Chapter XIII: Part II (6)

Taking this altarpiece, then, as a fairly characteristic example of Vanni’s mature style, I shall bring before the reader’s notice a series of works, at present under other names, one and all of which share with it, in a greater or a less degree, all the peculiarities which I have already pointed out, as well as others to which I have not yet drawn attention. Not the least among these works, in size and in importance, is a picture of the Enthroned Virgin and Child, popularly known as the Madonna degli Infermi, in the church of S. Francesco at Siena. Those who have once seen this strangely impressive painting will not be likely to forget it. The colossal Virgin is seated upright on her throne, majestic and solemnly hieratic, the grave-visaged Child supported on her arm. There is something enigmatic, mysterious, superhuman, in the commanding grandeur of the figures, which the photographic reproduction[102] can but partially convey. They remind us of some of the works of early Byzantine art, in their strange impassiveness and impersonality, far rather than of those of late fourteenth-century Siena. The panel has been cut down, and evidently once formed but part of an even more imposing whole. The flesh parts have darkened as if by smoke, and now have the colour of mahogany; the glazings and the surface coatings have entirely disappeared. The picture is traditionally attributed to Pietro Lorenzetti, but there can be no question as to its real author. Let us compare it with the central panel of the S. Stefano polyptych. Even in its present damaged state, the analogies which it offers to that painting are so apparent that it is more than surprising some passing critic, or even some local art-historian, has not long ago given it back to its true painter, striking and important picture as it is. The similarities between the two Madonnas seem hardly to require comment. The same clearly-outlined figure, the same sedate pose, the same dark mantle with its golden border and broad and simple folds, the same head, eyes, nose, and mouth, the same hands--to dwell longer on these points would be merely to waste words. Here we have, beyond a doubt, another work of Andrea Vanni, belonging to the same period as, and sharing all the characteristics of, the S. Stefano polyptych--only in a severer and grander vein. As if in support of our conclusions, Tizio tells us that at about the same time Andrea painted his great picture for S. Stefano he executed still another similar work for the friars minor of S. Francesco. Doubtless this present panel once formed part of the work to which he refers, nor would it be stretching a point too far to say that its present half-ruined condition is probably due to damage suffered during the disastrous conflagration which, in 1655, wrecked the great building wherein it stood and destroyed so many of its treasures. ¶ But this, to my mind, is not the only work by Vanni still to be seen in this same restored church of S. Francesco. In the last chapel of the north transept is an imposing fresco of the Virgin seated with the Child in an elaborate architectural throne. It is generally attributed to Ambrogio Lorenzetti, and has been published with his name. As it now stands, this fresco has been almost entirely renewed, but enough of its original spirit still remains to afford the practised eye some slight idea of its primitive state. The incised outlines are still virtually unchanged, and the forms of the figure and the broad folds of the drapery have preserved, to a great extent, their original character. As is usually the case, the faces have undergone the greatest transformation, yet even here the original features have not been entirely lost. Quite enough remains, in fact, to convince me that in this case also we are in the presence of what was once an important work of Andrea Vanni. The entire figure of the Virgin, the peculiarly marked outline, the dignified position, the oval head, the narrow eyes, and the straight nose, the characteristic and tell-tale folds of the voluminous mantle, their peculiar arrangement about the feet, the long wrist and hand, still pierce through the modern covering of repaint, clearly revealing the touch of Vanni’s brush. ¶ In far better condition, and far easier of identification, is the half-length panel of the Virgin and Child--evidently once part of a larger work, but now cut down to fit an oval frame--in the chapel of the SS. Chiodi in Siena. This picture, usually given to Barna, was surmised, but only