Lat._ │ _Heb._ _Lat._ │ │
+──+────────────────+ │ │ │
│ 7│ ..... │ ..... │Old Test., │Old Test., _Syriac_ │
│ │ │ │ _Syriac_ _Lat._ │ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 8│ ..... │ ..... │Bible, _Arab._ │Bible, _Arab._ │
│ │ │ │ _Lat._ │ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│ 9│ ..... │ ..... │Pentat., _Samar._│Pentat., _Samar._ │
│ │ │ │ _Lat._ │ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│10│ ..... │ ..... │ ..... │Pentat. Gospels, │
│ │ │ │ │ _Per._ _Lat._ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│11│ ..... │ ..... │ ..... │Ps., Cant. New Test.,│
│ │ │ │ │ _Eth._ _Lat._ │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│12│ ..... │ ..... │ ..... │Add. Targums │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
│13│ Apparatus │ Apparatus │ ..... │Apparatus, Proleg., │
│ │ │ │ │ etc. │
+──+────────────────+────────────────+─────────────────+─────────────────────+
The first announcement of the _London Polyglot_ was made in 1652,
when Dr. Walton published _A Brief Description of an Edition of the
Bible in the Original Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek, with the most
ancient Translations of the Jewish and Christian Churches, viz.
the Sept. Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Persian, etc.,
and the Latin versions of them all; a new Apparatus, etc._[310]
{171} This Description, which set forth the various improvements in
the proposed _Polyglot_ on its predecessors, was accompanied by a
specimen-sheet[311] containing the first twelve verses of the first
chapter of Genesis in the following order: On one side, Hebrew with
interlinear Latin translation, Latin (Vulgate), Greek (Septuagint) with
Latin, Chaldean paraphrase with Latin, Hebrew-Samaritan, Samaritan. On
the other side, Syriac with Latin, Arabic with Latin, Latin translation
of the Samaritan, Persian with Latin. The imprint to this highly
interesting specimen (a copy of which is said to be in the Library of
Sydney College, Cambridge) was: _Londini, Typis Jacobi Flesher_; from
which it appears that James Flesher was the first possessor of some
of the types cast by the polyglot founders, and subsequently used by
Roycroft in this great work.[312]
Flesher’s _Specimen_, which we have unfortunately not been able to
discover, met with many critics. Amongst others was Dr. Boate, the
Dutch scholar (who had already found fault with the Hebrew character
used in the Paris _Polyglot_, which he described as “a very scurvy one,
and such as will greatly disgrace the work”), was very disparaging to
the new undertaking. It was probably in deference to this critic that
Dr. Walton added the following MS. note to the copy of the specimen
now at Sydney College, Cambridge: “Typos Hebr. et Syr. cum punctis
meliores, parabimus, etc.”
The time occupied in securing the co-operation and assistance of the
learned men of the day, in getting subscribers,[313] in arranging
copy, and finally in {172} providing the necessary types, delayed
the commencement of the undertaking till September 1653. Writing to
Usher on July the 18th of that year, Dr. Walton thus notes the near
completion of the preliminary arrangements: “I hope we shall shortly
begin the work; yet I doubt the _founders_ will make us stay a week
longer than we expected. . . . We have resolved to have a better paper
than that of 11_s._ a ream, viz., of 15_s._ a ream.”[314]
Towards the end of September 1653, the impression of the first volume
was begun at the press of Thomas Roycroft, in Bartholomew Close, whose
name will always be honourably associated with this famous work.
Very little is known of the actual manual labour employed in the
production, beyond the fact that two presses only were said to have
been kept at work, and that the types were supplied by more than one of
the four authorised founders.
