from The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New.
[London: Robert Barker, 1611]
First edition of a complete Apocrypha extracted from the “Great ‘He’ Bible” of 1611. Large Post folio (overall 39.5 x 27.3 cm; the pages 39 x 26.3 cm). Mottled dark brown calf blind-tooled in retrospective 17th century English design, spine ruled in gilt in six compartments with raised bands, the first with red morocco gilt title piece, top edges trimmed smooth, others rough cut. Printed in ruled double columns of 59 lines (plus headlines and catchwords) on thick laid paper without watermark, the text in black letter with roman and italic types in the headings and marginal notes, decorative woodcut initials and printer's ornaments throughout. Collates 110 ll.: 106 consecutive unpaginated leaves Iiii3-[Ccccc6] bound in sixes, plus [2 ll.] binder’s blanks front and rear. Superficial scratches on covers, generally negligible stains, browning and creasing scattered infrequently throughout text, mostly marginal; small puncture on [Qqqq5] touching two text letters each side; overall in fine condition, bright, fresh and well printed. Herbert 309, STC 2216.
This complete Apocrypha is from the first, the “Great ‘He’ Bible,” of the five 59-line black-letter folio editions of the King James Bible between 1611 and 1640, which were type-set to end invariably with the same word on each page. The textual history of the first editions has been studied successively by Francis Fry (op. cit., 1865), Frederick Scrivener (op. cit., 1884), Walter Smith (op. cit., 1890) and David Norton (op. cit., 2005). Fry (p. 23 and Table No. 1) nominates the British Museum copy 3050.g.1 as a standard for the 1611 edition: “it is in every leaf correct, and may be taken as a standard copy of this issue.” Fry states that 23 of 25 copies of this issue which he examined collate exactly with what he terms his “No. 1 copy,” and Scrivener (p. 6), Smith (p. 2) and Herbert’s revised bibliography (p. 133) follow by accepting the Oxford Exact Reprint of 1833 as interchangeable with that copy. Insofar as these scholars review textual points specific to the Apocrypha, the present copy accords in all respects with the first edition. William Aldis Wright (op. cit., 1909, pp. xix-xxi) offers, without substantive discussion, 94 examples of variations between his “First Issue” and “Second Issue” in the preface to his five-volume edition of the Authorized Version, including 29 which Scrivener and Norton do not list. The present copy accords with 93 of Wright’s 94 variations under “First Issue” and differs in one instance, where Wright specifies “discretion” for “descretion” in the present copy in the summary to Ecclus. 37 on [Tttt6r]. Finally, distinguishing his 68 examples of “printer’s errors” referenced below and expanding on the 27 examples in Scrivener’s Appendix B (pp. 205-6, 212-3), Norton tabulates 50 examples of “first and second edition variations” of the Apocrypha in his Appendix 2 (pp. 178-9, counting the ‘46’ in 1 Macc. 13 summary, referenced below, as a first edition variation). The present copy accords with Norton’s first edition variations in all 50 examples.
It remained for Norton to offer a more comprehensive critical comparison of copies of the 1611 edition, stating (p. 56), “... the first edition is almost entirely homogeneous, but there are at least eight variations to be found between copies. All but one reflected work done after printing had begun rather than as part of the regular process of composition, proof-reading and correction. The exception is ‘40’ for ‘46’ (1 Macc. 13 summary), where I think it likely that the up-stroke of ‘6’ has broken off; what is left of the character happens to be identical in size to a zero.” Three of the remaining seven internal variations relate to the Apocrypha as well (although Norton dutifully references Wright’s caution, op. cit., p. v, that “many other changes might be discovered”); two of these three, noted by Wright in “some copies,” Norton states that he has not seen (fnn. 22, 27, p. 171), at least in his six reference copies of the 1611 edition. The present copy has ‘46’ (the upstroke of ‘6’ about a third broken) in 1 Macc. 13 summary, does not have the two errors noted by Wright which Norton was unable to verify (the present copy reading “setters” in 1 Esdras 5:58 and “Ty-rannus” in 2 Macc. 4:40 m.), and does not have the subsequently inserted “by their knowledge of” in Ecclus. 44:4 in the first line of Uuuu3v. Norton then goes on to offer 63 examples in the Apocrypha of “printer’s errors in the first edition” in his Appendix 1 (pp. 170-1) and a further five distinct examples of “hidden errors” (pp. 59-60) deemed predominantly printer’s faults but not listed in his Appendices. The present copy accords with all but two of Norton’s 68 examples, one of which, ‘20’ in Ecclus. 26 summary (on Tttt1v) instead of the correct ’29,’ may actually be the later state of a broken downstroke on ‘9’ (just like the ‘6’ of ‘46’ in 1 Macc. 13 summary), and the other of which, “aythoritie” in 1 Macc. 7:12 m., differs from “au-thoritie” in the present copy.
