Folios Fit for a King: James I, John Bill, and the King's Printers, 1616-1620
Author(s): Maria Wakely and Graham Rees
Source: The Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 3 (2005), pp. 467-495
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3817954
Accessed: 04/04/2009 16:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Huntington Library Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
FoliosFitfor a King:JamesI, JohnBill,
and the King'sPrinters,1616-1620
MariaWakelyandGrahamRees
C',
IN 2002 WE BEGAN what may turn out to be a long-running investigationof the
officeof the King'sPrinterin thereignof JamesI.Whythistopic,andwhythatperiod?
In the firstplace,althoughthe King'sPrintingHousestoodattheverysummitof the
Londonprintingtrade,'itsoutputandoperationshaveattractedfarlessattentionthan
theydeserve.Inthe second,possessionof the officeof King'sPrinterwasin disputefor
almosthalfof James'sreign,andwe thereforehopedto findmorearchivaltracesthan
is usualwithLondonprintinghouses.
Theoutputof the King'sPrintersin James'sreignwasenormous,andto make
the taskmanageablewe dividedthe materialinto its maincategories:BiblesandNew
Testaments,
proclamationsandstateapologetics,documentsconcernedwiththe nuts
andboltsof churchgovernmentanddiscipline,stateprayersandliturgicaltexts,and
andpossibly
so on. Oncewe haddonethat,however,thereremainedan unanticipated
in
all
all
residue:
a
set
of
nine
editions-all
and
folio, enormous,
written,or (in
unique
authorswho happenedto
one case)edited,by one or anotherof justfivecontemporary
havebeen associatedwith the most exaltedlevelsof Jacobeangovernmentand the
highestreachesof Europeanintellectuallife.Justasunexpectedwasanotherdiscovery:
thatthisclusterof foliosoccupiedan islandin time.No otherfolio editionby a living
authorwasprintedofficiallyorprivatelyby anyKing'sPrinterfromJames'saccession
untilafterthe king'sdeathandwellbeyond.2In otherwords,theyears1616-20 sawa
asit wasbrief.
spateof specialfoliosthatwasasunprecedented
TheauthorshavebenefitedgreatlyfromdiscussionswithJohnBarnardwhenthisarticlewasin thelast
stagesof drafting.Allerrorsare,however,oursalone.
1.ScotlandandIrelandhadtheirownofficesof King's/Queen's
Printer;seeA.W.Pollardand
G.R.Redgrave,
andIrelandandof
eds.,A Short-Title
ofBooksPrintedin England,Scotland,
Catalogue
2vols.;2ded.revisedandenlargedbyW.A.Jackson,F S.FerguEnglishBooksPrintedAbroad1475-1640,
son andKatharine
F.Pantzer(London,1976-1986);
vol.3,Indexes,compliedbyK.F Pantzerand
P.R.Rider(London,1991);3:98-99.
2. Very marginal exceptions are STC 18855and STC 11431a;on this last, see Cyndia Clegg, Press
Censorshipin JacobeanEngland (Cambridge, 2001), 42-44.
HUNTINGTON
LIBRARY
QUARTERLY
I VOL. 68,
NO. 3
C(.
467
Pp. 467-495. ? 2005 by the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery. ISSN 0018-7895 I E-ISSN 1544-399X. All rights reserved. For
permissionto reproduce,consultthe Universityof CaliforniaRightsand PermissionsWebsite,www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
(0C
468
MARIA
WAKELY
&
GRAHAM
REES
It furtherturns out that these special editions were printed by means that are,in
the light of current bibliographicalknowledge, without parallelin earlymodern England. But we leave this aspect until last.3We turn first to the social, political, and intellectual contexts to which they belong, and as we proceed we shall see something of how
the King's Printers conducted their business, how they helped carry out a royal
politico-religious program, how Jameshimself from time to time actively intervened
in the operations of the King'sPrinting House, and how these elite folios promoted an
"official"idea of a national culture-an idea that was eventuallyto prove as durableas
it was influential.
Who were the printers, who were the elite authors, and what were their books? The
office of King's Printer was protected by a patent granting the "privilege to print
statutes, acts of Parliament, proclamations, injunctions, the Bible in English, service
books, and other books wholly or partlyin English."4(This office is not to be confused
with the separate one of King's Printer in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, of which more
below.) The office was conferred by patent, but it could be assigned to another,and in
the years1616-20 the right to it was a matterof a bitter and protracteddispute between
Robert Barker,John Bill, and Bonham Norton. On the accession of James I, Barker
(1570-1645)held the office through a reversionarypatent, firstgrantedby Queen Elizabeth to his father,ChristopherBarker.Robertwas Masterof the Stationers'Companyin
1605and 16o6.5Bonham Norton (1565-1635)was also a powerful member of the Company.He inherited a fortune from his Shropshirefamily and a share in his cousin John
Norton's business, following the latter'sdeath in 1612.He was Masterof the Stationers'
Company three times, in 1613,1626,and 1629,and he was fairlydescribedas "ahard,calculating and graspingman,' continually in the law courts "prosecutinghis brother stationers."6John Bill (1576-30), also a Shropshireman, was apprenticedto John Norton
and developed his expertisein the London and Continentalbook tradethrough his association with Norton and while he acted as libraryagent for Thomas Bodley.7And, as
our researcheshavebegun to show,Billwas,with the Nortons, a memberof a joint-stock
below.
3. See"Postscript,"
in ArnoldHunt,GilesMandelbrote,andAlison
4. ArnoldHunt,"BookTradePatents,1603-1640,"
1450-1900,
Shell,eds.,with an introductionby D. F.McKenzie,TheBookTradeandItsCustomers,
St. Paul's Bibliographies, Winchester (Newcastle, Del., 1997), 27-54. For the patent for the office
of King'sPrinterin English(9 July1603,ref.C66/1630/m.22-23), andto JohnNortonfortheofficeof
King'sPrinterin Latin(21May1603,C66/16o8/[26]), seep.41.Hunt'sarticleis invaluable,ashe lists
Book TradePatents from 1603to 1640.
andPrinters... inEngland,Scotland,andIreland
5.HenryR.Plomer,A DictionaryoftheBooksellers
1641-1667(London, 1968), 13-14.
in England,Scotland,andIre6. R.B.McKerrowet al.,ed.A DictionaryofPrintersandBooksellers
land, and of ForeignPrintersof EnglishBooks,1557-1640(London, 1968), 201-3.
7.Plomer,Dictionary,31-33.
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
-
469
copartnershipthey had set up at the beginning of the reign of James.This partnership
survivedJohnNorton'sdeath,in November1612,and lasteduntil 14March1618.8
It is worth noting here that John Norton gained the other patent-as King's
Printerin Latin,Greek,and Hebrew-even though it belonged to John Battersbywhen
Jamescame to the throne.9JohnBarnardsuggeststhat the patentwas a rewardfor Norton'sloyaltyto the king, when in 1601Norton "carrieda letterto JamesVI of Scotland,as
part of the Earlof Essex'sconspiracy against Queen Elizabeth."Norton apparentlybelieved in "theneed to secure the Protestant succession by ensuring that Jamesbecame
the next Kingof England."10
So Norton had a close relationshipwith the king and was at
the same time a partnerof Bonham Norton and Bill.This partnershipadvancedmoney
to RobertBarkerand also workedthrough a syndicate-in part a front organizationfor
that same partnership-that, by buying Biblesfrom Barker,provided him with muchneeded capital to print the new AuthorizedVersion and an easy profit for the partnership.1'It seems that through the advances,Bill and Bonham Norton securedan interest
in the King'sPrintingHouse.l2 But in 1618Barkerbegan a suit in ChanceryagainstNorton and Bill to recoverhis rights.13He claimed that Norton and Bill had tried to force
him out by getting him to agree to make them his deputies and assignees for a consideration, and to allow them for a year and a day to take over the office, stock and furniture worth, accordingto Barker,?30,000. The date of the assignationto Norton and Bill
On 7 May1619,Chanceryfound that Barkerhad only assignedthe office
was July1617.14
8. In 1603(theyear,of course,of James'saccession)theNortonsandBillbecame"Copartners
and
traderstogetherin the artor tradeof a Statoneror Booksellerandin buyingandbringingofbookes
mapsandotherStatonarywares&merchandisesin andfromffranceGermanyandotherptsbeyond
the seasinto Englandandin sellingthe sameagain&in printingeof diuersebookesherein Englande
andbeyondthe seasiforthebettermanagingeof whichIoynttradetherewasa ioint stockeraysedvpon
wchdid consistonlyin bookes."Thestock-valued at
the firstenteringin to the saidcopartnership
?4,4oo-was raisedby theNortons,who wereto be paidthatsumin installmentsoveraneleven-year
periodfromthe profitsof the partnership.Itwasfurtheragreedthatanyprofitleftafterpaymentof the
installments"shouldbe equallydiuided"betweenthethreepartners.Ashis contributionto the enterpriseBill"wenttwiceeachyeereat theleast... beyondethe seas... to furnishthe saidjointtradewith
bookesmapsandotherstat6narymerchandizes";
seePROC/3/334/73.
Thepresentwriterswillbe publishingeditedtranscriptionsof thisandrelateddocumentsin due course.AlsoseeRobertG.Lang,
"London's
Aldermenin Business:1600-1625,"
GuildhallMiscellany3(1969-71):242-64.
9. In 1604the reversionof thispatentwasgrantedto RobertBarker,but on 6 January1613,afterJohn
Norton'sdeath,Barkermusthavesoldor surrenderedthepatent,forBonhamNortonacquiredit;see
Hunt, "Book TradePatents"(C66/1966/6.), 41,44.
o1.SeeJohnBarnard,"Politics,Profits,andIdealism:JohnNorton,the Stationers'Companyand
Sir Thomas Bodley,"Bodleian LibraryRecord17,pt. 5 (2002): 335-408 at 391-92.
1.SeeBarnard's
Robert
importantarticle"TheFinancingof theAuthorisedVersion1610-1612:
Barkerand 'Combining' and'Sleeping' Stationers,"PublishingHistory 57 (2005): 5-52.
12. SeeHenryR.Plomer'sseminalarticle,"King's
TheLibrary,
PrintingHouseunderthe Stuarts,"
ser. 2 (1901):353-75 at 359-60; see also Paul Morgan, "AKing'sPrinter at Work:Two Documents of
Robert Barker,"Bodleian LibraryRecord13,pt. 5 (1990): 370-74.
13.SeePlomer,"King'sPrintingHouse,"355.BillandBonhamNortonhadin facttriedto infringe
Barker'srights years before, in 1601;Barnard,"Politics, Profits,"391.
14. Plomer, "The King'sPrinting House,"357,360.
(-
470
MARIA WAKELY & GRAHAM REES
for a year and a day as securityfor monies lent, and Norton was orderedto reassignand
reassure to Barkerall the estate and title in the office and stock by Christmas, while
Barkerwas to repay Norton all such money disbursed to him; Bill was taken to be a
bona fide purchaserand allowed to enjoy his share in the business-an interest he retained for the rest of his life.l5However,freshdisagreementsbrought all partiesto court
againin late 1619,and the case ran for anotherten years.
The suit in Chancery was never really resolved and, in the period up to 1621,
caused great uncertainty. Barkerwas still King'sPrinter on 12August 1617,but sometime between then and 23 December Norton and Bill took over from him as his
deputies and assignees.16There they remained until at least 14 November 1619,but at
some point in 1619Bill alone held office,17while from 9 to 30 December Barkerand Bill
did so jointly.18In early February 1620, Barkerregained sole control but shared the
office with Bill again from late Februaryuntil 28 July.'9Norton displaced Barkerto rejoin Bill, from 4 August until at least 6 November.Then Bill became sole King'sPrinter
for a few days in late December;20from 30 Januaryuntil 8 March 1621,Barkerand Bill
again shared the office.21 Norton displaced Barker once again on 30 March and
presidedwith Bill until 11October 1629.
