[lit-ideas] Re: The Sect of the Phoenix
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:33:05 EDT
As S. Ward rightly notes:
>Ashbee, wrote two bibliographies of erotic literature.
I was nitpicking that he also wrote a third (Horn loves these 'scalar
implicatures' -- "How many wives did Henry VIII have?" "Five" -- "Well, that's
true
-- she had six".
I re-read what I had once read in Kearney, Hist. Erot. Lit.:
"Included in the Ashbee [we're talking about Henry Spencer [what a
prestigious pedigree name -- of Northamptonshire] Ashbee, b. London 1832-1900]
bequest [to the Private Case in the Museum Library] were
the first two volumes
of his bibliography, his OWN WORKING COPIES that had each been BOUND into
two separate volumes, interleaved and annotated, and with extra illustrations
and letters inserted. This additional material is of great interest and
contains much curious information."
Kearney goes on:
"Unfortunately, no similarly augmented copy of the third volume, which would
certainly have unveiled the names of many of the later 19th-century
publishers, appears to exist."
McEvoy, can you _prove_ that?
"A rumour that it did [exist], and was kept locked up in the office of the
Principal Keeper of the Library, came to my ears late in 1973, and I
accordingly wrote to the Keeper to enquire after it."
"The reply that I received, dated 4 January 1974, was disappointing."
"Dear Sir,
I have looked into the _missing_ copy of "Catena Librorum
Tacendorum." There _is_ a copy in the room of the Keeper
of Printed Books ... with Ashbee's bookplate and the
yellow British Museum accessions stamp dated 10 November
1900. It is pretty certainly
the third volume
which you refer to. It contains *no annotations* whatever and no
inserted papers; nor does it bear any pressmark and is kept
in the Keeper's room
FOR OCCASIONAL REFERENCE USE (!)
You would, of course, be free to see the copy, if you wish
to do so.
Respectfully,
etc."
-- but not otherwise!
Kearney writes: "This was, needless to say, a great blow (cf. Zeus and
Pallas)", but in the near future the gap left as as result of Ashbee's
timidity --
if that is what it was -- is to be more than adquately filled by the labours
of Mr. Peter Mendes, an enterprising academic [hate that word -- used in
this context -- sounds pretentiously derogatory], who is well on the way to
completing a comprehensive bibliographical... -- in which many of the puzzles
left unresolved by Ashbee will be answered.
So the three volumes would be:
"Index librorum prohibitorum, being notes
bio-biblio-iconographical and
critical on curious an duncommon books, by Pisanus Fraxi.
London: 1877, repr. New York: Jack Brussel, 1962).
"Centuria librorum absconditorum". London 1879, repr. idem JB 1962
"Catena librorum Tacendorum". London: 1885, repr. idem JB 1962.
"Ashbee's three volumes are in a sense unique"
-- then Garcia Marquez also is.
"and very much the product of his own eccentricity. He was WEALTHY [how much
-- now I AM interested. Where was his family seat? Northants? and where in
LONDON was he born? I suppose he's buried in Highgate?] and could afford to
have them printed to his own specifications which, in their bold mixtures of
type style and colour, were as exacting as they were generous."
"Unlike many bibliographies [which are dry], Ashbee's have a life of their
own"
-- a catalogue raisonne, almost. I love them
"While they lack the scientific precision of modern bibliographical practice"
(C'mon -- who wants a MA Lib. Sc! -- and I'm really NOT interested how the
British Library for Cataloguing Data -- let alone Washington -- wants to
catalogue these things -- just give me the accession code)
"they are nevertheless in advance of the sort of thing usually passed off
as bibliography in the 1870s and 1880s. They are reliable and ... an excellent
read. He quotes liberally from books -- a blessing when you see that many
only exist in PRIVATE COLLECTIONS, and his comments are often amusing.
"As much as Ashbee himself comes across as the people and books he
describes" (Kearney goes on to illlustrate with a 1866 book).
On the margin of my copy of Kearney I wrote: 'Implicates!'. The passage
being,
"By Ashbee's suggestion that the authors were capable of better things, he
is clearly IMPLYING that he knew perfectly well who they were" -- incl. naughty
Martial epigrams. "The 'barrister of standing' was F. P. Pike, whom Ashbee
identifies in the annotated working copy of his annotated working copy of his
"Index""
"Concerning Ashbee's life, much useful information has been gathered
together by Mr. Peter Fryer [don't you hate that use of "Mr."?] in his
Introduction
to "Forbidden Books of the Victorians", an abridgment of Ashbee's
bibliographies in ONE volume, and Ashbee's DIARIES are at present being edited
for
publication by Mr (!)
IAN GIBSON
-- Hooray and welcome to the Cult of the Phoenix.
"But I am reliably informed that they are incomplete, odd years being
missing, and contain very little concerning his interest in erotica"
Yet Gibson, in a sleight of hand seeking only promotion, if you allow me,
went on to call the poor man, "Erotomaniac" -- I just _hate_ the word 'maniac'
as it's seldom well used. To me, it just means that Gibson, for all that S.
Ward praises him, is a bit on the _boring_ side.
But I still need to see the cover to judge the book completely -- :)
Cheers
J. L. Speranza
The Swimming Pool Library -- Bordighera and
Buenos Aires, Argentina
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Other related posts:
