 | |  |
Notes
Compare E. J. Labarre, Dictionary and Encyclopaedia of Paper and Paper-making (Oxford, 1952), p. 358: "His general conclusion was that the probable employment of a given mark fell within a period of about 30 years at most. In the collection of his data Briquet paid attention almost solely to Mss., paper for which, unless they extended to many sheets, was far more likely to have a long currency than that used for books, since small quantities might remain long on hand, while again the varieties of sorts and sizes was great, and the use of paper was not quite so general nor the sorts used so standardized as in later times." This is not quite true since Briquet certainly cited many examples of watermarks from incunabula, as we shall see. Further, the use of paper for the press between 1450 and 1470, must have been insignificant as compared with that used in the production of manuscripts. First of all, the proportion of printing on vellum was then at its highest rate. Secondly, we may recall that prior to 1470 only fourteen presses (established in ten cities) had begun to print, the total production of four of these being quite slight.
Conversely, we may note that, according to these findings, over 47% of the examples were in use for a period longer than five years, while 96 watermarks (nearly 10% of the total) continued in use for more than fifteen years.
Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVth Century now in the British Museum (London, 1908-1949), I, xv.
See, for example, Allan H. Stevenson's estimates in Briquet's Opuscula (Hilversum, 1955), p. xxxix. A more hesitant view was expressed by Edward Heawood, Watermarks mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries (Hilversum, 1950), p. 31: "The idea that paper-moulds had a fairly long life has been pretty generally held, and the currency of a given mark (in identical form) therefore fairly long — 30 years or so according to Briquet. If correct for early periods it is to be questioned as regards later ones."
"Watermarks," Edinburgh Bibliographical Society Transactions, II (1946), 449-450. Sir Henry also observed that watermarks "may be able, during certain later periods, to suggest a date (or at any rate a terminus ante quem non, as in the simple instance [a dated mark] mentioned above) but rarely a place."
Dard Hunter, Old Papermaking ([Chillicothe, Ohio], 1923), p. 65. He also states: "The sheets might have been dated in the watermark and then remained in the mill a great time before the paper was sold, and after being purchased the paper might have been held for years in the warehouse of the printer before being printed upon."
According to Alfred W. Pollard (Shakespeare Folios and Quartos [London, 1909], p. 93), Briquet believed that a device "had a life of about two years before it lost its shape altogether." Various estimates are given by Alfred Schulte, "Papiermühlenund Wasserzeichenforschung," Gutenberg Jahrbuch 1934, p. 22.
Schulte, op. cit., p. 24. The same writer also remarked (in his contribution "G. M. Briquet's Work and the Task of his Successors," The Briquet Album [Hilversum, 1952], p. 56): "If, for instance, it is assumed that a paper-mill manufactured only one size and one sort of paper, it would every year require a new pair of moulds. If, however, it made several sorts and sizes, as was nearly always the case, then this single year of possible usage was extended into several or even many calendar years."
Assuming that a certain folio of 200 leaves, in an edition of 200 copies (fairly large for those days), contained equal amounts of three sorts of paper, then the entire edition consumed only 7,000 sheets, or less than 2% of the 500,000 sheets a pair of moulds could produce. An early printer, then, would require in a year's time only a very slight amount of the total production of a mould.
Cf. Oscar Hase, Die Koberger (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 71-72. On 17 December 1501, the dealer Friedrich Brechter asked the printer Johann Amerbach to take compassion upon the papermakers ("eyn mytliden haben des bapires halben") with regard to their products (Hase, letter 42, p. XLVIII).
Compare the letter from Anton Koberger to Hans Amerbach (31 Dec. 1498) and that from Thomas Anshelm to Hans Koberger (7 Jan. 1518) printed by Hase, pp. XIX and CXXVII. See also Hans H. Bockwitz, Papiermacher und Buchdrucker im Zeitalter Gutenbergs ([Leipzig], 1939), pp. 9-10.
In the Koberger correspondence, we find continuous complaints as to the quality of the paper (letters, 7, 8, 49, 50, etc.), much of which was returned by the printer. This contributed an extra delay in the ultimate marketing of some papers.
