The following is the full list of the matrices in the foundry, circ. 1700, as given by Mores:—
“This seems to be a mistake of the cataloguers, who had fallen upon something which they did not understand; we suppose the Alexandrian fount, which from the semblance they took to be Coptic; the number 81 was made up with something else they were strangers to; and so are we. But whatever it was (it is in the foundry) it is now in its proper place.”
Respecting one of the founts in this foundry a special interest exists, which calls for particular reference here. Among the “Meridionals” in the list is included a “Coptic (the new hand) 81 matrices,” an entry which Mores considers {200} to be “a mistake of the cataloguers, who had fallen upon something they did not understand—we suppose the Alexandrian fount, which from the semblance they took to be Coptic. The number 81 was made up with something else which they were strangers to, and so are we.”376 Later on, in noting the various founts missing in the collection of John James, he again refers to this “New Coptic,” adding, “it certainly was the Alexandrian which they called New Coptic”;377 and a specimen of this Alexandrian Greek duly appears in the catalogue of James’s foundry, prepared by Mores in 1778. This fount, which we are thus enabled to trace back with tolerable certainty to an earlier date than 1700, is interesting as being the first attempt at facsimile reproduction by means of type. The history of its origin is vague, but there seems reason to believe that it may have been in existence at least half a century before coming into the hands of the Grovers.
In the year 1628 Cyrillus Lucaris, a native of Crete and Patriarch of Constantinople, sent to King Charles I, by the hand of Sir Thomas Rowe,378 English ambassador to the Grand Seignor, a manuscript of the Bible in four volumes, written in Greek uncial or capital letters, without accents or marks of aspiration, and supposed to be the work of Thecla, a noble Egyptian lady who lived in the {201} sixth century. This precious work was received by Charles I and deposited in the Royal Library of St. James, of which at that time Patrick Young was the Keeper.
Young applied himself with enthusiasm to the work of collating and examining the Manuscript, with a view to putting forward a literal transcript of its contents in print. Having published at Oxford, in 1633, an edition of the first epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, in Greek and Latin, the text of which is included in the Alexandrian MS., he was encouraged to put forward, in 1637, his Catena on Job, which contained the entire text of that book transcribed from the same Codex. This book was printed in the Greek types of the Royal printing office, purchased under the peculiar circumstances already detailed.379 After this, says Gough, Young “formed the design of printing the entire text of the Codex in facsimile type, of which, in 1643, he printed a Specimen, consisting of the first chapter of Genesis, with notes, and left behind him scholia as far as to the fifteenth chapter of Numbers.”380
Of this specimen, unfortunately, no copy can be discovered; although as to the existence of such a document there is no lack of contemporary evidence. In his Prolegomena to the London Polyglot of 1657, Bishop Walton, who had made a careful study of the Codex, and availed himself freely of Young’s notes, distinctly states that he had seen the specimen, and that the proposal to carry through the work had been discouraged by the advice of Young’s friends.381 Walton shows a few words of the Alexandrian Greek, poorly cut in wood, among the specimens in his Prolegomena: a circumstance which would suggest that in 1657 the matrices used for Junius’ facsimile, if in existence, were not then available.
Walton’s statement was confirmed by Grabe, Mill, and others, who made a study of the Codex and its history; and in 1707 Young’s biographer and successor in the task of preparing the Codex for print, Dr. Thomas Smith, repeated it with the authority of one who had also personally inspected the Specimen.382 {202}
It has been assumed by later writers that both Walton and Thomas Smith made reference to a proposed facsimile reprint of the Manuscript; and Gough’s circumstantial statement, already quoted (which is adopted by Nichols and copied by others, such as Horne, Edwards, etc.), leaves little doubt that the chapter of Genesis was actually put forward in 1643, in facsimile type, as a specimen of the forthcoming work. The evidence as to the existence of the types receives further countenance from the presence of these matrices in Grover’s foundry, certainly before the year 1700.
Anthony à Wood states that Young’s project excited much curiosity and expectation, and that in 1645 an ordinance was read for printing and publishing the Septuagint, under the direction of Whitelock and Selden. The troublous times which ensued, however, as well as certain doubts as to the fidelity with which the original text was being treated by the transcriber, led to the abandonment of the scheme during Young’s tenure of office, which ceased in 1649. In that year Bulstrode Whitelock became Library Keeper, and consequently custodian of the MS. It would appear, however, from a sentence in one of Usher’s letters,383 that as late as 1651 Young retained his purpose of publishing the Bible from the text of the Codex, but his death in the following year finally stopped the enterprise.
