Category: Section 3: Editing

The Mystery of Edwin Drood was an unfinished series written by Charles Dickens during the Victorian period, right before his death. Dickens only finished half of the story before his death and left no plans for the later parts. This is why the exhibited final volume has a printed sticker indicating a price increase (compare Fig. 1 and exhibited book): the publishers decided to capitalise on his death and thus sold it at a much higher price. 

Fig. 1: Cover page of Volume II held by NTU, with vol no. and date of publication

However, in light of the theme of this section of the exhibition, it is the books’ printed inserts that interest us, and there are two types: advertisements and illustrations. The former in particular are very prevalent, because they were the publisher’s main source of profit: advertisements were used to defray the costs of printing and distributing the books. This is especially true for this series since all the books had elaborate illustrations. At the time, printing illustrations was incredibly expensive, mainly because they required so much ink to print that better-quality, more expensive paper was needed – and paper already made up at least half of printing costs at the time [1]. So, to further maximise profit, advertisements were printed very cheaply. This can be seen from the cheap paper (see Fig. 2.1) and how some pages are not properly centred (see Fig. 2.2). 

Fig. 2.1: Blatant ghosting, in which text shows through from one side to the other, shows very thin, cheap paper quality

Fig. 2.2: printing not properly centred on page (borders do not match up with page edges)

However, some consideration did seem to go into the advertisements’ placement. As mentioned in the exhibition summary, volume I’s advertisement section was at the book’s center (see Fig. 3.1). Since it was inserted right in the middle of the scene, this would have severely disrupted reading flow. Presumably this irritated readers, because throughout the rest of the series the advertisements shifted to the books’ beginnings, before the story (see Fig. 3.2). From volume III onwards, an additional advertisement section was also added to the back (see Fig. 3.3), probably because the series’ – or Dickens’ – popularity meant that more advertisements were sent in to the publishers. Either way, from this shift in advertisement placement, it can be inferred that publishers had to make changes to the way they arranged their books’ contents to enhance reading experience, and so cater to their reader purchasers. 

Fig. 3.1: Volume I’s ad section in middle of book

Fig. 3.2: Volume II’s ad section starting right after cover page

Fig. 3.3: Volume III’s ad section at back of book

The change in illustration placement, however, seems to cater to a different issue. While volumes I and II have illustrations inserted at the appropriate scene (see Figs. 4.1, 4.2), the rest have their illustrations directly after the beginning advertisements (see Fig. 4.3). Considering the former placement would enhance reader experience, why the change? 

Fig. 4.1: line corresponding to illustration

Fig. 4.2: illustration on next page

Fig. 4.3: both illustrations placed after beginning ad section in volume III

This change was probably to cut down on time. Finding the right scene to insert the illustrations for all copies of each volume would have been incredibly time-consuming – and thereby reduce the number of copies the publisher could sell. Thus, it seems quite likely that this change in illustration placement was meant to serve the publisher’s interests more than readers’, since it does diminish the latter’s possible reading experience.

In conclusion, this series is thus important for this exhibition theme: through changing and standardising the placement of advertisement and illustration inserts, the former for readers’ benefits and the latter for the publisher’s benefits, one is able to see that the object of the book is in fact very malleable, in ways that may or may not detract from the author’s original message by changing its reading experience.

References

[1] Eliot, Simon. “Half the cost of a book”. Oxford University Press blog (OUPblog), 30 Jan. 2014, par. 1, blog.oup.com/2014/01/paper-cost-printed-book-publishing/. Accessed 20 Mar. 2021.

 

Prepared by Ng Shao Yi

Marks of Ownership in Early Printed Books

            Examining a book’s history of ownership is essential in understanding the various ways it was used, along with tracking individual and institutional history. This edition of Indago Monocerotis was printed in 1658 by Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. This particular copy is fascinating because it has been acquired by both public and personal collections with diverse locations and purposes. It contains four main types of ownership inscriptions: handwritten inscriptions, bookplates, ink stamps, and archival labels.

Fig. 1 Overview of this copy’s ownership history, inferred from its ownership inscriptions

Handwritten Inscriptions

 

Fig. 2.1 Handwritten inscription: “Ecclesiae Lichtenstadis 16,” crossed out

Fig 2.2 Handwritten inscription: “Bibliotheca Slacoverdensis Scholarum Piarum”

Handwritten inscriptions were a simple and early way of indicating book ownership. After its publication, this copy remained within the Czech Republic for the first part of its history. An inscription (Fig 2.1) records that the books belonged to Lichtenstadt Church, in Hroznětín. The number 16 may have been part of the church’s cataloguing system.