Chevillier[315] speaks somewhat contemptuously of the typographical
execution (fabrique de l’Imprimerie) of the London as compared with
that of the Paris _Polyglot_. And if, as Le Long points out, “he means
by that term the beauty of the paper and the magnificence of the types,
it must be admitted that the Paris edition is superior; but if he means
the arrangement of the texts and versions, and the general disposition
of the entire work, then it is much inferior; for Walton has mapped out
his work so precisely that at a single opening of the book you see the
texts and versions all at a glance; thus giving a great facility for
comparison, wherein the chief usefulness of compilations of this sort
consist.”[316]
Not the least noticeable feature about the work is the fact that from
the time of its first going to press to its completion, the printing
barely occupied four years. The first volume was completed at the
beginning of September 1654. A month later, from the same press was
published Dr. Walton’s _Introductio ad Lectionem Linguarum Orientalium_
for the use of subscribers.[317] In 1655 the second volume of the Bible
was finished; in 1656 the third, and about {173} the close of 1657 the
remaining three.[318] “And thus,” says a contemporary,[319] “in about
four years was finished the English Polyglot Bible,[320] the glory of
that age, and of the English Church and Nation; a work vastly exceeding
all former attempts of the kind, and that came so near perfection as to
discourage all future ones.”
Apart altogether from the literary and scholastic value of the Bible,
the amount of labour and industry represented in its mere typographical
execution is astonishing. Each double page presents, when open,
some ten or more versions of the same passage divided into parallel
columns of varying width, but so set that each comprehends exactly
the same amount of text as the other. The regularity displayed in the
general arrangement, in the references and interpolations, in the
interlineations, and all the details of the composition and impression,
are worthy of the undertaking and a lasting glory to the typography of
the seventeenth century.[321]
With regard to the types, which concern us most, the following is the
list of the characters employed, as extracted by Rowe Mores:―
ORIENTALS.―
_Hebrew_: Two-line English, Double Pica, English.
_Samaritan_ (with the English face): English.*
_Syriac_: Double Pica, Great Primer.*
_Arabic_: Double Pica, Great Primer.
MERIDIONAL.―
_Ethiopic_: English or Pica.*
OCCIDENTALS.―
_Greek_: Great Primer and Small Pica.
_Roman and Italic_: Two-line English, Double Pica [Day’s],[322] Great
Primer, English, Pica, Long Primer, Brevier, five-line Pica,
two-line Great Primer, Small Pica.
SEPTENTRIONAL.―
_English_ (Black): Pica.
* Of the founts marked thus (*) in the present and following
summarised lists of the contents of the English foundries, the
matrices or punches, and in some cases both matrices and punches,
still exist.
{174}
[Illustration: FOUNTS OF THE LONDON POLYGLOT, 1657.
40. ETHIOPIC. From the original matrices.
41. SYRIAC. From the original matrices.
42. SAMARITAN. From the original matrices.]
The matrices of three of these founts, the Samaritan, the Ethiopic, and
the Syriac, have survived to the present day, and in the course of this
work we shall have occasion to trace their descent from the original
makers to the present owners. Meanwhile, it is with great satisfaction
that we are able here to show a specimen of types actually cast from
these venerable relics as they now exist.[323] Of the Arabic fount,
some of the punches and matrices also exist, but in too incomplete and
dilapidated a state to allow of their being used.
Of the Orientals, the Hebrew is, perhaps, the least good. The Syriac
and Arabic are fine bold characters. The Greek is neat, though somewhat
insignificant. The Ethiopic[324] and Samaritan[325] are both good and
elegant faces. The Italic is particularly neat. As might be expected
from founts procured from various foundries in that day, there is
a certain absence of uniformity in the {175} bodies on which the
different founts are cast. This only makes the more remarkable the
accuracy and precision with which the columns are arranged. In most
copies the columns are divided by red lines, ruled by hand—in itself an
enormous task.
Nine languages are used in the _Polyglot_, but no single book is
printed in so many. The following is the arrangement of texts according
to volumes:
VOL. 1.—_Prolegomena._
_Pentateuch._ Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic and
Samaritan.
VOL. 2.—_Joshua to Esther._ Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac and
Arabic.
VOL. 3.—_Job to Malachi._ Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac,
Arabic, and _Psalms_ also in Ethiopic.
VOL. 4.—_Apocrypha._ Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic (some of
the books, however, have not the Arabic. _Tobit_ is in a
two-fold Hebrew). An appendix to this volume contains two
Chaldee Targums and a Persic _Pentateuch_.
VOL. 5.—_New Testament_, _Gospels_ in Greek, Latin, Syriac,
Arabic, Ethiopic and Persian; other books, Greek, Latin,
Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic.
VOL. 6.—_Various readings._
It will thus be seen that the Greek, Latin, Syriac and Arabic texts run
throughout the work. The Chaldean text and Targums are all given in
Hebrew type. The Hebrew text is printed throughout masoretically.