surmised, by Crowe and Cavalcaselle, to be a possible work of Vanni. The reasons for their hesitation are rather difficult to find, and they were certainly correct in their conjecture, for the work is as evidently by Vanni as is the great Madonna of S. Francesco. But here we have our painter in a very different, far gentler, almost playful, strain. As usual, the Virgin is seated sedately upright on her throne, clad in the conventional dark mantle, fastened, as in the fresco of S. Francesco, by a splendid golden clasp. The head and face are the same in shape and features as in the other panels; the expression less serious and solemn. The Child is pleasing in type and action. With one hand to His mouth, He presses with the other His Mother’s bared breast as He looks half shyly towards the spectator. Here again there is none of the hieratic solemnity of the S. Francesco panel. The colour--apart from the repainted mantle--is warmer, and the modelling of the flesh parts softer, than in the picture of S. Stefano, but the forms and details are the same. ¶ Somewhat similar in spirit to this last-named work are two other panels, one in the church of S. Spirito, the other in S. Giovanni in Pantaneto, better known as S. Giovannino della Staffa. The first of these is a full-length figure of the Virgin holding in her arms the Christ-Child, who plays with a bird. At the foot of the throne kneels a diminutive figure of the donor, cap in hand. The Virgin sits in the upright position common to all the pictures we have so far examined; she has the same bend of the head, the same stereotyped set of features. The architecture and perspective of the throne are the same as in the picture of the SS. Chiodi and the fresco in S. Francesco. The Child is not unpleasing in action and expression. The figure of the Virgin has suffered considerably from repaint, the mantle being in great part quite new. The original colour is bright and gay, but the execution is less careful than in most of Vanni’s works, and would lead us to place this panel in the last years of his activity, when his brush had lost some of the freshness of its touch, were it not for the energetically, and at the same time carefully, executed little figure of the kneeling donor, damaged and darkened but still intact--a remarkable piece of early portraiture, finely characterized. Judging from the shape of this panel, it also once formed part of a triptych or polyptych. The Madonna of S. Giovanni has suffered far more from restoration, the figure of the Christ-Child being here almost entirely repainted. The still pleasing Virgin displays Vanni’s usual type, and differs but slightly from the Madonna in S. Spirito, although originally it may have been a more carefully executed figure. Still another picture, a charming little Annunciation, in the possession of Count Fabio Chigi at Siena, also clearly shows Andrea’s hand: it is very careful in execution and graceful in movement--far more free in this respect than the similar but severer treatment of the subject in the polyptych at S. Stefano. The types are Vanni’s usual ones, the colour is quiet and subdued.[103] ¶ But finer in quality and in a better state of preservation than any of these works, is a little picture of the Virgin and Child belonging to Mr. Bernhard Berenson, at Florence. That it is by Vanni needs no urging on my part--a moment’s comparison of the accompanying reproduction with any of the paintings which we have already examined is sufficient to prove this very obvious fact. It would be hard to imagine a more characteristic and at the same time a more charming example of his work. Yet in some ways it differs considerably from the paintings we have so far studied, especially in its more painstaking and finished execution, and in its light golden tone of colour, so very unlike that of such works as the Madonnas of S. Spirito and the SS. Chiodi. Although not without the dignity which Vanni never fails to give her, the Virgin in Mr. Berenson’s picture is less sedately grave than in the panels at S. Francesco and S. Stefano--the Child less grown-up and solemn. Both, again, are in Vanni’s softer, more gentle mood. Belonging to Mr. Berenson also, we have another panel by Andrea, painted in a very different style and spirit. It represents the Deposition from the Cross, and must have been part of a predella to an altarpiece. Derived from Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s treatment of this sublime theme, it yet is more restrained, more intellectual, and more clearly arranged.

MADONNA AND CHILD BY ANDREA VANNI IN THE COLLECTION OF MR. BERNHARD BERENSON]

The famous portrait of St. Catherine which I have already mentioned, and which is too well known to require description, and the Crucifixion in the Belle Arti--a fragment of a larger work painted in 1396--would bring this particular list of Vanni’s works to a temporary close,[104] were it not for still another painting, perhaps even more interesting than any of these, which to my mind must also be classed with them. In the church of S. Pietro Ovile, at Siena, we find a beautiful free copy of Simone Martini’s famous Annunciation, now in the Uffizi gallery. This picture has aroused the admiration of numberless tourists and the curiosity of more than one writer on Siena’s art. Apart from its traditional attribution to Simone and Lippo Memmi themselves, it has undergone a series of widely different baptisms at a variety of hands; from a trecento it has become a quattrocento painting, and so back again. It has long been my conviction, as it has been that of no less an authority on Sienese painting than Mr. Berenson before me, that this picture is a work of Andrea Vanni. I am quite well aware of the surprise which this sudden attribution will cause to many, as I am also of the difficulties in proving my point with the limited and unsatisfactory aid which photographs afford. In an article supported only by photographic reproductions, that most important of all arguments, quality, and, as in this case, the hardly less convincing one of colour, must in great part be laid aside. Nevertheless, there remains, in this particular instance, so much that can be demonstrated by photographic evidence in support of Vanni’s claims, that I shall make the attempt. ¶ Of the history of the Annunciation now in S. Pietro, nothing appears to be known. As it now exists it stands no longer above an altar, but is let into the wall of the church. In shape and size it was evidently once quite similar to Simone’s original, but it has since been cut down and shortened at the sides and bottom. The three panels which now surmount it have nothing to do with the picture itself, and are the work of two different painters of the quattrocento--the Crucifixion is probably by Giovanni di Paolo; the two figures of St. Peter and St. Paul by Matteo di Giovanni, as we see him in the remains of the altarpiece at Borgo S. Sepolcro, which once contained, as its central panel, Piero dei Francesci’s Baptism of Christ, now in London. They were probably placed in their present position at a relatively recent date. As to its condition, the picture has evidently not always enjoyed the care that is now given it, for it is considerably damaged and darkened. The hand of the restorer has not been absent, alas! and there are, unfortunately, visible traces of his brush in the heads and hands, and in the Virgin’s draperies. ¶ That we have here a copy, and in some ways a fairly close one, of Simone’s famous picture, is obvious; that it was painted directly from Simone’s original, which was at that time in the cathedral of Siena, is no less certain; that it was painted by an artist who was throughout seeking to overcome the peculiarities of his own somewhat strongly marked style, and that he was but partially successful in so doing, is also apparent. ¶ Let us examine the work more closely, and in its separate parts, commencing with the figure of the Virgin. It shows but little of the ease of movement and grace of line to be found in Simone’s original. The high-waisted figure; the stiff, upright, almost rigid, position; the line of the shoulders and the knees; the peculiar poise of the head; the straight-falling folds of the drapery and the line of the mantle as it catches the arm in its downward flow: all are points which find their counterpart in the works of Vanni, and in those of no other painter. Here, also, we have the same simple, strongly-marked outlines, the same dark field of colour relieved, pattern-like and comparatively flat, against the lighter background. Although the blue of the Virgin’s mantle has darkened considerably, it is still apparent that her figure was always fairly innocent of modelling--far more so in fact than that of Simone’s Virgin. For Simone, with all his love of outlined pattern, does not stop at this--his contour, however clear and distinct, is far more flowing, far more subtle--his mass is far less flat and unrelieved. Although the painter of the S. Pietro copy has tried more or less faithfully to copy the arrangement of Simone’s drapery, he has done it, perhaps despite himself, in his own way. The folds in the copy have an entirely different character from that which they possess in the original; they are precisely what we might imagine Vanni doing in an attempt to be particularly graceful. But if all these points in the drapery and figure remind us so unmistakably of Vanni’s style, we discover in the Virgin’s head even closer affinities with that master’s other works. The same well-rounded cranium and oval face; the same narrow eyes, with the small half-covered iris and high-arched brows; the same long straight nose (still clearly recognizable as Vanni’s, despite scaling and later retouching); the identical mouth; the same inclination of the head and its peculiar setting on the neck; the same chin; the same long, slender hands: all are to be found in one or other of the works we have already mentioned, and especially in Mr. Berenson’s Madonna. Here we have, also, Vanni’s love of gold brocade in the Virgin’s under garment and in the hangings of the throne. The figure of the angel is no less characteristic. The drapery is here incontestably Vannesque in its peculiar, not over-graceful, folds. Here, again, is the clear outline, the slight modelling, and the sparing use of chiaroscuro, the same treatment of the draperies, the long hands and thin arms, as in all Vanni’s other works. The outline of the face, chin, and neck has been damaged and gone over, and the peculiar, straggling, dark-brown curls are a later addition, and contrast strongly with the lighter golden hair behind them. Apart from these slight changes, the head, although a would-be copy of Simone‘s, shares Vanni’s characteristic features. The cherubs about the Holy Spirit already point to the end of the trecento. The roman lettering of the inscriptions we find used likewise on the scroll held by the Christ-Child in Mr. Berenson’s picture. ¶ So much for material resemblances, of which the reader may gather some idea by means of the accompanying illustrations. And now a word as to the colour of the work. Its striking resemblance, in this respect, to the Madonna of Mr. Berenson’s collection, will not fail to carry conviction where there may before have existed only persuasion. In the general quality of technique, and more especially in the remarkable golden tone of colour and the peculiar treatment of the flesh, the two works are strangely alike, and cannot help but do away with any final doubts as to their community of authorship.

