diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63237-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63237-0.txt | 6956 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6956 deletions
diff --git a/old/63237-0.txt b/old/63237-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 01ffe27..0000000 --- a/old/63237-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6956 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's Early Printed Books, by E. (Edward) Gordon Duff - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Early Printed Books - -Author: E. (Edward) Gordon Duff - -Release Date: September 19, 2020 [EBook #63237] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EARLY PRINTED BOOKS *** - - - - -Produced by Fay Dunn, Fiona Holmes and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes. - -The spellings of Schœffer and Schoeffer have been left as printed. - -Footnotes were moved to the ends of the text they pertain to and -numbered in one continuous sequence. - -Differences in hyphenation of specific words and missing punctuation -have been rectified where applicable. - -Other changes made are noted at the end of the book. - - -[Illustration: FROM SCHOEFFER’S CANON OF THE MASS] - - - - -Early Printed Books - -By - -E. Gordon Duff - - -[Illustration] - - -London -Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd. -MDCCCXCIII - - - - -TO -THE MEMORY OF -HENRY BRADSHAW - -ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλεῖ - - - - -Preface - - -In the following pages I have endeavoured to give a short account of -the introduction of printing into the principal countries and towns of -Europe, and to bring our information on the subject as far as possible -up to date. - -Small books on large subjects are for the most part both superficial -and imperfect, and I am afraid the present book forms no exception to -this rule, but my excuse must be that I have attempted rather to draw -attention to more out of the way information than to recapitulate what -is already to be found in the majority of bibliographical books. - -Above all, I have tried as far as possible to confine myself to facts -and avoid theories, for only by working from facts can we help to keep -bibliography in the position, to which Henry Bradshaw raised it, of a -scientific study. - -And, in the words of a learned Warden of my own college, ‘if any shall -suggest, that some of the inquiries here insisted upon do seem too -minute and trivial for any prudent Man to bestow his serious thoughts -and time about, such persons may know, that the discovery of the true -nature and cause of any the most minute thing, doth promote real -knowledge, and therefore cannot be unfit for any Man’s endeavours who -is willing to contribute to the advancement of Learning.’ - - * * * * * - -I must express my best thanks to two friends, Mr. F. J. H. Jenkinson, -University Librarian, Cambridge; and Mr. J. P. Edmond, Librarian to -the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, for very kindly reading through -the proofs of the entire book and making many useful suggestions and -corrections. - - E. G. D. - - _March 1893._ - - - - - Contents - - - PAGE - - CHAPTER I - - STEPS TOWARDS THE INVENTION, 1 - - - CHAPTER II - - THE INVENTION OF PRINTING, 21 - - - CHAPTER III - - SPREAD OF PRINTING IN GERMANY, 39 - - - CHAPTER IV - - ITALY, 59 - - - CHAPTER V - - FRANCE, 78 - - - CHAPTER VI - - THE LOW COUNTRIES, 95 - - - CHAPTER VII - - SPAIN AND PORTUGAL--DENMARK AND SWEDEN, 113 - - - CHAPTER VIII - - WESTMINSTER: CAXTON--WYNKYN DE WORDE--JULIAN - NOTARY, 125 - - - CHAPTER IX - - OXFORD AND ST. ALBAN’S, 147 - - - CHAPTER X - - LONDON: JOHN LETTOU--WILLIAM DE MACHLINIA--RICHARD - PYNSON, 160 - - - CHAPTER XI - - THE SPREAD OF THE ART IN GREAT BRITAIN, 174 - - - CHAPTER XII - - THE STUDY OF BOOKBINDING, 185 - - - CHAPTER XIII - - THE COLLECTING AND DESCRIBING OF EARLY PRINTED - BOOKS, 201 - - - INDEX OF PRINTERS AND PLACES, 213 - - - - - Illustrations - - - PAGE FROM THE CANON OF THE MASS PRINTED BY - SCHOEFFER ABOUT 1458 (_much reduced_), _Frontispiece_ - - (From the unique copy in the Bodleian.) - - PLATE PAGE - - I. PAGE 3 OF THE ‘MIRABILIA ROMÆ,’ 11 - - (From the copy in the British Museum.) - - II. THE CATALOGUE ISSUED BY SCHOEFFER ABOUT 1469 - (_reduced_), 31 - - (Reproduced from a full-sized facsimile of the original - in the Munich Library, published in the _Centralblatt - für Bibliothekswesen_.) - - III. PAGE 3 OF THE ‘LIBER EPISTOLARUM’ OF GASPARINUS - BARZIZIUS, the first book printed at Paris, 83 - - (From the copy in the British Museum.) - - IV. FRAGMENT OF AN EDITION OF THE ‘DOCTRINALE’ OF - ALEXANDER GALLUS, one of the so-called ‘Costeriana,’ 98 - - (Reduced from the copy in the British Museum.) - - V. PAGE OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THE ‘SARUM BREVIARY,’ 127 - - (Printed at Cologne about 1475.) - - VI. PART OF A PAGE FROM THE ‘GOLDEN LEGEND,’ 144 - - (Printed by Julian Notary in 1503. From the copy in - the British Museum.) - - VII. FIRST PAGE OF THE ‘EXCITATIO AD ELEMOSINAM - FACIENDAM,’ 152 - - (Printed at Oxford about 1485. From the unique copy - in the British Museum.) - - VIII. PAGE OF THE ‘HORÆ AD USUM SARUM,’ 163 - - (Printed at London by Machlinia. From the fragment - in the University Library, Cambridge.) - - IX. LAST PAGE OF THE ‘FESTUM NOMINIS JESU,’ 167 - - (Printed at London by Pynson about 1493. From the - unique copy in the British Museum.) - - X. STAMPED BINDING WITH THE DEVICE OF PYNSON, 193 - - (From the original in the British Museum.) - - - - - EARLY PRINTED BOOKS. - - - - - CHAPTER I. - - STEPS TOWARDS THE INVENTION. - - -When we speak of the invention of printing, we mean the invention -of the art of multiplying books by means of single types capable of -being used again and again in different combinations for the printing -of different books. Taking the word printing in its widest sense, it -means merely the impression of any image; and the art of impressing -or stamping words or pictures seems to have been known from the very -earliest times. The handles of Greek amphoræ, the bases of Roman -lamps and vases, were often impressed with the maker’s name, or other -legend, by means of a stamp. This was the basis of the art, and Cicero -(_De Nat. Deorum_, ii. 37) had suggested the combination of single -letters into sentences. Quintilian refers to stencil plates as a guide -to writing; and stamps with letters cut in relief were in common use -amongst the Romans. The need for the invention, however, was not -great, and it was never made. The first practical printing, both from -blocks and movable type, was done in China. As early as A.D. 593 the -more important texts were printed from engraved wooden plates by the -order of the Emperor Wên-ti, and in the eleventh century printing from -movable type was introduced by a certain smith named Picheng. The -multiplicity of Chinese characters rendered the discovery of movable -type of little economical value, and the older system of block printing -has found favour even up to the present time. In the same way, Corea -and Japan, though both had experimented with movable type, returned to -their former custom of block printing. - -It is impossible now to determine whether rumours of the art could have -reached Europe from China and have acted as incentives to its practice. -Writers on early printing scout the idea; and there is little to -oppose to their verdict, with our present uncertain knowledge. Modern -discoveries, however, point to the relations of China with foreign -countries in the fourteenth century having been much more important -than is generally supposed. - -The earliest productions in the nature of prints from wooden blocks -upon paper which we find in Europe, are single sheets bearing generally -the image of a saint. From their perishable nature but few of these -prints have come down to our times; and though we have evidence that -they were being produced, at any rate as early as the fourteenth, -perhaps even as the thirteenth century, the earliest print with -a definite and unquestioned date still in existence is the ‘St. -Christopher’ of 1423. This print was discovered in 1769 by Heinecken, -pasted inside the binding of a manuscript in the library of the Convent -of the Chartreuse at Buxheim in Swabia. The manuscript, which is now -in the Spencer Library,[1] is entitled _Laus Virginum_, is dated 1417, -and is said to have been given to the Monastery of Buxheim by a certain -Anna, Canoness of Buchau, ‘who is known to have been living in 1427.’ -On the inside of the other board of the binding is pasted a cut of the -Annunciation, said to be of the same age and workmanship as the St. -Christopher. It is worth noticing that there seem to have been some -wood engravers in this Swabian monastery, who engraved the book-plate -for the books given by ‘Dominus Hildibrandus Brandenburg de Bibraco’ -towards the end of the fifteenth century; and these book-plates are -printed on the reverse sides of pieces of an earlier block-book, very -probably engraved and printed in the monastery for presentation to -travellers or pilgrims. - -[1] The Spencer Library has now passed into the possession of Mrs. -Rylands, of Manchester; but as many of the early printed books in it -are described in Dibdin’s _Bibliothecá Spencerianá_, and as it is so -widely known under the name of the Spencer Library, it has been thought -best, in order to avoid confusion, to refer to it under its old name -throughout the present book. - -The date on the celebrated Brussels print of 1418 has unfortunately -been tampered with, so that its authenticity is questioned. The print -was found by an innkeeper in 1848, fixed inside an old chest, and it -was soon acquired by the Royal Library at Brussels. Since the date has -been touched up with a pencil, and at the same time some authorities -consider 1468 to be the right reading, it is best to consider the St. -Christopher as the earliest dated woodcut. Though these two are the -earliest dated prints known, it is, of course, most probable that some -others which are undated may be earlier; but to fix even an approximate -date to them is in most cases impossible. The conventional way in -which religious subjects were treated, and the extraordinary care with -which one cutter copied from another, makes it difficult even for a -specialist to arrive at any very definite conclusions. - -In England, wood engraving does not seem to have been much practised -before the introduction of printing, but there are one or two cuts -that may be assigned to an earlier period. Mr. Ottley, in his _Inquiry -concerning the Invention of Printing_, drew attention to a curious -Image of Pity which he had found sewn on the blank leaf at the -beginning of a manuscript service-book. This cut, of which he gives -a facsimile in his book, is now in the British Museum. Another cut, -very similar in design and execution, and probably of about the same -date, was found a few years ago in the Bodleian, also inserted at the -beginning of a manuscript service-book. In the upper part of the cut -is a half-length figure of our Lord, with the hands crossed, standing -in front of the cross. On a label at the top of the cross is an -inscription, the first part of which is clearly O BACIΛEVC, but the -second part is not clear. In the British Museum cut it has been read -‘hora 3ª;’ and though this interpretation is ingenious, and might be -made to fit with the Museum copy (which has unfortunately been touched -up), the clearer lettering of the Bodleian copy, which has evidently -the same inscription, shows that this reading can hardly be accepted. - -Below the figure we have the text of the indulgence— - - ‘Seynt gregor’ with othir’ popes & bysshoppes yn feer - Have graunted’ of pardon xxvi dayes & xxvi Mill’ yeer’ - To theym that befor’ this fygur’ on their’ knees - Deuoutly say v pater noster & v Auees.’ - -Ottley was of opinion that his cut might be of as early a date as -the St. Christopher; but that is, of course, a point impossible to -determine. From the writing of the indulgence, Bradshaw considered -it to belong to the northern part of England; and the subject is -differently treated from other specimens of the Image of Pity issued -subsequently to the introduction of printing, for in them the various -symbols of the Passion are arranged as a border round the central -figure. Inserted at the end of a Sarum Book of Hours in the British -Museum is a drawing of an Image of Pity, with some prayers below, which -resembles in many ways the earlier cuts. - -The woodcut alphabet, described by Ottley, now in the British Museum, -has been considered to be of English production, because on one of the -prints is written in very early writing the two words ‘London’ and -‘Bechamsted.’ There seems very little reason beyond this for ascribing -these letters to an English workman, though it is worth noticing that -they were originally bound up in a small volume, each letter being -pasted on a guard formed of fragments of English manuscript of the -fifteenth century. - -In the Weigel Collection was a specimen of English block-printing which -is now in the British Museum; it is part of some verses on the Seven -Virtues, but it is hard to ascribe any date to it. Another early cut -is mentioned by Bradshaw as existing in Ely Cathedral. It is a cut of -a lion, and is fixed against one of the pillars in the choir, close to -the tomb of Bishop Gray, whose device it represents. This bishop died -in 1479, so that an approximate date may be given to the cut. It is -very probable that these last two specimens of block-printing are later -than the introduction of printing into England, and the only ones that -should be dated earlier are the British Museum and Bodleian Images of -Pity. - -A good many single woodcuts were executed in England before the close -of the fifteenth century. They were mostly Images of Pity, such as -have been mentioned, or ‘rosaries’ containing religious emblems, with -the initials I. H. S. A curious cut in the Bodleian represents the -Judgment, and below this a body in a shroud. Above the cut is printed, -‘Surgite mortui Venite ad Judicium,’ and below on either side of a -shield the words, ‘Arma Beate Birgitte De Syon.’ - -A curious devotional cut is inserted in the _Faques Psalter_ of 1504 in -the British Museum, containing the emblems of the Passion and a large -I. H. S. At the base of the cut are the initials d. h. b., perhaps -referring to the place where the cut was issued. Most of these cuts -were doubtless produced in monasteries or religious houses to give or -sell to visitors, who very often inserted them in their own private -books of devotion, and in this manner many have been preserved. The -Lambeth copy of the Wynkyn de Worde _Sarum Horæ_ of 1494 shows signs of -having contained eighteen of such pictures, though only three are now -left. - -After the single leaf prints we come to the block-books, which we may -look upon in some ways as the precursors of printed books. - -‘A block-book is a book printed wholly from carved blocks of wood. -Such volumes usually consist of pictorial matter only; if any text -is added in illustration, it likewise is carved upon the wood-block, -and not put together with movable types. The whole of any one page, -sometimes the whole of two pages, is printed from a single block of -wood. The manner in which the printing was done is peculiar. The block -was first thoroughly wetted with a thin watery ink, then a sheet of -damp paper was laid upon it, and the back of the paper was carefully -rubbed with some kind of dabber or burnisher, till an impression from -the ridges of the carved block had been transferred to the paper. Of -course in this fashion a sheet could only be printed on one side; the -only block-book which does not possess this characteristic is the -_Legend of St. Servatius_ in the Royal Library of Brussels, and that is -an exceptional volume in many respects besides.’[2] These block-books -must be considered as forming a distinct group of themselves, radically -different from other books, though undoubtedly they gave the idea to -the inventor of movable type. They continued to be made during the -whole of the fifteenth century, almost always on the same plan, and -each one as archaic looking as another. The invention of movable type -did not do away with the demand, and the supply was kept up. - -[2] Conway’s _Woodcutters of the Netherlands_. Cambridge, 1884. 8vo. - -Unfortunately we have no data for determining the exact period at which -these books were made; and it is curious to note that all the editions -which are dated have a late date, the majority being between 1470 and -1480, and none being earlier than the first date, with the exception of -the Brussels block-book, which is dated 1440. - -The number of different block-books in existence is hard to estimate, -but it must approach somewhere near one hundred. Many of these are -of little importance, many others of too late a date to be of much -interest. - -The best known of the earlier block-books are the _Ars Moriendi_, the -_Biblia Pauperum_, the _Apocalypse_, and the _Canticum Canticorum_. -Of these, the first and third are probably German, the second and -fourth Dutch. Of all these books there are a number of editions, not -easily distinguishable apart, and which it is difficult to place in -chronological order. These editions are hardly editions in the modern -sense of the term. They were not produced by a printer who used one set -of blocks till they were worn out, and then cut another. The woodcutter -was the only tradesman, and he sold, not the books, but the blocks. -He cut set after set of blocks to print the few books then in demand, -and these were sold to private purchasers. We find wealthy people or -heads of religious establishments in possession of such sets. In the -inventory of Jean de Hinsberg, Bishop of Liège, 1419-1455, are noticed— - - ‘Unum instrumentum ad imprimendas scripturas et ymagines - - ‘Novem printe lignee ad imprimendas ymagines cum quatuordecim aliis - lapideis printis.’ - -Thus, these editions do not necessarily follow one another; some may -have been produced side by side by different cutters, others within the -interval of a few months, but by the same man. Their date is another -difficult point. The copies of the _Biblia Pauperum_, _Apocalypse_, -and _Ars Moriendi_, which belonged to Mr. Horn, were in their original -binding, and it was stamped with a date. The books were separated and -the binding destroyed. Mr. Horn asserted from memory that the first -three figures of the date were certainly 142, and the last probably an -8. Mr. Conway very justly points out that the resemblance of a 5 of -that date to our 2 was very strong, and that Mr. Horn’s memory may -have deceived him. - -It will be noticed in examining block-books generally, that the -letterpress in the majority of the later examples is cut in imitation -of handwriting, and not of the square church hand from which printing -types and the letterpress of the earlier block-books were copied. The -reason of this probably is, that it was found useless to try to compete -with the books printed from movable type in regularity and neatness. -To do so would have involved a much greater expenditure of trouble by -the woodcutter and designer. The illustrations were the important part -of the book, and the letterpress was put in with as little trouble as -possible. - -The sheets on which the early block-books were printed were not quired, -_i.e._ placed one inside the other to form a quire or gathering, as was -done in ordinary printed books, but followed each other singly. In many -of the books we find signatures, each sheet being signed with a letter -of the alphabet as a guide to the binder in arranging them. - -Among the dated block-books may be mentioned an edition of the -_Endkrist_, dated 1472, produced at Nuremberg; an edition of the _Ars -Moriendi_ cut by Hans Sporer in 1473; and another of about the same -period cut by Ludwig zu Ulm. Of the _Biblia Pauperum_ there are three -dated editions known, one of 1470 and two of 1471. A copy of the _De -generatione Christi_ has the following full colophon:— - -‘Johannes Eysenhut impressor, anno ab incarnationis dominice Mº -quadringentesimo septuagesimo Iº.’ Hans Sporer of Nuremberg produced an -edition of the _Biblia Pauperum_ in 1475, and Chatto speaks of another -of the same year without a name, but containing as a mark a shield with -a spur upon it, which he supposes to stand for the name Sporer. Many -of these later books were not printed in distemper on one side of the -paper only, but on both sides and in printer’s ink, showing that the -use of the printing press was known to those who produced them. - -[Illustration: PAGE 3 OF THE ‘MIRABILIA ROMÆ’] - -Among the late block-books should be noticed the _Mirabilia Romæ_ -[Hain 11,208]; for why it should have been printed as a block-book -is a mystery. It consists of 184 pages of text, with only two -illustrations, printed on both sides of the page, and evidently of late -date. The letterpress is not cut in imitation of type, but of ordinary -handwriting, and the book may have been made to sell to those who were -not accustomed to the type of printed books. The arms of the Pope which -occur in the book are those of Sixtus IV., who occupied the papal -chair from 1471 to 1484, so that the book may be considered to have -been produced within those two dates, probably nearer the latter. The -accompanying facsimile is taken from the first page of text. - -The best known of the block-books, and the one which has the most -important place in the history of printing, is the _Speculum Humanæ -Salvationis_. While it is called a block-book, it has many differences -from those we have previously spoken of, and occupies a position midway -between them and the ordinary printed book. - -The earliest block-books were printed page by page, and the sheets -were bound up one after the other; but the _Speculum_ is arranged in -quires, though still only printed on one side of the page. In it, too, -the text is, as a rule, printed from movable type, except in the case -of one edition, where some pages are entirely xylographic. There are -four editions known, printed, according to the best authorities, in the -following order:— - -1. Latin, printed with one fount. [Hessels, 2.] - -2. Dutch, printed with two founts. [Hessels, 3.] - -3. Latin, with twenty leaves printed xylographically. [Hessels, 1.] - -4. Dutch, with one fount. [Hessels, 4.] - -In all these four books the same cuts are used, and the type with which -they were printed was used in other books. - -Edition 1 contains sixty-four leaves, made up by one gathering of -six leaves, three of fourteen, and one of sixteen; the text is -throughout printed from movable type. In two copies, those in the -Meerman-Westreenen Museum at the Hague, and the Pitti Palace at -Florence, are to be found cancels of portions of some leaves. Either -the text or the illustration has been defectively printed; in each case -the defective part has been supplied by another copy pasted on. - -Edition 2 contains sixty-two leaves, made up in the same way as the -first edition, but having only four leaves in the first gathering. Two -leaves in this edition are printed in a different type from the rest of -the book. - -Edition 3 contains the same number of leaves, and is made up in the -same way as edition 1. It is remarkable for having twenty leaves -printed entirely from blocks, text as well as illustrations. - -Edition 4 is made up in the same way as edition 2. The copy in the -library at Lille contains some leaves with text printed upon both -sides, seemingly by an error of the printer. The very fact of their -existence shows that it was possible to print the text on both sides -of the leaf. There must therefore have been some reason other than the -ignorance or incapacity of the printer for printing these books on one -side only, or, as it is called, anopisthographically. - -There can be very little doubt that Mr. Sotheby is correct in -his conjecture, that ‘the then usual process of taking off the -wood engravings by friction, rendered it impossible to effect two -impressions back to back, as the friction for the second would -materially injure the first. On this account, and on no other, we -presume, was the text printed only on one side.’ In the Lille copy -above mentioned, two leaves, 25 and 26 (the centre sheet of the -third quire), contain printed on their other side the text, not the -illustrations, of leaves 47 and 62 (the first sheet of the fifth quire.) - -From this we learn three things of great importance--1. That the text -and the cut were not printed at the same time, and that the text was -printed first. 2. That the printer could print the text, for which he -used movable type, on both sides of the paper. 3. That the book was -printed, not page by page, but two pages at a time. - -Mr. Ottley was strongly of opinion, after careful examination, that the -book was certainly printed two pages at a time. He says, ‘The proofs -of this are, I think, conclusive. The upper lines of the text in those -two pages always range exactly with each other.... Here and there, in -turning over the book, we observe a page printed awry or diagonally -on the paper; in such case, if the other page of the same sheet be -examined, the same defect will be noticed. Upon opening the two Dutch -copies of the edition, which I shall hereafter show to be the fourth -at Harlem, in the middle sheet of the same gathering we find, upon -comparing them, the exact same breadth and regularity of the inner -margin in both, and the lines of the two pages range with each other -exactly the same in both copies, which could not be the case had each -page been printed separately.’ - -Where and when was this book printed? Conjectural dates have been -given to it ranging from 1410 to 1470. The earliest date that can be -absolutely connected with it is 1471-73. Certainly there is nothing in -its printing which would point to its having been executed earlier than -1470. Its being printed only on the one side of the leaf was a matter -of necessity on account of the cuts, and is not a sign of remote -age, while the printing of two pages at a time argues an advance of -knowledge in the printer, and consequently a later date. About 1480-81 -the blocks which had been used for the four editions of the _Speculum_ -passed into the hands of John Veldener. This Veldener printed in -Louvain between 1475 and 1477, and he was not then in possession of -the blocks. ‘At the end of 1478 he began work at Utrecht, still, -however, without this set of blocks. For his second edition of the -_Fasciculus temporum_, published 14th February 1480, he had a few new -blocks made, some of which were copied from _Speculum_ cuts. At last, -on the 19th April 1481, he published an _Epistles and Gospels_ in -Dutch, and into that he introduced two cut-up portions of the real old -_Speculum_ blocks. This was the last book Veldener is known to have -printed at Utrecht. For two years we hear nothing more of him, and then -he reappears at Kuilenburg, whither he removed his presses. There, on -the 27th September 1483, he printed a quarto edition of the _Speculum_ -in Dutch. For it he cut up all the original blocks into their separate -compartments, and thus suited them to fit into the upper portion of a -quarto page. He had, moreover, twelve new cuts made in imitation of -these severed portions of the old set, and he printed them along with -the rest. Once more, in 1484 he employed a couple of the old set in the -Dutch _Herbarius_, which was the last book known to have been issued by -him at Kuilenburg. Thenceforward the _Speculum_ cuts appear no more.’[3] - -[3] Conway’s _Woodcutters_, p. 13. - -The only place, then, with which the _Speculum_ blocks are definitely -connected is Utrecht, and there they must be left until some further -evidence is forthcoming respecting their origin; nor have we any -substantial reason for believing that when they passed into the -possession of Veldener they had been in existence for more than ten or -twelve years. - -Some among the late block-books are of interest as having been produced -by men who were at the same time printers in the ordinary sense of the -word. There is part of a _Donatus_ in the Bodleian, with a colophon -stating it to be the work of Conrad Dinckmut, a printer at Ulm from -1482 to 1496. In the British Museum is a German almanac of about 1490 -produced by Conrad Kacheloffen, who printed a number of books, many -with illustrations, at Leipzig. For a book so small as the _Donatus_, -a book which was always in demand, it would be almost as economical to -cut blocks as to keep type standing, and we consequently find a number -of such xylographic editions produced at the very end of the fifteenth -century. In the Bibliothèque Nationale are two original blocks, bought -by Foucault, the minister of Louis XIV., in Germany, and probably cut -about 1500 or shortly before. The letters are cut in exact imitation of -type, and with such regularity that a print from the block might almost -pass for a print from ordinary type, did not the bases and tops of a -few letters overlap. - -The latest block-book of any size was printed at Venice. It is the -_Figure del Testamento Vecchio_, printed about 1510 by Giovanni Andrea -Vavassore. - -In the library at Lambeth Palace are two curious block-printed leaves -of early English work. Each leaf contains an indulgence printed four -times, consisting of a figure of Saint Cornelius and five lines of -text. ‘The hole indulgence of pardon granted to blessed S. Cornelis is -vi score years, vi score lentes, ii M ix C and xx dais of pardon for -evermore to endure.’ - -It shows us very clearly the cheapness with which such work could be -produced; for, in order to save the time which would be occupied in -taking impressions singly from one block, two blocks have been used -almost exactly the same, so that two impressions could be taken off at -once. This was usually done in printing indulgences from movable type, -for there the trouble of setting up twice was very small compared to -the gain in the time and labour which resulted from it. - -There still remains to be noticed the one specimen of xylography -produced in France. This is known as _Les Neuf Preux_. It consists -of three sheets of paper, each of which contains an impression from -a block containing three figures. They are printed by means of the -frotton in light-coloured ink, and have been coloured by hand. The -first sheet contains pictures of the three champions of classical -times, Hector, Alexander, and Julius Cæsar; the second, the three -champions of the Old Testament, Joshua, David, and Judas Maccabæus; the -third, the three champions of mediæval history, Arthur, Charlemagne, -and Godfrey of Boulogne. Under each picture is a stanza of six lines, -all rhyming, cut in a bold type. - -These leaves form part of the _Armorial_ of Gilles le Bouvier, who -was King-at-Arms to Charles VII. of France; and as the manuscript was -finished between 9th November 1454 and 22nd September 1457, it is -reasonable to suppose that the prints were executed in France, probably -at Paris, before the latter date. The verses are, at any rate, the -oldest printed specimen of the French language. - -When we consider that printing of a rudimentary kind had existed -for so many centuries, and that during the whole of the early part -of the fifteenth century examples with words or even whole lines of -inscription were being produced, we can only wonder that the discovery -of printing from movable types should have been made so late. It has -been said inventions will always be made when the need for them has -arisen, and this is the real reason, perhaps, why the discovery of -printing was delayed. The intellectual requirements of the mediæval -world were not greater than could be satisfactorily supplied by the -scribe and illuminator, but with the revival of letters came an -absolute need for the more rapid multiplication of the instruments -of learning. We may even say that the intellectual activity of -the fifteenth century not only called printing into existence, but -furnished it with its noblest models. The scholarly scribes of Italy at -that epoch had revived the Caroline minuscules as used in the eleventh -and twelfth centuries, and it was this beautiful hand which the early -Italian printers imitated, thereby giving us the ‘Roman’ type in which -our books are still printed. - -I cannot more fitly close this preliminary chapter than by quoting -from the MS. note-books of Henry Bradshaw the opening sentences of his -article ‘Typography’ for the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, an article -which unfortunately was never completed. - -‘Typography was, in the eyes of those who first used it, the art of -multiplying books, of writing by means of single types capable of being -used again and again, instead of with a pen, which, of course, could -only produce one book at a time.[4] - -[4] This is clearly brought before us by the words of the first -printers at Avignon, ‘ars artificialiter scribendi,’ a phrase used -several times over in speaking of their new invention. - -‘The art of multiplying single sheets, for which woodcut blocks -could be used to serve a temporary purpose, may be looked upon as an -intermediate stage, which may have given the idea of typography. When -the reproduction of books had long passed out of the exclusive hands -of the monasteries into the hands of students or hangers-on of the -universities, any invention of this kind would be readily and rapidly -taken up. When there was no Greek press in Paris, we find Georgius -Hermonymus making a living by constant copying of Greek books for -the scholars who were so eager for them. So Reuchlin in the same way -supported himself by copying. - -‘In fact, the two departments of compositor and corrector in the -printing office were the direct representatives and successors of the -scribe and corrector of manuscripts from the early times. The kind of -men whom we find mentioned in the early printing offices as correctors, -are just such men as would be sought for in earlier times in an -important scriptorium. In our modern world, printed and written books -have come to be looked upon as totally distinct things, whereas it is -impossible to bring before our minds the state of things when books -were first printed, until we look upon them as precisely the same. They -were brought to fairs, or such general centres of circulation as Paris, -Leipzig, or Frankfort, before the days of printing, just as afterwards, -only that printing enabled the stationer to supply his buyers with -much greater rapidity than before, and at much cheaper rates; so that -the laws of supply and demand work together in such a manner that -it is difficult to say which had more influence in accelerating the -movement.’ - - - - - CHAPTER II. - - THE INVENTION OF PRINTING. - - -The earliest specimen of printing from movable type known to exist was -printed at Mainz in 1454. In making this statement, I do not wish to -pass over the claims of France and the Low Countries to the invention -of printing, but only to point out that, in considering the question, -we must put the evidence of the printed books themselves first, and -then work from these to such documentary evidence as we possess. France -has the documents but no books; the Low Countries neither the one nor -the other; and therefore, if we are to set about our inquiries on any -rational plan, we must date the invention of printing from the date of -its first product. This is the famous _Indulgence_ of Nicholas V. to -such as should contribute money to aid the King of Cyprus against the -Turks. - -In the copy of the _Indulgence_ now preserved in the Meerman-Westreenen -Museum at the Hague (discovered by Albert Frick at Ulm in 1762, and -afterwards in the collections of Schelhorn and Meerman), the place -of issue, Erfurth, and the date, November 15, have been filled in; -thus giving us as the earliest authentic date on a printed document, -November 15, 1454. - -In the years 1454 and 1455 there was a large demand for these -_Indulgences_, and seven editions were issued. These may be divided -into two sets, the one containing thirty-one lines, the other thirty -lines; the first dated example belonging to the former. - -These two sets are unmistakably the work of two different printers, -one of whom may well have been Peter Schœffer, since we find the -initial letters which are used in the thirty-line editions used again -in an _Indulgence_ of 1489 certainly printed by him. Who, then, was -the printer of the other set? He is generally stated to have been -John Gutenberg; and though we have no proof of this, or indeed of -Gutenberg’s having printed any book at all, there is a strong weight of -circumstantial evidence in his favour. - -What do we know about John Gutenberg, the presumed printer of the first -dated specimen of printing? The earliest information comes from the -record of a lawsuit brought against him at Strasburg in 1439 by George -Dritzehn, for money advanced. - -There is hardly room for doubt that the business on which Gutenberg -was engaged, and for which money was advanced him, was printing. There -is a certain ambiguity about some of the expressions, but the greater -part of the account is too clear and straightforward to allow of any -doubt.[5] It may safely be said that before 1439 Gutenberg was at work -at Strasburg, experimenting on and perfecting the art of printing. - -[5] A very careful literal and unabridged translation will be found -in Hessels’ _Gutenberg_, pp. 34-57. The text used is Laborde’s with -some corrections, and Schœpflin’s readings when they vary are given in -notes. It should be noted that Mr. Hessels implies that the account of -this trial is a forgery, or at any rate unreliable; but his negative -and partial reasoning cannot stand against the evidence brought forward -by many trustworthy authorities. - -The next document which relates to him as a printer is the lawsuit of -1455, the original transcript of which was recently found at Göttingen. -This was brought against him by Fust to recover a loan of 800 guilders. -In this lawsuit mention is made of two of Gutenberg’s servants, -Heinrich Keffer, afterwards a printer at Nuremberg, and Bertolf von -Hanau, supposed to be the same as Bertold Ruppel, the first printer at -Basle. Peter Schœffer also appears as a witness. We learn from this -suit that somewhere about August 1450, Fust advanced the amount of -800 guilders, and about December 1452 a like amount; but these loans -were advanced in the first instance by Fust towards assisting a work -of which the method was understood, and we are therefore justified in -considering that by that time Gutenberg had mastered the principles of -the art of printing. - -The first two books printed at Mainz were the editions of the -_Vulgate_, known from the number of lines which go to the page as the -forty-two line and thirty-six line Bibles. The forty-two line edition -is generally called the Mazarine Bible, because the copy which first -attracted notice was found in Cardinal Mazarin’s library; and the -thirty-six line edition, Pfister’s or the Bamberg Bible, because the -type used in it was at one time in the possession of Albrecht Pfister -of Bamberg. On the question as to which of the two editions is the -earlier, there has been endless controversy; and before going farther, -it will be as well to state shortly the actual data which we possess -from which conclusions can be drawn. - -The Paris copy of the forty-two line Bible has the rubricator’s -inscription, which shows that the book was finished before the 15th -August 1456. - -The only exact date we know of, connected with the other Bible, -is 1461, this date being written on a copy of the last leaf, also -preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. - -The types of both Bibles were in existence in 1454, for they were used -in the thirty and thirty-one line letters of _Indulgence_ printed in -that year. - -The type of the forty-two line Bible is clearly a product of the -Gutenberg-Fust-Schœffer partnership, for it is used afterwards by -Schœffer as Fust’s partner, and must therefore have been the property -of Fust. Mr. Hessels, who has worked out the history of the types with -extreme care and accuracy, says: ‘I have shown above that one of the -initials of the thirty line _Indulgence_ is found in 1489 in Schœffer’s -office. The church type of the same _Indulgence_ links on (in spite of -the different capital P) to the anonymous forty-two line Bible of 1456. -This Bible links on to the thirty-five line Donatus, which is in the -same type, and has Schœffer’s name and his coloured capitals.[6] This -again brings us to the _Psalter_, which Joh. Fust and Peter Schœffer -published together on the 14th August 1457, at Mentz, their first -(dated) book with their name and the capitals of the _Donatus_.’ - -[6] The colophon of this book says: ... ‘per Petrum de Gernssheym -in urbe Moguntina cum suis capitalibus absque calami exaratione -effigiatus;’ and Mr. Hessels translates ‘cum suis capitalibus,’ -‘with his capital letters,’ a rendering which is surely impossible. - -We may safely say of the forty-two line Bible, that it could not have -been begun before about August 1450 (when Gutenberg entered into -partnership with Fust), and that it could not have been finished later -than August 1456 (the rubricated date of the Paris copy). - -As regards the thirty-six line Bible, M. Dziatzko has brought forward, -after much patient study, some remarkable evidence. He proves, from an -examination of the text, that the thirty-six line Bible was set up, -at any rate in part, from the forty-two line Bible. One copy survives -which betrays this; for the compositor has passed from the last word -of leaf 7 to the first word of leaf 9. In another place he has misread -the beginning of a chapter, and included the last two words of the -one before, which is explained by the arrangement of the text in the -forty-two line edition. - -Dziatzko concludes that this latter edition was the product of the -Gutenberg-Fust confederation, and that Gutenberg may have produced the -thirty-six line Bible more or less _pari passu_, either alone or in -partnership with (perhaps) Pfister. An examination of the paper used -in printing the two books points to the conclusion that there were -substantial means available for the production of the forty-two line -Bible, while the thirty-six line seems to show many separate purchases -of small amounts of different papers. - -It is impossible to assign any date for the commencement of the -thirty-six line Bible. Fust had clearly nothing to do with it, and the -type may have been made and some sheets printed before the partnership -for printing the forty-two line Bible was entered into in 1450. The -largeness of the type and consequent lesser number of lines to the page -points to an early date, for the tendency was always to increase the -number of lines to the page and economise paper. Thus we find that when -the first gathering of the forty-two line Bible had been printed, which -has only forty lines to the page, the type was recast, so as to have -the same face of letter on a smaller body; and with this type the page -was made to contain forty-two lines to the page. - -The workmanship and the appearance of the type would also lead us to -suppose that the thirty-six line Bible was printed earlier than the -_Manung widder die Durcke_, which, being an ephemeral publication -applicable only to the year 1455, must presumably have been printed in -1454. - -We can therefore probably put both Bibles earlier than 1454. - -The first book with a printed date is the well-known _Psalmorum -Codex_ of 1457, printed by Schœffer. Of this book nine copies are -known, and all vary slightly from each other.[7] Only two types are -used throughout the _Psalter_, but both are very large. Mr. Weale, on -account of the variations observable in the letters, insists that the -book was printed from cut and not cast type; but he gives no reason for -this opinion; and when we consider that books had already been produced -from cast type, it is impossible to understand why Schœffer should have -resorted to so laborious a method. The dissimilarity of some letters -is not so strong a proof of their having been cut, as the similarity -of the greater number is of their having been cast. Bradshaw, who was -of this opinion, had also noted some curious shrinkages in the type, -resulting from the way the matrices for the type were formed. - -[7] For a very full account of this book see the Catalogue of MSS. and -Printed Books exhibited at the Historical Music Loan Exhibition, by W. -H. James Weale, London, 1886, 8vo, pp. 27-45. - -The most striking thing about the _Psalter_ are the wonderful capital -letters; and how these were printed has always been a vexed question. -In the editions of 1457 and 1459 they are in two colours, the letter -in one colour and the surrounding ornamentation in another. Though -it is impossible to determine exactly how they were produced, there -is at any rate something to be settled on the question. In one case, -in the edition of 1515, in which these initials were still used, the -exterior ornament has been printed, but the letter itself and the -interior ornament have not. This shows at any rate that the letter -and the ornament were not on one block, and that the exterior and -interior ornaments were on different blocks; and is also in favour -of the suggestion put forward by Fischer, that the ornament and the -letter, though on different blocks, were not printed at the same time. -In support of his theory, Fischer mentioned a case of the letter -overlapping the ornament in a copy of the edition of 1459, and such a -slip could not have occurred had the letter and ornament been printed -from inset blocks in the method new known as the Congreve process. - -It has also been argued by some writers, among whom is William Blades, -that the letter was not printed in colour, but that the design was -merely impressed in blank upon the paper or vellum, and afterwards -filled in with colour by the illuminator. This is shown, it is said, by -some portions of lines here and there in the ornamentation remaining -uncoloured, a result surely due to imperfect inking rather than to a -careless illuminator. It is hardly probable that the rubricator would -begin a line and leave the end uncoloured while it was plainly traced -for him; but, on the other hand, it is just such a fault as would, and -often did, occur in printing an elaborate and involved ornament. No -doubt in some cases the capitals, like the letters of the text, were -touched up by the rubricator; and this is, as a rule, most noticeable -when the ornament or letter is in blue. The blue ink used had a green -tinge, and in some cases looked almost grey, and was therefore very -often touched up with a brighter colour. Mr. Weale is of opinion that -these letters were not set up and printed with the rest of the book, -but were ‘printed, subsequently to the typography, not by a pull of the -press, but by the blow of a mallet on the superimposed block.’ - -It was probably about 1458, between the times of printing the two -editions of the _Psalter_, that Schœffer printed the book called in his -catalogue of 1469-70, _Canon misse cum prefacionibus et imparatoriis -suis_. This was the Canon of the Mass, printed by itself for inserting -in copies of the Missal. This particular part, being the most used, -was often worn out before the rest of the book; and we know from early -catalogues[8] that it was the custom of printers to print this special -part on vellum. While the printing of a complete Missal would have been -a doubtful speculation, the printing of this one part, unvarying in the -different uses, required no great outlay, and was almost certain to -be profitable. Two copies only are known, and these are of different -editions. One is in the Bodleian, and was bound up with an imperfect -copy of the _Mainz Missal_ of 1493. The other is in the Imperial -Library at St. Petersburg, in a copy of the _Breslau Missal_ of 1483. - -[8] In a catalogue issued by Ratdolt about 1491 we read: ... ‘videlicet -unum missarum (?) in papiro bene corporatum et illigatum cum canone -pergameneo non ultra tres florenos minus quarta: sed cum canone papireo -duos florenos cum dimidio fore comparandum.’ - -The Bodleian copy consists of twelve leaves, printed on vellum in the -large type of the _Psalter_, and ornamented with the same beautiful -initials. The capital T of the _Te igitur_, commencing the Canon, is -as large as the well-known B of the _Psalter_, and even more beautiful -in execution. Besides the ordinary coloured capitals which occur also -in the _Psalter_, there is a monogram composed of the letters V.D., -standing for _Vere dignum_. - -In 1459 a second edition of the _Psalter_ was issued, and also the -_Rationale Durandi_, both containing coloured capitals, though some -copies of the latter book are without the printed initials. A _Donatus_ -without date, printed in the type of the forty-two line Bible, has also -the coloured capitals, and may be dated before 1460. After that time we -only find these letters in use for the editions of the _Psalter_ which -appeared in 1490, 1502, 1515, 1516; and for a _Donatus_ in the 1462 -Bible type. Their size and the trouble of printing them account, no -doubt, for their disuse. - -In June 1460, Schœffer issued the _Constitutions_ of Clement V., a -large folio remarkable for the care with which it was printed, and -for the clever way in which the commentary was worked round the -text. In 1462 appeared the first dated _Bible_, which is at the same -time the first book clearly divided into two volumes.[9] In the next -few years we have a number of Bulls and other such ephemeral -publications, relating mostly to the quarrels which were going on in -Mainz; but in 1465, Schœffer starts again to produce larger books, and -in this year we have the _Decretals_ of Boniface VIII. and the _De -Officiis_ of Cicero. This latter book is important as being the first -containing Greek type, that is, if it is allowed to be earlier than -the _Lactantius_ of the same year printed at Subiaco. In 1466 it was -reprinted. - -[9] It has never, I think, been noticed in print that some of the -capital letters in certain sheets of this Bible are not the work of -the rubricator, but are printed. Attempts were made to print both -the blue and the red on the same page, but it apparently was found -too laborious, and was given up. The red letters were printed in -colour; the letters which were to be blue were impressed in blank, and -afterwards filled up in colour by the illuminator. He did not always -follow the impressed letter, so that its outline can be clearly seen. -Some copies of this Bible have Schœffer’s mark, and a date at the end -of the first volume; others are without them. The colophons also vary. - -[Illustration: SCHOEFFER’S CATALOGUE.] - -In or about 1469, Schœffer printed a most interesting document, a -catalogue of books for sale by himself or his agent. It is printed on -one side of a sheet, and was meant to be fixed up as an advertisement -in the different towns visited, the name of the place where the books -could be obtained being written at the bottom. There are altogether -twenty-one books advertised, three of which were not printed by -Schœffer, but probably by Gutenberg; and there are also in the list -three unknown books. Nearly all the important works from the press -are in it, the 1462 Bible on vellum, the _Psalter_ of 1459, the -_Decretals_, the _Cicero_, and others. At the foot of the list is -printed in the large _Psalter_ type, ‘Hec est littera psalterii,’ so -that the sheet is the earliest known type-specimen as well as catalogue. - -The three books which are unknown, at any rate as having been printed -by Schœffer, are the _Consolatorium timorate conscientie_ and the _De -contractibus mercatorum_, both by Johann Nider, a famous Dominican, and -the _Historia Griseldis_ of Petrarch. - -In 1470, Schœffer put out another advertisement relating to his edition -of the _Letters of St. Jerome_, printed in that year. Of this broadside -two copies are known, one in the Munich Library, the other, formerly -belonging to M. Weigel, in the British Museum. From 1470 to 1479, -Schœffer printed a large number of books. Hain mentions twenty-seven, -almost all of which he himself had collated. This was the busiest time -in Schœffer’s career, and he carried on business in several towns. His -agent in Paris, Hermann de Stalhœn, died about 1474, and the books in -his possession were dispersed. On the complaint of Schœffer, Louis XI. -allowed him 2425 crowns as compensation,—a sum which shows that the -stock of books must have been very large. In 1479 he was received as a -citizen of Frankfort-on-the-Maine on payment of a certain sum, no doubt -in order that he might there sell his books. At Mainz he became an -important citizen, and was made a judge. - -From 1457 to 1468, Schœffer had used only four types, the two church -types which appear in the _Psalter_, and the two book types which -appear in the _Durandus_. In this year he obtained a fifth type, -like the smaller one of the _Durandus_, and about the same in body, -but with a larger face. In 1484 and 1485 two new types appear, one -a church type very much resembling that used in the forty-two line -Bible, but with a larger face; the other, a vernacular type, which -occurs first in the _Hortus Sanitatis_ of 1485, a book containing -Schœffer’s mark though not his name, and appears the year following -in the _Breydenbach_, printed at Mainz by Erhard Reüwick. Reüwick -was an engraver, and the frontispiece to the _Hortus Sanitatis_ is -perhaps from his hand, showing, if it be so, a connection between him -and Schœffer, which his use of the latter’s type tends to confirm. -In fact, it seems most probable that the text of the two editions of -the _Breydenbach_, the Latin one of 1486 and the German one of 1488, -was really printed by Schœffer, while Reüwick engraved the wonderful -illustrations. The title-page of this book is an exquisite piece -of work, and by far the finest example of wood engraving which had -appeared. It is further noticeable as containing cross-hatching, which -is usually said to have first been used in the poor cuts of that very -much overpraised book, the _Nuremberg Chronicle_ of 1493. It contains -also a number of views of remarkable places, printed as folded plates. -Some of these views are as much as five feet long, and were printed -from several blocks on separate pieces of paper, which were afterwards -pasted together. - -Schœffer continued to print during the whole of the fifteenth century, -though towards the end he issued few books, Another printer, Petrus -de Friedberg, started to print at Mainz in 1493, and between that -time and 1498 issued a fair number of books. About 1480 a group of six -or seven books, all undated, were printed at Mainz, which were long -supposed to be very early, and not impossibly printed by Gutenberg. -One of these was a _Prognostication_, said to be for the year 1460, -and therefore presumably printed in 1459. A copy is preserved in the -library of Darmstadt; and some years ago this was examined by Mr. -Hessels, who found that the date had been tampered with, and that it -should really read 1482. - -From 1455 onwards, while the press of Schœffer was busily at work, -we lose sight of Gutenberg. Three books, however, all printed about -1460 at Mainz, are ascribed to him. These are the _Catholicon_ (a kind -of dictionary) of 1460, the _Tractatus racionis et conscientiæ_ of -Matthæus de Cracovia, and the _Summa de articulis fidei_ of Aquinas, -both without date. To these may be added a broadside indulgence -printed in 1461. Bernard attributes these books to the press of Henry -Bechtermuntze, who afterwards printed with the same type at Eltvil. -One fact appears to tell strongly against this conclusion. In 1469-70, -when Schœffer issued his catalogue, we find these three books in it, -the remainder being all of Schœffer’s own production. How did they get -into Schœffer’s hands? Had they been printed by Bechtermuntze we should -surely find the _Vocabularius ex quo_ also in the catalogue, for he -had issued editions in 1467 and 1469. It is more probable that they -had formed the stock of a printer who had given up business, and had -therefore got rid of all the books remaining on his hands.[10] - -[10] In 1468 all the materials connected with Gutenberg’s press were -handed over to Conrad Homery, their owner, who binds himself to use the -type only in Mainz; and also binds himself, if he sells it, to sell -it to a citizen of Mainz, _provided that citizen offers as much as a -stranger_. The stock of printed books would also belong to Homery in -his capacity of creditor, and would be sold in Mainz, where, so far as -we know, there was no one except Schœffer to buy them. - -In the copy of the _Tractatus racionis_ belonging to the Bibliothèque -Nationale the following manuscript note occurs: ‘Hos duos sexternos -accomidauit mihi henrycus Keppfer de moguncia nunquam reuenit ut -reacciperetur,’ etc. This Keppfer was one of Gutenberg’s workmen; -and his name occurs in the notarial instrument of 1455, so that this -inscription forms a link between the book and Gutenberg. - -We have, unfortunately, no direct evidence as to the printer. We know -that the books were printed at Mainz, for it is directly so stated in -the Schœffer catalogue and in the colophon of the _Catholicon_. Now we -know of no printers at Mainz in 1460 except Schœffer and Gutenberg, -and Schœffer was certainly not the printer of these books. On the -other hand, there are no books except these three that could have been -printed by Gutenberg; and if these three are to be ascribed to any one -else, Gutenberg is left in the position of a known printer who printed -nothing. It has been shown above that it is very improbable that the -books were printed by Bechtermuntze; and the fact that in 1470 the -remaining copies were in the hands of a man who did not print them, -points to their real printer having died or given up business. Though -from these various facts we can prove nothing as regards the identity -of the printer, we have some show of probability for imagining that he -must have been Gutenberg. - -There is no doubt whatever that the _Catholicon_ type appears at -Eltvil in the hands of the two brothers Bechtermuntze in 1467, for in -the _Vocabularius ex quo_ there is a clear colophon stating that the -book was commenced by Henry Bechtermuntze and finished by Nicholas -Bechtermuntze and Wygand Spyess of Orthenberg on the 4th of November -1467. - -There has been a great deal of argument on the question how these types -came into the hands of the Eltvil printers while Gutenberg was alive. -We know that Gutenberg became a pensioner of Adolph II. in 1465, and -would therefore presumably give up printing in that year. The types and -printing materials which he had been using belonged to a certain Dr. -Homery, and were reclaimed by him in 1468. The distance from Eltvil to -Mainz is only some five or six miles, and the Rhine afforded easy means -of communication between the two places, so that the difficulty of the -transference of type backwards and forwards seems, as a rule, very much -overstated. Although we have no evidence of printing at Eltvil before -1467, still it will be best to give an account of the press in this -chapter, since it was so intimately connected with the early press at -Mainz. - -In 1467, on the 4th November, an edition of the _Vocabularius ex quo_ -was published. The colophon tells us that the book was begun by Henry -Bechtermuntze, and finished by his brother Nicholas in partnership with -a certain Wygand Speyss of Orthenberg. A second edition was published -in June 1469 by Nicholas Bechtermuntze alone. Both these editions are -printed in the type used for the _Catholicon_ of 1460, but with a few -additional abbreviations. In 1472 a third edition of the _Vocabularius -ex quo_ was issued, in a type very similar to the type of the -thirty-one line _Letters of Indulgence_, but slightly smaller; and an -edition of the _Summa de articulis fidei_ of Aquinas [Hain, *1426] was -issued in the same type. In 1477 a fourth edition of the _Vocabularius -ex quo_ was printed by Nicholas Bechtermuntze; the type is different -from that used in the other books, and is identical, as Mr. Hessels -tells us, with that used about the same time by Peter Drach at Spire. - -Before leaving Mainz, it will be as well to notice the books printed -by the Brothers of the Common Life at Marienthal. This monastery was -close to Mainz on the opposite side of the river, and not far from -Eltvil. The earliest book is a _Copia indulgentiarum per Adolphum -archiepiscopum Moguntinum concessarum_, dated from Mainz in August -1468, and presumably printed in the same year. In 1474 they issued the -_Mainz Breviary_, a book of great rarity, and of which the copies vary; -in fact, of certain portions there seem to have been several editions. -Their latest piece of printing with a date is a broadside indulgence -of 1484, of which there is a copy at Darmstadt. Dr. F. Falk, in his -article ‘_Die Presse zu Marienthal im Rheingau_,’ mentions fourteen -books as printed at this press; but he includes some printed in a type -which cannot with certainty be ascribed to Marienthal. The Brothers -seem to have used only two types, both of which are found in the -_Breviary_. Both are very distinctive, especially the larger, which is -a very heavy solid Gothic letter, easily distinguishable by the curious -lower case _d_. - - - - - CHAPTER III. - - SPREAD OF PRINTING IN GERMANY. - - -Before 1462, when the sacking of Mainz by Adolf von Nassau is popularly -supposed to have disseminated the art of printing, presses were at work -in at least two other German towns, Strasburg and Bamberg. - -The first of these places is mentioned by Trithemius, who records -that after the secret of printing was discovered, it spread first to -Strasburg. Judging merely from authentic dates, this is evidently -correct, for we have the date 1460 for Strasburg, and 1461-62 for -Bamberg. There are, however, strong reasons for supposing that this -order is hardly the correct one, and that Bamberg should come first. -Since, however, the statement and the dates exist, it will be safer for -us provisionally to consider Strasburg as the first, and state later on -the arguments in favour of Bamberg. - -Though no dated book is known printed at Strasburg before 1471, in -which year Eggestein printed the _Decretum Gratiani_, and though -Mentelin’s first dated book is of the year 1473, yet we know from the -rubrications of a copy of the _Latin Bible_ in the library at Freiburg, -that that book was finished, the first volume before 1460, and the -second before 1461. Concerning the printer, John Mentelin, a good deal -is known. Born at Schelestadt, he became a scribe and illuminator; -but, like many others, abandoned the original business to become a -printer. P. de Lignamine in his Chronicle says that by 1458, Mentelin -had a press at Strasburg, and was printing, like Gutenberg, three -hundred sheets a day. By 1461 he had finished printing the forty-nine -line edition of the _Latin Bible_. He died on the 12th December 1478, -leaving two daughters, one married to Adolf Rusch d’Ingwiller, his -successor; the other, to Martin Schott, another Strasburg printer. -Very few of his books are dated; and as his types have not yet been -systematically studied, the books cannot be ranged in any accurate -order. - -Taking the information in Lignamine’s Chronicle as exact, and we have -no reason to doubt its accuracy, we may take certain books in the type -of the Bible as the earliest of Mentelin’s books.[11] Round 1466 we can -group some other books, the _Augustinus de arte predicandi_ and the -_Homily on St. Matthew_ by St. Chrysostom. A copy of the former book -in the British Museum is rubricated 1466; and of the latter a copy in -the Spencer Collection has the same year added in manuscript. In Sir -M. M. Sykes’ sale was a volume containing copies of these two books -bound together in contemporary binding. About 1470, Mentelin issued a -catalogue containing the titles of nine books, including a _Virgil_, a -_Terence_, and a _Valerius Maximus_. Mentelin also printed the first -edition of the Bible in German, a folio of 406 leaves. Several copies -are known with the rubricated date of 1466; and the same date is also -found in a copy of the _Secunda secundæ_ of Aquinas. Many other of his -books contain manuscript dates, and show that they are considerably -earlier than is usually supposed. - -[11] In the University Library, Cambridge, is a very interesting copy -of the first volume of this Bible, bought at the Culemann sale. It -consists for the most part of proof-sheets, and variations from the -ordinary copies occur on almost every page. It is printed on small -sheets of paper in the manner of a broadside, the sheets being pasted -together at the inner margin. - -Henry Eggestein, whose first dated book was issued in 1471, was living -in Strasburg as early as 1442, and probably began to print almost as -soon as Mentelin. The earliest date attributable to any of his books -is 1466, the date written by Bamler, at that time an illuminator, in -the copy of one of his forty-five line editions of the Bible now in the -library at Wolfenbüttel. In 1471, Eggestein himself tells us that he -had printed a large number of books. A little time before this he had -issued a most glowing advertisement of his Bible. He appeals to the -good man to come and see his wonderful edition, produced, as the early -printers were so fond of saying, not by the pen, but by the wonderful -art of printing. The proofs had been read by the best scholars, and the -book printed in the best style. This Bible, which has forty-five lines -to the column, was finished by 1466, for the copy now in the library at -Munich was rubricated in that year. The only printed dates that occur -in Eggestein’s books are 1471 and 1472. Hain gives three books of the -years 1474, 1475, and 1478 as printed in his type, but these contain no -printer’s name. - -The most mysterious printer connected with the history of the Strasburg -press, is the printer who used a peculiarly shaped capital R, and is -therefore known as the R printer. He seems to have been very generally -confounded with Mentelin till 1825, when the sale catalogue of Dr. -Kloss’ books appeared. In this sale there happened to be two copies -of the _Speculum_ of Vincent de Beauvais, one the undoubted Mentelin -edition, the other by the R printer. The writer of the note in the -catalogue stated that, on comparison, the types of the two editions, -though very like each other, were not the same. Since the type is -different, and the peculiar R has never yet been found in any authentic -book printed by Mentelin, we may safely say that Mentelin was not the -printer. To whom, then, are the books to be ascribed? Many consider -them the work of Adolf Rusch d’Ingwiller. M. Madden attributes them -all to the Monastery of Weidenbach at Cologne, in common with most -of the other books by unknown printers, and dates them about 1470. -Bradshaw, writing to Mr. Winter Jones in 1870, says: ‘In turning over -a volume of fragments yesterday, I found a Bull of Sixtus IV., dated -1478, in the type of the famous “R” printer so often confounded with -Mentelin. His books are commonly put down to 1470 or earlier, and I -believe no one ever thought of putting his books so late as 1478.[12] -Yet this little piece is almost the only certain date which is known -in connection with this whole series of books.’ Complete sets of the -_Speculum_ of Vincent de Beauvais are very often made up, partly from -Mentelin’s and partly from the R printer’s editions, which points to -their having been probably printed at the same place and about the same -time. The earliest MS. date found in any of the books by the R printer -is 1464; for a note in the copy of the _Duranti Rationale divinorum -Officiorum_ in the library at Basle, states that the book was bought -in that year for the University. If this date is authentic, it follows -that Strasburg was the first place where Roman type was used. - -[12] This indulgence had been noticed by Bernard, _De l’Origine de -l’Imprimerie_, vol. ii. pp. 108, 109. - -The next important printer at Strasburg is George Husner, who began -in 1476 and printed up till 1498. His types may be recognised by the -capital H, which is Roman, and has a boss on the lower side of the -cross-bar. John Gruninger, who began in 1483, issued some beautifully -illustrated books, the most celebrated being the _Horace_, _Terence_, -and _Boethius_, and Brandt’s _Ship of Fools_. He and another later -Strasburg printer, Knoblochzer, share with Conrad Zeninger of Nuremberg -the doubtful honour of being the most careless printers in the -fifteenth century. - -Albrecht Pfister was printing at Bamberg as early as 1461, and his -first dated book, Boner’s _Edelstein_, was issued on 4th February of -that year. He used but one type, a discarded fount from Mainz which -had been used in printing the thirty-six line Bible and the other -books of that group. By many he is credited with being the printer of -the thirty-six line Bible,—a theory which a short examination of the -workmanship of his signed books would go far to upset. Pfister seems -to have been more of a wood engraver than a printer, relying rather -on the attractive nature of his illustrations than on the elegance -of his printing. We can attribute to him with certainty nine books, -with one exception all written in German, and with two exceptions all -illustrated with woodcuts. Mr. Hessels is of opinion that certain -of these books ought to be placed, on account of their workmanship, -before the _Boner_ of 1461; as, for instance, the _Quarrel of a Widower -with Death_, in which the lines are very uneven. There are certain -peculiarities noticeable in Pfister’s method of work which occur also -in the _Manung widder die Durke_, a prognostication for 1455, preserved -in the Royal Library, Munich, and in the _Cisianus zu dutsche_ at -Cambridge, the most marked being the filling up of blank spaces with -an ornament of stops. The curious rhyming form of these calendars, and -the dialect of German in which they are written, resemble exactly the -rhyming colophon put by Pfister to the Boner’s _Edelstein_. In all -three cases the ends of the lines are not marked, but the works are -printed as prose. - -Paulus Paulirinus of Prague, in his description of a ‘ciripagus’ -wrote: ‘Et tempore mei Pambergæ quidam sculpsit integram Bibliam super -lamellas, et in quatuor septimanis totam Bibliam super pargameno -subtili presignavit scriptura.’ Some writers have suggested that -these words refer to the thirty-six line Bible; but a ‘Bible cut on -thin plates’ can only be a block-book, and probably an edition of the -_Biblia Pauperum_. Paul of Prague composed a large part of his book -before 1463, when no other printer besides Pfister was at work at -Bamberg, and these words probably apply to either the Latin or German -edition of the _Biblia Pauperum_ which Pfister issued. - -We have no information as to when or where Pfister began to print, and -the extraordinary rarity of his books prevents much connected work -upon them. There is no doubt that he came into possession of the type -of the thirty-six line Bible, and in this type a number of books were -printed. The earliest of these books is probably the _Manung Widder die -Durke_, which, since it was a prognostication for 1455, was presumably -printed in 1454. This book, as far as it is possible to judge, was -manifestly printed after the thirty-six line Bible, and by a different -printer. In it we first find the peculiar lozenge-shaped ornament of -stops which continues through the series of books in this type. The -calendar of 1457 in the Bibliothèque Nationale, probably printed in -1456, is the next piece in the series to which an approximate date can -be given. Of this calendar, originally printed on a single sheet, -only the upper half remains, found in 1804 at Mainz, where it had been -used as a cover for some ecclesiastical papers. It bears the following -inscription: ‘Prebendarum. Registrum capituli ecclesie Sancti Gengolffi -intra muros Moguntiæ receptorum et distributorum anno LVII., per Johan: -Kess, vicarium ecclesie predicte.’ Thus, at the end of the year 1457 -or beginning of 1458, it was treated at Mainz as waste-paper. With -this calendar may be classed the _Cisianus zu dutsche_ at Cambridge, a -rhyming calendar in German. - -There are, then, the series of nine or ten books, usually all given to -Pfister, though only two bear his name; and of these some are after -and some can be placed before 1461. The typographical peculiarities of -Pfister’s signed books are the same as those of the early calendars, -and point to his having also produced them. This brings us at once -into the obvious difficulties, for we should have Pfister printing as -early as 1454, while Gutenberg was still in partnership with Fust. The -knowledge about Pfister’s press is too meagre to allow any of these -difficulties to be cleared up, though something may yet result from a -more careful examination of the books themselves. The only examples -in England of books printed by Pfister (with the exception of the -_Cisianus_) are in the Spencer Library. There are there four books and -a fragment of a fifth. - -The conjecture put forward by M. Dziatako, that Gutenberg may have -printed the thirty-six line Bible in partnership with some other -printer, as, for example, Pfister, would certainly, if any proof in -its favour could be adduced, simplify matters very much. We should -then have all the books in a natural sequence, from the Bible to the -latest books of Pfister, and we could account for the printing of -the _Manung_ in 1454, while Gutenberg was still in partnership with -Fust and Schœffer for the production of the forty-two line Bible. The -workmanship of the thirty-six line Bible is in some points different -from the later books, all of which were probably the work of Pfister, -who, according to this theory, must have been at work at Mainz as early -as 1454. The contract between Gutenberg and Fust did not necessarily -bind the former to print only with Fust, so that he may also have -worked with Pfister, and taught him the art. - -Pfister’s last dated book, _The Histories of Joseph, Daniel, Judith, -and Esther_, was printed in 1462, not long after the day of St. -Walburga (May 1). - -After this time we hear of no book printed at Bamberg till 1481, when -John Sensenschmidt printed the _Missale Ordinis S. Benedicti_, commonly -known as the Bamberg Missal. - -Cologne, from its situation on the Rhine, was in a favourable position -for receiving information and materials from Mainz, and we find that by -1466, Ulric Zel of Hanau, a clerk of the diocese of Mainz, was settled -there as a printer. His first dated book was the Chrysostom _Super -psalmo quinquagesimo_; but some other books were certainly issued -before it. The Cicero _De Officiis_, a quarto with thirty-four lines to -the page, is earlier, and is perhaps the first book he issued. It has -many signs of being a very early production, and may possibly have been -issued before Schœffer’s edition of 1465. - -M. Madden, in his _Lettres d’un Bibliographe_, has argued that a very -early school of typography existed at Cologne, in the Monastery of -Weidenbach. Though his researches have thrown a great deal of light -on various points connected with early printing, and are in some ways -of real value, much that he has theorised about Weidenbach requires -confirmation. We can hardly be expected to believe, as he would try to -persuade us, that Caxton, and Zel, and Jenson, and many other printers -whose types belong to different families, could all learn printing -at this one place. It would be impossible for men who had learnt to -print in the same school to produce such radically different kinds of -type, and work in such different methods. The early tentative essays -of Zel’s press can be clearly identified, and their order more or less -accurately determined, from their typographical characteristics. His -earliest books were quartos; and of these the first few have four point -holes to the page. These point holes are small holes about an inch -from the top and bottom lines, and nearly parallel with the sides of -the type, made by the four pins which went through the paper when one -side of the page was printed, and served as a guide to place the paper -straight when the other side was printed.[13] - -[13] The use of four points to obtain a correct register is generally a -sure sign of the infancy of a press. Blades says they are to be found -in all the books printed in Caxton’s Type 1. - -Then, before he settled down to printing his quartos with twenty-seven -lines to the page, he experimented with various numbers of lines. We -can safely start with the following books in the following order:— - - _A._ Cicero, _De officiis_, 34 lines to the page. - Chrysostom, _Super psalmo quinquagesimo_, 1466, 33 lines to the - page. - Gerson, _Super materia celebrationis missæ_, 31 lines to the page. - Gerson, _Alphabetum divini amoris_, 31 lines to the page. - -These form an early group by themselves, and commence on the first -leaf; the second group begins with - - _B._ Augustinus, _De vita christiana_ and _De singularitate - clericorum_, 1467, 28 and 27 lines to the page. - -Then follows a number of tracts by Gerson and Chrysostom, all having -four point holes, and all probably printed before 1470. Zel continued -to print throughout the whole of the fifteenth century. - -At a very early date there were a number of other printers settled at -Cologne, all using types which, though easily distinguishable, are -similar in appearance and of the same family; and their books have -generally been ascribed to Zel. To many of them it is impossible to put -a printer’s name; and certain of them have been divided into groups -known by the title of the commonest book in that group which has no -edition in another group. For instance, we have a certain number of -books printed by the printer of the _Historia Sancti Albani_; another -printer is known as the printer of _Dictys_ (perhaps Arnold ther -Hoernen); another as the printer of _Augustinus de Fide_ (perhaps -Goiswin Gops), and so on. No doubt, in time, when the Cologne press has -been more carefully studied, the identity of some of these printers -will be discovered; but at present there are a great many difficulties -waiting to be cleared away. - -Arnold ther Hoernen, who began to print in or before 1470, was the -pioneer of several improvements. The _Sermo ad populum_, printed in -1470, has a title-page, and the leaves numbered in the centre of the -right-hand margin; very soon after he printed a book with headlines. He -printed ‘infra sedecim domos,’ and used a small neat device, of which -there are two varieties, always confused. John Koelhoff, a native of -Lubeck, printed at Cologne from 1472 (?) to 1493, when he died. If the -date of 1472 in his _Expositio Decalogi_ of Nider be correct, he was -the first printer who used ordinary printed signatures; but the date of -the book is questioned. The shapes of the capital letters in Koelhoff’s -types are very distinctive; and it is curious to notice that a fount -unmistakably copied from them was used by a Venetian printer named John -de Colonia. Nicholas Gotz of Sletzstat, who began printing about 1470, -though we find no dated book of his before 1474, and who finished in -1480, used a device engraved upon copper in the ‘manière criblée,’ or -dotted style. It consists of a coat-of-arms surmounted by a helmet and -crest, with his motto, ‘Sola spes mea inte virginis gratia.’ In some -books we find the motto printed in a different form—‘Spes mea sola -in virginis gratia.’ In 1475 was issued the _Sermo de presentacione -beatissime virginis Marie_, the only book known containing the name -of Goiswinus Gops de Euskyrchen. In 1476, Peter Bergman de Olpe and -Conrad Winters de Homborch began to print, and were followed in 1477 -by Guldenschaff, and in 1479 by Henry Quentell, the last named being -the most important printer at Cologne during the latter years of the -fifteenth century. - -Gunther Zainer was the first printer at Augsburg; and in March 1468 -issued his first dated book, the _Meditationes vite domini nostri Jesu -Christi_, by Bonaventure. Some of his undated books show signs from -their workmanship of having been printed at a still earlier date. -At first he used a small Gothic type, but in 1472 he published the -_Etymologiæ S. Isidori_ in a beautiful Roman letter, the first, with a -date, used in Germany. His later books are printed in a large, thick, -black letter, and have in many cases ornamental capitals and borders. -He was connected in some way with the Monastery of the Chartreuse at -Buxheim, and to their library he gave many of his books; and we learn -from their archives that he died on the 13th April 1478. By 1472 we -find two more printers settled in Augsburg, John Baemler and John -Schussler. The first of these, before becoming a printer, had been a -scribe and rubricator, and as such had sometimes signed his name to -books. This has given rise to the idea that he printed them, and he is -often quoted as the printer of a Bible in 1466. He worked from 1472 to -1495, printing a very large number of books. Schussler printed only for -three years, from 1470 to 1473, issuing about eight books, printed in -a curious small type, half-Gothic, half-Roman, and very like that used -at Subiaco. About 1472-73, Melchior de Stanheim, head of the Monastery -of SS. Ulric and Afra, purchased some presses and began to print with -types, which seem to have been borrowed from other Augsburg printers, -such as Zainer, Schussler, and Anthony Sorg. The latter started on his -own account in 1475, and issued a very large number of books between -that year and 1493. - -The early Augsburg books are especially noted for their woodcuts, -which, though not perhaps of much artistic merit, are very numerous and -curious. Some very beautifully printed books were also produced about -the end of the century by John Schœnsperger, who is celebrated as the -printer of the _Theurdanck_ of 1517. - -In 1470, John Sensenschmidt and Henry Keppfer of Mainz, whom we -have before spoken of as a servant of Gutenberg, began to print -at Nuremberg. Their first book was the _Codex egregius comestorii -viciorum_, and in the colophon the printer says: ‘Nuremburge anno, -etc., LXXº patronarum formarumque concordia et proporcione impressus.’ -These words are exactly copied from the colophon of the _Catholicon_, -which is considered to have been printed by Gutenberg. - -In 1472, Frederick Creusner and Anthony Koburger, the two most famous -Nuremberg printers, both began to print. They seem to have been -closely connected in business, and we sometimes find Creusner using -Koburger’s type; for instance, the _Poggius_ of 1475 by Creusner, and -the _Boethius_ of 1473 by Koburger, are in the same type. Most of the -early Nuremberg types are readily distinguished by the capital N, in -which the cross stroke slants the wrong way. Koburger was perhaps the -most important printer and publisher of the fifteenth century. He is -said to have employed twenty-four presses at Nuremberg, besides having -books printed for him in other towns. About 1480 he issued a most -interesting catalogue, of which there is a copy in the British Museum, -containing the titles of twenty-two books, not all, however, printed -by himself. In 1495 he printed also an advertisement of the _Nuremberg -Chronicles_.[14] - -[14] These early book catalogues supply a very great deal of curious -information, and are very well worth careful study. An extremely good -article by Wilhelm Meyer, containing reprints of twenty-two, was issued -some years ago in the _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_; and since -that time reprints of a few others have appeared in the same magazine. - -Though Spire was not an important town in the history of printing, a -book was printed there as early as 1471. This was the _Postilla super -Apocalypsin_ [Hain, 13,310]. It is a quarto, printed in a rude Roman -type, but with a Gothic V. Two other works of Augustine and one of Huss -(_Gesta Christi_) are known, printed in a larger type, but without -date, place, or name of printer. It has usually been assumed, on what -grounds is not stated, that these books were printed by Peter Drach; -but as at present no book is known in this type with his name, it is -perhaps wiser to assign them to an unknown printer. Peter Drach’s first -dated book was issued in 1477, and the history of his press at this -time is particularly interesting. The type in which his _Vocabularius -utriusque Juris_ of May 1477 is printed, is absolutely the same as that -used in December of the same year for printing the _Vocabularius ex -quo_, printed, according to its colophon, by Nicholas Bechtermuntze at -Eltvil. On this subject it is best to quote Mr. Hessels’ own words, for -to him this discovery is due:[15]— - -[15] _Gutenberg; Was he the Inventor of Printing?_ By J. H. Hessels. -London, 1882. 8vo. P. 181. - -‘I may here observe that Type 3 [that of Bechtermuntze in 1477] is -exactly the same as that used by Peter Drach at Spire. When I received -this _Vocabulary_ [_ex quo_ of 1477] from Munich, the only book I had -seen of Drach was the _Leonardi de Utino Sermones_, published in 1479; -and it occurred to me that Bechtermuncze had probably ceased to print -about this time, and might have transferred his type to Drach. But this -appears not to have been the case, as Drach published already, on the -18th May 1477, the _Vocabularius Juris utriusque_, printed with the -very same type, and must therefore have been in possession of his type -simultaneously with Bechtermuncze. The question therefore arises, Did -Drach perhaps print the 1477 _Vocabulary_ for Nicolaus Bechtermuncze?’ - -This question must, unfortunately, be left for the present where Mr. -Hessels has left it, but it offers a most interesting point for further -research. - -From 1477, Peter Drach continued to print at any rate to the end of -the fifteenth century; but it is perhaps possible that there were a -father and son of the same name, whose various books have not been -separated. The _Omeliarum opus_ of 1482 [Hain, 8789] is spoken of as -‘factore Petro Drach juniore in inclita Spirensium urbe impressum.’ The -only other interesting printers at Spire were the brothers John and -Conrad Hijst, whose names are found in the preface to an edition of the -_Philobiblon_ of Richard de Bury, which they, printed about 1483. They -used an ornamental Gothic type, generally confused with that belonging -to Reyser of Eichstadt, and their unsigned books are almost always -described by Hain and others as printed ‘typis Reyserianis.’ - -Only one printer is known to have been at Esslingen in the fifteenth -century. This was Conrad Fyner, who began to print in 1472, and -continued in the town till 1480. Though the first dated book is 1472, -it is most probable that several of the undated books should be placed -earlier. Fyner’s first small type is extremely like one used at -Strasburg by Eggestein, if indeed it is not identical, and their books -are constantly confused. In 1473, Fyner printed Gerson’s _Collectorium -super Magnificat_, the first book containing printed musical notes; and -in 1475, _P. Niger contra perfidos Judeos_, which contains the first -specimen of Hebrew type. One book in Fyner’s type [Hain, *9335] is said -to be printed by Johannes Hug de Goppingen. In 1481, Fyner moved to -Urach, where he printed one book, and after that date he disappears. - -At Lavingen only one book is known to have been printed in the -fifteenth century. It is the _Augustinus de consensu evangelistarum_ -[Hain, *1981], issued on April 12, 1473. Madden conjectures from the -appearance of the type and the capital letters that the book was -printed by John Zainer of Ulm. Both type and capitals, however, are -different, but their resemblance is quite natural considering the short -distance between Ulm and Lavingen. - -At an early period Ulm was very important as a centre for wood -engraving, and several block-books are known to have been produced -there. An edition of the _Ars Moriendi_ is signed Ludwig ze Ulm, whom -Dr. Hassler conjectures to have been Ludwig Hohenwang. The earliest -printer that we find mentioned in a dated book is John Zainer of -Reutlingen, no doubt a relation of Gunther Zainer the printer at -Augsburg. He issued in 1473 a work by Boccaccio, _De præclaris -mulieribus_, illustrated with a number of woodcuts, and having also -woodcut initials and borders. He printed from this time to the end of -the century, many of his books being ornamented. Another printer at Ulm -to be noticed is Conrad Dinckmut, who printed from 1482 to 1496. He was -probably a wood engraver, for he illustrated many of his books with -woodcuts, and also produced a xylographic _Donatus_, of which there is -an imperfect copy in the Bodleian. - -In 1473, printing was introduced into Merseburg by Luke Brandis, who -moved in 1475 to Lubeck. In 1475, also, Conrad Elyas began to print -at Breslau, and by 1480 no fewer than twenty-three towns had printing -presses. Between 1480 and 1490 the art was introduced into fifteen more -towns, and between 1490 and 1501 into twelve. So that the total number -of plates in Germany where printing was practised in the fifteenth -century is fifty. - -Basle was the first city of Switzerland into which printing was -introduced, but it is hard to determine when this took place. The -earliest printer was Berthold Rodt, or Ruppel of Hanau, who is supposed -to be the same man as the Bertholdus of Hanau who figures in the -lawsuit of 1455 as a servant of Gutenberg. It is not till 1473, in the -colophon of the _Repertorium Vocabulorum_ of Conrad de Mure, that we -find either his name or a date; but many books are known printed in -the same type. One of these, the _Moralia in Job_ of St. Gregory, was -printed in or before 1468, for one copy contains a manuscript note -showing that it was bought in that year by Joseph de Vergers, an -ecclesiastic of Mainz. About 1474, Berthold began to print a Bible, -but finished only the first volume, dying, it is supposed, about that -time. The second volume was printed by Bernard Richel, and is dated -1475. The most important printers of Basle were Wenssler, Amorbach, -and Froben. About 1469, Helyas de Louffen, a canon of the Abbey of -Beromunster, began to print, and in 1470 issued the _Mammotrectus_ of -Marchesinus, finished on the Vigil of St. Martin, the exact day and -year in which Schœffer finished his edition of the same book. Bernard -says that the two editions are certainly different, and could not have -been copied one from the other, so that the similarity of date must be -looked upon as a curious coincidence. This _Mammotrectus_ is the first -dated book issued in Switzerland, and is printed in the most remarkable -Gothic type used anywhere in the fifteenth century. Many of the capital -letters if found by themselves could not be read, and it is a type -which once seen can never be forgotten. At the foot of each column in -the book is a letter which looks like a signature, but which is put -there for the purpose of a number to the column. Helyas de Louffen died -in 1475, having printed about eight books, some in Gothic and some in -Roman type. - -Before the end of the fifteenth century printing presses were at work -in five other towns of Switzerland: Geneva (1478), Promentour (1482), -Lausanne (1493), Trogen (1497), and Sursee (1500). - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - - ITALY. - - -Italian historians have several times attempted to bring forward -Pamphilo Castaldi as the inventor of printing. It is little use to -recapitulate here the various unsupported assertions on which this -claim is based,—a claim which, if it ever had, has now ceased to have -any sensible supporters. - -We may safely assume, with our present knowledge, that the art of -printing was introduced into Italy in 1465 by two Germans, Conrad -Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz. On their arrival in Italy they -settled first in the Monastery of Saint Scholastica at Subiaco, an -establishment of Benedictines, of which Cardinal Turrecremata was -Abbot, where they would be in congenial society, since, as Cardinal -Quirini says, many of the inmates were Germans. - -The first book which they printed was a _Donatus pro puerulis_, of -which they said in their list, printed in 1472, ‘unde imprimendi -initium sumpsimus.’ Unfortunately, of this _Donatus_ no copy is known, -though rumours of a copy in a private collection in Italy have from -time to time been circulated. The earliest book from their press of -which copies are in existence, is the Cicero _De Oratore_, printed -before 30th September 1465.[16] It has been always a moot point whether -this Cicero _De Oratore_ or the Mainz _Ciceronis Officia et Paradoxa_, -printed in the same year, can justly claim to be the first printed -Latin classic, while the claims of the _De Officiis_ of Zel, which, -though, undated, is very probably as early, have been entirely ignored. - -[16] This book has usually been dated later than the _Lactantius_, that -is, after 29th October 1465; but M. Fumagalli, in his _Dei primi libri -a stampa in Italia_, Lugano, 1875, 8vo, describes a copy containing a -manuscript note dated ‘Pridie Kal. Octobres, M.cccc.lxv.,’ so that the -_Cicero_ must be considered the first known book printed in Italy. On -the other hand, it should be noticed that some authorities consider the -inscription to be a forgery. - -The Subiaco _De Oratore_ is a large quarto of 109 leaves, with thirty -lines to the page. Like the first German books, it is beautifully -printed, and shows few signs of being an early production. Sweynheym -and Pannartz must have learnt their business carefully, for this their -first book is printed by half sheets, _i.e._ two pages at a time, -though other printers were still printing their quartos page by page. - -On the 29th October 1465 these printers issued their first dated book, -the first edition of Lactantius _De divinis institutionibus_. Of this -book 275 copies were printed. It is a small folio of 188 leaves, and -thirty-six lines to the page, printed in a type which, though Roman, -is very Gothic in appearance, and is sometimes called semi-Gothic. The -smaller letters have a curious resemblance to those used by Zainer at -Ulm and by Schussler at Augsburg in their earliest books, though the -capital letters are quite different. - -The fourth and last book printed by Sweynheym and Pannartz at Subiaco -was an edition of the _De civitate dei_ of Saint Augustine. This is a -large folio, of 270 leaves, with two columns, and forty-four lines to -the page. It was issued on the 12th June 1467; and though it contains -no name of either printer or place, can be easily identified by the -type. A copy in the Bibliothèque Nationale has an extremely interesting -manuscript note, which tells us that Leonardus Dathus, ‘Episcopus -Massanus,’ bought the book from the Germans themselves, living at Rome, -who were producing innumerable books of that sort by means of printing, -not writing, in November 1467, This note is valuable in two ways; it -puts it beyond doubt who the printers of the book were, and it also -enables us to determine more precisely the date when they left Subiaco. -The _Augustine_ was finished in June, and by November the printers were -at Rome. As they issued a book in Rome in 1467, and would take some -time to settle in their new establishment and prepare their new types, -we may take it as probable that they left the Monastery of Subiaco as -soon as possible after the printing of the _Augustine_. - -About June, then, Sweynheym and Pannartz left the Monastery of Subiaco -and transferred their printing materials to Rome, finding a home in -a house belonging to the brothers Peter and Francis de Maximis. The -semi-Gothic fount of type which had been used at Subiaco was discarded -in favour of one more Roman in character, though heavily cut and not so -graceful as the Venetian of the same period. A curious appearance is -given to it by the invariable use of the long s. Their first venture -was again a work of Cicero, the _Epistolæ ad familiares_, a large -quarto of thirty-one lines to the page. It has the following colophon:— - - ‘Hoc Conradus opus Suueynheym ordine miro - Arnoldusque simul pannarts una aede colendi - Gente theotonica: romæ expediere sodales. - In domo Petri de Maximo. M.CCCC.LXVII.’ - -From this time forward, under the able supervision of the Bishop of -Aleria, Sweynheym and Pannartz continued to print with the greatest -industry, but they did not meet with the support which they merited. -In 1472 they had become so badly off that a letter was written to Pope -Sixtus IV. pointing out their distress, and asking for assistance. This -letter, printed on one sheet, is usually found in the fifth volume of -Nicholas de Lyra’s _Commentary on the Bible_, printed in 1472. Its -great bibliographical interest lies in the fact that the printers gave -a list of what they had printed and the number of copies they issued. -In the list twenty-eight works are mentioned, and the number of volumes -amounted altogether to 11,475. They usually issued 275 copies of each -work which they printed. - -This list also clearly shows the extraordinary influence of the new -learning so actively promoted by Cosmo de Medici and encouraged by his -grandson Lorenzo. The majority of the books in this list are classics, -either in their original Latin or in Latin translations from the Greek; -and that the printers were anxious to benefit scholars, is shown by -the assertion of the Bishop of Aleria in the prefatory letter to the -_Ciceronis Epistolæ ad Atticum_ of 1470, where it is said that they had -produced their editions of Cicero at the lowest possible price, “ad -pauperum commoditatem.” - -To judge from the results, the appeal to the Pope was of little -effect, for in 1473 Conrad Sweynheym gave up the business of printing, -and confined his attention to engraving on metal; while Pannartz -continued to print by himself up till the end of 1476, issuing in -those three years about twelve books. The last book on which Pannartz -was engaged was a new edition of the _Letters of St. Jerome_, but he -only finished one volume. Three years later, George Laver, who seems -to have acquired the type, issued the second volume. It is therefore -quite probable, as is generally asserted, that Pannartz died in 1476 -or early in 1477. Sweynheym, ever since he had given up printing, had -been engaged in engraving a series of maps to illustrate Ptolemy’s -_Geography_; but, after working three years upon them, died before they -were finished. The edition of Ptolemy was finally issued in 1478 by -Arnold Buckinck, a German, who in his preface said that he was anxious -‘that the emendations of Calderinus--who also died before the book -was printed--and the results of Sweynheym’s most ingenious mechanical -contrivances might not be lost to the learned world.’ - -‘Magister vero Conradus Sweynheym, Germanus, a quo formandorum Romæ -librorum ars primum profecta est, occasione hinc sumpta posteritati -consulens animum primum ad hanc doctrinam capescendam applicuit. -Subinde mathematicis adhibitis viris quemadmodum tabulis eneis -imprimerentur edocuit, triennioque in hac cura consumpto diem obiit. -In cujus vigilarum laborumque partem non inferiori ingenio ac studio -Arnoldus Buckinck e Germania vir apprime eruditus ad imperfectum opus -succedens, ne Domitii Conradique obitu eorum vigilæ emendationesque -sine testimonio perirent neve virorum eruditorum censuram fugerent -immensæ subtilitatis machinimenta, examussim ad unum perfecit.’ - -The book contains twenty-seven maps, each map being printed on two -separate leaves facing each other, and printed only on one side. The -letters which occur on the maps in the names of places are evidently -punched from single dies, and not cut on the plate, as would have been -expected. The letterpress of the book is not printed in any type used -by Sweynheym or Pannartz, which shows that Buckinck was the absolute -printer of the book. - -Ulric Hahn, who contests with Sweynheym and Pannartz for the honour of -having introduced printing into Rome, issued as his first book, in -1467, the _Meditations_ of Cardinal Torquemada, better known perhaps as -Turrecremata. It is illustrated with thirty-three woodcuts of inferior -execution, and is printed in a large Gothic type. This type the printer -discarded the following year for one of Roman letter; but odd types -from the Gothic fount frequently make their appearance among the -Roman, and serve as a means of distinguishing Hahn’s books from others -in similar Roman type. As a case in point, we may mention the early -and probably first edition of _Catullus_, wrongly ascribed to Andrea -Belfortis of Ferrara and other printers. This book is in Hahn’s Roman -type, and contains three capital letters from his Gothic fount;—a more -sure means of identification than a fancied allusion to a printer’s -name.[17] For a short time, from 1470 to 1472, Hahn’s books were edited -by Campanus, a scholar of such fame and erudition, that the printer was -able to rival Sweynheym and Pannartz, with their editor the Bishop of -Aleria; but on Campanus taking his departure for Ratisbon, the prestige -of Hahn’s press declined. From the pen of Campanus came perhaps the -punning colophons which play upon the name of Hahn, in Latin, Gallus, -meaning in English a cock. Upon the departure of Campanus, Hahn, took -in partnership one Simon Nicolai Chardella of Lucca, who seems to have -supplied the money as well as superintended the publishing, and they -continued to work together till 1474. From this date till 1478, Hahn -continued to work alone, ending in that year as he had begun, with an -edition of the _Meditationes_ of Torquemada. His former partner, Simon -Nicolai, started a press on his own account, having as an associate his -cousin. - -[17] The edition of _Catullus_, mentioned above, is ascribed to Andrea -Belfortis, because the words ‘cui Francia nomen’ occur in the prefatory -verses; and the same words occur, referring to Belfortis, in a book -printed by him. But the types of the _Catullus_ and those used by -Andrea Belfortis are certainly different, while both the types of the -_Catullus_ are found in other books printed by Hahn. The _Catullus_ -has also a Registrum Chartarum, which was almost invariably put to his -books by Hahn. - -The latest writer[18] on the early history of printing in Venice has -again revived the question as to the correctness of the date of the -_Decor Puellarum_. Though he still clings to the possibility of the -date 1461 being trustworthy, the weight of evidence, all of which is -carefully stated, is decisively in favour of its being a misprint for -1471. - -[18] _The Venetian Printing Press._ By Horatio F. Brown. London, 1891. -4to. - -It would be useless to recapitulate here all the arguments in favour of -Jenson having printed in 1461, when it is now generally admitted that -John of Spire was the first printer at Venice, and that his first book -was the _Epistolæ familiares_ of Cicero, issued in 1469. Of this book -only one hundred copies were printed. On the 18th September 1469, the -Collegio of Venice granted to John of Spire a monopoly of printing in -that district for five years; and this document distinctly indicates -that he was the first printer at Venice. He did not, however, live to -obtain the advantage of this privilege, ‘nullius est vigoris quia obiit -magister et auctor,’ says a contemporary marginal note to the record, -for he died in 1470. Previous to his death he printed a _Pliny_, the -first volume of a _Livy_, two editions of the _Epistolæ ad familiares_, -and part of the Augustine _De civitate dei_, which was finished by his -brother Windelin. - - ‘Subita sed morte peremptus - Non potuit cœptum Venetis finire volumen.’ - -Windelin of Spire was a very prolific printer, and continued to issue -books without intermission from the time of his brother’s death, in -1470, to his own in 1478. But among the early Venetian printers the -most important was certainly Nicholas Jenson. A Frenchman by birth, -he passed his apprenticeship in the Paris Mint, and became afterwards -the head of the Mint at Tours. In 1458, in consequence of the stories -of the invention of printing, he was sent by Charles VII. to Mainz -to learn the art, and introduce it into France. Jenson returned in -1461, when Louis XI. had just been crowned; but he does not seem to -have settled in France, and we first hear of him again in 1470 as a -printer at Venice. From 1470 to 1480 he printed continuously, issuing, -according to Sardini, at least one hundred and fifty-five editions, -though this number must be considerably under the mark. His will was -drawn up on the 7th September 1480, and he died in the same month. The -fame of Jenson rests on the extraordinary beauty of his Roman type, -of which he had but one fount, and which, though frequently copied, -was never equalled. In 1474 he began to use Gothic type, owing to its -great saving of space; and in 1471, in the _Epistolæ familiares_, he -used Greek type in the quotations, the first instance of its employment -in Venice. It is curious that, with its devotion to the new learning, -Venice should not have been the first to issue a Greek book. Jenson -had frequently to use Greek type in his books, but he never printed a -complete work in that language. Milan led the way, printing the _Greek -Grammar_ of Lascaris in 1476; and it was not till 1485 that Venice -issued its first Greek book, the _Erotemata_ of Chrysoloras. - -In 1470, another German, Christopher Valdarfer of Ratisbon, began to -print. He left Venice in 1473, and settled at Milan, and the books -which he printed at the former-place are very rare and few in number. -The best known is the _Decameron_ of 1471, the first edition of the -book, familiar to all readers of Dibdin. - -In 1471 was issued the _De medicinis universalibus_, printed by Clemens -Sacerdos (Clement of Padua), the first Italian printer in Venice; and -in the year following, Philippus Petri,[19] the first native Venetian -printer, began to print. - -[19] This printer’s name seems to have led to a certain amount of -confusion. He was Filippo the son of Piero, in Latin, Philippus Petri; -but after his father’s death, about the end of 1477, he calls himself -Philippus quondam Petri, Filippo son of the late Piero. - -Between 1470 and 1480 at least fifty printers were at work in Venice, -and among the most important were John de Colonia, John Manthen de -Gerretzem, Erhard Ratdolt, Octavianus Scotus. Erhard Ratdolt is -especially of importance, for he was practically the first to introduce -wood engravings in his books. In 1476, Ratdolt and his partners, Peter -Loeslein and Bernard Pictor, began their work together by issuing -a _Calendar_ of Regiomontanus, with a very beautiful title-page -surrounded by a woodcut border. From that time onwards, woodcuts were -used in many Venetian books; and at last, in 1499, there appeared there -that unsurpassed illustrated book the _Hypnerotomachia_ of Franciscus -Columna. - -The history of the later Venetian press during the last ten years of -the fifteenth century would require at least a volume. So far as the -history of typography itself is concerned, there is nothing of interest -to be noticed; but in the general history of printing Venice holds the -highest place; for more printers printed there than in any other city -of Europe. Of course, amongst this endless outpour of the press many -important books were issued, but there are few which have any interest -for the historian of printing. - -There is, however, one printer who must always make this period -celebrated. Aldus Manutius was born at Bassiano in 1450, and began to -print at Venice in 1494. His main idea when he commenced to work was to -print Greek books; and it was perhaps for that reason that he settled -in Venice, where so many manuscripts were preserved, and where so many -Greeks resided. His first two books, both issued in 1494, are the -_Galeomyomachia_ and the _De Herone et Leandro_ of Musæus. In 1496 he -obtained a copyright for twenty years in such Greek books as he might -print, and from this time forward a large number were issued as fast as -possible. So great was the hurry, that the editors in some cases did -not scruple to hand over to the compositors the original manuscripts -themselves from which the edition was taken, with their own emendations -and corrections scribbled upon them. But this custom was not confined -to the Aldine press, for Martin[20] tells us that the Codex Ravennas of -Aristophanes was actually used by the compositors as the working copy -from which part of the Giunta edition of 1515 was set up. - -[20] Martin, _Les scholies du Manuscrit d’Aristophane à Ravenna_. - -In 1499, Aldus married the daughter of Andrea de Torresani, himself -a great printer, and in 1500 founded the Aldine Academy, the home of -so many editors, and the source of so many scholarly editions of the -sixteenth century. The end of the fifteenth century saw, at any rate, -two rivals in Greek printing to Aldus: Gabriel da Brasichella, who with -his associates published in 1498 the _Epistles of Phalaris_ and _Æsop’s -Fables_; and, in 1499, Zaccharia Caliergi of Crete, who printed with -others or alone up till 1509. Caliergi, it would appear, was hardly a -rival of Aldus; they were, at any rate, so far friendly that Aldus sold -Caliergi’s editions along with his own. - -In 1476 a press was set up at Foligno, in the house of Emilianus de -Orsinis, by John Numeister, a native of Mainz, who is generally said -to have been an associate and pupil of Gutenberg. This story seems to -be founded upon an assertion put forward by Fischer, that a copy of -the _Tractatus de celebratione missarum_, in the University Library at -Mainz, contains a rubric stating that the book was printed by Gutenberg -and Numeister in 1463. If this note ever existed, which is very -doubtful, it is clearly a forgery, for the book in which it is said to -occur was not printed till about 1480. - -The first book in which we find Numeister’s name is the _De bello -Italico contra Gothos_, by Aretinus, printed in 1470; and about the -same date he printed an edition of the _Epistolæ familiares_ of -Cicero. In 1472 appeared the first edition of _Dante_; between that -year and 1479 we hear nothing of Numeister. In 1479 an edition of the -_Meditationes_ of Turrecremata appeared with his name, printed in a -large church type, not unlike, though not, as is often said, the same -as, the type of the forty-two line Bible, and containing very fine -engraved cuts. This book is generally stated, for some unknown reason, -to have been printed at Mainz. After this date we find no further -mention of Numeister; but M. Claudin[21] has written a monograph to -show that he was the printer of the edition of the _Meditationes_ -of Turrecremata issued at Albi in 1481, a book remarkable for its -wonderful engravings on metal, and of the _Missale Lugdunense_, -printed at Lyons in 1487, which is stated in the colophon to have been -printed by ‘Magistrum Jo. alemanum de magontia impressorem.’ - -[21] _Origine de l’Imprimerie à Albi et en Languedoc._ - -After 1470 the spread of printing in Italy was very rapid. In 1471 we -find it beginning at Bologna, Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Pavia, -and Treviso. - -The first complete edition of _Ovid_ was produced in 1471, and is the -first book printed at Bologna, the printer being Balthasar Azzoguidi, -‘primus in sua civitate artis impressoriæ inventor,’ as he calls -himself in the preface to the book. Andrea Portilia must also have been -amongst the earliest printers at Bologna, though his only dated book is -1473, for in that year he returned to Parma. Among the many printers -who worked in the town, none are better known, from the frequency with -which their names occur in colophons, than the various members of the -family ‘de Benedictis,’ who worked from 1488 onwards. - -Andreas Belfortis, a Frenchman, was the first to print at Ferrara, -issuing in 1471 at least three books, of which the earliest, published -in July, is an edition of _Martial_ (which has catchwords to the quires -in the latter portion). This was followed by editions of _Poggio_ and -_Augustinus Dathus_. Belfortis continued to print till 1493. A certain -Augustinus Carner, who printed a few books between 1474 and 1476, -printed in 1475 the rare _Teseide_ of Boccaccio, the first printed -poem in the Italian language. De Rossi, in his tract, _De typographia -Ebræo-Ferrariensi_, gives a long description of some Hebrew books -printed at Ferrara in 1477, which must be the first printed in that -language, though some words are found in a book printed at Esslingen in -1475. - -The first printer at Milan was Anthony Zarotus, and his earliest book, -with both name and date, is the _Virgil_ of 1472. In the previous -year, four books had been issued without any printer’s name, but the -identity of the type with that of the _Virgil_ shows Zarotus to have -printed these also. Mention has often been made of a certain _Terence_, -printed in 1470, March 13. It is quoted by Hain (15,371), who had not -seen it, and by Panzer (ii. 11. 2), and a copy was said to be in the -library of the Earl of Pembroke, the home of many mysterious books. It -is often quoted as the first book with signatures. It was doubtless a -copy of the edition of March 13, 1481, in which some ingenious person -had erased the last two figures, xi, of the date. It is very probable -that there was at first some connection between Zarotus and Philip de -Lavagna; and it was perhaps at the latter’s expense, and through his -means, that Zarotus first printed. Certainly, in the colophon of a book -printed in 1473, probably by Christopher Valdarfer, are the words ‘per -Philippum de Lavagnia, hujus artis stampandi in hac urbe primum latorem -atque inventorem;’ but it is quite possible that the words should not -be taken in too narrow a sense, and that Philip de Lavagna simply means -to speak of himself as the first person to introduce printing into -Milan, not as printer, but as patron. - -The history of the first printers in this town is very interesting, -for they entered into various partnerships, and the documents relating -to these have been preserved and published,[22] throwing a good deal of -light on some of the customs and methods of the early printers. In 1476 -was printed at Milan the _Grammar_ of Constantine Lascaris, the first -book printed in Greek; and in 1481, a Greek version of the _Psalms_, -the first portion of the Bible printed in this language. - -[22] Saxius, _Bibliothecá scriptorum Mediolanensium_. Milan, 1745. Fol. - -At Florence, Bernard Cennini, the celebrated goldsmith and assistant of -Ghiberti, printed, with the assistance of two of his sons, an edition -of the Commentary of Servius on Virgil. It was begun towards the end -of 1471, and not finished till October 1472, but is the first book -printed at Florence. This is the only book known to have been printed -by Cennini; but it is not unlikely that in his capacity of goldsmith -he did work for other printers in cutting type. The most interesting -press at Florence in the fifteenth century, was that founded in the -Monastery of St. James of Ripoli by Dominic de Pistoia, the head of -the establishment. Beginning with a _Donatus_, of which every copy has -disappeared, it was carried on briskly up till the time of his death -in 1484, issuing, according to Hain, just over fifty works; according -to De Rossi, nearly one hundred. The account books connected with -this press have been preserved, and from them we can learn the price -of the various articles used by the printers, such as paper, ink, -type-metal. Several kinds of paper are mentioned, and identified, as a -rule, by their watermarks. We have paper from Fabriano with the mark of -a crossbow, a different paper from the same place marked with a cross, -and two sorts of paper from Pescia marked with spectacles and a glove. -There are several celebrated books printed at Florence before 1500 -which cannot be passed over. In 1477 was issued the _Monte Santo di -Dio_, said to contain the first copperplate engraving; and in 1481, the -celebrated _Dante_, with engravings by Baccio Baldini after the designs -of Botticelli. Most copies of this book contain only a few of the -plates, while about eight copies are known with the full number. Some -celebrated Greek books also were issued at Florence, notably in 1488 -the first edition of _Homer_ printed by Demetrius Chalcondylas at the -expense of two brothers, Bernardus and Nerius Nerlii. There is a copy -of this book in the British Museum, which was bought by Mr. Barnard, -librarian to George III., for seven shillings. One complete copy on -vellum is known, in the library of St. Mark’s at Venice. - -Towards the end of the fifteenth century, Francis de Alopa printed five -Greek books entirely in capital letters, the _Anthologia_ of 1494, -_Callimachus_, _Euripides_ (four plays only), _Apollonius Rhodius_, -1496, _Poetae Gnomici_, and _Musæus_. It is very probable that the -‘editio princeps’ of _Lucian_, which was printed at Florence, but is -ascribed by Ebert to Caliergi at Venice, was also printed at this press. - -Under the patronage of Ferdinand I., King of Naples, Sixtus Riessinger -of Strasburg began to print there in 1471, and continued till 1479. -He seems to have been in high favour with the king, who offered -him a bishopric, which was, however, refused. In 1472, Arnaldus de -Bruxella set up his press, using (unlike most other printers) Roman -type only. The large M and small _y_ are of a curious form and easily -recognisable, while the final _us_ in words is always represented by -an abbreviation. Most of the books printed by him are rare; of the -_Horace_ and _Petrarch_, only single copies are known; and it was -for the sake of acquiring these two books, so Dibdin tells us, that -Lord Spencer bought the Cassano Library. Hain mentions seventeen -books printed by this Arnaldus de Bruxella, and out of that number he -had seen only one. Van der Meersch gives twenty-three; but some are -doubtful. - -Pavia is more celebrated for the number of books it produced than for -their interest, and it is only mentioned here as one of the towns to -which printing is said to have been introduced in 1471. - -The last town to be mentioned in this group is Treviso, where, in 1471, -that wandering printer Gerardus de Lisa began to print. In his first -year he printed several books, but his industry gradually got less. -In 1477 we find him at Venice, in 1480 at Cividad di Friuli (Civitas -Austriæ), and in 1484 at Udina. - -1472 saw printing established in Cremona, Mantua, Monreale, Padua, -Parma, and Verona, and from this time onwards it spread rapidly over -the whole of Italy, being introduced into seventy-one towns before -the end of the fifteenth century. For the study of typography the -Italian presses are not nearly so interesting as those of other -countries, but from a literary point of view they are immeasurably -superior. The Renaissance movement had been at work in Italy during -the whole of the fifteenth century, and the great impetus given by the -fall of Constantinople was acting most powerfully when the printing -press was introduced. Italy was then the sole guardian of the ancient -civilisation, and was prepared for a more rapid method of reproducing -its early treasures and spreading the learning of its newer scholars. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - - FRANCE. - - -A curious prelude has been discovered within the last few years to the -history of the introduction of printing into France. L’Abbé Requin, -searching through the archives of Avignon, brought to light a series of -entries relating to printing, ‘ars scribendi artificialiter,’ as it is -there called, dated as far back as the year 1444.[23] - -[23] _L’Imprimerie à Avignon en 1444._ By L’Abbé Requin. Paris, 1890. -_Origines de Imprimerie en France_ (Avignon, 1444). By L’Abbé Requin. -Paris, 1891. _Les Origines de l’Imprimerie à Avignon._ Par M. Duhamel. -1890. - -The information obtained from the notarial books, fairly complete -in its way, is as follows:—A certain silversmith, named Procopius -Waldfoghel of Prague, was settled at Avignon by the beginning of -1444, and was working at printing, in conjunction with a student of -the university, Manaudus Vitalis, whom he had supplied with printing -materials. - -In a notarial act of the 4th July of that year, the following materials -are mentioned:—‘Duo abecedaria calibis et duas formas ferreas, -unum instrumentum calibis vocatum vitis, quadraginta octo formas -stangni necnon diversas alias formas ad artem scribendi pertinentes.’ -Waldfoghel was evidently the maker of the materials and the teacher of -the art, and he seems to have supplied his apprentices with such tools -as would enable them to print for themselves. - -In 1444, besides Manaudus Vitalis, Waldfoghel had as apprentices, -Girardus Ferrose of Treves, Georgius de la Jardina, Arnaldus de -Cosselhac, and a Jew named Davinus de Cadarossia. - -From a document dated 10th March 1446, we learn that Waldfoghel, -having two years previously taught the art of printing to the Jew, had -promised to cut for him a set of twenty-seven Hebrew letters and to -give him certain other materials. In return for this, the Jew was to -teach him to dye in a particular way all kinds of textile material, and -to keep secret all he learnt on the art of printing. - -In another document, of 5th April 1446, relating to the partnership of -Waldfoghel, Manaudus Vitalis, and Amaldus de Cosselhac, and the selling -of his share to the remaining two by Vitalis, we have mention made of -‘nonnulla instrumenta sive artificia causa artificialiter scribendi, -tam de ferro, de callibe, de cupro, de lethono, de plumbo, de stagna et -de fuste.’ - -There seems to be no doubt that these various entries refer to printing -with movable types; they cannot refer to xylographic printing, nor to -stencilling. At the same time, there is no evidence to point to any -particular kind of printing; and the various materials mentioned would -rather make it appear that the Avignon invention was some method of -stamping letters or words from cut type, than printing from cast type -in a press. Until some specimen is found of this Avignon work, from -which some definite knowledge can be obtained, the question must be -left undecided, for it is useless to try to extract from words capable -of various renderings any exact meaning. Our information at present -is only sufficient to enable us to say that some kind of printing was -being practised at Avignon as early as 1444. It seems, too, impossible -that, had this invention been printing of the ordinary kind; nothing -more should have come of the experiment; and we know of no printing in -France before 1470. - -_Les neuf Preux_, the only block-book executed in France, has been -already noticed. It is considered to have been printed at Paris about -1455. - -The first printing press was naturally started at Paris, the great -centre of learning and culture, and it seems strange that so important -an invention should not have been introduced earlier than 1470. Many -specimens of the art had been seen, for Fust in 1466 and Schœffer in -1468 had visited the capital to sell their books. If we may believe -the manuscript preserved in the library of the Arsenal, the French -King, in October 1458, sent out Nicholas Jenson to learn the art; but -he, ‘on his return to France, finding Charles VII. dead, set up his -establishment elsewhere.’ Probably a strong antagonism to the new art -would be shown by the immense number of professional copyists and -scribes who gained their livelihood in connection with the university, -though the demand for manuscripts continued in France for some time -after the introduction of printing. Many of the wealthy, moreover, -refused to recognise the innovation, and admitted no printed book -into their libraries, so that the scribes were not at once deprived -of employment. Many of these men who had been employed in producing -manuscripts, soon turned to the new art as a means of employment, -becoming themselves printers, or assisting in the production of books, -as rubricators or illuminators. - -In 1470, thanks to the exertions of Jean Heynlyn and Guillaume Fichet, -both men of high position in the University of Paris, a printing press -was set up in the precincts of the Sorbonne by three Germans, Martin -Crantz, Ulrich Gering of Constance, and Michael Friburger of Colmar. -The first book they issued was _Gasparini Pergamensis Epistolarum -Opus_, a quarto of 118 leaves, with a prefatory letter to Heynlyn, -which fixes the date of its production in 1470, and an interesting -colophon— - - ‘Ut sol lumen, sic doctrinam fundis in orbem, - Musarum nutrix, regia Parisius. - Hinc prope divinam, tu, quam Germania novit, - Artem scribendi suscipe promerita. - Primos ecce libros quos hæc industria finxit - Francorum in terris, ædibus atque tuis. - Michael, Udalricus Martinusque magistri - Hos impresserunt ac facient alios.’ - -The classical taste of the patrons of the first press is strongly -shown by its productions, for within the first three years a most -important series of classical books had been published. _Florus_ and -_Sallust_ (both first editions), _Terence_, Virgil’s _Eclogues_ and -_Georgics_, _Juvenal_ and _Persius_, Cicero’s _Tusculan Disputations_, -and _Valerius Maximus_, are amongst the books they issued. - -In 1470-71 these printers finished thirteen books, while in the -following year, before moving from the Sorbonne, they printed no -less than seventeen. Some time towards the end of 1472 they left -the Sorbonne and migrated to the Rue St. Jacques, where two other -printers--Kaiser and Stoll--were already settled in partnership at the -sign of the Green Ball (Intersignium viridis follis). - -In 1472 was issued the _Gasparini Orthographia_. The copy of this -book in the library at Basle contains a unique supplementary letter -from Fichet to Robert Gaguin, in which is the following interesting -statement about the invention of printing:—‘Report says that there -(in Germany), not far from the city of Mainz (Ferunt enim illic, haud -procul a civitate Maguncia), there was a certain John, whose surname -was Gutenberg, who first of any thought out the art of printing ... by -which art books are printed from metal letters.’[24] - -[24] Mr. Hessels, in his _Haarlem the Birthplace of Printing, not -Mentz_, attempts to weaken the value of this evidence, and translates -‘ferunt enim illic’ as ‘a rumour current in Germany,’—a striking -example of ingenious mistranslation. ‘Illic’ is, of course, to be taken -with what follows, and is further defined by ‘haud procul a civitate -Maguncia.’ - -Between the two printing offices in the Rue St. Jacques a keen spirit -of rivalry arose; and this was carried to such an extent, that no -sooner was a book printed by one than another edition was issued by the -other--a sign that the demand for such books must have been large. The -earliest type used by these first printers is an exquisite Roman, the -letters being more square than the best Roman type of Venice, and far -surpassing it in beauty. Round brackets are used, and all the generally -used stops are found. The first type of Kaiser and Stoll is also Roman, -with neat and very distinctive capitals, and the small _l_ has a short -stroke coming out on the left side about half-way up, a peculiarity -still retained in all the Roman type belonging to the ‘Imprimerie -Nationale.’ The popular taste seems to have been for Gothic type, and -very few printers made use of Roman before the year 1500. - -[Illustration: PAGE OF FIRST PARIS BOOK.] - -About 1478, Gering’s two partners, Crantz and Friburger, left him; but -he himself continued to print on for many years. About this date, too, -the character of the books issued from the Paris presses began entirely -to change. In 1477, Pasquier Bonhomme had issued the first French book -printed in that city, the _Grandes Chroniques de France_, and from this -time forward classical books were neglected, and nothing printed but -romances and chronicles, service-books and grammars, and such books -as were in popular demand. During the twelve or fourteen years after -the first French book appeared, not one classical book a year was -issued; and it was not till 1495, the year of Charles VIII.’s return -from Italy, that the printing of classical books began to revive and -increase. - -In 1485, Antoine Verard, the most important figure in the early -history of Parisian printing, begins his career with an edition of the -_Decameron_. He was, however, more of a publisher than a printer, the -majority of the books which contain his name having been printed for -him by other printers. From his establishment came numberless editions -of chronicles and romances, some copies of which were printed on vellum -and illuminated. A very fine series of such books is now in the British -Museum; these were originally bought by Henry VII., and formed part of -the old Royal Library. - -Among the more important printers who printed before 1490 should be -mentioned Guy Marchant, Jean du Pré, Guillaume le Fèvre, Antoine -Cayllaut, Pierre Levet, Pierre le Rouge, and Jean Higman. Levet is -especially interesting, for the type which came into Caxton’s hands -about 1490, and was used afterwards by Wynkyn de Worde in some of his -earlier books, was either obtained from him or from the type-cutter who -cut his type, for the two founts seem to be identical. Guy Marchant is -celebrated as the printer of some curious editions of the _Dance of -Death_. - -After 1490 the number of printers and stationers increased rapidly. -Panzer enumerates no fewer than eighty-five printers, and nearly 800 -books executed during the fifteenth century; and there is no doubt -that his estimate is considerably under the mark. The most important -productions of the Parisian press at that time were service-books, of -which enormous numbers were issued. The best known publisher of such -works was Simon Vostre, who, with the assistance of the printer Philip -Pigouchet, began to issue _Books of Hours_, printed on vellum, with -exquisite borders and illustrations. These books began to be issued -about 1488, and commence with an almanac for the years 1488 to 1508. In -many cases the printers did not take the trouble to make new almanacs, -but were content to copy the old; indeed, we find the same almanac in -use ten years later. This has led to a great deal of confusion in the -bibliography of the subject, for it is a common custom of librarians -and cataloguers to ascribe the printing of a book of this class to the -date which occurs first in the almanac, when there is no date given in -the colophon. The most celebrated publishers of these books were Simon -Vostre, Philippe Pigouchet, Antoine Verard, Thielman Kerver, Gilles -Hardouyn, Guillaume Eustace, Guillaume Godard, and François Regnault. -Vostre and Verard do not seem themselves to have printed, but were -merely publishers, far the most important printer being Pigouchet. Of -the nine or ten _Books of Hours_ for the use of Sarum, printed abroad -during the fifteenth century, Pigouchet probably printed half, and -all but two were printed in Paris. In examining early foreign-printed -English service-books, it is curious to notice that while nearly all -the _Horæ_ were printed at Paris, the majority of Breviaries were -printed at Venice, and only two at Paris. No _Horæ_ is known to have -been printed at Venice. - -The end of the century saw the commencement of the celebrated Ascensian -press, the rival in some ways of the Aldine. The founder, Jodocus -Badius Ascensius (Josse Bade of Asch), was a man of great learning, -and was for a time professor of humanity at Lyons, and press-corrector -to Trechsel, whose daughter he married. Trechsel died in 1498, and in -1499, at the invitation of Robert Gaguin, Badius came to Paris and -established himself there as a teacher of Greek and a printer. It was -not, however, till 1504 that the Ascensian press became important. - -It is curious to notice that, in spite of the classical tastes of the -first promoters of printing in Paris, and the enormous development of -printing in that city towards the end of the fifteenth century, no -Greek book was produced till 1507. Through the exertions of François -Tissard of Amboise, who had studied Greek in Italy, and was anxious to -introduce Greek learning into France, Gilles Gourmont set up a press -provided with Greek types, and issued in 1507 a book entitled βίβλοϛ -ἡ γνωμαγυρικήο, a small grammatical treatise, the first Greek book -printed in France. From the same press, in the year following, came -the first Hebrew book printed in France, a Hebrew grammar, written -by Tissard. Greek printing, however, did not flourish; the supply of -type was meagre and the demand for books small,[25] and it was not -till 1528, in which year _Sophocles_, _Aristophanes_, _Lucian_, and -_Demosthenes_ were issued, that any signs of a revival were to be seen. - -[25] Aleander in 1512, in the preface to his _Lexicon Græco-Latinum_, -complained that the stock of Greek type was so meagre, that sometimes -letters had to be left out here and there, and the work was often at a -standstill for days. - -Lyons was the second city in France to receive the art of printing, -and it was introduced into that town by Guillaume le Roy of Liège -soon after 1470. The first dated book, the _Compendium_ of Innocent -III., appeared in September 1473. From its colophon we learn that it -was printed at the expense of Bartholomieu Buyer, a citizen of Lyons; -and we know from other colophons that the press was set up in Buyer’s -house. Bernard doubts whether Buyer was himself a printer, though he -is certainly mentioned as such in several books, such as _La légende -dorée_ of 1476. _Le miroir de vie humaine_, and _La légende des saintz_ -of 1477, which are described in their colophons as ‘imprimés par -Bartholomieu Buyer.’ His name is not found in any book after 1483, -so that it is usually supposed that he died about that date. Le Roy -continued to print alone for some years, but had ceased before 1493, in -which year we know that he was still alive. - -After Lyons comes Toulouse; and the first dated book issued there -was the _Repetitio solemnis rubrice de fide instrumentorum_, 20th -June 1476. It was not till 1479 that a printer’s name appears in the -colophon to a work by Johannes Alphonsus de Benevento. The printer, -Jean Parix, was a native of Heidelberg. He had founts both of Gothic -and Roman type, the Gothic being especially remarkable for the shapes -of the letters, which are very distinctive, and though eccentric in -form they are not at all unpleasing in appearance. In 1488, Henry -Mayer began to print, issuing in that year a translation of the _De -consolatione philosophiæ_ of Boethius, ‘en romance,’ and the first -French translation of the _Imitatio Christi_. This Henry Mayer has -often been quoted as the first printer at Tolosa in Spain, owing to -the name Tolosa in the colophons being considered to stand for that -town, and not, as it really does, for Toulouse. M. Claudin, however, -has found in the town registers of Toulouse a mention of Henry Mayer -as a printer in 1488; and in the imprint of the _Boethius_ which he -printed in the same year it is distinctly stated that it was ‘impresso -en Tolosa de Francia.’ At the end of the _Cronica de España_, printed -by Mayer in 1489, is along peroration addressed to Queen Isabella as -his sovereign by Mayer, from which it is sometimes argued that the -book was printed in Spain. The real fact is that the book is an exact -reprint, peroration and all, of the edition printed at Seville in 1482 -by Dachaver, with the sole difference that Mayer has substituted his -name for that of the Spanish printer. - -Angers [Feb. 5, 1476-77], Chablis [April 1, 1478], Vienne [1478], and -Poitiers [1479], are the four remaining towns into which printing was -introduced before 1480. The first book issued at Angers, printed by -Johannes de Turre and Morelli, is an edition of Cicero’s _Rhetorica -Nova_, printed in a curious Roman type, apparently copied from that -used by Kaiser and Stoll at Paris. The first printer at Chablis was -Pierre le Rouge; but some time after 1483 he removed to Paris, and his -place was taken by Guillaume le Rouge, who moved about 1492 to Troyes, -and finally also settled in Paris. Johannes Solidi and Peter Schenck -are the two most important of the early printers at Vienne. Solidi was -the first; but Schenck, who began in 1481, printed the most interesting -books, and always in French. Two of these are of great rarity, _L’Abuze -en court_ and _Le hystoire de Griseldis_. The first book printed at -Poitiers, the _Breviarium Historiale_, 1479, has no printer’s name, -nor indeed have any of the earlier books. [Hain *13,811] gives a book, -_Casus longi super sextum decretalium_, printed by John and Stephen -de Gradibus in 1483. The discovery of some fragments of _Heures à -l’usage de l’eglise d’Angers_, with the names of the printers, Jean -Bouyer et Pierre Bellescullée, printed partly in the types of the first -books, make it possible that these two may have been the printers. The -fragments were found in the binding of a book by M. Delisle. - -Caen was the first town in Normandy where printing was practised, -but only one book was printed there in the fifteenth century. It is -an edition of _Horace_, the first to appear in France, and of the -very greatest rarity, only three copies being known, one of which, -printed on vellum, is in the Spencer Library. The printers were Jacobus -Durandas and Egidius Quijoue, and the book was issued 6th June 1480. -It is a quarto of forty leaves, with twenty lines to the page, printed -in a good, bold Gothic type. There were several privileged booksellers -attached to the University of Caen, but it is improbable that any of -them printed, at any rate in the fifteenth century. They obtained their -books from either Paris or Rouen. - -Within the next seven years ten towns set up presses in the following -order:—Albi (1481), Chartres (1482), Metz (1482), Troyes (1483), -Chambéry (1484), Bréhant-Loudéac (1484), Rennes (1484), Tréguier -(1485), Salins (1485), Abbeville (1486). - -At Albi, on 17th November 1481, the wonderful edition of the -_Meditationes_ of Turrecremata, supposed to have been printed by -Numeister, was issued. This was preceded by a book of _Æneas Sylvius_, -without date, but ascribed to the same printer, though printed with -a different type; and Hain [8723] quotes a third book, also without -date, _Historia septem sapientum_. The arguments of M. Claudin, who has -written a book to prove that Numeister was the printer at Albi, though -ingenious, are very far from conclusive. - -Two books were executed at Chartres in the fifteenth century, a -_Missal_ in 1482 and a _Breviary_ in 1483, both for the use of that -diocese. The printer was Jean du Pré of Paris. - -The first printers at Metz, Johannes Colini and Gerhardus de -Novacivitate, who printed in 1482 an edition of the _Imitatio Christi_, -used a very peculiar type of Gothic with a number of Roman capitals -mixed with it, resembling that of Nicholas Götz at Cologne, and which, -leaving Cologne in 1480, appeared at Treves in 1481. In 1499, Caspar -Hochfeder came to Metz from Nuremberg. - -The earliest book with the name of Troyes in the colophon is a -_Breviarium secundum usum ecclesiæ Trecensis_, of 25th September 1483. -It was executed by Pierre le Rouge, who probably came over from Chablis -for the purpose. In 1492, Guillaume le Rouge, who had before this -printed at Chablis, set up the first permanent press in the town. - -Bréhant-Loudéac was the first town in Brittany where books were -printed; and from 1484 to 1485 the two printers, Robin Foucquet and -Jean Crès, issued ten books, all in French, in a ragged Gothic type. -The first printers at Abbeville, Jean du Pré of Paris and Pierre -Gérard, to judge by their books, were well-skilled workmen, for both -the printing and illustrations are very fine. Their first book was -an edition of the _Somme Rurale_, and it was followed by a splendid -edition, in two volumes, of _La cité de Dieu_ of Augustine, a large -folio with wonderful woodcuts. Their third work was _Le Triomphe des -neuf Preux_; and this is the last book known to have been printed at -Abbeville in the fifteenth century. - -Though Rouen was without a printer till 1487, it became within a very -few years one of the most important towns in the history of French -printing. Its fortunate position on the Seine, equally advantageous -for sending books to Paris or exporting them to England, was doubtless -the chief cause of its great prosperity, and its influence over the -book trade was felt, not only over all France, but over England as -well. The first printer was Guillaume le Talleur, and his first -book, _Les Chroniques de Normandie_, was published in May 1487. He -printed several law books for Richard Pynson about 1490, and was -very probably his teacher. The most important export from Rouen was -certainly service-books, and of these endless numbers were issued for -various uses. Martin Morin, who began to print in 1490, was especially -connected with this kind of work, and some of the most beautiful of -the Salisbury Missals are from his press. The printers were, however, -not nearly so numerous as the booksellers, though it is not always -very easy to distinguish between them. Morin, Le Talleur, Noel de -Harsy, Jean le Bourgeois, and Jacques le Forestier, may safely be given -as printers; others, like Richard and Regnault, were probably only -booksellers or stationers. Besançon also had a printing press in 1487, -but who the first printer was is not very certainly known. Several -writers consider him to have been Jean du Pré; but M. Thierry-Poux, -judging from the types, considers that Peter Metlinger, who printed -later at Dôle, is more likely to have been the printer. In 1488 (26th -March 1487), Jean Crès printed the first book at Lantenac, an edition -in French of _Mandeville’s Travels_. Its colophon mentions no name of -place, but the type and the printer’s name are identical with those of -the _Doctrinal des nouvelles mariées_ of 1491, which has the name of -the place, Lantenac, in the colophon. - -Between 1490 and the end of 1500 printing was introduced into twenty -towns. In 1490, to Embrun, Grenoble, and Dôle; but the first and second -of these places only produced a single book each. In 1491, to Orleans, -Goupillières, Angoulême, Dijon, and Narbonne. - -M. Jarry[26] mentions a certain Jehan le Roy, who was spoken of at -Orleans in 1481 as a printer and stationer, but nothing printed by him -is known. The first book known is a _Manipulus Curatorum_ in French, -printed by Matthew Vivian. Our knowledge of the existence of a press -at Goupillières in the fifteenth century is the result of a fortunate -discovery made by M. Delisle. He found, used as boards for an old -binding, thirty-six leaves of a book of _Hours ‘à l’usage du diocèse -d’Evreux,’_ with a colophon stating that it was printed at Goupillières -on the 8th May 1491, by Michel Andrieu, a priest. At Narbonne also -but one book was printed before 1500, a _Breviarium ad usum ecclesiæ -Narbonensis_. - -[26] _Les débuts de l’Imprimerie à Orléans._ Orléans, 1884. - -In 1492, printing was introduced into Cluni; and in 1493, to Nantes, -Châlons, Tours, and Mâcon. Châlons and Mâcon are each represented by -one book, which in each case is a _Diurnale_ for the use of its own -church. - -In 1495, Jean Berton began to print at Limoges, issuing service-books -for the use of the church. The last six towns to be mentioned are -Provins (1496), Valence (1496), Avignon (1497), Périgueux (1498), -Perpignan (1500), and Valenciennes (1500). - -Nothing seems to have resulted from the early attempts at printing at -Avignon, which have been spoken of before, and the first dated book -issued there is an edition of part of _Lucian_, printed for Nicholas -Tepe, by Jean du Pré of Lyons, on the 15th October 1497. - -It will be noticed that printing was introduced into many of the -provincial towns of France merely to serve a temporary purpose, and not -for the object of permanent work. In many cases the printer was brought -to the town, probably at the request and expense of the ecclesiastical -authorities, to print such service-books as were required for the -use of the church. For this reason we find printers and types moving -from place to place, so that it is not always easy to assign a book -to a particular town, when the type in which it is printed was used -in several places. The splendid series of facsimiles edited by M. -Thierry-Poux, and published by order of the Government, gives great -assistance to the study of French typography; while from time to time -small monographs have appeared giving the history of printing in all -the more important towns of France. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - - THE LOW COUNTRIES. - - -On no subject connected with printing has more been written, and to -less purpose, than on the Haarlem invention of printing by Lourens -Janszoon Coster. During the fifteenth century much had been said about -the invention, accrediting it always to Germany; and it was not till -1499 that a reference was made to an earlier Dutch discovery in the -following passage of the _Cologne Chronicle_:[27]— - - ‘This highly valuable art was discovered first of all in Germany, at - Mentz on the Rhine. And it is a great honour to the German nation that - such ingenious men are found among them. And it took place about the - year of our Lord 1440; and from this time until the year 1450, the - art and what is connected with it was being investigated. And in the - year of our Lord 1450 it was a golden year [jubilee], and they began - to print, and the first book they printed was the Bible in Latin; it - was printed in a large letter, resembling the letter with which at - present missals are printed. Although the art [as has been said] was - discovered at Mentz, in the manner as it is now generally used, yet - the first prefiguration was found in Holland [the Netherlands], in - the _Donatuses_, which were printed there before that time. And from - these _Donatuses_ the beginning of the said art was taken, and it was - invented in a manner much more masterly and subtile than this, and - became more and more ingenious. One named Omnibonus wrote in a preface - to the book called _Quinctilianus_, and in some other books too, that - a Walloon from France, named Nicol. Jenson, discovered first of all - this masterly art; but that is untrue, for there are those still alive - who testify that books were printed at Venice before Nicol. Jenson - came there and began to cut and make letters. But the first inventor - of printing was a citizen of Mentz, born at Strasburg, and named - Junker Johan Gutenberg. From Mentz the art was introduced first of all - into Cologne, then into Strasburg, and afterwards into Venice. The - origin and progress of the art was told me verbally by the honourable - Master Ulrich Zell of Hanau, still printer at Cologne, anno 1499, and - by whom the said art came to Cologne.’ - -[27] _The Haarlem Legend_, by Dr. Van der Linde, translated by J. H. -Hessels. London, 1871, 8vo, p. 8. - -This narrative, it will be seen, breaks down, if we examine its -accuracy strictly, in several places. To get over this apparent -difficulty, we are told that the compiler of the Chronicle took the -various parts of his statement from various sources. The statement that -printing was invented at Mainz, from Hartmann Schedel’s _Nuremberg -Chronicle_ of 1493; that from 1440 to 1450 it was being investigated, -is an addition of his own; that about 1450 people began to print, -and that the first book printed was the _Bible_ in Latin, was told -him by Ulric Zel, and so on. But evidence which on certain points is -inaccurate, cannot be implicitly trusted on other points; and since -it is impossible to trust absolutely the statement of the Chronicle, -we must seek information from the best source, that is, the earliest -productions of the press. - -Coster himself was not heard of as a printer till about a hundred -years after he was supposed to have printed, when Junius wrote in his -_Batavia_ the wonderful legend of the letters cut in beech bark. That -a person called Lourens Janszoon lived at Haarlem from 1436 to 1483 -seems to be an established fact; but, at the same time, all the entries -and notices relating to him show that he was a chandler or innkeeper. -Von der Linde very justly, therefore, considers he was not a printer; -and this view is certainly reasonable, for we can hardly suppose that -a man could have printed all the so-called Costeriana and at the same -time have attended to his business so carefully, that all the entries -which relate to him speak of him only as an innkeeper, and no mention -of any kind is made of him as a printer, though he was, so believers in -him assert, the only printer in Holland for thirty years. - -Coming to the books themselves, what do we find? The first printed date -is 1473, in which year books were issued at both Utrecht and Alost. -M. Holtrop mentions that the Hague copy of the _Tractatus Gulielmi de -Saliceto de salute corporis et animæ_ and _Yliada_ was bought by a -certain Abbat Conrad for the library of his house; and as the Abbat in -question was Abbat only from 1471 to 1474, the book cannot have been -printed later than 1471-74; and this and the rubricated 1472 in the -Darmstadt copy of the _Saliceto_ are at present the only dates which we -can use for our purposes. - -There are, however, a large number of fragments of books known, printed -in a rude type and with the appearance of early printing, all of which -are frequently asserted to have been printed before 1473. These -books, consisting for the most part of editions of the _Donatus_ or -the _Doctrinale_, are known by the name of Costeriana, as being the -supposed productions of Coster. Among them also are the four editions -of the _Speculum_, which we have examined at length in Chapter I. -Fragments of at least fifty books or editions are known, which may -be separated by their types into eight groups. Concerning the types -Mr. Hessels says: ‘Type 2 is inseparably connected with type 1; and -as the former is so much like type 3 that some consider these two -types identical, nothing would be gained by separating them. Type 4 -and 5 occur in one and the same book; and as certain letters of type -5 are identical with some of type 3, they may all be linked together. -Type 6 is identical with type 5 except the P, which is larger and of -a different form. Types 7 and 8 are linked on to the types 1-6, on -account of the great family-likeness between them, they all having that -peculiar perpendicular stroke to the cross-bar of the _t_, and a down -stroke or curl attached to the _r_, which is found in no other types of -the Netherlands.’ - -[Illustration: PAGE OF A “DOCTRINALE.” - -(_One of the so-called “Costeriana.”_)] - -The close connection of all these types points to the books having -been produced in one place; but where this one place was, cannot be -determined. The account written by Junius, in 1568, of the invention -of printing by Coster, mentions Haarlem as the place where he printed, -and they have therefore been always ascribed to Haarlem by such writers -as believe in the Costerian invention. Mr. Bradshaw, who refused to -assign books to particular places without reason, said: ‘I am compelled -to leave the _Speculum_ at Utrecht until I know anything positive to -the contrary; because it is at Utrecht that the cuts first appear, cut -up into pieces in a book printed by Veldener at that place in 1481.’ -This statement does not mean that the Costeriana were necessarily -printed at Utrecht, but that the place where we find the materials as -soon as they can be connected with any place, is Utrecht, and that -therefore such little evidence as exists is in favour of these books -having been printed there. One point which tells in favour of Utrecht, -is the fact that one of the Costeriana is a _Donatus_ in French, and -Utrecht is one of the few places in the Netherlands where such a book -is likely to have been produced. - -There is no direct evidence in favour of Haarlem or Utrecht; and -indirect evidence is not particularly in favour of Haarlem, unless -it is considered that some belief may be placed in Junius’ wonderful -narrative. It is certainly wiser to leave the matter open, or, with -Bradshaw, place the books provisionally at Utrecht till we have a -better reason for placing them elsewhere. - -The more important question as to the date when these Costeriana were -produced, seems still as far as ever from any satisfactory solution. -Mr. Hessels takes them back to 1446 by the ingenious method of putting -eighteen months between each edition. This method of working is based -on no sound principle, and leads to no result of any value. Another -argument of Mr. Hessels, and one that is hardly worthy of so learned a -writer, is that since the Costeriana look older than the first Mainz -books, therefore they are older. The foolishness of this reasoning is -too apparent to need any explanation, for it amounts to the assertion -that the same phase of development in different countries means the -same date. But if the earliest dated books of the Low Countries are -compared with the productions of Germany, it needs a prejudiced eye to -see in the former any approach to the exquisite beauty and regularity -of the German type and printing. - -There is one point which seems to me to argue strongly against the -early date ascribed to the Costeriana. They were produced by ordinary -typographic processes, such as would be used for printing any book, and -there is little or no improvement observable in the latest compared -with the earliest. Yet, during the thirty years to which these books -are ascribed, no work of any size or importance was produced from this -press. It can hardly be assumed that during these years there was no -demand for books, when we consider that immediately after 1473 books -of all kinds were produced in great number. Nor can we reasonably -suppose that the great demand for the _Donatus_ and the _Doctrinale_ -ceased about 1473. The printing of school-books did not require to be -ornamental, for they had to be produced as cheaply as possible, so -that this class of work naturally soon fell into the hands of the -poorer printers. We see many examples of this in studying the history -of printing in other places, and find the finest and the rudest work -being produced side by side. Block-books and xylographic _Donatuses_ -were printed in Germany up to the last years of the fifteenth century, -as old in appearance as the productions of fifty years earlier. We may -connect certain of these Costeriana with the years 1471-74, within -which period printing presses were started at Utrecht and Alost; but -why should all the rest be placed earlier? It is curious that, while -we have no dates forcing us to fix them early, neither have we dates -preventing us from fixing them late. - -Because certain of these books were written by Pius II., who became -Pope in 1458, Mr. Hessels seizes on 1458 as one of the dates we may -take as relating to their printing, and groups the Costeriana round -that date. He might equally well have grouped others round the fourth -century, when Ælius Donatus lived, or round 1207, when Alexander de -Villa Dei finished his _Doctrinale_. The only date as regards the -printing of a book that can be derived from the authorship is a date -before which the book cannot have been printed. M. Dziatzko mentions -one point which he considers conclusive as giving a late date to the -Costeriana. In them is _wrongly_ used a particular form of the letter -x, which is not found in Dutch manuscripts, and which was used at the -first Mainz press for a special purpose. - -Putting aside, then, the useless mass of conjecture and sophistry that -obscures the subject, the case stands thus. The first printed date in -the Low Countries is 1473, and there are a group of undated books which -may perhaps be placed before or round this date; beyond this we have no -information whatever. - -Before leaving this subject, it is worth noticing that there is -a simple explanation for the fact that almost all the Costeriana -fragments are on vellum. They have in most cases been found in -the bindings of books, and it was the almost invariable habit of -Netherlandish binders to line the boards of their bindings with vellum. -They used if possible clean vellum, or printed or written only on one -side, the used side being pasted down and the clean side exposed. In -this way many indulgences have been preserved. - -In 1473, printing starts simultaneously at Utrecht and Alost, and from -that time onward its history is clear. More attention has been paid to -the history of printing in the Netherlands than to that of any other -country, and the work of Holtrop, Campbell, and Bradshaw offers a firm -foundation to rest upon. - -The first printers at Utrecht were Nicholas Ketelaer and Gerard de -Leempt, and their first book was the _Historia Scholastica_ of Petrus -Comestor. Though they printed a large number of books, only three are -dated, two in 1473 and one in 1474. About 1475 a printer named William -Hees printed some books at Utrecht; and in 1478, Veldener moved to -that town from Louvain, where he had been printing up to that time. - -The first printer at Alost was Thierry Martens, an accomplished -linguist and scholar, who is supposed by many bibliographers to have -learned to print at Venice. He says in the colophon to the _De vita -beata libellus_ of Baptista Mantuanus— - - ‘Hoc opus impressi Martins Theodoricus Alosti, - Qui Venetum scita Flandrensibus affero cuncta.’ - -On this basis the story has arisen, and it is perhaps hardly sufficient -to justify the conclusions. The first books, four in number, printed -in 1473 and the beginning of 1474, were printed in partnership with -John of Westphalia, a printer who in 1474 migrated to Louvain. Thierry -Martens continued by himself at Alost for a while, but moved on, in -1493, to Antwerp, and in 1498 to Louvain. According to Van der Meersch, -he left Louvain in 1502 to return to Antwerp, but left this town again -in 1512, and settled definitely at Louvain till the end of his career -in 1529. - -Printing was introduced at Louvain in 1474, and it is, after Antwerp, -the most important town in that respect in the Low Countries. The -first printer was John of Westphalia,[28] whom we have just mentioned -as a printer at Alost in partnership with Thierry Martens. He seems -to have been the owner of the type used at Alost, for he continued to -print with it, and in June 1474 issued the _Commentariolus de pleuresi_ -by Antonius Guainerius, the first book known to have been issued at -Louvain. John of Westphalia continued to print up to the year 1496; and -Campbell[29] enumerates over one hundred and eighty books as having -been printed by him in these twenty-two years. In some of his books we -find a small woodcut portrait of himself, used first in the _Justinian_ -of 1475; and a few of his books have the red initial letters printed in -by hand. John Veldener, the second printer at Louvain, was matriculated -at the university there, in the faculty of medicine, 30th July 1473. -His first book was probably the _Consolatio peccatorum_ of Jacobus de -Theramo, which contains a prefatory letter, addressed ‘Johanni Veldener -artis impressoriæ magistro,’ dated 7th Aug. 1474. Veldener continued to -print at Louvain till 1478, and he is found in that year at Utrecht, -where he printed till 1481. After this he moved to Kuilenburg, issuing -books there in 1483 and 1484. - -[28] John de Paderborn de Westphalia was in 1473 still a scribe, for in -that year he wrote a MS. of the _Scala_ of Johannes Climacus at and for -the Augustinian House at Marpach. - -[29] _Annales de la Typographie Néerlandaise au xv. Siècle._ 1874. 8vo. - -Besides those that have been mentioned, seven other printers worked at -Louvain before the close of the fifteenth century. These were--Conrad -Braem (1475), Conrad de Westphalia (1476), Hermann de Nassou (1483), -Rodolphe Loeffs (1483), Egidius vander Heerstraten (1484), Ludovicus de -Ravescot (1487), and Thierry Martens (1498). - -Bruges, one of the most prosperous and artistic of the towns in the -Netherlands, is intimately associated with the history of English -printing; for it was there that our first printer, Caxton, began to -print. It was not, however, a productive town as regards printing, -for only two printers, or at most three, were at work there in the -fifteenth century. Of these the most important was Colard Mansion. He -was by profession a writer and illuminator of manuscripts, and his -name is found year by year from 1454 to 1473 in the book of the Guild -of St. John. It was probably about 1475 that he began to print; but -his first dated book appeared in the following year. About the years -1475-77, Caxton was in partnership with Mansion, whether generally or -only for the production of certain books, we do not know. But together -they printed three books, _The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, -_The Game and playe of the Chesse_, and _Les quatre derrennieres -choses_. After Caxton’s departure, in 1477, Mansion continued to print -by himself. It is worth noticing that in 1477 he first made use of a -device. The first dated book issued by Mansion, _De la ruyne des nobles -hommes et femmes_, by Boccaccio, has a curious history. It was issued -first without any woodcuts, and no spaces were left for them. Then -the first leaf containing the prologue was cancelled, and reprinted -so as to leave a space for a cut of the author presenting his book. -At a later date, the first leaves of all the books, excepting books -i. and vi., were cancelled, and reissued with spaces for engravings. -Mansion printed altogether about twenty-four books, the last being a -moralised version of Ovid’s _Metamorphoses_, issued in May 1484. Almost -immediately after this book was finished, the printer fled from Bruges, -and his rooms over the porch of the Church of St. Donatus were let to -a bookbinder named Jean Gossin. This latter paid the rent still owing -by Mansion, and is supposed to have come into possession of the stock -of the _Ovid_, for several copies of the book are known in which the -leaves 113-218, 296-389 have been reprinted, presumably by Gossin, and -these examples do not contain Mansion’s device. - -The other printer, Jean Brito, is little more than a name. Campbell -gives four books as having been printed by him, but only one contains -his name. This, however, is a book of exceptional interest, the -_Instruction et doctrine de tous chrétiens et chrétiennes_, by Gerson; -and but one copy is known, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale. It has -the following curious colophon in verse:— - - ‘Aspice presentis scripture gracia que sit - Confer opus opere, spectetur codice codex. - Respice quam munde, quam terse quamque decore - Imprimit hec civis brugensis brito Johannes, - Inveniens artem nullo monstrante mirandam - Instrumenta quoque non minus laude stupenda.’ - -The last two lines, which, translated literally, say, ‘Discovering, -without being shown by any one, the wonderful art, and also the tools, -not less objects for wonder and praise,’ would seem to imply that Brito -claimed to be a self-taught printer. That this may have been the case -is quite possible, and it is the only reasonable interpretation to put -upon the lines. They suggest, however, still a further inference. The -type in which this book is printed seems to be identical with that -used afterwards by William de Machlinia at Holborn, in London, and -extraordinarily similar to the type used by Veldener at Utrecht. If -Brito was a self-taught printer, who invented his own tools, he must -also have been a type-founder; and if so, may very likely have supplied -William de Machlinia with his type. - -After Bruges comes Brussels, where but one press was established before -1500. This was set up by the Brothers of the Common Life, who must have -found their old industry of copying manuscripts seriously interfered -with by the competition of the new art. They therefore started a press -at their house, called ‘Nazareth,’ and in 1476 issued their first dated -book, the _Gnotosolitos sive speculum conscientiæ_, by Arnoldus de -Gheilhoven, a large folio of 472 leaves. From 1476 to 1484[30] they -worked industriously, producing about thirty-five books, only one -of which clearly states who and what the printers were. This is the -_Legenda Henrici Imperatoris et Kunigundis Imperatricis_ of 1484, where -we read in the colophon: ... ‘impresse in famosa civitate bruxellensi -per fratres communis vite in nazareth’.... There is no doubt that, -as types come to be studied and recognised, more books will be found -printed by this Brotherhood. Other establishments of the same Order -had practised, or were shortly to practise, the art of printing. That -at Marienthal, important in the history of printing, had been at work -for some years; others at Rostock, Nuremberg, and Gouda were to follow; -while, as we have seen, if we are to believe M. Madden, the monastery -at Weidenbach was the instructor of all the more noted printers of -Europe. The similarity in appearance between the Brussels type and that -of Ther Hoernen at Cologne is very striking, and has deceived even M. -Van der Meersch, Ther Hoernen’s bibliographer. The distinguishing mark -of this type, or the one most readily to be distinguished, is a very -voluminous capital S in the later books. - -[30] A book of 1487 is quoted by Lambinet, but the date has probably -been either misprinted or misread. - -Gerard Leeu, the first printer at Gouda, is the most important of all -the Low Country printers of the fifteenth century. His first book was -issued in 1477, a Dutch edition of the _Epistles and Gospels_; and -five other books followed in the same year. His first illustrated -book, the _Dialogus creaturarum moralisatus_, was issued in 1480. -About the middle of the year 1484 he removed to Antwerp, and printed -there till 1493. In that year, while the _Chronicles of England_ -were being printed, a letter-cutter named Henric van Symmen, one of -Leeu’s workmen, struck work. In a quarrel which followed, Leeu was -struck on the head, and died after three days’ illness. The workman -who gave the blow was fined forty gulden, not a very heavy punishment -for manslaughter. At the end of the _Chronicles_ the workmen put the -following colophon: ‘Enprentyd ... by maister Gerard de Leew, a man of -grete wysedom in all maner of kunnying: whych nowe is come from lyfe -unto the deth, which is grete harme for many a poure man. On whos sowle -god almyghty for hys hygh grace have mercy. Amen.’ - -Leeu must have employed a good deal of labour, for he printed a very -large number of books; Campbell gives about two hundred, and his -numbers are always being added to. But what makes Leeu especially -interesting to us is the fact of his printing English books. Of -these, he issued seven between 1486 and 1493--a Grammar, two Sarum -Service-books, and four other popular books which will be noticed later. - -Another interesting printer who was settled at Gouda was Gotfried de -Os, whom Bradshaw considers to have been identical with Govaert van -Ghemen. He began to print at Gouda in 1486, but about 1490 removed to -Copenhagen, printing at Leyden on his way. Before he went there he -parted with some of his printing materials, type, initial letters, and -woodcuts, which came into the hands of W. de Worde, and were used in -England. - -Five other towns in the Netherlands possessed printing presses before -1480--Deventer (1477), Delft (1477), St. Maartensdyk (1478), Nÿmegen -(1479), and Zwolle (1479). - -At Deventer there were only two printers, R. Paffroed and J. de Breda; -but between them they printed at least five hundred books, about a -quarter of the whole number issued in the Netherlands in the fifteenth -century. - -At St. Maartensdyk in Zeeland only one book was printed, _Der zyelen -troeste_, the work of a printer named Peter Werrecoren, in November -1478. Of this book only one copy is known, preserved in the library -of the abbey of Averbode. In the colophon the printer apologises for -the short-comings of his book, saying that it is his first, and that -he hopes by the grace of God to improve. We have, however, no record -of his ever printing again. Nÿmegen had also but one printer, Gerard -Leempt, who issued four books, Zwolle, where Peter van Os of Breda -printed from 1479 onwards, is an interesting place in the history -of printing, for there, in 1487, appeared portions of the original -blocks of the _Biblia Pauperum_ used to illustrate a Dutch edition of -the _Epistles and Gospels_, and in 1494 a block from the _Canticum -Canticorum_. Peregrinus Barmentlo, the only printer at Hasselt, was -at work from 1480 to 1490. He seems to have had some connection with -Peter van Os, as was only natural from the situation of Hasselt and its -nearness to Zwolle; and we find the cuts of one printer in the hands of -the other. - -Arend de Keysere commenced to print at Audenarde in 1480, his first -book being the _Sermons_ of Hermannus de Petra. By April 1483 he had -moved from Audenarde and settled at Ghent, where he remained till his -death in 1489. His wife, Beatrice van Orrior, continued to print for a -short time, but no copy is known of any of her productions. At a later -date she married again, her husband being a certain Henry van den Dale, -who is mentioned in the St. Lucas-gilde book at Bruges as a printer in -that town in 1505-6. - -In the fifteenth century more printers were settled in Antwerp than in -any other Netherlandish town. The first to settle there was Matthew -van der Goes, and his first book is dated 29th April 1482. In the -same year he issued the _Bœck van Tondalus vysioen_, which has the -misprinted date 1472, and has for that reason been sometimes quoted -as the first book printed in the Low Countries, or more often as the -first book printed with signatures. We have already spoken of Gerard -Leeu, who was the next to settle at Antwerp; and shortly after his -appearance in 1484, Nicolas Kesler of Basle opened a shop there for -the sale of his books. There are said to be three books with Kesler’s -name, and the name of Antwerp given as the town; and though his press -at Basle was at work without a break from 1486 onward, still in 1488 -his name appears amongst the list of members of the St. Lucas-gilde -at Antwerp. It is very probable, as Campbell suggests, that Kesler -was entered as a member to enable him to sell his books in Antwerp. -The most interesting among the remaining printers of the town was -Thierry Martens, who began to print in 1493, and stayed till 1497. -His various movements have been spoken of before. Leyden, Ghent, -Kuilenburg, and Haarlem all started presses in 1483. The first printer -of Haarlem, Bellaert, seems to have obtained his materials for the -most part from Leeu, both type and woodcuts; but the town cannot have -been a flourishing one from a printer’s point of view; for, though -another workman, Joh. Andreæ, printed a few books in 1486, both presses -disappear after that year. At Bois-le-duc, Gerard Leempt, from Nÿmegen, -printed a few books between 1484 and 1490. In 1495 the Canons of St. -Michael’s in den Hem, near Shoenhoven, began to print books in order to -obtain means to rebuild their convent, which had been destroyed by fire -the year before. They printed one or two editions of the _Breviary_ of -different uses, but the rest of their books were all in the vernacular. -Schiedam was the last town in the Netherlands where printing was -practised before 1500, and there, about 1498, an unknown printer issued -a very remarkable book. - -There were altogether in the Netherlands twenty-two towns whence books -were issued before 1500, and in this list it will be noticed that -Haarlem stands near the end. When printing had once been introduced -it spread rapidly, all but three towns starting within the first ten -years. - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - - SPAIN AND PORTUGAL--DENMARK AND SWEDEN. - - -The first book printed in Spain, according to some authorities, is -a small volume of poems by Bernardo Fenollar and others, written in -honour of the Virgin on the occasion of a congress held at Valentia in -March 1474. It is said to have been printed in that town in the same -year; but it has never been fully described, nor is it known where a -copy is preserved. - -According to M. Salvá, the first two books printed in Spain with a -certain date are the _Comprehensorium_ (23rd February 1475), and the -_Sallust_ (13th July 1475), both printed at Valentia. As, however, the -year began on Easter Day, the second book is really the earlier, and -with it the authentic history of printing in Spain begins. The book -itself is a small quarto, printed in Roman letter, without signatures -or catchwords, and but two copies seem to be known, one in the Royal -Library of Madrid, the other in the Barberini Library at Rome. The -printers were Lambert Palmart, a German, and Alonzo Fernandez of -Cordova; but their names are found, for the first time, in a _Bible_ of -1478 known only from four leaves, one of them fortunately containing -the colophon. It is very probable that Alonzo Fernandez, whose name -only occurs in this one colophon, was not a printer, though it is not -known in what capacity he was associated with Palmart. He was certainly -known as a celebrated astronomer. Lambert Palmart continued to print -at Valentia up to the year 1494, and by that time other printers had -settled in the town. Jacobus de Villa is mentioned by Panzer in 1493 -and 1495; and in this latter year we find also Peter Hagembach, who -later on, at Toledo, printed the celebrated _Mozarabic Missal_ and -_Breviary_. - -In 1475 a certain Matthæus Flandrus printed an edition of the -_Manipulus Curatorum_ at Saragossa. He is supposed to have been a -wandering printer, and considered by some to be the Matthew Vendrell -who printed at Barcelona in 1482, and at Gerona in 1483. Between 1475 -and 1485 no book is known to have been printed at Saragossa; but -in the latter year a press was started by Paul Hurus, a native of -Constance, who printed till almost the end of the fifteenth century; -and was followed by three Germans, George Cock, Leonard Butz, and Lupus -Appentegger. - -Seville was the third city of Spain where printing was practised, and -the first dated book issued there was the _Sacramental_ of Clemente -Sanchez de Vercial, printed by three partners, Anton Martinez, -Bartholomé Segura, and Alphonso del Puerto, in 1477. An undated edition -of the same work is ascribed by Mendez and others to an earlier -date, and a third edition was issued in May 1478. Another book, the -_Manuale seu Repertorium super Abbatem Panormitanum per Alphonsum Diaz -de Montalvo_, was issued by the same printers in the same year. Hain -mentions sixteen printers who worked in Seville during the fifteenth -century; and of these many were Germans. - -The first printers at Barcelona were Peter Brun and Nicholas Spindeler, -who issued, in 1478, two books by Aquinas, commentaries on parts of -Aristotle. These are almost certainly the first two books printed in -that town, though a large number of supposititious books, with dates -from 1473 onwards, are quoted by different writers. Amongst other -printers who worked at Barcelona may be mentioned John Rosembach of -Heidelberg, who paid visits to various towns, being found at Tarragona -in 1499, and at Perpignan in 1500. Another printer, Jaques de Gurniel, -left Barcelona about the end of the century and went to Valladolid, -where he printed during the first years of the sixteenth century. - -The first book printed at Lerida has a curious history. It is a -_Breviary_, according to the use of the church at Lerida, printed by a -German, Henry Botel, in 1479, and the whole expense of its publication -was undertaken by a certain Antonio Palares, the bell-ringer of the -church. It is an extremely rare book; but there is a copy of it in the -Bodleian Library, and another in the Carmelite convent at Barcelona. -Two other books were printed in this town in the fifteenth century, but -they bear no printer’s name; they are both commentaries on parts of -Aristotle by Petrus de Castrovol, and were printed in 1488 and 1489. - -A book is quoted by Caballero as having been printed at Segorbe in -1479, the _Constitutiones synodales Bartholomæi Marti_; but its -existence is a little doubtful. Besides this one book, no other is -known to have been printed at Segorbe until well on in the sixteenth -century; and it is therefore quite probable that the book, if it really -exists, was printed at some other town, and that the writer who saw it -was misled by the occurrence of the name in the title. - -Printing is said to have been introduced at Toledo in 1480. The book -which bears this date, _Leyes originales de los Reyes de España_, has -no name of place, but has been assigned to Toledo by several Spanish -bibliographers who have examined a copy, and who are clear that it -is printed in the same type as the _Confutatorium errorum_ of Peter -Ximenes de Prexamo, which was printed there by John Vasqui in July -1486. This latter book has been considered by many to be the first, -since, as it was written by a canon of Toledo in 1478, it is argued -that had that city possessed a press it would have been issued before -1486. - -Salamanca, Zamora, Gerona, follow in 1481, 1482, and 1483 respectively, -though the existence of a press at the last place is very doubtful. -The one book said to have been printed there, _Memorial del pecador -remut_, has the following words in the colophon: ‘impressa a despeses -de Matheu Vendrell mercader en la ciutat de Girona.’ This Matthew -Vendrell appears also at Barcelona in 1484; but he seems to have been -a stationer rather than a printer, and the wording of the colophon -mentioned above tends to confirm that idea. Unfortunately, the very -great rarity of early Spanish books, at any rate in this country, -precludes the comparative study of the types, and very little has yet -been done to distinguish them. If this were done, it would be easy -to settle the printers of such doubtful books. As there is no other -book known to have been printed at Gerona till near the middle of -the sixteenth century, it will be safer, until a fuller account be -forthcoming, to ascribe this book, following M. Nèe de la Rochelle, to -a press at Barcelona. - -In 1485 we have Burgos, where Frederick of Basle (at one time an -associate of Wenssler’s) printed; Palma, where Nicolas Calafati -printed; and probably also Xeres, though the existence of the press -in this latter place is doubtful. The only known book quoted by -M. Caballero is the _Constitutiones synodales urbis vel ecclesiæ -Xericanæ_, per Barth: Marti, 1485. This bibliographer, however, gives -no information about the book, or any indication of the size or type; -and as no other book is known to have been printed at Xeres within the -next fifty years, it is quite probable that the book mentioned above, -though relating to the town, was not printed there. - -At Murcia only two or three books were issued in the fifteenth century, -printed by a German named Lope de Roca. The first is the _Copilacion -de las Batallas campales_, finished the 28th of May 1487. Panzer, -Maittaire, and others speak erroneously of the printer as Juan de Roca. -Lope de Roca, after printing two or three books in Murcia, left there -and went to Valentia, where he printed in 1495 and 1497. - -In 1489, printing was introduced into San Cucufat, into Coria, where -only one book was printed in the fifteenth century, the _Blason -general de todas las insignias del universo_, printed by Bartholomeus -de Lila (Lille), a Fleming; and it is usually said into Tolosa. The -history of printing in the latter town offers many difficulties. -Bibliographers have confused Toulouse in France with Tolosa in Biscay; -and the difficulty increases when we find that some Spanish books -were certainly printed at the former place. The best authorities seem -unfortunately to agree that the _Cronica de España_, by Diego de -Valera, is the earliest book; printed by Henry Meyer or Mayer in 1489. -M. Nèe de la Rochelle speaks of this _Chronicle_ as printed in 1488, -and also quotes a work by Guillaume de Deguilleville, a translation -into Spanish of the _Pelerinage de la vie humaine_, printed by the -same printer as early as 1480. The date should be 1490, but is given -as 1480 in the _Bibl. Hisp. vetus_ of Antonio (ii. 311), and also by -Hain (No. 7848). This Henry Mayer, however, was certainly a printer -of Toulouse in France, and not of Tolosa, so that all the remarks of -the bibliographers are beside the point. His name is found mentioned -in 1488 in registers at Toulouse; and he says in the colophon to the -_Boethius_ of the same year, ‘impresso en Tolosa de Francia.’ It is -not at all improbable that all the early books with ‘Tolosæ’ in the -colophon were printed in France, and that there was no fifteenth -century press at Tolosa. - -The first book printed at Valladolid is the _Tractado breve de -Confession_ of 1492; but it has no printer’s name. In the following -year another book was printed, which gives the name of the printer as -Johan de Francour. The next two places, Cagliari and Monterey, have -each only one book printed in the fifteenth century. The book printed -at Cagliari is a _Speculum Ecclesiæ_, and was printed by Salvador de -Bolonga (Bologna), at the request of Nicholas Dagreda. The only known -copy is in the Municipal Library at Palma. The book printed at Monterey -was a _Missal_, printed by two partners, Gundisalvus Rodericus de la -Passera and Johannes de Porres. Granada (1496), Tarragona (1498), the -Monastery of the Blessed Virgin of Monserrat (1499), Madrid (1499), and -perhaps Jaen (1500), complete the list of places where printing was -practised in Spain before the end of the fifteenth century. - -Numerous writers have asserted that printing began at Leiria in -Estremadura as early as 1466. Antonio Ribeiro dos Santos, who wrote -a learned dissertation on the subject, seems to place his chief -reliance on a statement made by Pedro Affonso de Vasconcellos in -1588, that Leiria was the first town to receive the art; and on a -further assertion by Soares de Silva, that he had seen a quarto volume -containing the poems of the Infante Dom Pedro, which had at the end a -note that it was printed nine years after the invention of printing. -The particular copy here referred to was destroyed in 1755; other -copies of the book contain no imprint. Whatever may be said about -the probability of printing having been introduced at an early date -into Portugal, the fact remains that the first authentic dated book -appeared at Lisbon in 1489. It is a _Commentary on the Pentateuch_, by -Moses ben Nachman, and was printed by two Jews, Rabbi Samuel Zorba and -Rabbi Eliezer. It was through the Jews, shortly to be so ungratefully -treated, that printing was introduced into two out of the three towns -of Portugal in which it was practised in the fifteenth century. They -were, however, a people apart, and the books which they printed were -for their own use, and in a tongue not understood by others. It was not -till 1495 that two other printers, Nicolaus de Saxonia and Valentinus -de Moravia, started at Lisbon to issue books in other languages than -Hebrew. Another Jew, Abraham, son of Don Samuel Dortas or de Orta, -printed the earliest books of Leiria, The first book, the _Proverbs -of Solomon_, with a commentary, was issued in 1492; and other books -appeared in 1494 and 1496. The third and last town in Portugal where -we find a printing press in the fifteenth century was Braga. Here, in -1494, a certain German named John Gherlinc, who seems to have printed -later at Barcelona, printed a _Breviary_ according to the use of the -church of Braga. No other book is known to have been printed in this -important town for the next forty years. - -In the British Museum is a _Hebrew Pentateuch_, printed at ‘Taro’ in -1487. It is not known where this place was; but it has been conjectured -that the name is a misprint for Faro, a town of Portugal (though it -might stand for Toro in Leon); and if this is so, the date of the -introduction of printing into Portugal must be placed two years farther -back. - - - DENMARK AND SWEDEN. - -The first book printed in Denmark, or indeed in the whole of the -Northern countries, was an edition of _Gulielmi Caorsini de obsidione -et bello Rhodiano_, of which a single copy is now preserved in -the library at Upsala. It was printed in 1482 at Odensee, by John -Snell, with the colophon: ‘Per venerabilem virum Johannem Snel artis -impressorie magistrum in Ottonia impressa sub anno domini 1482.’ After -the printing of this one book, Snell went to Stockholm. In 1486 one -book was printed at Schleswig, by Stephen Arndes, who had already -printed at Perusia, and who in 1487 appears at Lubeck. The book was -the _Missale secundum Ordinarium et ritum Ecclesiæ Sleswicensis_, and -no other was issued at this town in the fifteenth century. Next in -order comes Copenhagen, to which, about 1490, Govaert van Ghemen moved -from the Netherlands. The first dated book issued was the _Regulæ -de figuratis constructionibus grammaticis_ of 1493. According to M. -Deschamps, this was preceded by a _Donatus_, without date, but having -the name of the printer; and it is supposed that Govaert van Ghemen -began to print in March 1490. He seems to have printed up to the year -1510. - -John Snell, who has already been noticed as a printer at Odensee, -came to Stockholm in 1483, and in that year printed the _Dialogus -Creaturarum Moralizatus_, a small quarto of 156 leaves, with -twenty-three lines to the page. [Hain, 6128.] Of this book four -examples were known; one unfortunately perished in the fire at Abö in -1827. Of the others, two are at Upsala, and the third at Copenhagen. -No other book appears at Stockholm until 1495, when the _Breviarium -Strengenense_ was printed. The printer’s name is given as Johannes -Fabri. And some writers would have this to be another form of the -name Snell; Snell, they say, being the same ‘practically’ as Smed, -Smed being our Smith, and Faber or Fabri the Latin. This alteration, -however, is not quite satisfactory. - -In the same year as the _Breviarium Strengenense_ was issued, the -first book in Swedish was printed by the same printer. It is the _Bok -af Djäfvulsens frästilse_, by John Gerson. The printer, John Fabri, -died in the course of this year; for in the year following we find -issued the _Breviarium secundum ritum ecclesiæ Upsalensis_, printed -by the widow of John Fabri. One other book must be noticed as printed -in the fifteenth century; it is the _De dignitate psalterii_, by -Alanus de Rupe, printed probably at Stockholm, but with no printer’s -name. One book only is known to have been printed at Wadsten in the -fifteenth century; it is an edition of the _Breviarium ad usum cœnobii -Wadstenensis de ordine S. Brigittæ_, printed in 1495, an octavo with -twelve lines to the page. Only one copy is known, which passed after -the Reformation, with the rest of the books belonging to the monastery, -into the library of Upsala. The printing press of this monastery came -to an untimely end, for in the middle of October 1495 the whole of the -part of the building where it stood was destroyed by fire. Of this -occurrence an account is preserved; and we learn from it that not only -did the monastery lose all its printing materials, but that a tub -full of the _Revelaciones Sanctæ Brigittæ_, which had been printed -in 1492 at Lubeck, by Bartholomæus Ghotan, and which the printer had -sent up for sale, were also destroyed. Stockholm and Wadsten are the -only places in Sweden where any books were produced in the fifteenth -century; and the total number of books issued, according to Schröder’s -_Incunabula artis typographicæ in Suecia_, was six. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - - CAXTON--WYNKYN DE WORDE--JULIAN NOTARY. - - -The history of the Introduction of Printing into England is -comparatively clear and straightforward; for we have neither the -difficulties of conflicting accounts, as in the case of Germany and the -Low Countries, nor troublesome manuscript references which cannot be -adequately explained, as in the case of France. Previous to 1477, when -Caxton introduced the art in a perfect state, nothing had been produced -in England but a few single sheet prints, such as the Images of Pity, -of which there are copies in the British Museum and the Bodleian, and -the cut of the Lion, the device of Bishop Gray (1454-1479), in Ely -Cathedral. - -There was no block-printing (for the verses on the seven virtues -in the British Museum, and formerly in the Weigel Collection, are -comparatively late), and with the one exception of the false date of -1468 in the first Oxford book, which we shall treat of later, there -is nothing to confuse us in forming an absolutely clear idea of the -introduction of the art into England, and its subsequent growth. - -William Caxton, our first printer, was born, as he himself tells us, -‘in the Weald of Kent,’ but unfortunately he has given us no clue to -the date; probably it was about 1420; and in 1438 he was apprenticed -to Robert Large, a mercer of the city of London, who was Lord Mayor -in 1439-40. His business necessitated his residence abroad, and he -doubtless left England shortly after his apprenticeship, for in 1469 -he tells us that he had been ‘thirty years for the most part in -the countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland, and Zetland.’ In 1453 -he visited England, and was admitted to the Livery of the Mercers’ -Company. About 1468 he was acting as governor to the ‘English Nation -residing abroad,’ or ‘Merchant Adventurers’ at Bruges. After some six -or seven years in this position, he entered the service of Margaret, -Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV. The greater leisure which -this appointment afforded him was employed in literary pursuits. In -March 1469 he commenced a translation of the _Recueil des Histoires de -Troyes_, by Raoul le Fèvre, but it was not finished till 19th September -1471, when Caxton was staying at Cologne. - -This visit to Cologne marks an interesting period in Caxton’s career, -for it is most probable that it was there he learnt to print. Wynkyn -de Worde tells us that the first book printed by Caxton was the -_Bartholomæus de proprietatibus rerum_, and that it was printed at -Cologne. It has been the general custom of writers to condemn this -story as impossible, perhaps without sufficiently examining the facts. - - -W. de Worde says in his preface to the English edition— - - ‘And also of your charyte call to remembraunce - The soule of William Caxton the first prynter of this boke - In laten tongue at Coleyn, hymself to avaunce - That every well disposed man may thereon loke.’ - -[Illustration: PAGE FROM SARUM BREVIARY. - -(_Printed at Cologne._)] - -Now, there is a Latin edition, evidently printed at Cologne about -the time that Caxton was there, in a type almost identical with that -of N. Gotz or the printer of the _Augustinus de fide_; and it was in -conjunction with a very similar type, in 1476, that the ‘gros bâtarde’ -type, which is so intimately connected with Caxton, first appeared. -Though Caxton worked in partnership with Colard Mansion about 1475-77, -he had probably learnt something of the art before; and, taking into -consideration his journey to Cologne, the statement of Wynkyn de Worde, -and the typographical connexion between the _Bartholomæus_ and Caxton’s -books, we may safely say that the story cannot be put aside as without -foundation. It is not, of course, suggested that Caxton printed the -book by himself, but only that he assisted in its production. He was -learning the art of printing in the office where this book was being -prepared, and his practical knowledge was acquired by assisting to -print it. - -Another Cologne book which may have been printed for Caxton, or -produced through his means, is the first edition of the Breviary -according to the use of Sarum. Unfortunately we only know of its -existence through a few leaves in the libraries at Oxford, Cambridge, -Lincoln, and Paris, and have therefore no means of knowing by whom it -was printed, or whether it had any colophon at all. It is a quarto, -printed in two columns, and with thirty-one lines to the column. Such -a book would hardly have been printed without the help of an English -stationer,—and who more likely than Caxton? - -In 1477 an eventful change took place in Caxton’s career. ‘On June -21, 1476, was fought the bloody battle of Morat between the Duke of -Burgundy and the Swiss, which resulted in the ruin of the Burgundian -power. In the following January, the Duke, while engaged in a murderous -battle at Nanci, was overpowered and fell, covered with wounds, -stubbornly fighting to the last. Caxton’s mistress was now no longer -the ruling power at the court of Bruges. The young daughter of the -late Duke succeeded as the reigning sovereign, and the Dowager Duchess -of Burgundy resigned her position at court, retiring into comparative -privacy on a handsome jointure. Caxton’s services as secretary would -now be no longer required by the Duchess in her altered position.’[31] - -[31] _Who was Caxton?_ By R. Hill Blades. London, 1877. - -Early, therefore, in 1477, Caxton returned to England, and set up his -press in the Almonry at Westminster. On 18th November of the same year -he finished printing the _Dictes or Sayengis of the Philosophers_, -the first book printed in England. Copies of this book vary, some -being without the imprint. This was followed by an edition of the -_Sarum Ordinale_, known now only from fragments, and the curious -little ‘cedula’ relating to it, advertising the ‘pyes of two or three -commemorations.’ - -The productiveness of Caxton’s press in its earliest years was most -remarkable, for we know of at least thirty books printed within the -first three years. A good many of these, however, were very small, the -little tracts of Chaucer and Lydgate containing but a few leaves each. -These were the ‘small storyes and pamfletes’ with which, according to -Robert Copland, Caxton began his career as printer. On the other hand, -we have the _History of Jason_ (150 leaves), _The Canterbury Tales_ -(374 leaves), Chaucer’s _Boethius_ (94 leaves), the _Rhetorica Nova_ -of Laur: Gulielmus de Saona (124 leaves), the _Cordyal_ (78 leaves), -the second edition of the _Dictes or Sayengis_ (76 leaves), and the -_Chronicles of England_ (182 leaves). - -The starting of Lettou’s press in London, in 1480, may probably account -for some of the changes introduced by Caxton in that year. His first -indulgence, printed this year in the large type, was at once thrown -into the shade by the editions of the same indulgence issued by Lettou -in his small neat letter, which was much better adapted for such work. -Lettou also in this year used signatures, Caxton doing the same. The -competition caused Caxton to make his fount of small type, and to -introduce many other improvements. It was about this time that he -introduced woodcuts into his books; and the first book in which we -find then is the _Mirrour of the World_. The cuts in this volume may be -divided into two sets, those given for the first time by Caxton, and -those copied from his predecessors. The first are ordinary woodcuts, -the second what we should call diagrams. The woodcuts are of the -poorest design and coarsest execution. Several are of a master with -four or five pupils, others of single figures engaged in scientific -pursuits. The diagrams are more or less carefully copied from the -MSS.: they are numbered in the table of contents as being eight in -part I., nine in part II., and ten [X. being misprinted for IX.] in -part III. Of the eight belonging to part I., Nos. 2 and 3 are put to -their wrong chapters, and consequently No. 4 is omitted altogether. The -diagrams to part II. are wrongly drawn, and in some cases misplaced. -The nine diagrams to part III. are the most correct. Some writers have -contended that the cuts in Caxton’s books are from metal and not from -wood-blocks; but some of them which are found in use at a considerably -later date show marks of worm holes; a conclusive proof of the material -being wood. - -To the year 1480 we can ascribe seven books, almost all in the new -type, No. 4. These are the French and English phrase-book, Lidgate’s -_Curia Sapientiæ_, the _Chronicles of England_, and the _Description -of Britain_; and three liturgical books, the _De Visitatione B.M.V._, -the _Psalterium_, and a _Horæ ad usum Sarum_, the two latter printed in -type 3. Of the _Horæ_, but a few leaves are known, which formed part -of the wonderful find of fragments in the binding of a copy of the -_Boethius_ at St. Albans Grammar School. This volume was found by Mr. -Blades in 1858, and from the covers were taken no less than fifty-six -half sheets of printed paper, proving the existence of three works from -Caxton’s press quite unknown before, the _Horæ_ above mentioned, the -_Ordinale_, and an indulgence of Pope Sixtus IV. - -About 1481 appeared the first English edition of _Reynard the Fox_; and -in that year two other books, both dated, _Tully of Old Age_, and the -_Siege of Jerusalem_. - -These were followed by the _Polycronicon_, the _Chronicles of England_ -(edit. 2), _Burgh’s Cato_, and the second edition of the _Game of the -Chesse_, which is illustrated with woodcuts, the first edition having -none. There are altogether sixteen different woodcuts used in the -volume, and eight occur twice. - -Between 1483 and the end of 1485, Caxton was at his very busiest, -issuing in that time about twenty-two books; and amongst them are some -of the most important. There are the _Pilgrimage of the Soul_, the -_Festial_ and _Quattuor Sermones_, the _Sex Epistolæ_, of which the -unique copy is now in the British Museum; the _Lyfe of Our Lady_, the -second edition of the _Canterbury Tales_ (the first with woodcuts), -Chaucer’s _Troilus and Cresida_ and _Hous of Fame_, the _Confessio -Amantis_, the _Knight of the Tower_, and _Æsop’s Fables_. This book, -which appeared 26th March 1484, has a full page frontispiece and no -less than 185 woodcuts, the work of two, if not three, different -cutters. They are of the very poorest execution, and not original in -design, being more or less carefully copied from a foreign edition. -The whole of the earlier part of 1485 must have been expended upon the -production of the _Golden Legend_, the largest book which issued from -Caxton’s press. It contains 449 leaves, and is printed on a much larger -sheet than was generally used by Caxton for folios, the full sheet -measuring as much as 24 inches by 16 inches. It has, as illustrations, -a large cut for the frontispiece, representing heaven, and two -series of eighteen large and fifty-two small cuts, the large series -including one of the device of the Earl of Arundel, to whom the book is -dedicated. Most copies of the _Golden Legend_ now in existence are made -up partly of this and partly of the second edition. As far as can be -judged, the distinguishing mark is the type of the headlines, which in -the first edition are in type 3, and in the second edition in type 5. -No copy is known made up entirely of one edition. - -For the latter part of 1485 we have three dated books, the _Morte -d’Arthur_ (31st July), the only perfect copy of which is now, -unfortunately, in America; the _Life of Charles the Great_ (1st -December), the only existing copy of which is in the British Museum; -and _The Knight Paris and the Fair Vienne_ (19th December), of which -again the only known copy is in the British Museum. - -In 1487, Caxton tried a new venture, and had printed for him at Paris, -by George Maynyal, an edition of the _Sarum Missal_. Only one copy is -known, slightly imperfect, which is in private hands. In this book, for -the first time, Caxton used his well-known device, probably for the -purpose of emphasising what might easily have been overlooked,—that the -book was printed at his expense. So much has been written on Caxton’s -device, and such extraordinary theories made about its hidden meanings, -that it may be as well to point out that it consists simply of his -mark standing between his initials, with a certain amount of unmeaning -ornament. It was probably cut in England, being coarsely executed, -while those used in France at the same time are well cut and artistic. -About 1487-88 we find two more books ornamented with woodcuts, the -_Royal Book_ and the _Speculum Vite Christi_. The _Speculum_ contains a -number of well-executed cuts, the _Royal Book_ only seven, six of which -had appeared in the _Speculum_. - -About 1488 a second edition of the _Golden Legend_ was issued, almost -exactly the same as the first, but with the life of St. Erasmus added, -so that this edition does not end, like the first, with a blank leaf. -At the time of Caxton’s death, he seems to have had a large stock -of this book still on his hands, for he left fifteen copies to the -Church of St. Margaret, and a large number of copies to his daughter -Elizabeth, the wife of Gerard Croppe, a tailor in Westminster. It is -hard to understand how, with this large stock still for sale, Wynkyn de -Worde could afford to print a new edition in 1493 and another in 1498; -for even at the latter date copies of Caxton’s edition were, as we -happen to know, still to be obtained. - -To about this time may be ascribed the curious _Image of Pity_ in the -University Library, Cambridge. It is not printed on a separate piece -of paper, but is a sort of proof struck off on the blank last page of -a book with which the indulgence has nothing to do. The book is a copy -of the _Colloquium peccatoris et Crucifixi J. C._, printed at Antwerp -by Mathias van der Goes about 1487, which must have been accidentally -lying near when the printer wanted something to take an impression -upon.[32] - -[32] For a detailed account of this and other English _Images of Pity_, -see a paper by Henry Bradshaw, reprinted as No. 9 in his _Collected -Papers_, p. 135. - -In 1489, Caxton printed two editions of an indulgence of great -typographical interest. This indulgence was first noticed by Dr. -Cotton, who mentions it in his _Typographical Gazetteer_ under Oxford, -supposing it to have been printed at that place. Bradshaw, on seeing a -photograph of it, at once conjectured from the form and appearance of -the type that it was printed by Caxton, though Blades refused to accept -it as a product of his press without further proof, and it was never -admitted into any of his books on Caxton. The same type was afterwards -found by Bradshaw used for sidenotes in the 1494 edition of the -_Speculum Vite Christi_, printed by W. de Worde, and the type being in -his possession at that date, could have belonged in 1489 to no one but -Caxton. - -In a list of Caxton’s types this type would be known as type 7. - -In addition to these two indulgences, a number of books may be assigned -to this year. The _Fayttes of Arms_ is dated; but besides this there -are the _Statutes of Henry VII._, the _Governayle of Health_, the _Four -Sons of Aymon_, _Blanchardyn and Eglantyne_, _Directorium Sacerdotum_, -second edition, the third edition of the _Dictes or Sayengis_, the -_Doctrinal of Sapience_, and an _Image of Pity_ printed on one leaf. -The second edition of _Reynard the Fox_, known only from the copy -preserved in the Pepysian Library, may also be assigned to this year. -With the exception of the _Eneydos_, the remainder of Caxton’s books -are of a religious or liturgical character. Amongst them we must -class an edition probably of the _Horæ ad usum Sarum_ not mentioned -by Blades; for though no copy or even fragment is now known, it is -certain that such a book was printed. A set-off from a page of it was -discovered by Bradshaw on a waste sheet of the _Fifteen Oes_. All that -could be certainly distinguished was that it was printed in type 5, -that there were twenty-two lines to a page, and that each page was -surrounded by a border. - -The _Fifteen Oes_ itself is a most interesting book. It was printed -originally, no doubt, as an extra part for an edition of the _Horæ ad -usum Sarum_ now entirely lost. It contains a beautifully executed -woodcut of the crucifixion,—one of a series of five which occur -complete in a _Horæ_ printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1494, and it is -also the only existing book from this press which has borders to the -pages. Caxton printed altogether about one hundred books, using in -them altogether eight types. Blades gives ninety-nine books printed -by Caxton, two of which were certainly printed by his associate in -Bruges after Caxton had left for England. On the other hand, he does -not mention the newly-discovered Grammar, the two editions of the -Indulgence of 1489, a second edition of the _Lyf of our Lady_, known -from a fragment in the Bodleian, and one or two other indulgences. -One or two books which Blades includes were printed undoubtedly by De -Worde, such as the _Book of Courtesye_ (which, indeed, contains his -small device), _The Chastysing of God’s Children_, and the _Treatise of -Love_. The genuine Caxtons catalogued by Blades number ninety-four. - -As regards types, Blades gives six of Caxton’s, and a seventh which he -conjectures only to have been used by Wynkyn de Worde, though in this -he was mistaken, for it occurs in books printed while Caxton was alive. -Again, the type of the 1489 Indulgence which he does not mention, was -conclusively proved by Bradshaw to be one of Caxton’s types. This type -should be considered as type 7, and the former type, which does not -appear until 1490-91, as type 8. The woodcut initials which occur in -the _Chastysing of God’s Children_ were not used till after Caxton’s -death. - -But while we venerate Caxton as our first printer, we must not overlook -the claims which he has upon us as a translator and editor. Wonderful -as his diligence in press-work may appear, it is still more wonderful -to consider how much literary work he found time to do in the intervals -of his business. He was the editor of all the books which he printed, -and he himself translated no less than twenty-two, including that great -undertaking the _Golden Legend_. Even on his deathbed he was still at -work, as we learn from the colophon of the _Vitas Patrum_, printed by -Wynkyn de Worde in 1495: ‘Thus endyth the moost vertuouse hystorye -of the deuoute and right renowned lyves of holy faders lyvynge in -deserte, worthy of remembraunce to all wel dysposed persones, which -hath ben translated oute of Frenche into Englysshe by William Caxton of -Westmynstre late deed and fynysshed at the laste daye of hys lyff.’ - -On Caxton’s death, in 1491, his materials passed into the hands of -Wynkyn de Worde, his assistant, who continued to print in the same -house at Westminster. Up to 1493 he continued to use Caxton’s type, -with the addition of some woodcut initials obtained from Godfried van -Os, from whom he also obtained a complete set of type, which was not -used till 1496, and then only for printing one book. - -W. de Worde, though he must have lived for some time previously in -England, only took out letters of denization in 1496. The grant is -dated 20th April to ‘Winando de Worde, de ducatu Lothoringie oriundo, -impressori librorum.’ - -The earliest books which he printed have no name, and are all in -Caxton’s type, Nos. 6 and 4*, but with some additional types which -distinguish his works from Caxton’s. - -From the time of Caxton’s death, in 1491, to the time when his own name -first appears in an imprint, Wynkyn de Worde printed five books. They -are the _Chastysing of God’s Children_, the _Treatise of Love_, and the -_Book of Courtesye_, all printed in type 6; and the _Golden Legend_ and -the _Life of St. Catherine_, printed in a modification of type 4*, a -type which is used in no other books. The _Chastysing_ is interesting -as having a title-page, the first in any book from this office; while -in the _Book of Courtesye_ we find the device of W. de Worde used for -the first time. - -In 1493 we find for the first time a book containing De Worde’s name. -This is the _Liber Festivalis_, probably printed towards the end of the -year, for the _Quattuor Sermones_, generally issued with it, is dated -1494. The next book to appear was Walter Hylton’s _Scala Perfectionis_; -and in the same year was issued a reprint of Bonaventura’s _Speculum -Vite Christi_, a book of very great interest, for the sidenotes are -printed with the type which Caxton used for his Indulgence of 1489, -and which was used for no other book than this. To this year 1494 we -may ascribe a beautiful edition of the Sarum _Horæ_, adorned with -woodcuts and borders, nearly all of which were inherited from Caxton. -The type which De Worde used for these books seems to have come into -Caxton’s hands from France, during the last year of his life, and -resembles closely certain founts which belonged to the Paris printers -P. Levet and Higman, if indeed it is not the same. After 1494, De Worde -discarded it, using it only occasionally for headings or titles. Blades -wrongly says that the use of this type separates the early W. de Worde -books from the Caxton’s; but Caxton certainly possessed and used it. -The distinctive mark of the early Wynkyn de Worde books is the use of -the initials obtained from G. van Os. Bradshaw, speaking of these, -says, ‘Indeed, the woodcut initials are what specially serve at once to -distinguish W. de Worde’s earliest from Caxton’s latest books.’ - -In 1495 we have three dated books, the _Vitas Patrum_, which Caxton -was engaged in translating up to the day of his death; Higden’s -_Polycronicon_, the first English book containing musical notes, -and the _Directorium Sacerdotum_. Besides these, a fair number of -undated books may be ascribed to this year or the year after. The most -important is the Bartholomæus, _De Proprietatibus Rerum_. Apart from -its ordinary interest, it is considered to be the first book printed on -paper made in England. - - ‘And John Tate the younger, joye mote he broke, - Whiche late hath in Englond doo made this paper thynne - That now in our englisshe this boke is prynted Inne.’ - -In 1496 appeared the curious reprint of the _Book of St. Albans_. It -seems never to have been noticed that this book is entirely printed -with the type which was obtained from Godfried van Os about the time -of his removal to Copenhagen. Besides the _Book of St. Albans_, it -has an extra chapter on fishing with an angle, the first treatise on -the subject in English. An edition of the _Dives and Pauper_, with -a handsome title-page, was issued this year, as well as a number of -smaller books of considerable interest, as the _Constitutions_ of -Lyndewode, the _Meditacions_ of St. Bernard, and the _Festial_ and -_Quattuor Sermones_. Among the dated books of 1497 are the _Chronicles -of England_, an edition copied from the one printed at St. Albans; and -it is from the colophon to this edition that we learn that the printer -at St. Albans was ‘sometyme scole mayster’ there. - -In 1498 three large and important books were printed; of these the -first was an edition of the _Golden Legend_, of which only one perfect -copy is known, in the Spencer Collection; the next, a second edition -of the _Morte d’Arthur_, the first illustrated with woodcuts. The only -known copy of this book, wanting ten leaves, is also in the Spencer -Library. The third book was an edition of the _Canterbury Tales_. In -1499 a large number of books were printed, the most curious being an -edition of _Mandeville’s Travels_, illustrated profusely with woodcuts -of the wonders seen by the traveller, who got as far as the walls -of Paradise, but did not look in. Of this book two copies, both -imperfect, are known. _A Book of Good Manners_ and a _Psalterium_, both -known from single copies, were also printed in this year. An _Ortus -Vocabulorum_, printed in 1500, is the last book which was issued by -De Worde at Westminster. Altogether, from 1491 to the time he left -Caxton’s old house at Westminster, W. de Worde printed about a hundred -books, certainly not less; and he also had a few books printed for him, -and at his expense, by other printers. - -In a very large number of De Worde’s early books he inserted the cut -of the crucifixion, which is first found in Caxton’s _XV Oes_. In 1499 -the block split at the time when they were printing an edition of the -_Mirror of Consolation_, sometime after the 10th July, so that all the -books which contain the cut in its injured state must be later than -10th July 1499. - -The year 1500 gives us an excellent date-mark for W. de Worde’s books, -for in that year he moved from Westminster ‘in Caxton’s house,’ to -London, in Fleet Street, at the sign of the Sun. Upon moving he seems -to have destroyed or disposed of a good deal of printing material. Some -of his woodcuts passed to Julian Notary, who was also at that time a -printer in Westminster. One of his marks and some of his type disappear -entirely at this time. The type which he had used in the majority of -the books printed in the last few years of the fifteenth century we -find in use up to 1508 or 1509, when it disappears from London to -reappear at York; but his capitals and marks had changed. From 1504 -onward he used in the majority of his books the well-known square -device in three divisions, having in the upper part the sun and moon -and a number of stars, In the centre the W. and C. and Caxton’s mark; -below this the ‘Sagittarius’ shooting an arrow at a dog. It has not -hitherto been noticed that of this device there are three varieties, -identical to a superficial view, yet quite distinct and definitely -marking certain periods. The first variety in use from 1505 to 1518 -has in the upper part eleven stars to the left of the sun and nine to -the right, while the white circular inlets at the ends of the W. are -almost closed. The second variety used from 1519 to the middle of 1528 -has the same number of stars, but the circular inlets at the ends of -the letters are more open. The last variety has ten stars to the left -of the sun and ten to the right. It was used from 1528 to the time of -De Worde’s death. In the colophons of some of his early books De Worde -mentions that he had another shop in St. Paul’s Churchyard, with the -sign of Our Lady of Pity. - -Wynkyn de Worde was essentially a popular printer, and he issued -innumerable small tracts; short romances in prose and verse, books of -riddles, books on carving and manners at table, almanacs, sermons, -grammars, and such like. Many of these books were translations from -the French, and were made by Robert Copland, who was one of De Werde’s -apprentices. The later books of De Worde are often puzzling. He seems -to have employed John Scot to print for him, and many books which have -only De Worde’s name are in Scot’s type. One book is particularly -curious. It is an edition of _The Mirror of Golde for the Sinful Soul_, -29th March 1522. Some copies have a colophon, ‘Imprinted at London -withoute Newgate, in Saint Pulker’s Parysche, by John Scot.’ Other -copies have the first sheet and the last leaf reset, while the colophon -runs, ‘Imprinted at London in Fletestrete, at the sygne of the Sone, by -Wynkyn de Worde.’ - -De Worde died at the end of 1534. His will is dated 5th June 1534, and -it was proved 19th January 1535. His executors were John Bedill, who -succeeded him in business, and James Gaver, probably a bookbinder, and -one of the numerous family of that name who exercised their craft in -the Low Countries. In the forty years that he printed, Wynkyn de Worde -produced over six hundred books, that is, more than fifteen a year, a -much higher average than any other early English printer attained. - -About the year 1496 three printers started in partnership at the sign -of St. Thomas the Apostle in London. They were Julian Notary, Jean -Barbier, and a third whose name is not known, but whose initials were -I. H., and who may perhaps have been Jean Huvin. The first book which -they printed was the _Questiones Alberti de modis significandi_, a -quarto of sixty leaves, printed in a clear, handsome black letter. -At the end of the book is a printer’s mark, with the initials of -the printers, but there is no colophon to tell us either their names -or the date of printing. In 1497 they issued an edition of the _Horæ -ad usum Sarum_, printed, as we learn from the colophon, for Wynkyn -de Worde. The same printer’s mark is in this book, but again we have -no information about the names of the printers. In 1498 the firm had -changed,—I. H. had left, and the two remaining printers, Notary and -Barbier, had moved to Westminster, perhaps in order to be nearer the -printer for whom they worked. In this year they printed an edition of -the _Sarum Missal_ for Wynkyn de Worde, and after this Jean Barbier -returns to France, leaving Notary at Westminster by himself. There he -continued to print up to some time before 1503, and in that year we -find him living ‘without Temple Bar, in St. Clement’s Parish, at the -sign of the Three Kings.’ Before moving, he had printed, besides the -books mentioned above, a _Festial_ and _Quattuor Sermones_ in 1499, a -_Horæ ad usum Sarum_ in 1500, and the Chaucer’s _Complaint of Mars and -Venus_, without date. About this time he obtained some woodcuts from -Wynkyn de Worde, and we find them used in the first book he printed at -his new address, the _Golden Legend_ of 1503[4], and in it also are -to be found some very curious metal cuts in the ‘manière criblée.’ An -undated _Sarum Horæ_, in which the calendar begins with 1503, should -most probably be put before the _Golden Legend_. From 1504 to 1510 -Notary printed about thirteen books, and in that latter year (as we -learn from the imprint of the _Expositio Hymnorum_) he had, besides his -shop without Temple Bar, another in St. Paul’s Churchyard, of which the -sign was also the Three Kings. - -[Illustration: PART OF A PAGE FROM GOLDEN LEGEND. - -(_Printed by Notary, 1503._)] - -Between 1510 and 1515, Notary issued no dated book, but in the latter -year appeared the _Chronicles of England_, and in the year following -two _Grammars_ of Whittington. The old printing-office ‘Extra Temple -Bar’ seems to have been given up, for at this time Notary was printing -in Paul’s Churchyard, at the sign of St. Mark. After 1518 there is -another interval of three years without a dated book; but between 1518 -and 1520 several were issued from the sign of the Three Kings in Paul’s -Churchyard, and after that Notary printed no more. His movements from -place to place are difficult to understand. In 1497 he is in London at -the sign of St. Thomas Apostle, in 1498 at Westminster in King Street. -About 1502-3, he moves to a house outside Temple Bar, the one probably -that Pynson had just vacated. In 1510, while still printing at the same -place, he had a shop in St. Paul’s Churchyard at the sign of the Three -Kings. In 1515 he is at the sign of St. Mark in Paul’s Churchyard, -in 1518 again at the Three Kings. It seems probable that some of his -productions must have entirely disappeared, otherwise it is hard to -account for the number of blank years. - -The latest writer on Julian Notary conjectures that the sign of St. -Mark and the sign of the Three Kings were attached to the same house; -that Julian Notary, on moving to Paul’s Churchyard, went to a house -with the sign of St. Mark, and after printing under that sign for two -years, altered it, for commercial reasons, to his old emblem of the -Three Kings. This is ingenious, but impossible, for the writer has -ignored the fact that Notary had a shop in St. Paul’s Churchyard at the -Three Kings five years before we hear of the one with the sign of St. -Mark. - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - - OXFORD AND ST. ALBAN’S. - - -As early as 1664, when Richard Atkyns issued his _Original and Growth -of Printing_, the assertion was put forward that printing in England -was first practised at Oxford. ‘A book came into my hands,’ says -Atkyns, ‘printed at Oxon, Anno Dom. 1468, which was three years before -any of the recited Authours would allow it to be in England.’ - -The book here referred to is the celebrated _Exposicio sancti Jeronimi -in simbolum apostolorum_, written by Tyrannius Rufinus of Aquileia; -and in the colophon it is clearly stated that the book was printed in -1468. ‘Impressa Oxonie et finita anno domini.M. cccc. lxviij xvij. die -decembris.’ - -Many writers have argued for and against the authenticity of the date; -and though some are still found who believe in its correctness, it is -generally allowed to be a misprint for 1478. In the first place, the -book has printed signatures, which have not been found in any book -before 1472. Again, copies of this book have been found bound up in -the original binding with books of 1478, In the library of All Souls -College, Oxford, is a copy bound up with one of the 1479 books, and -though the present binding is modern, they were originally bound -together; and we find a set-off from the damp ink of the second volume -on the last leaf of the first. A copy in another Oxford library, bound -up with the 1479 books, has been marked for or by the binder with -consecutive signatures all through the several tracts. Instances of -misprinted dates are far from rare. The _Mataratius de componendis -versibus_, printed at Venice by Ratdolt, is dated 1468 instead of -1478, and was on that account sometimes put forward as a proof of -early printing there. Spain, too, claimed printing for the same year -on account of a misprinted ‘1468’ in a grammar printed at Barcelona. -A _Vocabularius rerum_, printed by John Keller at Augsburg, has the -same misprint of 1468. However, the surest test of the date of a book -is to place it alongside others from the same press, and compare the -workmanship. In this case the book falls naturally into its place at -the head of the Oxford list in 1478, taking just the small precedence -of the two books of 1479, which the slightly lesser excellence of its -workmanship warrants. A break of eleven years between two books which -are in every way so closely allied would be almost impossible, and -quite unsupported by other instances. Accepting 1478 as the correct -date, it is clear that Oxford lost no time in employing the new art, -for Caxton had only commenced at Westminster the year before. - -The first three books, the _Exposicio_ of 1478 before mentioned, and -the _Ægidius de originali peccato_, and _Textus ethicorum Aristotelis -per Leonardum Aretinum translatus_, both of 1470, form a group of -themselves. They are printed in a type either brought from Cologne or -directly copied from Cologne work, and strongly resembling that used by -Gerard ten Raem de Berka or Guldenschaff. None have a printer’s name, -but they are ascribed to Theodore Rood of Cologne, the printer of the -other early Oxford books. - -The earliest of these three, the _Exposicio_, is a small quarto of -forty-two leaves, with twenty-five lines to the page, and the other -two are generally similar in type and form. There are, however, one or -two differences to be noted in it. The edges on the right-hand margin -are often uneven, the letters Q, H, g are often wrongly used, the text -begins on A1 instead of on the second leaf, and it was printed one page -at a time. These faults were all rectified in the two later books, -which leave little to be desired in the way of execution. - -The next dated book appeared in 1481, and it has the advantage of a -full colophon giving the name of the printer. It is a Latin commentary -on the _De Animâ_ of Aristotle, by Alexander de Hales; a folio of 240 -leaves, printed in type which had not been used before,—a curious, -narrow, upright Gothic, not unlike in general appearance some of the -founts used at Zwoll, or by Ther Hoernen at Cologne. A copy of this -book was bought in the year that it was published for the library -of Magdalen College, Oxford, where it still remains, for the sum of -thirty-three shillings and fourpence. In 1482 was issued a _Commentary -on the Lamentations of Jeremiah_, by John Lattebury, a folio of 292 -leaves. This is one of the least rare of the early Oxford books, and -three copies of it are known printed upon vellum. The most interesting -of these is in the library of All Souls College, Oxford. It is a -beautiful copy in the original Oxford binding, and the various quires -are signed by the proof-readers. Shortly after the issue of the -_Lattebury_, the press acquired an extremely beautiful woodcut border, -and the copies still remaining in stock of the _Lattebury_ and the -_Alexander de Hales_ were rendered more attractive by having this -border printed round the first page of text, and at the beginning of -some of the divisions. In this second issue of the two books, some -sheets also appear to have been reprinted. - -With these two books may be classed two others, in both cases known -only from fragments, an edition of _Cicero pro Milone_ and a Latin -Grammar. The _Cicero pro Milone_ is a quarto, and would have contained -about thirty leaves. At present only eight leaves are known; four in -the Bodleian, and four in Merton College Library. This was the first -edition of a classic printed in England. Of the Latin Grammar only two -leaves are known, which are in the British Museum. - -The third and last group contains eight books, of which only one -contains a printer’s name. This is found in the colophon to the -_Phalaris_ of 1485, a curious production in verse running as follows:— - - ‘Hoc Teodericus rood quem collonia misit - Sanguine germanus nobile pressit opus - Atque sibi socius thomas fuit anglicus hunte. - Dij dent ut venetos exuperare queant - Quam ienson venetos decuit vir gallicus artem - Ingenio didicit terra britanna suo - Celatos veneti nobis transmittere libros - Cedite nos alijs vendimus o veneti - Que fuerat vobis ars primum nota latini - Est eadem nobis ipsa reperta patres - Quamvis semotos toto canit orbe britannos - Virgilius, placet his lingua latina tamen.’ - -From this we learn that Rood had taken as his partner one Thomas Hunt, -an Englishman, who had been established as a stationer in Oxford as -early as 1473. He was probably associated with Rood in the production -of all the books in the last group, and his influence may be perhaps -traced in the new founts of type used in them, which are much more -English in appearance than any which had been used at this press before. - -One of the earliest of the books of this last group is the Latin -Grammar by John Anwykyll, with the _Vulgaria Terencii_. Of the first -part, the Grammar, which contained about 128 leaves, only one imperfect -copy, now in the Bodleian, is known. Of the other part, the _Vulgaria_, -at least four copies are known, and an inscription on the copy -belonging to the Bodleian gives us a clue to the date. On its first -leaf is written the following inscription:—‘1483. Frater Johannes -Grene emit hunc librum Oxonie de elemosinis amicorum suorum’—Brother -John Grene bought this book at Oxford with the gifts of his friends. -1483 is, then, the latest date to which we can ascribe the printing of -the book; and this fits it into its place, after the books of 1481 and -1482 printed in the earlier type. - -[Illustration: FIRST PAGE OF THE “EXCITATIO.” - -(_Printed at Oxford_, c. 1485.)] - -After the _Anwykyll_ comes a book by Richard Rolle of Hampole, -_Explanationes super lectiones beati Job_, a quarto of sixty-four -leaves, of which all the three known copies are in the University -Library, Cambridge. With this may be classed a unique book in the -British Museum, a sermon of Augustine, _Excitatio ad elemosinam -faciendam_, a quarto of eight leaves. This book, bound with five other -rare tracts, was lot 4912 in the Colbert sale, and brought the large -price of 1 livre, 10 sous, about half-a-crown in our money. Another -quarto, similar to the last two, follows, a collection of treatises on -logical subjects, usually associated with the name of Roger Swyneshede, -who was most probably the author of one only out of the nineteen -different parts. It is a quarto of 164 leaves, and the only perfect -copy known is in the library of New College, Oxford; another copy, -slightly imperfect, being in the library of Merton College. - -Next in our conjectural arrangement comes the Lyndewode, _Super -constitutiones provinciales_, a large folio of 366 leaves. This is the -first edition of the celebrated commentary of William Lyndewode, and -of the Provincial Constitutions of England. On the verso of the -first leaf is a woodcut, the first occurring in an Oxford book. - -Ascribed to the year 1485 are the _Doctrinale_ of Alexander Gallus and -the Latin translation of the _Epistles of Phalaris_, whose colophon has -been already noticed. - -The _Doctrinale_ of Alexander Gallus is known only from two leaves in -the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge. These leaves are used -as end papers in the binding of a book; and a volume in the library -of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, bound in identically the same -manner, has also as end papers two leaves of an Oxford printed book. -That these two books must have been bound by the same man, almost at -the same time, is shown from the fact that in both we find used vellum -leaves from one and the same manuscript along with the refuse Oxford -leaves. - -The Latin translation of the _Epistles of Phalaris_, by Franciscus -Aretinus, is in many ways the most interesting of this last group -of Oxford books, containing as it does a very full colophon. It was -printed, so the colophon tells us, in the 297th Olympiad, which those -who write on the subject say was the year 1485. It is a quarto of -eighty-eight leaves, and a very fine perfect copy is in the library of -Wadham College, Oxford; two other copies are known, belonging to Corpus -Christi College, Oxford, and the Spencer Library. - -The last book issued by the Oxford press was the _Liber Festialis_, -a book of sermons for the holy days, by John Mirk. Several imperfect -copies of this book are known, the most complete being in the library -of Lambeth Palace. It is a folio of 174 leaves, and contains a series -of eleven large cuts and five small ones. This series of large cuts -(together with the cut of an author at work on his book, which occurs -in the _Lyndewode_, and which is clearly one of the set), were not cut -for the _Festial_, but appear to have been prepared for some edition of -the _Golden Legend_. It was to have been a large folio book, for when -we find the cuts used in the _Festial_, they have been cut at one end -to allow them to fit the smaller sized sheet. - -The _Festial_ is dated 1486, but has no printer’s name. After this we -know of no other book produced in Oxford during the fifteenth century, -and we have no information to account for the cessation of the press. -It is possible, however, that Rood left Oxford and returned to Cologne. -Panzer (vol. iv. p. 274) mentions two books, _Questiones Aristotelis -de generatione et corruptione_ and _Tres libri de anima Aristotelis_, -printed at Cologne by a printer named Theodoricus in 1485 and 1486. In -the library at Munich is a copy of the first book, and a facsimile of -a page was published lately in Burger’s _Monumenta Germaniæ et Italiæ -Typographica_. - -Now the type in which this book is printed bears the very strongest -resemblance in many respects to that used by Rood at Oxford in 1481 -and 1482, and the similarity of the names makes it possible, if not -probable, that Rood was the printer. The _Questiones Aristotelis -de generatione et corruptione_ was finished at Cologne, ‘anno -incarnationis dominice 1485 in vigilia S, Andreæ apostoli per -Theodoricum impressorem colonie infra sedecim domos.’[33] - -[33] At this same address, where, in 1470, Ther Hoernen was living, -we afterwards find John Landen. It is not, however, quite clear that -‘infra sedecim domos’ was the denomination of a particular house. - -The vigil of St. Andrew was the 29th of November, so that Rood had not -much time to move from Oxford and start his new office between the date -of the publication of the _Phalaris_, 1485, and the 29th of November of -the same year. - -Ennen and Madden consider that this Theodoricus was a certain Theodoric -de Berse, whose name occurs in a list of printers and stationers of -Cologne in 1501. - -It is impossible with our present knowledge to say any more on the -question; but if Rood did return to Cologne, the _Festial_ must have -been printed by Hunt alone. With it the fifteenth century printing -at Oxford suddenly ceased, after a fairly prosperous career of eight -years, during which at least fifteen books were issued. - -From 1486 onward we have no further record of printing there till the -year 1517. In the meanwhile the stationers supplied such books as were -required; and to some of them we find incidental references, both in -accounts and in the colophons of books printed for them. - -In 1506, Pynson printed an edition of the _Principia_ of Peregrinus -de Lugo, at the expense of Georgius Castellanus, who was living at -the sign of St. John the Evangelist. Between 1512 and 1514, Henry -Jacobi, a London stationer, moved to Oxford, and started business at -the sign of the Trinity, the sign which he had used when in London. -He died at Oxford in 1514. In 1517 the new press was started by John -Scolar, who lived ‘in viculo diui Joannis baptiste.’ The first book -he issued was a commentary by Walter Burley on apart of Aristotle, -and this was followed in the next year by another book by the same -author, _De materia et forma_. In 1518 were also issued the _Questiones -super libros ethicorum_, by John Dedicus [15 May], the _Compendium -questionum de luce et lumine_ [5 June], and Robert Whitinton’s _De -heteroclitis nominibus_ [27 June]. To the same year may be assigned -a _Prognostication_ by Jasper Laet, of which there is a copy in the -Cambridge University Library. In 1519 there is only one book, printed -by a new man, for Scolar has disappeared. It is the _Compotus manualis -ad usum Oxoniensium_, printed by Charles Kyrfoth, who lived like Scolar -‘in vico diui Joannis baptiste,’ and perhaps succeeded the latter in -business. From this time forward no books were printed in Oxford till -1585, when the University Press was started by Joseph Barnes, and -commenced its career by issuing the _Speculum moralium quæstionum_ of -John Case. - -One more early Oxford stationer must be mentioned as connected with -printing, and this is John Dorne or Thorne, who was in business about -1520, and whose most interesting Day-book was edited some years ago by -Mr. Falconer Madan for the Oxford Historical Society. He was originally -a stationer, and perhaps printer, at Brunswick. A small educational -work, the _Opusculum insolubilium secundum usum insignis scole paruisi -in alma universitate Oxonie_, printed by Treveris, was to be sold ‘apud -I. T.’ These initials stand probably for John Thorne, and we find the -book mentioned in his accounts. - - - ST. ALBAN’S. - -The schoolmaster printer of St. Alban’s has left us no information -as to his life, or even told us his name, and we should know nothing -whatever about him had not W. de Worde referred to him as ‘sometime -schoolmaster of St. Albans.’ - -The press was probably started in 1479; for though the earliest dated -book is dated 1480, an edition from this press of _Augustini Dacti -elegancie_, in quarto, is evidently earlier, being printed throughout -in one type, the first of those used by this printer. Of this book one -copy only is known, in the University Library, Cambridge. - -In 1480 the schoolmaster printer issued the _Rhetorica Nova_ of -Laurentius de Saona, a book which Caxton was printing about the -same time, and very soon after it the _Questiones Alberti de modo -significandi_. These were followed by three more works in Latin, -the _Questiones super Physica Aristotelis_ of Joannes Canonicus, -the _Exempla Sacræ Scripturæ_, and Antonius Andreæ _super Logica -Aristotelis_. The remaining two books from this press, in contrast to -those that had preceded them, are of a popular character. These are the -_Chronicles of England_, and the treatise on hawking, hunting, and coat -armour, commonly known as the _Book of St. Alban’s_. - -All the eight St. Alban’s books are of the greatest rarity. More than -half are known only from single copies; of some, not a single perfect -copy remains. - -The very scholastic nature of the majority of the books from this press -renders it more or less uninteresting; but the two latest works, the -_Chronicles_ and the _Book of St. Alban’s_, appeal more to popular -taste. Editions of the _Chronicles_ were issued by every English -printer, and there is nothing in this particular one to merit special -remark. The _Book of St. Alban’s_, on the other hand, is a book of very -particular interest. It consists of three parts; the first is devoted -to hawking, the second to hunting, and the third to coat armours or -heraldry. Naturally enough it was a popular book--so popular that no -perfect copy now exists. It also possesses the distinction of being the -first English book which contains specimens of printing in colour; for -the coats-of-arms at the end are for the most part printed in their -correct colour. Later in the century, in 1496, W. de Worde issued -another edition of this book, adding to it a chapter on ‘Fishing with -an angle.’ - -In these eight St. Alban’s books we find four different types used. The -first is a small, clear-cut, distinctive type, but is only used for the -text of one book and the signatures of others. Type NO. 2, which is -used for the text of the two English and one of the Latin books, is a -larger ragged type, with a strong superficial resemblance to Caxton’s. -Type No. 3, which is used in four Latin books, is a smaller type, full -of abbreviations and contractions; while the last type is one which had -belonged to Caxton (his type 3), but which he gave up using about 1484. -This use of Caxton’s type has led some people to imagine that there was -a close connection between the Westminster and St. Alban’s press; and -a writer in the _Athenæum_ went so far as to propound a theory that -Caxton’s unsigned books were really printed at St. Alban’s. - - - - - CHAPTER X. - - LONDON. - - JOHN LETTOU, WILLIAM DE MACHLINIA, RICHARD PYNSON. - - -In 1480, printing was introduced into London by John Lettou, perhaps a -native of Lithuania, of which Lettou is an old form. The first product -of the press was an edition of John Kendale’s Indulgence asking for aid -against the Turks, another edition having just been issued by Caxton in -his large No. 2* type. As we have said, Lettou’s small neat type was -very much better suited for printing indulgences, and its appearance -very probably caused Caxton to make his small type No. 4, which he used -in future for such work. Besides two other editions of the indulgence, -Lettou printed only one book in this year, the _Quæstiones Antonii -Andreæ super duodecim libros metaphysice Aristotelis_. It is a small -folio of 106 leaves, of very great rarity, only one perfect copy being -known, in the library of Sion College, London. In 1481 another folio -book was printed, _Thomas Wallensis super Psalterium_, and probably in -the same year a work on ecclesiastical procedure, known only from two -leaves which were found in the binding of one of the Parker books in -Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. - -From the workmanship of these books we can clearly see that Lettou was -a practised printer, though we know nothing as to where he learnt his -art. His type, which bears no resemblance to any other used in England, -is very similar to that of Matthias Moravus, the Naples printer; so -similar, indeed, as to make it certain that there must have been some -connexion between the two printers, or some common origin for their -types. Lettou was assisted by a certain William Wilcock, at whose -expense the two large books were printed. - -About 1482, Lettou was joined by another printer, William de Machlinia, -a native no doubt of Malines in Belgium. These two printers employed a -new fount of type of the same school as the other English types, and -one suitable for the printing of the law-books, which were their sole -productions. In partnership they printed but five books, the _Tenores -Novelli_, the _Abridgment of the Statutes_, and the _Year-Books_ of -the 33rd, 35th, and 36th years of Henry VII. The first of these books -is the only one which has a colophon. It gives the names of the two -printers, and states that the book was printed in the city of London, -‘juxta ecclesiam omnium sanctorum;’ a rather vague address, since, -according to Arnold’s Chronicle, there were several London churches -thus dedicated. - -After these books had been issued, about 1483-84, John Lettou -disappears, and Machlinia carried on his business alone. By himself he -printed at least twenty-two books or editions. Out of all this number -only four contain his name, and not one a date. He printed at two -addresses, ‘By Flete-brigge,’ and in Holborn. If these two addresses -refer to two different places, and we have no reason for supposing the -contrary, there is no doubt that ‘By Flete-brigge’ is the earlier. - -How late he continued to carry on business it is not possible to find -out, as none of his books are dated. The Bull of Innocent VIII., -relating to the marriage of Henry VII., which he printed, cannot -have been issued till after 2nd March 1486; and the occurrence of a -title-page in one of his books points to a still later date, for we -know of no other book having a title-page printed in England before -1491-92. - -Machlinia’s use of signatures and initial directors seems to have been -entirely arbitrary, and it is impossible to arrange the books in any -certain order from their typographical peculiarities. - -In the ‘Flete-brigge’ type there are nine books. Two works of Albertus -Magnus, the _Liber aggregationis_ and the _De secretis mulierum_;[34] -a _Horæ ad usum Sarum_, known only from fragments rescued from old -bindings; the _Revelation of St. Nicholas to a monk of Evesham_, of -which the two known copies show curious instances of wrong imposition. -There are, besides, three law-books and a school-book, the _Vulgaria -Terencii_. Of the _Horæ ad usum Sarum_ twenty leaves are known, all -printed on vellum. In size it might be called a 16mo, and was made up -in gatherings of eight leaves, each gathering containing two sheets of -vellum. These gatherings were folded in a peculiar way. As an ordinary -rule, when we find a quire of eight leaves formed of two sheets, leaves -1, 2, 7, 8 were printed on one sheet, leaves 3, 4, 5, 6 on the other. -But Machlinia adopted a different plan, and printed leaves 1, 4, 5, -8 on the one sheet, leaves 2, 3, 6, 7 on the other. It is impossible -to say whether there were any cuts in the volume; there are none in -the remaining fragments, but at the beginning of certain portions a -woodcut border was used, which surrounded the whole page. This border -was afterwards used by Pynson. A curious thing to be noticed about the -type in which these books are printed, is its very strong resemblance -to some of the founts of type used about the same period in Spain. - -[34] The copy of this book in the University Library, Cambridge, -wanting all signature _c_, but in fine condition, and uncut, has on -the first blank leaf some early writing which refers to the year 1485, -showing probably that the book was not printed after that date. - -[Illustration: PAGE OF THE SARUM HORÆ. - -(_Printed by Machlinia._)] - -In the Holborn type there are a larger number of books, at least -fourteen being known. Of these the best known and most common is the -_Speculum Christiani_, supposed, from the occurrence of the name in a -manuscript copy, to have been compiled by one Watton. It is interesting -as containing specimens of early poetry. Another book was popular -enough to run through three editions; this was the _Treatise on the -Pestilence_, written by Kamitus or Canutus, bishop of Aarhuus. It is -impossible to say when it was printed, or whether some panic connected -with the plague caused a run upon it. One of the editions must have -been almost the last book which Machlinia issued, for it contains the -title-page already referred to. The most important book in this set -in point of size is the _Chronicles of England_, of which only one -perfect copy is known. In the copy in the British Museum occurs a -curious thing. The book is a folio, but two of the leaves are printed -as quarto. In this type are three law-books, _Year-Books_ for years 34 -and 37 of Henry VI., and the _Statutes_ of Richard III. There are also -two school-books, the _Vulgaria Terentii_ and an interesting _Donatus_ -in folio, whose existence is known only from duplicate copies of one -leaf. The remaining books are theological, and comprise two separate -_Nova Festa_, or services for new feasts; one for the Visitation of -the Virgin, the other for the Transfiguration of our Lord. These -services were almost at once incorporated in the general volume of the -_Breviary_, so that in a separate form they are very uncommon. The last -book to be mentioned is the _Regulæ et ordinationes_ of Innocent VIII., -which must have been printed some time after 23rd September 1484, when -that pope was elected. Of a later date still is a _Bull_ of the same -pope relating to Henry VII.’s title and marriage. It must have been -printed after 7th November 1485 (the date of Parliament), and after 2nd -March 1485-86 (the date of the _Bull_). - -Another book should be mentioned here, which, though it cannot with -certainty be ascribed to any known English printer, resembles most -of all the work of Machlinia. It is an English translation by Kay of -the Latin description of the _Siege of Rhodes_, written by Caorsin; a -small folio of twenty-four leaves. Many of the letters seem the same as -Machlinia’s, but with variations and modifications. - -The number of founts of type used in this office throughout its -existence was eleven, and of these two are very peculiar. One of the -larger sets of type seems to have been obtained from Caxton, but it was -hardly used at all. Another set of capital letters, which must have -been obtained from abroad, occur in some of the latest books. They bear -no resemblance to anything used by any other printer, and look rather -as though they belonged to a fount of Roman type. - -Though 1486 is the latest date which we can fix to any of Machlinia’s -productions, it is probable that he continued to print up till about -the year 1490. - -Soon after the cessation of Machlinia’s press, his business seems to -have been taken on by Richard Pynson, whose first dated book appeared -in 1493. Though it is impossible to prove conclusively that Pynson -succeeded Machlinia in business, many small points seem to show that -this was the case. We find leaves of Machlinia’s books in bindings -undoubtedly produced by Pynson, and he was also in possession of a -border used by Machlinia in his edition of the _Sarum Horæ_. It is -often said that Pynson was an apprentice of Caxton’s; but we have no -evidence of this beyond the words in the prologue to the _Chaucer_, -where Caxton is called ‘my worshipful master’—a title applied sometimes -to Caxton by printers living fifty years after.