158. The Puzzling Reprint of Dorian Gray

Sorting out a pile of books and magazines, I came across the February 2014 issue of Intentions, the news journal of The Oscar Wilde Society. For some reason, I had put it aside; now, reading some of the announcements again, I remembered why. There was an unsigned piece by the editor, Michael Seeney, about 'A Bibliographical Puzzle', and I had wanted to consult my Ricketts files for a possible answer.

Charles Ricketts, design for Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray,ordinary edition (1891) [detail]

Michael Seeney wrote about Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray that was published by Ward, Lock & Co in 1891 in a large paper edition and an ordinary edition. Ricketts designed covers for both issues. But there was also a second edition, said to be published in 1895, a year that saw Wilde's arrest and conviction. After a libel trial, Wilde was arrested on 5 April, and on 25 May he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Picture of Dorian Gray was used to underline the charges made against him. After the trial, publishers and stage managers avoided to mention Wilde's name.

Seeney quotes a passage from Stuart Mason's Oscar Wilde, Art & Morality (London 1912). Mason (is Christopher Millard) was to become Wilde's bibliographer, and this book contained a first glimpse into his sense for detail. However, his 'facts' about the second edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray are confusing.

Mason argued that 'the [new] edition seems to have been prepared for publication towards the end of 1894. The date of publication, according to the English Catalogue, is October 1895.' He added that it was probable that this new edition - the publishers had changed their name and the title page had to undergo a small alteration - 'was not ready till March 1895, and that Wilde's arrest a few weeks later made it inadvisable to bring it out, though the demand for the book at that time was considerable.' He then concluded that the book was remaindered in September 1896.

Advertisement in The Publishers' Circular, 26 October 1895

The year 1896 in his conclusion is unlikely. Edward Baker of Birmingham, in an advertisement of 26 October 1895, offered remaindered copies for sale a year earlier. Baker asserted: 'This book [...] was suppressed by the publishers, who declined to sell another copy, although they were inundated with orders [...]. It is now entirely out-of-print at the publishers [...] I have now purchased the whole of the few existing copies that were left on sale.'

The advertisement can not be taken for granted entirely. Edward Baker was not as knowledgeable about the book, as was Mason, and he argued that 'the binding is half parchment [correct], and it is ornamented and lettered after an aesthetic and curious design [correct] by the author [incorrect].' Clearly, he was speaking about the edition designed by Ricketts.

However, this advert is confusing. Is Baker speaking about the first or the second edition? Or both? He included his terms: 'cash - 4 copies, 5s each; 25 copies, 4s. 6d. each. Large Paper copies (signed by the author himself) 21s'. These large paper copies must have been from the first edition.  

Seeney supposes that Edward Baker had acquired 'the second edition immediately on publication'. He then introduces another possibility, coming from more confusing information in a letter from Mason/Millard to Walter Ledger (December 1904) in which the second edition is dated 'Oct 1st 1894'. One of the keys to the puzzle must be the publication date of the second edition. There is no date in the book.

Edward Baker was a second-hand book dealer from Birmingham, who issued catalogues on several subjects (topography, theology, poetry, etc.), and advertised 'out-of-print books', maintaining that his firm was 'patronised by the nobility'. The Edward Baker Great Book Shop was located at 14 & 16 John Bright Street.  

Book label of Edward Baker

The date of October 1894 - mentioned in the letter to Ledger - must be wrong. It can not be corroborated by factual information. 

There are no advertisements for Wilde's novel after he was sent to jail. However, there is a unique announcement that was published prior to Baker's advertisement.

On 12 October 1895 The Publishers' Circular announced the publication of 'The Picture of Dorian Gray. Cr.8vo. p.334, 6s.net. Ward & L[ock].' (The description in the English Catalogue - mentioned by Mason - was based on The Publishers' Circular).

The Publishers' Circular, 12 October 1895

This must have been the new edition, and its date of publication was 12 October 1895. Perhaps Baker jumped to the occasion and bought up all copies, knowing that the publishers were glad to be rid of them. Mason was right, the book was reprinted in 1895.

Still, there are many puzzles left: what is the source for Mason's assumption that the book was prepared in 1894? Why did he assume it had been ready by March? Did he assume that the publication date - 1895 according to the English Catalogue - should imply a date prior to Wilde's arrest, as he probably could not imagine that the publishers would endeavour to publish the book after Wilde had been convicted?

What if Baker and Ward, Lock & Bowden had struck a deal? Although the reprint had already been produced, the publishers did not sell any copies of the new edition, because they no longer wanted to be associated with Wilde. Baker, presumably, had heard about their unwanted ballast in the warehouse, and he proposed to buy the lot, along with unsold copies of the first (large paper) edition. 

In that case, the second edition needed to be officially published, otherwise it could not be remaindered. And so, on 12 October an announcement of the publication appeared. But then, why was 'New' or 'Second' edition not part of the 12 October announcement, and why should Baker imply that he sold copies of the original edition?