In addition to the above fundamental characters used, the Prolegomena
show the following Alphabets cut in wood, viz.:—Rabbinical Hebrew,
Syriac duplices, Nestorian and Estrangelan, Armenian, Coptic, Illyrian,
both Cyrillian and Hieronymian, Iberian, Gothic, Chinese, and the
character of the Codex Alexandrinus. These are, for the most part,
rudely cut, and valuable only as curiosities.
From our point of view, the chief glory of the English _Polyglot_
is that it is wholly the impression of English type. It marks an
epoch in the history of our national letter-founding, as, before it
appeared, no work of importance had been printed in any of the learned
characters except Latin and Greek. The Hebrew, Samaritan, Syriac,
Arabic and Ethiopic were probably cut expressly for the work, under
the supervision of its learned editors, and became thus the models or
prototypes of the numerous Oriental founts which during the eighteenth
century figured so largely in the works of English scholarship.
The original preface to the _Polyglot_ contained an honourable
reference to Cromwell, who had, from the first, encouraged the
undertaking and materially assisted it by remitting the tax on
the paper imported from abroad for the use of the work. But the
Protector’s death took place in the year after the publication; and
the Restoration, which followed two years later, was made the occasion
for a somewhat ignoble act of time-service on the part of Walton,
who cancelled {176} the last three leaves of the preface, and added
a Dedication to Charles II, in which, among other attacks on the
memory of his former patron, he referred to Cromwell as “Draco ille
magnus.”[326] The particular typographical interest of this Royal
Dedication is that it is printed in the handsome Double Pica Roman and
Italic used by Day in the _Ælfredi_ of 1574, and subsequently by Barker
and Lucas in Young’s _Catena on Job_, in 1637, and in other works. The
somewhat worn condition of the types leads Dibdin to condemn the founts
as inferior[327]; but in point of elegance and grandeur this venerable
letter remained still one of the best of which our national typography
could boast.
In recognition of his services, Charles made Walton his
chaplain-in-ordinary, and created him subsequently Bishop of Chester.
Nor was he the only worker to whom the completion of this great
enterprise brought honour. Roycroft, after what may be considered a
feat of rapid and skilful typography, was permitted to take the title
_Orientalium Typographus Regius_.[328]
The value of the English _Polyglot_ was vastly enhanced by the addition
to it of Dr. Edmund Castell’s Heptaglot _Lexicon_,[329] which, after
seventeen years of incessant labour, commencing with the first
announcement of the Polyglot, was printed, at Roycroft’s press, in
1669, in two volumes, uniform in size and style with the _Bible_, of
which henceforth it formed a necessary complement.
Respecting this famous work, there is little to add from a
typographical point of view to what has already been noted with regard
to the _Polyglot_. The {177} same types are, with few exceptions,
used in both. Mores considers, but wrongly, that the Amharic shown
in Castell’s work is metal, and the same as that used in the
_Oratio Dominica_ of 1713. This letter (which also appeared in the
first edition of the _Oratio Dominica_ in 1700) belonged to Oxford
University, who procured it in 1692, being the Ethiopic character with
additions. But the few letters shown in the _Heptaglot_ are evidently
engraved by hand, and not cast.
It is to be regretted that Castell’s work, which has been pronounced
one of the greatest and most perfect works of the kind ever performed
by human industry and learning, and which represented an amount of
heroic perseverance in the midst of adverse circumstances scarcely
credible, was almost the ruin of its author, both in constitution and
fortune. It sold slowly, and at the time of his death upwards of 500
copies were left on hand. The encouragement he received both from royal
and episcopal patronage was inadequate to cover the losses which the
undertaking had involved, and he died in comparative obscurity in 1685.
Roycroft’s office appears to have suffered severely by the Fire of
London in 1666, and a large number of copies of Castell’s _Lexicon_,
then in course of printing, were destroyed. To the same disastrous
event may also be attributed the disappearance of some of the founts of
the _Polyglot_ founders, after the completion of the _Lexicon_. Mores,
however, succeeds in tracing the most interesting of these; and the
fact that all the matrices did not go down to posterity as a single
property, is additional proof that they were not all the production of
one artist. The Arabic, larger Syriac, and Samaritan passed into the
foundry of the Grovers, and the Ethiopic into that of Robert Andrews,
who, it seems probable, also inherited the Hebrew and Black. The
smaller Syriac came into Mr. Caslon’s hands.