[35] - -[35] Blades, in his _Life of Caxton_, not only says that Pynson was -Caxton’s apprentice, but that he used his mark in some of his books. -This mistake has arisen from a doctored copy of Bonaventure’s _Speculum -vite Christi_ in the British Museum, which has a leaf with Caxton’s -device inserted at the end. - -In his patent of naturalisation of 30th July 1513, Pynson is described -as a native of Normandy; and we know that he had business relations -with Le Talleur of Rouen, who printed some law-books for him. These -books, three in number, may be ascribed to about 1490, or to some time -after Machlinia had ceased printing, and before Pynson had begun. It -was probably very soon after 1490 that Pynson set up his printing -establishment at the Temple Bar; for though his first dated book, the -_Dives and Pauper_, is dated the 5th July 1493, there are one or two -other books that can with certainty be placed before it. - -A fragment of a grammar, consisting of the last leaf only, among the -Hearne fragments in the Bodleian, is all that remains of one of his -earliest books. It is printed entirely in his first large coarse type, -which bears so much resemblance to some of Machlinia’s; and was used as -waste to line the boards of a book before Passion Week, 1494. - -The _Chaucer_, in which two types are used, one for the prose and -another for the verse, is also earlier than the _Dives and Pauper_. -It is illustrated with a number of badly executed woodcuts, cut -specially for the book, of the various pilgrims in the _Canterbury -Tales_. Some of these cuts were altered while the book was passing -through the press, and serve again for different characters. The -Sergeaunt with a little alteration reappears as the Doctor of Physick, -and the Squire is turned into the Manciple. - -[Illustration: FROM THE ‘FESTUM NOMINIS JESU.’ - -PYNSON, C. 1493.] - -In 1493 the _Dives and Pauper_ appeared. It is printed in a new type, -copied evidently from a French model, and strongly resembling some -used in Verard’s books. This type superseded the larger type of the -_Chaucer_, which we do not find in use again. To 1493 a number of -small books can be assigned, all printed in the type of the _Dives and -Pauper_, and having twenty-five lines to the page. Amongst them we may -mention the _Festum Nominis Jesu_; an edition of Lydgate’s _Churl and -Bird_; a _Life of St. Margaret_, which is known only from fragments, -and a legal work of which there is one leaf in Lambeth Palace Library. - -The method of using signatures, which Pynson adopted in these early -books, affords another small piece of evidence to prove that he learnt -to print at Rouen, and not in England. In the quartos, the first leaf -of the quire is signed A 1, the second has no signature, while the -third is signed A 2. This way of signing (by the sheet instead of by -the leaf), not a very ordinary one, was commonly in use at Rouen; while -Caxton and De Worde signed in the more usual manner, with consecutive -signatures to each leaf for the first half of the quire. - -For some unknown reason, Pynson was dissatisfied with the _Dives and -Pauper_ type, for after 1493 it never seems to have been used again. -From this time onwards, till about 1500, the majority of his books were -printed in the small type of the _Chaucer_, or in some newer types of -a more severe and less French appearance. In his earliest books Pynson -used a device consisting of his initials cut in wood, so as to print -white upon a black background. It resembles in many ways that of his -old associate Le Talleur, and may therefore have been cut in Rouen. In -1496 we find him using two new devices, one a large woodcut containing -his mark, and a helmet surmounted by a small bird,[36] which began to -break about 1497, and was soon disused. The other, which is a metal -cut, is in two pieces, a border of men and flowers, and an interior -piece with the mark on a shield and supporters. The border of this -device is a most useful guide in determining the dates of the books -in which it occurs. In the lower part is a ribbon pierced for the -insertion of type. The two ends of the piece below the ribbon were too -thin to be strong, so that the piece gets gradually bent in, the ribbon -becoming narrower and narrower. According to the bend of this piece -the exact year can be ascertained, from 1499, when it began to get -displaced, to 1513, when it broke off altogether. - -[36] The bird above the helmet is a finch, no doubt a punning allusion -to Pynson’s name, Pynson being the Norman word for a finch. Very -probably the birds in the large coat of arms are finches also, though -Ames calls them eagles. - -Among the books which appeared in 1494, the _Fall of Princis_, -translated by Lydgate from Boccaccio, is the most remarkable. It is -printed throughout in the smaller type of the _Chaucer_, and at the -head of each part is a woodcut of particularly good execution. The -copy of this book in the British Museum, unfortunately imperfect, -was rescued from the counter of a small shop where it was being used -to make little bags or ‘twists’ to hold pennyworths of sweets. Each -leaf has been divided into four pieces. A _Grammar of Sulpitius_ and -a _Book of Good Manners_ were also printed with a date in this year. -In 1495 no dated books were issued, but the _Petronylla_ and _The Art -and Craft to know well to Dye_ must have been issued about this time. -In 1496, Pynson printed a small supplement to the first edition of -the _Hymns and Sequences_ printed at Cologne by Quentell, and in the -following year he issued a complete edition of the book, and an edition -of the _Horæ ad usum Sarum_. In the same year (1497) he printed six of -Terence’s plays, each signed separately so that they could be issued -apart. About this year were issued two interesting folios, _Reynard the -Fox_, and a _Speculum vite Christi_, with illustrations. In 1500 was -issued the _Book of Cookery_, of which the only known copy is in the -library at Longleat, and the splendid _Sarum Missal_, printed at the -expense of Cardinal Morton, and generally known as the Morton Missal. -Of updated books printed about this time we may notice especially, -editions of _Guy of Warwick_, _Maundeville’s Travels_, _Informatio -Puerorum_, a few small school-books, and a number of year-books and -other legal works. - -About 1502-3, Pynson changed his residence from outside Temple Bar to -the George in Fleet Street, where he continued to the end of his life. -His career as a printer is curiously different from Wynkyn de Worde’s. -The latter was the popular printer, publishing numbers of slight books -of a kind likely to appeal to the public. Pynson, on the other hand, -was in a more official position as King’s printer, and seems to have -been generally chosen as the publisher of learned books. Wynkyn de -Worde printed ten slight books for every one of a more solid character; -with Pynson the average was about equal. - -From 1510 onwards we find frequent entries relating to Pynson in all -the accounts of payments made by Henry VIII., and these show that -he was clearly the royal printer, and in receipt of an annuity. In -September 1509, he issued the _Sermo fratris Hieronymi de Ferraria_, -which contains the first Roman type used in England. In 1513 appeared -the _Sege and Dystruccyon of Troye_, of which there are several copies -known, printed upon vellum. - -Pynson’s will is dated 18th November 1529, and was proved on 18th -February 1530. He was succeeded in business by Robert Redman, who had -been for a few years previously his rather unscrupulous rival. - -The last few years of the fifteenth century saw a great change in the -development of English printing. Up to the time of Caxton’s death -in 1491, there seems to have been little foreign competition, but -immediately after this date the state of things altered entirely. -Both France and Italy produced books for the English market, and sent -over stationers to dispose of them: Gerard Leeu at Antwerp printed a -number of English books, mostly of a popular character, while Hertzog -in Venice; and a number of printers in Paris, printed service-books of -Sarum use. - -By 1493 two stationers were settled in England; one, Frederick Egmondt, -as an agent for Hertzog, the other, Nicholas Lecompte, who sold books -printed in Paris. Though we only know of these two as stationers -through their names appearing in the colophons of books with which -they were connected, there must have been many others of whom we have -no trace. After the Act of 1483, which so strongly encouraged foreign -importations, a very large number of books for the English market were -printed abroad. This was at first occasioned by the small variety -in the number of types and the scarcity of ornamental letters and -woodcuts. In 1487, Caxton commissioned George Maynyal, a Paris printer, -to print an edition of the _Sarum Missal_, and this is the first -foreign printed book for sale in England whose history we know. About -ten years previously, a _Sarum Breviary_ had been printed at Cologne, -and in 1483 another edition at Venice. The first edition of the _Sarum_ -_Missal_ was printed about 1486 by Wenssler at Basle. In the fifteenth -century, at least fifty books are known to have been printed abroad -for sale in England. Most of these were service-books, but there were -a few of other classes. Gerard Leeu reprinted three of Caxton’s books, -_The Chronicles_, _The History of Jason_, and the _History of Paris -and the fair Vienne_, and added a fourth popular book to these, which -had not previously appeared in English, the _Dialogues of Salomon and -Marcolphus_. In addition to these, he printed editions of the _Sarum -Directorium Sacerdotum_ and _Horæ_. - -Another class of books produced abroad were school-books, and the -earliest of these for English use is an edition of the grammatical -tracts of _Perottus_, printed at Louvain in 1486 by Egidius van der -Heerstraten. In the same year Leeu printed the _Vulgaria_, and very -shortly afterwards editions of the Grammars by Anwykyll and the -_Garlandia_ were issued from Deventer, Antwerp, Cologne, and Paris. - -The greater portion, however, of this foreign importation consisted -of service-books, at least forty editions being sent over from abroad -before 1501. From Venice were sent Breviaries and Missals, printed for -the most part by Johannes de Landoia dictus Hertog. As we have said, -the first edition of the _Sarum Breviary_ was printed at Cologne by an -unknown printer, and the first edition of the _Sarum Missal_ at Basle -by Wenssler about 1486. From Paris and Rouen came the greater number -of _Horæ_, and such books as the _Legenda_, _Manuale_, and _Liber -Festivalis_. - -It is impossible to enter here with any fulness into the history of the -earliest stationers and the books printed abroad for sale in England. -It is rather foreign to our present subject, but would well repay -careful study. - - - - - CHAPTER XI. - - THE SPREAD OF THE ART IN GREAT BRITAIN. - - -The introduction of printing into Scotland did not take place till -1508, in which year a printer named Andrew Myllar set up his press in -the Southgait at Edinburgh. At this time the countries of Scotland and -France were in close business communications, and many Scotsmen sought -employment on the Continent. In 1496 a certain David Lauxius, a native -of Edinburgh, was in the employment of Hopyl, the Paris printer, as a -press corrector, an employment often undertaken by men of learning. -Lauxius afterwards became a schoolmaster at Arras, and is several -times spoken of by Badius Ascensius in the prefatory letters which he -prefixed to his grammars. Such books as were needed were sent over to -Scotland from France, and the probable cause of the introduction of -printing into the former country was the desire of William Elphinstone, -Bishop of Aberdeen, to have his adaptation of the _Sarum Breviary_ for -the use of Aberdeen produced under his own personal supervision. Two -men were readily found to undertake the work; one, Walter Chepman, -a wealthy merchant, who supplied the necessary capital; the other, -Andrew Myllar, a bookseller, who had several times employed foreign -presses to print books for him, and had himself been abroad on business -expeditions. - -The books which had been printed for Myllar were, _Multorum vocabulorum -equivocorum interpretatio magistri Johannis de Garlandia_, in 1505, -and _Expositio sequentiarum secundum usum Sarum_, in 1506; both being -without a printer’s name, but most probably from the press of P. -Violette of Rouen.[37] - -[37] Dr. Dickson, relying on the authority of M. Claudin, has ascribed -these books to the press of Lawrence Hostingue of Rouen. From the -facsimiles which he gives it is clear that the types are not identical. -The books should rather be ascribed to Pierre Violette, who used, as -far as can be seen, the same type; and who also used in his _Expositio -Hymnorum et Sequentiarum ad usum Sarum_, printed in 1507, the woodcut -of a man seated at a reading desk, which is found on the title-page of -Myllar’s _Garlandia_. - -As was to be expected, Myllar obtained his type from France, and -probably from Rouen, but it bears no resemblance to that used in the -books printed for him. Among the Rouen types it is most like that used -by Le Talleur, but the resemblance is not very close. The capital -letters seem identical with those used by De Marnef, at Paris, in his -_Nef des folz_, and are also very like those of the Lyons printer, -Claude Daygne. - -Supplied with these types, Myllar returned to Edinburgh, and in the -spring of 1508 issued a series of nine poetical pamphlets, the only -known copies being now preserved in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. -These were all issued within a few days of each other, and neither -the type nor the woodcuts show any indication of wear or blemishes -which might enable some order to be assigned to them. These books, like -Pynson’s early-quartos, are signed by the sheet, an indication that the -printer learnt his art at Rouen. - -In 1510 the _Breviary_ was issued, and, were it not for the colophon, -would pass as the production of a Norman press, It is in two volumes; -the Pars Hiemalis, containing 400 leaves, the Pars Estivalis, 378. Only -four copies are known, all imperfect. With the production of this book -the Edinburgh press stopped for some while. - -There is no doubt much yet to be learnt about the history of the first -Scottish press, especially in its relations to those of Normandy, and -there seems no reason why in time it should not become quite clear. Not -only are the original books in existence, but also the acts relating to -them. One other book must be noticed as having been printed in Scotland -before 1530. This is the _De compassione Beate Virginis Marie_, a -‘novum festum’ issued for incorporation into the _Breviary_, and -printed at Edinburgh, by John Story, about 1520. Of this little tract -but one copy remains, which is bound up in the copy of the _Aberdeen -Breviary_ belonging to Lord Strathmore at Glamis. It consists of a -single sheet of eight leaves, and, according to Dr. Dickson, is not -printed in the same type as the _Breviary_. - -From this time onward till Davidson began to print, it seems as though -Scotland had no practised typographer. Hector Boece, John Vaus, and -others, were obliged to send their books to be printed at a foreign -press; Vaus indeed went over to Paris to superintend the printing of -his Grammar by Badius, who was at that time the printer most favoured -by Scottish authors. - - * * * * * - -No book was actually printed at York till 1509, but for many years -before that date there had been stationers in the city who imported -foreign books for sale. Frederick Frees, who was enrolled as a free-man -in 1497, is spoken of as a book printer, but no specimen of his work -exists. His brother Gerard, who assumed the surname of Wanseford, -imported in 1507 an edition of the _Sarum Hymns and Sequences_, printed -for him at Rouen by P. Violette. Of this book only two copies are -known. Shortly after Gerard Wanseford’s death, an action was brought -against his executor, Ralph Pulleyn, by Frederick Frees, the brother, -about the stock of books which had been left, and which consisted -mostly of service-books, bound and unbound, with some _alphabeta_ and -others in Latin and English. - -In 1509 a certain Hugo Goes printed an edition of the _Directorium -Sacerdotum_, the first dated book printed at York. Two copies are -known, one in the Chapter Library at York, and the other in the library -of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. Davies[38] incorrectly states -that both copies are imperfect, and want the leaf upon which the -colophon was printed; but it is certainly in the Cambridge copy, for -this wants only the last leaf, which would either be blank or with -a printer’s mark. The book is for the most part printed in the type -which W. de Worde used at Westminster just before 1500. Goes printed -also editions of the _Donatus_ and _Accidence_, but no copies are now -known, though in 1667 copies were in possession of a Mr. Hildyard, a -York historian. Bagford, among his notes on printing [Harl. MS. 5974, -95], mentions a _Donatus cum Remigio_, ‘impressus Londiniis juxta -Charing Cross per me Hugonem Goes and Henery Watson’—with the printer’s -device H. G. This book also is unknown, but may perhaps be the Grammar -mentioned by Ames as being among Lord Oxford’s books. If the copy of -the colophon is correct, it shows that Goes was at some time printing -in London. He is said to have also printed at Beverley. - -[38] Davies’ _Memoir of the York Press_, 1868, 8vo, pp. 16-18. - -In 1516, ‘Ursyn Milner, prynter,’ was admitted to the freedom of the -city. He was born in 1481, and by 1511 was living in York, when he gave -evidence in the suit between Ralph Pulleyn and Frederick Frees. He -printed only two books, a _Festum visitationis Beate Marie Virginis_, -and a _Grammar_ of Whittington’s. - -The _Festum_ was issued doubtless between 1513 and 1515, for in 1513 -the Convocation of York ordered the feast of the Visitation of the -Blessed Virgin Mary to be kept as a ‘Festum principale.’ It is quoted -by Ames, p. 468, and has the following colophon: ‘Feliciter finiunt -(?) festum visitationis beate Marie virginis secundum usum ebor. -Noviter impressum per Ursyn Milner commorantem in cimiterio Minsterii -Sancti Petri.’ It is in 8vo, and a copy formerly belonged to Thomas -Rawlinson. - -The second book, the _Grammar_, is a quarto of twenty-four leaves, made -up in quires of eight and four leaves alternately, a peculiar system -of quiring much affected by Wynkyn de Worde. Below the title is a cut -of a schoolmaster with three pupils, which was used by Wynkyn de Worde -in 1499, and which he in turn had obtained from Govaert van Ghemen -about 1490. (The cut was first used in the _Opusculum Grammaticale_, -Gouda, 13th November 1486.) Below the colophon, which tells us that the -book was printed in ‘blake-strete’ on the 20th December 1516, is the -printer’s device, consisting of a shield hanging on a tree supported by -a bear and an ass, the bear being an allusion to his name Ursyn. On the -shield are a sun and a windmill, the latter referring to his surname -Milner. Below this device is an oblong cut containing his name in full -on a ribbon, his trade-mark being in the centre. - -The connexion between the early York stationers and Wynkyn de Worde is -very striking, and has yet to be explained. Gerard Wanseford in his -will, dated 1510, leaves forty shillings to Wynkyn de Worde, which he -(the testator) owed him. The next stationer and printer, Hugo Goes, -was in possession of some of De Worde’s type; and Milner, the last of -the early York printers, used one of his cuts, and copies his peculiar -habit of quiring. Perhaps the type and cuts were originally bought by -Wanseford and obtained successively by the others; at any rate, both -the type and cut were out of W. de Worde’s hands at an early date. - -The most important of the York stationers remains still to be noticed, -though he was unfortunately only a stationer and not a printer. John -Gachet appears at York in 1517, and in the same year is mentioned as a -stationer at Hereford. He was in business in the former town at least -as late as 1533, when the last book printed at his expense was issued. - - * * * * * - -Printing was introduced into Cambridge in 1521, when John Lair de -Siberch, perhaps at the instigation of Richard Croke, who from 1522 was -professor of Greek and public orator, set up his press at the sign of -the Arma Regia. In 1521 he printed six books, and of these the _Oratio -Henrici Bulloci_ is the first. The five other books follow in the -following order: _Augustini Sermo_, _Luciani_ περἰ ὁιψἀὁων, _Balduini -sermo de altaris sacramento_, _Erasmus de conscribendis epistolis_, -and _Galeni de Temperamentis_. In the next year Siberch printed only -two books, _Joannis Roffensis episcopi contio_, and _Papyrii Gemini -Eleatis Hermathena_. It is needless to describe these books more fully -here, for an extremely good and full bibliography of them was compiled -by Bradshaw, and published as an introduction to one of the Cambridge -facsimiles in 1886.[39] - -[39] _Doctissimi viri Henrici Bulloci Oratio_ ... reproduced in -facsimile ... with a bibliographical introduction by the late Henry -Bradshaw, M.A. Cambridge, 1886. 4to. - -Since the publication of this bibliography, the existence of another -book from the first Cambridge press has been discovered. In 1889, among -some other fragments forming the covers of a book in Westminster Abbey -Library, were found part of the first sheet of the Cambridge _Papyrius -Geminus_, and two leaves of a grammar in the same type, in quarto, with -twenty-six lines to the page besides headlines. These turned out to be -part of the small grammar, _De octo orationis partium constructione_, -written for use in Paul’s School. It was written by Lily and amended by -Erasmus, and finally issued anonymously. After the printing of these -nine books Siberch is lost sight of; but that he was still alive in -1525 we know from a letter of Erasmus, who, writing on Christmas Day to -Dr. Robert Aldrich of King’s College, sends greetings, among others, -to ‘Gerardum, Nicolaum et Joannem Siburgum bibliopolas.’ Amongst the -fragments taken from the binding spoken of above, was a letter to -Siberch from the well-known Antwerp and London bookseller, Peter Kaetz, -relating to the purchase of books, but it has unfortunately no date, -though certainly earlier than 1524. - -Two books were printed at Tavistock in the first half of the sixteenth -century; and as the monks possessed a printing press of their own, it -is quite probable that other books were issued which have now entirely -perished. The first book is an English metrical translation of the _De -Consolatione Philosophiæ_ of Boethius made by Thomas Waltwnem. It has -the following colophon: ‘Emprented in the exempt monastery of Tavestock -in Denshyre. By me Dan Thomas Rychard, monke of the sayd monastery. -To the instant desyre of the ryght worshypful esquyer Mayster Robert -Langdon, anno d. MDXXV.’ Several copies of this book are known. - -Of the other book but one copy is known, now in the library of Exeter -College, Oxford. It is a small quarto of twenty-six leaves, with thirty -or thirty-one lines to the page, The tithe runs, ‘Here foloyth the -confirmation of the Charter perteynynge to all the tynners wythyn the -countey of Devonshyre, wyth there statutes also made at Crockeryntorre -by the hole assent and consent of al the sayd tynners yn the yere -of the reygne of our souerayne Lord Kynge Henry ye VIII. the-secund -yere.’ The book ends on the reverse of signature d 3, ‘Here endyth the -statutes of the stannary. Imprented yn Tavystoke ye xx day of August -the yere of the reygne off our soveryne Lord Kynge Henry ye VIII. the -xxvi yere.’ - -At Abingdon a book was printed in 1528 by John Scolar, who had beer -printing at Oxford about ten years previously. It is the _Breviary_ -for the use of Abingdon, and the only known copy is in the library of -Emmanuel College, Cambridge. The colophon runs: ‘Istud portiforium fuit -impressum per Joannem Scholarem in monasterio beate marie virginis -Abendonensi. Anno incarnationis dominice Millesimo quingentesimo -vicesimo octavo. Et Thome Rowlonde abbatis septimo decimo.’ - -Two other towns must be mentioned, which, though not possessing -resident printers, had stationers who published books printed for them. -In 1505 the Hereford _Breviary_ was issued under the superintendence -of Inghelbert Haghe, and under the patronage of the ‘Illustrissime -viraginis,’ Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby. It has the -following colophon: ‘Impressum est hoc breviarium secundum eiusdem -diocesis usum in clarissimo rathomagensi emporio: impensis et cura -Inghelberti Haghe dicte comitis bibliopole ac dedititii. Anno salutis -christi Millesimo quingentesimo quinto. II. non. augusti.’ Of this book -only three copies are known. One, textually perfect, and containing -both parts, is in Worcester Cathedral Library. The Bodleian has a Pars -Estivalis, slightly imperfect, and another copy is in private hands. -We can trace this bookseller to a later date, for his name occurs in a -note written on a fragment in the Bodleian, which formed at one time -the lining of a binding, ‘Dedi bibliopole herfordensi Ingleberto -nuncupato pro isto et sex reliquis libris biblie xliii^s iiij^d quos -emi ludlowie anno domini incarnationis millesimo quingentesimo decimo -circiter die nundinarum lichefeldensium.’ - -The other town is Exeter, where, about 1510, a stationer named Martin -Coeffin was living. Two books were printed for him, both of which were -without date. One of these was the _Vocabula magistri Stanbrigi, primum -jam edita, sua saltem editione_, printed, so Ames tells us, by Lawrence -Hostingue and Jamet Loys at Rouen. He adds further, that the ‘piece’ -had five leaves, which we may take to be impossible; it must have had -six leaves, of which the last was blank, or had a printer’s device -upon it. The second book was a _Catho cum commento_, printed at Rouen -by Richard Goupil, ‘juxta conventum sancti Augustini ad intersignum -regulæ auræ commorantis.’ On the subject of this book Ames is no more -explicit; he tells us it was printed at the expense of Martin Coeffin -at Exeter, beyond that he has nothing to say. The two pieces are quoted -by him in his _General History of Printing_ between the Years 1510 and -1517, and the date which he thus assigns is probably fairly correct, -for Frère quotes Goupil under the year 1510, and Hostingue under -1505-10. - - - - - CHAPTER XII. - - THE STUDY OF BOOKBINDING. - - -Too little attention has been paid, in this country at any rate, to the -fact that some knowledge about early bookbinding is essential to the -student of early printing. At first the printer was also a stationer -and bookbinder, and the three occupations were hardly clearly defined -or definitely separated within the first hundred years after the -invention of printing. Books always required some kind of binding, and -the early printer sold his books to the purchaser ready bound, though -copies seem always to have been obtainable in sheets by such as wished -them in that state. The binder ornamented his books in certain ways and -with a limited number of stamps, and there is no reason why a careful -study should not make his binding ornamentation as easily recognisable -as his woodcuts or his type. Of course the majority of early bindings -are unsigned, and therefore it is not often possible to assign -particular bindings to particular men; but comparison may enable us to -attribute them to particular districts and even to particular places, -so that they may often afford additional evidence towards placing books -which contain no information of their origin. - -A very little attention paid to a binding might often result in most -valuable information, and with the destruction of the binding the -information disappears. Many years ago there came into the hands -of a certain Mr. Horn a very valuable volume consisting of three -block-books, the _Biblia Pauperum_, the _Ars Moriendi_, and the -_Apocalypse_, all bound together, and in their original binding, which -was dated. Incredible as it may seem, the volume was split up and the -binding destroyed. Mr. Horn asserted from memory that the date was -1428; of the first three figures he was sure, and of the last he was -more or less certain. Naturally the date has been questioned, and it -has been surmised that the 2 must have been some other figure which -Mr. Horn deciphered incorrectly. The destruction of the binding made -it impossible that this question could ever be set at rest, and a very -important date in the history of printing was lost absolutely. - -In the last century no regard whatever seems to have been paid to -old bindings, the very fact of their being old prejudiced librarians -against them; if they became damaged or worn they were not repaired, -but destroyed, and the book rebound. Nor did they fare better in -earlier times. Somewhere in the first half of the seventeenth century -all the manuscripts in the Cambridge University Library were uniformly -rebound in rough calf, to the utter destruction of every trace of their -former history. - -Casley, in his catalogue of the manuscripts in the Royal Library, -specially mentions a curious old binding, with an inscription showing -that it was made at Oxford, in Catte Street, in 1467. Even the special -note in the catalogue did not save this binding, which, if it had been -preserved, would have been one of the earliest, if not the earliest, -dated English example. - -There is no need to multiply examples to show how widespread the -destruction of old bindings has been as regards public libraries; -indeed, their escaping without observation was their only chance of -escaping without destruction, In private libraries much the same thing -has happened. The great collectors of the period of Dibdin thought -nothing worthy of notice unless ‘encased’ in a russia or morocco -leather covering by Lewis or some bookbinder of the time. Nor are -collectors of the same opinion now obsolete, for many of our better -known binders can show specimens of rare and interesting old bindings -which they have been ordered to strip off and replace with something -new. Ignorance is the cause of much of what we lament. So many -collectors are ruled entirely by the advice of their booksellers and -binders, and these in their turn are influenced purely by commercial -instincts. Collectors with knowledge or opinions of their own are -beginning to see that the one thing which makes a book valuable (not -simply in the way of pounds, shillings, and pence) is that it shall be, -as far as possible, in its original condition. Our greatest books of -the seventeenth century were issued in simple calf bindings, with no -attempt at ornamentation but a plain line ruled down the cover about an -inch from the back. If a collector wants modern ornamental bindings, -let him put them on modern books, there only are they not out of place. - -About the German binders, who necessarily concern us most at the -time of the invention of printing, we know very little; but, on the -other hand, there is a great deal to be learnt. Their bindings, -both of pigskin and calf, are impressed with a large number of very -beautiful and carefully executed dies, which could with a little care -be separated into groups. Many of them, curiously enough, are very -similar to some used on London and Durham bindings of the twelfth and -thirteenth centuries. There are the same palm-leaf dies and drop-shaped -stamps containing dragons. - -It is in Germany that the earliest dated bindings are found. A copy -of the Eggesteyn forty-one line _Bible_, in the Cambridge University -Library, has the date 1464 impressed on the metal bosses which protect -the corners; and as the book is without a colophon, this date is of -importance. A binder named Jean Richenbach dated all his bindings, and -added, as a rule, the name of the person for whom they were bound. -The earliest date we have for him is 1467, and they run from that -year to 1475. Johannes Fogel is another name often found on early -German bindings. A few printers’ names occur, such as Ambrose Keller, -Veldener, Zainer, Amorbach. About the time of Koburger, great changes -were introduced into the style of German binding, a harmonious design -being produced by means of large tools, and the use of small dies given -up. The custom was also introduced of printing the title on the side in -gold. The panel stamp, so popular in other countries, was not much used -in Germany for calf books; it is found, however, on innumerable pigskin -and parchment bindings of the latter half of the sixteenth century. The -earliest of the bindings of this class have often the boards of wood; -at a later date they are almost invariably of paper or millboard. On -early French books the work is finer, but as a rule less interesting; -but the panel stamps, especially the early ones, are very good. A -very large number are signed in full. One with the name of Alexandre -Alyat, a Paris stationer, is particularly fine, as are also the series -belonging to Jean Norins. The Norman binders produced work very like -the English, no doubt because many of the books printed there were -intended especially for the English market. - -The bookbinding of the Low Countries was always fine; but the great -improvement which was first introduced there was the use of the panel -stamp, invented about the middle of the fourteenth century. It was not -till after the introduction of printing, and when books were issued -of a small size, that this invention became of real importance; but -at the end of the fifteenth and during the first twenty or thirty -years of the sixteenth centuries, innumerable bindings of this class -were produced. The majority of Netherlandish panels are not pictorial, -but are ornamented with a double row of fabulous beasts and birds in -circles of foliage; round this runs a legend, very often containing -the binder’s name. _Discere ne cesses cura sapientia crescit Martinus -Vulcanius_ is on one binding; on another, _Ob laudem christi hunc -librum recte ligavi Johannes Bollcaert_. Some binders give not -only their name, but the place also—_Johannes de Wowdix Antwerpie -me fecit_. Though there are few pictorial Flemish panels, some of -these are not without interest. A number were produced by a binder -whose initials are I. P., and who was connected in some way with the -Augustinian Monastery of St. Gregory and St. Martin at Louvain. One -which contains a medallion head, a small figure of Cleopatra, and a -good deal of arabesque ornament of foliage, is his best; while another -panel, large enough for a quarto book, with a border of chain work, -and his initials on a shield in the centre, is his rarest, and is in -its way very artistic. At a still later date the binders in the Low -Countries produced some panels, which, though still pictorial, show how -rapidly the art was being debased. The designs are ill drawn, and the -inscription, originally an important part, has come to be degraded into -a piece of ornamentation without meaning, cut by the engraver purely -with that object, ignoring the individual letters or legibility of the -inscription, and anxious only that the finish which an inscription gave -to his models might be apparent to the eye in his copies. A similar -debasement is not uncommon in late English examples. - -Italian and Spanish binding, though interesting in itself, affords -little information as regards printers or stationers. No bindings were -signed, and the designs are in all cases so similar as to afford little -clue to the place from which they originally came. - -The earliest English bindings are extremely interesting and -distinctive. Caxton, our first printer, always bound his books in -leather, never making use of vellum or pigskin. Bindings of wrapping -vellum, which he is erroneously said to have made, were not used in -England till a very much later period. His bindings, if ornamented -at all, were ruled with diagonal lines, and in the centre of each -compartment thus formed a die was impressed. A border was often placed -round the side, formed from triangular stamps pointing alternately -inwards and outwards, these stamps containing the figure of a dragon. - -The number of bindings which can with certainty be ascribed to Caxton -is necessarily small. We can, in the first place, only take those -on books printed by him, and which contain, besides this, distinct -evidence, from the end-papers or fragments used in the binding, that -they came from his workshop. Under this class we can place the cover -of the _Boethius_, discovered in the Grammar School at St. Alban’s, -an edition of the _Festial_ in the British Museum, and a few others; -and from the stamps used on these we can identify others which have no -other indication. It must always be remembered that these dies were -almost indestructible, and therefore were often in use long after their -original owner was dead. The Oxford bindings, though very English in -design, are stamped with dies Netherlandish in origin. An ornament of -three small circles arranged in a triangle occurs very often on these -bindings, and is a very distinctive one. These bindings when in their -original condition are almost always, like those of the Netherlands, -lined with vellum, and have vellum guards to the centre of the quires. -The only two copies known of one of Caxton’s indulgences were found -pasted face downwards, used to line the binding of a Netherland -printed book. Another binder, about the end of the fifteenth century, -whose initials, G. W., and mark occur on a shield-shaped die, used -always printed matter to line his bindings and make end-papers, though -they were not necessarily on vellum. All the leaves now known of the -Machlinia _Horæ ad usum Sarum_ whose provenance can be ascertained, -came from bindings by this man, scattered about in different parts of -the country. It is not known in what part of the country he worked. - -Trade bindings between 1500 and 1540 form an important series. All -small books were stamped with a panel on the sides, and these often -have the initials or mark of the binder. Pynson used a stamp with his -device upon it; many others used two panels, with the arms of England -on one side and the Tudor rose on the other, both with supporters. On -the majority of these panels, below the rose, is the binder’s mark and -initials; on the other side, below the shield, his initials alone. -Not many of these binders’ or stationers’ names have been discovered, -and there are few materials to enable us to do so. Pynson and Julian -Notary’s bindings have the same devices as they used in their books, -and some of Jacobi’s have the mark which occurs on the title-page to -the _Lyndewode_ of 1506 printed for him. Reynes’ various marks are well -known and of common occurrence. - -[Illustration: - - _James Hyatt._ - -PYNSON BINDING.] - -Without a distinguishing mark of some kind beyond the initials, it is -hopeless to try and ascribe bindings to particular stationers, though -a careful examination of the style or evidences as to early ownership -may help us to determine with some accuracy the country at least from -which the binding comes. Even a study of the forwarding of a binding -is of great help. The method of sewing and putting on headbands is -quite different in Italian books from those of other countries. Again, -all small books were, as a rule, sewn on three bands in England and -Normandy; in other countries the rule is for them to have four. The -leather gives sometimes a clue, _e.g._ in parts of France sheepskin -was used in place of calf. Cambridge bindings can often be recognised -from a peculiar red colouring of the leather. So little has been done -as yet to classify the different peculiarities of style or work in -these early bindings, that it can hardly be expected that much should -be known about them; at present the study is still in its infancy, -but there is no doubt that, if persevered in, it will have valuable -results. These bindings were for the most part produced, certainly in -the sixteenth century, by men who were not printers, and whose names we -have consequently few chances of discovering. All that can therefore -be done is to classify them according to style, and according to such -extraneous information as may be available. It is useless with no other -information to attempt to assign initials. - -But while the bindings and the designs afford valuable information, the -materials employed in making the bindings are also of great importance. -The boards were often made of refuse printed leaves pasted together, -and were always lined, after the binding was completed, with leaves of -paper or vellum, printed or manuscript. On this subject I cannot do -better than give the following quotation from one of Henry Bradshaw’s -Memoranda, No. 5, _Notice of the Bristol fragment of the Fifteen Oes_:— - -‘After all that has been said, it cannot be any matter of wonder that -the fragments used for lining the boards of old books should have -an interest for those who make a study of the methods and habits of -our early printers, with a view to the solution of some of many -difficulties still remaining unsettled in the history of printing. -I have for many years tried to draw the attention of librarians and -others to the evidence which may be gleaned from a careful study from -these fragments, and if done systematically and intelligently, it -ceases to be mere antiquarian pottering or aimless waste of time. I -have elsewhere drawn attention[40] to the distinction to be observed -between what may be called respectively _binder’s waste_ and _printer’s -waste_. When speaking of fragments of books as _binder’s waste_, I -mean books which have been in circulation, and have been thrown away -as useless. The value of such fragments is principally in themselves. -They may or may not be of interest. But by _printer’s waste_ I mean -... waste, proof, or cancelled sheets in the printer’s office, which, -in the early days when printers were their own bookbinders, would be -used by the bookbinder for lining the boards, or the centres of quires, -of books bound in the same office where they were printed. In this -way such fragments have a value beyond themselves, as they enable us -to infer almost with certainty that such books are specimens of the -binding executed in the office of the printer who printed them; and -thus, once seeing the style adopted and the actual designs used, we are -able to recognise the same binder’s work, even when there are none of -these waste sheets to lead us to the same conclusion.’ - -[40] Lists of Founts of Type and Woodcut Devices used by printers in -Holland in the Fifteenth Century. Memorandum No. 3. No. 14 in the -_Collected Papers_. - -The number of books known only from fragments rescued from bindings is -much larger than is generally supposed. Of books printed in England -before 1530 more than ten per cent. are only known in this way; and now -that more attention is being paid to the subject, remains of unknown -books are continually being discovered. - -Blades in his _Life of Caxton_ [edit. 1861, vol. ii. p. 70] gives a -most interesting account of a find of this sort in the library of the -St. Alban’s Grammar School. ‘After examining a few interesting books, -I pulled out one which was lying flat upon the top of others. It was -in a most deplorable state, covered thickly with a damp, sticky dust, -and with a considerable portion of the back rotted away by wet. The -white decay fell in lumps on the floor as the unappreciated volume -was opened. It proved to be Geoffrey Chaucer’s English translation -of _Boecius de consolatione Philosophiæ_, printed by Caxton, in the -original binding as issued from Caxton’s workshop, and uncut!... On -dissecting the covers they were found to be composed entirely of waste -sheets from Caxton’s press, two or three being printed on one side -only. The two covers yielded no less than fifty-six half-sheets of -printed paper, proving the existence of three works from Caxton’s press -quite unknown before.’ - -Off a stall in Booksellers Row the writer some few years ago bought for -a couple of shillings an imperfect foreign printed folio of about 1510 -in an original stamped binding, lined at each end with printed leaves. -From one end came the title-page and another leaf of an unknown English -_Donatus_ printed by Guillam Faques; from the other end, two leaves, -one having the mark and colophon of a hitherto unknown book printed -by Richard Faques, and which is at present the earliest book known to -have been issued from his press. The finding of these two fragments is -further of interest as showing a connection between the two printers -called Faques. - -Nor do these early fragments always come out of very old bindings. -From a sixpenny box at Salisbury the writer bought a large folio of -divinity, printed about 1700, in its original plain calf binding. The -end leaves were complete pages of the first book printed in London, the -_Questiones Antonii Andreæ_, printed by Lettou in 1480. - -The boards of a book in Westminster Abbey Library, which must have been -bound at Cambridge in the second quarter of the sixteenth century, were -composed of leaves of the _Pontanus de Roma_, one of the ‘Costeriana.’ - -Service-books were very largely used by the bookbinders, for the -many Acts passed for their mutilation or destruction soon turned the -majority of copies into waste paper. Several copes of Henry VIII.’s -_Letters to Martin Luther_ of 1526, which remain in their original -bindings, have their boards made of such material, a practical -commentary on the King’s opinions. - -Manuscripts, many of the utmost importance, have been cut up by the -bookbinders; sometimes in early days the librarian handed out what he -considered a useless manuscript to the bookbinder whom he employed. -Bradshaw notes that Edward VI.’s own copy of the Stephen’s _Greek -Testament_ of 1550 contains in the binding large fragments of an early -manuscript of Horace and Persius. Vellum was often used in early books -to line the centre of each quire so as to prevent the paper being cut -by the thread used for the sewing. Many pieces of _Donatuses_ and -_Indulgences_ have been found in this manner cut up into long strips -about half an inch wide. The copy of the Gotz _Bible_ of 1480 in Jesus -College, Cambridge, bound in London by Lettou, has the centres of the -quires lined with strips of two editions of an indulgence printed by -him, and which are otherwise unknown. - -When the leaves used to line the boards of an old book are valuable -or important, they should be carefully taken out, if this can be done -without injury to the binding or to the fragments. A note should at -once be put on the fragments stating from what book they were taken, -and a note should also be put in the book stating what fragments were -taken from it. In soaking off leaves of vellum, warm water must on -no account be used, as it causes the vellum to shrink up. Indeed, it -is better to use cold water for everything; it necessitates a much -greater expenditure of time, but it is very much safer. - -If the fragments are not of much importance, they should not be taken -from the binding, for the removal, however carefully done, must tend to -hurt the book. It will be sufficient to make a note of their existence -for reference at any time. When important fragments are extracted, it -is best to bind them up separately and place them on the shelves, and -not keep them loose in boxes or drawers, or pasted into scrap-books. -For many typographical purposes the fragment is as useful as the -complete book. - -In conclusion, a word may be said on the methods of treating and -preserving old bindings. In the first place, a binding should never be -touched or repaired unless it is absolutely necessary; and if it is of -any value, it should be kept in a plain case. These cases should always -be made so that the side opens, not, as is more usual, open only at the -end, for then every time the book is taken out the sides are rubbed. If -they are made in the form of a book with overlapping edges, they can be -lettered on the back and stand on the shelves with other books. - -If it is necessary that the binding should be repaired, nothing should -be destroyed. If, for example, a portion of the back has been lost, -what remains should be kept, and not an entirely new back put on. In -repairing calf bindings, morocco should be used, as near the colour of -the original as possible, and the grain should be pressed out. The old -end-papers should, of course, be retained, and nothing of any kind -destroyed which affords a link in the history of the book. No attempt -should be made to ornament the repaired portion so as to resemble -the rest of the binding; it serves no useful purpose, and takes away -considerably from the good appearance and value of what is left, for a -binding which has been ‘doctored’ must always be looked upon with some -mistrust. - -An old calf book should never be varnished; it does not really help to -preserve it, and it gives it an unsightly appearance, besides tending -to fill up the more delicate details in the ornamentation. Some writers -recommend that old bindings should be rubbed with vaseline or other -similar preparations. Nothing is better than good furniture cream or -paste. A few drops should be lightly rubbed on the binding with a -piece of flannel; it should be left for a few minutes, until nearly -dry, and then rubbed with a soft dry cloth. Not only does this soften -the leather and prevent it getting friable, but it puts an excellent -surface and polish upon it, quite unlike that produced by varnish. When -a binding is in good condition and the surface not rubbed through, it -is best to leave it alone; if any dusting or rubbing has to be done, it -should be done with a silk handkerchief. - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. - - THE COLLECTING AND DESCRIBING OF EARLY PRINTED BOOKS. - - -It is exactly one hundred years since Panzer, “the one true naturalist -among general bibliographers,” published the first volume of his -_Annales Typographici_, and in this period two distinct methods of -bibliography have grownup. - -The more popular, generally associated with the name of Dibdin, treats -specimens of early printing merely as curiosities, valuable only -according to their rarity or intrinsic worth, or for some individual -peculiarity found in them. - -The other method, of which Panzer was the first practical exponent, -was called by Henry Bradshaw the Natural History method. Each press -must be looked upon as a _genus_, and each book as a _species_, and the -more or less close connection of the different members of the family -must be traced by the characters which they present to our observation. -Bradshaw’s own work is the best example of this method, and a beginner -can follow no better model than the papers which he wrote on early -printing. - -In collecting or studying early printed books, one of the most fatal -and common mistakes is the undertaking of too much. The day is -past when one man will set himself to compile such works as Hain’s -_Repertorium Bibliographicum_, or that very much greater book, Panzer’s -_Annales Typographici_; both wonderful achievements, but unfinished and -imperfect. No one who has not had practical experience can imagine the -amount of information which can be obtained by taking a small subject -and working at it carefully; or conversely, the amount of careful study -and research that is requisite to work a small subject properly. - -Take as examples Blades’ _Life of Caxton_ and Edmond’s _Aberdeen -Printers_, the two best monographs we possess. They contain a very -great deal of most careful work, and sufficient material to enable any -one who desires to study those particular subjects to do so thoroughly. - -In collecting, in the same way, a beginner who wishes his collection to -be of real value should not be too catholic in his tastes, but confine -his attention to one subject. A collection of fifty miscellaneous -fifteenth-century books has not, as a rule, more interest than may be -associated with the individual books. But take a collection of fifty -books printed in one town, or by one printer. Each book is then a part -of a series, and obtains a value on that account over and above its own -individual rarity or interest. - -The arrangement and cataloguing of early printed books is a part of the -subject which presents many difficulties, In many great collections, -these books, for purposes of bibliographical study, are absolutely -lost. They are not bought, at any rate not once in twenty cases, for -their literary value, but simply and solely as specimens of early -printing or curiosities. But, having been bought, they are treated as -any other book bought solely for its literary value, and in no other -way, _i.e._ they are catalogued under the author or concealed in mazes -of cross-reference. If such books are to be bought at all, they should -surely be treated in some way which would enable them to fulfil the -object for which they were acquired. - -In the University Library, Cambridge, the fifteenth-century books are -all placed together arranged under countries according to size, with -a press-mark indicating the country, the size, and the consecutive -number. Thus any new acquisition can be added, and placed at once -without disarranging the order on the shelves. Any further subdivision, -as, for instance, under towns, is impracticable on the shelves, but -must be done on paper. - -The catalogue slips can then be arranged under towns and printers, so -that any one wishing to study the productions of a particular town or -printer can at once obtain all the books of the particular class in the -library. If he knows his books by the author’s name, they can be found -from the general catalogue of the library. In private collections, the -number of books is, as a rule, so small that they can be arranged in -any order without trouble. - -In describing an early printed book, great care should always be taken -not to confuse what is common to all examples of the book with what is -specially the peculiarity of an individual copy. The description should -always be in two parts, the first general and the second particular. -The first part should give the place, the date, the name of the -printer, the size, an exact collation; the second, an account of the -binding, a list of the earlier owners, the imperfections, if any, and -similar information. - -As regards the place, there does not yet seem to be any fixed rule -as to the form in which it should be written, whether in Latin or -in English. Many of the older bibliographies having been written in -Latin, and the colophons of the majority of early books being in -the same language, we have grown familiar with the Latin forms of -many names. But now that more books are being written in English, it -seems more sensible to use the English forms. The pedantic habit of -writing the name in the vernacular, as Köln for Cologne, Genève for -Geneva, or Kjøbenhavn for Copenhagen, should be avoided; it simply -tends to confuse, and serves no useful purpose. The great aim of a -bibliographical description should be to give the fullest information -in the most concise and clear form. Since English books are presumably -written for English readers, it is best they should be written in -English, and the exhibition of superfluous learning in the manner is -almost always a sign of a want of necessary learning in the matter. - -The date should always be given in Arabic figures; and if there is -any peculiarity in the form of the date as it occurs in the book, it -should be added between brackets. The day of the month, when it is -given in the colophon, should always be put down in the description, -as it is often of great importance. In countries where the new year -began in March we are apt to get confused with the dates, and forget, -for example, that the 20th of January 1490 is later than the 20th of -December 1490. - -The beginning of the year varied in different countries, and often in -different towns. The four most usual times for its commencement were: -Christmas Day (December 25), the day of the Circumcision (January 1), -the day of the Conception (March 25), and the day of the Resurrection -(Easter Day). The 25th of March was, on the whole, most common; but in -dating any book exactly, the rule for the particular town where it was -printed should be ascertained. - -An approximate date should always be supplied to the description of an -undated book; but this date should not be a mere haphazard conjecture, -but should be determined by an examination of the characteristics of -the book, and comparison with dated books from the same press, so -that the date that is ascribed is merely another expression for the -characteristics noticed in the book. It is only after careful study -that accurate dates can be ascribed to books of a particular press, -and monographs on particular printers must be consulted when it is -possible. - -On the question of sizes there seem to be many opinions. There was -originally no doubt on the subject, and there is no reason for any -doubt now. - -There are two opposing elements at work, size and form. Originally, -when all paper was handmade, and did not vary very much in measurement, -books were spoken of as folio, quarto, octavo, etc., according to the -folding of the sheet; and these terms apply to the folding of the -sheet. In the present century, when paper is made by machinery, and -made to any size, the folding cannot be taken as a criterion, and the -various sizes are determined by measurement, the old terms, applicable -only to the size by folding, being retained. What has evidently led -to all this confusion is the application of the same terms to two -different things. - -In describing old books, the old form size should be used, being the -only one which does not vary. Under the other notation, a cut-down copy -of a book in quarto becomes an octavo, and thus two editions are made -out of one. - -The size of an old book is very simply recognised by holding up a page -to the light. Certain white lines, called wire-marks, will be noticed, -occurring, as a rule, about an inch apart, and running at right angles -to the fine lines, These wire-lines are perpendicular in a folio, -octavo, 32mo, and horizontal in a quarto and 16mo. In a 12mo, as the -name implies, the sheet is folded in twelve; and in the earlier part -at least of the sixteenth century this was done in such a way that -the wire-lines are perpendicular; the height of the sheet forming two -pages, as is the case in an octavo, while the width is divided into -six, instead of four as in an octavo. The later habit has been to -fold the sheet differently, the height of the sheet forming the width -of four pages, and the width of the sheet the height of three pages; -consequently the wire-lines are horizontal. Among early printed books -the 12mo is a very uncommon form; quartos are most numerous, and after -them folios. - -It should always be remembered that the signature has nothing whatever -to do with the size. It is merely a guide to the binder to show him -how many leaves go to the quire, and the order in which they come. The -binder found it convenient to have his quires of from eight to twelve -leaves each, and the quires were thus made up whether the book was -folio, quarto, or octavo. Let us assume, for example, that the quires -were to consist of eight leaves each, then each quire of the folio book -contained four sheets, of the quarto book two sheets, and of the octavo -book one sheet. A book on Book Collecting, lately published, gives the -following extraordinary remarks on finding the size:—“The leaves must -be counted between signature and signature, and then if there are two -leaves the book is a folio, if four a 4to, if eight an 8vo, if twelve a -12mo, etc.... I should advise the young collector to count the leaves -between signature and signature, and to abide by the result, regardless -of all the learned arguments of specialists.” The absolute folly of -these remarks on the sizes of books will be apparent to any one who has -seen an old book. The earliest folios printed in Germany and Italy are -in quires of ten leaves, _i.e._ there are ten leaves between signature -and signature; in the majority of early folios there are eight. Again, -there is no folio book in existence among early books (excepting the -block-books, which are in a class apart) with only two leaves to the -signature. - -Wynkyn de Worde made up many of his quartos in quires of eight and four -leaves alternately; most early 16mos were made up in quires of eight -leaves, and had therefore two signatures to each complete sheet. In the -same way many 24mos were made up in quires of twelve leaves. All these -books would be wrongly described by counting the leaves between the -signatures; in fact, that method comes right by accident only in the -case of some octavos and a few 12mos and 16mos.[41] - -[41] On the subject of the sizes of old books, the reader would do -well to consult the _Athenæum_, 1888, vol. ii, pp. 600, 636, 673, 706, -and 744, where some instructive and amusing letters will be found. -A further series of letters relating generally to the same subject -appeared in the same paper in the early part of 1889. - -The collation of a book is the enumeration of the number of leaves -according to the way in which they are arranged in quires, and this -collation should be given whether the quires are signed or not. If -there are signatures, there can be no difficulty in counting the number -of leaves which go to each quire; but when there are no signatures, -as is the case with most books before 1475, the collation is a more -difficult matter. The first thing to be looked at, if the book has -no MS. signatures, is the sewing, which shows us the centre of the -quire,[42] and we can then count from sewing to sewing. This gives -us only the halves of two quires; we must then have recourse to the -watermarks. In a folio, if one leaf has a watermark, the corresponding -leaf which forms the other half of the sheet has none. Again, in a -quarto, corresponding leaves have either no watermark, or each half a -one. Judging from the sewing and the watermarks, there is rarely any -difficulty in making out the collation, the first and last quires being -the most difficult to determine with accuracy; the others present no -difficulty. It is thus always best to settle the arrangement of the -interior quires first, and work from them to the outer ones, which are -more likely to be mutilated. - -[42] It was the custom of many binders in the earlier part of the -present century, when they had to rebind an old book, to separate all -the leaves and then fix them together in convenient sections, entirely -ignoring the original “make up.” A very large number of books in the -British Museum were thus misbound, and even the celebrated Codex -Alexandrinus was treated in this way. - -This method of collation by the watermarks is very often useful for -detecting made up copies. For instance, in the copy of the thirty-six -line Bible in the British Museum, the first and last leaf of the first -quire have each a watermark, showing absolutely that one of the two -leaves (in this case the first) has been inserted from another copy. - -In many old books which have been rebound, the outside pages of the -quire are very much smoother and more polished than the rest, and may -thus be distinguished by touch. This, though a pretty certain test, -may mislead, if the book has been misbound, and should only be used in -conjunction with the other methods. A little practical work will soon -enable the beginner to find for himself various small points, all of -which, though hardly worthy of a lengthy description, are useful in -giving information, but are only useful when they have been acquired by -experience. - -In giving an account of a fifteenth century book, a reference should -always be made to Hain’s _Repertorium Bibliographicum_. If Hain gives -a full description, and such description is correct, it will be -sufficient for all purposes to quote the number in Hain. Almost all the -books fully described in that work have an asterisk prefixed to their -number, that being the sign that Hain had himself collated the book; -and in quoting from him the asterisk should never be omitted. - -The title and colophon should always be given in extenso, the end of -each line in the original being marked by an upright stroke (|). The -abbreviations should be exactly copied. Notice must always be taken of -blank leaves which are part of the book. The number of lines to the -page, the presence or absence of signatures, all such technical minutiæ -must be noted down. - -In fact, the object of a good bibliographical description is to give -as clearly and concisely as possible all the information which can be -derived from an examination of the book itself. - -The individual history of a book is of the utmost importance, and -should never be ignored. On this subject I cannot do better than quote -some words of Henry Bradshaw, applicable more to manuscripts than to -printed books, but which explain the writer’s careful method, and -practically exhaust all that has to be said on the subject. - -“These notes, moreover, illustrate the method on which I have worked -for many years, the method which alone brings me satisfaction, whether -dealing with printed books or manuscripts. It is briefly this: to work -out the history of the volume from the present to the past; to peel -off, as it were, every accretion, piece by piece, entry by entry, -making each contribute its share of evidence of the book’s history -backwards from generation to generation; to take note of every entry -which shows either use, or ownership, or even the various changes of -library arrangement, until we get back to the book itself as it left -the original scriptorium or the hands of the scribe; noting how the -book is made up, whether in 4-sheet, 5-sheet, or 6-sheet quires, or -otherwise; how the quires are numbered and marked for the binder; -how the corrector has done his work, leaving his certificate on the -quire, leaf or page, or not, as the case may be; how the rubricator -has performed his part; what kind of handwriting the scribe uses; and, -finally, to what country or district all these pieces of evidence -point.... The quiet building up of facts, the habit of patiently -watching a book, and listening while it tells you its own story, must -tend to produce a solid groundwork of knowledge, which alone leads -to that sober confidence before which both negative assumption and -ungrounded speculation, however brilliant, must ultimately fall.” - - - - -INDEX OF PRINTERS AND PLACES. - - - Abbeville, 90, 91. - - Abingdon, 182, 183. - - Alban’s, St., 140. - - Albi, 71, 90. - - Aldus, 69, 70. - - Alopa, F. de, 75. - - Alost, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104. - - Alyat, A., 189. - - Amorbach, J., 58, 189. - - Andreæ, J., 112. - - Andrieu, M., 93. - - Angers, 88, 89. - - Angoulême, 93. - - Antwerp, 103, 108, 111, 112, 134, 171, 172, 181, 190. - - Appentegger, L., 114. - - Arndes, S., 122. - - Ascensius, J. B., _see_ Badius. - - Audenarde, 110, 111. - - Augsburg, 51, 52, 56, 61, 148. - - Avignon, 19, 78, 80, 94. - - Azzoguidi, B., 72. - - - Badius, J., 86, 174, 177. - - Bamberg, 24, 39, 43, 45, 47. - - Bamler, 41, 51. - - Barbier, J., 143, 144. - - Barcelona, 114, 115, 117, 121, 148. - - Barmentlo, P., 110. - - Barnes, J., 156. - - Basle, 23, 57, 58, 111, 172. - - Bechtermuntze, H., 34, 35, 36, 37. - - Bechtermuntze, N., 36, 37, 54, 55. - - Bedill, J., 143. - - Belfortis, A., 65, 72. - - Bellaert, 112. - - Bellescullée, P., 89. - - Benedictis, de, 72. - - Bergman de Olpe, P., 51. - - Beromunster, 58. - - Bertolf von Hanau, _see_ B. Ruppel. - - Berton, J., 94. - - Besançon, 92. - - Beverley, 178. - - Bois-le-duc, 112. - - Bollcaert, J., 190. - - Bologna, 72. - - ---- S. de, 119. - - Bonhomme, P., 83. - - Botel, H., 115. - - Bourgeois, J. le, 92. - - Bouyer, J., 89. - - Braem, C., 104. - - Braga, 121. - - Brandis, L., 57. - - Brasichella, G. de, 70. - - Breda, J. de, 110. - - Bréhant-Loudéac, 90, 91. - - Breslau, 57. - - Brito, J., 106, 107. - - Bruges, 105, 106, 111, 126, 136. - - Brun, P., 115. - - Brunswick, 157. - - Brussels, 107, 108. - - Bruxella, A. de, 76. - - Buckinck, A., 63, 64. - - Burgos, 117. - - Butz, L., 114. - - Buyer, B., 87. - - - Cadarossia, D. de, 79. - - Caen, 89, 90. - - Cagliari, 119. - - Calafati, N., 117. - - Caliergi, Z., 70, 76. - - Cambridge, 180, 194, 197. - - Carner, A., 72. - - Castaldi, P., 59. - - Caxton, W., 48, 49, 84, 105, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, - 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 148, 157, 159, 160, - 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 191, 192, 196. - - Cayllaut, A., 84. - - Cennini, B., 74. - - Chablis, 88, 89, 91. - - Chalcondylas, D., 75. - - Châlons, 93. - - Chambéry, 90. - - Chardella, S. N., 66. - - Chartres, 90. - - Chepman, W., 174. - - Cividad di Friuli, 77. - - Clemens Sacerdos, 68. - - Cluni, 93. - - Cock, G., 114. - - Coeffin, M., 184. - - Colini, J., 91. - - Cologne, 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 91, 96, 108, 126, 127, 149, 154, - 155, 169, 171, 172. - - Copenhagen, 109, 122. - - Copland, R., 129, 142. - - Coria, 118. - - Cosselhac, A. de, 79. - - Coster, L. J., 95, 98. - - Crantz, M., 81, 83. - - Cremona, 77. - - Crès, J., 91, 92. - - Creusner, F., 53. - - - Dachaver, 88. - - Dale, H. van den, 111. - - Davidson, T., 176. - - Daygne, C., 175. - - Delft, 109. - - De Marnef, 175. - - Deventer, 109, 110, 172. - - Dijon, 93. - - Dinckmut, C., 16, 57. - - Dôle, 92, 93. - - Dorne, J., 157. - - Dortas, A., 120. - - Drach, P., 37, 54, 55. - - Durandas, J., 90. - - Durham, 188. - - - Edinburgh, 174, 175, 176. - - Eggestein, H., 39, 41, 42, 56, 188. - - Egmondt, F., 171. - - Eichstadt, 55. - - Eliezer, 120. - - Eltvil, 34, 36, 37, 54. - - Elyas, C., 57. - - Embrun, 93. - - Erfurth, 21. - - Esslingen, 55, 73. - - Eustace, G., 85. - - Exeter, 184. - - Eysenhut, J., 11. - - - Fabri, J., 122, 123. - - Faques, G., 7, 197. - - ---- R., 197. - - Faro, 121. - - Fernandez, A., 113, 114. - - Ferrara, 65, 72, 73. - - Ferrose, G., 79. - - Fèvre, G. le, 84. - - Flandrus, M., 114. - - Florence, 72, 74, 75, 76. - - Fogel, J., 188. - - Foligno, 71. - - Forestier, J. le, 92. - - Foucquet, R., 91. - - Francour, J. de, 119. - - Frankfort, 20, 32. - - Frederick of Basle, 117. - - Frees, F., 177, 178. - - ---- G., 177. - - Friburger, M., 81, 83. - - Friedberg, P. de, 33. - - Froben, J., 58. - - Fust, John, 23, 24, 25, 26, 46, 47, 80. - - Fyner, C., 55, 56. - - - Gachet, J., 180. - - Gallus, U., _see_ Hahn, U. - - Gaver, J., 143. - - Geneva, 58. - - Gérard, P., 91. - - Gerardus de Lisa, 76. - - Gering, U., 81, 83. - - Gerona, 114, 116, 117. - - Ghemen, G. van, 109, 122, 179. - - Ghent, 111, 112. - - Gherlinc, J., 121. - - Ghotan, B., 123. - - Giunta, 70. - - Godard, G., 85. - - Goes, H., 177, 178, 179. - - ---- M. van der, 111, 134. - - Gops, G., 50, 51. - - Gossin, J., 106. - - Gotz, N., 50, 91, 127, 198. - - Gouda, 108, 109, 179. - - Goupil, R., 184. - - Goupillières, 93. - - Gourmont, G., 86. - - Gradibus, J. and S., 89. - - Granada, 119. - - Grenoble, 93. - - Gruninger, J., 43. - - Guldenschaff, J., 51, 149. - - Gurniel, J. de, 115. - - Gutenberg, John, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 34, 35, 36, 40, 46, 47, 52, - 53, 57, 71, 82, 96. - - - H., I., 143, 144. - - Haarlem, 97, 98, 99, 112. - - Hagembach, P., 114. - - Haghe, L., 183. - - Hahn, U., 64, 65, 66. - - Hardouyn, G., 85. - - Harsy, N. de, 92. - - Hasselt, 110. - - Heerstraten, E. van der, 104, 172. - - Hees, W., 102. - - Helyas de Louffen, 58. - - Hereford, 180, 183. - - Hermann de Stalhœn, 32. - - Hermonymus, G., 20. - - Hertzog, J., 171, 172. - - Higman, J., 84, 139. - - Hijst, J. and C., 55. - - Hochfeder, C., 91. - - Hohenwang, L., 56. - - Homery, C., 35, 36. - - Hopyl, W., 174. - - Hostingue, L., 175, 184. - - Hug de Goppingen, J., 56. - - Hunt, T., 151, 155. - - Hurus, P., 114. - - Husner, G., 43. - - - Jacobi, H., 156, 193. - - Jaen, 119. - - Janszoon, L., _see_ Coster, L. J. - - Jardina, G. de la, 79. - - Jenson, N., 48, 66, 67, 68, 80, 96. - - John de Colonia, 50, 69. - - John of Speyer, 66. - - - Kacheloffen, C., 16. - - Kaetz, P., 181. - - Kaiser, P., 82, 83, 89. - - Keffer, H., 23, 35, 52. - - Keller, A., 189. - - ---- J., 148. - - Kerver, T., 85. - - Kesler, N., 111. - - Ketelaer, N., 102. - - Keysere, A. de, 110. - - Knoblochzer, J., 43. - - Koburger, A., 53, 189. - - Koelhoff, J., 50. - - Kuilenburg, 15, 16, 104, 112. - - Kyrfoth, C., 156. - - - Landen, J., 155. - - Lantenac, 93. - - Lausanne, 58. - - Lauxius, D., 174. - - Lavagna, P. de, 73. - - Laver, G., 63. - - Lavingen, 56. - - Lecompte, N., 171. - - Leempt, G. de, 102, 110, 112. - - Leeu, G., 108, 109, 111, 112, 171, 172. - - Leipzig, 16, 20. - - Leiria, 120, 121. - - Lerida, 115. - - Lettou, J., 129, 160, 161, 197, 198. - - Levet, P., 84, 139. - - Leyden, 109, 112. - - Lila, B. de, 118. - - Limoges, 94. - - Lisbon, 120. - - Loeffs, R., 104. - - Loeslein, P., 69. - - London, 6, 107, 141, 143, 145, 156, 160, 161, 178, 181, 188, 197, 198. - - Louvain, 15, 103, 104, 172, 190. - - Loys, J., 184. - - Lubeck, 57, 122, 123. - - Ludwig zu Ulm, 10, 56. - - Lyons, 72, 86, 87, 94, 175. - - - Machlinia, W. de, 107, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166. - - Maçon, 93. - - Madrid, 119. - - Mainz, 21, 23, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, - 46, 47, 52, 58, 60, 67, 71, 82, 95, 96, 100, 101. - - Mansion, C., 105, 106, 127. - - Manthen, J., 69. - - Mantua, 77. - - Marchant, G., 84. - - Marienthal, 37, 38, 108. - - Martens, Th., 103, 104, 112. - - Marti, B., 117. - - Martinez, A., 114. - - Mayer, H., 88, 118, 119. - - Maynyal, G., 133, 171. - - Melchior de Stanheim, 52. - - Mentelin, J., 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. - - Merseburg, 57. - - Metlinger, P., 92. - - Metz, 90, 91. - - Milan, 68, 72, 73, 74. - - Milner, U., 178, 179, 180. - - Monreale, 77. - - Monserrat, 119. - - Monterey, 119. - - Moravia, V. de, 120. - - Moravus, M., 161. - - Morelli, 89. - - Morin, M., 92. - - Murcia, 118. - - Myllar, A., 174, 175. - - - Nantes, 93. - - Naples, 72, 76, 161. - - Narbonne, 93. - - Nassou, H. de, 104. - - Nijmegen, 110, 112. - - Norins, J., 189. - - Notary, J., 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 193. - - Novacivitate, G. de, 91. - - Numeister, J., 71, 90. - - Nuremberg, 10, 11, 23, 43, 52, 53, 91, 108. - - - Odensee, 121, 122. - - Orleans, 93. - - Orrier, B. van, 111. - - Os, G. de, 109, 137, 139, 140. - - ---- P. van, 110. - - Oxford, 125, 134, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, - 156, 182, 187, 192. - - - P., I., 190. - - Padua, 77. - - Paffroed, R., 110. - - Palma, 117. - - Palmart, L., 113, 114. - - Pannartz, A., 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65. - - Paris, 18, 20, 32, 80, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 133, 139, 171, 172, - 174, 175, 177, 189. - - Parix, J., 88. - - Parma, 72, 77. - - Passera, G. R. de la, 119. - - Pavia, 72, 76. - - Périgueux, 94. - - Perpignan, 94, 115. - - Perusia, 122. - - Pfister, A., 24, 25, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. - - Philippus Petri, 68. - - Picheng, 2. - - Pictor, B., 69. - - Pigouchet, P., 85. - - Pistoia, D. de, 74. - - Poitiers, 89. - - Porres, J. de, 119. - - Portilia, A., 72. - - Pré, J. du, 84, 90, 91, 92, 94. - - Printer of Augustinus de Fide, 50, 127. - ---- Dictys, 50. - ---- Historia S. Albani, 50. - - Promentour, 58. - - Provins, 94. - - Puerto, A. del, 114. - - Pynson, R., 92, 145, 156, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 176, 193. - - - Quentell, H., 51, 169. - - Quijoue, E., 90. - - - R Printer, 42, 43. - - Raem de Berka, G. ten, 149. - - Ratdolt, E., 29, 69, 148. - - Ravescot, L. de, 104. - - Redman, R., 170. - - Regnault, F., 85, 92. - - Rennes, 90. - - Reuchlin, 20. - - Reutlingen, 56. - - Reüwick, E., 33. - - Reynes, J., 193. - - Reyser, M., 55. - - Richard, J., 92. - - Richel, B., 58. - - Richenbach, J., 188. - - Riessinger, S., 76. - - Roca, L. de, 118. - - Rodt, B., see Ruppel. - - Rome, 61, 64, 65. - - Rood, T., 149, 151, 154, 155. - - Rosembach, 115. - - Rostock, 108. - - Rouen, 90, 91, 92, 166, 167, 168, 172, 175, 176, 177, 184. - - Rouge, G. le, 89, 91. - - ---- P. le, 84, 89, 91. - - Roy, G. le, 87. - - ---- J. le, 93. - - Ruppel, B., 23, 57, 58. - - Rusch d’Ingwiller, A., 40, 42. - - Rychard, T., 182. - - - St. Alban’s, 140, 157, 158, 159. - - St. Maartensdyk, 110. - - Salamanca, 116. - - Salins, 90. - - San Cucufat, 118. - - Saragossa, 114. - - Saxonia, N, de, 120. - - Schenck, P., 89. - - Schiedam, 112. - - Schleswig, 122. - - Schœffer, Peter, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, - 47, 48, 58, 80. - - Schoensperger, J., 52. - - Schott, M., 40. - - Schussler, J., 52, 61. - - Scolar, J., 156, 182. - - Scot, J., 143. - - Scotus, O., 69. - - Segorbe, 116. - - Segura, B., 114. - - Sensenschmidt, J., 47, 52. - - Seville, 88, 114, 115. - - Shoenhoven, 112. - - Siberch, J. L. de, 180, 181. - - Snell, J., 121, 122. - - Solidi, J., 89. - - Sorg, A., 52. - - Spindeler, N., 145. - - Spire, 37, 53, 54, 55. - - Sporer, Hans, 10, 11. - - Spyess, W., 36, 37. - - Stockholm, 122, 123, 124. - - Stoll, J., 82, 83, 89. - - Story, J., 176. - - Strasburg, 22, 23, 39, 40, 41, 43, 55, 76, 96. - - Subiaco, 31, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62. - - Sursee, 58. - - Sweynheym, C., 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65. - - - Talleur, G. le, 92, 166, 168, 175. - - Taro, 121. - - Tarragona, 115, 119. - - Tavistock, 182. - - Theodoricus, 154, 155. - - Ther Hoernen, A., 50, 108, 149, 155. - - Thorne, J., 157. - - Toledo, 114, 116. - - Tolosa, 88, 118, 119. - - Toro, 121. - - Torresani, A. de, 70. - - Toulouse, 87, 118, 119. - - Tours, 93. - - Trechsel, J., 86. - - Tréguier, 90. - - Treveris, P., 157. - - Treves, 91. - - Treviso, 72, 76. - - Trogen, 58. - - Troyes, 89, 90, 91. - - Turre, J. de, 89. - - - Udina, 77. - - Ulm, 16, 56, 57, 61. - - Ulric and Afra, Monastery of, 52. - - Urach, 56. - - Utrecht, 15, 16, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107. - - - Valdarfer, C., 68, 73. - - Valence, 94. - - Valenciennes, 94. - - Valentia, 113, 114, 118. - - Valladolid, 115, 119. - - Vasqui, J., 116. - - Vavassore, G. A., 17. - - Veldener, J., 15, 16, 99, 103, 104, 107, 189. - - Vendrell, M., 114, 117. - - Venice, 17, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 83, 86, 96, 103, 148, 171, 172. - - Verard, A., 84, 85, 167. - - Verona, 77. - - Vienne, 89. - - Villa, J. de, 114. - - Violette, P., 175, 177. - - Vitalis, M., 78, 79. - - Vivian, M., 93. - - Vostre, S., 85. - - Vulcanius, M., 190. - - - W., G., 192. - - Wadsten, 123, 124. - - Waldfoghel, P., 78, 79. - - Wanseford, G., 177, 179, 180. - - Watson, H., 178. - - Weidenbach, 42, 43, 108. - - Wenssler, 58, 117, 172. - - Werrecoren, P., 110. - - Westminster, 128, 141, 144, 145, 148, 178. - - Westphalia, C. de, 104. - ---- John of, 103, 104. - - Windelin of Speyer, 67. - - Winters de Homborch, C., 51. - - Worde, W. de, 7, 84, 109, 126, 127, 134, 135, 136, - 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 157, 158, - 167, 170, 178, 179, 180. - - Woudix, J. de, 190. - - - Xeres, 117. - - - York, 141, 177, 179. - - - Zainer, G., 51, 52, 56. - ---- J., 56, 60, 189. - - Zamora, 116. - - Zarotus, A., 73. - - Zel, U., 47, 48, 49, 60, 96. - - Zeninger, C., 43. - - Zorba, S., 120. - - Zwolle, 110, 149. - - -Printed by T. & A. CONSTABLE, Printers to Her Majesty, at the Edinburgh -University Press. - -[Illustration: - - The - Great Book - Collectors. - by - Charles & Mary - Elton - - BOOKS ABOUT BOOKS - EDITED BY - ALFRED W. POLLARD - - Book - Bindings. - by Herbert - P. Horne. - - Book - Plates. - by W. J. - Hardy - - Early - Printed Books - E. Gordon Duff - MDCCCXCIII - - The - Decoration - of Books. - by A. W. - Pollard. - - Books - in - Manuscript. - by Falconer - Madan. - - Early - Printed - Books. - by E. Gordon - Duff. -] - -Transcriber’s Notes - -The illustrated advertisement from the front of the book has been -placed at the end of the book. - -Page 54: in the footnote, ondon has been changed to London. - -Page 54: Bechtermuncze has been changed to Bechtermuntze which is the -predominant usage throughout the book. - -Page 159: abbrevation has been changed to abbreviation. - -Hyphenation has been standardised. - -In this text version, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_. - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Early Printed Books, by E. (Edward) Gordon Duff - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EARLY PRINTED BOOKS *** - -***** This file should be named 63237-0.txt or 63237-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/2/3/63237/ - -Produced by Fay Dunn, Fiona Holmes and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |