AntiquarianBookNews.com

(previously unknown ink, pencil, watercolour/gouache sketch from the early 1890s)

Two of the most important pets among Beatrix and Bertram Potter’s childhood menagerie were Benjamin Bouncer and, later, Peter Piper. They would become immortalised as Benjamin Bunny and Peter Rabbit. Beatrix Potter used Benjamin Bouncer as a model in the early 1890s for drawing fashionable greeting cards - her first commercial enterprise.

The first of a series of six watercolour sketches from 1892, among Potter’s finest work. This particular illustration - possibly influenced by Renoir’s ‘Les Parapluies’ - was a gift to Potter’s brother Bertram, but was previously unknown. Another version is owned by the Victoria & Albert Museum (V&A)

The finished watercolour shows eight rabbits (compared to seven as present here) dancing to a piper. Rhubarb stalks are present in a large pot in the upper left corner. The rhubarb and pot are shown here in faint pencil outline. The floor was changed from evenly laid pinkish terracotta tiles to rather haphazard grey flagstone tiles. this version is entirely unknown.

The scene was later redrawn with a rabbit playing a ‘cello surrounded by five dancing rabbits (and two rabbits nuzzling each other by the back wall).

In 1987 Frederick Warne united the four V&A illustrations with the two paintings originally given to Henry P. Coolidge. A fold-out panorama was published as The Rabbits’ Christmas Party

Hobbs, in the Dulwich Picture Gallery exhibition catalogue, noted “The attitudes are both rabbit-like and human. Only an artist with an intimate knowledge of anatomy could convey so well both musculature and the texture of fur. Remarkable, as in all Potter’s animal drawing, is her observation of ears.”

A booklet (never completed) had been planned for the nursery rhyme, ‘Three Little Mice Sat Down to Spin’, in which six lines were to be illustrated. The mice in this unfinished sketch are using cottagers’ looms. This is a variation on the first work in the series (the watercolour set is at the V&A).

The completed version of this work - featuring one of Potter’s favourite daisy paintings - is owned by the National Trust was the basis for a scene in The Tale of Johnny Town-Mouse.

An entirely uknown drawing showing an inventive use of lettering on the jars, bag and label on the set of keys. The message reads “A Merry Christmas and Plenty of Buns H.B.P.”

Unfinished pencil drawing similar to a version at the V&A that shows two rabbits nibbling a turnip. (the bottom of the image has been trimmed slightly)

One of the three variations on this drawing known to exist. Potter’s Aunt and Uncle owned a cat called Squintina (Squinty). Dated to about 1895 as a publishing firm adapted the picture that year for a cover of their ‘Comical Customers’.

In 1891 Beatrix Potter drew three illustrations of Appley Dapply intended for publication as greetings cards or as a short booklet. The trio of drawings showed the little brown mouse called Appley Dapply foraging in a larder of food but remained unpublished. In 1917, this specific illustration was noted to be missing as Potter began work on ‘Appley Dapply’s Nursery Rhymes’. It resurfaced twenty years later and was given as a present to a child known to Potter. {sold for £36,000 - that’s Great Britain Pounds, not Euro}

Although this drawing was given away in 1895, Potter remembered the scene thirty years later when the central part of the scene was transformed into the fisher-cart, a line drawing in ‘The Fairy Caravan’.

The completed version of this rough wash drawing contains fungi and ferns to contribute to the feeling of claustrophobia.

The wallaby, bear clutching a deer and antelope pencil drawings are possibly the result of a visit to the zoo or were copied from illustrations Potter saw in a Victorian natural history book.

From the first edition (1909) presentation book inscribed by Potter with: “for Lizzie Airey from Miss Potter Third book about the rabbits - April 25. 12″.

From the first edition (1910) presentation book inscribed by Potter with: “For the little girl who is 7 from Miss Potter - Wishing all a Merry Christmas”

The “little girl” was also Lizzie Airey (d. 1985), the daughter of the landlord of the Sun Inn in Hawkshead. The inn’s kitchen was the inspiration for the 1912 ‘Mr Tod’s Kitchen’.