As for our elite folios, they are as follows: the collected works of James I in
English (1616;that is, 1617) and Latin (1619); the first two parts of Marc' Antonio
de Dominis' De republicaecclesiastica(1617and 1620);the Italian (1619),Latin (1620),
and English (1620)versions of Paolo Sarpi'scelebratedHistoriadel ConcilioTridentino;
Henry Savile's edition of Thomas Bradwardine's De causa Dei (1618);and Francis
Bacon'sInstauratiomagna (1620).
CN%James I's Workesand Opera
The accession of JamesI had an immediate impact on the London book trade.Indeed,
as monarchs went, Jameswas more than usually keen to exploit the printed word and
to use it to establish his authority at home and abroad.The King'sPrinting House was
one of his principal instruments in pursuing these objectives:Through it "his"Bible,
his writings, speeches, declarations, proclamations, and injunctions were disseminated. Through it privileged texts that he wished to endorse were sent into the world.
Through it the king'sword dresseditself in the authority and force that was ascribedto
15.Ibid.,360-61;alsosee366:in 1630NortonsaidthatBarkerhadbribedFrancisBaconwith ?1,ooo
to makethisdecree.In fact,Baconadmittedin 1621thathe hadreceived?700fromBarker;see James
Spedding,TheLettersandLifeofFrancisBacon,7 vols.(London,1861-74),7:259.
16.SeeSTC8555and8557.
below.
17.See"Postscript,"
18. See STC 8619,8621,and 8622.
19. See STC 8624,8629-8642.
20. SeeSTC8643,and8644.Theevidenceis uncertain,but atleasttwo proclamations,
givenby
JamesI on 24 and28December1620(STC8649and8650),wereprintedby Billalone.
21. SeeSTC8654.7 and8660.
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
?-
471
the printed word generally in the early seventeenth century.22But James was altogether a special case: he had "an indomitable faith in the significance of the printed
word,"23which carriedhim as far as the act of deliberateself-canonization represented
by the publication of his Workesin 1616/17and the Latinedition of 1619-both editions
preparedby JamesMontague,bishop of Winchester.24
Many of the writings presentedin the Workeshad been printedbefore,yearsearlier and in completelydifferentcontexts.Forexample,Basilikondoronand the TrewLaw
of FreeMonarchieswere written for a Scottish audience. Both were printed (by Waldegrave, the King'sPrinter in Scotland) in 1598,with Basilikon doron,written in Middle
Scots, appearing in an anglicized version in 1599.Both were printed anonymously.25
Basilikondoronwas printed in March1603in London, and in huge numbers,on James's
accession,althoughthe king did not arriveuntil May.26It is worth noting that JohnNorton enteredhis claim to the text in the Stationers'Registeron 28 March27and so, thanks
to him, the king'sprintedword arrivedin the capitalin advanceof its author.28
In the English Workesof 1616/17,and its Latin emanation29 of 1619,anonymity
disappears,the polemics are recontextualized,and the whole repackagedas an oeuvre
for a new, contemporary audience and, more importantly, for future audiences. The
key to the repackaging is the folio form and above all the extraordinary paratextual
22. According
to KevinSharpe,the"growthof Protestantism
emphasizedthe importanceof the
word-both as rhetoricandas signification,"
whilein the"firstcenturyof printing,the royalword,
throughletters,proclamationsandspeeches,conveyedtheking'spowerto the cornersof the realm";see
Politics(Cambridge,2000),127.
EarlyModernEngland:TheCultureofSeventeenth-Century
Remapping
SeealsoKariKonkola,"'Peopleof the Book':TheProductionof TheologicalTextsin EarlyModern
England,"
PapersoftheBibliographical
SocietyofAmerica94 (2000): 5-33;andIanGreen,Printand
in EarlyModernEngland(Oxford,2000).
Protestantism
23. T.A. BirrellsaysthatJames's
librarywas"onthe one handa clearreflectionof his personaltaste,
andon the otherhandan organof state-but evenas an organof stateit reflectscertaindistinctive
personalpolicyinterestsof the monarch";seeEnglishMonarchsandTheirBooksfromHenryVIto
CharlesII:ThePanizziLectures
(London,1987),26,30.
24. SeeSTC14344(RobertBarkerandJohnBill),1616/7;STC14345with supplements(Barkerand
Bill),1620;STC14346(B.NortonandJ.Bill);STC14346.3withadditions1620;andSTC14346.5with
supplements(R.BarkerandJ.Bill),1620.
25.J.Sommerville,KingJamesVIandI:PoliticalWritings(Cambridge,1994),xix.Sommervillealso
arguesthatthe politicaloutlookof JamesI mustbe"setfirmlyagainstthebackgroundof continental
controversies."
ThroughallJames'stheoreticalwritingsrunsan argumentupholdingthe supremacyof
the king"againsttheoriesof legitimateresistancewhichcirculatedin Scotlandandon the Continent";
see"JamesI andthe DivineRightof Kings:EnglishPoliticsandContinentalTheory,"
in LindaLevy
Peck,ed., TheMentalWorldoftheJacobeanCourt(Cambridge,1991),55-70at 58.
26.PeterW.M. Blaneyestimatesthattherewerebetweenthirteenandsixteenthousandcopies
printed;seeJennyWormald,"JamesVI andI, BasilikonDoronandthe TrewLawofFreeMonarchies:
TheScottishContextandthe EnglishTranslation,"
in Peck,ed.,JacobeanCourt,36-54at 51-52.
27.EdwardArber,A Transcript
oftheRegisters
of theCompanyofStationersofLondon1554-1640,
vol. 3 (London, 1876), [93b] 23 March 1603.
28.SeeBarnard,"Politics,
Profits,"
394-95.
29. TheLatinversion,destinedfora Europeanaudience,is a faithfultranslationof the Englishin all
respects,but someissuesof theLatinhavesupplementarypieces;seeSTC14345-14346.5.
C'-
472
MARIA WAKELY C&GRAHAM REES
apparatusthat steersreaderstowarda "proper"understandingof the works. The paratext is, in Genette'sterms,trulyliminal, designed to mediate between readerand author,
text and print.30
No fewer than seven items precede the works proper. The first, an engraved
portraitof the king, facesthe second, the engravedtitle. The same plateswere used with
appropriatemodifications31-not least to the imprint (from Barkerand Bill to Norton
and Bill)-in the Latinedition. Both engravingsaresumptuous. The portrait,by Simon
van de Passe, one of the greatest exponents of the form, depicts the king seated in
majestywith the symbols of his rule. It invites the audience to contemplatethe image of
a divinely appointed and absolute ruler.32The verse beneath the image announces that
"knowledgemakestheKINGmostlikehis maker."Divine rightbecomes inseparablefrom
Bill'sname appearsbelow the verse, a
the self-authorization of the king's "knowledge."
of
instrument
he
was
a
that
reminder
James'sself-canonization, and not only
prime
here, for Bill acted as the King's"libraryagent"and acquired books for him from the
Continent. He regularly attended the FrankfurtBook Fairs,where he advertised the
king'sworks, and kept Jamesinformed on the pamphlet warswith Rome.33Bill'srole as
mediatorof royalauthoritywas, as we shallsee, farfrom negligible.
James'sportrait (or view from the throne) faces Renold Elstrack'sfantastic engravedtitle page, with its multitude of allegorical emblems and classical and religious
figures.RepresentingJames'skey symbols,34the title pagehints (ratherdirectly)thatjust
as the king is God'svicegerent, so the king'sword, now made flesh by the "Printersto ye
KingsmostexcellentMaiestie,"enjoysdivine favorand protection (see figurei). The title
pageand its symbolismfurtherassertthe king'sstill novel union of the crowns.He is, "By
thegraceof God,"not only defenderof the faithbut also"Kingeof GreatBrittaineFrance&
Ireland.35Meanwhile, the words of the title are flankedby the two figuresof Peaceand
trans.JaneE.Lewin,with a forewordby
Thresholds
30.GerardGenette,Paratexts:
of Interpretation,
RichardMacksey(Cambridge,1997),xvii.
31.Theking'sfaceis,forexample,reworked,andLatintextreplacestheoriginalEnglish.
materialis carefullyplanned,andits dialogicinputis a powerfulone forthe
32. Theparatextual
textsthatfollow.Theportraitis theversoof a leafwhoserectohasthefollowing:"A COLLECTION
KevinSharperightlyobserves,allJames'swritingswere"actsof
OF IHIS MAIESTIESI WORKES."As
a
the
sense
of
in
not
responseto challenges,but in thebroaderdidactic
polemical
only
government,
of His divine
sense:asattemptsto leadmen to God'sreasonandgoodnessthroughroyalrepresentation
these
serve
The
Modern
see
truths"; RemappingEarly
purposes.
England,135. engravingsexactly
33.ForBill'sworkasagentforthekingsee,forinstance,CSP(Dom),JamesI,1619-23,1619, vol.99,
June22 (105),p. 55.T.A.Birrell,in EnglishMonarchs,
arguesthatforthefirsttimetheKing'sPrinters-John
andBonhamNorton,andJohnBill-became "library
agentsin themodernsense,"withBillor one of his
stafftravelingviaParisto theFrankfurt
Fair,"tryingto selltranslationsof theBookof CommonPrayer
andof JamestheOathof Allegiance,to anunreceptivemarket"(p.26).AlsoseeGeorgeSmith,"The
1 (1900):167-79.Also
A Chapterin EuropeanLiteraryHistory,'TheLibrary
Frankfort[sic]Book-Mart:
seen. 8,above.
TitleTheEmblematic
34.SeeMargeryCorbettandRonaldLightbown,TheComelyFrontispiece:
see
and
also
in
Boston,
1;
35.
1979),
(London,
1550-1660
Henley,
Page England
challengeto English
35.ConradRussellpointsout thatunionof the crowns"offereda far-reaching
viewsaboutthe natureof Sovereigntyandof the State."See"JamesVIandI andRuleoverTwo
Kingdoms: An English View,"Historical Research76, no. 192 (May 2003): 151-63at 151.
JAMES
I, JOHN
BILL,
AND
THE
KING'S
PRINTERS
?_
473
I
A
q
rTHEn
WORKES
OF THE MOST HIGH
AND MIGHTY PRINCE,
lAMES,
I
vr
i.c.
otfod
t.)C:.,icC
......
ar of"t-'
IDCfdr.
_,
,I
.
Pibliflcd bv IES.I38OP of
.w?nr., a Dcancof lu
C Jpeoyall .
CM.G..
a.,
folau qcuenthee
R?,i:-a
m wnitLnsJiao hbart.
av and
FIGURE
1. Engraved title page from James I, CollectedWorks(1616). Huntington Library copy.
(-
474
MARIA WAKELY ~&GRAHAM REES
Religion, James'sfavorite representatives.36What greaterauthority (we are invited to
think) could separate works have than that they should appear with divine endorsement, as a collection, in the name of a king who was himself the ultimate authority for
all matterprinted in his much enlargedrealm,and with Barkerand Bill,the king'sown
printers,named on the engravedtitle?37
The engravedtitle is followed by five other preliminaries:a letterpresstitle page,
a magnificent page-length royal arms, dedication, preface, and a table of contents.
Leavingaside the arms and the table (even though tables have important paratextual
functions), the letterpresstitle is not only a bold reassertionof the king'sgreatness,but
it also gives more prominence than the engraved title allowed to James Montague,
"BISHOPofWinton, and Deane of his MAIESTIES CHAPPEL ROYALL, editor of
the works (in English and laterin Latin),and writer of the dedication and preface.The
dedication, to the Prince of Wales, is headed by a wonderfully delicate van de Passe
cameo portrait of Charles as a young boy (in the Workes)and as a young man (in the
Opera).The point of the dedication, authorizedby the king and by a prelateof the state
church, is absolutely straightforward:the book comes to Charles not for"Patronage"
and "Protection,"as is normal, but as a "Samplar"of God's law of succession: "the
Sonne hath his aduantage by succeeding; so in the Patterne, the Fatherby preceding
hath his Prerogatiue.Letthese Workestherefore,most GraciousPrince,lie before you as
a Patterne"(a3v-a4r). The new context given to the Workesand Operais very much an
exercise whose dominant motive was dynastic interest. The literary canonization of
James is also conceived as an assertion of Charles's hereditary legitimacy, of the
monarchicalprinciple, and of the future of the Stuartmonarchy.38
Montague's long preface advises the learned reader,critics of the king, and future generations to think of the collection and especially its author, as divine gifts:
"OnlyI desiretheReadersof theseWorkes,toprayto GOD, that he hathsofarreaduanced
forthe printhistoryof thesetwo figures:"The
36.SeeCorbettandLightbown,ComelyFrontispiece,
two allegoricalfiguresof ReligionandPeacerepresentthe twingoalsof James'spolicies,the evervigilantpromotionof the truereformedreligionandthe causeof peace'"(p.14). Theengravedtitle
alsoappearedin the LatinOperabuthadanotheroutingbeforethatwhenBil andNortonusedit for
thelawyerHumphreyDyson's1618collectionof titlesof James'sproclamations.Dysonlatersidedwith
Nortonin Bill'ssuitagainsthis partner;seen. 8 above.
