Wednesday, September 3, 2014

162. Ricketts's and Shannon's Collector's Mark

The art historian Frits Lugt (1884-1970) compiled an overview of collector's marks of public and private art collectors, dealers, and printers. The 1956 Supplement to his reference work Les Marques de collections contains two marks for Ricketts and Shannon. A digitized version is available on Delpher, a Dutch website that also contains hundreds of newspapers, and magazines.


Collector's mark of Ricketts and Shannon
One collector's mark of Ricketts and Shannon was used for drawings by Tiepolo, Rubens, Van Dijck, Delacroix, and others left to the Fitzwilliam Museum - these names were mentioned by Frits Lugt who had personally seen the mark on them. The design is of two interlocked 'C's, referring to Ricketts's and Shannon's identical Christian names. The design is similar to that of the binding of Hero and Leander (1894), although the intertwined initials for this book probably stood for the initials of the authors Christoper Marlowe and George Chapman: 'C' and 'G'.

Intertwined 'C' and 'G' on the binding of Hero and Leander (1894)
Another collector's mark was used for the drawings that were left to the British Museum. This mark was designed by Laurence Binyon when the drawings arrived there.


Laurence Binyon, Collector's mark designed for Ricketts and Shannon

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

161. From the Collection of Messrs Ricketts and Shannon

An advertisement for Old Master Drawings. A Quarterly Magazine for Students and Collectors mentioned that Charles Ricketts was among the collaborators. 


 The Print Collectors's Quarterly, October 1926
Ricketts never wrote an essay for the magazine. However, some of the old master drawings from the collection of Ricketts and Shannon were reproduced in it, and although this must have been the sort of contributions that the magazine sollicited from certain collectors, the editor probably expected more from Ricketts's and Shannon's well-known art collection, and may have hoped for a critical essay by Ricketts. Several art works from their collection were reproduced in Old Master Drawings, but the comments were written by other art connoisseurs.


Peter Paul Rubens, 'A Path Bordered by Trees' (from the collection of Ricketts and Shannon)
Plate 12 in volume 2 (June 1927-March 1928) reproduced a drawing by the Flemish artist Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) with a commentary by Campbell Dodgson:

The path, bordered by trees and bushes, divides two plots of ground enclosed by a fence loosely built of branches of trees. Narrower paths, opening out of it to left and right, admit to an enclosure which the elaborately pruned fruit-tree on the extreme left proves to be an orchard, and to a corresponding space on the right which is left much more vague. A fresh and charming sketch from nature, masterly in perspective and in the suggestion of atmosphere.

The drawing was on show during an exhibition of Flemish and Belgian Art at the Royal Academy in 1927. Before it came to Ricketts and Shannon, it had been owned by the reverend Thomas Kerrich (1748-1828). In their wills, the artists left the Rubens drawing to the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.

The catalogue of the Ricketts and Shannon collection of the Fitzwilliam Museum, All for Art (1979), written by Joseph Darracott, suggests on the authority of Michael Jaffé, that Rubens may have been inspired for this drawing by Federico Barocci [Il Barroccio] (c. 1526-1612). Rubens owned drawings by Barocci which he had acquired around 1616.

The collection of Ricketts and Shannon contained two Barocci drawings, both figure studies. They owned five drawings and studies by Rubens, all now at the Fitzwilliam Museum. Darracott remarked (in The World of Charles Ricketts, 1980) that their collection contained almost no landscapes, but that the Rubens drawing was a beautiful exception.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

160. One Hundred Remaindered Copies of The Dial

In October 1931 Charles Ricketts died, and the mentally ill Shannon had to be cared for.


Christie's, auction catalogue, 4 December 1933, page 35
Thomas Lowinsky and Ernest Jackson, the executors of Ricketts's will, took a series of difficult decisions. Townshend House was sold in 1933 and Shannon was moved to Kew Gardens Road (where he would die in 1937). Valuable pieces from their art collections were sent to the museums to which they had been left in Ricketts's and Shannon's wills. And in December 1933 books and prints were sold at auction.

Christie's, auction catalogue, 4 December 1933
Dedication copies of Oscar Wilde, Michael Field, Gordon Bottomley, and W.B. Yeats were thus dispersed, as were sets of Eragny and Vale Press books, art books, a collection of 77 lithographs by Shannon, and a complete set of the five issues of The Dial, their own magazine. The Christie's catalogue is a record of that sale.

Christie's, auction catalogue, 4 December 1933, lot 403
Lot 403 contained Ricketts's and Shannon's stock of The Dial. Almost 40 years after publication, ten copies of No. 3, seven copies of No. 4, and no less than eighty-three copies of No. 5 were remaindered. Eighty-three copies! A pile of almost one meter!

Of the first issue (1889) 200 copies had been printed, thirteen of which were still available in 1892. The second issue, also 200 copies, apparently sold out. Then the number of copies was raised to 250 for the third issue, and 270 for the last two issues.