Previously unknown drawing dating from the first year of Potter’s association with Hildesheimer & Faulkner greeting card manufacturers (1892). Potter had a fondness for drawing mice reading newspapers, the most famous example being the mouse reading ‘The Tailor and the Cutter’ in ‘The Tailor of Gloucester’ [pic].

‘The Tale of Jemima Puddle-duck’ was published in 1908. [sketch sold for £14,000]

Many of Potter’s creations like Peter Rabbit began as characters illustrated in letters or as greeting cards. In 1893 Potter wrote in a letter: “I don’t know what to write to you, I will tell you a story about little rabbits whose names were Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail and Peter.

‘The Tale of Peter Rabbit’ was first published privately in 1900 and then commercially, to great success, in 1902. ‘The Tale of Benjamin Bunny’, which included the character of Peter Rabbit as Benjamin’s cousin, followed in 1904. [This sketch from 1893 sold for £30,000 in 2005]

This pencil drawing is supposed to have come from the nursery at Arundel Castle and was subsequently won in a charity raffle in 1958.

A preliminary sketch for the title page of ‘The Tale of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle’, 1905.

Mrs Tiggy-Winkle at her washtub inscribed on the back: “original drawing by Beatrix Potter of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle presented to Frederick Ashton by Harold Linder on the occasion of the making of the film ‘Tales of Beatrix Potter’ Frederick Ashton 1971.”

A memento of the collaboration between Leslie Linder, the ‘celebrated’ Potter scholar and collector, and Frederick Ashton, who had choreographed the ballet and created the part of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle.
[this image (trimmed slightly) was a later addition to the post]

“Beatrix Potter (1866-1943) drew from an early age, both from nature and from her imagination, often combining the two. From the early 1880’s, she made a number of careful studies of bats, lizards and fish, then of insects and spiders, fossils and fungi. Some were wild specimens, but many were pets. Her best-known drawings are of rabbits and mice. ‘Benjamin Bouncer’ was the inspiration for her first greetings card designs (1890) and the source of her first independent income; a later rabbit, ‘Peter Piper’, appears in scenes from Alice and Uncle Remus, and then in the Tale of Peter Rabbit (1902), the first of her famous ‘Little Books’.

Beatrix Potter grew ‘a little tired of rabbits’, and came to prefer mice, doormice and voles, as single ’specimens’, as sheets of studies in various positions, or, like the rabbits, as protagonists in fairy tale or nursey rhyme illustrations and in her animal fantasies, where they remain faithfully naturalistic.

This drawing may well have been done during a visit to Camfield Place, near Hatfield in Hertfordshire, the house of her paternal grandparents; it is inscribed (on the verso): Oct 29 87. The paper is slightly thicker and more tinted than that used for most of her other natural history studies, except for the larger, more showy finished works done of mechanical wood pulp board. The treatment of eyes, ears and claws are all characteristic; typically, she has used white highlights to render the texture of fur.” [Christie's catalogue] {sold in 2003 for £7,000}

This lavender cloth and gilt inlay book cover was based on a cover design sketched by Potter.

• All images in this post were obtained from fishing expeditions in the archives at Sotheby’s and Christie’s auction houses. (Sotheby’s have an auction featuring some of these works in the next day or so).
• The vast majority of images here were spliced together from (many!) screencaps. A very modest amount of spot/stain reduction was undertaken in most cases, where it was possible and where it ‘felt’ appropriate. There were no other adjustments or manipulations (unless stated).
• All the above text was adapted or quoted from the respective catalogue entries.
• Copyright and trademark issues enveloping Beatrix Potter’s legacy are remarkably convoluted and largely mystifying. I’ll just note that, to the extent that I can determine, without having the means to employ a team of barristers, the illustrations themselves appearing in this post would seem to fall outside any residual claims. ‘Proceed with caution’ is the relevant catchphrase here.
• Online Beatrix Potter Books: University of Virginia Library E-Texts and Project Gutenberg. [I've not looked at these so can't vouch for illustration quality]
• A couple of exhibition sites: Victoria & Albert Museum; Cotsen Library at Princeton University; Women Children’s Book Illustrators.
• There are of course many, many Beatrix Potter titles available from Amazon

- Via LISNews, a list of “100 Unbelievably Useful Reference Sites You’ve Never Heard Of” (you’ve probably heard of some of them, but it is definitely a good list).