37.Barnardpointsout thatJohnNortonpublishedCamden'sBritannia,whichfittedthe"cultural
BillhadbeenNorton'sapprenticeand,perhapsin virtueof
of theking's"'GreatBritain".'
aspirations"
hisbrilliantunderstandingof thebooktrade,inheritedNorton'sassociationwith James;see"Politics,
Profits,"
401.Isit an accidentthatthe riseof the SalopiansandBarker'sgradualdisplacementcoincides
not Norwiththe appearanceof ourfolios?PlomeraskswhyBarker'snameappearson the Workesbut
ton's("King'sPrintingHouse,"360).Butthe dateof publicationis February1617,so the realquestionis
alsowhyBill'snamedoesappear.Theansweris thatBill,andnot Norton,financedit;see CSP[Dom],
JamesI, 1611-18,1617,vol. 90, February 8 [53],p. 432.
38.Chartierclaimsthatdedicationsarenot unsymmetricalexchanges"betweenone personwho
offersa workandanotherwho accordshis patronagein a deferredandgenerouscountermove.It is
alsoa figureby meansof whichthe princeseemshimselfpraisedasthe primordialinspirationandthe
firstauthorof thebook thatis beingpresentedto him"(FormsandMeanings,42).Jameslosesnothing
in the dedicationto his son the futureking,but his authority,his divinegift,is reflectedandextended.
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
C_) 475
vs,as tobestowevponvs,withtheheauenlyTreasures
of histrewth,therichesofhisearthly
Iewelsin so Sacreda King"(e2v).Montagueliftsthe royalwritingsepideicticallyfar
abovethe"Booke-writing"
thathas"growenintoa Trade"
(b2v).In facttheking'sword
far
and
is
a
His
books (likeJames's)origisince
is not beneathGod's, God precedent
(blv)beforethecanonof HolyWritcametogether.So
nally"cameoutsofarreasunder"
whatcanbe wrongwithputtingtogetherworkswithso varieda history?Thisfoliois to
be takenasa whole,fora legacyto the futureandasa memoryof the king'sWordthat
will not perish"withthepresent,likeProclamations"
(b2v); it alsoliftsits constituent
worksabovetheiroriginalpolemicalcontexts(forexample,the pamphletwarswith
Rome).39Thusdoes Montaguegivea new settingin folio to a seriesof once separate
and (fromthe politicalpoint of view) occasionalwritings,now presentedas a collection in itswayno lesscanonicalthanScripture.Montagueadaptsthe Christiannotion
of canonicaltextsto suitthe worksof a livingauthor,quiteasthoroughlyasmodern
literaryhistorianshavedoneto suittheir(verydifferent)purposes.
As Henri-JeanMartinobserves,the"formatof a volumecouldreflectits symbolicvalueandhintatitsprospectivepublic.Heavyfoliovolumesstatedthedurability
of traditionandan intentto bringtogetherin an exhaustivewhole consecratedauThistradition
thorsandthe summasof religious,juridicial,or secularknowledge."40
with
an
act
of
self-canonization
the
becomes,
that,anticipating works'recepJames,
tion, extendedto the otherfolioswithwhichwe areconcerned.Indeed,allbut one of
theseotherswereactuallydedicatedto James.Thisin itselfis not unusual,forby"attractingdedicationsof certainkindsof works,a patroncoulddemonstratewherehis
interestsweremost engagedin mattersof religion,history,poetry,or otheraspectsof
ButJames'sself-promotionas a wiseandlearnedSolomon,a sacredking
learning."4'
and Rexpacificuswho ruledby the pen not the pike,42wentmuch further.It helped
sustainan idea and iconographyof kingshipsupportedby a selectbody of distinguishedauthors.Byacceptingthededicationsof thesetexts,andin somecasespressing
for theirpublication,Jameswas forginga link betweenthe folio form,the printed
word,andhimselfasprimemoverin thegenesisof epoch-makingeditions.
Howdeliberatethis was,andhow close Bill'sassociationwith the kingwasin
thisenterprise,is seenin the historyof James'sown folios.In June1616Jamesactually
orderedthe Stationers'Companyto forbidthe printingof any of his worksexcept
39.Atthe veryleastthe king'sfolio wasnot as easyforan opponentto tackleas a shortpamphlet.
In an agethatsawfailureto counteran argumentas tantamountto concedingit, andso riskingdefecPolitions,the book reaffirmedJames'smost cherishedprinciples;seeMichaelQuestier,Conversion,
tics, and Religion in England, 1580-1625(Cambridge, 1996),17.
trans.LydiaG.Cochrane(ChicagoandLondon,1988),310.
40.Martin,TheHistoryandPowerof Writing,
andthe Printingof LearnedWorksfortheAuthor,"
in JohnBarnard
41.GrahamParry,"Patronage
andD. F.McKenzie,eds.,TheCambridge
HistoryoftheBookin Britain,Vol.IV,1557-1695
(Cambridge,
2002), 174-88 at 174.
in JamesI, Workes,
42. ForJamesas Solomonandthe pen/pikecontrast,see"Tothe Reader"
b2v,e2r.
ForJames'slogocentricity,seethe claimthathe "andhis courtpreachers...set aboutthetaskof ruling
andthe
Englandbypolemic";LoriAnneFerrell,Government
byPolemic,JamesI, theKing'sPreachers,
Rhetoricsof Conformity,1603-1625(Stanford, Calif., 1998), 1.
C-X
476
MARIA
WAKELY
& GRAHAM
REES
those"weehaueCaused... to be reducedinto one volume and haueauthorised,licensedandComandedor trustieandwelbelouedseruantjohnbillandhis assignes"to
print,be it "eitherin the Lattinor englishtongue."43In fact,in the royalmind Bill
seems here and elsewhereentirelyto haveovershadowedboth RobertBarkerand
BonhamNorton,ashe wasalsoto do in thecaseof de Dominis'works.
Parts1and2
cN De Dominis,De republicaecclesiastica,
madepublicin foliobythe King'sPrinters,JamesI recontextualThroughhis Workes,
izedhispastwritings,lookedto theContinent,andto thefuture.Polemic,andalegacyin
print,werefor Jameswaysin whichthe monarchyoperated,andthis extendedto recruitingandenlistingscholarswho couldcollaboratewithhimandwritein supportof
hisviews.Jameswas"keento fishfordisaffectedCatholicswhosepresencein hiskingdomwouldaddweightto his claimsthattheChurchof Englandwasanembodimentof
thetrueancient,apostolicanduniversalchurch."44
He lookedin particularto Venice,
whereSirHenryWotton,45Britain'sfirstresidentambassadorto the MostSereneRepublic,keptthekinginformedaboutprominentVenetianswhoseanti-papalarguments
suggestedtheymightbe persuadedto defectto the Churchof England.Thepolitical
conflictbetweentheChurchof EnglandandtheRomanCatholicChurchwasof course
intensein theearlypartof theseventeenthcentury,46
andfaithin England"wasinextriwith
the
the
connected
fact
of
royalsupremacyand the challengeto it which
cably
definitionsof papalprimacyseemedto imply."47
anyeventthatchallenged
Accordingly,
papalclaims,especiallyin CatholicEurope,wasmeatanddrinkto James.
thevacillating
Hiswishto rebukepapalpretensionswasservedbytwoVenetians:
Marc'Antonio
de
and
the
of
historian
Paolo
Dominis,
great
renegadearchbishop Spalato,
to Rome.48
De Dominisarrivedin
Sarpi-both of themkeyfiguresinVenetianresistance
mostproficientdein
for
here
was
a
"the
1616,
James:
triumph
greatpropaganda
England
andherewasthe chanceto
fenderof designationtheoryin the earlyStuartperiod,"49
1602-1640
(London,1957),356.
43.WilliamA.Jackson,Records
oftheCourtoftheStationers'
Company
andRelapsedHeretic,
Venetian,
44. Noel Malcolm,De Dominis(1560-1624):
Anglican,Ecumenist,
(London,1984),38.
45.Ibid.,38n. 215:JamesviewedVeniceasthe"weakestlinkin the chainof RomanCatholicism,"
in theirattemptsto introducereformationthere."See
andWottonandJeanDiodatiwere"encouraged
alsoLoganPearsallSmith,TheLifeandLettersofSirHenryWotton,2vols.(Oxford,1907),1:90-95.
46. Ibid.,2:179:in 1619Wottonsuggestedto Jamesthat"heshouldurgethe GermanPrincesin the
King'snameto stopthebittercontroversiesbetweenthe LutheransandCalvinists"and"tounite
them,if not in opinions,yet at leastin a charitableconsentagainstthe practicesof the RomanChurch,
whichworkmost upon the scandalof our distractions."
5.
47.Questier,Conversion,
48.FortheVenetianquarrelwith the papacy,seeMalcolm,De Dominis,viii-x. Forde Dominis'
partin resistanceto PopePaulV,andhis acquaintancewithWottonandBedell,see JohnLeonLievsay,
VenetianPhoenix:PaoloSarpiandSomeofHisEnglishFriends,1606-1700(Lawrence,Manhattan,and
Wichita, Ks., 1973),28-29.
ed. (LondonandNewYork,
49. SeeJ.P.Sommerville,PoliticsandIdeologyin England1603-1640,4th
1995), 22-27.
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
C(' 477
attackthe doctrinalbase of the Counter-Reformationand rub in evidence of Rome'sdecline.50Here too was a job for John Bill, a man who had established connections with
Venicewhile he was therecollectingand buyingbooks for the Englishmarket.51
Through Bill's knowledge and expertise in the Continental book market,
de Dominis' work tapped into an established polemic. When he arrived in England
the context of his work and intellectual positions was immediately recognized.52 In
fact, Bill entered de Dominis' Profectionisconsiliumin the Stationers'Registeralmost
as soon as the Venetian prelate arrived.53This work was printed in Latin and English,
while an Italian sermon of his was entered to Bill in 1617and printed in Italian and
English.54Accordingly, when de Dominis' heavyweight De republicaecclesiaticaa defense of the rights of national churches-was published from 1617onward, his
name and his work were far from unheralded, and one of the chief trumpeters was
Bill himself.
Indeed, Bill had privileged access to de Dominis' texts,55and here again Bill's
standing with the monarchy is apparent.Jamesprotected Bill's (and his own) interest
in the rights to de Dominis' works, and this was perhaps a rewardfor Bill'shard work
50.SeeSmith,LifeandLettersof Wotton,2:100: "TheArchbishopof Spalatrois resolvedto endureno
longerthe idolatrousfooleriesof thisChurch,butwillwithina weekor sucha matterbeginhisjourney
towardsyourMajesty;of whosefavourI havegivenhim freshassurance,andI thinkhis departurewill
breedmuchnoise,beinga personof suchquality,andof singulargravityandknowledge."
Thewritings
of de Dominisareput on the IndexExpurgatorius
in 1616;seeCSP(Dom),JamesI, 1611-1618,
1616,89,
November 2 (3), p. 401.
Bodleianc:orsomegenuineremainsofSirThomasBodley(London,
51.SeeThomasBodley,Reliquce
1703).WithJohnNorton,JohnBillactedaslibraryagentandsupplierof booksto SirThomasBodley:
"HerearenewlyarrivedTwodryFatsof Books,whichJohnBillhathsentforme from Venice,andI expecteveryDaythe comingof otherShipswithmore"(p.66;alsoseep. 146).