Baker was a regular advertiser in the Publishers' Circular. His announcements appeared in the section for 'Books wanted to purchase'; bookshops and antiquarian firms all over the country asked for out-of-print books for which they had customers. In 1894 and 1895 Baker published many (short and longer) lists of books. Several of these requests were for erotic books, such as Perfumed Garden (12 January 1895), or Zola's infamous novels (2 February 1895).

The Publishers' Circular, 12 January 1895

The Publishers' Circular, 2 February 1895

The Publishers' Circular remained silent about the Oscar Wilde scandal. Not a word was wasted on the libel case, or Wilde's arrest. (In the past, the PC had reported about Wilde, see for example The Publishers' Circular of 29 September 1894). In 1895, mentioning Wilde's name was eschewed. But then, after Wilde's arrest on 5 April, Baker placed another advertisement, in which he asked for copies of:

Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray. Any edit[ion]
------ ------- The Happy Prince
------ ------- The Sphinx
------ ------- Any books by

The Wilde scandal might, to his mind, have been a great opportunity to sell books. Like his erotic works and the controversial novels of Zola, Wilde's stories and poems suddenly had become notorious, and an infamous book was exactly what he needed to satisfy part of his clientele. His range, should be said, was wide, from books on freemasonry and botany, to 'Latham's Sanitary Engineering'. But Baker went to great length to earn some money with Wilde's book. He had not asked for any of Wilde's books earlier.

Meanwhile, The Publishers' Circular went on to notify commercial news - 'Mr. William Morris' new Kelmscott Press edition of "Sir Percyville of Galles" is now at the binder's, and will be ready shortly. It will have a frontispiece designed by Sir E. Burne-Jones.' (27 April 1895), or: 'His Royal Highness the Duke of York has been pleased to accept a copy of Mr. C. Raymond Beazley's volume, entitled "Prince Henry the Navigator, the Hero of Portugal and of Modern Discovery," published by Messrs. G.P. Putnam's Sons' (11 May 1895). In the 11 May 1895 issue Baker advertised his publication of 'A Supplement' to The Railway Handbook. In a short review, The Publishers' Circular described it as 'a most useful list of publications relating to railways', and added: 'Much of the information is curious, and it is admirably arranged' (18 May 1895).

In Baker's lists of 'books wanted to purchase', Wilde was not mentioned again for a time.

Wilde's name turned up in an announcement of D. Young's Apologia pro Oscar Wilde, published by W. Reeves in the week of 29 June 1895 - but a review of it was not published by the PC. 

The firm of Ward, Lock & Bowden held an annual dinner for its employees on Saturday 29 June 1895 (reported a week later, on 6 July 1895 in The Publishers' Circular). Wilde's editor, Coulson Kernahan had not been present, nor was mr Bowden (who was in America at the time). Toasts were given by J.H. Lock, G. Ernest Lock, and others. Wilde was not mentioned. However, a year earlier, an article about the firm in the 'Publishers of To-Day' series, had not mentioned his name either.

On 14 September 1895 Baker again published a long list of books he wanted to buy. Among them was 'Wilde's Chameleon'. This was The Chameleon of December 1894 (the only issue that was to appear) in which Wilde had published his 'Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young'. (It had been noted in the PC on 8 December 1894.)

The Publishers' Circular, 14 September 1895

The 'Announcements of the Season' (28 September 1895) did not mention a reprint of The Picture of Dorian Gray, but - as illustrated above - the publication of the 1895 edition was duly announced in the issue of 12 October 1895. The very same issue also contained a special advertisement by Edward Baker.

The Publishers' Circular, 12 October 1895

In bold capitals the name of Oscar Wilde was followed by the title of his infamous novel: 'Oscar Wilde's "Dorian Gray."'. Baker wrote: 'The book which was much talked about in the trial Wilde v. Queensberry. Suppressed by the publishers. Few remaining copies, 6s. each; 10 copies, 5s. each; 25 copies, 4s.6d. each.'

The simultaneous publication of Ward, Lock & Bowden's reissue of The Picture of Dorian Gray and Baker's advertisements for remaindered copies is almost certainly no coincidence. Since he had vented his interest for copies of Wilde's books in April, the publisher may have considered selling the remaindered copies - including the complete new edition - to him. They did not want to advertise it, and the short notice in 'Publications of the week' was as concealed as possible. A few lines only to get rid of a troublesome book. If Baker would not have placed his conspicuous advertisements, the new edition would not have been known to contemporary readers. 

Baker was not shy about his purchase, and regularly republished his advertisement (starting 19 October 1895), attracting attention with the boldly printed name of Oscar Wilde. An expanded version was published for the first time on 26 October 1895, and subsequently on 2 and 9 November (on 9 November Baker also placed 'Wilde's (Oscar) Poems. 1892' in the 'Books wanted to purchase' section), 16, 23 and 30 November, 7, 14, 21 and 28 December 1895.

Were these copies sold, or was Baker's invention unsuccessful? Did he, in turn, have to get rid of hundreds of copies in 1896? Was it Baker who remaindered the book in 1896 - the year mentioned by Mason? (I can not check that now, as I have no access to the 1896 issues of the PC.) Or were superfluous copies destroyed, making the second edition more rare than the first?

