Oh, foolish Foolscap!

In great agitation, she took a sheet of foolscap from the desk drawer. Placing it on the blotter, she dipped her sharpened quill into the inkwell and began to write furiously  …

Or, something like that. How many characters in how many Regency romances have written or received a missive on a sheet of foolscap? More than I can count. So, just what is foolscap?

By context, it is obvious that foolscap is paper. But what most people do not realize is that the name has nothing to do with the quality of the paper. Foolscap refers to the size of the paper, regardless of its quality. The name is taken from the watermark which was most commonly used for this size of paper. This ancient watermark was in the shape of a court jester wearing his distinctive bell-tipped multi-pointed cockscomb cap. Illustrations of foolscap watermarks can be found at the National Gallery of Australia’s page on Whistler.

Foolscap watermarks were first used on European paper in the mid-fifteenth century. But these comical emblems were not immediately used as a size designation. Paper was all handmade at this time and its size was determined by the size of the mould used by the individual paper maker. These moulds were also handmade, which meant there was no standardization of paper sizes. Nor did every paper mill use the same watermarks, of which there were hundreds of designs available.

There is an apocryphal story that the foolscap watermark design originated in the English Rump Parliament when Oliver Cromwell ordered that it be used to replace the royal arms on the paper used for the journals of Parliament. This is rather far-fetched since the foolscap watermark had already been in use for nearly two hundred years by that time. The paper used for Parliamentary record-keeping was called foolscap in later years for the simple reason that was the paper size which had been chosen. Cromwell had nothing to do with it.

It was not until into the eighteenth century that European paper makers began to standardize paper sizes and use specific watermarks to designate those sizes. They chose watermarks which were well-known and had been in use for many years. In addition to foolscap, other watermarks which denoted sizes were crown, hand, post and pott. About 1795, in England, the foolscap watermark was replaced by the figure of Britannia, even though the paper size continued to be referred to as foolscap.

The size of foolscap paper in the nineteenth century for both printing and writing was 16 1/2 inches by 13 1/4 inches. For writing and drawing, there was also sheet-and-half foolscap, at 25 1/2 inches by 13 1/4 inches and sheet-and-third foolscap, at 22 inches by 13 1/4 inches. All of these variations of foolscap were actually some of the smaller paper sizes available during the Regency. The only paper size smaller than foolscap was pott, at 15 1/2 inches by 12 1/4 inches. The largest sizes of writing paper were double elephant, at 39 1/2 inches by 26 1/2 inches and imperial, at 29 1/2 inches by 21 1/2 inches.

Paper for printing could be sold by the ream, which was 480 sheets for most of the nineteenth century, or more often by the bale, which was ten reams. Writing paper could be sold in flat sheets, by the ream. But during the Regency, it was more commonly sold folded, usually in half, by the quire. A quire at that time was 24 sheets, or one-twentieth of a ream. Drawing paper of any size was typically sold flat, often by the sheet, though it was also available by the quire and the ream.

Foolscap was popular with Regency letter writers presumably because it had a generous surface upon which much could be written before the sheet was folded down to be addressed and sealed. But it was not unmanageably large nor would it be difficult to store in a desk drawer, especially if obtained in the folded format. A pen knife could easily slice through the fold when a smaller sheet was needed. Foolscap, as one of the smaller paper sizes, would also be relatively economical to purchase.

It is quite possible that the perception of foolscap as a poor quality paper may stem from a doggerel poem attributed to Benjamin Franklin. In this poem, Franklin compares different types of men with different types of paper. His stanza on foolscap reads:

The retail politician’s anxious thought
Deems this side always right, and that start naught;
He foams with censure; with applause he raves.
A dupe to rumours, and a tool of knaves;
He’ll want no type his weakness to proclaim,
While such a thing as fools-cap has a name.

This poem was first published in the American Museum (Philadelphia, October 1787). It was reprinted in the Works of the Late Dr. Benjamin Franklin, printed by G. G. J. & J. Robinson, London, 1793. The poem was included in the reprints of this work in both 1802, and 1806, also both published in London. Dr. Franklin had always been very popular in England, and there is no doubt his writings were as widely read there as they have been in America. This amusing poem could easily have contributed to the modern-day perception that foolscap was not the best kind of paper. Those who lived during the Regency would have found the poem diverting, but they would never have judged the quality of paper of this size based on Dr. Franklin’s verse.

Foolscap was a traditional paper-size designation in the countries of the former British Empire, until the introduction of international paper sizes in 1975. Today foolscap is the term used to refer to inexpensive yellow writing paper, approximately the size of US legal paper, bound in pads. This modern usage of foolscap may also have contributed to the perception that foolscap is not good quality paper.

Paper was very expensive into the mid-nineteeth century. Therefore, most people were very careful to use only as much as they needed. If, the next time you read a novel set in the Regency, one of the characters writes a letter on "foolscap," you will know they have a lot to say, since they have chosen a rather large sheet of paper. Alternately, if a character receives a brief note, written on a full sheet of foolscap, you will know either the writer was very rich, very wasteful, or the author doesn’t really know what foolscap is. But if the note was written on a half- or quarter-sheet of foolscap, your novel’s author knows exactly how paper was typically used during the Regency.

Advertisements

About Kathryn Kane

Historian with a particular interest the English Regency era.   An avid reader of novels set in that time, holding strong opinions on the historical accuracy to be found in said novels.
This entry was posted in Penmanship and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Oh, foolish Foolscap!

  1. Pingback: Oh, Foolish Foolscap! | The Beau Monde

  2. Sia says:

    Is that why all the old documents have absurdly titchy handwriting to modern eyes, then?

    • Kathryn Kane says:

      The two main reasons why handwriting from the early 19th century and before is a challenge to read is the use of a quill pen, and a much older style of handwriting which people learned back then. By the middle of the 19th century and on, steel pens were available and they were much more reliable in terms of how they transferred the ink to the paper. And, by about that same time, a new, plainer cursive style of writing was being taught in the schools which was much easier to both write and read. Poor quality paper was certainly a challenge to write on, but quills and old-fashioned styles of handwriting are the more likely culprits when it comes to handwriting that is hard to read.

      Regards,

      Kat

  3. Kendra says:

    Do you still have some of the sources you used for this article? I’m looking for more information on the Britannia watermark, which you mentioned replaced the foolscap and was an indicator of the paper size.

    • Kathryn Kane says:

      That article was written so long ago that I am not even sure where my notes are. However, all is not lost. The single most definitive work on the history of all aspects of paper-making is Dard Hunter’s book, Papermaking: The History and Technique of an Ancient Craft. It was reprinted several years ago by Dover Books, and I believe they still have it in print. Also, most libraries should have a copy, and there are lots of used copies to be had online. The information on the Britannia watermark may have come from that source, but if not, it has a substantial bibliography which should help you.

      You might also try doing an Internet search on a keyword phrase like “britannia and foolscap watermarks” as such a search may turn up other information on the topic which is now available online.

      Good Luck!

      Regards,

      Kat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s