No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
Large ‘folio’ editions of the Bible have been known since the age of printing began. Gutenberg’s magnificent editio princeps and such other editions as Cardinal Ximenes’s Complutensian Polyglot amply demonstrated the early concept that the Word of God should not only be inspiring but should also be presented in a physically impressive format. In England the Great Bible, the Bishops’ Bible and the original Authorized Version (AV) of 1611 followed this tradition.
1 Since many of the editions discussed in this article were made during the era of handmade paper, the term ‘folio’ will be used in its traditional, stricter sense: a book in which original rectangular printed sheets are folded a single time to create two conjugate leaves, or four pages. In practice, libraries and booksellers often apply ‘folio’ loosely to any larger book in which the spine measurement exceeds a certain height. Note the special situation in the editions of 1788 and 1793 (footnote no. 10). Also see footnote no. 58 which deals with the series of ‘Imperial’ quartos of the late nineteenth century.
2 This excludes editions produced by Protestants for controversial purposes: Fulke’s series of parallel Rhemes/Bishops’ Testaments and Cartwright’s ‘Confutation’ of 1618.
3 Cornelius Nary (1658?–1738) was a priest serving in Dublin. His translation was considered controversial by some, and never gained wide acceptance. Robert Witham (1667?–1738) is best known as a President of Douay. His translation was better received than Nary’s, justifying three printings. Annotations from Witham’s edition were used in the Haydock and Syers Bibles infra, and in Beegan’s Manchester Testament of 1816.
4 Typeface dimensions are 12.5″ x 7.5″ (317mm x 188mm). Pagination: xx, 646, (32). The sheets for this edition are somewhat smaller than the ‘demy’ size (17½″ x 22½″) that was standard for most folios. They appear to be of the ‘hand’ size (16″ x 22″) resulting in leaf measurements after trimming of somewhat less that 16″ x 11″. (Measurements are from Hunter, Dard, Papermaking, , The History and Technique of an Ancient Craft, Dover Publications, Inc., N. Y., 1978, p. 137 Google Scholar.)
5 The sequence of prior editions was 1582, 1600, 1621, 1630, and 1633. The scarce 1630 edition is not reckoned.
6 Barnard, , James, , The Life of the Venerable and Right Reverend Richard Challoner, D. D., Bishop of Debra, and V. A., Collected from His Writings, from Authentick Records, and from Near Twenty Years Personal Acquaintance with Him, Coughlan, J. P., London, 1784, p. 154 Google Scholar. The second edition (1793) of Barnard’s work gives the incorrect date of 1768 for this Testament as cited in R& D [p. 47] and EVB [p.353]. The first edition (1784) gives the correct year of 1738. Blyth (d. 1772), a convert from the Established Church, joined the Carmelite Order.
7 EVB, p. 351.
8 R& D, p. 46.
9 Burton, Edwin H., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1691–1781), 2 vols., Longmans, Green, and Co., London, etc., 1909, vol. I., pp. 98–105 Google Scholar. (In 1737, Challoner published The Catholick Christian Instructed ... In the Preface, he replied to attacks that Middleton, a well known controversialist and scholar, had made against the Catholic Church. Middleton’s reaction was to try to have Challoner prosecuted under the penal laws. On the advice of friends, Challoner decided to depart temporarily for Douay.)
10 Typeface size is 11 ⅞″ x 7 ⅛″(302mm x 181mm). Pagination: xvi, 436 (text); 437–440 (tables). HCPB erroneously states text as 433 pp. (No. 1330 on p. 304). In two copies examined by the author, leaf dimensions are approximately 14″ x 9 ½″ which suggests a folio edition using ‘crown’ size (15″ x 20″) sheets. Pages are initialed in pairs as expected for a folio. However, in both copies the ‘chain lines’ imbedded in the laid paper are horizontal. In a true folio, they would be vertical. This indicates the original sheets were much larger, possibly imperial (22″ x 30″) and cut into half-sheets. (See Hunter, op. cit., pp.s 137 & 228–229.)
11 R& D (p. 57) states that ‘the notes are almost the same as those of 1582: about seven of that edition being omitted here.’
