of hundreds of early Bibles in the Exhibition, fully described in the Catalogue, lift them out of the collection? But this egotistic, pedantic and empty allusion to past services of self and partners is an old trick of these Saturdamalion critics to fill up their vacuums and to make all knowledge appear to cluster exclusively about their own brows.

, 23

I now introduce our lofty Scholastikos, with his eyebrows above his temples, and with his historical brick, as the specimen of his house, the Coverdale Bible,22 which he owns was 'printed in all probability at Antwerp.' This statement is precisely the chief item of the mysterious history of our first English Bible which a little above he declines to receive without further evidence.15 I had discovered that it was printed at Antwerp by or for Jacob Van Meteren, instead of Zurich by Froschover, as generally accepted. It is not, I believe, an uncommon practice for reviewers who cut up historical books first to clip out for their own use the little telling historical points before they destroy their victims. However, I am glad that S. R. adopts Antwerp as the place of printing, for that fact simplifies and reconciles much. This point admitted, I have no fear as to Van Meteren's claims being also sooner or later acknowledged.

The reviewer speaks learnedly of the 'six2 examples' of the Coverdale Bible of 1535 in the Exhibition. There are seven copies described in the Catalogue, viz. N° 765, the Earl of Leicester's, from Holkham; 766, Earl Spencer's, from Althorp; 767, from Sion College Library; 768, from the B. and F. Bible Society; 769, W. Amhurst Tyssen-Amhurst's copy; 770, Dr Gott's; and N° 771, lent by the Earl of Jersey.

These seven fine books were among the chief glories of the Exhibition, and should have awakened the latent intelligence of our 'ardent bibliographer.' But behold what a learned muddle he makes of them. First he says that Lord Spencer's 25 copy has a title-page inserted from a different edition.26 The reader is referred to N° 766 of the present volume for a corrected description of it. The title-page is made up in manuscript, like many other copies, by using the woodcut border of the title of the Petyt and Redman Bible of 1540, or that of 1549, both from the same woodcut as the original title of 1535, insetting blank paper in the cartouch and putting in by hand the title in facsimile. The copy is on the whole a very fine one. Scholastikos next informs us that 'Her Majesty's copy has part of the title, but is very imperfect" in other places, as is Lord Leicester's,30 which however has the whole title,31 and is therefore unique.' This is a lovely historical muddle, such as one rarely sees anywhere but in the columns of the Saturday Review, where ignorance is bliss and history is apparently taught by rote. It is indelicate perhaps to tell the naked truth after this, but to develop the smile it must be told that Her Majesty's copy of the Coverdale Bible was not at the Caxton Exhibition at all, nor

27

28

was it even asked for, for the good reason, that we had already copies that exhibited all the variations known except one, viz. the title-page in the copy belonging to the Marquis of Northampton. But I have seen Her Majesty's copy at Windsor Castle, and am able to say that it is a good one, far above the average in condition, quite complete in the text, and having all the preliminary leaves as they came from the press of Nicolson of Southwark. It wants the map, has no part 28 of the original title, but the title is made up, like Earl Spencer's, by inserting a facsimile or manuscript title in the cartouch of the woodcut border from the edition of 1540 or 1549 from the original Antwerp block of 1535. Every statement therefore respecting Her Majesty's copy is erroneous.

34

33

For an account of the Earl of Leicester's fine and very nearly perfect copy see N° 765. It is the only copy known with the original Antwerp title-page quite perfect. The text is complete and the copy contains the last of the original Antwerp preliminary leaves, the counterfoil of the title, in this respect also unique. The map and the other preliminary leaves are in facsimile by the elder John Harris. The only other copy known with even a part of the original title-page is that in the British Museum. 'It32 was finished' does not apparently mean Earl Leicester's copy, as one might suppose, but the Coverdale Bible generally. Our critic here is a little mixed in his grammar, as well as in his history, and does not seem to improve in the next sentence, beginning 'The Althorp copy has a title from a Bible almost equally rare, Raynalde and Hyll's 1549 of which no copy seems to be in the gallery.' The reviewer here is manifestly trying to outdo himself in blundering ignorance, but he succeeds better farther on. He does not seem to be aware that the Althorp 33 copy is Earl Spencer's; 25 one and the same; see N° 766, and the remark 26 above about the title. He is mistaken also about the comparative rarity of the Coverdale Bible of 1535 and that by Raynalde and Hyll, 1549. The latter is not a very rare book, and usually may be purchased complete for one tenth the usual cost of an imperfect Coverdale. This Solon is also mistaken about there being no3 copy of the 1549 edition in the gallery. There were two copies there from the opening of the Exhibition, both described in the Catalogue under Nos 853 and 853*.