An Introduction to a History of Woodcut (Boston and New York, 1935), I, 26. On p. 79 he remarks: "Moreover, the uncertain period during which stocks of paper might be kept adds a further limitation in regard to the conjectured dating of woodcuts on the same basis." In his A Short History of Engraving & Etching (London, 1908), p. 17, we find: "the manner in which paper must have been transferred from one country to another, and the uncertainty of interval between manufacture and use, necessitate many reservations and qualifications in accepting this type of evidence."
Commenting on the use of watermarks for dating, Joseph Meder stated "dass man noch wenig Nutzen aus dem Studium derselben habe ziehen können" (Die Handzeichnung [Wien, 1923], p. 695). Elsewhere he endorses the view that watermarks are useful in dating "freilich nicht auf das Jahr, so doch auf Dezennien"; Meder also remarks "doch bleiben sie immer nur ein Behelf, der in dem einen Falle rasch zur Entscheidung führt, in dem anderen alle Vorsicht gebietet" (Dürer-Katalog [Wien, 1932], pp. 8 and 293). Some watermarks occur in Dürer prints throughout his life-time, while the posthumous editions of the Marienleben show the same watermarks in use 1540-65 and 1550-80.
On this point, see my review of Sir Hilary Jenkinson's Domesday Re-Bound (London, 1954) in Speculum, XXX (1955), 118-119.
Karl Löffler, Einführung in die Handschriftenkunde (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 57-58. Compare also the same writer's remarks in Fritz Milkau, Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1931-40), I, 296: "Dafür bieten die Papierhandschriften durch ihre Wasserzeichen mancherlei Mittel zur zeitlichen und örtlichen Festlegung, freilich nicht in dem Umfang und mit der Sicherheit, wie die Wasserzeichenforschung in der ersten Begeisterung gehofft hatte."
Joachim Kirchner, Germanistische Handschriftenpraxis (München, 1950), p. 13. A French view is expressed by Maurice Prou, Manuel de paléographie (Paris, 1910), p. 33: "Ces marques de fabrique considérées comme éléments chronologiques ne sauraient donner qu'un terminus a quo, car il est arrivé que des écrits ont été consignés sur des papiers beaucoup antérieurs à la date de transcription."
If objects can be so identified, there will, of course, be external pieces of evidence at hand. It must, however, be recalled that, though printed on paper, the date of production of the blockbooks is still a matter of controversy, these being variously dated between 1420 and 1475.
Literary historians express a similar hesitation. "As a rule the utmost that we can do is to determine whether in a particular book or group of books the watermark is the same throughout or not, a point which indeed may be of great importance as indicating whether or not the whole was printed at or about the same time: it is seldom that we can go further and infer anything from the watermark as to the actual date of printing" (Ronald B. McKerrow, An Introduction to Bibliography [Oxford, 1949], pp. 101-102). Lawrence C. Wroth warns us on the "pit-falls" of dating by means of watermarks in Imago Mundi, XI (1954), 94. See also Rossell H. Robbins, "A Middle English Diatribe against Philip of Burgundy," Neophilologus, 1955, p. 132, n. 3, where he refers to the manuscript as being dated "1436-1456 from the watermarks, but the hand is certainly later ["Second half XV century"]. Watermarks are evidence for establishing a terminus a quo, but not such reliable evidence for a terminus ad quem."
Les filigranes des papiers contenus dans les incunables strasbourgeois de la Bibliothèque Impériale de Strasbourg (Strassburg, 1903). "Le n° 54, représenté ici par le filigrane d'un imprimé de 1477, se retrouve dans des documents beaucoup plus anciens appartenant aux archives de la Ville, et remontant à 1351 et 1399" (p. 9) and p. 10, no. 168: "Ce filigrane a été relevé par Keinz à Munich dans un Codex de 1422. Il se retrouve dans un manuscrit des archives de Strasbourg, remontant à 1438. Nous l'avons copié dans un imprimé sans date de chez Eggesteyn [active 1466-1482]."
