_THE MASTER PRINTER._
The question of the exact spot upon which England’s first printing
press was established has already been discussed. The well-known
advertisement of Caxton, which states that pies of Salisbury use were
on sale at the “Red-pale,” in the almonry, at Westminster, not only
indicates the position of his house, but also the sign by which it was
known. The precise appearance of the almonry in the fifteenth century
must be to some extent imaginary, but we know that almshouses were
there, and probably two or three structures besides that occupied by
Caxton.
We will now ask the reader to imagine fourteen years passed since
Caxton first began working at his new art. It is not difficult to
picture the wooden building in the almonry occupied by his sedate but
busy workmen. We can look in at yonder window, and see the venerable
master printer himself “sittyng in his studye where lay many and
dyuerse paunflettis and bookys.” The great towers of Westminster
Abbey cast their shadow across the room, for he is an early riser
and already at work upon his translation of the new French romance,
called “Eneydos.” The “fayre and ornate termes” of his author give
him “grete plasyr,” and he labours, almost without intermission,
till the low sun, blazing from the western windows, warns him of the
day’s decline. Again, we watch him pass with observant eye through
the rooms where his servants are at work; we see the movements of the
compositors, who ply their rapid fingers close to the narrow windows;
we hear the thud-thud of the wooden presses as the workmen “pull to”
and “send home” the “bar,” discussing meanwhile the latest news; and we
sympathise with the binder, who, hammering away at the volume between
his knees, looks in despair at the ever-increasing progeny of his
master’s art. Piles of books and printed “quayers” rise on all sides,
and many a wise head is ominously shaken at the folly of supposing that
purchasers can be found for so many books. Nevertheless Caxton pursues
his busy course, ever at work with mind and body, preparing copy for
the press, and guiding and instructing his workmen in the art which he
had learned in Bruges at “grete charge and dispense,” and the practices
of which are to be explained in the following chapter.
Of all the workmen employed at the “Red-pale,” the names of three only
have descended to us.
WYNKEN DE WORDE, who was probably a native of the town of Worth in
Belgium, appears to have been the chief man. When he entered Caxton’s
service is unknown; it was probably at an early age, as he was still
living in the year 1535. In 1491 he succeeded to the stock in trade of
his deceased master, but he did not append his own name to his books
until 1493. He used many varieties of Caxton’s “mark.”
RICHARD PYNSON speaks respectfully of Caxton as “my worshipful master.”
He at first set up a press just outside Temple Bar, and used Caxton’s
device in his books.
WILLIAM COPLAND remained for some time after Caxton’s death in the
service of Wynken de Worde. He, too, in his prologue to “Kynge Apolyne
of Thyre,” mentions “my master Caxton.” Doubtless there were many
others, and some have supposed that Machlinia, Lettou, and Treveris
were among the number; but there is no evidence that these printers
were ever reckoned among Caxton’s workmen.
We come now to the mechanical means by which, during fourteen years,
Caxton carried on his business. Was the process of book-making the
same as it is at the present time? What sorts of types, and how many
founts were used? How were the types made, and what were their sizes?
Did the compositors use upper and lower case, sticks, chases, brass
rule, reglets, furniture, and the various appliances of a modern
composing-room? What were the presses like, and the practices of
the pressmen? And lastly, In what form were Caxton’s books issued
to the public? To most of these questions it would, at first sight,
seem as though no definite answer could be given; but when attention
is directed to the books themselves, undesigned, and therefore most
trustworthy, evidence will be found in them as to many technical
customs and peculiarities of the early printers.
Before the invention of printing, the art of book-making, mechanically
considered, was divided into three departments: the manufacture of the
material upon which to write, almost entirely parchment or vellum; the
ink making and the writing, the scribe being his own ink maker; and
the binding. Illuminators there were, of course, but their work was
merely ornamental, and by no means necessary to the idea of a book. In
monasteries famous for the diffusion of learning all these branches
were carried on together. So has it been with printers, who, from the
infancy of their art to the present time, have occasionally included
everything necessary to a perfect book in one establishment. If all the
trades which, either directly or indirectly, are called into operation
by printers were to be enumerated, few indeed would be omitted;
nevertheless, the absolute necessaries for the production of a book
are--the material upon which to print, the types and presses with which
to print, and the workmen to handle them. We will, therefore, consider
Caxton’s books under the following heads:--
The paper.
The types.
The compositor.
The press, the pressman, and the ink.
The bookbinder.
To these may be added, although not as necessary assistants:
The rubricator, illuminator, and wood-engraver.
THE PAPER.
Fortunately, there is no need to enter here upon the obscure origin of
the manufacture of paper. The only question which concerns us is--What
kind of paper did Caxton use, and whence did he obtain it? He certainly
had several sizes; the largest, which was probably found too unwieldy,
was used only for the first two editions of the “Golden Legend,” an
uncut copy of which, in the University Library at Cambridge, gives 22
× 15¾ inches for the full measurement of a whole sheet. The large size
of this book was, doubtless, suited to its intended use--in the public
services of the church. He likewise used several smaller sizes, which
varied according to the moulds in which the sheets were made, from 18½
× 13 inches to 16 × 11 inches.
The quality of the paper varied considerably, though not to the extent
apparent in the books as they now exist--chemical “doctoring” and
washing, which have in many instances been resorted to for cleansing
purposes, having weakened and rotted much of the paper so treated,
whilst the untouched specimens remain strong and fibrous. We observe in
books still in the original bindings, and apparently untouched, that
the paper was rough--sometimes very rough--on the surface, with long
hairs frequently imbedded in it, and marks where many more had been
removed; of a strong fibrous texture, unbleached, and of a clear mellow
whiteness, indicating an absence of colouring matter in the pulp.
The accompanying woodcut shows a paper-mill of this period. A
water-wheel was arranged to turn a wooden shaft upon which were rows of
cogs which continually lifted up to the height of a few inches a number
of wooden pestles, and then let them fall upon the material, which
was always in shallow water. The whole of the fibre was thus retained
with its length and strength uninjured. When the pulp was ready it was
taken up, in small quantities, into the hand-mould, and formed into a
sheet. There would be no difficulty whatever in making paper nowadays
in a similar manner, only no one in the trade would spare the time and
labour, and no one out of the trade would pay for the cost and trouble
of its production.
[Illustration]
The unevenness in thickness and colour to which the manufacture was
liable at this early period, appears to have necessitated a sorting of
the sheets after they came from the mill; those nearest to each other
in colour and weight being put together. This system of selection
was adopted occasionally for single copies, economy being doubtless
the inducement. When two or three examples of a book can be compared
together this fact is often very evident, as in the two copies of
“The Knight of the Tower” which are in the British Museum, where the
variation in quality is too great to be accounted for except by this
practice of selection. Several other instances show that Caxton, when
preparing to print a new volume, told off the paper separately for
certain copies. This custom also accounts for the astonishing variety
of water-marks frequently found in one volume.
Some possessors of uncut specimens of Caxton’s press have imagined
them to be “large-paper copies,” but we have no evidence that Caxton
designedly printed special copies, except, perhaps, in the instances of
the vellum “Doctrinal” and “Directorium,” hereafter to be noticed, but
of these the appearance is by no means that of _livres de luxe_.
_Watermarks_ are of much less value in bibliography than some writers
have imagined. In but very few instances can a limit of time be fixed
for their use; and as the marks might be repeated, or the paper itself
kept for any length of time, and imported to any place, they cannot be
used as evidence either of the date when, or the place where, a book
passed through the press. The arms of France--three _fleurs-de-lis_ on
a shield, surmounted by a crown--which appear as a watermark in “Le
Recueil des Histoires de Troyes,” have been adduced by M. Bernard as
evidence of the French origin of the printed work. He was doubtless
unaware that the same watermark appears in “The Recuyell,” “Canterbury
Tales,” 1st edition, “Mirrour,” 1st edition, “Jason,” “Chronicles,”
“Polycronicon,” “Speculum Vitæ Christi,” “Dictes,” 2nd edition, and
many others, embracing the whole of Caxton’s typographical career.
When, however, paper bears the arms of a nation or a city, we may,
in such a case, fairly conjecture, although not with certainty, the
seat of its manufacture. It appears likely that all Caxton’s paper
was imported from the Low Countries, and it was in all probability
purchased from some old connection in the great mart of Bruges. But
wherever obtained, there was a great intermixture of qualities,
including the make of several mills. We have never yet seen one of
Caxton’s books in which the same watermark runs through the whole
volume, and in many cases the variety is astonishing. Thus, in a copy
of the first edition of the “Canterbury Tales,” now in the library of
Mr. Huth, there appear no less than fifteen distinct watermarks.
A few of the marks found in Caxton’s books are here given. As already
remarked, they indicate the Low Countries as the land of their origin,
and most of them are found also in the block-books, the works of Colard
Mansion, Gerard Leeu, and other early printers.
No. 1. The Bull’s Head, which appears in the earliest specimens of
paper known, and was a favourite symbol with paper makers of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The varieties of it are
very numerous.
No. 2. The Arms of John the Fearless, son of Philip the Hardy. As
eldest son the field is charged with a label: the superimposed
cross referring to his crusade in 1395.
This and the six succeeding marks have a direct connection
with the riding dynasty in Flanders and the Low Countries.
No. 3. The letter ~p~ is very common in Caxton’s books, and is
perhaps the initial of Philip the Good; although paper bearing
a ~p~ had also been made in the reign of Philip the Hardy. Its
varieties are very numerous.
No. 4. The letter ~y~ is thought by Sotheby to be the initial of
Ysabel, third wife of Philip the Good.
Mr. Sotheby, in his list of Caxton’s watermarks, mentions the
~p~ and ~y~ combined, as occurring in the British Museum copy
of “Jason.” During a careful search, however, in the same
copy, I was unable to detect any such mark.
No. 5. The Unicorn--a symbol of power adopted by Philip the Good,
who chose two unicorns as supporters of his coat-of-arms. The
same figure was used extensively as an ornament in his palace
and furniture.
No. 6. The Arms of France. These were frequently used by
paper-makers of the Low Countries, probably in reference to
the direct descent of the House of Burgundy from the Kings of
France.
No. 7. The Arms of Champagne. This province was ceded to the Duke
of Burgundy in 1430 by the King of France.
No. 8. The Hand, over which is a single _fleur-de-lis_, the
peculiar badge of the House of Burgundy.
In Caxton’s books the ~p~ is the most common among the watermarks, the
order of frequency among the others being as follows:--The Hand or
Glove; the Arms of Champagne; the Bull’s Head; the Arms of France; the
Greyhound; the Arms of John the Fearless; Shears; a Pot; an Anchor; an
Unicorn; a Bull; a Cross; Grapes; a Pelican, &c.
[Illustration: No. 1.]
[Illustration: No. 2.]
[Illustration: No. 3.]
[Illustration: No. 4.]
[Illustration: No. 5.]
[Illustration: No. 6.]
[Illustration: No. 7.]
[Illustration: No. 8.]
The reader curious on this point may see numerous other watermarks
figured by Mr. Sotheby in the third volume of his “Principia
Typographica.” Many of these are merely variations of the mark, the
paper being made in the same mould. An accidental injury, or even the
wear and tear of the mould by constant use, often caused a contortion
of the wires. In rare instances the watermark occurs uninjured in
shape, but quite at the edge of the paper. This has been accounted
for by supposing the fine wires which held the watermark in its place
on the mould to have become loosened by decay, or some accident, and
so allowed the mark to slide along the face of the mould, but it is
more probably caused by the use of large sheets of paper cut down to a
smaller size.