In the preceding pages I have tried to prove--the reader can best judge with what success--Vanni’s claims to the authorship of a certain group of pictures, so closely related in style, quality, and spirit, as clearly to belong to the same period of his activity as that which produced the polyptych of S. Stefano. As we know, this period was one of a comparatively old age. Yet it would seem as if Andrea had turned, during the later years of his life, with a renewed activity, to the practice of his art, after the busy public career of his prime. Judging from the scarcity of documents of an official nature connected with his name after 1384, it would seem that, somewhere about that year, he retired from active participation in political affairs and devoted himself wholly to his painting. That he was inactive as an artist, however, during all his earlier years, is not to be believed. We have, in fact, a line of documents to prove that this was not the case. Still, these written records help us very little in the tracing of his earlier artistic development. Evidently in origin a pupil of the school of Lippo Memmi, I should place in the period of his ascendance a somewhat hard and gaudy, but not uninteresting, triptych, representing St. Michael between St. Anthony the abbot and the Baptist, No. 67 of the Siena gallery. This work, which is in a remarkable state of preservation, is attributed to Lippo Memmi himself, and clearly shows the characteristics of his school. There is much in the figures which bears a close similarity to Andrea’s later types. Another panel--a Virgin and Child in the priest’s house, next to S. Pietro Ovile--having close affinity to Simone and Lippo Memmi in technical treatment, in colour, and even in style, seems to presage in a far more definite manner the works of Vanni which we now know, and already shares many of his peculiar characteristics in detail. But, apart from these two paintings, I can call to mind no works of these early years which I can with any confidence give to him. The first notice of Andrea as a painter is one of 1353, in which year he was associated with Bartolo di Fredi, whether as partner or assistant is not quite clear. The last records of his activity are dated 1400. Milanesi, upon some unnamed authority, gives the probable date of his death as 1414. ¶ It would prolong this article unduly if the questions of Vanni’s influence upon Sienese art, and of his possible pupils and apparent successors, were entered into with the fullness which the subject demands. We must limit ourselves here to a brief mention of the closest of the followers of Vanni in those later years in which chiefly we have been studying him, a painter less known even than himself, Paolo di Giovanni Fei. An apparently early work by him, the Madonna del Rosario of S. Domenico, suggests that he was actually the pupil of Vanni. By him, also, are three pictures in the Siena gallery, one in the chapel of S. Bernardino just outside the Porta Camollia, another in the Saraceni collection, and yet another in the Minutolo chapel of Naples cathedral.

EARLY PAINTERS OF THE NETHERLANDS AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE BRUGES EXHIBITION OF 1902

❧ WRITTEN BY W. H. JAMES WEALE ❧

ARTICLE V

Gerard David worked in Bruges from the commencement of 1484 until his death, August 13, 1523, yet he does not appear to have taken a single apprentice during all that period, at least the register of the gild of St. Luke contains no entry of any such. It is, however, certain that he had several assistants; one of these, Adrian Isenbrant, I was able to rescue from oblivion in 1865. He came to Bruges in 1510, was admitted as free master into the gild on November 29, and continued working there for more than forty years, until his death in July 1551. He acquired a reputation for skill in painting the nude and the human countenance, and executed many pictures for Spain, which as a rule he sent by Antwerp to Bilbao. Although no document has as yet been discovered connecting his name with any particular picture, yet there is hardly any doubt that he is the author of a number of works certainly painted in Bruges between 1510 and 1551, the figures in which are remarkable for their careful execution and sweetness of expression, characteristics attributed to the works of Isenbrant by old writers. Several of these works are still in Spain, others have been brought from the Peninsula within the last fifty years. Of these I purpose to treat later on; at present I shall confine my remarks to the works included in the exhibition. The most important of these is a large diptych given to the church of Our Lady at Bruges by Barbara Le Maire, widow of George Van de Velde, a wealthy cloth merchant, who had held many offices in the communal council. The dexter panel (178) represents the Blessed Virgin seated with clasped hands, overwhelmed with grief, in a niche of Renascence architecture. Around her, set in architectural framework, are seven little pictures representing the seven dolours; in some of these are motives borrowed from the engravings of Martin Schongauer and Albert Dürer. The sinister panel (179), which disappeared from the church about 1832, came into the possession of the duke of Arenberg, who in 1874 sold it to the Brussels museum. On the face are pictured George Van de Velde in the costume of a brother of the confraternity of the holy Blood, and his wife, protected by their baptismal patrons, and accompanied by their nine sons and eight daughters, all kneeling in prayer. The subject on the dexter panel is repeated on the reverse of this in grisaille but with differences, so that whether the diptych was shut or open, on festivals or ferias, the figure of the sorrowful Mother, to whom the widow Van de Velde was very devoted--_multum affectata_--was always exposed to the veneration of the faithful. George Van de Velde died on April 28, 1528; his second son, John, who in the picture wears a surplice, was ordained priest and said his first mass in the church of Our Lady in 1530-31, about which date his mother presented the picture. ¶ The Blessed Virgin and Child seated in a landscape with SS. Katherine, Barbara, Dorothy, Margaret and Agnes (145), lent by Count Arco-Valley, is a charming early composition, of which there is a weak repetition in the academy of St. Luke at Rome. The prototype of this picture is doubtless the dexter panel of the diptych painted by Memlinc for John Du Celier, now in the Louvre at Paris, whilst variations are in the gallery at Munich, at Geneva, and at Buckingham Palace. A triptych lent by M. Lotman, of Berne (177), represents the Blessed Virgin and Child and two angels playing a mandoline and a harp; and on the exterior, St. Jerome praying before a crucifix. The carpet here is from the same model as that under the Virgin’s feet in 145.