Mason's assumption that the reprint of The Picture of Dorian Gray had been prepared a year earlier, in 1894, can not be confirmed. The PC did not mention it in their notes on 'Books reduced in price', or 'New editions', and there was no announcement of it by Ward, Lock & Bowden that year.

The puzzle may not have been solved completely, yet, but the story is more complete than it was. And it proves that second editions can be - bibliographically at least - as intriguing as first editions.

157. Not Rupert Brooke

In 1915 Ricketts's friend Gordon Bottomley published his play King Lear's Wife in the periodical Georgian Poetry, 1913-1915. Offprints of this publication could be used to send out to friends and relatives.

Auction catalogue, Christie's, London, 4 December 1933

Bottomley wrote a personal dedication to Ricketts and Shannon in one of those copies. His play was the first contribution to the book. It was followed by a series of poems by the poet Rupert Brooke (1887-1915).

Contents page in Georgian Poetry 1913-1915 (source: Internet Archive)

The offprint includes the first page of Brooke's contribution on which only his name is printed.

First page of Rupert Brooke's  contribution to Georgian Poetry 1913-1915 (source: Internet Archive)

This prompted a reaction by Gordon Bottomley, who wrote around the caption 'Rupert Brooke' an extra inscription: 'You must not look at [printed name: Rupert Brooke]. This isn't his book. - G.B.'

This copy was sold after Ricketts had died. Christie's catalogue for the auction of 4 December 1933 describes the book as lot number 290; inserted was a letter to Ricketts and Shannon.

Fifty copies of this offprint were printed for Bottomley. The poet and artist Reginald Hallward and his wife also received a copy in which the same annotation was penned on the fly-leaf for the (absent) Brooke section. This copy was on sale with Charles Cox recently: 'You must not look | At [Rupert Brooke]; | This isn't his book. | G.B.'

156. A Summer Miscellany of Mistakes (4)

The comedy of errors that we know as bibliography is played with gusto in auction catalogues. Here we find Vale Press books ascribed to the Eragny Press, or vice versa, and ghosts are created, even if a catalogue has been prepared with the utmost care. And of course, after the sale, descriptions will not be corrected or adapted. Library catalogues also may contain mistakes, - they certainly do, although usually it is the absence of information that confuses the reader, - but, given time and devoted bibliographers, their omissions and errors will one day be adapted.

The Library of John Quinn, Part Three [I-Morley]. New York, The Anderson Galleries, 1924

In 1923 and 1924 The Anderson Galleries in New York sold the collection of John Quinn, owner of a series of manuscripts of Joseph Conrad, and, famously, the manuscript of James Joyce's Ulysses. The sale was in the hands of Michael Kennerley, started in November 1923, and ended after five monthly sales in March 1924. More than 1000 pages of catalogue descriptions were produced, almost 13.000 books and manuscripts were disposed of to make up for the lack of storage room. Quinn's rented New York apartment at 58 Central Park West had been sold, and he had to vacate it. He died the following July. 

The catalogue was printed by William Edwin Rudge, renowned for his fine printing. The notes were written by John Quinn in collaboration with Vincent O'Sullivan, and Charles Vale added biographies of important authors and printers. But even in this catalogue, errors slipped in.

The Library of John Quinn, Part Three [I-Morley]. New York, The Anderson Galleries, 1924, page 493 (detail)

A page long biographical sketch introduced seventeen editions of works by John Keats, published between 1895 and 1922, some of them by private presses such as The Daniel Press, The Doves Press, The Mosher Press, and the Eragny Press. In 1898 the Vale Press published a two-volume edition of Poems. Keats was one of Ricketts's favourite poets. If he had seen the catalogue - I do not presume he did - it would have pained him to read that these volumes were now seen as Eragny Press publications.

A mistake that is more difficult to understand entered the catalogue on page 593, where only four editions of Christopher Marlowe were described (items 6046, 6047, 6047a, 6048), including the Vale Press edition of Doctor Faustus (1903). The last item described an edition of Hero and Leander, published in Edinburgh in 1909.

The Library of John Quinn, Part Three [I-Morley]. New York, The Anderson Galleries, 1924, page 593 (detail)

The annotation stated that this was 'one of 500 copies' and that the book had been 'designed by and printed under the direction of Charles Ricketts'.

This concerns an edition of Hero and Leander printed by Ballantyne in Edinburgh. Ricketts and Shannon illustrated another edition of this book almost twenty years earlier, in 1894. The 1909 edition was, of course, not designed by Ricketts. It formed the first part of the Renaissance Library issued by Joseph M. Dent, and it was Dent who had designed the type for it, as the colophon explained.

Christopher Marlowe, Hero and Leander (London, Joseph M. Dent, 1909)

Obviously, some notes must have been in disorder, otherwise this ghost of a book would not have been advertised.

155. A Summer Miscellany of Mistakes (3)

After publisher's bindings of the ninety-nineties became a vogue among collectors - in the wake of the Aubrey Beardsley exhibition in the Victoria and Albert Museum, curated by Brian Reade, and the publication of John Russell Taylor's guide The Art Nouveau Book in Britain, - both events took place in 1966!, - dealers and bibliophiles were sometimes led astray in the search for new discoveries. A number of books was ascribed to well known or lesser well known artists, although these were in fact designed by unfamiliar artists from that era, artists whose work had not yet been discovered as a subject for art or book historians. 