Today’s Daily Mail features comments from Raymond Scott, the man arrested this week in connection with the theft of the Durham First Folio. Scott has apparently now been released from custody [on bail], as he is described as giving the interview while “sipping Dom Perignon champagne and puffing on a giant Havana cigar.” There’s also a picture.

Scott claims “I have done nothing wrong at all.” He says he bought the Shakespeare volume in Cuba, and that it is not the same book stolen from Durham University in 1998. He seems to think he baffled the police: “During the interview with the police I asked, ‘How can you possibly know we are dealing with the same book?’ ‘They shuffled in their seats and looked uncomfortable. I am afraid the celebrations at Durham University were premature, it is not the manuscript that was stolen.’”

First of all, it is decidedly not a manuscript, Mr. Scott, it is a printed book. And the very suggestion that the Folger’s staff would have gotten the identification wrong seems to me utterly ludicrous (even though I have learned since writing on Friday that, most unfortunately, identifying marks were removed from the Durham book, making its captors barbarians as well as thieves). First Folios don’t just pop up out of nowhere, it’s as simple as that. Knowing the collation and the distinctive characteristics of the Durham copy should have easily enabled conclusive proof. An official at Durham said of Scott’s claims “The book was identified by leading experts at the Folger Library. They are confident of its authenticity as the one which was stolen from Durham University.” If full First Folio census results were accessible online (which they don’t appear to be at the moment), it should be a fairly easy match, even with the destruction inflicted on the book.

More from Scott: “I am an innocent man and I believe no charges will be brought against me. I am also confident that the book will be returned to Britain, not to the University of Durham, but to me. The police are welcome to ask me anything, including my inside leg measurement, which for the record is 31 and a half inches, but I have done nothing wrong at all. They took away boxes of books in the search of my home, most of them were new and could be bought on the shelves of Waterstone’s. They also caused great anxiety for my sainted mother but, other than that, achieved nothing.” He told the paper he “obtained the book through ‘contacts’ but refused to say how much he paid.”

The Independent adds that police have called in “experts on rare and antiquarian books” to help examine the “mountain of tomes” removed from Scott’s house (in five “people carriers”). Their report notes that Scott’s next court appearance will be in November.

Travis also weighs in on the case; I agree with him that Scott may not be the original thief (if he was, he shouldn’t have needed authentication, for example). There are still some unanswered questions swirling around, which hopefully will be cleared up as we move forward.

There are three things necessary to build a collection. Well, actually, only one thing, but the other two are essential. First and foremost, every collection must, without fail, have some sort of unifying principle. You cannot, for instance, have a collection of children’s books, or graphic novels, or books on history. These terms are generic, not thematic, and require further narrowing. You CAN have a collection of American children’s books, or graphic novels about war, or books on the history of Rhode Island.

Other than a unifying principle, you need the money to acquire books (not necessarily a lot), and a map of your field. The best tool to establish how relatively important or complete your collection is, is the bibliography.

For example, one of my directives is to collect works illustrated by the British artist Arthur Rackham (see my January 9 post, http://pplspeccoll.blogspot.com/2008/01/this-just-in-from-london.html). Not too long ago, when I began to focus on this collection, I realized with chagrin that we lacked the definitive bibliography of Rackham’s works, published in a limited edition in 1936.