Of the value of paper in Caxton’s time we may form some idea from the
prices paid by the directors of the Ripoli press, at Florence, between
1474 and 1483. An original “Cost book” of this establishment is still
extant in the Magliabechian library at Florence. It is one of the most
interesting documents connected with early typography, and has been
edited and published by the Padre Vincenzio Fineschi. From this it
appears that the following nine sizes or qualities of paper were then
in use, the English prices given being about the present equivalent,
reckoning the lira at 3_s_ 9_d_.
PER REAM.
1. Large paper of Bologna in common folio, about £1 4 2
2. Middling ditto ditto 0 13 2½
3. Small ditto ditto 0 11 3
4. Paper of Fabriano, with a _crossbow_ for
watermark 0 12 4½
5. Ditto, with a _cross_ for watermark 0 8 7½
6. Paper of Colle 0 8 7½
7. Paper of Prato 0 9 4½
8. Paper of Pescia, with _spectacles_ for watermark 0 10 10½
9. The same, with a _glove_ for watermark 0 9 0
Zanetti quotes a document, dated 1483, which states the price of paper
in Florence to have been, at that period, for “Carta reale, quaderni 10
... 3 lir. 6 sol. 8d;” and for “Carta da scrivere il quaderno ... 18
sol.;” that is, royal paper about 12s 5d per ten quires, and writing
paper 3s 4½d per quire.
The first paper maker in England was John Tate. He manufactured
specially for Caxton’s successor, Wynken de Worde, who thus announces
the fact in his edition of “Bartholomæus de Proprietatibus,” printed
about the year 1498:--
“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.”
Tate, who died in 1514, and whose will is preserved in the principal
registry of the Court of Probate, left considerable property, several
of his legacies being in paper.
It is somewhat remarkable that Caxton should have made so sparing a use
of vellum for his books, and should have been so indifferent about the
quality of the skins which he did employ. The only examples known are
a copy of the “Doctrinal of Sapience,” at Windsor Castle, for a long
time thought to be unique, and a “Speculum vitæ Christi,” now in the
British Museum, to which may be added a few slips on which Indulgences
are printed.
THE TYPES.
The question of the invention of moveable types, like that of the
origin of paper, is one into which we have no need here to enter. The
majority of writers on this subject having been unacquainted with the
characteristics of type, have strayed far and wide in the discussion.
M. Bernard, however, writing as a practical printer, has done much to
dispel numerous misapprehensions, and especially that common error of
supposing that the first moveable types were cut in wood.
We now proceed to lay before the reader the earliest notices of
typefounders, and such evidence as may explain the mechanics of
typefounding in the fifteenth century, especially with reference to the
types of Caxton.
Perhaps no part of the Typographic Art is hidden in more utter
darkness than the early manufacture of the types. Considerable secrecy
no doubt accompanied all the operations of the first printers, and
was maintained down to a comparatively late period. Moreover, it
was but natural that the results of the new art should hold a more
prominent place in men’s minds than the processes by which those
results were produced; and thus, although printers and printing were
often mentioned, we find nothing concerning the mechanical part of
typefounding anterior to that curious little book of trades, with
illustrations by Jost Amman, which was issued at Frankfort in 1568.
The author, in the few lines which accompany the illustration,
omits all reference to the process, but, from the woodcut of the
“Schrifftgiesser” and his tools, we shall draw some practical
inferences concerning early typefounding.
Whether Caxton, whose account of his first typographical venture is
contained in the prologue to the Third Book of “The Recuyell,” made
himself acquainted with the manufacture as well as with the use of his
types there is no evidence to prove. He simply remarks, “Therefore I
have practysed and lerned at my grete charge and dispense to ordeyne
this said book in prynte.” If he only procured types and presses, and
acquired the requisite knowledge to control their use, it no doubt
cost him a large sum. The probability is that his first two founts
were cast at Bruges according to his instructions, and that he brought
the second over with him to Westminster. But, when once settled in
his native country, we may well consider whether he would not, for
convenience sake, have become his own typefounder. No stray hint or
remark can be found to incline us to the one opinion or the other.
Several generations of printers passed away before we find in any work
the slightest allusion to English typefounders. The earliest appears in
Archbishop Parker’s preface to Asser’s Chronicle of King Alfred, where,
in speaking of the Saxon types with which the book was printed, the
editor states that as far as he knew, Day, the printer, was the first
to cut them:--“Iam verò cum Dayus typographus primus (& omnium certè
quod sciam solus) has formulas æri inciderit: facilè quæ Saxonicis
literis perscripta sunt, iisdem typis diuulgabuntur.” This leads us to
suppose that John Day was only one typefounder among others, and that
therefore the art was at that time by no means a new one in England.
Seventy years later we find typefounding a distinct trade in London,
and under rigid Government protection, as we learn from the following
decree:--
“Decreed by the Court of Starre-Chamber, 11th July, 1637:--
“That there shall be Four Founders of letters for printing and no
more.
“That the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, with
Six other High Commissioners, shall supply the places of those
four as they shall become void.
“That no master Founder shall keep above two Apprentices at one time.”
Despite this restrictive care, however, the typefounders of Holland and
Flanders supplied English Printers with better types than native art
could produce, until the establishment of a foundry by the first Caslon.
The only English author before the rise of encyclopædias, who described
the process of type manufacture was Joseph Moxon. This ingenious
author, writing in 1683, gives an account of the whole Art of Printing,
as practised in an improved style by himself, and devotes several
chapters to the various methods of punch cutting, matrix sinking,
and type founding. The process then adopted was very similar to that
still in use, and differed greatly from that of Caxton, or Caxton’s
typefounder. The practice of Moxon, like that of modern typefounders,
was to cut each letter in relief on a piece of steel to form the
_punch_--to strike this punch into a small piece of copper, which made
the _matrix_--and then to fit this matrix to the bottom of an iron
_mould_ into which the liquid metal was poured. The mould, which formed
the shank of the type, was capable of a sliding adjustment, width wise,
to the width of the various letters (from an _i_ to an _Æ_); the depth
or size of the _body_ always remaining the same throughout the fount.
Thus, by using each matrix successively in the same mould, exactness in
size of body was insured.
The want of this exactness, indicated by the uneven appearance of
the lines, and other considerations, lead to the conclusion that the
fifteenth-century printers did not practise this method, but it is very
difficult even to speculate upon the process which they did employ.
The examination of many specimens has led me to conclude that at
first two distinct schools of typography existed together. The ruder
consisted of those printers who practised their art in Holland and the
Low Countries, and who, by degrees only, adopted the better and more
perfect methods of the school founded in Germany by the celebrated
trio--Fust, Gutenberg, and Schœffer. None of these divulged the secrets
of their art. One fact, however, we know with certainty, and that is,
that the German school employed the very best artists that Europe could
produce to cut the patterns, or rather punches, for their types. In an
interesting tract from the pen of Sir Anthony Panizzi it is proved that
the celebrated Bolognese goldsmith, medallist, and painter, Francia,
was the artist who cut all the Aldine types, the elegance of which will
for ever associate the name of Aldus with the perfection of printing.
From the “Cost Book” of the Ripoli press, at Florence, we find also
that steel, iron, and tin were used in the manufacture of types about
1480. But the English printers, whose practice seems to have been
derived from the Flemish school, were far behind their contemporaries
in the art. Their types show that a very rude process of founding was
practised, and the use, as will be described presently, of old types as
punches for new, evinces more of commercial expediency than of artistic
ambition.
That Caxton’s types were really cast is evident from identity in the
face of the same letter, where even a flaw may be noticed as recurring
continuously; but the material of which the matrices were formed must
be to a great extent conjectural. M. Bernard has given an interesting
account of some successful efforts to cast letters in sand, but his
specimen has not a single overhanging letter in it, and, from its size,
was certainly much easier to produce than would have been the small
types of Caxton; yet in one respect, the “bad lining,” or irregular
heights of the letter, it has an interesting similitude to Caxton’s
types. In the office of Messrs. Caslon there are still in existence
some large Roman capital letters (about 3-line pica), which an old
workman assured me he had himself used in by-gone years to form
sand-moulds for type, a practice then by no means uncommon.
We will now turn to the little book of engravings already mentioned as
giving the earliest notice of the art. We there see somewhat of the
practices of the Frankfort typefounders in 1568. The woodcut shows that
even a century after the invention of the art there was an important
difference from the modern plan, although probably the _principle_ of
punch, matrix, and mould was the same. There is a small furnace, with
the pan of metal sunk in the top; by the side are the bellows, basket
of charcoal, and tongs. Close to the typefounder is the bowl into which
he drops each type as it is cast; and the artist has correctly drawn
these types with the “break” of the letter still attached. The workman
holds the mould in his left hand, and is pouring in metal from a ladle.
On the table at his back is what appears to be a nest of very shallow
drawers, which hold the matrices in alphabetical arrangement, while
upon the top of the drawers are three or four matrices for immediate
use. On the wooden shelves opposite are three moulds, some sieves, and
crucibles. The sieves were probably for sifting the sand in which might
be cast the large types, and in which the small ingots for use in the
melting pot would be run. The main interest of this woodcut lies in the
type moulds, in which we notice a difference in shape from those now
used; while the absence of the long wire spring which holds the matrix
firm up to the mould indicates that, during its use, the matrix was a
fixture in the mould. The foremost of the three moulds on the shelf
shows in its side a hole which may possibly have been used for the
insertion of a matrix.
As the early moulds were so dissimilar to those of modern use, let us
look to the types themselves for evidence. Anticipating the result of
the analysis of the various founts used by Caxton (which will follow
in its proper place) we find the conclusion inevitable that hard-metal
punches were not used, and that even types themselves were used either
as punches, or in some analogous way for the production of new founts.
The use of large types to form matrices in sand (as in the case of
Messrs. Caslon’s foundry, above alluded to), was not uncommon in bygone
years; and that letters of a much smaller size can also be effectively
employed as punches is interestingly illustrated by the shifts to which
Benjamin Franklin, America’s pioneer-printer, was put in the early days
of the Transatlantic press. Franklin thus narrates his own practice:
“Our printing-house often wanted sorts, and there was no letter-foundry
in America; I had seen types cast at James’s in London, but without
much attention to the manner; however, _I contrived a mould, and made
use of the letters we had as puncheons, struck the matrices in lead_,
and thus supplied, in a pretty tolerable way the deficiencies. _I also
engraved several things_ on occasion.”
The metal of which Caxton’s types were cast can only be conjectured.
The probability is that it was soft, and if even so soft as lead it
would have been sufficiently durable to have performed the work for
the small impression required of each book. In demonstration of this
the author procured, by the kindness of Messrs. Figgins, a fount of
their Caxton types in pure lead, and composed a page of Caxton’s
“Chess Book,” working it in the usual way, at a common hand press, and
numbering each impression as it came from the tympan in order to note
its gradual wear. The paper was royal cartridge of the common rough
quality, and was worked dry. After 500 pulls, perceiving no appreciable
wear, the author stopped the experiment, being sufficiently satisfied.
Our conclusions then, in respect of the founding, are mainly negative.
The moulds were _unlike_ those now in use, and the punches were
_not_ of steel. The process, whatever it may have been, admitted of
contrivances incompatible with our present mode; and we conjecture that
the type-metal, if not of lead, was yet sufficiently soft to allow of
it being easily trimmed up with a chisel. This trimming up, so often
visible in type No. 2*, misled the late Mr. Vincent Figgins, who, when
examining the second edition of the “Game and Play of the Chess,” came
to the erroneous conclusion that the whole book was printed from types
cut separately by hand, a conclusion which he would never have adopted
had he extended his examination to other and earlier works of Caxton in
the same types.