12 Ibidem, p. 233. (An edition described as folio, with similar pagination, and dated 1772, appears in Blom, et al, English Catholic Books 1701–1800 A Bibliography, Scolar Press, Aldershot & Ashgate Publishing Company, Brookfield, [1996], p. 210 Google Scholar (No. 1952]. One location is cited: Ushaw. That institution has advised this writer that the library does not have such a copy.)
13 Darlow, T. H. and Moule, H. F., Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 2 vols, (in four), The Bible House, London, 1903–1911 Google Scholar. Volume I of this work (Bibles in English) was revised by A. S. Herbert in 1968 and published as HCPB.
14 HCPB, p. 310 (No. 1375).
15 Ohlhausen, Sidney K., ‘A Lost Edition of the Original Douay Old Testament,’ Bible Collectors’ World, Vol. 8, No. 4, Oct. 1992 Google Scholar. Most of the description of the 1793 Old Testament that follows is excerpted from this article. At the time of writing that article, the author was working from a fragmentary copy containing only Genesis through Nehemias and lacking a title page. He therefore was unable to correlate it at the time with HCPB, No. 1375. The author’s copy is bound with a complete 1788 edition of the New Testament supra.
16 Typeface size is 11 ¾″ x 6 ⅞″(297mm x 176mm). The ‘chain’ lines are likewise horizontal rather than vertical.
17 Blom, op. cit., p. 154 (No. 1454), at Oscott. (The 1793 edition’s title page reference to ‘revision’ apparently caused that institution to describe it incorrectly as ‘Bishop Challoner’s version of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha’, see G. F., Pullen [ed.], Catalogue of the Bible Collections in the Old Library at St. Mary’s, Oscott c. 1472-c.1850,Seminary, St. Mary’s, New Oscott, Warwickshire, 1971, p. 38 [No. 261]Google Scholar.
18 Typeface is 14 ½″ x 8 ½″(370mm x 217mm). Pagination: 785, 220, (8). It appears to be the first Catholic folio edition printed on standard ‘demy’ sheets (17 ½″x 22 ½″).
19 EVB, p. 375. The subject examined for this study has 9 plates plus frontispieces to both testaments. Included is the curious plate apparently depicting an Anglican Confimation. EVB states (p. 376) that this edition sometimes uses the Protestant spelling of Nehemiah. However, the copy at hand consistently uses the Douay standard, Nehemias.
20 The reasoning behind the sequential numbering of these editions is unclear. For a possible explanation, see EVB, p. 373 (footnote).
21 MacMahon’s New Testament had first appeared separately in 1783.
22 R& D provides an extensive compilation on pp. 371–382.
23 LBH, Vol. III, p. 227.
24 Rayment, Rev. B. [ed.], The Divine Office for the Use of the Laity, 2 vols., Haydock, T.,Manchester, 1806 Google Scholar. (Although beleaguered by constant misfortune, Thomas Haydock dedicated his life to advancement of the Catholic cause by publishing a series of important books and pamphlets. For a collation of his other works, see Scragg, Brenda, Haydock, Thomas, 1772–1859, Catholic Bookseller, History of the Book Trade in the North series, PH 81, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, November, 1999 Google Scholar.)
25 LBH, op. cit.
26 R& D provides the above account (pp. 85–86). It lists separate title pages for each year 1811–1814, the latest of these apparently the Volume II title appearing before Isaias. Copies of all except the 1813 are shown in this article. The latter contains the imprint of Haydock’s Lower Ormond-Quay location in Dublin.
27 LBH, op. cit., vol III, p. 228.
28 HCPB, p. 345 (No. 1590) cites a copy with the NT title dated 1831 and the general title dated 1813.
29 Haydock himself openly complained in 1814 that certain sheets of his Bible printed without his supervision contained inaccuracies and many essential notes were suppressed: Gillow, , Joseph, , The Haydock Papers: A Glimpse into English Catholic Life under the Shade of Persecution and in the Dawn of Freedom, Burns & Oates, Limited, London & New York, 1888, p. 203 Google Scholar. A misprint commonly cited for the earliest editions is the spelling ‘stratum’ for ‘system’ in the annotation to Gen. 1:16. The author examined five copies containing the 1811 title page and found none containing this misprint.
30 The typeface is 14 ⅜″ x 8 ½″(365mm x 215mm) on demy sheets. HCPB’s measurements of 37 cm x 21.5 cm, p. 345 (No. 1590) refer to the typeface size rather than the measurement ‘along the outside cover’ as is called for in their explanatory notes for editions after 1800. Pagination: variation to preliminary leaves; 1338, (4), xii, 446, variation to terminal leaves, fold out table.