Exhibition Poster, 'Aubrey Beardsley', 1966 (location: Victoria and Albert Museum, London)

The 1890s saw a great deal of designers working along the lines of the Arts and Crafts and the Art Nouveau, and publishers hired young and anonymous artists to decorate title pages and bindings for books.

If a book was ascribed to Charles Ricketts its price increased, and more so than by an attribution to, let's say, Will Jenkins. Similarly, the names of Beardsley or Talwin Morris would generate more enthusiasm than that of Christopher Dean. 

If a binding is not signed, an attribution to Ricketts needs documentation, and for that matter, even a signed binding can not do without additional evidence, which can sometimes be found in advertisements, or letters. Contracts and proofs, unfortunately, are rare. 

Taylor himself ascribed a few books to Ricketts that have since been justly attributed to other artists, for example The Poetical Works of James Thomson.

Cloth binding for The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley (1903)

He also attached Ricketts's name to The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley, and referred to Ricketts's binding designs for Vale Press books: 'on the cover [...] we encounter the severe, "architectoral" later manner in which abstract pat­terns of straight lines and small circles are broken up by only the smallest tokens of representationalism'.

The attribution was picked up by Clare Warrack and Geoffrey Perkins, whose catalogues should be consulted by everyone interested in the 1890s, as they contain lots of unique items that have not been described elsewhere.

Title page of The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley (1903)

In their Catalogue 19 (1974) a copy of De Tabley's book was listed as number 124: 'Red cloth gilt', 'Upper cover and spine blocked in gold with a design by Ricketts'. The price was identical to that of a copy of Lord de Tabley's Poems, Dramatic and Lyrical. This 1893 volume had, of course, triggered the attribution (for an illustration, see 'To V.F. from C.R.').

Fourteen years later, in their Catalogue Sixty-Nine (1988) another copy of The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley was offered as a Ricketts design.

Other dealers, collectors and libraries, did not mention Ricketts as the designer and usually no artist's name is connected to the book's design. A Bookman's Catalogue (about the Norman Colbeck collection, published in 1987), for example, does not mention a designer.

Charles Ricketts's monogram CR on Poems, Dramatic and Lyrical (1893)

The 1893 edition of Poems had been signed with Ricketts's monogram CR in the upper left hand corner of the front cover, but the Collected Poems were not signed by him.

On the title page of The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley another monogram can be discovered. There is a letter M between the crossing branches in the stylized floral figure.

Detail of title page, The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley (1903)

The book was published by Chapman & Hall Limited in London in 1903, and the 'M' design could have been designed by an artist that worked regularly for the firm. The binding could still be the work of Ricketts. However, the binding too shows the 'M' monogram. It can be seen in the lower part of the central panel.

Monogram 'M' on the binding of The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley (1903)

That settles it. But then, who is 'M'? Two years ago, Malcolm Haslam published a book on Arts and Crafts Book Covers to accompany an exhibition at Blackwell, The Arts and Crafts House. One of the artists discussed is William Brown Macdougall, who was born in Glasgow in 1868, moved to London in the nineties, and worked in a style that owed a lot to Aubrey Beardsley and William Morris. A well-known example of his work is Dante Gabriel Rossetti's The Blessed Damozel that he illustrated in 1898 for Duckworth and Co. Macdougall later lived in Essex with his wife, the novelist Margaret Armour. He died in 1936. 

Haslam mentions that he designed 'stamped cloth book covers for Dent, Duckworth, Service & Paton, Chapman & Hall, Kegan Paul, Blackie, Macmillan, and Black'. One of his monograms (Haslam illustrates two of them) is the simple 'M' that also figures on the binding and the title page of The Collected Poems of Lord de Tabley. Why his name went unmentioned in the book is not clear.

154. A Summer Miscellany of Mistakes (2)

In June 1894 Oscar Wilde's poem The Sphinx was published, decorated by Charles Ricketts. The text was reprinted with other poems in several editions, but Ricketts's drawings were not reprinted during his lifetime. Only the cover illustration was (poorly) reproduced on the cover of a 1910 reprint that was issued again in 1918. Both editions were published by John Lane, The Bodley Head.

Title page (fragment) of Oscar Wilde, The Sphinx, illustrated by Alastair (London, New York, John Lane, 1920)

In 1920 another artist illustrated The Sphinx for the same publisher, the incomparable Alastair, or Hans-Henning von Voigt (1887-1969), who performed as a dancer and a pianist, and became a translator out of necessity, but was a celebrated artist in his heyday. His drawings were likened to those of Aubrey Beardsley, and were published by John Lane, Georg Müller Verlag, Les Éditions G. Crès et Cie, the Avalun-Verlag, publishing firms in London, Munich, Paris, and Vienna, but also by the New York firm of Alfred A. Knopf, and the expatriate firm of Harry Crosby in Paris, The Black Sun Press.