A panel (183) belonging to the earl of Northbrook represents the Blessed Virgin and Child enthroned, in a garden, beneath a canopy, to which is attached a cloth of honour; the donor and his wife and family kneel at the sides; the background is formed by a stone wall, on which two peacocks and a pea-hen are sunning themselves. The head of our Lady has been restored. ¶ Two shutters of a triptych (180), lent by Mr. R. von Kaufmann, represent a donor and his wife with their children protected by St. John the Evangelist and St. Barbara(?). The donors on these shutters are, though a few years older, strikingly like those in 183. But in the earlier picture the man, aged thirty-four, is represented with one son and one daughter, both dead when the picture was painted, while behind his wife, aged thirty-three, kneel a boy of nine and a girl of five. The man in 180 is represented with one son dead, and his wife with three daughters, one of whom was dead. ¶ The vision of St. Ildephonsus, bishop of Toledo (151), belonging to Lord Northbrook, is in every respect a very remarkable work; the composition unusually good, the colouring rich and harmonious. The saint, kneeling on the foot-pace of an altar on the north side of a large church of picturesque architecture, looks up with outstretched arms at the Blessed Virgin, who, attended by three lovely angels, is about to vest him with a chasuble. Behind him kneel three monks, two looking up at the heavenly apparition, the third absorbed in prayer. In the background a procession of chanting monks, followed by a pious crowd of lay folk, winds its way round the choir. The figures of all are most carefully executed, and are remarkable for the delicacy of their modelling and sweetness of expression.[105] ¶ Another brightly coloured picture (152), also belonging to Lord Northbrook, represents the Blessed Virgin seated on a stone throne adorned with rams’ heads, holding the divine Child, who has his left arm round her neck and is caressing her chin. The Virgin’s face has little character, but the Child’s expression is very pleasing. ¶ St. Mary Magdalene in the desert, kneeling before a large crucifix held by an angel (182), from the De Somzée collection, is a remarkable work, with a landscape background with peculiar rocks. A panel with a half-length figure of St. Luke holding a portrait of the Blessed Virgin and Child (187), lent by Messrs. P. and D. Colnaghi, is a fine work, the evangelist being probably the master’s own portrait. A triptych belonging to the cathedral of Bruges (184) represents in the centre the Presentation in the Temple with the kneeling figure of an Augustinian nun of the Le Gros family, probably the granddaughter of Philip Wielant and Joan van Halewyn, whose portraits on the shutters, as remarked by M. G. Hulin, are evidently not painted from life. The triptych, which probably came from one of the Augustinian convents suppressed at the end of the eighteenth century, was, with many others now preserved in the cathedral, presented to it by M. van Huerne. ¶ A panel (185) lent by M. Sedelmeyer, with full-length figures of St. Andrew, St. Michael, and St. Francis in the foreground, with a representation of Calvary in the upper portion, is a late work, the Calvary closely resembling that in the diptych of our Lady of seven dolours. The exhibition included several other works either copies or painted under the influence of Isenbrant. ¶ Two other masters who flourished in Bruges about this time, and who were restored to history by me, one in 1860 and the other in 1863, were each represented by one authentic work. John Prevost, a native of Mons in Hainault, was born c. 1462. It is not known where he learned his art or to whom he was apprenticed. He visited Antwerp in 1493 and was admitted as free-master into the gild of St. Luke, but shortly after removed