What became of the specimen chapter of Genesis it is impossible to say. Bishop Walton, as he himself states, acquired possession of the scholia to the end of Numbers and the remainder of Young’s Greek and Latin MSS., Wood informs us, came to the hands of Dr. Owen, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. Assuming the matrices to have existed, their natural location would be either the Royal Printing Office, or the foundry in which already had been deposited the Greek types and matrices used in the Catena on Job. If, however, they remained in the St. James’s Library, it is possible to conceive of their disappearance for a considerable period, as Whitelock’s principal duties during his term of office appear to have been to check the depredations which in Young’s own time had already deprived the Library of many of its treasures.384 {203}
At the Restoration, the Keepership of the Library was bestowed on Thomas Rosse, by whom was once more revived the suggestion of reproducing the Alexandria Codex in facsimile, not this time by means of type, but by copper-plate. This circumstance is thus related by Aubrey in his inedited Remains of Gentilism and Judaism, preserved among the Lansdowne MSS. in the British Museum.385
“. . . . ye Tecla MS. in St James Library . . . was sent as a Present to King Charles the First, from Cyrillus, Patriark of Constantinople: as a jewell of that antiquity not fit to be kept among Infidels. Mr. . . . Rosse (translator of Statius) was Tutor to ye Duke of Monmouth who gott him the place (of) Library-Keeper at St James’s: he desired K. Cha. I (sic) to be at ye chardge to have it engraven in copper-plates, and told him it would cost but £200; but his Maty would not yeild to it. Mr. Ross sayd ‘that it would appeare glorious in History, after his Maty’s death.’ ‘Pish,’ sayd he, ‘I care not what they say of me in History when I am dead.’ H. Grotius, J. G. Vossius, Heinsius, etc., have made Journeys into England purposely to correct their Greeke Testaments by this Copy in St James’s. Sr Chr. Wren sayd that he would rather have it engraved by an Engraver that could not understand or read Greek, than by one that did.”
The Manuscript was subsequently handed, in 1678, to Dr. Thomas Smith to collate and edit, with a view to its reproduction; but once again the scheme fell through, and (with the exception of Walton’s Polyglot) it was not till Grabe, in 1707, published his Octateuch (accompanying his preface by a small copper-plate specimen of the MS.), that any considerable portion of the Bible appeared from this ancient text.
Of the subsequent successful attempt to produce the entire Manuscript in facsimile type we have spoken elsewhere.386 Meanwhile, we find from the facts here given, that in 1643 a specimen of a portion of the text of the Codex is said to have been issued in facsimile type; that constant efforts had been made during the latter half of the seventeenth century to carry out Patrick Young’s purpose of reproducing the entire Bible in this form; that in 1657 Bishop Walton was presumably unaware of the existence of any matrices from which to exhibit a specimen of the uncial Greek of the Codex; that Grabe, similarly ignorant, made use of copper-plate in 1707 for a similar purpose; but that prior to the year 1700, concealed under the erroneous name of “Coptic—the new hand,” there existed in the foundry of the Grovers (where already were deposited several of the “King’s House” matrices, as well as those of the Greek fount used in Junius’ Catena on Job in 1637) a set of matrices consisting of a single alphabet of the Alexandrian Greek, which apparently lay undetected until 1758, when that foundry came into the hands of John {204} James, or more probably until 1778, when Rowe Mores applied himself to the task of arranging and cataloguing the various matrices of interest in that miscellaneous collection.
It may be added that the letters of this fount (like those of the old Greek, Court Hand, Scriptorial and Union Pearl in the same foundry) are struck inverted in the copper387; a peculiarity which may be due either to their foreign execution, or to the ignorance of the English striker, and which, in either case, goes far to account for the confusion which existed respecting their identity.
Unfortunately, the link which might definitely connect these Alexandrian matrices with the facsimile types of Patrick Young is, in the absence of any copy of the specimen chapter of Genesis of 1643, wanting. But, apart even {205} from this, the fount undoubtedly claims the distinction of being the first attempt at facsimile by means of type388; on which account this somewhat lengthy note as to its history will, perhaps, be pardoned.
