Het Boek. Serie 2. Jaargang 30

[p. 117]

The provenance of the oriental types of Thomas Erpenius

It has long been assumed that the oriental types used by Thomas Erpenius were eut especially for him, and that he possessed the punches and matrices for the types he used. But within the last twenty years this belief has been questioned and it would be useful to students of Dutch printing history to reexamine the evidence for and against this belief. Thomas Erpenius, born 11 September 1584, was the son of Gerard Jan van Erpe and Beatrix de Bije, both of noble families of Bois-le-Duc. He attended the Latin School at Leyden and later attended Leyden University where he received a doctor's degree on 8 July 1608. He then applied himself to the study of theology and, with the encouragement of Scaliger, to oriental languages. Subsequently he travelled in England, France, Germany, and Italy, and returned to Leyden toward the end of 1612. On 9 February 1613, he was named extraordinary professor of oriental languages, other than Hebrew, at the University of Leyden. He was popular at the University and numbered among his students such scholars as Sixtinus Amama, Adolph Vorstius, and Jacobus Golius.

Erpenius was the author of several works on the oriental tongues, the first of which were published by Frans van Ravelingen¹. But Erpenius was not content with this arrangement and by 1617 had set up a press in his own house. Subsequently it appears that he had not only Arabic types, but Syrian, Samaritan, Ethiopian, Hebrew, Italic, and Roman types also. The oriental types of Erpenius were subsequently purchased by Isaac Elzevier, and thus came within the purview of Alphonse

1 Thomae Erpenii Grammatica arabica. Leidae, in officina Raphelengiana, 1613; Grammatica arabica quinque libris methodice explicata. a Thoma Erpenio, .... Leidae, in officina Raphelengiana, 1613.

[p. 118]

Willems in writing his great book. In the introduction to Les Elzevier, Willems says:

Non content d'enseigner les langues orientales et de composer des ouvrages propres à en faciliter l'étude, Erpenius avait entrepris de reproduire par la presse les oeuvres des principaux écrivains de l'Orient. A cette fin il avait établi dans sa propre maison une imprimerie, qu'il dirigeait et surveillait lui-même. Une mort inopinée l'enleva le 13 novembre 1624, à l'âge de quarant ans.
Heureusement il avait eu le temps de former plusieurs élèves en état de suivre ses traces; lui-même en mourant avait désigné l'un d'eux, J. Golius, pour lui succéder. L'Université devait donc attacher beaucoup de prix à ce que les poinçons qu'Erpenius avait fait graver à grand frais, ne tombassent point en des mains étrangères et restassent à la disposition de l'Académie. Isaac Elzevier, avec cet esprit d'à propos qui distingue les membres de sa famille alla au devant de ce voeu, en acquerant de la veuve d'Erpenius les caractères, matrices, poinçons, en un mot tout le matériel délaissé par le défunt¹).

Mr. Leonard Willems, writing in De Gulden Passer,² questioned this statement of his father. He stated that the general belief that Erpenius had cut and cast (or caused to be cut and cast) oriental types was based on the statement of Jan van Meurs in which the author, speaking of Erpenius, said that, ‘Mox etiam grandibus impensis typographiam instituit earumdem linguarum, multaque et sua et veterum monumenta divulgavit.’³ Mr. Leonard Willems pointed out that the statement did not necessarily imply that Erpenius had cast oriental types, and he produced two letters, from Frans van Ravelingen and from Joost van Ravelingen, as proof of the fact that Erpenius had not cast types but had only purchased them from these descendants of Christopher Plantin. On the basis of the letters, the author reached the conclusion that:

De interpretatie, die men van den tekst van Meursius (1625) heeft gegeven, alsof Erpenius er een eigen typografisch materiaal op nagehouden zou hebben, blijkt thans een legende te zijn.
Onomstootelijke archiefstukken leveren ons het bewijs dat Erpenius' materiaal grootendeels bestond uit de letters der Polyglotta (1569-72). Deze letters werden in 1583 naar Leiden

1 Alphonse Willems, Les Elzeviers.... Bruxelles, 1880, XLVII-XLVIII.

2 Leonard Willems, ‘De Herkomst van het typografisch materiaal van T. Arpenius’, De Gulden Passer, 1931.

3 Joannis Meursii Athenae batavae, sive de Urbe leidensi et Academia virisque claris, qui utramque ingenio suo, atque scriptis, illustrarunt libri...., Leiden, 1625

[p. 119]

overgebracht door Plantin. En zij zijn aldaar achtereenvolgens in het bezit geweest van Plantin (1583-1585) van Frans van Ravelingen (1585-1597), van Christoffel van Ravelingen (1597-1600) en van Frans II, die ze in 1619 aan Erpenius verkocht¹).