Title on the wrapper of The Dial (No. 4, 1896)
In October 1893, the prospectus for the third issue announced that the first two issues had been sold out. In 1898 copies of the third and fourth issue could still be obtained from the publishers, who mentioned that of No. 4 'A few copies still remain'. The phrase was not used in regard to number 5 (A List of Books, 1898), of which many more copies had remained unsold. In 1901, John Lane could still offer his American customers copies of Nos. 3 to 5. Apparently, copies of the third and fourth issues were sold eventually, while of the fifth and last number almost a third of the edition remained unsold. 

An explanation for this failure is not easy to give. Perhaps Ricketts did not care enough when the last number was published in 1897, as he was occupied by the more demanding task of The Vale Press that had issued its first book in 1896. He no longer was in need of a magazine to publish his wood-engravings, and kept them for the Vale Press books.

In 1933, eighty-three copies of the last number of The Dial flooded the market, or were they kept by a bookseller who, every now and then, would sell off a copy? The word 'scarce' usually found its way into descriptions of The Dial in bookseller's and auction catalogues, although the fifth number never had been scarce. Only if all copies that were auctioned in 1933 would have been destroyed (on purpose, or, during the War) the fifth number would have become really 'scarce': with 187 previously sold copies the issue would have been more scarce than the first number that was issued in no more than 200 copies.

However, today, two copies of number 5 are offered for sale online, and none of the others. That, perhaps, is an indication.


 Publisher's name on the wrapper of The Dial (No. 4, 1896)

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

159. A Flow Chart of the Reprint of The Picture of Dorian Gray

Last week's blog, The Puzzling Reprint of The Picture of Dorian Grayand its perhaps confusing chronology, asks for a sort of flow chart of events. Below one finds the information on the publication of The Picture of Dorian Gray in 1891 and the reprint of 1895, along with some biographical dates from Wilde's life, and the sources for assumptions or facts. Assumptions that could not be corroborated are given in red.


Date
Oscar Wilde
Published evidence


April 1891

The Picture of Dorian Gray
Published April 1891 (Ward, Lock & Co)
Deluxe edition: July 1891

Mason, Art & Morality (1912), p. 282
Mason, Bibliography (1914), p. 343
Mentioned as published in The Publishers’ Circular, 18 April 1891
July 1891
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Deluxe edition published: July 1891

Mason, Art & Morality (1912), p. 282
Mason, Bibliography (1914), p. 345 [British Library copy dated 4 July 1891]
October 1894
New PDG edition published

Mentioned in a letter to Walter Ledger (1904)
End of 1894

New edition PDG in preparation
Mason, Art & Morality (1912), p. 282
The PC did not mention a reprint of PDG in the notes on 'Books reduced in price', or 'New editions'; there was no announcement of it by Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co.
March 1895

New edition is ready
Mason, Art & Morality (1912), p. 283
Mason, Bibliography, p. 347.
5 April 1895
Wilde is arrested

27 April 1895
Edward Baker, Birmingham, advertises his wish to buy copies of Wilde’s books, incl. PDG
Publishers’ Circular, 27 April 1895, advertisement by Edward Baker (‘Books wanted to purchase’): ‘Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray. Any edit[ion]
------ ------- The Happy Prince
------ ------- The Sphinx
------ ------- Any books by’.
25 May 1895

Wilde is sentenced to prison

14 September 1895
Edward Baker wants to buy 'Wilde's Chameleon'.
The Publishers' Circular, 14 September 1895: Edward Baker published a list of books he wanted to buy, including 'Wilde's Chameleon'.
12 October 1895

New edition of PDG published
The Publishers' Circular, 12 October 1895: announcement as published: ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray. Cr.8vo. p.334, 6s.net. Ward & L.'

English Catalogue (1896):
October 1895
Mason, Art & Morality (1912), p. 282.
12 and 19 October 1895
Copies of PDG offered for sale by Edward Baker

The Publishers' Circular, 12 October 1895: advertisement by Edward Baker, offering for sale: 'Oscar Wilde's "Dorian Gray." […] 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.'

Also published: 19 October 1895

26 October – 28 December 1895



Copies offered for sale by
Edward Baker (incl. large paper copies of first ed.)

Adv. Republished: 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30 November, 7, 14, 21 and 28 December 1895.


The Publishers’ Circular, 26 October 1895

Also published: 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30 November, 7, 14, 21 and 28 December 1895.

9 November 1895

Edward Baker wants to buy copies of 'Wilde's (Oscar) Poems. 1892'.
The Publishers’ Circular, 9 November 1895 ('Books wanted to purchase')
September 1896


New edition of PDG remaindered, after Bowden retired from Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co.

Mason, Bibliography, p. 347
Mason, Art & Morality (1912), p. 283


Wednesday, August 6, 2014

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.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

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 and Shannon 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.'

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

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.