31 EVB, p. 397.
32 R& D, p. 83.
33 Ibidem, p. 89. This states the New Testament annotations were compiled by Rayment, ‘Mr. Robinson and others.’ It is unclear whether this reference is to the same T. Robinson mentioned on the title page to the second edition of the Liverpool-London series.
34 O’Callaghan, E. B., A List of Editions of the Holy Scriptures and Parts Thereof, Printed in America Previous to 1860: with Introduction and Bibliographical Notes, Munsell & Rowland, Albany, 1861, p. 171. This source gives dates of 1823–1825 for the appearance of 120 weekly numbers. The title page is dated 1825 (see illustration). (A series of advertisements in a contemporary Catholic weekly New York tabloid, The Truth Teller, passim, suggests publication was not completed until 1826.)
35 Typeface dimentions: 14 ⅛“ x 7 ⅞“(358 x 198mm). Pagination: x, 812, 409, (6), xii, 367, (12 plus foldout leaf).
36 O’Callaghan, op. cit., p. 171.
37 Parsons, , Wilfrid, , ‘Early Catholic Publishers of Philadelphia’, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol 24, No. 2, July 1938, p. 151 Google Scholar.
38 For a detailed collation of subsequent editions, see article by the present author, ‘ The Last Haydock Bible’, Recusant History, vol. 22, No. 4, October, 1995, pp. 529–530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In New York, another American publisher, James Cunningham, was simultaneously soliciting subscriptions for a ‘medium’ folio edition of a Catholic Bible containing ‘about 1840 pages’. The June 24, 1825 issue of ‘The Truth Teller’ (op. cit.) has an advertisement for this edition, which was to begin publication ‘as soon as a sufficient number of subscribers’ was obtained. Apparently, nothing came of this ambitious undertaking.
39 R& D., pp. 90–91. (Revd. Thomas Sadler, ordained at Lisbon, followed Revd. James Haydock, the brother of Thomas and George Leo, as pastor of Trafford, near Manchester. He died in 1830. Revd. Edward Kenyon, ordained at Douay, served various assignments in Manchester. He died in 1837. LBH, op. cit., vol. IV, pp. 13–15 & vol. V, p. 463.
40 Typeface dimensions are 11 ⅝″ x 7 ⅞″(294mm x 199mm). Unpaginated: title leaf followed by 3 pp. of introductory material; text followed by 14 pp. of tables. Original sheets appear to have been ‘crown’ size (15″ x 20″). Hunter, Ibidem.
41 R& D, p. 91.
42 Ibidem.
43 HCPB, p. 343, no. 1577.
44 R& D, p. 110. This source (on page 209) gives the publisher’s name as Henry Fisher only. See title page reproductions for various name changes of this publisher.
45 Ohlhausen, , Sidney, K., ‘Douay-Rheims, A Story of Faith,’ Catholic Heritage, vol. 8, no. 4, May/ June 1999, p. 23 Google Scholar.
46 R& D, p. 110.
47 p. 110.
48 p. 415.
49 R& D, p. 123.
50 LBH, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 449.
51 It is unclear whether this is the same Mr. Robinson that R& D refers to in connection with Haydock’s Bible. See note 33, supra. V. Glover may be Vincent Glover, brother of Edward Benedict Glover, O.S.B. Vincent was educated at the Benedictine Abbey at Lambspring. LBH, op. cit. vol. II, p. 497.
52 Typeface dimensions are 15 ⅛″x 8 ½″ (385mm x 216mm) on demy sheets. Pagination: 1142, 1143–1148 (tables).
53 EVB, pp. 413–14.
54 Ibidem, p. 413.
55 R& D, p. x; EVB, p. 672.
56 O’Callaghan, op. cit., p. 306.
57 Catalogue of American Catholic Books, Eugene Cummiskey, Publisher, Bookseller and Importer, Philadelphia, 1870 Google Scholar.