Oscar Wilde, The Sphinx: frontispiece by Alastair (London, New York, John Lane, 1920)

The illustrations for this edition were printed in black and blue (usually Alastair's drawings were reproduced in orange and black), and show his concern for intricate detail and evil or destitute facial expressions. Horror, in his drawings, is never far away from luxury.

The edition run was 1000 copies. Auction catalogues regularly include a copy of this edition. And every now and then the book is associated with Charles Ricketts, in which case the cover design is ascribed to him.

Oscar Wilde, The Sphinx: cover design by Alastair (London, New York, John Lane, 1920)

Some examples of this incorrect attribution to Ricketts can be found  in recent auction catalogues. 

In May 2012 the Dutch auction house of Bubb Kuyper sold a copy of the book (lot 2768) for which the description reads: '[Alastair]. Wilde, O. The Sphinx. London/ New York, J. Lane, 1920, 36p., 12 plates and 13 capitals by ALASTAIR, all printed in black and blue, printed in 1000 copies, orig. gilt dec. cl. by C. RICKETTS, t.e.g., 4to. - Some sl. foxing. Otherwise fine. = Peppin/ Micklethwaite p.310 (under Hans Henning Voigt) and Houfe p.486': "(...) his colour illustrations have more the feel of the contemporary Russian school of ballet designers".'

Toovey's, located in Washington, UK, also sold a copy of the book in their auction on 10 July 2012, lot 3245. The description included the following: '12 plates and 13 decorative initials by Alastair printed in black and blue. (Occasional light browning or spotting.) Original decorated cloth blocked in blue and gilt to a design by Charles Ricketts, t.e.g. (somewhat soiled)'.

Earlier, on 23 October 2010, the Berlin auction house Galerie Bassenge described as lot 2508 another copy of the book: 'Alastair. - Wilde, Oscar. The Sphinx. 1 Bl., 34 S., Mit 13 farbigen Initialen und 10 (2 als fl. Vorsätze) mit Türkis kolorierten Tafeln von Alastair. 30 x 22 cm. In Golddruck illustr. OLeinenband (Einbandillustration von Charles Ricketts; etwas unfrisch). London und New York, J. Lane, 1920'. 

Many more examples, earlier and later, could be quoted, but these suffice to indicate that it is a widespread error, the source of which can be found in the preliminaries of the book itself. Why would Ricketts be mentioned in relation to this book?

Publisher's note in Oscar Wilde, The Sphinx (London, New York, John Lane, 1920)

In the front of the book is a publisher's note, listing four works under the heading 'By Oscar Wilde' and one under the heading 'By Alastair'. The last Wilde title is The Sphinx, having 'a Cover-design by Charles Ricketts and a Preface by Robert Ross'. 

Robert Ross, 'Note', in Oscar Wilde, The Sphinx (London, New York, John Lane, 1920) 

The 1920 edition, illustrated by Alastair, contains this 'Note' by Robert Ross, which was a standard insertion on behalf of the copyright owner. It seems, that the combination of the Ross note and the publisher's advertisement for an edition with a Ricketts cover led book dealers to believe that the Alastair edition had a cover design by Ricketts. In fact, the advertisement is for the 1918 reissue of The Sphinx that had no illustrations other than the reproduction of the original 1894 cover.

The 1920 cover, with a bold looking sphinx, is of course drawn by Alastair. There is no signature. Ricketts was not involved in the design of this edition. 

[A copy of Alastair's Sphinx is made available by Nicholas Frankel on OpenStax.]

153. The Portrait of Mr W.H.

Last week I was asked to write about the portrait of W.H. that Ricketts made for Oscar Wilde. In his Oscar Wilde. Recollections (1932), Ricketts remembered that Wilde had told him on his first visit to the Vale: 

I have found from evidence in the Sonnets that Mr. W.H. was a young actor named Willie Hughes - is that not a charming name? Now, I need a portrait, which I describe, as a frontispiece. You will see a great deal depends upon this. (p. 30)

And Wilde argued:

You are the man I have wanted; I wish you to paint a small Elizabethan picture - something in the manner of, shall we say, Clouet. I have written in narrative form an essay on Shakespeare's sonnets (p. 29).

Oscar Wilde, 'The Portrait of Mr. W.H.',
in Lord Arthur Savile's Crime and Other Prose Pieces (London, Methuen, 1908, p. 147)

The essay about the dedicatee of Shakespeare's sonnets was published in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine of July 1889, and Wilde invited Ricketts to visit him in Tite Street to hear him read the story. Ricketts remembered:

Within a fortnight I had painted the small portrait of Mr. W.H. upon a decaying piece of oak and framed it in a fragment of worm-eaten moulding, which my friend Shannon pieced together. (p. 35-36)

Wilde wrote back to state that the painting 'is not a forgery at all - it is an authentic Clouet of the highest artistic value'. In the story, the portrait is described as 'a small panel picture set in an old and somewhat tarnished Elizabethan frame', and the style is compared to that of 'François Clouet's later work' (1958 edition, p. 4). At the end of the story the painting is no longer attributed to Clouet, but to Ouvry. 