These are, then, two diametrically opposed opinions, the opinion of Alphonse Willems and others that Erpenius went to the trouble of having types cast, and the opinion of Mr. Leonard Willems that this belief is a myth. It will be worthwile to present all of the evidence available which supports either view and to decide where the truth lies. The evidence adduced by Mr. Leonard Willems in De Gulden Passer is precise and easily reviewed. He based his contention on the two letters in the Plantin archives previously mentioned. The first from Frans van Ravelingen to Moretus read:

S.P. Carisse Cognate, hebben all onse schriften elk bij 't syne opgeschikt, ende van alles proeven gemaekt om die d'een en d'andere te toonen, opdat elk syne gaedinge daer uyt kieze ende koope, soo en hebben wy evenwel die tooninge noch niet willen beginnen voor dat wy u.l. eerst de presentatie daer van deden. Allenlik heeft ons verhaest recht voor syn vertrek Thomas Erpenius den welken, als onsen seer goeden vrind, wy niet hebben konnen weigeren. Soo datter dese soorten ontbrecken: Het Syrisch, AEthiopisch, Samaritaens, ende Jolie Hebreuwsch; item Ascendonica cursijf. Wy hebben ons te eer laeten induceeren om de voors.(eide) soorten te verkoopen alsoo u.l. van alles Poincoenen ende Matricen, of ten minsten Matricen hebt. Twelk ons ook doen denken dat u.l. niet van alles begeeren sal; als konnende 't aller tyden doen gieten 't gene u.l. mochte ontbreken.
In Leiden, den 21 September 1619.
U.l. cousyn en dienstwillige vrind
Fr. van Ravelingen.²)
The second, from Joost van Ravelingen to Moretus, read: T. Erpenius heeft het Syricksch, ende Samaritaens, met AEthiopisch ende Jolie Hebreusch (neffens de Ascendonica) van ons begeert: die wy hem niet en hebben connen weygeren: maer die schriften en connen u.l. niet sonderlick ontbreken, gemerct dat de matricen ende poinsoenen derselver by U.l. rusten³).

1 Leonard Willems, op. cit., De Gulden Passer, p. 89.

2 Ibid., p. 88. The letter was previously printed in Charles Enschedé, Fonderies de caractères et leur matériel dans les Pays-Bas du XVe au XIXe siècle...., Haarlem, De Erven F. Bohn, 1908, 61-62.

3 Leonard Willems, op. cit., De Gulden Passer, p. 88. Brief van 18 October 1619 - Reg. XCII fol. 243.

[p. 120]

What inferences might one safely draw from these two letters? It can be said only with reasonable assurance that on this occasion Erpenius purchased certain oriental types from the van Ravelingens.

The case for Erpenius' having eut and cast his own types is more voluminous and varied, and it should be noted at the outset that the types acquired from the Ravelingens were not the first types the famous orientalist had possessed, nor did they constitute his whole stock. In 1617, for example, two years before he purchased types from the Ravelingens, he had printed an Arabic grammar and his famous Historia Josephi Patriarchae ex Alcarano, Arabice: cum triplici versione Latina et scholijs T Erpenii...., in both volumes of which he had employed Arabic types. Also Dr. Charles Enschede stated positively¹ that the Syriac types which Erpenius possessed were not those employed in Plantin's Polyglot Bible. In short, then, as far as the letters of the Ravelingens are concerned, it cannot be said that they prove (or state) that all of Erpenius's types were obtained from the inheritors of Plantin, and indeed there is positive proof that he possessed other oriental types (namely an Arabic, and later a Syrian) which Plantin never possessed.

The other question worth examining is: admitting that Erpenius possessed oriental types not possessed by Plantin, did he have some types eut and cast himself, or did he purchase all of his types from printers and founders as he had purchased part of them from the Ravelingens? Two types of evidence are available on this point; written evidence of Erpenius and of a Contemporary: and physical evidence - types, punches, and matrices - which have survived. The Contemporary referred to is Bishop Usher, who, in writing to Samuel Ward on 23 June 1626, about eighteen months after the death of Erpenius, said that, ‘Since I wrote unto you last, I have received intelligence from Leyden that all Erpenius's printed books are already sold; and his Matrices of the Oriental tongues are bought by Elzevier the Printer there....’² This letter is contemporary, though not incontrovertible, evidence that Erpenius possessed

1 Charles Enschedé, Fonderies de caractères et leur matériel dans les Pays-Bas du XVe au XIXe siècle...., Haarlem, De Eerven F. Bohn, 1908, 62-63.