Interestingly, the ink striking out “Ecclesiae Lichtenstadis” seems to be the same ink as at the foot of the title page (Fig 2.2). This implies the book’s direct transfer to Bibliotheca Slacoverdensis Scholarum Piarum, a scholarly Piarist library in nearby Ostrov. The transfer may suggest the book’s development from being owned as a religious text to being used in a more academic context, which later ownership also reflects.

Bookplates

Fig 3.1 (Left): Bookplate of Edward Oates

Fig 3.2 (Right): Bookplate of William Edward Oates

            Bookplates, or Ex Libris (“From the Library of”), are labels collectors use to indicate ownership, often with a motif representing the owner. The Oates family seem to have obtained this book in the 19th century and passed it to successive generations, a common pattern in private book ownership. Many of the Oates family were naturalists and likely acquired it out of personal interest. As father and son, Edward and William Edward Oates had similar coats of arms (Fig 3.1 and Fig 3.2) that used variations of their family motto.^[1] Notably, William Oates died in 1896; his bookplate’s “1897” indicates its posthumous insertion, highlighting the private importance of recording ownership.

Fig 3.3: Bookplate of Robert Washington Oates

            Robert Washington Oates was William Oates’ nephew. An avid book collector, he established the Oates private library. His bookplate is visually similar to his ancestors’ (Fig 3.3), with the armoured hand holding a dagger resembling those on top of the other coats of arms.

Book stamps

Fig 4.1 Ink stamp of Bibliotheca Oatesiana

Fig 4.2 Ink stamp of Newton Library, University of Cambridge

Fig 4.3 Bibliotheca Oatesiana stamp on a page of the book

            Institutions and private collectors also used stamps to indicate ownership. This copy of Indago Monocerotis contains the stamps of the Oates family library (Fig 4.1) and the Newton Library at the University of Cambridge (Fig 4.2). The Oates family library also stamped a page within the book (Fig 4.3), deterring the reader from removing the evidence of ownership at risk of sacrificing textual content.

            As its stamp indicates (Fig 4.2), Newton Library primarily held books meant for the Zoological Department’s reference. Like the Oates family, the library may have also obtained it for naturalists’ interest, but the book’s purpose in the context of academic research differs from its more informal presence in the Oates collection.

Labels

Fig. 5 Label describing the movement of this copy between institutions

            A label (Fig. 5) pasted on a front flyleaf describes the book’s movement to the Gilbert White Memorial Library established by Robert Oates.^[2] The label emphasises a key difference between public and private book ownership. In becoming part of an archival collection, information must be preserved for the public’s understanding and cataloguing purposes, as opposed to being kept as part of a personal collection.

            Spanning locations and purposes, this copy of Indago Monocerotis exemplifies how ownership inscriptions shed light on the various uses of a book in different contexts. Patterns of book ownership may also help us trace the larger movement of products and ideas throughout history.

References

[1] Burke, Bernard. The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, Comprising A Registry of Armorial Bearings from the Earliest to the Present Time, London, Harrison, 1884.

[2] “The Oates Collections.” Gilbert White’s House and Gardens, accessed on 22 March 2021. http://www.gilbertwhiteshouse.org.uk/the-oates-collections/.

 

Prepared by Angelyn Tan Liu Ying

It was possible to visually match this leaf with a copy of Meditationes held by Bayerische Staatsbibliothek thanks to the digital archives [1, 2, 3] and the Internet.

This leaf comes from a book that contains prayers written by St. Augustine and St. Bernard, printed in Milan in the early 1480s by Beninus and Johannes Antonius de Honate. It was edited by Masellus Beneventanus. It is printed in Latin even though texts would have largely been in the vernacular Italian in the late fifteenth century [4]. This hints that the reader or owner of this book was either someone who worked with the bureaucracy or clergy, or was just highly educated. 

This text reflects a period of intersection between manuscript and print, as the conventions of manuscript are followed closely by early printers [5]. In red ink (refer to Fig. 1) the norm of marking section headers with the pilcrow (¶) and underline persists. New paragraphs begin with an initial more than one line high. At the start of sentences, initials are also emphasised with a stroke of red ink. 

Fig. 1 Photo of leaf held by NTU

An interesting point to note here is that the red markings are added by hand onto the printed page. [6] This is a process called rubrication, which provides a sense of completion to the print. The process of printing plans for the rubrication, as seen in the space left for the rubricator to fill the initial in and the printed letter that is meant to be there. The differences may be observed by comparing this leaf to another copy without rubrication (refer to Fig 2.1 and 2.2). It is possible that the reader/owner would take the printed book to a rubricator separate from the publisher.