Léonard Gaultier, portrait of François Clouet (1515-1572)

Later, Ricketts was asked to design a title and initials for a new book edition of the story, which was announced repeatedly by the publishers at The Bodley Head as 'The incomparable and ingenious history of Mr. W.H., being the true secret of Shakespeare's sonnets now for the first time here fully set forth, with initial letters and cover design by Charles Ricketts. 500 copies. 10s. 6d. net. Also 50 copies large paper. 21s. net.' The book was said to be 'In preparation' in the List of Books in Belles Lettres (Including some Transfers) published by Elkin Mathews and John Lane, dated September 1893, but it was postponed, and in the end never materialized due to the break-up of Mathews and Lane.

On 24 April 1895, after Wilde was arrested, and had been declared bankrupt, his library was sold from his house. The sale catalogue listed Ricketts's painting as number 125: 'An old oil painting of Will Hewes, framed'. According to Wilde's bibliographer, Christopher Sclater Millard (Stuart Mason), the lot was purchased by Edwin Parsons, who later disposed of it, and in 1914, when Millard published his bibliography, he had to say that its present whereabouts were unknown. In 1958, Vyvyan Holland, in his introduction to the enlarged version of The Portrait of Mr W.H., again testified of that and the painting never surfaced. 

Stuart Mason, Bibliography of Oscar Wilde (1914, p. 7)

Millard contacted Ricketts and Shannon for information about their Oscar Wilde book designs, and he asked Ricketts to describe the 'Clouet' painting. Ricketts then made a thumbnail sketch for him. 

Millard died in November 1927. The sketch turned up in a lot of autograph cards from Ricketts to Robert Ross in Dulau's Catalogue 161. Oscar Wilde. Manuscripts, Autograph Letters, First Editions, published in 1928: 

'Ricketts (Charles). Three autograph cards, signed, and a small sketch. [...] (4) A tiny thumbnail sketch in pencil on a piece cut from one of Messrs. Sotheby's catalogues, intended to portray a rough idea of the Portrait of Mr. W.H. In the sale of effects at Tite Street there was a picture described as an old painting on a wood panel of Mr. Will Hews. This was actually the work of Ricketts, and this thumbnail sketch was made for Millard when he was preparing his bibliography.' (p. 91, no. 55).

Catalogue 161. Oscar Wilde. Manuscripts, Autograph Letters, First Editions (London, Dulau, 1928, p. 91)

This lot belonged to the ones that were bought by William Andrews Clark Jr., in 1929. His collection is now in the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library in Los Angeles. The catalogue description reads: 'Box 54, Folder 3 (Thumbnail sketch in pencil labe[l]led: "My W. H. drawn by C. Ricketts, 22 Nov., 1912." The sketch was jotted down for Christopher S. Millard. 1912 November 22. Physical Description: Slip of paper.' 

[By the way, Willie Hughes in the story became Will Hewes in Wilde's sale, and Will Hews in Dulau's catalogue; his name already circulated in several forms in eighteenth-century theories about the identity of W.H., and, of course, refers to several lines in the sonnets of Shakespeare.
'My W.H.' could be a mistake for 'Mr W.H.'] 

I have asked for a scan, but the request may take a while to be processed.

The end of The Portrait of Mr W.H. (London, Privately Printed, 1904, p. 48)

152. A Summer Miscellany of Mistakes (1)

Old auction and antiquarian bookseller's catalogues not only transport us back to a world of opportunities - a century ago, it seems, every book or manuscript we now want to have, came up for sale - but also to a world of confusion. The next few weeks this blog will be devoted to antiquarian 'mistakes' under the title 'A Summer Miscellany of Mistakes'.

[Two years ago, I published four blogs about biographical errors concerning Ricketts and Shannon, see Curious Errors 1-4.]

Catalogue of the Library of Henry W. Poor, Part V (1909)

In 1908 Henry William Poor (1844-1915), an investor from New York, had to liquidate his business following major losses. His collection of books and artefacts was sold. The library came up for auction at The Anderson Auction Company (12 East 46th Street) between November 1908 and April 1909. Poor possessed an almost complete collection of Vale Press books, all on paper (no vellum copies), in the original bindings, except one that was bound in leather by the Club Bindery. He also owned some duplicates and all pre-Vale publications, such as The Dial and Oscar Wilde's The Sphinx. The one exception seems to have been the 1902 edition of Ecclesiastes of which no copy was described in the five volume catalogue.

Catalogue of the Library of Henry W. Poor, Part V (1909), p. 157

Listed among the Vale Press books were Lucien Pissarro's Eragny Press volumes, that were for sale at Hacon & Ricketts in London; all volumes prior to 1903 were printed in Ricketts's own Vale type (for the later books Pissarro designed his own Brook Type); other Eragny Press editions were catalogued under the Eragny Press heading, but there was no logical division of Eragny Press copies. Obviously, some confusion existed as to which books should be considered Vale Press publications, which is odd, considering that a copy of Ricketts's own bibliography of the Vale Press books, issued in 1904, was listed in the auction catalogue.