Thomas Grover had several daughters, one of whom, Cassandra, was the wife of Mr. Meres389; and Mr. Meres’ daughter Elizabeth was the wife of Mr. Richard Nutt.390 On Thomas Grover’s death391 his foundry became the joint property of all his daughters, who attempted to dispose of it by private contract in 1728, when it was appraised by Thomas James and William Caslon. Mr. Caslon actually made an offer for its purchase, but at so low a figure that it was not accepted. The foundry therefore remained locked up in the house of Mr. Nutt, who appears to have been a printer, and to have provided himself with type for his own use during his tenure of the matrices. Finally, on the death of all Grover’s daughters, the foundry became Mr. Nutt’s absolutely, and was by him sold on the 14th September 1758 to John James.
was one of the authorised founders in 1685, when the following record against him was entered on the Court minutes of the Stationers’ Company:—
“The next dividend of the Stock of Mr. Godfrey Head to be detained in the treasurer’s hand until further order, for his not giving a due account of the letter he is to cast, as the Act of Parliament prescribes.—1685.
“Godfrey Head’s dividend paid on his submission, and giving 20s. to the poor’s box.” {206}
His foundry, Mores informs us, was in St. Bartholomew’s Close. Whether Head succeeded to it or established it, we are unable to ascertain. Of his productions, two founts only can be traced with any certainty, the Pica Greek and the English Black, both of which subsequently passed into Mr. Caslon’s foundry. He was succeeded by
who had formerly been servant to Mr. Grover. Mitchell removed the foundry first to Jewin Street, and afterwards, says Mores, “lived over Cripplegate, and afterwards in Paul’s Alley, between Aldersgate Street and Red Cross Street. His foundry, containing nothing very curious, unless it were the Blacks, was on the 26th July 1739 purchased by William Caslon and John James jointly, and divided between them.”
The following is Mores’ summary of the contents of this foundry, at its partition:—
Over and above the foundries described by Mores as having been absorbed by that of Thomas and John James, there remained in his possession a certain number of matrices—some of them of some importance—of whose former owners he was unable to give us an account. “These may be considered as a distinct foundery,” he says, “and distinguished by the title of ‘anonymous,’ for we know not whence they came. Our account of Mr James’s purchases is accurate, and these are not included amongst them, but at the end of our scrutiny remained unclaimed. Let them be called ‘The Anonymous Foundry’.” {207} We do not presume to step in where Rowe Mores fears to tread, and therefore leave the matrices, of which the following is his list, still unappropriated:—
(“of all of which a more full account will be given in the ensuing catalogue.”)
PETER WALPERGEN, or Walberger, as we have stated in our account of the Oxford Foundry, was doubtless the individual alluded to by Bagford when, in recounting Fell’s services to Oxford, he says: “The good Bishop provided from Holland . . . a Letter Founder, a Dutchman by birth, who had served the States in the same quality at Batavia in the East Indies.”393 Bagford, it is true, does not name this founder, but as there exists in the Bodleian Library a copy of a Portuguese version of Æsop’s Fables, edited by Jo. Ferreira d’Almeida, and printed at Batavia by Pedro Walberger in 1672,394 we have no hesitation in identifying our founder with this Dutch typographer, and in fixing his settlement at Oxford somewhere about the above date, which, it will be remembered, was the year in which Fell and others took upon them the charge of the University Press, and furnished from abroad all the necessaries for its use and advancement.
That he was well known at Oxford in 1683 is also apparent from a casual reference to “Mr. Walberger of Oxford” in Moxon’s Mechanick Exercises,395 where the writer dwells with some minuteness on a peculiar and elaborate tool, called the “Joynt-Flat-Gauge,” contrived by this founder for polishing the faces of his punches after hardening them, and before striking them into the copper. {208}
It was doubtless from this casual notice that Rowe Mores derived his scant reference to Walpergen, of whom he knows nothing, save that he founded at Oxford in 1683, was sometimes called Walperger, and by name appears to have been a foreigner, therefore probably a “transient,” by means of his countryman Michael Burghers, the University engraver.
Of Walpergen’s work little is known beyond the fact that he appears to have devoted his attention chiefly to the production of Music type, impressions of which appear in the University Specimen of 1695. The punches and matrices of this interesting fount are still preserved at Oxford, and are singular relics of the old letter-founders’ art.396
Although the Music was the only fount cut by Walpergen of which we have any certain knowledge, it is probable that the experienced Dutch artist, whom Bagford describes as an excellent workman, did not confine his labours to that class of work. What were his exact relations with the University Press is also a matter of conjecture. But it seems probable, from the manner in which he is spoken of by Moxon, and in the Oxford Specimen, that he practised as a letter-founder on his own account, and not wholly as an official of the University.
He died in 1714.397 Among the University archives is preserved an inventory of his chattels, which, if a full account of his earthly possessions, speaks {209} poorly for the profits of the profession of letter-founding in those days. This highly interesting document runs as follows398:—