2 Richard Parr, The life of the most reverend father in God, James Usher. London: Printed for Nathanael Ranew, 1686, 343.

[p. 121]

matrices if not punches or oriental types. More convincing evidence is offered by Erpenius himself. In a letter to the Burgomasters of Leiden and the curators of the university dated 14 July 1620, he said:

Ende ziende, dat de Arabixe druckerye, die den Hertogh van Toscana tot Roomen al over 30 haren hadde laten oprechten, ende hem nae dat ick hoore wel veertich duysent ducaten gecost hadde stil stont, ende ons niet gelevert en hadde het gene, dat tot vorderinge van die taele voor al van noode was; sien de oock dat in ons quartier geen druckers en waren, die het gene ick tot dien eynde gereet hadde ende maeckte, conden ofte wouden drucken, nam ick voor my, alhoewel ick des Hertogh ducaten niet en hadde, mede een Arabixe druckerye, jae van Siricse, Aethiopicse, Hebreeusche ende andere soorten van Orientaelsche schriften mede versien, op te richten. Hebbe het selvige met groote courage begonnen, ende geen costen aensiende verscheyden soorten van letteren laten snijden en gieten (gelijck ick oock noch dagelyx doe)....¹

It ought to be noted that in the letter of Bishop Usher which has been quoted it is stated that oriental matrices passed into the possession of the Elzeviers. Charles Enschedé has shown that the Elzeviers ne ver possessed a type foundry,² yet when the equipment of the Elzevier Leyden establishment was sold in 1713, matrices and punches for oriental types were among the materials disposed of. Since the Elzeviers did not possess a foundry it is reasonable to conclude that both the punches and matrices cane with the Erpenius material. These matrices and punches passed into the possession of the Enschedé foundry, and Charles Enschedé was able to discover a list of the materials actually sold at the Elzevier sale in 1713³. He stated that:

1 P.C. Molhuysen Bronnen tot de geschiedenis der Leidsche Universiteit II, 182*.

2 Charles Enschedé, ‘The Elzevier Press and its relations with the Luther type-foundry....’ translated by A.F. Johnson, in Signature, November, 1938, § 10, pp. 15-37. Dr. Enschedé's article here translated, appeared in 1919 in a Specimen of Schwabacher and Fraktur types issued by Messrs. Joh. Enschedé en Zonen; ‘Die Hochdeutschen Schriften aus dem 15ten bis 19ten Jahrhundert....’ A.F. Johnson's note.

3 In his article in Signature, November, 1938, § 10, p. 24, Enschede reproduces from the archives of his firm an extract from this report on the 1713 sale at which the Elzeviers closed their Leyden press. This material had been used previously in Condensed form in the author's Fonderies de caractères et leur matériel dans les Pays-Bas du XVe au XIXe siècle.... Haarlem, De Erven F. Bohn, 1908, p. 62-63.

[p. 122]

The matrices which according to the Sale Catalogue of 1713 were in the possession of the last Leyden Elzevier, were those of Arabic, Syriac, Hebrew, roman and italic types, and, with the exception of the romans and italics, the punches also were extant.

It is clear then that Erpenius eut and cast oriental types and possessed both matrices and punches, and there is also conclusive evidence that he purchased such types.

Mr. Leonard Willems in his article in De Gulden Passer has overlooked the fact that one possibility does not preclude the other and that it would be possible (as indeed was actually the case) that Erpenius could both purchase and cast types for his oriental press. Indeed, it would be entirely natural and to be expected that a European of the seventeenth century founding an oriental press would be forced to get his equipment by a variety of means.

The question might be asked whether the problem of the provenance of these types is intrinsically important enough to justify the time which has been devoted to it by a number of writers. It can be answered that the problem has important implications for the history of scholarship and of education. That the University of Leyden should have employed as University printer a craftsman (Plantin) who had at one time printed a polyglot Bible and that some of his equipment should eventually come into the hands of a professor of oriental languages is not important. Nor would it be too important that such a professor in his enthusiasm should have cast types. But when one begins to add up the things that were done at Leyden to insure an oriental press - the bringing of Plantin from Antwerp, employing his son-in-law, Ravelingen, supporting Erpenius in his studies and his type casting, taking care that the Elzeviers retained, at the disposal of the University, the material that they had purchased from Erpenius - one begins to get an idea of the vitality of interest in oriental scholarship at Leyden - scholarship which was not equalled at that time in any other university in Europe.

David W. Davies