(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 1_l._, the committee
of the _Caxton Memorial_ could surely produce one volume for 10_s._
6_d._ 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 renomme," etc.; and M. Suard
observes, "dans presque tous les ouvrages imprimes par lui, il a insere
quelques lignes qui toujours attestent la purete des intentions dont il
etait anime."
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.
It should be the object of antiquaries to illustrate "the _history_ of
former times"--as we read in a royal charter--not to substitute fiction
for history. Now, it is admitted by MR. BOTFIELD that there is "no
authentic portrait of Caxton." How then, he must allow me to ask, can it
be assumed that the _picture by Maclise is truthful_? It may be much
otherwise. Modern artists are no guides for antiquaries.
It is with statues as it is with medals. The first and most obvious use
of them, as Addison remarks of the latter objects, is "the showing us
the _faces_" of eminent persons. Even Horace Walpole, who has misled so
many with regard to Caxton, has expressed himself very forcibly on the
value of _real_ portraits. If a statue fail in that particular, it is
worthless; and should my own project find no favour with the public--a
fountain by day--or, a light by night--or, an inscribed obelisk--or,
even an inscribed tablet--would be far preferable as a monument.
If the dean of St. Paul's should resolve to place in other hands the sum
which has been collected for this purpose, he may justly insist on the
proper application of it; and as the Society of Arts may be induced to
take charge of it, I must remind them of the circumstance under which
the subscriptions were formerly obtained. It was assumed that a likeness
of Caxton had been preserved. I transcribe from _The Times_:--
"The meeting, [12 June, 1847] appeared to have been gratified with
what they had seen and heard, and he [lord Morpeth] had only now
to say to them, and to their fellow-countrymen in every part of
the world, 'Subscribe.' (Applause.)
"A miniature portrait of Caxton, painted upon enamel by Mr. Bone,
was handed to lord Morpeth, who stated that it had been copied
from a likeness of Caxton, in an old illuminated MS."
His lordship was misinformed as to the authenticity of the portrait, it
being copied from the Lambeth Ms.--but that circumstance does not affect
the argument.
It is manifest, therefore, that a _fictitious statue_ of Caxton,
objectionable as it would be on other accounts, would also be very like
a breach of faith with the original subscribers.