John Ruskin, Of Queens' Gardens (1902)

The bibliography could also have prevented the inclusion of a 'Vale Press' book that had nothing to do with Ricketts. Listed under 'Vale Press' (item 1126) was John Ruskin's popular essay Of Queens' Gardens, printed by the Ballantyne Press in 1902. The only reason why this book could be mistaken for a Vale Press book is the name of the printer, as Ricketts's books were also printed by Ballantyne & Co. However, Ricketts dealt with the London branch of the firm, while this book was printed at the Edinburgh location, as the colophon stated. 

John Ruskin, Of Queens' Gardens (1902)

The colophon included the name of the publisher as well, George Allen, Ruskin's long time publishing firm. The ornamentation of the pages is typical for an imitation of the private press books of William Morris, probably based on the false assumption that borders were not only meant to decorate the opening pages (including the title), but were intended to surround every text page.

John Ruskin, Of Queens' Gardens (1902)

Neither Morris nor Ricketts was so driven to decorate each and every page of a book, let alone to use one and the same border over and over again. Meanwhile, the border does not show Ricketts's monogram 'CR', but that of Christopher Dean.

John Ruskin, Of Queens' Gardens (1902): monogram in border design

Ian Rogerson, in his 1984 thesis The Origins and Development of Modern British Wood-Engraved Illustration was, to my knowledge, the first to point that out. Dean (whose dates are unknown) also designed a similar edition of Of Kings' Treasuries. Until 1897 he worked in Glasgow, later he designed many covers for George Bell & Sons (after their designer Gleeson White had died). He was born in Glasgow, moved to Marlow (Bucks.) in 1898, and settled in Chelsea in 1925 (according to Simon Houfe's The Dictionary of the 19th Century British Book Illustrators and Caricaturists, 1996 edition).

The mistake to ascribe this Ruskin edition to the Vale Press was repeated by the Anderson Galleries in 1924, when the fourth part of the library of John Quinn was sold. Lot 8286 described the copy that Quinn had acquired from the Henry William Poor library (with his bookplate), and now the address of the printer was added to that of Ricketts's firm: 'Edinburgh: The Vale Press, 1902'. Later, bookseller's catalogues sometimes reproduced the same mistake. Nowadays, copies of this book are no longer connected to the Vale Press or to Ricketts. Nor to Dean, for that matter, while the cross in the monogram is characteristic of Christopher Dean. 

The Library of John Quinn. Part Four (Morris-Sterne) (1924, p. 820)

151. Ricketts and Shannon on YouTube

Charles Ricketts, in October 2013, became the subject of a three minute YouTube video posted by Elysia Lee.

YouTube video, posted October 2013

The video seems to be the outcome of a first acquaintance with Ricketts's works, perhaps at art school, by means of internet or library books. (The images have a low resolution.) 

The video starts with the question: 'Have you heard of this artist? Charles Ricketts. After this video you should know him a little more.'

Then, captions are shown: 'writer', 'typography', 'paintings', 'sculptures', 'illustrations', 'theatre designs', and '...more'.

The video concentrates on the Oscar Wilde relation, and the illustrations for The Sphinx, and tells us that Ricketts's 'personality' did not embrace 'realism'. All these short messages are written on white paper boards with a black marker. A few examples of his theatre designs end the show. 

A video on Charles Shannon was posted in August 2013 by "PicsOfBest" - a typical internet alias. The video misses its goal as it merely shows fragments of pictures, photographs and lithographs or drawings - omitting  for example, heads, and surroundings. The music, abruptly stopped at the end, does not seem to fit the subject.

150. Who must I copy to be original?

Blog 150 is a contribution by Philip R. Bishop, connoisseur of the work of Thomas Bird Mosher, who has been the subject of some recent blogs.

Who must I copy to be original?

This question from François Coppée’s Le Trésor, ‘Qui pourrais-je imiter pour être original?’, has always seemed appropriate when discussing Thomas Bird Mosher and the preparation of his Mosher Press books. The literature and designs of the Kelmscott, Eragny, the Daniel presses and the Bodley Head were all copied and Ricketts and the Vale Press were likewise included in Mosher’s arsenal.

Thomas Bird Mosher at age 49 (circa 1901)

To be sure, Mosher admired the Vale Press and it’s publisher-designer. In the Gordon Bottomley correspondence at the British Library there are two key letters in which Mosher professes his admiration. 

In the Mosher-to-Bottomley letter of May 10, 1910 Mosher discusses Ricketts’s book on Titian with its excellent half-tone illustrations. He adds to this his appreciation of Ricketts’s work with The Dial and all his other works in that ‘some of them are very glorious indeed.’ Between this and a June 10, 1910 Mosher-to-Bottomely letter, Bottomley apparently apprised Mosher of his friendship with Shannon and Ricketts, to which Mosher responded by surmising ‘perhaps, however, Mr. Ricketts is not particularly pleased with the way in which I have made use of some of his borders’ and then goes on to say how he based an opening letter design on one of Ricketts’s, but that the shape has been changed and ‘redrawn by my artist here so as to fit Love in the Valley and other volumes in that Series’ (Golden Text Series). 