33

34

36

So much for the seven Coverdales, of which our sublime blunderer mentions only two, Earl Spencer's and the Earl of Leicester's, both with disparaging comments which are not true. The other five he pretermits though not intentionally.

37

38

We now come to our critic's sage remark that the Tyndale's Testament of 1526 'is perhaps as much as ten years older than Coverdale's first Bible' of 1535. We let him off on the 'perhaps.' But when in the next sentence he speaks of Schoeffer" who printed at Worms as the suc40 of the Peter Schoeffer of whom he has already made frequent mention (in his previous papers on the Caxton Exhibition) as the partner

cessor

of Gutenberg" and Fust, he is manifestly beyond his historical and biographical depth. Fust took his son-in-law, Peter Schoeffer, as a partner after the famous lawsuit which terminated in the business being transferred from Gutenberg the inventor to Fust, who had lent him money. Schoeffer was not therefore, I take it, ever a partner of Gutenberg.

44

42

945

The next four lines embody as many errors in one sentence perhaps as any man living, not an old stager in Saturday reviewing, could reasonably be expected to write out. It is moreover beautifully funny, irrelevant, pedantic, officious, and startling. It is to the effect that there exists in the Lambeth Library a part of the Old Testament of Wycliffe's version, printed by Redman" about 1532, which might perhaps have been lent for the present exhibition if asked for, but the managers do not seem to have been aware of its existence.' I am not able to speak for the managers, or the Executive Committee, but I may say that this little book alluded to is perfectly well known and was well described by the Rev Dr S. R. Maitland more than a quarter of a century ago in his 'List of some of the Early Printed Books in the Archiepiscopal Library of Lambeth,' London, 1843, 8°, N° 529, p. 237, a work with which most English 'ardent bibliographers' are familiar. The little book, however, is not of Wycliffe's version, is not of much bibliographical importance, and would not probably have been accepted by the managers if offered, unless perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury, as one of the prominent Patrons of the Caxton Exhibition, had particularly requested it. So much having been said, however, it is perhaps as well to give the title of the book, and some account of it here"Prayers of the Byble take out of the olde testament and the newe, as olde holy fathers bothe men and women were wont to pray in tyme of tribulation, deuyded in vi. partes. Imprynted at London in Fletestrete by me Robert Redman. Cum gratia et priuilegio Regali." In this Lambeth copy, otherwise fine, part iii is wanting, 'An exposcayõ vpõ the psalme of Miserere. . . . made by Hierom Sauonarole. The book first appeared in Italy under the name of Savonarola, and was afterwards printed in English by François Regnault at Paris without date, probably in 1538, while Coverdale and Grafton were with him superintending the printing of the 'Great Bible.' It was reprinted by Redman in London about 1538 or 1539. Being all Scripture in English it would not, of course, have been licensed in 1532, but in 1538 or 1539, as the language is modern and good, there would then have been no difficulty about the translation. The word not is uniformly spelled nat, as in [Redman's?] Testament of 1536, folio. The separate parts, being without title-pages, but with new signatures, are sometimes found attached to service books. Regnault had a house in London from about 1498 to 1540, and supplied many of the English Roman Catholic Service Books used in various Cathedrals. This little fetch about Wycliffe is one of

the Saturday's stock pieces of recondite lore, having appeared before and will probably appear again. What put this little irrelevant reprint into the head of Scholastikos no fellow can probably ever find out. It is one of those learned surprises, I suppose, that so abound in the columns of this review, put there to astonish us with by-path knowledge, to make fools ask questions and the uninitiated to stare.

46

But the grammarian will stare sufficiently when he reads in the two following clauses that 'Tyndale's Pentateuch is here however,'" and several other Tyndale Testaments.'