The 1611 “editio princeps” of the King James Bible in the Horace Howard Furness Memorial Library, BS185 1611.L65, at the University of Pennsylvania is available on-line for comparison. In every one of the foregoing variations and errors in the Apocrypha noted by Wright and Norton, except Wright’s lone discrepancy (“discretion” for “descretion” in Ecclus. 37 summary), the present copy accords with the Furness copy (in which, indeed, a noticeably wider break is evident on the upstroke of ‘6’ in the ‘46’ in 1 Macc. 13 summary). Further, the 13 examples of page-wide decorative scrolls, the 172 examples of decorative letters and the header and footer panels on Rrrr2 in the present copy accord in every case with the Furness copy; one of the decorative scrolls, 81 of the decorative letters and the Rrrr2 header and footer panels differ in the second folio edition, the 1613/1611 “Great ‘She’ Bible.”
As sheets for numerous copies of the new Bible “Appointed to be read in Churches” would have been run off into stacks for assembly to sate countrywide distribution to the parishes, it is treacherous to surmise on the printing history of the 1611 edition. The present copy has slightly thicker paper and overall distinctly crisper, blacker printing that may be seen in our fine copy of the Apocrypha from the 1613/1611 “Great ‘She’ Bible” with which it has been compared. Further, a random survey of the column rules, large Roman letters and printing accidents (smudges, weaknesses) suggests that the present copy may acquit itself certainly an equal, perhaps overall a very slightly better, impression in comparison with the Furness copy (see, for example, the break across the top right corner of Llll3r of the Furness copy, and, incredibly, the printed human hair lying slightly differently across verse 12 in Uuuu4r of both copies). Two of the few discrepancies of the present copy from a hypothetically “pure” first edition, in Ecclus. 26 and 37 summaries, appear on the single bifolium Tttt1/[6], and it should be noted that the decorative initials “I” on Tttt1r and “E” on [Tttt6r] of the present copy are in the first edition variant states appearing identically in the Furness copy as well. A third noted discrepancy, “au-thoritie” in 1 Macc. 7:12 m., appears on Zzzz3r of bifolium Zzzz3/[4], on which the decorative initials “I” on Zzzz3r and “F” on [Zzzz4v] of the present copy match the first edition variant states in the Furness copy. A tentative conclusion might be that the variations to be found in the Apocrypha among copies of the 1611 edition are more abundant than Norton’s listed four, a number suspiciously small given that Wright offers 29 points distinguishing his First and Second Issues not noted by either Scrivener or Norton. Indeed, the general momentum of the textual history of the “Great ‘He’ Bible” is swinging away from Fry’s assertion of a single standard “in every leaf correct,” and the present copy may be judged an outstanding survival in both its overall bibliographic state and its physical conservation.
References:
The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New, London:
Robert Barker, 1611, University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library
Center, Horace Howard Furness Memorial Library, BS185 1611 .L65.
Click here for more information
Fry, Francis, A Description of the Great Bible, 1539, and the Six Editions of Cranmer's Bible, 1540 and 1541, Printed by Grafton and Whitchurch: Also of the Editions, in Large Folio, of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures, Printed in the Years 1611, 1613, 1617, 1634, 1640, London: Willis and Sotheran; Bristol: Lasbury, 1865.
Scrivener, F.H.A., The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Cambridge: University Press, 1884.
Smith, Walter E., “A Study of the Great ‘She’ Bible,” The Library, vol. II, pp. 1-11, 96-102, 141-153 (London: Elliot Stock, 1890).
Wright, William Aldis, The Authorized Version of the English Bible 1611, vol. I, Cambridge: University Press, 1909.
Herbert, Arthur Sumner, ed., Historical catalogue of printed editions of the English Bible, 1525-1961 / Rev. and expanded from the edition of T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, 1903, London: British and Foreign Bible Society; New York: American Bible Society, [1968].
Norton, David, A Textual History of the King James Bible, Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
View more images of this item
Price: see our Combined
Offering
Inquiries: mail@mobysnewt.com