to Bruges, where he bought the right of citizenship and settled definitely. He also purchased the freedom of the town of Valenciennes in 1498, in which year, if not previously, he married Joan de Quaroube, a well-to-do elderly lady, who, after twenty-five years of wedded life, had in 1489 been left a widow by the celebrated painter and miniaturist Simon Marmion. She died in 1506. Prevost, who married again three times, died in January 1529. The only picture proved by documentary evidence to be by him is the Last Judgement (167), painted in 1525 for the town hall, lent by the museum where it is now kept. An earlier representation of the same subject, said to have been painted by him for the Dominicans of Bruges (169), was lent by Viscount de Ruffo Bonneval. A third, lent by Mr. E. F. Weber (168), attributed to him by M. Hulin,[106] appears to me to be the work of an imitator. It is not only inferior in drawing and execution, but the treatment of the subject--the risen are bringing account books which the angels are verifying--is childish. M. Hulin enumerates eleven other pictures as being certainly, and three more as possibly, by Prevost. Four of these were in the exhibition (109, 157, 189, and 342); a fifth, the Blessed Virgin and Child in an aureole surrounded by angels, with the prophets and sibyls, at St. Petersburg, which he believes to be the picture painted in 1524 for the altar of St. Daniel in the church of St. Donatian at Bruges. The other six are SS. Antony of Padua and Bonaventure, in the Brussels gallery; an Adoration of the Magi, at Berlin; the Blessed Virgin and Child, in the National gallery (No. 713, attributed to Mostaert); another with SS. Benedict and Bernard, at Windsor castle; another with a carthusian, exhibited as by Isenbrant at the Burlington club in 1892; and a Virgin and Child, at Carlsruhe, where it is attributed to Gossart. The three which he thinks may be attributed to him are the heads of Christ and the Blessed Virgin (193 and 194), and the charming picture of St. Francis renouncing the world (150), belonging to Mr. Sutton Nelthorpe. Few indeed are those who write on the early masters who can resist the temptation of attributing to them a goodly list of works. Much may be learnt when, as in the present case, serious arguments are started which can be discussed, and no harm can result so long as the attributions are not accepted as certainties by museum authorities. ¶ The other master, Albert Cornelis, who died in 1532, is still only known by one remarkable picture (170), the Coronation of the B. Virgin. ¶ A painting of the Mater dolorosa (105), formerly in the church of the Austin friars, lent by the cathedral, is said to be a copy of a miraculous picture in the church of Ara caeli at Rome, of which other copies were formerly at Abbenbroek and Romerswale in Zealand, and a third, if not one of these two, is now in the gallery at Munich. The copy exhibited was traditionally attributed to John van Eyck, and the cipher in the corner, supposed to be his, was adduced as a proof. This cipher, retouched by the restorer who re-gilt the background, is certainly that used as a signature by John van Eecke or van Eeckele, a painter who settled in Bruges and was admitted as free-master into the gild of St. Luke in September 1534, and worked there until his death in November 1561. A panel lent by the museum of Tournay (106), representing the vision of St. Bernard with other episodes in the life of that saint in the landscape background, is an original work of the master signed with his cipher. ¶ A panel (250) lent by the Black Sisters represents St. Nicolas of Tolentino, and on the exterior an Austin friar, Roger De Jonghe (born 1482, died 1579), kneeling at a prayer desk on which is an open book.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE FIRST FOLIO SHAKESPEARE