Let us now see what the founts of types really were that Caxton used.
When we look at the long list of English authors who have written
upon early typography, and when we recognise among the names those of
Moxon, Palmer, Smith, Bowyer, Nichols, Stower, Watson, Hansard, and
Timperley, all of whom were, as printers, practically acquainted with
the art which employed their pens, it is a matter of some surprise
that nothing like a correct account of Caxton’s types appeared. Nor
is it less remarkable that the only history of English typefounding
is that by Rowe Mores, a well-known antiquarian, who was brought up
for the Church, and who devoted many of the later years of his life to
the collection of old moulds and matrices. He purchased all the whole
stock of the last of the old race of letterfounders, Mr. James, of
Bartholomew Close, whose extensive collection was said to date from the
days of Wynken de Worde; and it is much to be regretted that, after
the death of Mr. Mores, his collections were not preserved intact.
His catalogues of matrices existing in his own day, or in his own
possession, are probably exact enough; but his account of the types
used by Caxton and Wynken de Worde is full of errors.
During Caxton’s career as a printer, viz., from about 1476 to 1491-2,
or a period of seventeen years, he used eight separate founts or
castings of letters. These eight founts we have called, according to
their chronological appearance, No. 1, No. 2, No. 2*, No. 3, No. 4, No.
4*, No. 5, and No. 6.
If we divide them into _character_ of letter we find three classes:--
1st. Type No. 1 is distinct in character, and unlike any other known
type. On comparison with a manuscript in the holograph of Colard
Mansion, of Bruges, M. Bernard came to the conclusion that it was
formed upon the handwriting of that celebrated caligrapher.
2nd. Types 2, 2*, 4, 4*, and 6, are of the same character as the early
type of Colard Mansion, known as “gros bâtarde.”
3rd. Types 3 and 5 were designed, like the characters of the Bible and
Psalter of the early Mentz printers, upon the Church Text of the
scribes, and approach nearer than any other of Caxton’s types to
what modern printers call “black letter.”
If, however, we divide the eight founts into distinct cuttings, we find
five:--
1st. Type No. 1.
2nd. Type No. 2, modified first into No. 2*, and again into No. 6.
3rd. Type No. 3.
4th. Type No. 4, modified into No. 4*.
5th. Type No. 5.
TYPE NO. 1.
Although we believe that Caxton had less to do with this than with any
of the later types, yet, as it is the first with which his name is
associated--as it is that by using which he obtained a knowledge of the
art of printing--and as it is the type of the first English-printed
book,--it is clothed with an interest peculiarly its own.
The only books printed with this fount are five:--
The Recuyell of the Histories of Troy 1472-74
The Game and Play of the Chess, 1st edition 1475-76
Le Recueil des Histoires de Troyes 1475-76
Les Fais du Chevalier Jason _after_ 1476
Les sept Pseaulmes penitenciaulx _after_ 1476
From the rarity of “Les Fais du Jason,” only one copy being in England,
and that inconvenient for prolonged examination, its peculiar features,
if any, are not noticed in the following remarks.
The first thing we observe in type No. 1 is, that its general
appearance is more free and manuscript-like than would be thought the
case from the square-set figure of each individual letter. This is, to
a considerable extent, caused by the great variety of letters, there
being only five for which there were not more than one matrix, either
as single letters or in combination: for, although the differences
between the various matrices of the same letter may be but very slight,
we have here the fundamental principle of freedom, namely, a recurrence
of modified sameness. The execution of the type is good, sharp, and
decided, with sufficient difference between the repetitions of the same
letter to indicate independence of tracing or mechanical contrivance;
hence probably the work of one accustomed to cut letters. The body of
the type, which is identical throughout the five books, is the same as
the recognised Great Primer of modern printers.
The complete fount embraced at least 163 sorts, of which we remark upon
the following:--
~ā~ is not used in the English books, but often occurs in the French
books.
~ē~ is not used in “The Recuyell” or the “Chess Book,” but often
occurs in “Le Recueil” and “Les sept Pseaulmes.”
~K~ is often used for an ~R~ in the French books, but always correctly
in the English books.
~Ω~.--This incongruous and badly-cut letter appears about twelve
times, in various grades of bad casting, before the recto of folio
36 of “The Recuyell,” after which it is not found.
~R~ is only found in the English books, where it is sometimes used for
a ~K~.
Arabic numerals do not occur in this fount.
There are only three marks of punctuation, which may be called--the
comma, or oblique stroke (/), the colon (:), and the full point
(.). They are used arbitrarily as to power, and in numerous
varieties of combination, such as,
[Illustration: .⸝ ./ /· ./· ·/. ⫽ :. .:. .·.:.·. &c., &c.]
From the foregoing remarks it will be seen that there are certain
letters peculiar to the English and others peculiar to the French books
printed in this type; and as these are not in any way attributable to
the fashion of the language, the fact strongly corroborates the opinion
that, although from the same printer, the compositor, and perhaps the
cases, were changed.
TYPE NO. 2.
This was the first fount used in England when Caxton set up his presses
at the “Red-pale” in the Almonry, and, before remarking upon its
peculiarities, we will give a list of the books known to have been
printed from it. Of these, as will be shown further on, there are two
easily-distinguished classes; those printed first, with type No. 2, and
those printed afterwards, with a re-casting of the fount, which we call
type No. 2*.
TYPE No. 2.
Les quatre derrennieres choses _ante_ 1477
History of Jason _circa_ 1477
Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers, 1st edition 1477
Horæ, 1st edition _circa_ 1477
Canterbury Tales, 1st edition _ante_ 1478
Moral Proverbs 1478
Anelida and Arcyte _circa_ 1478
Boethius de Consolatione Philosophiæ 1478
Propositio clarissimi Johannis Russell _ante_ 1479
Stans Puer ad Mensam _ante_ 1479
Parvus Catho and Magnus Catho, 1st edition _ante_ 1479
Ditto ditto 2nd edition _ante_ 1479
The Horse, the Sheep, and the Goose, 1st edition _ante_ 1479
Ditto ditto 2nd edition _ante_ 1479
Infancia Salvatoris _ante_ 1479
The Temple of Glass _ante_ 1479
The Chorle and the Bird, 1st edition _ante_ 1479
Ditto 2nd edition _ante_ 1479
The Temple of Brass _ante_ 1479
The Book of Courtesy, 1st edition _ante_ 1479
TYPE No. 2*.
Cordial 1479
Laurentius Gulielmus de Saona de Nova Rhethorica, _circa_ 1479
Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers, 2nd edit., _circa_ 1480
An Indulgence 1480
Parvus Catho and Magnus Catho, 3rd edition _circa_ 1480
Mirrour of the World, 1st edition 1480
Reynard the Fox, 1st edition 1480
Tully of Old Age, and of Friendship 1481
The Game and Play of the Chess, 2nd edition _circa_ 1481
This type has a more dashing, picturesque, and elaborate character
than type No. 1. It is an imitation of the “gros-bâtarde” type of
Colard Mansion, with some variation in the capital letters, which are
extremely irregular, not only in size but also in design, some being of
the simplest possible construction, whilst others have spurs, lines,
and flourishes.
The general appearance of type No. 2 is very different from that of
No. 2*, many letters in the earlier fount having a bolder and thicker
face than in the later; and the fact of there being a perfect division
of the books into two distinct classes prevents our attributing this
difference to either wear of type or faulty printing--the former would
be gradual, the latter irregular.
On comparing the two classes, letter by letter, we find several single
and compound letters occurring in the one and not in the other. Thus
~en~ (not final) is peculiar to the first class, while two forms of
~k~ without a loop in the head, double ~ll~ without loops, ~th~, ~wa~,
~we~, and ~wo~ are found in the second class only. Other letters are
so entirely different that a single example is convincing of their
not having been printed from the same founts; and the remainder,
although often very nearly alike, so constantly preserve some slight
characteristic peculiar to each section, that a close examination of
numerous instances, after making allowance for faulty printing, leads
to the conclusion that no letters of the first section are identical
with those of the second.
A minute examination discloses the general fact, that the letters of
Type No. 2* are somewhat thinner than those of Type No. 2, and that,
in numerous instances, the tops, the descending tails, and the titles
generally, have been truncated. For example, examine the letter ~f~
and its combinations in the two types; the second shows _always_ a
thinner-faced letter than the first. Again, notice how the tops of
the various ~d~s, the tails of ~en~ and ~in~, and the tails generally
appear in the second state. Observing that the two founts (2 and 2*)
are never mixed, and that all the books dated before 1479 occur in Type
No. 2, and all those dated after 1479 No. 2*, the two types appear
to indicate two distinct periods; and, taking into consideration the
peculiarities just noticed, it would seem that, upon the types becoming
worn, some of the best were selected, trimmed up with a graver, and
used for making matrices for a new casting. If this were not the case,
how should we account for the new fount being so nearly like the old?
for, the two not having been used together, there was no reason for
such care to make them match.
The body of Type No. 2 is the same as that of Type No. 2*, and is
exactly equal to two lines of “Long Primer” (Caslon’s standard), which
is very near to “Paragon.” A complete fount of Type No. 2 consisted of
217 sorts, and Type No. 2* of 254 sorts.
The ~&c~ of Type No. 1, which, if it occurred at all, might have been
expected in the first fount used in England, is found only in books
printed with Type No. 2*.
We may notice here that the sorts ~Iz~, ~ez~, ~br~, and others, presume
an intended French use of Type No. 2, a probability strengthened by the
~th~, and the combinations of ~w~, being later additions to the fount
in No. 2*.
TYPE NO. 3.
This grand type, which was in use from about 1479 to 1483, has perhaps
less direct interest for us than any of the others. No English book in
this type is known, and until a very recent period it was considered
merely as a supplementary fount used by Caxton for headings, &c.
But the discovery of a “Psalterium,” fragments of a “Horæ,” and a
“Directorium” proves that three works at least were printed entirely
with this fount. Upon these, especially the “Psalterium,” and upon the
headings of “Boethius,” the “Golden Legend,” and “Tully,” the following
remarks are based.
The small letters are an exact copy of those cast by the early German
founders, Fust and Schœffer, and are equally well executed. The capital
letters, however, are very unlike Fust’s, being for the most part a
modification of the Flemish “Secretary,” as already presented to us in
the gros-bâtarde type of Colard Mansion.
The body is identical, or very nearly so, with type No. 2, and is used
with it to distinguish proper names, &c., in the “Cordial” and in
“Tully,” but, having a much larger face, it is never in line.
The complete fount comprised 194 sorts. The stops generally are smaller
than those of type No. 2, which is remarkable, as the face of the
letter is much larger.
This type was intended for Latin works, as the contractions
sufficiently prove. All the books we have in it are in Latin, except
headings in the first edition of the “Golden Legend,” &c., and proper
names, as in the “Cordial” and “Tully.” Used almost entirely for Church
Service books, it does not seem to have been much in favour with
Caxton; but upon his death his successor, Wynken de Worde, came into
possession of it, and used it continually.
TYPE NO. 4.
Types No. 4 and 4* may be spoken of generally as _one_, there being
the same intimate connection between them as between Nos. 2 and 2*;
unlike them, however, there is a slight variation in the body, type
No. 4 being, as compared with the re-casting of it, or type No. 4*, as
20 is to 19. In other words, the body of type No. 4 is rather smaller
than that of Type No. 4*. This of course would only be possible by
direct intention with modern typefounders, who use the same moulds and
matrices for as many founts of the type as are required; but as is
shown in the chapter on typefounding, the moulds and matrices were in
those days very different.