52. SeeMalcolm,De Dominis,38.Afterthe publicationof James'sApologiefortheOathofAllegiance
in 1609,de Dominiswrotea defense(not now extant)of it thathe offeredto sendto DudleyCarleton.
53.Arber,Transcript
3:277(enteredin the Stationers'Registerto BillandWilliam
oftheRegisters,
Barrett,who alsoadvertisedat the FrankfurtBookFair;seealsoSTC6996and6998).Itis interesting
thatAndroHart,an Edinburghbooksellerwho hadcloseconnectionswithJohnNortonandJohnBill,
consiliumin LatinandEnglishin 1617,whichsuggeststhatJameswasstill
publishedProfectionis
influencingthe publishingof importanttextsin Edinburgh,throughthe Billconnection,afterthe
death of John Norton in 1612.
deDominis,laprimaDomenicadell'avvento
54.STC7003,PredicafattadaMonsr.Marc'Antonio
quest' anno, G. Billio, 1617,entered in the Stationers' Register,to Bill, 1 December, 1617;STC 7004, a
translationof the previousitem,A SermonPreachedin Italian,byMarc'Antony
deDominis,J.Bill1617,
enteredto Billin the Stationers'Registeron 20 December1617;STC7002,PapatusRomanus:liberde
origine,progressu,
atqueextinctioneipsius,OfficinaNortonianaapudI. Billium,1617.
55.Billcontinuedto enjoythisandroyaltrustafterde Dominisreturnedto Venicein 1622.Bill
printedM.Ant.DeDnisArch-Bishop
ofSpalato,hisShiftingsin Religion.A ManformanyMastersin 1624.
Theworkhasa prefaceby Bill-"The Printerto the Reader"-whichclaimsthatthetextis "aplaineand
trueNarrationof thepassages,
whichhauebeenebetwixthisMaiestie& theArchbishop
ofSpalata... byhis
Maiestiesspeciallappointmentanddirection....A transcript
whereofcomminghappilyto myhands,after
I hadperusedit, deemingit worthyofpublikecognisance,
I haueaduentured
topresentit vntotheein
print"(A2r-v).Thisbook effectivelyrepresentsJames'sofficialresponseto de Dominis'embarrassing
re-defection.ThatBillwrotethis addressindicateshis standing.Seealsothe Latintranslationof the
formerAlterEcebolus,
1624;andA relationsentfromRome,oftheprocess,
sentence,andexecution...
JohnBill,Printerto the King'smostExcellentMaiestie,1624.
(~-
478
MARIA WAKELY & GRAHAM REES
on the Continent hunting down books for the king and others.56 In fact a letter expressing the king'swill concerning the "printingeand bringinge ouer of the Bishoppe
of Spalatoesand Causabones workes"57was read at Stationers'Hall in 1618.It asserted
that Bill had, "heretofore by our direction, at his great coste and charges, printed in
faire good paper, and in a seemelie letter; verbatimaccording to the originall Copies,
diuers workes or bookes published in the Latine tongue" by de Dominis, Casaubon,
and others "byour command and permission."It pointed out that a greatmany copies
of these had been sent abroad, only to be confiscated by princely enemies of the true
faith, to Bill's"greatlosse and hindrance."Accordingly,the king ordered that no works
by de Dominis should be imported or printed by members of the Stationers'Company
and reaffirmedBill'ssole right to them.58Thus did James,by taking this very unusual
step, signal his particular interest in the writings of two important scholars, and, indeed, his trust in Bill.As for de Dominis, defection provided patronageand the chance
to print his works, and he acknowledgedthe patronageby askingJamesfor permission
to dedicate the published work to him. Jamesaccepted, but on the condition that the
dedication should not appearin copies that were for distribution overseas.59
The two partsof the massivede Dominis De republicaecclesiasticawereprintedin
1617and 1620respectively.LikeJames'sWorkesthey appearedin folio, with fine copperplate engravingsand elaborateparatext.60De republicabecame in effectpart of a canon
of fine folios contextualizingand promoting an anti-papaland royalsupremacistposition.61FollowingJames'sWorkes,De republicatries to develop,extend,and position itself
genericallyabove and outside the pamphlet wars with which it is associated.62As with
vol. go, March 29 (149), p. 454:warrant to pay to John
56. See CSP(Dom), James I, 1611-1618,1617,
Bill,Bookseller,in St.Paul'sChurchyard,
?469us. forbooks.
57.Dated3August1618;see Records
Company1602-1640,ed.WilliamA.
of theCourtoftheStationers'
Jackson (London, 1957),o101.
58. Ibid., 362-64; and W.W. Greg, A Companion to Arber(Oxford, 1967), 257-58.
59. See CSP(Dom), James I, 1611-1618,1617,vol. 92, July3 (82), p. 474. Jameshad been warned against
speakingto SarpiandFulgenziobecauseof the pope'sspies(SP [Venetian]),andwantedto distance
He stillhopedto lureSarpior his Historiato
himselffromanythingthatmightcauseembarrassment.
Englandandwantedto avoiddistressto theVenetians.AsforSarpihimself,he wishedthat"England
hada moreactiveandlessverbalking";see JonathanGoldberg,JamesI andthePoliticsofLiterature
3:278.De republica
(BaltimoreandLondon,1983),83.AlsoseeArber,Transcription
oftheRegisters,
ecclesiasticawasentered to Bill on 21 January1616(i.e., 1617).
60.A thirdpartwasprintedin doublecolumnsat Frankfurtin 1623.
61.De Dominis'ecumenistleaningsmayhaveappealedto Jamesbut so too did hisbeliefthata
kingwasonlyaccountableto God,withhis authorityandpowercomingstraightfromGodthe author
of nature,andnot fromthepeople.AsSommervillepointsout,"thesustainedtreatmentwhichhe
[deDominis]gaveto thequestionof the originsof governmentwasunequalledin contemporaryEnglishpoliticalliterature"
24).Forde Dominis,a kingmaybechosenbythe people
(PoliticsandIdeology,
but thereis no transferenceof powerfromthe peopleto
his
from
he
derives
so
and
men,
title
originally,
the monarch,as oncechosenthe monarchcanonlyderivehis powerfromGod-a theoryconfirmedby
an analogywithmarriage,wherethepowerof thehusbandwasconfirmedby Godnot bythewife,asa
wifecouldonlyconsentfora manto be herhusband.ForSommerville'sdiscussionof designation
22-27.
theoryandde Dominis,seePoliticsandIdeology,
62. Forpampletsagainstde Dominisin Veniceafterhis defectionto England,see LifeandLetters
of
Wotton:"letme entertainhis Majestywith a leafor two touchingtheArchbishopof Spalato,newly
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
C'? 479
James'sWorkes,the paratextof De republicais highly structured.An elaborateengraved
title pageby RenoldElstrackis followedby a descriptionof the contentsof the books and
an engravedportrait of de Dominis, againby Elstrack.63At the bottom of de Dominis'
portraitappearsJohnBill'sname as publisher,as it does at the bottom of James'sportrait.
The linking in print of the names of JohnBill and JamesI (the dedicateeof De republica)
was no doubt regardedas good for Bill, and it also brought a contextual authority to a
printedtext that was importantin James'senterprise.
For the purposes of our discussion, an arrestingfeature of the two de Dominis
volumes is that they appearedwith the following imprints:
LONDINI IExOfficina INortoniana IApud I10: BILLIVM I... IMD
CXVII.
and
IApud IIOANNEM:BILLIVM, I
LONDINI, IExOfficina INORTONIANA,
M. DC. XX.
The imprints identify the works as products of the Nortonian Office chezJohn Bill.
Even though Norton and Bill both regarded themselves as king's printers, however,
and even though both editions were printed with the same typographical materialsas
those used for producing our other folios, the printers do not here identify themselves
as King'sPrinters.
Why was that?Accordingto the Short-TitleCatalogue,the Officina Nortoniana
imprint was in use from 1605(that is, two yearsafterthe Nortons and Bill formed their
partnership) until around 1621.64The imprint seems to have been establishedby John
Norton, and Bill was usually involved in Nortoniana publications, with the likelihood
that Bonham Norton was a partner in the operation from the beginning. But, as
Barnardhas argued,the phrase"OfficinaNortoniana"was used in more than one sense:
as an entry in the Frankfurtcataloguesit refersto the shop establishedby John Norton
in Frankfurtin 1600, a shop that "soldbooks published by Norton and Bill" and "those
of other London booksellers along with some continental books."But in imprintsthe
phraserefersto books that the Nortons and Bill intended for sale through the Frankfurt
shop,65as well as,we may add, through their London outlet in the de Dominis case.
ashe calledthem... butfindingit to conpublishedherebya foolishfriar,amonga catalogueof 'Heretics'
tainthepraisesof hisformerlifeandonlythedispraiseof hispresentbelief,I wasnot onlywillingbutglad
to letit pass;andperchancetheauthorforthefirstpartmaybewhippedbythe Pope"(2:172).Wotton
also
of books"for"howgreedytheItalians
thoughtthatoneremedyforpapalcorruptionswasthe"dispersion
wereof ourtreatisesin matterof controversy,
andof diverswaysthathadbeenusedbothto excite,andto
of Spalato,sincehisretirementintoyour
satisfythatcuriosity,bothbytheworksof theArchbishop
Majesty's
protection;andof a discoursethatwasreadyto comeabroad,whereinshouldbe discovered... all
thepracticesof theCouncilof Trent";
Wottonrefersof courseto Sarpi'sHistoria(p.178).
vol.92, May28(50),p. 470.Archbp.of Spalatoto Carleton:
63.SeeCSP(Dom),JamesI,1611-1618,1617,
"Thinkstheengravingof himselfsentbyCarletonis good.Regretstheabsenceof HisMajesty";
p.454.
64. STC, 2:128.
65. Barnard,"The Financing of the Authorised Version 1610-1612, "35-40.
C('
480
MARIA WAKELY & GRAHAM REES
John Norton seems to have been associatedwith the Nortoniana in his capacity
as King'sPrinterin Latin,Greek,and Hebrew.The patent for this had been granted to
him in 1603,and Barkerwas awardedits reversion in 1604.Yet,when John died in 1612
Bonham must have acquiredthe reversion from Barker,for in 1613he was granted the
patent with the condition that he "provideany books requiredby the King in the said
languages."66So James in fact required Bonham Norton and John Bill to print the
de Dominis volumes. But James may also have wished to distance himself from the
possibility that the volumes might be read overseas as "official"government publications. After all, James had asked that the dedications to him be omitted from copies
destined for export, and Bill had his own special patent for de Dominis' works. These
circumstancesmay have persuaded the Shropshiremen to use their alternative,"Continental,"imprint, the one they had used several years earlierwhen, before they supplanted Barker,they brought out Casaubon'sriposte to Baronius-a riposte prompted
by the king.67That imprint would have placed the de Dominis editions via the Frankfurt shop directly into their target market-that is, the European rather than the domestic one. As we shall see with Sarpi,the de Dominis case seems not to have been the
sole instance in which Bill and Norton juggled imprints for political purposes, and in
their own interests.
c,' Paolo Sarpi and the Historia
From de Dominis we pass to his greatVenetiancontemporary Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623),
whose famous Historiadel ConcilioTridentinowas firstpublished in three differenteditions (Italian, English, and Latin) by the King's Printers. These editions probably
amounted to the greatest publishing coup of the period, for this was a work that presented a vivid, skeptical,blow-by-blow account of the Council of Trent,whose deliberations immediatelychangedand continued to changethe lives of all seventeenth-century
Europeans.As David Wootton has shown, here was a history of a new kind, "nevera
chronicle or mere narrative:the story of Trent,but the story of the failureof the reform
movement at Trent, and a history of disappointedhopes.68
Sarpi'searlierwritings were very well known to English readers,for he had become famous more than a decade before the publication of the Historiafor his part in
the dispute between Venice and the papacy in the years 1605-7, documents relating to
which were forwarded to London by Wotton. Sarpi's fame (or notoriety) increased
when his intellectual defense of Venice against the papacy made him a hero in Venice,
as did his refusal to appear in Rome to explain himself, an act that led to his excommunication. And more sensationally still, in 1607 he only just escaped death in an
66. Hunt, "Book TradePatents,"44.
67.Casaubon came to England in 1610under James'spatronage to assist the king against Peron
(STC 4740) and Baronius (STC 4745). Bill also used the Nortoniana imprint for three quarto editions of
polemical works: Robert Abbot's Degratia etperseverantia sanctorum (1618)and De supremapotestate
regia exercitationes(1619),and George Downame's Papa antichristus,sive diatriba de antichristo (1620).