❧ WRITTEN BY FRANK RINDER ❧

On November 8, 1623, Edward Blount and Isaac Jaggard obtained the licence of the Stationers’ company for the publication, in the first folio edition of Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies, of sixteen plays, not before printed. Some 265 years later the late Mr. Bernard Quaritch, in cataloguing a good copy of the completed work, directed attention to the fact that, based on the then value of the quartos, the twenty Shakespearian plays actually printed for the first time in the folio of 1623--for as many were included--would, as first editions, have a money-worth of from £3,500 to £4,000. All question of the quartos apart, however, a fine copy of the book, originally procurable for £1, might now realize from £2,000 to £3,000; indeed, the mean between these two sums is said to have been privately offered for a particularly well-known example. No printed book, apart from about a dozen monuments of typography from fifteenth-century presses, has fetched so much at auction as the £1,720 realized at Christie’s in 1901 for the Dormer-Hunter first folio, now in the possession of Mr. Charles Scribner of New York, albeit a few weeks previously £1,475 was the amount paid on behalf of a transatlantic collector for the scarcer Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ in first edition, said to have been issued at 1s. 6d. ¶ That there was ample warrant for the publication of a new facsimile is acknowledged on all hands; and the folio recently produced by the Clarendon press has failed in few respects only to satisfy the most exigent of connoisseurs. The hypercritical observe that the plate-mark measures no more than 12-11/16 in. by 7½ in., as against 13⅛, in. by 8⅛ in., the actual size of the pages of the duke of Devonshire’s copy at Chatsworth, on which the facsimile is based. On the whole, however, the volume has been cordially welcomed, and that welcome is merited. ¶ Interest and value are enhanced, of course, by the scholarly introduction and the census of known extant copies from the pen of Mr. Sidney Lee. Under his guidance we are enabled to take a bird’s-eye view of all relevant facts pertaining to the volume ‘which constitutes the greatest contribution yet made to English literature.’ Oversights and inaccuracies must of necessity have crept into the census, for Mr. Lee has been compelled to rely to a considerable extent, of course, on information supplied to him by owners and others. But who would have been prepared to undertake a like task, who would have been able to carry it to a more successful issue? ¶ Mr. Lee conjectures that the edition of the first folio consisted of 600 copies, of which not far short of one-third, in varying states, probably still exist. In 1616 and 1647 respectively there appeared the collected works of Ben Jonson and of Beaumont and Fletcher, each issued, he thinks, in about the same number of copies and at the same price of £1. At the sale of Sir Kenelm Digby’s library in April 1680 the Beaumont and Fletcher volume fetched 13s. 6d.; the Ben Jonson, with the folio of 1640 added, 17s. 6d. As most collectors are aware, the earliest record of the sale by auction of a first folio Shakespeare is of that in the library of Sir William and the Hon. Henry Coventry, dispersed in the Haymarket by W. Cooper on May 19, 1687; but, unfortunately, there is no mention of the sum realized. Mr. Lee states that the first priced record belongs to 1756, when the Martin Folkes example, now in the Rylands library, was sold to George Steevens for 3 guineas. On the other hand, it has been affirmed that in an anonymous collection of books dispersed in 1687-8 a first folio fetched no more than 14s. ¶ It is felt that in one direction Mr. Sidney Lee might with advantage have taken a further step. He has gathered together the material necessary for making, not only a geographical analysis of the copies traced, but an analysis which shall show, too, the approximate condition of those to be found here or there. Of the 600 copies conjectured to have been printed in 1623, Mr. Lee mentions the present owners of 144, leaving the possessors of 14., whose particulars do not agree with those of any others, untraced. The total of 160, including the two copies named in the postscript, is made up by mention of an example stated to have been lost in the S.S. _Arctic_, 1854, and of that said to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. In order to understand the table that follows, it is necessary in the first place to transcribe details of the four main classifications into which Mr. Lee divides the copies he has traced:--

CLASS I.-(PERFECT COPIES).

Division.

A. ~I.-XIV.~ Good, un-restored condition 14

B. ~XV.-XLI.~ Good condition, but with occasional leaves
either supplied from another copy of the
first folio or repaired, i.e., mended,
mounted, or inlaid 27

C. ~XLII., XLIII.~ Good condition, with leaves occasionally
supplied from later folios 2
--
43

CLASS II.-(IMPERFECT).

Division.

A. ~XLIV.-LIV.~ Good condition, but with a few pages
missing, and occasionally other slight
defects 11

B. ~LV.-CV.~ and Fair condition, but with fly-leaf and
~LXXVII~a. occasionally other leaves missing, or
supplied either from later folios or
in facsimile 52

C. ~CVI.-CXXII.~ Moderate condition, with most of
preliminary and other missing leaves in
facsimile or from later folios 17
--
80

CLASS III.--(STILL MORE IMPERFECT).

