Three letters from B.R., E.W

7^5 I

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2014

https://archive.org/details/threelettersfromOOroge

THREE LETTERS

FROM

BR
EW

PORTLAND, MAINE
The Southworth-Anthoensen Press

1941

Copyright, 1941, The Southworth-Anthoensen Press

THIS TRILOGY

IT is a happy reunion of these three letters, now
brought together into inseparable companionship.
They had come to me within the interval of a year
or two, wherein I had been mi Idly insistent in the
cause of the Graphic Arts, seeking to arrive at the tes-
timony of participants in events, to gain interpreta-
tions and points of view from those of established
reputation, final authority and direct knowledge, in
the interest of the annals of the Arts of the Book.

The letters had been treasured during the years
since, as ever with those of the good and great in every
line of achievement — their autographs, their hand-
writing, their correspondence, fondly "laid" within
the leaves of books, which thereby become exalted
into ' 'association copies/' Beyond the sufficient pride
of possession in the letters made known in this Keep-
sake, I have prized them equally for their intrinsic
value, as revealing documents for the biographer and
historian. But hidden within the folds of a treasured
book locked in the bookcase of a personal library,
lost to the sight and consciousness of all but the

[ Hi ]

owner, these ' 'papers" are denied the contributions
to thought and knowledge implicit in them.

The invitation given by Mr. Fred Anthoensen to
reproduce these letters in the series of Keepsakes of
his competent press was the hoped-for opportunity
to make known their story and their philosophv to
others of sympathetic understanding in the realm of
the Graphic Arts.

♦ ♦ -f

It was in the summer of 193 1, that I last visited
London. One particular objective was to call upon
Bruce Rogers who was, at the time, associated with
Emery Walker at 16 Clifford's Inn. Upon present-
ing my card at the address, I was told that B R was
already on the ocean, returning to America, having
set in motion the printing of the Lectern Bible at
the Oxford University Press. His frequent crossings
and successive connections on both shores had earned
for him, as with James Russell Lowell, the familiar
line — "Whichever way he crosses the ocean, he is
going home."

Upon inquiring for Emery Walker, I learned that
he had been indisposd, and was only occasional in

C h J

his visits to the office. Returning disappointed to
the hotel, I was soon rejoiced to receive a telephone
message inviting me to call on Sir Emery at his home
in Hammersmith* The next day I found my way to
7 Hammersmith Terrace, charmingly situated with
garden inclining towards the bank of the Thames.
On arrival, an attendant cautioned me that Sir Emery
was not in the best of health, and, in conversation,
it might be wise to avoid mention of books, lest the
theme of his life's devotion might excite the invalid.
The caution was quite superfluous, as the Master-
Printer of the Kelmscott and Doves presses, imme-
diately reverted to William Morris, and delighted
his visitor with a half-hour of reminiscence which
neither had inclination to repress. After the inter-
view, to me an epic one, I was fortunate to be es-
corted by Miss Walker along Upper Mall to view
the site of the Kelmscott Press and the Doves Press,
and, indeed of the Doves "Pub." which had contrib-
uted the innocence of its name to such lofty flights
of perfection. Upper Mall ran along the bank of the
river which had lamentably engulfed the precious
types which Walker had designed.

[v]

In writing to Emery Walker after my return to
America, to confirm the impressions of that mem-
orable call, I received, in reply, the letter which ap-
pears first in This Trilogy, revealing the inspiration of
the Kelmscott faces, and deploring the waste of the
Doves type, written in the consciousness that his
letter might be, indeed, the "last word."

Sir Emery died the following year.

♦ ♦ ♦

I don't recall the precise element of uncertainty
in my mind that prompted me to write to Bruce
Rogers in the spring of 1930, when he was identi-
fied with Emery Walker, Limited. But, doubtless,
I had made reference to Frederic Warde's having
intimated that William Morris gave the initial in-
spiration to Bruce Rogers which determined his ca-
reer. To satisfy my inquiry, he wrote me, from 16
Clifford's Inn, with finality as to the source of that
impulse which directed his art into original expres-
sions. They have been expressions of a genius which
had made his initials a symbol to bibliophiles and
typophiles everywhere.