* * * * *
NICHOLAS NICHOLLS.—This founder was son of Arthur Nicholls, the Star
Chamber founder, and, as appears by the mention of him in his father’s
petition to Archbishop Laud, already quoted, was brought up to the Art,
in which, as early as 1637, he was “so expert and able as to be able to
perform anything touching the same.” During the Civil Wars he appears
to have suffered in the royal cause, and, like many others, at the
Restoration to have looked for substantial reward at the hands of the
son of the Royal Martyr.
In 1665 he presented to the king a petition to be appointed His
Majesty’s Letter Founder. The original document is in the Record
Office,[330] and is as follows:― {178}
“To the KINGE’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTIE. The humble peticion of
Nicholas Nicholls. Most humbly sheweth
“That the petitioner in the worst of tymes was a constant and
loyall sufferer for the causes of your Majestie and that of your
Royall ffather of glorious memory, and thereby reduced to greate
extreamities.
“Now soe it is, That the peticioner by Industrie hath attained to
a considerable skill in the Art of cutting and casting all kinds
of Letters and faire Characters (as by the annexed may appeare)
And your Majestie beinge the great encourager of good Literature
“Your Majestie’s peticioner most humbly prays your Grace and
ffavour to serve in the place of Letter Founder to your Majesties
Presses That soe your Majesties presses may be supplyed with
Characters in some measure worthy of your Royall Greatness. And
the peticioner makes no question but he shall perform that service
(with the blessing of God) to your Majestie’s full content and
satisfaction.
“And the peticioner (as in duty bound) shall alwaies pray for your
Majesties long and prosperous Reigne over us.”
Attached to the petition, in the centre of a folio sheet, is the tiny
polyglot specimen, of which we here present our readers with an exact
facsimile. English typography possesses few relics more interesting
than this quaint little page—the earliest known type-founder’s specimen
in the country.
The execution, particularly of the Roman fount, is very poor, and one
wonders, in examining it and comparing it with the recently completed
_Polyglot_, at the artist’s claim “to considerable skill in cutting and
casting of faire characters.” It is possible, however, that the unusual
minuteness of the type may have been held to be a merit compensating
for defects in execution. And as none of the founts are known to have
been used in any other work of the time, it may be presumed the letters
were cut specially for this specimen. The Roman and Greek founts are
Pearl in body, and the Orientals Nonpareil, and display the text “Vivas
o rex in perpetuum” in Latin, Greek, Hebrew (with points), Syriac,
Samaritan, Ethiopic and Arabic. This loyal aspiration, effusively
dedicated as “the prayer of the devoted heart, and the specimen of
the Art of the least of the subjects of the greatest of the Kings,”
is surrounded by a neat flower-border (also Nonpareil in body), and
printed somewhat roughly on coarse paper. Despite its defects, it
appears to have found favour with the august personage to whom it was
offered, as we find, on January 29th, 1667, a minute of a “Warrant for
swearing Nicholas Nicholls, Letter Founder to His Majesty.”[331]
[Illustration: 43. Specimen of Nicholas Nicholls, 1665. (From the
original in the Record Office.)]
Of the subsequent operations of Nicholls we know very little.[332] He
probably inherited his father’s foundry, and cast from his matrices.
The NICHOLS whom {179} Mores mentions as having founded in
1690,[333] could hardly (if the date be correctly given) be the same
man who was a practised letter-founder in 1637.
To this last-named founder no doubt belongs the fount of Great Primer
Roman and Italic acquired by the Oxford University Press, which had the
unenviable distinction of being designated in their Specimen of 1695,
as “cut by Mr. Nichols—not good.”[334]
* * * * *
The following is the only specimen we have to note in this place:―
(1665). Specimen sheet of minute printing in several languages,
addressed to the King by Nicholas Nicholls, Letter Founder.
. . . . (_State Papers, Domestic_, 1665, vol. 142, No. 174.)
[Illustration]
{180}
[Illustration]