Les filigranes des papiers contenus dans les archives de la Ville de Strasbourg (Strassburg, 1902). The "Tête de boeuf" mark (Plate V, no. 55) is found in use for 42 years (1413-1455), the "Léopard" (Plate XV, no. 182) for 53 years (1422-1475), and the "Lettre Y" (Plate XIV, no. 154) for 27 years (1455-1482). It will be noted that these years cover the period of the prototypographica.
Der Strassburger Frühdrucker Johann Mentelin (Mainz, 1932), pp. 72 and 81. Compare also the table on p. 87.
Labarre, op. cit., p. 358: "If it is true that paper-moulds quickly wore out — as they would especially if used for sorts in common use — the value for dating purposes of the marks they bore would be much enhanced." The use of a conditional clause is certainly significant here.
Cf. K. Povey's review of Jean-Marie Janot's Les moulins à papier de la région vosgienne (Nancy, 1952) in The Library, 5th ser., IX (1954), 274.
August W. Kazmeier, "Wasserzeichen und Papier der zweiundvierzigzeiligen Bilbel," Gutenberg Jahrbuch 1952, pp. 21-29.
See especially pages 23-26. The Ochsenkopf mark (Briquet 15093) is assigned to Lyons 1400-1409 and to the 42-line Bible. For the Traube mark (Briquet 13008), the given range is Cologne 1427 to Wiesbaden 1458 (and Swiss and French localities of 1437-1466). Dr. Kazmeier seems to find nothing remarkable about these wide spreads of time in the use of these (and other) watermarks.
In this connection, see Armin Renker's comment in the new edition of Milkau's Handbuch (Wiesbaden, 1952, I, 1065): "Da fast jedes Stück Papier seinen Ursprungsvermerk in Gestalt eines Zeichens in sich trägt, sollte man annehmen, dass es leicht sein müsste, Zeitpunkt und Ort der Entstehung hieraus zu erkennen. Die Forschung lehrt aber, dass es schwer ist, diese Ursprungsmerkmale zu deuten. . . . Verfügungen über Verleihungen geben zuweilen Anhaltspunkte, weniger das Datum der Dokumente, da ja das Papier bedeutend älter sein kann. Erfahrungsgemäss nimmt man als längsten Spielraum zwischen Anfang der Herstellung und Ende des Verbrauchs eines mittelalterlichen Papiers zehn bis fünfzehn Jahre an; bei grossen und ungewöhnlichen Papieren kann er sich bis zu dreissig Jahren ausdehnen." The recent expressions of even shorter estimates do not seem to have changed Herr Renker's opinion, for these are almost the identical words he printed in his Buch vom Papier (Leipzig, [1934]), p. 107. Compare also Alfred Schulte's opinion cited in note 8.
Historie of Jason [Westminster, 1477]. Cf. Briquet's Opuscula (Hilversum, 1955), p. xlii. This year [1477] is also assigned to the Jason by Aurner, Bennett, Blades, Crotch, De Ricci, Duff, Guppy, Hittmair, Plomer, Winship, and the STC (no. 15383).
In any event, Caxton's work falls into the last quarter of the fifteenth century. After 1470, the demand for paper by the printing presses must have suddenly become enormous, and the paper-makers hard put to it to supply the demand. In the 1450s and 1460s the requirements of the press would have made no great demands upon the available supply.
See Allan H. Stevenson's informative paper "Shakespearian Dated Watermarks," Studies in Bibliography, IV (1951), 159-164.
Dard Hunter, op. cit., p. 66, cites a paper made in 1859 with the date 1810 in the watermark; it was made in Pennsylvania at the Ivy Mills. See also Agnes Mongan and Paul J. Sachs, Drawings in the Fogg Museum of Art (1940), I, 418; here the following comment is made on watermark 45: "The date [as in the reproduction] is given, following a tariff decree of 1741 which ordered that all paper printed after the first of the following January should be dated 1742. The wording of the law was not clear, so that many papermakers continued for years to date their papers '1742'." These examples may serve to alert scholars against "the traps that await the unwary, even in the case of dated watermarks" (Sir Henry Thomas, op. cit., p. 450).
| | |