The engraving of the types is neat, and appears to have been executed
by the same hand that cut type No. 2; but there is this difference
between the second states of the two founts--type No. 2* was, as
already shown, cast from matrices formed by the use of old casts of
type No. 2 as punches, after being trimmed by hand, but for types Nos.
4 and 4* there is the strongest evidence of the same punches having
been used, and therefore the variation of body is the more remarkable,
as it would have been as easy to make the re-casting agree in size
with the original as to make the letters of each fount agree among
themselves. The variation, however, is a fact.
The body of type No. 4 is very near indeed to modern English (Caslon’s
standard), and is the smallest of any used by Caxton. The re-casting,
or type No. 4* (which loses 1 in 20--that is to say, 19 lines of type
No. 4* take up only the same depth as 20 of type No. 4), is exactly two
lines of minion. The total number of sorts in type No. 4 appears to
have been 194, and in No. 4* 187, a few sorts not having been re-cast.
We will now give a list of the works for which this type, in its two
states, was employed.
TYPE No. 4.
The Chronicles of England, 1st edition 1480
The Description of Britain 1480
An Indulgence 1481
Curia Sapientiæ _circa_ 1481
Godfrey of Boloyne 1481
The Chronicles of England, 2nd edition 1482
Polycronicon 1482
The Pilgrimage of the Soul 1483
A Vocabulary 1483
Servitium de Visitatione _circa_ 1483
Confessio Amantis (_mostly_) 1483
Sex Epistolæ (_mostly_) 1483
The Knight of the Tower (_partly_) 1484
TYPE No. 4*.
The Festial, 1st edition 1483
Quatuor Sermones, 1st edition 1483
Confessio Amantis (_partly_) 1483
The Knight of the Tower (_mostly_) 1484
Caton _circa_ 1484
Golden Legend _circa_ 1484
Death-Bed Prayers _circa_ 1484
Æsop 1484
Order of Chivalry _circa_ 1484
Canterbury Tales, 2nd edition _circa_ 1484
Book of Fame _circa_ 1484
The Curial _circa_ 1484
Troylus and Creside _circa_ 1484
Life of our Lady _circa_ 1484
Life of St. Winifred _circa_ 1485
Life of King Arthur 1485
Life of Charles the Great 1485
Paris and Vienne 1485
The commas have a notable chronological bearing. The short comma
(~⸝~) was used alone up to the second edition of the “Chronicles,”
in 1482--is used occasionally with the long comma (~/~) in 1483--and
disappears entirely after that year.
A good test by which to distinguish 4 and 4* is the shape of the
lower-case ~w~; the letter with the curled top distinguishing the book
at once as belonging to type No. 4, whereas its absence is a sure sign
that the type is No. 4*.
Type No. 4* makes its first appearance among Caxton’s founts in a very
peculiar manner. In the autumn of 1483 he was engaged in printing two
works, Gower’s “Confessio Amantis” and the “Knight of the Tower.” At
sig. ~y~ of “Confessio Amantis” we find that the inmost sheet is in
type No. 4*, the three other sheets of the section being in type No.
4. Several pages in sig. ~z~; are also in No. 4*, and on sig. ~z iiij~
recto the first column is in No. 4, while the second column is in No.
4*. This mixture of founts by no means proves that the two were in
use at the same time; it only shows that before the cases containing
type No. 4 were finally emptied out to make room for the new fount,
one compositor had worked ahead of his fellows, who had not finished
their taking of copy when the new letter supplanted the old. The table,
although placed at the commencement of the book, was necessarily
printed last, and therefore, as a matter of course, we find type No.
4* used for it. In the “Knight of the Tower,” sig. ~f~ introduces the
new fount to us, all that follows, as well as the introductory matter,
being type No. 4*.
TYPE NO. 5.
There is much similarity of design between this and type No. 3, the
likeness between some of the letters being so close as to lead to the
conclusion that one artist cut both.
The books printed in this letter are as follows:--
The Royal Book _circa_ 1487
The Book of Good Manners 1487
Directorium Sacerdotum, 1st edition _circa_ 1487
Speculum Vitæ Christi _circa_ 1488
Commemoratio Lamentationis _circa_ 1488
The Doctrinal of Sapience 1489
Horæ _circa_ 1490
Servitium de Transfiguratione _circa_ 1491
In the 2nd edition of the “Golden Legend” (1487?), all the headings,
both of chapters and pages, are in this type.
Type No. 5 has no exact counterpart in the bodies of modern founders.
The nearest would be two lines of brevier, than which it is slightly
larger, losing one line in thirty-five. The total number of sorts
in use appears to have been 153. The comparative scarcity of double
letters is very noticeable. No Arabic numerals are used.
The large Lombardic capitals used with this fount have a bold and
striking appearance. Unlike any former fount of Caxton’s, they are
all cast with the largest face the body will bear, and without the
least beard. They are used, more or less, in every book printed with
this type, although in some books (_e.g._ “Royal” and “Speculum”) they
appear very seldom. They do not look at all well when used as initials
to a word, on account of their size preventing them ranging with the
sequent letters, and this may have been the cause why Caxton, except
in the “Directorium,” made a very sparing use of them, save indeed
that he converted them into quadrats. For this purpose they were
doubtless adapted by some shortening process, which, however, has not
prevented them cropping out continually in the blank spaces of the
head lines and signature lines, where they often assume a very puzzling
appearance. In the latest books printed with type No. 5 these Lombardic
capitals appear as _red_ initials, printed at a separate operation.
This use for them was, doubtless, the invention of Caxton’s successor,
Wynken de Worde, who appears to have inherited his master’s working
materials.
TYPE NO. 6.
The body of this fount is great primer (Caslon’s standard) within a
shade, being almost the same as type No. 1. The number of sorts in the
fount is, for Caxton, very small, amounting to only 138. It may be
called Caxton’s last fount, for it came into use in 1489, and was used
for books up to 1491, the date of Caxton’s death. Indeed, there seems
good reason for supposing that for some time after Caxton’s death it
served his successor, Wynken de Worde. With it the following works were
printed:--
The Fayts of Arms 1489
Statutes of Henry VII _circa_ 1489
The Gouvernal of Health _circa_ 1489
Reynard the Fox, 2nd edition _circa_ 1489
Blanchardin and Eglantine _circa_ 1489
The Four Sons of Aymon _circa_ 1489
Directorium Sacerdotum, 2nd edition _circa_ 1489
Eneydos _circa_ 1490
The Fifteen Oes, &c. _circa_ 1490
The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers, 3rd edition _circa_ 1490
The Mirrour of the World, 2nd edition _circa_ 1490
Divers Ghostly Matters _circa_ 1490
The Art and Craft to know well to Die _circa_ 1491
The Book of Courtesy, 2nd edition _circa_ 1491
The Festial, 2nd edition _circa_ 1491
Quatuor Sermones, 2nd edition _circa_ 1491
The Chastising of God’s Children _circa_ 1491
A Treatise of Love _circa_ 1491
We have in this fount another remarkable instance of the contrivances
employed by the early typefounders. A new fount was required, but
whether Caxton gave the founders instructions concerning its size, or
whether the fount was cast first, and then sold to our printer, there
seems no possibility of discovering; but this we can prove from the
pages themselves, that the greater portion of type No. 6 was made from
the punches, or from old letters of Caxton’s Nos. 2 and 2*. The body
is rather smaller, nine lines occupying the same depth as eight lines
of No. 2; and it is amusing to observe the shifts and contrivances
resorted to for reducing those letters which, in type No. 2, occupied
the full body. For instance, the ~A~, ~M~, and ~N~ have the flourish
which passes under the letter brought close up to the letter itself.
The ~K~ was also treated in the same way, but the violence used has
damaged the flourish so much that, in most instances, it broke away;
in some cases, however, it remains in a most pitiable and crippled
condition. The corresponding flourish in the ~B~ has been boldly
cropped off. ~F~ and ~J~ are strangely transformed, evidently by a blow
on the soft metal, lengthwise. A few characters altogether new appear,
and a few interpolations from other founts, besides a quaint set of
Lombardic capitals, among which occurs now and then a letter from the
Lombardic fount used with type No. 5. The total number of sorts was 141.
But here the question may very naturally be asked, How do we know that
the books in the foregoing lists which are without date, without place,
and without printer’s name, although printed with the same types as
those of Caxton, are not really from the workshop of another printer,
who had obtained his material from the same source as our printer? The
evidence is entirely negative, but it is nevertheless very strong.
When a new branch of industry becomes sufficiently developed, one of
the immediate consequences is a division of labour. Thus typefounders
became separated from printers, as soon as the latter became
sufficiently numerous to keep the former in constant employment. The
earliest printers were almost of necessity their own typefounders, and
it appears that they each made or otherwise exclusively possessed those
patterns of types which they used. There is certainly no evidence that
prior to the end of the 15th century the types of one printer were at
the same time in use by another. This exclusive use of types has been
accepted as a fact by the best authorities, and has been of great use
to the bibliographer in identifying the printer of books _sine ullâ
notâ_, for a printer may thus be recognised at once by his types, just
as a man may be distinguished by his handwriting.
THE COMPOSITOR.
We will now suppose a fount of type delivered over to the compositors
to be laid in the cases, an operation requiring much more care than
in the present day, on account of the numerous double letters and
combinations. One result of the combinations would be to equalise the
size of the boxes, as the letter “e” for instance, which now requires
the largest box, would then most frequently occur in combination with
one of the consonants, and not be used alone oftener than many other
letters. Counting the respective numbers used of each sort throughout
many pages of different books, the fact is ascertained that single
vowels and single consonants were more often required than any one
particular combination. Arranging a case on the basis that the sorts
most in use should be placed before the compositor in the position
most accessible to his fingers, and remembering that in all the old
representations of a “case” there is no division into upper and
lower as now, we arrive at the accompanying plan, which is doubtless
a tolerably exact representation of a compositor’s case as used by
Caxton. There are 209 boxes, which would lead to some little difficulty
in keeping “clean cases;” and one need feel no surprise at finding
wrong letters so often making their appearance in Caxton’s pages. The
combinations of _in_, _ni_, _un_, _nu_, _nn_, _im_, _mi_ were often
found in the wrong boxes, and have brought down to the present day the
strongest evidence against the usefulness of logotypes.
[Illustration: Plate VII.
_The oldest known representation of a Printing Press. Paris, 1507._
_Luther’s Press. Augsburg, 1522._]
In the earliest representation of a printing office the press is
always made the most prominent object; very often, however, as in
Plate VII, with a compartment for the compositor. Figure 1 is the
earliest instance, and we there see a compositor at work. Before him
is the case divided into even boxes, and raised on a cleft stick is
the copy. The composing-stick is in his _right_ hand, doubtless owing
to the engraver not having reversed the drawing from which he copied:
it is held correctly by the man in Plate VIII. We have already noticed
the use of a composing-stick and setting-rule, and the evenness of
lines consequent thereon. It was not adopted at Westminster until
1480, although Caxton must often have seen the improved appearance
which lines of an even length gave to the page in the numerous
works previously issued from all the Continental presses. He would,
doubtless, have imitated them had his mechanical appliances permitted;
but we do not find evenness of page until the arrival of type No. 4, in
the year 1480; and then, probably for the first time, composing-sticks,
setting-rules, and chases were seen in the Westminster printing office.
Before this the types were no doubt, as M. Bernard has shown to be the
case in the later block books and the early examples of Dutch printing,
taken straight from their boxes, and placed side by side in a sort of
coffin, made of hard wood, with a stout bottom, and screws at the foot
to tighten the page when completed. The width of the page could not be
extended beyond the internal measurement of the “coffin,” but might be
reduced at pleasure by placing down either side a straight piece of
wood. The length of the page would be regulated in a similar manner, by
varying the thickness of the foot-block against which the screws worked.