68. David Wootton, Paolo Sarpi:Between Renaissanceand Enlightenment(Cambridge, 1983),104.
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
c('
481
assassination attempt said to have been inspired by Rome, an attempt that made his
name "legendaryas a defender of more than"'Venetian liberty.' 69 From the English
point of view it also encouraged the hope (one of JamesI's fondest) that Venice might
defect to the Protestantcause.
All this strengthened Wotton's determination to deepen divisions between
Venice and Rome.70He sent Jamescopies of Sarpi'sbooks and a portrait. Along with
other documents relatingto the Venice-Romecontroversy,the books were soon translated and published,71one of them having been entered in the Stationers'Registerto
Robert Barkerand printed in 1606 for none other than the indefatigable John Bill:
Afvll and satisfactorieanswerto the late vnadvisedbull, thvndredby PopePaule the Fift,
against the renowmed State of Venice... By Father Pavl of Venice,a frier of the order
ofSerui.72
Sarpi's Historia, heralded by the books mentioned above, was long thought
to have been brought in whole or part to England by de Dominis himself.73This impression may have begun to establish itself in English circles by Wotton's report in
one and the same letter (30 July1616)that Sarpi had completed the Historia and that
de Dominis' departure from Venice was imminent. But de Dominis in fact nowhere
claimed to have brought the manuscript of the entire work to England;still, it was natural that people should imagine he had done so, as he and Sarpiknew each other and
seemed to have adopted similar politico-theological positions. Certainlythe two were
associated in the mind of JamesI, especially when it seemed that Sarpi might follow
de Dominis to Englandin the winter of 1616-17;and when de Dominis in the next four
yearscompiled for the king news sheets based in part on secretinformation from Sarpi
concerning the Venetian state. In those circumstances it is not surprising that James
himself askedde Dominis to copyedit Sarpi'sHistoriafor publication.74
The fact is that de Dominis never brought more than a small sample of the Historia to England.75The sample may have been what persuaded George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury,to dispatch Nathanael Brentto Venice in the summer of 1618to
arrangea transcription of Sarpi'smanuscript, which was sent to England in fourteen
separate installments over a period of four months. By SeptemberAbbot was writing
to Brent to express his satisfaction and ask him to return to England. The fact that
Brenthad playedthe mediator'srole is corroboratedby evidence that accumulatedafter
Sarpi'sdeath,and duringBrent'sWardenship(1622-52)of MertonCollege,Oxford.76
69. Lievsay,VenetianPhoenix,18-19.
70. Ibid.,20.
betweenethePope,andtheSegnioryofVenice,
71.Forinstance,PaulV,A DeclarationoftheVariance
R.Barker,1606(STC19482);PaoloSarpi,AnApology,or,apologiticall
answere...concerning
theforceand
validitieofexcommunication,
1607(STC21757).
72. STC 21759.
73.Wootton,PaoloSarpi,107.
74.Malcolm,De Dominis,57.
75.Ibid.(p.570).
76.Ibid.,56;AnthonyWood,a protegeof Brent'satMerton,learnedthatin 1613and1614Brentthe
Wardenhadhad"dangerousadventuresin Italy,to procurethe HistoryoftheCouncilofTrent."
In 1627
c(
482
MARIA WAKELY &c GRAHAM REES
The Historia in its original language first appeared in 1619with the following
title and imprint:
HISTORIAIDEL ICONCILIOITRIDENTINO. I NELLA QVALE SI SCORONO I
tuttigl'artificiidella Cortedi Roma,per impedireI chene la veritadi dogmisi
palesasse,ne la I riformadel Papato,& della ChiesaIsi trattasse.IDII PIETRO
SOAVEI POLANO. I [King's arms] I IN LONDRA, IAppresso GIOVAN.BILLIO. I
RegioStampatore.I M. DCXIX.77
As we see, Bill'sname, this time in his capacity as King'sPrinter,appearedalone on the
title page;it also appearedalone on the colophon,78as was almostthe case with Bacon's
Instauratio magna. The author's name as given on the title page is (more or less) an
anagramof Paolo SarpiVeneto.79The dedicatoryletter (dated SavoyHouse, 1January
1619)is by de Dominis. The letter,addressedto James,and set in the beautiful italic font
also used a yearlaterfor Bacon'sInstauratiomagna,is a heady mixture of compliments
to the dedicatee, praise of the anagrammatonymous author, and implicit hopes of a
Venetian defection. Above all the letter eggs the sensationalist pudding with promises
that the work will expose the "arcani"of a secretive regime intent on suppressing the
truth, for this was a history"pieno di frodi, artificii humani, passioni, sforzi, violenze,
& inganni"(a2v). The readercan hardlywait.80
Unwilling to leave a gap in the market unfilled, the King'sPrintersfollowed up
the Italianversion of Sarpi'sHistoriawith two translations, into English and Latin,in
1620.The English version is equipped with an editorial title page even more mouthwateringthan the Italianoriginal:
THE IHISTORIE OF ITHE COVNCEL IOF TRENT. IConteining eight
Bookes. IIn which (befides the ordinarieActesof the Councell) Iare declared
many notableoccurrences,whichhappenedin IChriftendome, during the Jpace
of fourtie Iyeeresand more. IAnd,particularly,thepractifesofthe Courtof Rome,
to Ihinderthe reformationof theirerrors,andto main- Itainetheirgreatnefe.[52r]
In addition to the promise of a Trentgate expose of Papal chicanery-promises
amplified with relish in the dedicatory letter-the title page presents three further
Brent told Sir Roger Twysden that in Venice he could get nothing from Sarpi until the latter had
obtained guarantees from a friend in England that Brent was to be trusted. The friend was almost certainly de Dominis.
77.Sig. air.
78. Sig. 3Y4r.
79. Another half-hearted attempt to avoid embarrassment to Sarpi.
80. See Malcolm, De Dominis: "Sarpiwas evidently also embarrassed by the blatant hostility to
Rome expressed in de Dominis' dedication and subtitle: when he heard that Diodati was planning a
second Italian edition in Geneva, he wrote asking him to omit de Dominis' Epistle Dedicatory" (p. 57).
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
C"- 483
items:the namesof the authorandtranslator,the royalarms,andthe imprint.The
imprintnamesnotjustBill(thesoleprinternamedin theItalianedition)butBarkeras
well,andidentifiesthem,bothhereandin thecolophon(4b3r),astheKing'sPrinters.81
In short,this is anotherworkpublishedwith royalauthority.As for the authorand
translator,we learnthat"PietroSoauePolano"(thattransparentanagramagain)had
writtenit in Italianandthatit was"faithfullytranslatedintoEnglish"
by none other
thanNathanaelBrent.Theseelitepublishingprojectshada wayof co-optingandretainingthe servicesof importantandinterconnected,but penumbral,figuresforthe
transmission,translation,andeditingof ourfolios:Brent,JamesMontague,andaswe
shallsee Bedelland SirAdamNewton,not to mention Bill,Barker,andNorton.All
editionsarea productof teamwork,butthesemorethanmost.
TheEnglishtranslation
bearstwodedicatory
letters,to JamesI andGeorgeAbbot,
Thefirstaddresses
Jamesastheprimemover"inthebuilding
archbishopof Canterbury.
or
it
turns
into a diatribeagainstthe machinaof
Gods
Church"
before
up, repairing
tions of the Romanists.Thediatribecontinuedwithundiminishedzealin the second
dedication,which is, of course,a note from one participantin the Sarpicoup to
another;andit is apparentwherethePuritanBrentis comingfrom:
is theforceof truth,andthediuineprouidenceso great,
[S]o irresistable
thathowsoeuertheRomanistshauevsedallpossiblediligenceto hinder
thefindingout of theirvnlawfullproceedingsin thisCouncell,bysuppressingallpubliquewritingsandmonuments,bywhichtheirtreacheriesandabusesmightbe discoueredmoreplainelyto theeyesof the
world,thewriterof thisHistorie(amanof admirablelearning,exquisite
industrie,andintegritiescarcelyto be matched)
iudgement,indefatigable
hathbeeneraisedvp byGod,who,out of the Diaries,Memorials,
Registers,andotherwritings,madeandpreseruedbythe PrelatesandDiuines
of PrincesandRepubliques,
who
themselues,andbytheAmbassadours
wereassistantsherein(whicharethemostinfalliblegroundsthatany
writercanhaue)hathreuealedaninfinitieof intolerableabuses,and
(as the prouerbe saith) Cornicumoculosconfixit.82
To give an Englishequivalentof the Latinproverb,Brentwas one of the close-knit
groupof participantsin the HistoriadelConcilioaffair,allmembersof whichthought
thatSarpihad"caughta weaselnapping,"andthathe deliveredinto the handsof the
reformersa devastatingpropagandaweaponthatappearedto strikeat the veryroots
of Counter-Reformation
doctrine.
81. LONDON
IPrinted by ROBERTBARKER,and IoHN BILL,IPrinters to the Kings most
Excellent IMAIESTIE.IANNO DOM. M.DC.XX.
82. Sigs.56r-v;the romananditalictypeof the originalhavebeenreversedhere.
C-
484
MARIA WAKELY & GRAHAM REES
The third version of Sarpi'sHistoriais the Latin (STC21764), which is entitled:
IHISTORIAE ICONCILII I
PIETRISVAVISIPOLANI
TRIDENTINI ILIBRIOCTO,IExItalicisJ
ummafide&accurationeLatinifacti.
Theimprint,comprisingno informationconcerningprinteror publisher,announces
I M. DC. XX."),
only the place of publication and date ("AVGVST, TRINOBANTVM.
andthe sameformulais usedin the colophon(3Mr).Theunnamedprinterorprinters
of coursewouldhavebeenBilleitheraloneor with Barkeror Norton-that muchis
Asfortheadobviousfromthetypography,
ornaments,andmethodsofproduction.83
dress,thatgoeswiththe anagram(of the author'sname)andanonymity(of theprinters), for it is a coylyostentatiousantiquarianname for London84that would have
puzzledno one,butit mayhavehelpedmaketheeditionseemlesslikethegovernmentinspiredinitiativethatit probablywas.
TheeditionlackstheKing'sPrinter'saddressanda dedicationto thekingor anyone else;andno translatoris named.Bywayof additionalparatextwe havelittlemore
letter-"CHRISTIANOPIOQVELECTORIS."thanthetranslator's
introductory
withthe
whichpromisesamazingrevelationsof secretsin goodLatinandin accordance
In
fact
the
translaBut
was
the
translator?
historical
truth.85
who
of
standards
highest
tion maywellhavebeena cooperativeeffortundertakenbypeoplecloseto thegovernmentandto Venetianaffairs,forit seemsthatthe firsttwobooksweretranslatedbythe
Scot SirAdamNewton (d. 1630),the next four by de Dominis, and the last two by
WilliamBedell.BedellhadbeenWotton'schaplainin Veniceandwasan old friendof
Newton's.Newtonhimselfhadbeena memberof PrinceHenry'shouseholdand,after
or treasurer,in the householdof
the deathof the latter,he becamereceiver-general,
into
PrinceCharles.NewtonhadalreadytranslatedJamesI'sDiscourseagainstVorstius
Latin.86So againindividualscloseto the kingprovedveryserviceable,andthe King's
Printersstoppeda gapin themarketfora momentousworkbeforeanyoneelsecould.87
'-
Thomas Bradwardine,De causa Dei
the
andpart1of de Dominis'De republica,
Printedin 1618afterJames'sEnglishWorkes,
De causaDei seems to standapartfrom the other
editioprincepsof Bradwardine's
folios.Thetitlepagereads:
On methodsof pro83.Therangeof fonts,ornaments,andthe historiatedinitialsis unmistakable.
below.
duction,see"Postscript,"
84.AugustaTrinobantumasa nameforLondonseemsto haveoriginatedwith Geoffreyof Monarementionedby CaesarandTacitusbuttheyneverreferto a
mouth.TheBritishtribe,the Trinobantes,
townon the siteof present-dayLondon.Thenamewasusedby otherprinters;see,forinstance,
WenceslausHollar'sfamous1647longviewof London.