Fig 2.1 Photo of copy held by NTU 

Fig 2.2 Screenshot of copy held by Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

There are also tiny markings in brown. These are corrections and edits made by the reader/owner, which include adding letters and paragraph markings. It is possible that the reader/owner was either familiar with the prayers already, had another copy to cross reference, or was just highly educated. The most fascinating of these corrections are the ones where the original printed letter has been scraped away and written over (refer to Fig 3.1 and 3.2).

Fig. 3 Photo of copy held by NTU

Fig. 3.2 Screenshot of copy held by Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

            In this single leaf alone, the reader/owner made four scraped corrections. Three of them change letters from capital to lowercase, while one seems to be a grammatical error. The method of scraping out mistakes and writing over them is one that originates from scribes writing on parchment. [7, 8] Using this method on paper is intriguing because while parchment is thick, paper is relatively not. The scraping reflects the influence of manuscript writing on print, as well as the knowledge of the reader/owner regarding the scribal writing process.

Fig. 4 Medieval scribe holding quill in one hand and knife in the other, from British Library

            Given that the leaf was printed in 1480-1482, the paper and ink have stood the test of time very well. The preservation and study of written and printed text gives us the opportunity to learn more about how people lived centuries before today.

References

[1] The Morgan Library and Museum

[2] British Library, Incunabula Short Title Catalogue

[3] Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München

[4] Briggs, Charles F. “Literacy, Reading, and Writing in the Medieval West.” Journal of Medieval History, vol. 26, no. 4, Elsevier Ltd, 2000, pp. 397–420, doi:10.1016/S0304-4181(00)00014-2.

[5] Nyström, Eva. “Codicological Crossover: The Merging of Manuscript and Print.” Studia Neophilologica, vol. 86, no. 1, Routledge, 2014, p. 114, doi:10.1080/00393274.2013.856534.

[6] Smith, Margaret M. “Red as a Textual Element During the Transition from Manuscript to Print.” Essays and Studies (London. 1950), vol. 2010, Boydell & Brewer Inc, 2010, p. 188.

[7] Doyle, Kathleen. Lovett, Patricia. “How to make a medieval manuscript.” British Library, Medieval England and France 700-1200.  

[8] Rudy, Kathryn M. “The Editing of Illuminated Manuscripts by Medieval Scribes”. 2017

 

Prepared by Jasmine Alicia Wangko

The leaf upon which this manuscript breviary was written and subsequently edited is made from animal skin. This is evidenced by the scattering of darker brown dots on the sides of the parchment, left by the hair follicles of the animal on the right side of the leaf, and a dark spot on the lower left corner of the leaf in Fig 1, that indicates the presence of animal fat, resulting from improper removal of fat from the skin and insufficient stretching of the animal skin during the parchment making process.

Fig. 1 Photo of Breviary Leaf 

The edits visible on the parchment are conventional for a manuscript. They include scraped out sections, faintly visible in Fig 2 and 3, replaced by a different set of information as well as additional text as seen in Fig 4. These scraped out sections are believed to have been details dealing with the conception of the Virgin which became a subject of debate in the 15th century, situating the edits made to the manuscript to this time period and the creation of the original manuscript itself to be prior to the conclusion of the debate in 1476. The use of parchment was more common in Europe from the 6th to 14th century, after which paper began to replace it as the common medium. The breviary leaf being made of parchment reinforces this estimation of its creation and editing in the 15th century.

Fig. 2 Scraped corrections first section

Fig. 3 Scraped corrections second section

Fig. 4 Extra information added in after completion of original manuscript

The slight inconsistency in the handwriting seen between Fig 2 and 4, suggests that these edits were possibly made by two separate individuals at two separate times. However, as a breviary leaf, it contains passages used during religious services in church. This suggests the leaf was owned by a church and implies that edits to the manuscript, while possibly being made by two different individuals, were likely made according to a single organisational direction in the church rather than being personalised edits that tailor the use of the leaf to a specific individual.

The edits illustrate how perceptions and teachings of religion have undergone change to convey what was believed to be the correct religious doctrine and provide the congregation with the right teachings. It highlights the fluidity of the book, which is reinforced by the possibility of the text undergoing multiple edits at different times. Additionally, as a religious text that was likely the property of the church and not available for personal use, it highlights the power those in possession of the text had over others as they could control the information disseminated to the masses and alter it in line with their beliefs to spread their agendas.

Prepared by Mavis Chiong