58 Before closing, mention should be made of a series of ‘Imperial’ quarto (see footnote 10) editions of the late nineteenth century since they are reckoned as folios by some bibliographies and libraries. In a quarto, the original printed sheet is folded twice to make four leaves or eight pages. Most quarto family Bibles of this period were made from ‘Royal’ size (20″ x 25″) sheets (Hunter, Ibidem). The spine of a bound Royal quarto volume will be approximately 12″ in height. The spine of an Imperial quarto, at approximately 14″, will match that of many folios. Since some institutions and booksellers use spine measurement to establish the distinction between folio and quarto, there have been inconsistencies in classifying the larger quartos. Examples of this appear below. The author has observed copies of each of the editions discussed. All have roughly the same leaf dimensions (approximately 10″ x 14″). All save # 4 were published in New York. All save # 2 are relatively common and will be frequently seen described in library and dealer catalogues.
i. Dunigan’s Haydock edition. EVB mentions two Dunigan folio editions in the years 1851 & 1852 (pp. 675–6). The 1851 citation is an erroneous duplication of that of 1852. O’Callaghan (op. cit., p. 320) cites no Dunigan edition of Haydock before 1852. Neither does a more recent source, Hills, Margaret T., The English Bible in America, American Bible Society & The New York Public Library, 1961, p. 218, no. 1485. In his supplementary section at the end of EVB, the editor of that work also mentions no 1851 edition although he repeats the 1852 citation (p. 728). Regarding the format of this edition, the EVB editor classifies it a quarto, in contradiction to the earlier classification on p. 676 as a folio. The British Museum classifies it folio (British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books to 1955 Compact Edition, Readex Microprint Corporation, NY, 1967, Vol. 2, p. 1272 Google Scholar.) O’Callaghan classifies it as a quarto. This edition was frequently reprinted through the 1880’s.
ii. O’Shea’s edition. Circa 1868, P. O’Shea issued a reprint in Imperial size of the pictorial Royal quarto edition originally published in 1865 by James Duffy of Dublin. In this scarce and little known edition, O’Shea carefully excised Duffy’s in-text illustrations. He used the resulting freed-up space and the additional space provided by the larger leaf size to add to a border around each page and a portion of the extended annotations from the Haydock Bible. The author has a copy of this edition in his collection. This copy is undated except for the 1865 Imprimatur of Dublin Archbishop Paul Cullen. The title page adds New York Archbishop McCloskey’s Approbation. EVB’s supplementary ection (p. 732) lists both a folio and a quarto by this publisher in the same year, 1868. However, the editor did not actually observe the edition cited as folio. His source for the citation provides no more specific information. Hills (op. cit.) does not cite any such edition. The University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth has another O’Shea edition, this one a direct reprint in Royal quarto of Duffy’s edition that includes the in-text illustrations. This edition is dated 1870. Although the observed copies cannot be definitively correlated with those that EVB dates 1868, the fact that this publisher clearly produced both Imperial and Royal quarto editions at approximately the same time could explain why he is credited with ‘folio’ and ‘quarto’ editions.
iii. Sadlier’s edition. Circa 1875, D.& J. Sadlier reissued its Royal quarto edition of 1845 in Imperial size with added ornamental borders occupying the additional space on the pages. This edition is listed in Hills (op. cit. p. 286, No. 1909). The author has in his collection an unbound set of numbers of this edition still in their original sheets folded twice as in quarto.
iv. Virtue’s edition. Circa. 1878, Virtue and Company of London issued a new edition of the Haydock Bible with the annotations extensively revised by Canon Frederick Oakeley and Rev. T. G. Law. This sumptuous edition includes many full-page plates of the finest execution. Virtue’s edition is cited as folio by the British Museum (op. cit., p. 1274), but as a quarto by EVB (p. 677). To compound the confusion, the sequence of initials at the base of the leaves is in pairs, as a folio would be, rather than in fours, which is correct for a quarto. However, the author has in his collection a copy of an edition bound by paper wraps in a series of fascicles. Some of the leaves are still joined at the top, indicating a second fold of the sheet. EVB estimates the dates of this edition, sold in numbers by subscription, as 1874–1878. Copies remained in circulation with some differences in title pages and Imprimaturs until at least 1910.
v. Collier’s edition. Circa 1884, New York publisher P. F. Collier reissued Virtue’s Haydock Bible on thinner paper and with fewer engravings. This edition is not listed in EVB. Its format is not classified in Hills (op. cit., p. 306, No. 2003). It is initialed in pairs as its British counterpart, but the leaves match the other Imperial quartos in size.