This insight afforded an explanation as to why there might be slight variation between Mosher’s presentation and the letters and designs by Ricketts which could be photo-mechanically reproduced, but slightly altered in form by ‘my artist here.’ Mosher concludes the paragraph by admitting ‘this undoubtedly is wicked enough in the view of a foreign artist’ and concludes by saying he’s not the first and surely won’t be the last to avail himself of ‘the moderns… without money and of course without royalty.’

Such an admission certainly didn’t ingratiate Mosher with the British private press crowd, but his choice to copy and adjust for his own purposes certainly was a nod to their achievement. Obviously Mosher identified himself in league with the members of the British private press movement but his actual contacts took place between potential intermediaries (with the exception of C.H. St. John Hornby whom he contacted directly). He always had it in his heart-of-hearts to be allied with their circle and to impress those folks on the other side of the Atlantic, and in turn, to present their designs to an American public.

Along with Mosher’s passion for the literature and design of the era, his aim was also to present the authors in a scholarly way, so he often provided comparative texts, footnotes, references, and comments. In doing so, he saw himself as being part and parcel, even party to, the broader conversation with especially British authors and the attending graphic developments accompanying the printing of their texts. One of the several examples is his treatment of The Blessed Damozel published by Hacon & Ricketts in 1898. This book’s diminutive form struck him as falling short of what was needed, saying that:

‘based on the format of the Vale Press, as our reprint professedly is, it shows conclusively how much more beautiful a book can be made by adhering to well recognized standards of page and margin, than by treating the poem as a mere bit of decorative type-work as in the London edition’ (A List of Books in Belles Lettres [Mosher catalogue], 1901, p. 58).

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, The Blesses Damozel:
Vale Press edition (in front), 1898: 98x126 mm, and Mosher edition, 1901: 147x137 mm 

A full comparison of the changes made are found in entry 47 of Thomas Bird Mosher. Pirate Prince of Publishers (1998, p. 106) so I won’t bother to reiterate them here. 

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, The Blesses Damozel:
Vale Press edition (below) and Mosher edition: same ruling and overall design

Suffice it to say that Mosher’s presentation, based on the former Hacon & Ricketts volume, was to present a variorum edition of the text as what he called his édition definitive by presenting changes in D.G. Rossetti’s text as published in The Germ (1850), variants from The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine (1856), the Poems (1870) and the Collected Works (1885).

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, The Blesses Damozel:
Vale Press edition (in front) and Mosher edition: colophons

Mosher would also be critical of another Ricketts/Vale Press edition. The November 1906 issue of The Bibelot was devoted to ‘The Last Days of John Addington Symons by Margaret Symons’ followed by a ‘Bibliographical Note’ which briefly presents the ‘extent and variety of the work of John Addington Symonds [which] may be gauged by the following short list of his published volumes.’ Entry 29 records the first edition The Life of Benvenuto Cellini (London, 1887), the second edition of 1888 and third edition of 1889 and then Mosher remarks on p. 381:

‘THE SAME. VALE PRESS EDITION. 2 vols. Imperial 8vo. Pp. 187 and 190. London, 1900. Issued in an edition of 300 sets printed on Arnold’s unbleached hand-made paper, of which 187 were for sale in England and 90 in the United States, (the latter at the exorbitant price of $35.00 net,) without the lengthy Introduction, of some 60 pages, also lacking Illustrations, Notes, Appendix and Index which Symonds gave, and which he presumably intended to accompany any and all editions that might in future be called for, this reprint stands as a sumptuous model of everything a book should not be! May it not have been one of the proximate causes of that tremendous debacle which has recently taken place in the public appreciation of so-called ‘artistic’ book-making?’ (The Bibelot, vol. XII, 1906, p. 382).

Although generally speaking the British private presses eschewed what we may call supporting apparatus (prefaces, footnotes, bibliography), Mosher was certainly of the opposite mind adding a number of things by way of bibliography, variant texts and explanations. In this case he additionally saw the Vale Press edition of The Life of Benvenuto Cellini as excluding all that J.A. Symonds had intended the book to contain. Incidentally, the ‘tremendous debacle’ which Mosher references is most likely the precipitous decline of interest and market for the wares of ‘artistic printing’ which occurred in England around the end of the second Boer War (1902) and was still going on well into 1906. Kelmscott prices fell significantly and the decline enveloped the other presses. Eragny books were hit the hardest, but so were the Vale Press productions.

Philip R. Bishop

149. Sham-Gothic

One hundred years ago, in June 1914, Charles Ricketts wrote to his Dutch friend the artist Rik Roland Holst about styles in architecture:

All our recent monuments seem to have been done by one man, who probably has studied all the historical styles but learnt none. I think we blame individuals for popular common tendencies. Before our time architects knew one style - Sham Gothic - of which you have one of the worst known specimens in the great Museum at Amsterdam.

The Rijks Museum in 1885

Ricketts of course referred to the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, re-opened last year after a prolonged renovation. The original 'sham-gothic' wall paintings that had been painted over since Ricketts wrote to Roland Holst, can now be seen again.