[Illustration: Plate VIII.
_The “Prelum Ascensianum.” Paris, 1520._]
Let us, then, imagine the workman with his wooden box before him. The
further end would be slightly raised, to keep the types from falling
forward. He begins at the left-hand corner, and adding, from the case,
letter to letter, soon gets to the end of the first line, and, not
having room for the next word, makes it quite tight with quadrats or
spaces. Then comes the second line, and this, as well as all the rest,
would not be so easy. Placing rough types _upon_ rough types admits of
very little shifting or adjustment, and to this fact, I imagine, we
must attribute the practice of leaving the lines of an uneven length
in early books. Any attempt to push along the words of a line in order
to introduce more space between them, without some plan of easing
the friction, would be certain to break up the line altogether--and
so the lines were left just as they happened to fall, whether full
length or short. Sometimes, when a word would come into the line
with a little reduction of the space between the last two words, the
space was reduced accordingly; but more often a syllable at the end
of the line was contracted, such as “men” into “mē,” or “vertuous”
into “vertuoꝰ.” Most often the compositor, knowing the practice to be
understood by his readers, would finish his line with just so many
letters as his measure would take, and accordingly it is common to find
words divided thus:--why-|che th|at w|ymen w|iche m|an. But when once
the “setting-rule” was brought into use all that was altered, and the
various words of a line could be pushed about, and the spaces between
them augmented or reduced with ease. Having completed his proper number
of lines, the foot-piece would be placed after the last line for the
foot-screws to work upon, and the “form” would be ready for press.
There being a bottom to the box, nothing could fall out, and, although
doubtless not very tight in some parts, the sloppy ink then used would
not, like modern stiff ink, draw up any loose letters.
If the sides of these coffins, or wooden boxes, were equal in height
with the types they enclosed, they would, like them, leave their mark
on the paper. This was the case in some of the early Dutch block-books,
where the sides of the chase appear occasionally printed in the margin.
I have searched in vain for any marks of the chase in the margins of
Caxton’s books. But whatever method he used--whether he screwed up the
types in wooden boxes, or whether he used iron chases,--one thing is
very plain in nearly every book he issued, either the “justification”
was bad, or the pages were “locked up” very loosely, for quadrats and
spaces are continually “working up” and showing themselves.
The composing-sticks were originally of hard wood, without any sliding
adjustment; one set, all the same, were for folio pages, another for
quarto, another for octavo.
“Reglets,” or thin pieces of hard wood the length of a line, appear
never to have been used. When a “white” line was wanted under a
chapter head or over a colophon, em quadrats were ranged side by side
for the purpose, and very often capital letters which had been reduced
in height for the purpose, although often not sufficiently. These low
capitals would often work up while at press, and make undesirable
appearances in very conspicuous places. For examples the reader may
examine the “Royal Book,” and “Speculum Vitæ Christi,” in the British
Museum.
The “balls” with which the page was inked before taking an impression
appear to have undergone no change in shape or make from the earliest
times until the very beginning of the present century. When, however,
the flexible composition now in use was invented it soon entirely
superseded the old plan, and now it is a matter of great difficulty to
find an old pair of balls. These balls were hollow hemispheres of wood
with a handle. Wool was fitted into the hollow, upon which the skin, or
“pelt,” was nailed on the side more than half-way round; then more wool
was pushed in till the skin was quite tight: the last nails were then
hammered in, and the balls fit for use.
[Illustration: WOODEN COMPOSING-STICK.]
The page having been completed by the compositor, it went to press in
its chase or wooden box without any further operation. The business of
“reader” as yet was not. All the workmen’s blunders and errors, the
turned letters, the wrong sorts, and the numerous literal mistakes were
left uncorrected. Even whole lines were occasionally omitted by the
workman, and the omission remained throughout the edition, affording
indisputable evidence that “proof sheets” after composition were quite
unknown. At page 125 of Lewis’s “Life of Caxton,” we read concerning
our printer--“As he printed long before the present Method of adding
the _Errata_ at the End of Books was in Use and Practice, so his
extraordinary Exactness obliged him to take a great deal more Pains
than can easily be imagined; for, after a Book was printed off, his way
was to revise it, and correct the Faults in it with red Ink, as they
then used to correct their written Books. This being done to one Copy,
he caused one of his Servants to run through the whole Impression, and
correct the Faults he had noted with a Stanesil or Red-lead Pencil,
which he himself afterwards compared with his own corrected Copy, to
see that none of the Corrections he had made were omitted.” A most
laborious task indeed, had so foolish an idea ever entered the mind
of so practical a man as Caxton; but the whole assertion is a mere
fiction, started by Bagford, adopted by Lewis, and repeated by every
subsequent writer, without a shadow of evidence to support it. The
only books in which manuscript additions were made at the time of
publication were the “Polycronicon” and “Mirrour of the World.” The
former, in the majority of copies, has the year of the world and the
regnal year engrossed in red ink on the side margins; and the latter,
in the woodcut of the seven concentric circles which represent the
astronomical heavens, has the names of the celestial spheres written in
black ink between each circle. But although I have examined about five
hundred of Caxton’s books, I have never seen anything approaching to a
grammatical correction coëval with the date of the book.
Many people have been puzzled by the abnormal punctuation in Caxton’s
books. As a rule he employed three points, the comma, the colon, and
the period or full point. Notwithstanding these three varieties, Caxton
appears to have been entirely ignorant of any, even the most archaic,
principle of punctuation. Nor indeed could we expect anything else
unless we suppose him, in a literary sense, far in advance of his age.
In order to place ourselves as level as possible with the ideas of the
fifteenth century regarding punctuation, it will be necessary to trace
the use of points to their origin.
Like everything else, including the invention of printing, punctuation
was no sudden discovery: on the contrary, it had a most feeble and
protracted infancy. The earliest known manuscripts are without points,
and all the words run on without spaces between them. The confusion
which resulted led to the plan of separating the words by a single dot.
Then a space between the words superseded the dot, which was turned
to another use, viz., to show the end of a phrase or sentence. The
Greek grammarians were the first to notice that sentences might be
divided into parts or limbs. They called a complete sentence a period,
a limb was a colon, and a clause a comma. But these divisions were for
centuries but theoretical, the most careful writers paying but little
attention to them, and the scribes, commonly, none. Ælius Donatus, who
lived in the fifth century of the Christian era, and wrote a grammar
which served as a text-book for all Europe until long after the
invention of printing, was the first to distinguish by points the three
divisions of the Greek grammarians. He did not, however, get beyond the
dot, which he placed at the bottom of the line to designate the comma,
in the middle of the line for the colon, and at the top of the line for
the period.
In the ninth and tenth centuries the oblique stroke as a comma, and the
double dot for a colon, came into use by careful writers; the majority,
however, used either no points at all or the dot in all its positions
without discrimination. Often the dot at the top of the line was the
only division for all parts of a sentence. The remembrance of these
various practices among the writers of books will serve to explain many
of the peculiarities of punctuation in our early-printed books.
The multiplication of books by the printing-press brought out
strongly the anomalies of punctuation, but it was half a century
later before any general system was adopted. The first printers were
not grammarians, nor can they be expected to show a knowledge of
punctuation in advance of their age. Even those learned printers,
Aldus, Manutius, and Henry Stephens, were quite ignorant of systematic
punctuation, as their books plainly show; so that we need not think
any the worse of Caxton or our other early printers if in this
respect they too were very faulty. When, however, system at last was
developed, it was to the printers and not to the authors that the
improvement was due.
Turning now to the books of Caxton, we find, as already stated, that he
employed three points. His commas were long (/) or short (⸝) strokes;
his colon was like ours, one dot over another; and his period was a
lozenge-shaped dot at top. All these were used very capriciously; in
fact, Caxton made very little distinction between them, nor did his
workmen. Each compositor seems to have kept his points all in one
box, and to have used them at haphazard. We find even a head line
with one comma before, and another after it. Full points are commonly
used in the same way. The full point at top often shows the middle
of a sentence, and not seldom we see a dance of all the points used
thus .:.//˙:˙/⸝ celebrate the conclusion of a book or chapter, the
compositor apparently regarding them as ornamental devices.
Some of Caxton’s books are entirely without points, notably those in
poetry or in Latin. In others the full point or the colon is used
exclusively. In “Paris and Vienne” only the long comma is seen. His
long and short commas are used without any variation of meaning. The
semicolon did not exist for Caxton, although something like it appears
once in his great heading type. The paragraph mark (¶) as showing
the commencement of a fresh sentence, and the coloured initial which
answered the same purpose, did good duty for the full point. The hyphen
is frequently met with, and where the line was crowded, Caxton often
employed the colon, which was half the thickness, in lieu of it.
Not until we are well into the sixteenth century do we find printers
adopting an acknowledged system of graduated points; and our surprise
that standard authors like Chaucer and Lydgate should have ignored all
systematic punctuation must be greatly modified when we remember that,
after four centuries of the printing-press, modern authors and printers
have their vagaries, and that even now no two authorities agree as to
the correct usage of the points of punctuation.
PRESSES, PRESSMEN, AND PRINTING-INK.
The method adopted by the earliest printers to obtain impressions
from their blocks was to lay the sheet to be printed on the already
inked block, and to rub it carefully. Wood-engravers of the present
day take proofs in the same manner. The plan was continued for block
printing many years after the invention of moveable types. The method
of obtaining an impression by a direct pressure downwards is generally
supposed to have been synchronous with the use of moveable types.
Mr. Ottley, however, describes several of the earliest wood-blocks,
which he had no doubt were printed by means of a press. Of one he
states, “I am in possession of a specimen of wood engraving, printed
in black oil colour on both sides the paper by a downright pressure,
which I consider to have been, without doubt, printed in or before the
year 1445.” There can be no question, therefore, that the earliest
type-printers found a press ready to their hands; but as we have no
description of the mechanism of the early presses, we must, as in the
instance of typefounding, have recourse to the first dated engravings.
The earliest representations of a printing-press are found in the works
of Jodocus Badius Ascensius, the celebrated printer of Paris. Two of
these are delineated in Plates VII and VIII, whereof the earlier is
found as a printer’s device in the title of a work dated 1507. The
large press, Plate IX, having upon its basement the date 1520, was
taken from the Bagford collection, and has hitherto been generally
considered as the earliest representation of a printing-press. The
small press was taken from a tract of Luther’s dated 1522. The other
comes also from the Bagford fragments, and appears to be about the
middle of the sixteenth century, as the mechanism of the spindle is
evidently improved. It is represented here, however, principally on
account of the figure of a typefounder seen through a door in the
background, a feature very rarely pourtrayed: I have not been able
to trace the work for which this woodcut was designed. In all these
presses the principle is the same. There is a simple worm screw, with a
long pin for a lever; the head of the press and the table bear
the pressure, and the “hose,” as the transverse piece between the screw
and the platen was called, served to steady the downward pressure. The
girths, drum, and handle served to run the table out and in, and the
tympans and frisket were identical in principle, if not in appearance,
with those now used. In Plate IX we see some of the pressman’s
appliances exposed to view. There is the shears for cutting out his
tympan-sheet, and for general purposes; next to it is a pick-brush for
cleaning out picks in the type; a pair of compasses for accurately
testing the “furniture” between the pages; and, lastly, a screw point
for making “register.”
[Illustration: Plate IX.
_From a German Book of Trades, A.D. 1568._]
To each press is assigned two workmen; one is pulling lustily at the
bar, while the other is distributing ink upon the balls previously to
beating the form. The two heaps of printed and white paper, in Fig.
