George D. Painter (1914–2005)

A biography of a man about whom almost nothing personal is known. Painter points out that he could have raised an entire first family while he lived on the continent and they might have left no trace in the records. This book is an account of his career. It opens with an account of the wool trade which is surprisingly interesting, and Painter employs some good critical thinking to analyse the scanty primary records and construct some sort of life story. The book is not without merit.

Cracks start to appear when he moves on to Caxton’s time as a diplomat. Painter fails to properly introduce the political players involved so we’re left adrift in a sea of names. At other times the reverse is the problem. He may mention some person who was tangentially involved with Caxton and gives their entire bloody life story in a footnote only for them never to appear again. It’s impossible to know at the time what information your brain needs to retain. His account of the printing business is sometimes interesting, sometimes dull. How is it possible to make an account of the first books printed in England dull? Painter is not a particularly good writer and at times this reads like a source book for a real biographer to use.… (plus d'informations)

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

That was the thought that instantly came to me as I read George Duncan Painter's constant carps against his predecessors for mis-dating events, or mis-reading texts, or accepting information on inadequate authority. For while Painter may have done better than the others at readings the texts of William Caxton, he has done far worse at reading simple English history.

The most obvious and extreme example of this is his accounts of Richard of Gloucester, the future Richard III. There remains much doubt over how evil and power-mad Richard was. But it is certain that he was not the sociopath that Shakespeare describes. Yet Painter swallows the Shakespeare tradition hook, line, and sinker, even when we know that Shakespeare was making things up!

Does this matter to our understanding of William Caxton? Frankly, no. But when Painter goes out on limbs of reconstruction to determine when Caxton printed certain of his books, or what Caxton was doing at particular times, his willingness to swallow false history is very disturbing -- how can we trust his judgment?

Plus it's genuinely unpleasant to read all those barbed little comments aimed at his predecessors. Painter may have enjoyed it, but you probably won't. We aren't here for scholarly battles; we're here to read about England's first printer.

The good news is, amid all the information you can't trust, there is a lot of genuinely useful typographic scholarship that can and should help us date important works of English literature -- the works of Chaucer and Malory and others that Caxton printed. In that regard, Painter does us a genuine service. But I wish I hadn't had to relive all his petty scholarly controversies along the way.… (plus d'informations)