85.Sigs.4r-7v.On 3rthereis a prayer.
86.Lievsay,VenetianPhoenix,52;alsoseeGilbertBurnet,TheLifeof WilliamBedell,D. D. Bishopof
Kilmore(Dublin,1758):"SirAdamNewtontranslatedthe firsttwo Booksof the Historyof the Council
so thattheArchbishopof Spalatasaidit was
of Trent,butwasnot masterenoughof the two Languages;
not the sameWork;buthe highlyapprovedof the two last,thatweretranslatedbyMr.Bedell"(p.17).
87.Accordingto Lievsay,in VenetianPhoenix,52-53,neweditionsappearedveryrapidly-in
Frankfurt (1621),Geneva (1622), and Leyden (1622).
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
C"
485
IARCHIEPISCOPI OLIMI
THOMVEIBRADWARDINI
I
DE
CAVSA
DEI, ICONTRA PELAGIVM, I
CANTVARIENSIS,
ETDEVIRTVTECAVSARVM,IAd JuosMERTONENSES,ILIBRI TRES: I
Ivssv REVERENDISS. GEORGII IABBOT ICantuarienfisArchiepifcopi;I
inAcademiaI
OPERAETSTVDIO DiHENRICI ISAVILII,CollegijMertonenfis
OXONIENSI Cuftodis, IEx fcriptisCodicibusnuncprimum editi. I [device] I
[rule] LONDINI, IEX OFFICINA NORTONIANA, IApud IOANNEM
BILLIVM. IM.DC.XVIII. I [rule]88
At firstsight this could be takenfor an act of marginalsocial or politicalimport-a piece
of pious antiquarianismin which one Oxford academictried to recoverthe extinct reputation of another.Yetits publication,under the Nortonianaimprint,was authorizedby
the same GeorgeAbbotwho had had a hand in the appropriationof Sarpi'sHistoria,and
its text was editedby the superlativescholarand public man SirHenry Savile.
Savilehad not only helped Jameswith the Apologie,he had also been one of the
translatorsof the KingJamesBible,and he was Wardenof Merton and Provostof Eton,
a post in the gift of the king. At Eton Savile had edited and paid for the printing, by
Melchisidec Bradwood, of the tremendous folio edition of Chrysostom that had appearedwith John Norton's imprint in 1610-12.89 In short, he was a top-rate intellectual
with an international reputation, a degree of status that conferred authority on the
Bradwardine.He had literaryconnections with Nathanael Brent and Thomas Bodley,
and in 1619was arbitratorin the row over the King'sPrinterpatent.90
Savilededicatedthe Bradwardineto the king, and explicitlyin the latter'scapacity
as champion of the true faithas and patronof learning,91and it is in James'srole as propagator that the political and religious significance of the edition lies. Bradwardinewas
one of the greatest and most original of the fourteenth-century philosophers, and his
critiqueof Pelagianismhad come to be positioned as a precursorof key strandsin Reformation thought.92 Accordingly, it chimed in with James'sdistrust of the Arminians
(whom he compared with the "Pelagiansof old")93and his resultingworries about the
Synodof Dort-an affairthat,incidentally,also caughtthe attentionof the tirelessBill.94
There is no doubt about how the readerwas meant to understand and locate this text.
Disputes over authority became a key Reformation concern during James'sreign, but
88.Sig.air.
89.JohnNortonwasthenKing'sPrinterforLatin,Greek,andHebrew.AlsoseeBarnard,"Politics,
Profits,"400.
go. Plomer,"King's
PrintingHouse,"360.
91. Sig. air.
A Viewof Timeanda VisionofEternityin
92.EdithWilksDolnikowski,ThomasBradwardine:
Fourteenth-CenturyThought (Leiden, 1995),7.
93. See CSP(Dom), James I, 1619-1623,vol. 99,30 May (60), p. 49. Dr. Geo. Carleton, Bp. of Llandaff,
reportstheking'sremarkto SirDudleyCarleton.
94. SeeSTC7066,TheIvdgementoftheSynodeholdenatDort... London,IohnBill,M. DC.XIX;
enteredto Billin the Stationers'Register21July1619:"tobe printedif the translaconshalbefurther
3:653).
approoued"(Arber,Transcript
of theRegisters,
(-"
486
MARIA WAKELY
& GRAHAM
REES
the Pelagianassertionof human freewill, which underminedthe absoluteauthorityand
centralityof God, would have especiallyunsettled James.In a letter to de Dominis, Fra'
Fulgenzio Micanzio expressesconcerns that would be well known to James:"Iremember that in a summaryof the opinions of the Arminians,not only myselfbut PadrePaolo
[Sarpi] had a conceit that howsoever it be esteemed, yet that it is a very dangerous
doctrine unto the Reformed Religion, and that going along by a Pelagianismit would
introduce Jesuitismwhich in very deed tend covertlyto displantChristianism.'95
The meanings that an audience would have assigned to Bradwardine'stext
would, of course, have been dialogic, but Savile'sfolio, with its scholarlypreliminaries,
addressed an ideal, unified scholarly audience, and was directed to them by means of
James'spatronage and the order of discourse that patronage had developed in print
through Bill, Barker,and Norton. In Bradwardine's"vindicationof the absolute necessity of God's will as first cause in every human act,"96there is an implicit parallel and
appeal to James'sneed for a tradition to inform his theory of divine right. In De causa
Dei, Bradwardinechargesthe Pelagianswith "subvertingGod's will by freewill"and of
making God its servant not its master."97In the preface, Savile familiarizesthe reader
with Bradwardine'slife (a2r-a3r)and undermines any Counter-Reformationcriticism,
elevating Bradwardine'sreputation by listing tributes to him, quoting, among others,
Chaucerand the pope-"Ad nostrum vero Bradwardinumvt redeamus;Profundicognomen" (a3v). It is almost as if Savilewere trying to reclaim Bradwardineas a national
figurein philosophy in the same way that Chauceralreadyhad been for a national poetry,and that Savilewas using Chaucer'sstatus as auctorto amplify Bradwardine'sauthority.98In short, the Savile Bradwardineis as much an exercise in establishing and
expressingauthorityas arethe other folios we haveexamined:monarch,enlargednation,
and a centralstrandof Calvinistdoctrine arereaffirmedtogether.99
All the folios considered so far throw light on a document part-published by
that
deservesmore attention than it has received.The folios were unusual enough
Greg
to have been rememberedby JohnBill'sassigneesmore than a decade aftertheir publication. They reminded the government that Bill had done Jamesservices "beyond ye
Seas... often to ye hazardof his life especiallyin discouering the printer and author of
yt vnparrelled wicked booke called Corona Regia'"But Bill "had never any reward"
either as fearless detective or as the printer who, at royal command and his own expense, brought out a number of very costly editions, among which were specified all
the folios examined above: "King Iames his woorkes alltogeather very faire and
95. Petworth MS. 62, pp. 119-25,cited byV. Gabrieli, "Bacone, la riforma e Roma: nella versione
Hobbesiana d'un carteggio di Fulgenzio Micanzio,"in EnglishMiscellany8 (1957):195-250 at 227.
2.
96. Dolnikowski,ThomasBradwardine,
A StudyofHisDe CausaDei andItsOpponents
andthePelagians:
97.GordonLeff,Bradwardine
(Cambridge, 1957),15.
98.ForChaucerandliteraryauthority,seeKevinPask,TheEmergence
of theEnglishAuthor:ScriptingtheLifeof thePoetin EarlyModernEngland(Cambridge,1996),36.
99.Thiseditionof De causaDei alsosupportedthe Churchof England'sclaimsthatitstheoryof
seeMalcolm,DeDominis,62.
predestinationwasan expressionof traditionalAugustinianism;
JAMES
I, JOHN
BILL,
AND
THE
KING'S
PRINTERS
C% 487
Chargeablefor Lattine and English... Bradwardinede Causa Dei ... Bishop of Spalatoes woorks of great Charge & losse ... The history of ye Counsell of TrentIn English
Lattine & Italien."These works, then, appear to have become printed books through
the concurrence of chance, royal policy, and, if we are to believe this document, Bill's
very special position vis-a-vis the crown. In fact the position was so privileged that Bill
seems only to have survived its costs by"having a great estate otherwise to support
him."100It is also telling that the last of our folios, Bacon's Instauratio magna, is not
mentioned in this document at all, which perhaps corroborates what independent
evidence suggests101-that the LordChancellor,jumping on the elite-folio bandwagon
set going by the king, financed it himself.
C Francis Bacon, Instauratio magna
We now come to the most important folio, Bacon's 1620 Instauratio magna, a metawork that laid out a six-part plan for the reconstruction of knowledge, that presented
the Novum organum-the mighty yet unfinished key to Bacon'splans for the reform
of philosophy-and that in its imaginativesweep and historicalimportance surpassed
even Sarpi'sgreathistory.This work needs close attention, for its author and its character as an elite folio epitomize some of the main themes and individuals with which we
have been concerned.
Bacon was then at the height of his power:he was LordChancellor,thereforethe
chief government law officer, and so a member of the innermost circle of the Stuart
ruling elite. In him we see the filaments that connect the men responsible for the
1616-20 folios from a fresh angle. Bacon himself was of course a royal appointee; he
had known James since the latter's accession, had been promoted by him to successively higher and more remunerativeposts, and had been an unwaveringsupporter of
James'spolicies.
Baconalso had close relationswith de Dominis, who was not only the recipientof
Bacon'spersonal patronage'02but also became involved, shortly afterbringing out the
firstpartof De republica,in anotherliteraryenterprise,the publicationof Italiantranslations of two Bacon works:the 1609 edition of De sapientiaveterumand the 1612edition
of the Essayes.Indeed,de Dominis was almost certainlythe translatorof most of the latter and all of the former. The two Italian versions, whose publishing history was as
involved as the circumstances of their translation,103appeared in a single volume
1oo.Greg,Companion,
257-58(Gregpublishedonlythe firstpageof thistwo-pagedocument;see
SP[Dom] Charles I, 16/167/72-3).The list also includes the three quartos mentioned in n. 67 above. The re-
lationshipbetweenBillandJameswasimplicitlysatirizedin print.In1615Coronaregia,theinfamouslibel
on James,wasprintedandcirculatedthroughoutEurope.Thewritingandprintingwereattributedto
CasaubonandBill,respectively;
it causeda massivescandal,andJameswasmockedthroughoutEurope.
See also Smith, Lifeand Letters,for Henry Wotton's attempt to discover the author of the work (2:92,280).
o10.FrancisBacon,TheInstauratiomagnaLastWritings,
ed. GrahamRees,the OxfordFrancis
Bacon (hereafter OFB),vol. 13(Oxford, 2000), Ixxvii.
102. Malcolm, De Dominis, 53.
103.Seeibid.,47-54,forthe identityof thetranslatorandthe convolutedpublishinghistoryof the
translations.