48

50

54

This little slip is not so bad as one of my own which he brings home to me with the genuine tact and skill of a Saturday critic. In N° 779 of the revised Catalogue, the most splendid copy known of Tyndale's New Testament of 1536 in octavo, lent by Earl Spencer, the date in the 'rough proof' and 'preliminary issue' was erroneously printed 1535. In my first-proof reading it was corrected to 1536, and has so stood in the last six or seven editions of the Catalogue. The precious little volume had a prominent place assigned to it among the rarest books, and as the date appeared on the title, which was exhibited, there should have been no difficulty in an 'ardent bibliographer's" "easly and lyghtely" finding the volume. However, this typographical error in the early editions of the Catalogue marked 'preliminary issue' made him feign that the book itself was not1 to be found by a visitor, and he suspected that it was among the closed 52 volumes in a bookcase near by. In his disappointment he declares that the 'preliminary issue' has become permanent—‘a not unaccustomed fate of South Kensington 5 Catalogues.' Now all these erroneous statements are based on an unworthy quibble, a known typographical error, known to have been corrected. The revised and corrected Catalogue had been issued some days before this article iv appeared, and hence it was necessary for the critic to go back to the 'preliminary issue.' Had his common sense been rubbed up a little he might have perceived, or been informed, that the 'closed volumes '52 in the unused bookcase were duplicates, or spare volumes of sets not required, and were locked up for safe keeping till they could be returned with others to the exhibitors. It was very natural and boy-like to overlook what was before him and to wish to look over what was not intended to be seen. But the fling at 'a not unaccustomed fate (whatever that may be) of South Kensington Catalogues' is constitutional and a chronic matter of course with a Saturdalian. It is well known that South Kensington with its Museum is the bête noire of the Saturday Review. No knight of the quill is qualified for its staff until he has had a successful tilt at S. K. The proprietors are presumed to keep an office Rosinante in their Southampton Street editorial stables with which each staff writer must from time to time try his hand, or do his best to donquixote the South Kensington Windmill.

C

54

If our

unpractised witling has not here exactly hit the mark, it is to be hoped that he may live to fight another day. Meanwhile the South Kensington Mill stands !

It is suspected that our Scholastikos in this last tilt against S. K. lost a leaf out of his note-book, for a distressing and damaging hiatus appears here in the most important part of his biblical disquisition. Notwithstanding his words 'next" in interest after these,' before coming to the 'Great Bible,' he wholly omits to mention the first folio and the first quarto English Bibles printed in England by James Nicolson of Southwark, dated 1537. See Nos 790 and 791. Nor has he thought to mention the first edition of Matthew's Bible, also of 1537, N° 779, or the Taverner of 1539, N° 811. Then there lies neglected N° 779, the first edition of Tyndale's New Testament printed in England in 1536 in small folio, to say nothing of the other editions of Tyndale's and Coverdale's Testaments printed in England and abroad in the years 1536 to 1539, mostly described in this Catalogue. All these are too interesting and important to have been omitted probably for any cause short of accident, a slip of fortune, to which we are all liable. He is therefore here credited with good intentions while he is charged with careless practice in his tilting. We are told that where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be otherwise, but in this case our critic cannot be congratulated on his bliss. The dropping of these important stitches in the meshes he was weaving for another is doubtless a pure mistake. It is always well, however, in this naughty world that something of our doings should be scored as pure.

56

We come now to the veritable pons asinorum 5 of the English Reformation before which so many of our historians have shied or broken down ; I mean the 'Great Bible' of 1539-1541, sometimes also called Cranmer's Bible, which, to use Mr Gladstone's language on another occasion, was the climax and consummation of the art of printing' in England up to that time. Indeed, considering the times and state of the market, that it was wholly a private, individual, and mercantile enterprise, carried on at great personal peril and commercial risk by Marler, Grafton, Whitchurche, and other City merchants, in spite of ecclesiastical bigots not yet all dead, it may be considered the greatest effort of the press even to the present day. It was the culminating point of a great struggle for reform and civil liberty. When we contemplate the several steps of progress during the seven preceding years, we see now just how much this Great Bible was required to carry on, concentrate, and consummate the Reformation.

These Great Bibles are the milestones that mark the advance of the English nation in civil liberty, civil law, refinement of language, personal freedom, statute law, popular election and legislation, the science of Government, public education, national self respect, domestic prosperity, and foreign influence. With the seven distinct editions, 1539