It is highly significant to American booklore to

learn from B R himself, in that conclusive note, how
Morris's revolutionary Revival of Printing hardly
more than suggested to him the course he laid out
for himself in a direction of his own.

The tribute he pays to Charles Ricketts, also of
the renascence, brings to mind the brief and brilliant
span of the little-remembered Vale Press which made
a name for itself at the turn of the century.

Yielding to my persuasion, Bruce Rogers has
given consent to the inclusion of his statement in
this Keepsake, as a contributory factor to the story
of Graphic Arts in America.

♦ ♦ ♦

The third member of This Trilogy does not quite
share the close affinity which belongs to the other
two. They have similarity in throwing light upon
possible moot points in printing history. Number
three relates to the present and the future in setting
forth an argument for change. In this letter Bruce
Rogers revives the latent question of the wisdom
of the prevailing method of determining the Fifty
Books of the Year sponsored by the American In-
stitute of Graphic Arts. The letter was written ten

C v« ]

years ago. It is quite as timely in 1941 as in 193 1.
This very season, at a gathering of bookmen, a mem-
ber exclaimed "We don't think much of the Fifty
Books this year." The merits of the jury system in
book appraisal remains open to debate.

The occasion which invited this revealing letter
from Bruce Rogers was my temerity in approaching
him to accept the chairmanship of the jury of selec-
tion for the approaching exhibit. His response was
conclusive and illuminating. My immediate need
for guidance in another choice for chairman led me
to call up the office of the late Burton Emmett for
competent suggestion. William Reydel answered
the telephone "The very man for your purpose is sit-
ting, at the moment, in this office — J. M. Bowles."
No other than the man who, nearly forty years be-
fore, had shown to Bruce Rogers the first product
of the Kelmscott Press, The Story of the Glittering Plain,
which gave the initial awakening, and who, there-
after, led the way to Boston where B R found his
career opening before him.

In my experience with J. M. Bowles, in attend-
ing the sessions of that jury of selection, he opened

C via ]

my eyes to the doubtful finality in the choice of the
Books of the Year. Those who have served in
other years have felt the inadequacy of much of the
material entered in competition, and the dubious
arrival at Fifty. One striking instance was when,
after selecting 29 books, the jury insisted that they
had found no others sufficiently worthy, whereup-
on they were instructed to return to the task and
choose 21 more against their judgement. Many will
recall that Lester Douglas spoke eloquently of the
contest as "The Battle of the Books."

BR's letter, the third in This Trilogy, is profession-
al, though personal, written to elucidate his point
of view as to the method in vogue. It serves as pro-
vocation to "thinking it through/ *

Edward F. Stevens

[ ix ]

LETTER I

7 Hammersmith Terrace
11 February 1931.

Dear Mr. Stevens

Thanks for your friendly letter. You are quite correct in stat-
ing that in designing the Golden type Morris was influenced by
Jenson, but in the Troy and Chaucer types, both being black let-
ter, Morris needed no immediate model, he having been famil-
iar all his life with Gothic art in all its forms. When he began
printing, or thinking about it, we made photographs of a consid-
erable number of types enlarged to a uniform scale of five times
of the originals. These were made in order that he could study the
distinctive features with greater ease. All the books from which
they were taken were in his own library, and among them was
a copy of Aretino's (CHistoria del Popolo Fiorentino}} printed
at Venice by Jacopo J. de Rossi in 1476 (Hain. 1361. Proctor
4141). Proctor identified the type as being jenson s. Morris
thought the scale of the letter was rather too great for his purpose
so in making the type he had the punches cut to 14 pt. or Eng-
lish as we call it. I have the volume which I acquired at the sale
of Morris's books.

Morris took great pains in designing the Golden type, but the

[*0

Troy type he designed in one day — out of his head so to speak,
though undoubtedly he was influenced by Schoeffer's type. He
admired greatly the Subiaco type of Sweynheim and Pannart^
and was thinking of cutting a type based upon this at the time
of his death.