Division.

A. ~CXXIII.-CXL.~ Defective, numerous leaves in various
and ~CXXXIV~a. sections missing, or made up in facsimile
or from later folios 19

B. ~CXLI.-CXLVI.~ Fragmentary 6
--
25

CLASS IV.

~CXLVII.-CLVI.~ Copies otherwise unclassed owing to
lack of full description 10

Copies alleged to have been destroyed 2
--
12
---
Total 160
===

The accompanying table is an attempt to show at a glance the geographical distribution of the copies named by Mr. Lee. His estimate of condition has been scrupulously followed, even with regard to the first folio in the royal library at Berlin. In the _Vossische Zeitung_ of February 10, and in _The Times_ of the following day, there appeared a statement to the effect that a careless or malicious reader had mutilated this Berlin copy, which was bought of Joseph Lilly in 1858 and presented by the then prince-regent, afterwards Emperor William I., to the royal library, and that the whole of the ‘Comedy of Errors’ had been cut out. I communicated with the director of the library on this subject, and he courteously informs me that the statement, happily, is based on a misapprehension. The folio of 1623 is in the same condition as when presented forty-five years ago; on the other hand, the facsimile of 1806 has been robbed of eight leaves, including those on which the ‘Comedy of Errors’ is printed. As to distribution, I have assumed that the five copies sold in the United States during the past few years have there remained; of the three examples which occurred at Sotheby’s in 1902 I chance to know that one has gone to America, another is still in London; while since January copies LXXVIII_a_, LXXX, and LXXXVI have been sold at auction and are entered under ‘London, private owners.’ It is worthy of remark that the three first folios in British colonies are presentations from public-spirited men: those at Capetown and Auckland are the gift of Sir George Grey; that at Sydney of Sir Richard Tangye.

----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| CLASS I. |
| |
| DIVISION |
| |
| A B C |
|Public |Private|Public |Private|Public |Private|
|Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |
|tutions| |tutions| |tutions| |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| | | | | | |
England:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
London | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Universities:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Oxford | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridge | 2 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Northumberland | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Durham | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Lancashire | -- | 1 | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Yorkshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Midland Counties:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Lincolnshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Nottinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Derbyshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cheshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Shropshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Staffordshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Leicestershire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Norfolk | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridgeshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northamptonshire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Warwickshire | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Worcestershire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Gloucestershire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Buckinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Berkshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Southern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sussex | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Hampshire | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Wiltshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Devonshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cornwall | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
WALES (Crickhowell, | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Newport) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
SCOTLAND (Glasgow, | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Abernethy) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
IRELAND (Dublin) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
CONTINENT:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Germany (Berlin) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Italy (Padua) | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
BRITISH COLONIES:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sydney | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Auckland | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Capetown | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
UNITED STATES | 2 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Untraced | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 6 | 8 | 7 | 20 | 2 | -- |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| CLASS II. |
| |
| DIVISION |
| |
| A B C |
|Public |Private|Public |Private|Public |Private|
|Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |Insti- |Owners |
|tutions| |tutions| |tutions| |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| | | | | | |
England:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
London | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Universities:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Oxford | 1 | -- | 2 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cambridge | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Northern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Northumberland | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Durham | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Lancashire | 2 | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Yorkshire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Midland Counties:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Lincolnshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Nottinghamshire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Derbyshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cheshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Shropshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Staffordshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Leicestershire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Norfolk | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Cambridgeshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Northamptonshire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Warwickshire | -- | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -- |
| | | | | | |
Worcestershire | -- | -- | -- | 2 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Gloucestershire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Buckinghamshire | -- | -- | 1 | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Berkshire | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Southern Counties:--| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sussex | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| | | | | | |
Hampshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Wiltshire | -- | 1 | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Devonshire | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Cornwall | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
WALES (Crickhowell, | -- | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- |
Newport) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
SCOTLAND (Glasgow, | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
Abernethy) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
IRELAND (Dublin) | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
CONTINENT:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Germany (Berlin) | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Italy (Padua) | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
BRITISH COLONIES:-- | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Sydney | -- | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Auckland | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
Capetown | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
UNITED STATES | -- | 1 | -- | 11 | 2 | 5 |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Untraced | -- | 1 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| | | | | | |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 6 | 5 | 14 | 38 | 4 | 13 |
----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+