2, appear to our modern notions very awkwardly placed, being both on
the _off_ side of the press, so that the workman had to reach over
the form whenever he took up or laid down a fresh sheet of paper. As
however this peculiarity is represented continually, and so late as the
seventeenth century, it was doubtless a common custom.
[Illustration: Plate X.
_Scheme of Caxton’s Type Case._]
No doubt the ink was better and the impression harder in the time
of these presses than in Caxton’s time. His ink was of the weakest
description, and the amount of power required for a “pull” of the press
proportionately weak, the one necessitating the other. His presses, in
the earlier part of his printing career, did not take more than a post
folio page; and, with a very sloppy ink, the pull, if strong, would
have made a confused mass of black instead of a legible impression. As
it is, the ink has been almost invariably squeezed over the edge of the
letters, and has contorted their shape. Few indeed, although practical
men, would imagine the deceptive nature of an impression taken from new
types with weak ink and light pressure. In such a case the type appears
at one time much thicker than it is, from the “spuing” of the ink--at
another time battered, with some portion of it broken--and again, to
use a technical term, as if it were all “off its feet.”
The representation of the “Printer” in the “Book of Trades,” 1569,
shows that the presses then were fitted with both “tympans” and
“frisket;” and many signs lead to the belief that similar appliances
were used by Caxton’s workmen. In short pages we often find a few lines
of matter put at the bottom, which was blocked out by the frisket, and
answered the purpose of a “bearer.” Several instances occur in the
“Godfrey,” at the Public Library, Cambridge; also in the “Life of Our
Lady,” at the British Museum. In “Speculum vitæ Christi” we actually
find “a bite,” half of the bottom line remaining unprinted.
We have already noticed that only one page at a time was worked in
the earlier part of Caxton’s career, although later, at the probable
introduction of Wynken de Worde, two pages were managed. This
necessitated great care in getting the unsigned pages in their right
places, and that such care was needed is proved by several instances of
transposition.
Before leaving this portion of our subject, a peculiarity probably
connected with the mechanism of the press must be noticed. A small hole
at the four corners of each sheet appears in every book printed with
type No. 1. Such holes (first noticed by Mr. Tupper) have not been
observed in any books printed with the later types, except “Quatre
derrennieres choses.” The employment of points by modern pressmen to
obtain accuracy of register, and the punctures (called “point holes”)
in the paper, consequent upon the use of them, are well known. The
holes under notice certainly suggest a similar practice.
After due time allowed for the ink to dry upon the paper, the printed
sheets passed into the hands of the binder, whose operations come next
under consideration.
THE BOOKBINDER.
The art of bookbinding had not in England, in the fifteenth century,
reached the perfection seen in the beautiful Continental specimens of
the same period. Nor indeed was any uncommon binding required for the
cheap productions of Caxton’s press. His sheets were not, as in modern
practice, pressed between glazed boards after being printed, but went,
without further process, from the press side to the hands of the
binder. The few specimens which have reached us in a pristine state
show the indentation, more or less distinct, made by the types. The
edition of “Eneydos,” 1490, was hurried through the binder’s hands so
soon after the first section (which, containing the prologue and table,
necessarily went to press last) was printed, that all the leaves of
that section, in every copy I have seen, show a very bad “set-off” from
the type on the opposite pages.
To enable the binder to collate the sheets of each section correctly,
it was the custom, as well with the scribes as with the printers, to
place distinguishing marks on the first page of each sheet; these were
called signatures, and as Caxton used only 4ns for his books, the
binder (as a rule) was sure that when he had got sheets ~a j~, ~a ij~,
~a iij~, ~a iiij~, together his section was complete. Some printers,
who were irregular as to the number of sheets in a section, adopted
the plan of signing the centre sheet of every section upon the third
as well as the first page, so that the binder by this distinguishing
mark might directly see the number of sheets intended for each section,
however great the irregularity. In such cases the 4n would be signed
on the first five rectos, leaving only three unsigned. Caxton, however,
never adopted this plan, his sections always containing the same number
of unsigned as of signed leaves. The sheets having been collected
into sections, the signatures served again to collate the sections
into volumes, the only use for which they are now retained. All the
early books from Caxton’s press are described as unsigned, because the
signatures were not printed, but inserted in manuscript at the extreme
bottom of the page.
The modern binder begins by folding all his sheets into quarto,
octavo, &c., according to the size of the book, each folded sheet
making a section; they are then collated and bound. In Caxton’s books
the collation of the sheets preceded the folding. It has been already
observed that the quarto sizes were treated, both in printing and
binding, as folio, the paper being cut in half before going to press.
The type was so arranged that when three, four, or five sheets were
folded one inside another, quirewise, the pages should be in their
proper sequence. The open sheets of each section being gathered were
knocked even, and folded in the middle. This adoption of one plan for
books of all sizes was in accordance with the old usage of the scribes,
who necessarily cut their vellum sheets to the intended size before the
manuscript was commenced, and varied their sections from three sheets,
if very thick, to six or seven, if very thin. The section of three
sheets was called “ternio”--of four sheets “quaternus”--of five sheets
“quinternus”--and so on. Caxton adopted the “quaternus” or “quaternion”
for all his books, using a larger or smaller section only if the
beginning or end required it. Wynken de Worde, however, made frequent
use of the ternion.
From the foregoing remarks we see that the ternion and quaternion must
necessarily be arranged in the order of the following diagrams, by
consulting which the reader may easily know the pages belonging to any
given sheet.
A TERNION--Three sheets of paper folded in half, quirewise, or one
inside another. This gives six leaves, or twelve pages.
[Illustration]
A QUATERNION--Four sheets of paper folded in half, quirewise, or one
inside another. This gives eight leaves, or sixteen pages.
[Illustration]
If this arrangement be kept in mind it will be found very useful in
many ways. For instance, it is often important to know whether a leaf
preceded the first printed page, and, if so, whether the blank leaf
found in many volumes is that leaf. It is plain that if a quaternion
was adopted for the first section, then the first and the eighth
leaf would belong to the same sheet of paper; and therefore if sig.
~a~ 8 had a watermark sig. ~aj~ should not have any; if ~aij~ had a
watermark, ~a~7 should be without, and so on with ~aiij~ and ~a~6,
and with ~aiiij~ and ~a~5, where we arrive at the middle sheet of the
section, and where a careful examination in the fold will certainly
show the thread of the binder, always a true sign of the centre. These
indications are often the only decisive evidence of the completeness or
incompleteness of a volume, and enable us to decide, even where printed
signatures are wanting, the true collation of a book.
Catchwords are not found in any of Caxton’s books, although here and
there a word by itself at the foot of a page may look very like one;
but in every instance this word will be found to form an integral part
of the text, and therefore in no sense a catchword, which by its very
nature must be treated as the first word of the next page.
In paper manuscripts of the fifteenth century it is not uncommon to
find vellum used for the inmost sheet of each section, or to find a
slip of parchment pasted down the centre of each section. This was to
give an increase of strength to the back where the binder’s thread
would be likely to tear through the paper. Instances where these slips
are used are common in “unwashed” specimens from Caxton’s press. The
manuscript volume at Althorp, containing “Propositio,” is treated so
throughout, and in the quarto poems at Cambridge the marks of the
paste, where the slip was torn away at the rebinding of the volume, are
very visible.
The earliest pictorial representation of a binder at work is displayed
in the little “Book of Trades,” to which reference has already been
made; but as there is nothing in it peculiar to the age we will pass
on to the material of the covers. This was very frequently only a
stiff piece of parchment, with the edges turned in, and a blank leaf
pasted down inside as a lining. A few books still remain in this state,
just as issued from the “Red-pale” by Caxton. Such are the copies
of “Tully de Senectute” in Queen’s College, Oxford; the “Art and
Craft,” “Directorium,” and the “Game and Play of the Chess,” in the
Bodleian; and the “Godfrey of Boloyne” in the library of Mr. Holford.
If intended to be more durable, Caxton used “boards” sometimes made
of oak, or beech, and sometimes (fortunately for bibliographers)
of waste sheets from the press pasted together. These were covered
with brown sheepskin, upon which was a simple pattern of circles,
or crosses, or dragons, &c. Instances may still be seen in the 2nd
edition of the “Festial” at the British Museum; in the “Servitium
de Transfiguratione,” lately purchased for the same library; in the
2nd edition of the “Mirrour of the World,” at Bristol; and at other
libraries. In the last-mentioned volume four leaves of the unique
“Fifteen Oes” were used as linings for the inside of the boards. An
account of a “Boethius,” of which the interior of the covers was
composed entirely of “waste sheets,” is given in the description of
that work.
When bound, we may consider that the book was generally ready
for delivery to the purchaser. It was so with all Caxton’s later
publications, but the earlier books still required the services of the
rubrisher.
THE ILLUMINATOR, THE RUBRISHER, AND THE WOOD-ENGRAVER.
It has already been noticed that, in the latter half of the fifteenth
century, the great development of book manufacture led to a
corresponding division of labour. Thus in Bruges we find there were
_Scrivers_, or persons who wrote the text only of books, _Verlichters_,
or Rubrishers, who probably confined their attention to illuminated
capitals, and _Vinghette makers_ (miniatores), who were artists capable
of designing and painting subjects. In only one instance do the books
of Caxton suggest the idea that the services of the _Vinghette maker_
were to have been employed. At the commencement of his edition of
Gower’s “Confessio Amantis” (sig. 1, 4), the prologue of the author
is begun more than half-way down the page. The blank was evidently
intended for a design of some sort, possibly for a large woodcut,
after the fashion of Colard Mansion, who printed all the great cuts
to his “Ovid” by a separate working. As a rule, however, Caxton’s
books required no help from the vinghette maker, although he certainly
employed, so late as 1485, the services of a rubrisher, to insert the
initial letters at the beginning of chapters, and to make paragraph
marks in appropriate places. For this purpose a vermilion ink was
nearly always used, although occasionally a light blue alternated. For
the initial of the first chapter a square space was left equal to the
depth of four or five lines of type: for succeeding chapters a space of
two lines was generally considered sufficient.
The first use of woodcut initials was in 1484, after which year they
were never (except on rare occasions when a sort ran short) omitted.
Caxton had only two or three of each letter, and sometimes only one,
as may easily be seen by the recurrence of a particular initial.
Some of them have their heavy blackness relieved by a few white dots
punctured in the face of the letter, a practice frequently adopted by
the German school to lighten the groundwork of early woodcuts. Caxton’s
initials are varied in shape, and often elegant in design, but with
the exception of the floriated ~A~ at the beginning of the “Order of
Chivalry,” and “Æsop,” and perhaps the ~B~ in “Eneydos,” they demand no
especial notice. A few of them are given here.
The woodcut illustrations to Caxton’s books have not received much
attention from the writers on the early history of wood engraving.
Strutt, Singer, and Ottley in his “Enquiry” have omitted to
notice them. Dibdin and Jackson have devoted a few pages to their
consideration; and Ottley, in the posthumous work on the “Invention of
Printing,” has some interesting remarks on the early use of the art in
England. His opinions are enforced by a facsimile of some rude woodcuts
in his own possession, which he believed to have been executed as early
as the celebrated S. Christopher of 1423. From his arguments we may
conclude that although no great amount of vitality can be attributed to
the art of wood engraving in England in the early part of the fifteenth
century, it nevertheless was known and practised by native artists;
and that the use of native talent for Caxton’s books was therefore
possible.
At the same time it requires no artistic education to see that there
is a great similarity in general appearance between the illustrations
in some of the early Dutch books, and the woodcuts of Caxton’s “Chess
Book,” “Golden Legend,” and others. In the “Troy Book,” folio,
printed at Augsburg in 1483, and the French-printed “Æsop,” 1476, the
broad outline and heavy black feet of the figures at once suggest a
similarity of style if not identity of artist. But whether Caxton’s
cuts be native or foreign, there can be little doubt of the origin
of the designs. His artist merely copied the outlines found in the
manuscript from which the book was being (or to be) printed. At that
period there were a certain number of standard works always in demand,
and for each of these the illuminators had a conventional treatment,
which appears repeated over and over again in different books. To those
who have examined the illuminated manuscripts of the fifteenth century,
executed in the Low Countries (of which there are numerous examples in
the Royal Collection of the British Museum), the identity of design and
treatment in Caxton’s engravings will be evident.
It is somewhat remarkable that woodcut illustrations preceded the use
of woodcut initials in Caxton’s books by about four years. In the
“Fables of Æsop,” 1484, we meet with printed initials for the first
time, while woodcuts, illustrative of the text, had been used in great
abundance for the “Golden Legend,” the “Chess Book,” the “Mirrour of
the World,” 1st edition, and “Parvus et Magnus Catho,” the last dating
about 1481.
The following is a list of all the books printed by Caxton with woodcut
illustrations:--
Parvus et Magnus Catho, 3rd ed. 1481? Two designs.
Mirrour of the World, 1st ed. 1481 Numerous designs.
The Game and Play of the Chess, 1481? Sixteen designs.
2nd ed.
Golden Legend 1484 Very numerous designs.
Canterbury Tales, 2nd ed. 1484 Very numerous designs.
Æsop 1484 Very numerous designs.
Initials first used.
Order of Chivalry 1484 Large floriated ~A~.
Royal Book 1487? Seven small designs.
Speculum vitæ Christi 1488? Numerous designs.
Doctrinal of Sapience 1489 Two designs.
Horæ, 3rd ed. 1490? A fragment, with one design.
Servitium Transfiguratione 1490? One small design.
The Fifteen Oes 1490? The Crucifixion cut and
borders.
Mirrour of the World, 2nd ed. 1490? Old cuts reprinted.
Divers Ghostly Matters 1490? One small design.
Had Caxton’s opportunities allowed, he would probably have used the
wood-engraver’s art to a much greater extent. The above table shows
that in 1481, when he first employed woodcuts, he also discontinued
them; that in 1484 he again, for one year only, used them; and that in
1487 they took a permanent position in his typography. This seeming
capriciousness was probably owing to the difficulty experienced in
obtaining the services of a wood engraver.
The engravings in 1481, 1484, and partly in 1487-8, appear to have come
from the hand of the same artist. In the last year, however, we find
considerable improvement, as shown in the illustrations to the “Royal
Book,” and “Speculum Vitæ Christi;” but Caxton’s best specimen of the
wood-engraver’s art, and one which has been much praised by Dibdin, and
especially Jackson, for its composition and feeling, is the well-known
“Crucifixion.” This design is frequently seen in the books of Wynken
de Worde, who received great credit for it until its earlier use was
discovered as a frontispiece to Caxton’s “Fifteen Oes.”
The largest woodcut known to have been used in Caxton’s books is the
Assembly of Saints, at the beginning of all the editions of the
“Golden Legend,” and the smallest, of which there are four, are found
in illustrations to the text in the “Speculum vitæ Christi.”
This portion must not, however, be dismissed without a few words upon
that most interesting of all Caxton’s woodcuts, the large device.
Caxton used but one; the small device, of a similar design, which is
commonly attributed to him, and which is first seen in the “Chastising
of God’s Children,” being certainly not earlier than 1491, in which
year he died.
The interpretation of the device offers a question by no means of
easy solution. We may dismiss, as unworthy of serious notice, the
suggestions that the figures should be reversed to read 1447, or that
the 74 or 47 refers to Caxton’s age and not to a particular year. The
problem to be solved is, does the design mean 74, and if so, why did
Caxton use the year 1474 on his device? Bibliographers have hitherto
assumed that it must be in reference to the introduction of printing
into England, and quote the colophon to the 1st edition of the “Chess
Book” in support of the argument. But, as already shown, the date of
the “Chess Book” refers to the translation of the work, the printing
having been certainly accomplished later at Bruges, and probably in
1476, Caxton’s settlement at Westminster not having occurred until late
in that year, or in 1477.
The first to suggest that this mark had no reference whatever to Arabic
figures was Mr. Bradshaw of Cambridge; and his opinion has of late
received an interesting and curious confirmation. Mr. Adin Williams
of Kempsford, in the course of some antiquarian researches, took a
rubbing of a monumental brass in Standon Church, Herts, and was struck
by the resemblance which a part of it bore to Caxton’s well-known
mark. The brass is in bad condition, but it is easily deciphered, and
is in memory of John Felde, alderman of London, who, like Caxton, was
a mercer. The alderman is represented kneeling, with two sons and a
daughter behind him. Above, on one side, are the family arms; on the
other is his trade mark as a mercer. The surrounding legend is:--“~John
Felde, Alderman of London, Merchaunt of the Staple of Caleis. Dyed m.
cccc. lxxvij.~”
The mark of Felde is here given, the dotted line only being imaginary;
and beside it, for the sake of comparison, is a reduction of Caxton’s
mark. It will be seen that if the top pennant of Felde’s mark were
cut away, and the loop added, we should then have a close resemblance
to the so-called figures in Caxton’s device. That Felde’s mark is a
combination of conventional forms then commonly used by merchants is
undeniable; and Caxton’s device is doubtless of a similar character. It
is his personal seal, and the central part is probably the very same
mark as that used by him when, as Governour of the English Nation, he
stamped every bale of British goods which entered or issued from the
city of Bruges.
[Illustration: Two devices with Caxton’s mark]
The debate upon Caxton’s device has until lately been confined to
the central portion, the surroundings having been by general consent
considered merely as ornamentation. In all probability this view is
correct; but, as hidden meanings have been discovered in these side
ornaments, no apology is needed for their introduction here, however
fanciful they may be. Mr. Madden, of Versailles, a well-known writer
upon all matters of palæotypography, says in one of his letters[12]
that the ornament to the left of the ~W~ is clearly the letter S, while
that on the opposite side is a C.
These initials, he feels sure, refer to the words _Sancta Colonia_,
the city in which he supposes Caxton to have learned his art. Not so,
says another critic; S. C. must surely mean the Staple of Calais,
that great wool-mart of which, like Felde, Caxton was a merchant; the
freedom of which was a privilege he might well be proud of, and which
would give him certain important rights in the importation of books.
Ah! says critic No. 3, but Caxton held an important post in the city
of Bruges, and had to place his official seal on all English goods
imported or exported, so that, in remembrance of this, S. C., or
“Sigillum Caxtoni,” would be very appropriate initials on his trade
mark.
These guesses are more amusing than instructive, and it should be
remembered that Roman capitals were not used by Caxton in any of his
works, nor indeed in those of his English contemporaries.
The opinion that the interlacement is only a trade mark is much
strengthened by the discovery of its original use. In 1487, Caxton
wishing to print a Sarum Missal, and not having the types proper for
the purpose, sent to Paris, where it was printed for him by W. Maynyal,
who in the colophon states plainly that he printed it at the expense of
William Caxton, of London. When the printed sheets reached Westminster,
Caxton wishing to make it quite plain that he was the publisher,
engraved his design and printed it on the last page, which happened to
be blank. This is the first occasion on which it is known to have been
used. The unique copy of this Missal is in the possession of Stephen
Legh, Esq., M.P., and was exhibited at the Caxton celebration in 1877.
The following list of books in which the device is found shows that it
was not until the end of Caxton’s typographical life that he adopted
this distinguishing mark.
Missale ad Usum Sarum 1487
Speculum vitæ Christi _circa_ 1488
Doctrinal of Sapience 1489
The History of Reynard the Fox, 2nd edition _circa_ 1489
Directorium Sacerdotum, 2nd edition _circa_ 1489
Eneydos 1490
The Dictes and Sayings, 3rd edition _circa_ 1490
The Mirrour of the World, 2nd edition _circa_ 1490
Divers Ghostly Matters _circa_ 1490
The Festial, 2nd edition _circa_ 1490
Four Sermons, 2nd edition _circa_ 1490
St. Katherine of Senis _circa_ 1491
The _magnum opus_ of Caxton was undoubtedly the edition of “The Golden
Legend,” 1484. The translation alone of this great work must have been
no slight task, while, as to number of leaves and size of both paper
and printed page, it far exceeded his edition of “King Arthur,” which
was the next largest. The smallest pieces of his printing now extant
are “The Advertisement” and the “Indulgences.”
The commercial results of Caxton’s trade as a printer are unknown;
but as the fees paid at his burial were far above the average, and
as he evidently held a respectable position in his parish, we must
conclude that his business was profitable. The preservation of the
“Cost Book” of the Ripoli press has already been noticed, and some
extracts of interest translated therefrom. We may presume that Caxton
also kept exact accounts of his trade receipts and expenditure, and if
such were extant the many doubts which now surround the operations of
his printing-office would be definitely solved. We should then know
the price at which he sold his books, how many pence he asked for his
small quarto “quayers” of poetry, or his pocket editions of the “Horæ”
and “Psalter,” how many shillings were required to purchase the thick
folio volumes, such as “Canterbury Tales,” “King Arthur,” &c. That the
price was not much dearer than that paid for good editions now, we may
infer from the rate at which fifteen copies of the “Golden Legend” sold
between 1496 and 1500. These realised an average price of 6_s._ 8_d._
each, or about £2 13_s._ 4_d._ of modern money, a sum by no means too
great for a large illustrated work. This, however, would depend on the
number of copies considered necessary for an edition, which probably
varied according to the nature of the work. On a blank leaf in the 1st
edition of “Dictes,” at Althorp, is written, apparently by Bagford,
“N.B.--Caxton printed 44 books, 25 of which were with Dates, and 19
without.” One would imagine that so definite a statement must have had
some foundation, but it appears to rest entirely on the writer’s bare
assertion. Some foreign printers issued so many as 275 or 300 copies of
editions of the “Classics,” but it is not probable that Caxton ventured
upon so large an impression, as the demand for his publications must
have been much more restricted.
[Illustration]
FOOTNOTES:
[12] Lettres d’un Bibliographe, Quatrième Série. Paris, 1875. P. 23.
APPENDIX TO BIOGRAPHY.
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF WILLIAM CAXTON.
[Illustration]
APPENDIX.
MERCERS’ RECORDS.--WARDENS’ ACCOUNTS.
(_Mercers’ Hall, London._)
A folio Volume in the Archives of the Mercers’ Company, written on
parchment by various scribes in the 14th and 15th Centuries, extending
from 1344 to 1464. The contents of the volume include--a rent-roll--the
oath of householders--of linen cloth meters--of liverymen--of
brethren--of brokers--of apprentices on their entry and issue--of
freemen--an almanack--and the balance-sheets of the whole Company.
The accounts of the receipts and disbursements of the Company are
annual, and reckoned by the regnal year of the King. These accounts are
generally made up under the following heads:--The annual fee of every
liveryman--fees paid on the entries of apprentices--fees paid on the
issue of apprentices--fines--quit-rents--general expenses--and foreign
expenses. The last head comprises all payments made for goods and
service not included in the legitimate business of the Company.
* * * * *
Oath taken by Caxton on “issuing” from his apprenticeship.