The Chaucer type was a simple reduction of the Troy type.
It was intended to have used the Troy for the Chaucer , and a
specimen page was set} but it would have made such an enor-
mous volume that the type used was cut for a pica body, and it
was printed with one point leads.

You do not say much about the Ashendene Press — the Dante
in folio is the finest edition of the Poet ever printed. A new type
was made, and a Don Quixote in two volumes has been printed
with it. This is a magnificent piece of printing, though not finer
than the other folios printed at this Press.

With kind remembrances,

Yours very truly,

Emery Walker.

The Doves Press type was destroyed by Cobden Sanderson
without my knowledge or consent.

LETTER II

16 Clifford's Inn, Fleet Street, London
April 30, 2930.

Dear Mr. Stevens

I can answer your note only briefly. Warde's statement is
quite true, as you quote it, but you will find, a little further a~
long, the phrase, "however transitory" — and the direct influence
of Morris's work [_pn mine"] was very transitory, lasting through
only one book — "The Walters' Collection" volume. Pollard's re-
cent summing-up (in the Monotype pamphlet) is nearer the mark,
regarding both Updike's and my own early work. Almost as soon
as I went to Boston, where I got my first glimpse of really old
work, I began investigation (and deviation) on my own account.
Today, and for many years past, I get almost no thrill out of
any of the books of "the 'go's" — except, perhaps, Ricketts "Hero
& Leander" and "The Sphinx."

Cordially yours,

Bruce Rogers.

C xfii u

LETTER III

New Fairfield, Conn.
Oct. 14, Z9jz

Dear Mr. Stevens

Thank you for your good messages and for your news of hav-
ing visited Emery Walker. He must have enjoyed your call} as
he has always been so active, socially and professionally, that it
goes hard with him to he shut up at home — even with the splen-
did books he has on his shelves. My last news of him was that
he was somewhat better in health.

Regarding your very complimentary offer, of the principal
juror ship for the jo Book Show: — I am sorry to disappoint you,
or to seem indifferent to your kindness in thinking of me in con-
nection with it; but my one and only experience in serving on
a jury for a printing-show, was so unfortunate and unpleasant
(owing to there having been some work of my own unexpectedly
entered) that I then and there resolved never to attempt to serve
in a like capacity, under any consideration — a resolve that I
have faithfully kept.

Aside from this personal prejudice, I am not sure that I am
in favor of the jury system — in printing or in general shows.
I realise that something of the kind is practically necessary —

[ xv ]

but the grounds for judging book-making are so many and so
varied that I don't believe anyone should be empowered to say
— by implication at least — "This is good — that is bad" —
{which is what the selective system amounts to) unless at the
same time they are able to give detailed grounds — to the public
—for their acceptance of one and rejection of the other — a thing
manifestly impossible, unless theses were written about each book
under consideration.

I don't know what the new basis of selection is, that they
chose last week; but the latest News-Letter contained enough to
prove that there was need of one — whether it will result in a
better and fairer choice of books remains to be proved. In fact the
whole question of whether c(fne printing "as such, has any real
justification, is still (to my mind) an open one: — but as it would
perhaps seem like burning the scaffolding on which my own work
has been erected, I am not going to argue it. Time alone will sift
out the realfrom the pretentious — Imean, amongst my own books
as well as others'. I have made many merely pretentious ones.

So, my dear Mr. Stevens, I hope you will excuse me with a
good grace; and let me remain outside the controversies and crit-
icisms that are bound to arise; whatever the method, and who-
ever the jurors are. It is doubtless a selfish instinct, but I fear
I value my own quietude of mind, as a workman above any ed-

C xv/ ]

ucative influence I might conceivably exert in serving on a jury.
What mental energy I possess is} to my thinkings much more
profitably employed in countering the many difficulties and per-
plexities inherent in the actual production of books. Their after-
fate is on the knees of the gods — one of whom I have no aspira-
tion or inspiration to be — even temporarily.

Ever yours sincerely

Bruce Rogers.

[ xv a ]

•

EX L I B R I S

•

n

EC

H

>

CO

■■

D

r

o

w

D

CD

<

•

RHEAULT

•