C"' 488
MARIA WAKELY
& GRAHAM
REES
printed,incidentally,by JohnBill in 1617/18.Bill also printed the firstEnglishtranslation
of De sapientiain 1619.104
Bacondid not of coursehave anydirectconnections with Sarpi(the formernever
visited Italy and the latter never came to England), but via de Dominis, and the other
men who had arrangedmatters so that Sarpi'shistory was published in England first,
he certainly had direct knowledge of Sarpi'swork. Far closer were Bacon's relations
with Sir Henry Savile,as his early Letterand Discourse... touchinghelpsfor the intellectualpowers105and his late commendations of Savile as a benefactor of Oxford abundantlytestify.106
As for Barker,Bill, and Norton, they had dealings with Bacon other than those
that led to Bill'sprinting of the works noted just above. In 1617Bill found himself in a
legal tussle with Mrs. Ogden over the right to print Confutation ofthe Rhemish New
Testament,written by her father,William Fulke;and at one stage in that dispute Bacon
had been involved in his judicial capacity.107But far more serious was that his court,
Chancery,was the one in which the vexed case concerning rights to the office of King's
Printerhad been brought. In fact the Chancerycase may have been the very reason for
a strangefeatureof the LordChancellor'sown elite folio, Instauratiomagna.That work
was printed with a colophon crediting both Bill and Norton as partner-King's Printers, but the colophon was subsequently struck out and replacedby another giving the
honor to Bill alone. Tellingly,the cancellansmatches the sole imprint found on the famous engravedtitle of the work:"LONDINI IApud loannem Billium ITypographumI
Regium"-no mention of Norton there.108
As for the engravedtitle itself,thatwas anothermasterpieceby Simon van de Passe
(see figure 2), engraverof the portraits of Jamesand Charlesadorning the Englishand
Latinversionsof JamesI's collected works. In fact,van de Passewas virtuallyJohn Bill's
"house" engraver, for he was soon to produce the beautiful, solemn memorial
portrait of Ann Bill, John'sfirst wife.109Central to the engravedtitle is the imagery of
104. See STC 1153,1153a,1154:Saggi morali ... con un altro trattato della sapienza degli antichi. Also
see STC 1130:The Wisdomeof the ancients. Done into EnglishbysirA. Gorges.Bill also printed a new edition of the Latin Desapientiain 1617(STC 1128),and a second edition of the English translation in 1619
(STC 1131)and a variant of the same in 1620 (STC 1132).
105. This piece was written at some point between 1596and 1604, specifically for Savile, and Bacon
thereaddresseshim in the most cordialterms;see TheWorksofFrancisBacon,ed.JamesSpedding,
RobertLeslieEllis,andDouglasDenon Heath,7 vols. (London,1859-64):"Comingbackfromyour
invitationat Eton,whereI hadrefreshedmyselfwith companywhichI loved,I fellinto a consideration
of thatpartof policy,whereofphilosophyspeakethtoo muchandlawstoo little;andthatis the Education of youth"(7:97).
106.SeeLettersandLife,6:324;7:544,where,givinginstructionsin hiswillfortheendowmentof lec(i.e.,the chairsof geometry
tureships,BaconrecommendedthatSavile'sexamplein founding"lectures"
andastronomyat Oxford)be followed.
107.Clegg, PressCensorship,42-43.
108.SeeFrancisBacon,TheInstauratiomagnaPartII:NovumorganumandAssociated
Texts,
ed. Graham Rees with Maria Wakely,the Oxford Francis Bacon, vol. 11(Oxford, 2004), c-ciii, 599-601.
in part by
1og. For Anne Bill's portrait, see A Monument ofMortalitie, 1621(STC 22621)-printed
JohnHodgetts,a formerapprenticeto WilliamNorton;seeMcKerrow,
DictionaryofPrinters,139.
-~~~~_-
t
JAMES
I, JOHN
BILL,
AND
THE
KING'S
-X
PRINTERS
489
j^.^^^^~~~~~,^
~~~G~~~~,n!"~
V
5..'
:.
i
'i. s
-
.-
^
-''^
-^*^:
^' '"^'F
_:
;
.
'
s -='~^
__ -
^_
,
_
1
)~~~~~~~~
. ..\==~~~
._-
i
-3
~
-i
l
:v -
]
_
_
-
'S~~~~~~~~
-.3~~~~~~~
I
..
j~~??
1
I
.
.I
- .A
.-doM
FIGURE 2. Title page from Francis Bacon, Novum organum (1620). Huntington Library copy.
C-
490
MARIA WAKELY
& GRAHAM
REES
the Pillarsof Hercules,the figurativedenialof theirprohibition(Non ultra),andthe
&augebiturscientia),l10
Danielprophecy(Multipertransibunt
ideasthatwereinseparablein Bacon'smind.lll Lastly,the wordingof the title pageis all about authority
and self-projection,for besidesthe Danielprophecyand the imprintof the King's
Printerthereis the following:FRANCISCII DE VERULAMIO
/ I SummiAngliaeI
Imagna."-firstBacon'sChristiannamein the largest
CANCELLARII
/ IInstauratio
letters;next his title, and then his high office;and finallythe title of the work in
beautiful,but rathersmall,calligraphicitalics.Butno matter,for,in a particularly
brutalpiece of titular reduction, few people use it, preferringto call the volume
Novumorganum,andso confusinga projectedmeta-workwithone of itsparts.
Theengravedtitlemarksthebeginningof a paratextualextravaganza.
Thetitle
is succeededbysevenfurtheritems:Firstcomesa short,magisterialexordium,or setof
preliminaryobservations,on the aimsof the Instauratiomagna.Deliveredin a vatic
thirdperson,the exordiumoffersa steelysummaryof capitalthemesreiteratedin the
pagesto come, and it is the more remarkablefor being untitled-unless Baconbe
the title himself,for the exordiumbeginswith the tremendoustones of a "biblioDE VERVLAMIO,SIC COGITAVIT;
graphicego"at full stretch:"FRANCISCVS
APVDSErationeminstituit,quamViuentibus&Posterisnotamfieri,
TALEMQVE
interesse
putauit."Here,wherenameandreputationoutweigha booktitle,is
ipsorum
writlarge.12
Genette's"onymity"
Next comes the letterof dedicationto JamesI. This,overthe signature"FRANCiscVS
(the thirdappearanceof Bacon'sname and title in the
of
five
addresses
the king as masterbut also as learnedman and saleaves)l3
space
andJames'sreignasaspectsof theundivided
vant.l4 Baconassociateshis Instauration
He
also
drives
home
the comparisonof Jameswith Solomon
Providence.
of
working
in thehopethatJameswillprojectit furtherbyfundingBacon'snatural-historical
program.Theimplicitreferencehereis to 1Kings4:33,whichtellsus thatSolomonspoke
of allthingsbotanical,fromthe cedarof Lebanonto the hyssopthatspringsfromthe
wall-a passageBacontook to meanthatSolomonhadcompileda naturalhistoryof
plants.15This remindsus both of the centralityof naturalhistoryto Bacon'snew
philosophyandthatthe monarchyalonecouldgivethe notionsubstance.It is alsoan
adroitpieceof intertextualschmoozingthatremindsus (thatis, readersroyalandnotof JamesI,
so-royal)of the editor'sprefaceto the 1616Englishversionof the Workes
VERVLAM, CANCELLARIVS"
et multiplexeritscientia,"
whichis much
nlo.TheVulgate(Daniel12:4)has"plurimipertransibunt,
closer to the one that Bacon uses later in Novum organum (p. 150):"Multipertransibunt, & multiplex erit
scientia"
111.See De augmentis scientiarum, 03v-4r.
112.Bacon, The Instauratio magna Part II, 2-3; also see Genette, Paratexts,39-42.
113. Sigs. lTir-f4r (TTlvand -52 are blank).
114.OFB,4:xxxviii-li, 3-5.
115.For Bacon's interpretation of i Kings 4:33see Advancement of Learning,OFB,6:36,236. For an
importantsurveyof thebackgroundto Bacon'sreferencesto Solomonandnaturalhistory,seeHenri
Nouvellesdela
Durel-Leon,"Bacon,Salomon,et la promotionde la botaniqueen Angleterre,"
republiquedes lettres(1999), no. 2,7-37.
JAMES
I, JOHN
BILL,
AND
THE KING'S
PRINTERS
C(-
491
whereJamesMontague,proclaimingthatauthorshipis a fit occupationfora king,recallsthat amongSolomon'smanywritingswas a naturalhistory,"BirdsandBeasts,
Fowlesandfishes, Treesandplants,from theHysopto the Cedar."l6
Afterthededicationcomestheprefaceto theInstauratio
magna,whichis a distillationof centralthemesdevelopedmorefullyin Novumorganumitself.Theprefaceis
followedbythe Distributiooperis,the planandprospectusof the six-partInstauratio,
andthe final(or almostfinal)preliminarybeforethe Novumorganumitself.17 Thisis
canonformationwitha vengeance,forit is a prospectusfora wholecorpusof workyet
to be written:onlypart2 of the Instauratioactuallyappearsin the volume;andonly
now afternearlyseventhousandwordsdevotedto fivemeta-textualpreliminariesto the Instauratio
preliminaries
magnaasa whole,notjustto Novumorganum-do we
to
Novum
itself.Wellalmost-for evenherewearedetainedbyan uncome the
organum
andthatweareto proceed
is notavailable
titlepagetellingusthatpart1of theInstauratio
the
2.
we
are
with
to
Then
presented
letterpresstitlepageto Novum
immediately part
Then
atlastfollowsthedense,alluwith
the
device.
printer's
organumproper,together
Wasevera worksuppliedwithso manyantechambers
siveprefaceto Novumorganum.
of the Bacon
andpreparatives
to the maintext?Theverycharacterand mise-en-page
form
a
noble
and
emblem
and
of
the
text
of
the
1620
of hisphimeta-text,
folio,
arresting
losophy,an openphilosophy,as incompleteas it wasnew,and one in whichincompletenesswaspartof its novelty.TheunfinishedNovumorganum,andthe unfinished
Instauratio,or greatrenewal,wereaddressedto a posteritythathadbeen affordeda
futureto be shapedbyhumanhandsandwithnewtools:a greatworkof
reconfigured
philosophypresentedin a stupendouspieceof bookproduction.
c-< Postscript: How did they do it?
On the subjectof book production,we wantto finishby lookingverybrieflyat how
Bill,Norton,andBarker,
consideringtheyhada greatmanyotherthingsto do,printed
these big books.Wecould,and in futurewill, look at problemsof how composing,
castingoff,printer'scopy,imposition,andpressworkwerearrangedandconducted.
Butatthe momentwe willlook onlyatwhatthe evidenceof skeletonformessuggests
abouttheproductionof thesebooks.
A folio formewhensentto the presscomprisestwo type-pagesanda skeleton.
Theskeletonhasthreeessentialcomponents(chase,furniture,andquoins),andtwo
accidental(headlineandrules).Thechase,a rigid,rectangular
ironframe,hastwotype
in
it
and
the
with
accidental
these,
pagesplaced
together
components,arelockedinto
thechasewiththequoinsandotherwoodenfurniture.Theaccidentalor typographical
components(headlineandrules)showup on thepagesof the editionand,sinceskeleton formescouldbe usedtime andtime again,theirrecurrencescanbe tracked,and
thereforeallowus to drawinferencesaboutthe text'stransmissionthroughthe press.
116.Sig. b4r.
117.OFB,6:xvii-xxxv; 13:xix-xxix.
(-'
492
MARIA WAKELY & GRAHAM REES
In his classicstudyof the Shakespeare
FirstFolio,CharltonHinmanwasdealingwith
one- oratmosttwo-skeletonproduction-that is,oftenonlyone skeleton(thoughnot
alwaysthesameone)wasin useatanygivenpointin theFolio'sproduction,andsometimestwoskeletonswerein useforalternateformes.118
Butherewe arefacedwithvery
differentandasyetunrecordedpatternsof production.
and
Webeginby askinghowmanyskeletonformeswerein use simultaneously,
forhowlong eachof thoseskeletonspersistedin the productionof the Bradwardine.
TheBradwardine
is,likemostof oureditions,a folioin 6s,butif weleaveasidethepreliminaries(Tr1,
a6-b6,c4),alltype pagesfromA6to 2Q6wereimposedin one of five
forthiswholethirty-nine-quire
skeletons,fivethatkepton goingwithoutreplacement
of
six
leaves
was
Each
successive
quire
printedusingfiveskeletons.Thenall
sequence.
of a suddenthreeskeletonsweredropped,and the next four quires(2R-2V) were
wroughtoffusingthe remainingtwo.Oneof the threeleftasidethenre-emerged,and
withthetwojustusedfor2Vappearedin allbutone (3F)of theremainingthirtyquires
(2X-4D).Five-skeleton
operationdropsto two- andthenrisesto three-skeleton.