Chances are, if you are collecting, some industrious scholar, librarian, or amateur collector has created a bibliography that will save you a lot of time in identifying works to pursue. Often there are multiple bibliographies that will help. Here is one example–this is the entry for Grimm’s fairy tales illustrated by Rackham published in 1909, including information on the British limited and trade editions, as well as the American edition. If you are putting together a great Rackham collection, you will want examples of all three. But say, for instance, that for comparison’s sake, you want copies of any other edition of Grimm’s fairy tales that might have been released in London in 1909. Nowadays you can always throw a question like that at Google and hope you get lucky. But if you are serious, you’ll need to find a definitive bibliography of editions of Grimm’s Fairy Tales. You might also check for bibliographies of fairy tales in general, or German children’s books, or even of children’s books produced in London in the early part of the 20th Century. A great and creative collector thinks completely around his or her theme, so that in the end, the collection becomes more than the mere sum of its parts.

PS: The 1936 bibliography of Rackham cited above was “superseded” (never believe a good reference book is superseded) in 1994 by Richard Riall’s A New Bibliography of Arthur Rackham, but that has become too expensive for us to acquire at this time).

Fencing master, Achille Marozzo (1483-1553), was the most prominent and influential champion of the Dardi school of swordsmanship, which emerged in Bologna during the Renaissance.

Lippo di Bartolomeo Dardi’s system of single-handed sword techniques bridged the gap between the cruder medieval cutting and slashing style and the nimble and more technically inclined thrusting methods associated with the rapier. The latter system would come to dominate fencing in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Dardi (or Bardi) had established an academy early in the 15th century in Bologna and although no surviving treatise of his is thought to exist, his combat strategies were passed down through students and Marozzo published the definitive record of the school’s principles in his 1536 book, ‘Opera Nova dell’Arte delle Armi’ (~new work on the art of arms).

Marozzo’s ‘Opera Nova’ was the most important fencing manual of the 16th century and the first serious work to establish uniform rules for the use of weapons. It outlines theoretical considerations (derived from Aristotle, no less) and provides practical direction for both defensive and offensive use of swords, daggers and polearms in varying combinations, as well as the role of shields, bucklers and capes. There is a whole chapter devoted to honour, such were the noble aspirations of the project.

Further editions of ‘Opera Nova’ were published up until 1615 and the treatise continues to be used as a primary source in fencing academy instruction today. It is not the only reference publication in respect of the Bologna School, as contemporary works by Manciolino, Viggiani and Dall’Agocchie are also regarded as important ancillary commentaries.

• The complete first edition of ‘Opera Nova’ was put online last month by the Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (contains eighty+ woodcut illustrations).
• Bolognese Swordsmanship: The Dardi School at Chicago Swordplay Guild.
• Bolognese Swordsmanship at the Order of the Seven Hearts.
• The Teachings of Marozzo By Giovanni Rapisardi & Edited By William E. Wilson (a translated commentary on Marozzo’s ‘Opera Nova’ and related contemporary works).
• From Dueling to Fencing at Fencing Online (a history of the sword arts).
• Previously: Academy of the Sword and The Art of Fencing; and more generally: combat.
• I didn’t note any current listings for ‘Opera Nova’, but there are: ‘The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe’ by Sydney Anglo and ‘Renaissance Swordsmanship’ by John Clements.

Sotheby’s London will hold a sale of English Literature, History, Children’s Books & Illustrations on 17 July. A few highlights from among the 340 lots (not counting the Spilsbury autopsy cards) include:

- Some typescripts of Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake (100,000-150,000 GBP)

- Several original Beatrix Potter watercolors (40,000-60,000 GBP apiece)

- A collection of household accounts and other items from the court of Nell Gwynn (40,000-60,000 GBP)

- A first edition of Wordsworth’s first book, An Evening Walk (1793); just three copies of this book have sold at auction in the last three decades, so don’t be surprised if it surpasses the 25,000-30,000 GBP estimate.

- A first edition of Gulliver’s Travels (1726). This one has some damage (including a detached cover), but the estimate is still 20,000-25,000 GBP.