110 bruyn / eyben / elix
formed the core of the Elix foundry for the rest of its existence. In the 1838 circular, Elix also announces that he now has an engraver in his employ who has made ‘important advancements in typographic punchcutting’. This punchcutter was most likely Jean Baptist De Passe (Brussels 1806?–Amsterdam 1844) whom Charles Enschedé says was foreman of the Elix foundry. Although De Passe came from Brussels, and may have been apprenticed in any of several foundries active there in the 1820s, he was in Paris in 1835 and 1836 where he worked as foreman in the foundry of Firmin Didot (see De Passe & Menne, pp. 251–252). Elix no doubt met him there when he visited France in 1836/37, and arranged for him to move to Amsterdam. Enschedé blames De Passe’s lack of proficiency in Dutch and his supposed ‘bad behaviour’ and bad management for the eventual failure of the Elix foundry, but he supposed that De Passe remained with the firm and succeeded to it. The foundry seems more likely to have suffered from De Passe’s departure to establish a foundry of his own in 1841, and from the death of Elix in 1845. The foundry issued no general specimen after that of 1840 (reissued with additions in 1841, cat.nr. 271) and, as far as we know, no specimens at all after about 1842.17 On Elix’s death, his brother Coenraad took charge of the firm until it could be liquidated, handling any urgent matters still outstanding. The printing office and foundry were auctioned in 1846 and 1847 respectively (see cat. nrs. 275, 276). The auctioneer’s copy of the catalogue of the foundry indicates that Enschedé’s purchases included lot 1, ‘a chest of drawers, filled with more than 8000 modern matrices, such as roman, italic, Greek, Hebrew, braces, fillets, flowers, etc. manufactured by Didot at Paris’ (‘een kast met laden, gevuld met ruim 8000 moderne matrijzen, als: romeinsche, curcijfsche, Grieksche, Hebreeuwsche, accolades, fileten, bloemen, enz. vervaardigd bij Didot te Parijs’). This must be the Vibert/ Cronier material, in spite of the attribution to the more famous Didot, for whom Vibert had worked. Lot A, ‘a chest containing more than fifty boxes with various old matrices’ (‘een kist, waarin ruim vijftig dozen met diverse oude matrices’), that is, the material from Bruyn, was bought by ‘Janzen’, perhaps T.E. Janssen (see pp. 268–270), or perhaps merely a scrap-metal merchant. In some way, however, some of this older material also descended to Enschedé, although it was not displayed in their specimens until revived out of historical interest at the beginning of the twentieth century.18 The
catalogue does not report the number of old matrices: the 1811 survey reports 11,609 which gives a total of about 20,000 as reported in Elix’s 1838 circular (cat.nr. 277), but many may have been melted down for the valuable copper in the following decade. The survey also reports 3191 ‘contra-stempels’, apparently an error for ‘stempels’, that is, punches.19 jal References I.H. van Eeghen, De Amsterdamse boekhandel, 5 vols., Amsterdam 1960–78, vol. 3, pp. 23, 54–59, vol. 5, pp. 112, 304. J.H.A. Ringeling, ‘De bewogen geschiedenis van de familie Elix’ in Jaarboek van het genootschap Amstelodamum, 60 (1968), pp. 119–146, at pp. 136–144. [Charles Enschedé], De lettergieterij van Joh. Enschedé en Zonen: gedenkschrift ter gelegenheid van haar honderdvijftig-jarig bestaan op 9 maart 1893, Haarlem 1893, pp. 111–112. Mathieu Lommen, ‘Lettergieten in de Jordaan: Amsterdamse lettergieterijen in de negentiende eeuw’, Net geperst, in-house magazine of Tetterode Nederland, May 1995, pp. 3–11 of the loose insert. Charles Enschedé, Typefoundries in the Netherlands, translated and revised by Harry Carter, Haarlem 1978, pp. 136–143, 276–278, 402–403. Notes 1. From 1637 to 1695, this building housed the famous printing office (and until 1677 also the typefoundry) of the Blaeu family. Hendrik and Dirck Bruyn bought the printing office building in 1696, including the Blaeu residence next to it and at least some of the buildings behind them extending to the Nieuwe Leliestraat. The Blaeus sold another building in the complex, immediately to the east of these two, to another party. It would hardly seem necessary to comment on the Bloemgracht 130 location if it weren’t for the plaque on Bloemgracht 76 identifying it as the famous printing office. Filips von Zesen, Beschreibung der Stadt Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1664, pp. 215–216 of the 4o edition and pp. 296–297 of the 12o edition (with no substantive differences) gives a very detailed description of the complex, at the third of four bridges, and at the corner of the third cross street. This is confirmed by Hendrik Bruyn’s testament of 6 September 1729 (GA Amsterdam: NA 7834, no. 124, not. Pieter Blom), which says at the last cross street. These can only refer to the current Bloemgracht 130 at the corner of the 3de Leliedwarsstraat, rather than Bloemgracht 76 at the corner of the 2de Leliedwarsstraat. Van Eeghen quotes a document of 1683 that says at the corner of the ‘Roode Lelyestraet’. The confusion must arise from the record of the sale in 1696 (Van Eeghen vol. 3, p. 23; see also vol. 5, p. 112,