As a secondexampleconsiderthe LatinSarpi,which startswith four-forme
working(B-D). Theprintersthenadvancedto five-skeletonworking,andthesesame
simultaneous
useforthenextnineteenquires(E-Z).Oneof
fivestayedin uninterrupted
theseskeletonswasthendroppedasfour-skeleton
workingwasresumed(2A-2H).At21
thedroppedskeletoncomesbackagainasfive-skeleton
operationstartsagain.After2Q
the lucklessfifthskeletonwasdroppedagain,andthe remainingquiresof the edition
wentfromfour-skeleton
(2R-2V) to three-(2X) to four-(2Y-3C), to three-(3D)to twoto
to
three(3F-3G), two- (3H),andfinallybackto four-skeleton
(3E),
working(3I-3K).
Allskeletonsat the end hadbeenpresentat the beginning,andno matterhow fewor
manywerein use,allwerealwaysdrawnfromsamegroupof fivethathadbeenpresent
in quireE.Andthatmeansthatup to threeskeletonsmusthavebeenstandingidlebut
undisturbedfromtime to time asworkon the editionproceeded-that is, theywere
dedicatedto thateditionandretainedforthatpurpose.
Wearenot accustomedto suchhighnumbersof skeletonsin simultaneoususe.
of whatweknowof JacobeanbookproThenumbersarethoroughlyuncharacteristic
duction.Andnot only arethe numbersof verypersistentskeletonsin useat the same
timeforquireafterquireveryhigh,buttherearealsoabruptyet effortlessandassured
transitionsasthe numberof skeletonsswelledor subsided.Compositorscouldswitch
fromfive-skeletonoperationto two-,three-,or four-skeletonoperationwithoutbattingan eyeor puttinga foot wrong.Andtheywereusingup to threetimesthe number
of skeletonsgenerallyemployedbyJacobeanprinters.
Thecompositors'assuranceis asevidenton a smallscaleason a largeone.Considerthe 1620de Dominisandthe transitionstherefromsix- to five-to four-skeleton
2vols. (Oxford,1963),
118.Hinman,ThePrintingandProof-Reading
oftheFirstFolioofShakespeare,
Random
Cloud
also
the
see
and
For
formes
skeletons,
[RandallMcLeod],
by
1:153.
entertainingchapter
in JoeBray,MiriamHandley,andAnneC.Henry,eds.,Ma(r)kingtheText:
"WhereAngelsFearto Read,"
ThePresentation
ofMeaningon theLiteraryPage(Aldershot,U.K.,2000), 144-92.
JAMES I, JOHN BILL, AND THE KING'S PRINTERS
'C- 493
operation,and then backto five-skeleton.The tablebelow presentsan analysisof
skeletonsin use (represented
byconsecutiveGreekletters).In the elevenquiresfromL
to V it is plainthatto accomplishtheK-Ltransitionandso movefromsixto fiveskeletons,skeletonI3wasdroppedand,in L, ; wasusedtwice.Toaccomplishthe L-M transitionandso reducethe numberof skeletonsfromfiveto four,skeletonEwasdropped
and ; and6 bothusedtwice.In eachof the four-skeletonquirestwo skeletonsareused
twice andtwo once, in sucha waythat (quireM excepted)the two usedonce in one
thetwousedtwicein onequireareused
quireareusedtwicein thenextand,accordingly,
K
L
MN
OP
Q
R
S
T
V
6skls 5skls 4 skls 4 skls 4 sks 4 skls 4 skls 4 skls 4 skls 4skls 4 sks
ir.6v a
y
6
iV.6r3i
2r.5VY
a
r
2V.5r 6
6
a
3r.4VE
E
6
3V.4r
a
a
6
8
b
r
a
a
r
6
r
b
a
r
6
6
a
6
a
r
ri
r
a b
a
a
i
0
r
6
a
a
r
twice in the next and, accordingly,the two used twice in one quire are used once in the
next-until we come to quireV,when the skeletons are upped to five by the simple expedient of denying ; one of its two appearances and allowing a new skeleton, 0, to
standin for 'sfirstappearance(assumingIv.6rand3r.4vwererunoffin thatorderand
not simultaneously,or even in reverseorder). It seems too that skeletons stick together
in pairs-especially in the seven quires from N to T.There skeletons a and 6 provided
the two formes for the middle sheet of one quire but formes for the outer and inner
sheets of the next, whereas ; and r provided middle-sheet forms in a first quire and
inner- and outer-sheet formes in the next. Or, putting it yet another way, if you read
down column N and then go to the top of 0Oand read down that and so on to the bottom of T,appearancesof the a/6 association and of the t/ir alternate,which may mean
that while a and 8 formes were in the hands of the pressmen, the compositors were
;
workingon and .
to
the
Bacon,therewe findthemostextrememodulationof allTurningfinally
wheretherotationof no fewerthaneightskeletonsdropsto oneskeletonandbackagain,
asif nothinghadhappened.WiththeBaconwehavethegreatestnumberof skeletonsin
simultaneoususeto producethemostambitiousof thebooksunderconsideration.
As
we haveshownin our criticaleditionof the Bacon,we arefacedwith somethingunprecedentedin Englishprintingin JacobeanEngland,for even the highlyregular,
in ourotherexamplesareeclipsedby
efficient,elegantproductionroutinesrepresented
C->
494
MARIA WAKELY & GRAHAM REES
the astonishingworkpatternadoptedfor the productionof our volume.Forduring
much(thoughnot all)of thecomposition,imposition,andprintingof the1620 edition,
eightskeletonformesrotatein a veryspecialway:two groupsof fourskeleton-formes
otherin regularorderin suchawaythatthe firstgroupis involvedin the
leapfrogeach
of
the
wholeof onequire(theeditionis mainlyfolioin 4s),whiletheotheris inprinting
volvedin theprintingof thenext.Ina thirdquirethe firstgroupis putto workagain,to
be succeededbythesecondgroupin a fourthquire,andso on.119
Analystsstudyingfolio editionshavegenerallyfoundonlyone, two,or (rarely)
fourskeletonsin use120in anygivenearlymoderneditionprintedin Englandoverany
particularsequenceof quires,withnewskeletonsbeingintroducedandold onesdroprandomlylater.Everyone of ourfoliosis an exceptionto this,
pingout or reappearing
andasfaraswe knowwithoutprecedentamongearly
an extraordinary
circumstance,
moderneditionshithertosubjectedto bibliographical
analysis.
Asforthe stagein bookproductionthatfollowedcompositionandimposition,
namelypresswork,if Hinmanwasrightto suggestthatordinarily"therewouldbe no
reasonforusingmorethantwo [skeletons]in a folioprintedbya singlepress"weseem
to be contemplatinga situationin whichupto fourpressesmayhavebeenin useatany
one time in the productionof the Baconfolio-which onlythe King'sPrinterscould
havedone, unconfinedas they wereby the maximumof two pressesto whichother
Londonprinterswererestricted.Eachof thesehypotheticalfourwouldhavebeenresponsible for the inner and outer formes of one sheet of everyother quire.Each
wouldalsohaveprintedoff (in the caseof the Bacon)standard-paper
copiesof each
sheet,dealtwith stop-presscorrections,and,at the end of eachsheet'srun,printed
off the copiesof the innerand outerformeson the largepaperdestinedto makeup
the gloriouspresentationcopiesthatthe greatandthe goodweresoon to receive.
andwhatwas
Whatwasthepointof usingup to eightskeletonssimultaneously,
thepointof the fluctuatingnumbersof skeletonsusedin theproductionof thisorthat
edition?Thepointwasspeed.Afterall,the morequicklyaneditioncouldbe produced,
the moreswiftlycouldthe printersrecoverthe capitalinvestedin it-an urgentconsiderationin the circumstances,wheretherewaslittleslackin the economyfornonsubsistenceitems, where money was generallytight and credit lines limited and
inflexible.Speedwasalsoallthe moreurgentwhenthe kingwasaskingfor folio editions that were so expensivethey could bring prosperousprintersto the vergeof
Andthe speedachievedcouldbe great,forthe Baconwasprintedin a reladespair.121
short
period,fromearlyAugustto lateSeptember1620.
tively
The King'sPrinterswereobviouslycapableof operatingat six skeletonsper
quireforfolioin 6s,or eveneightpertwoquiresforfolioin 4s,so whynot operatethus
119.Forthe finedetailof this,see OFB,n:ciii-cxiv.
120. Randall McLeod tells us (personal communication, 29 June 1997) that he has seen an edition of
Castiglionewheretherearefourskeletons.Eachis usedtwiceperfolio in 8sgathering.
seen. 1oo, above.In additionBillwas
121. The elite1616-20 folios causedBill financialdifficulties;
saidto havelost ?1,200 on eacheditionof the ChurchBiblethathe printed;seeSP(Dom) CharlesI,
16/167/73.
JAMES
I, JOHN
BILL,
AND
THE KING'S
PRINTERS
(-
495
all the time? That is a capacity question-not seemingly with respect to material or
manpower, but to the demands of concurrent production. At any time the King's
Printers might have to print a royal proclamation,l22 rush out government propaganda,l23or react to the demands of the Bible market. With the work of Bill, Barker,
and Norton we have an excellent opportunity to consider concurrent production, edition sizes, and so on. So much of Barker,Bill,and Norton'sproduction is so closely datable that it may be possible to establish, with a high degree of accuracy,what pieces
were in concurrentproduction, and to pin dates on the fluctuations of effort appliedto
any particular edition at any particular time, and to get closer to understanding the
work routines of the printing house. It is likely that the King'sPrinters in this period
had six presses or thereabouts.l24What we now need to find out is how they supplied
them, used them, and disposed of their products.We also need to know as far as possible how this large-scalebusiness (at that time installed in Northumberland House)'25
was organized, run, and financed. The archival sources will tell us much-once we
have persuadedthem to speak.
QUEEN
MARY,
UNIVERSITY
OF LONDON
ABSTRACT
In the shortperiod1616-20, the King'sPrinters,the preeminentprintingofficein JacobeanLondon,
producednine editionsof a specialkind.AsMariaWakelyandGrahamReesobservein this article,all
appearedin folio format;all,saveone,wereby livingauthors;allwereveryexpensiveto print;andthe
King'sPrintersproducednothinglikethem at anyothertime in James'sreign.TheseeditionscomprisedJames'sworksin EnglishandLatin;the firsttwo partsof de Dominis'sDe republicaecclesiatica;
the firsteditionsin English,Italian,andLatinof Sarpi'sHistoriadelConcilioTridentino;
Savile'sedition of Bradwardines
De causaDei;andBacon'sInstauratiomagna.Theseeditionswereprintedusing
productionroutinesuniqueto the King'sPrintingHouse.Theytestifyto JamesI'sfaithin the political
efficacyof the printedword,andtheyshednewlighton the closeandcomplicatedrelationsbetween
the kingandhis printers,BonhamNorton,andthatFigaroof the Londonbook trade,JohnBill.
122. Over 120 proclamations were printed by the King'sPrinters in the period 1616-21.
123.Forinstance,in connectionwiththe executionof Raleigh;seen. 124,below.
124. Weknowthatlatein Elizabeth's
reigntheyhadsix,andwe knowfromStatePapersthattheyhad
six in 1668-along witheightcompositorsandtenpressmen;see Cambridge
HistoryoftheBook,4:794.
Wedo not knowhowmanypresseswerein operationin 1620.However,in November1618SirRobert
Naunton(1563-1635)
reportedthattheKing'sPrintershadproducedA DeclarationoftheDemeanorand
CariageofSirW Raleigh(STC20652.5).He addedthattheprinters"werefainto watchtwo nights,andset
20 pressesto workat once";seeLettersandLifeofFrancisBacon,6:382.Nauntonmayhaveexaggerated
but he leavesopenthepossibilitythatthe King'sPrintershadmanypressesattheirdisposal,and/or
farmedsome of the printingto othershops.Bacon(incidentally)maywellhavehelpedto write
A Declaration.
125.TheverygrandNorthumberlandHousewaspicturedin 1752by Canaletto;the paintingis in
the Dukeof Northumberland's
collection.Thehousewasdemolishedin the nineteenthcentury.