- About Bookbinding -

In these suggestions upon the important question of the binding of books, I
shall have nothing to say of the history of the art, and very little of its
aesthetics. The plainest and most practical hints will be aimed at, and if my
experience shall prove of value to any, I shall be well rewarded for giving it here.
For other matters readers will naturally consult some of the numerous manuals
of book-binding in English, French and German. The sumptuous bindings
executed in the sixteenth century, under the patronage and the eyes of Grolier,
the famous tooled masterpieces of Derome, Le Gascon, Padeloup, Trautz and
other French artists, and the beautiful gems of the binder's art from the hands
of Roger Payne, Lewis, Mackenzie, Hayday and Bedford, are they not celebrated
in the pages of Dibdin, Lacroix, Fournier, Wheatley and Robert Hoe?
There are some professed lovers of books who affect either indifference or
contempt for the style in which their favorites are dressed. A well known
epigram of Bums is sometimes quoted against the fondness for fine bindings
which widely prevails in the present day, as it did in that of the Scottish Poet. A
certain Scottish nobleman, endowed with more wealth than brains, was vain of
his splendidly bound Shakespeare, which, however, he never read. Bums, on
opening the folio, found the leaves sadly worm-eaten, and wrote these lines on
the fly-leaf:

"Through and through th' inspired leaves,
Ye maggots make your windings;
But O respect his lordship's taste,
And spare the golden bindings!"

Yet no real book-lover fails to appreciate the neatness and beauty of a tasteful
binding, any more than he is in different to the same qualities in literary style.
Slovenly binding is almost as offensive to a cultivated eye as slovenly
composition. No doubt both are "mere externals," as we are told and so are the
splendors of scenery, the beauty of flowers, and the comeliness of the human
form, or features, or costume. Talk as men will of the insignificance of dress, it
constitutes a large share of the attractiveness of the world in which we live.
The two prime requisites of good binding for libraries are neatness and solidity.
It is pleasant to note the steady improvement in American bindings of late
years. As the old style of "Half cloth boards," of half a century ago, with paper
titles pasted on the backs, has given way to the neat, embossed, full muslin gilt,
so the clumsy and homely sheepskin binding has been supplanted by the
half-roan or morocco, with marble or muslin sides. Few books are issued,
however, either here or abroad, in what may be called permanent bindings. The
cheapness demanded by buyers of popular books forbids this, while it leaves to
the taste and fancy of everyone the selection of the ''library style" in which he
will have his collection permanently dressed.
What is the best style of binding for a select or a public library? is a question
often discussed, with wide discrepancies of opinion. The so universally prevalent
cloth binding is too flimsy for books subjected to much use-as most volumes in
public collections and many in private libraries are likely to be. The choice of the
more substantial bindings lies between calf and morocco, and between half or
full bindings of either. For nearly all books, half binding, if well executed, and
with cloth sides, is quite as elegant, and very nearly as solid and lasting as full
leather; for if a book is so worn as to need rebinding, it is generally in a part
where the full binding wears out quite as fast as the other. That is, it gets worn
at the hinges and on the back, whether full or half-bound. The exceptions are
the heavy dictionaries, encyclopaedias, and other works of reference, which are
subjected to much wear and tear at the sides, as well as at the back and
corners. Full leather is much more expensive than half binding, though not
doubly so.

Back