Ye shall swere that ye shal be true vnto oure liege lorde the kyng
and to his heires kynges/ ye shall also be obedient & Redy to come at
all leffull Sumonns & Warnyng of the Wardenis of the mercery/ whan
and as often as ye be duly monysshed & warned by them/ or by any of
them/ by their Bedell/ or by ony other in their name/ leffull excuse
alwey except/ All Ordynaunces & Rules by the ffeliship of the merceri
Ordeyned made and stablished and here after for the wele worship &
profitt of the seid feliship to be made/ ye shall holde and kepe/ All
coīcacons necessarij Ordynaunces and Cowncels for the welfare of the
seid ffeliship and the secrets therof to you shewed/ ye shall kepe
secrete & holde for councell/ and them ne ony of theym to discover
or shew by ony meane or collour vnto ony persoone or persoones of
any other ffeliship. Ye shall also be contributory to all charges
to you putt by the wardeins & ffeliship to bere & pay yo^r parte of
charge sett for yo^r degre like as other of the same ffeliship shall
do for their degre. Moreou ye shall not departe oute of the seid
ffeliship for to serve ne ye shall not accompany you w^t ony persoone
or persoones of ony other feliship wherthrough preiudice & hurte may
in ony wise growe vnto the seid ffeliship of the mercery. And on this
ye shall swere that during the tyme of your seruyce ye shall neither
bey ne sell for yo^r owne self ne for ony other persone ne that ye
shall Receive ony goodes or marchandise by ony collour belonging vnto
ony other p’soon than oonly to yo^r maist whiche that ye now serue
or shall serue w^tynne the ffeliship of ye mercerie except by his
speciall license & will And also that ye shall not take ony shop hous
ch’mbre seller ne warehous by ony collo^r for to ocupie byeing and
sellyng vnto suche tyme as that ye have ben w^t the wardeins of the
mercery for the tyme beyng and by oon of hem for shopholder amytted
sworn and entred Ne that ye shall take ne haue ony apprentice or ony
sē for to ocupye vnto that he by you vnto oon the seid Ward. for
apprentice first presented & by the seid Wardein so amytted All which
poynts & eny of hem to y^r power wele & truly ye shall hold & kepe so
help you god &c.
* * * * *
The oath administered to Caxton upon taking up his freedom.
Ye shall swere that ye shal be good and trew vnto o^r liege Lord
kyng of Englond and to his Eyres kyngs/ obeisaunt & obedyent to the
Mayor & to the minysters of this Cite/ The ffrunchises and Custumes
thereof ye shal maynteyne and the cite kepe harmles in that that in
you is/ ye shall be contributary to al man^r charges w^t in this cite
as somons watches contribucions taskes tallays lotte and skotte and
all other charges bere yo^r parte as ony other frema shall/ ye shall
colo^r no foreyns good wherby the kyng might lose his custume or his
auauntage/ Ye shall know no foreyn to bey sell nor merchundise w^t
another fforeyn within this Cite nor the fraunches therof but ye
warne the Chaumberleyn therof or some mynysters of the chamber/ ye
shal emplede no frema out of this Cite while ye mow have right & lawe
here within/ ye shall take none apprentice but if he be fre borne
and for no lesse time than for vij yers/ within the first yere ye
shall do hym be enrolled and at the termes end ye shall make hym fre
if he have wele and truly served you/ ye shall also kepe the peace/
in yo^r owne persone/ ye shall know no gaderyngs conventicles nor
conspiracies made ayenst the peace but ye warne the Maier thereof &
let it to yo^r power All these poyntes ye shall wele and truly kepe
accordyng to all the Lawes & Custumes of this Cite to yo^r power so
help you god and holidame & by this Boke/
1348.
The Fellowship in the 22nd year of Edward III numbered 4 Wardens and
101 Liverymen, and in this year among those who paid their fees appear--
Richard de Causton
Michael de Causton
William de Causton
Henry de Causton
Theobald de Causton
Nichol de Causton
Roger de Causton
Also in the 2nd year of Henry VI.--Stevyn Causton.
1401.
Under the 2nd year of Henry IV, among the “Entrees des Apprentices,”
is--
William Causton/ Appr. de Thos. Gedeney ij s
1427-1428.
Under the 6th year of Henry VI the name of Robert Large appears for the
first time.
Cest la compte de John Whatley, Robert Large, Thomas Bataill, et John
Pidiuyll fait alffeste de Seint John Baptist lan vj^{me} aps. le
conquest en quils ils estoient gardeins de la mistere del mercerie come
piert apres.
Under the same year, among “Entrees des Apprentices,”--
Robert Halle } Appñtys de Robert Large iiij s
Randolf Streete }
1430-1431.
Under the 9th year of Henry VI, among the “Entrees des Apprentices,”--
Item ress. de Thoms Nyche appñt de Rob^t Large ij s
Item ress. de Rich Bonifaunt appnt de Rob^t Large }
Item de James heton appnt de dit Rob^t } iiij s
1431-1442.
The following item is from the Wardens’ Receipts in the 10th year of
Henry VI--
Item. Ils soy chargent qilz ount ressu de Thos. Staunton ffrere et
Attone de Robert Large de monye quil ad ressu outre mere en ptie de
paiement de les xli prestres a John Wavyn ples gardenis de lan passe.
1435-1436.
Among the Entries of Apprentices in the 14th year of Henry VI--
It’ de Henr. Onkmanton le aprentice de Robert Large ij s
1437-1438.
Among the Issues of Apprentices in the 16th year of Henry VI--
It’ Randolffe Streete lappñtice de Robert Large ij s
Among the entries for the same year--
It’ John large } les appñtices de Robert Large iiij s
It’ Willm’ Caxston }
1438-1439.
Among the Wardens’ Receipts in the 17th year of Henry VI--
It’ Ils soy chargeont pour argent ressu p^r fynes de dius persones en
lo^r temps p^r ces qils fautent de chiuachier ouesqz le mair Robert
Large.
In the same account, under “fforein expenses.”
Item paie a xvi trumpetts le xxix i^r doctobre lan xviij^{me} du dit
Roy Hen vj^{me} pour le chiuachee de Robert large maij
v li vi s viij d
1440-1441.
From the Wardens’ Receipts in the 19th year of Henry VI--
It’ ils soy chargeont pour argent rescue des Executos Robert large del
legace du dit Robert xx li
In the same year, under the Issue of Apprentices--
It’ Thomas Neche qui fuist appñtice de Rob^t large ij s
In the next year, under the Issue of Apprentices--
It’ Rich Bonefant q fuist appñtice de Rob^t large ij s
1442-1443.
Among the Issues of Apprentices in 21 Henry VI--
Xrofer Heton appñtice de Rob^t large ij s
Among the Entries--
Richard large appñtice de Geffrey Felding ij s
Among the Issues of Apprentices in 22 Henry VI--
John Harrowe appñtice de Robert large ij s
Among the Issues of Apprentices in 25 Henry VI--
Richard Caxton s’unt de John Harrowe ij s
1448-1449.
In Foreign Expenses for the 27th year of Henry VI--
To Richard Burgh for berynge of a l’re our the See vj s viij d
1450-1451.
Under Foreign Expenses in the 29th year of Henry VI.--
Item. Paid to John Stubbes for Perys to the Gentilwoman of the
Duchesse of Burgeyn vj d
Item paid to Hewe Wyche for a writ directe to Sandewyche for the
Gownys of the Gentil womans of the duches of Burgeyn ij s vj d
1453.
Lan du grace m cccc liij Et del Roy Herry sizme puis le conqueste
xxxj^e
Under the heading “Entre en la lyvere pm’ An”--
It’ Emond Redeknape vj s viij d
It^m Richaert Burgh vj s viij d
It^m William Caxton vj s viij d
These names have been erased with the pen, and the following memorandum
added beneath--“qz int’ debitores in fine copotꝰ.”
In the list of persons fined “qils fautent de chiuachier ouesque le
mair Geffrey Felding” in the same year are the names of--
William Caxton iij s iiij d
Richard Burgh iij s iiij d
Thomas Bryce iij s iiij d
William Pratt iij s iiij d
1462-1463.
Under Foreign Expenses in the 2nd year of Edward IV--
Item for botehyre for to shewe to ye lords of ye cousell the
l’re y^t came from Caxton & ye felaship by yonde ye See vj d
1464-1465.
At the end of the Wardens’ Account for the 4th year of Edward IV--
Dettours.
Item. Ye ffelaship by yende ye see for yeir patents xlvij li x d
Among the Foreign Expenses for the same year--
Item to Jenyne Bakker, Currour, for berying of a letter to Caxton
ovir ye see xxviij s viij d
1465.
[Folio c xlj; recto.] Anno xiiij^e lxv^e.
Courte holden of the hole felyshipp the xvij^{th} daye of octobr’ the
yere aboue written
* * * * *
[Sidenote: A lettre sent ou the see.]
Welboloued we grete you well certifiyng youe that as towchyng the
convencion of the lordes that was appoynted to begyn at sent Omers
the first daye of the p’sent moneth of october/ the whiche we trusted
vppon/ it is so that it holdith not/ Neu the lesse oure souaign lorde
the kyng Remembryng that thentrecourse expired the ffirst day of
Nouembre next comyng/ hath written a letter to the maire of london/
whereof ye shall receyue a copye closed in this letter/ And where as
the kyng by his lettre willeth that suche a p’sone as shulde go in
message for the brogacion of thentrecours shulde be p’vided in suche
fourme as ye may conceyve by the lettre it is thougth here that it
is not oure parte here in the Citie to take vppon vs a mater of so
grete weyght where that all tymes here to fore the kyng by thavise
of his lords of his Councell have made the p’vision in that behalfe
and vppon this we have labored to the mayre w^t the wardens of dius
felyshippes aventerers that he will write an aunsware to the kyng of
his lettre in the most plesunt wise that he can that it will pleas
his highnes by thavise of his Councell to p’vide for this mater for
the weall of all his subietts/ wherfore consideryng that the day
comyth nygh vppon and how that the kyngs wrytyng and his message
shalbe spedde from hens we are not certen/ wherfor we pray youe for
the welle of alle the kyngs subietts by thavise of the felishipp
there in as goodly hast as ye can labo^r for a meane by the whiche
yo^r p’sones & goods may be in suretie for a reasonable tyme/ and
in the mene whyle there com wrytyng from the kyng to the duke/ or
eles from the duke to the kyng if it will so happen for p’rogacion of
the same/ and suche costs as ye do vppon the suytt we will that they
be generally levied there in suche mañ and fourme as ye seme most
expedient/ written &c.
John lambert John Warde } Custoses.
a W. Caxton John Baker John Alburgh }
1466.
[Folio C xliiij.]
[Sidenote: ffor a lettre send from Caxton Gouerno^{r.}]
Courte of adventerers holden the iij^{th} (_sic_) day of June A°
xiiij^c lxvj. Hit is accorded by the said felishipp for by cause
of a lettre send from William Caxton and theryn a Copye of a lettre
sent to the said William by therle of Warwike for thabstinens of
bying Wares forboden in the dukes londes of Burgoyne by acte of
p’lement that a lettre shalbe made and sent to the said William by
the Custoses and Adventerers whiche is made and sent in the fourme
following &c.
[Sidenote: A lettre send ou to Caxton gouno^{r.}]
Right trusty Sir We grete youe well/ lettyng youe witt the daye of
makyng of this We receyved a lettre from you directed to the mayre
and vs written at Brudgs the xxvij^{th} daye of maye last past and
theryn closed a copye of a lettre directed to youe from oure good
lorde therle of Warwik whiche we haue well vnderstonde & conceyved/
and oppened it to our felishipp for whiche we desire and praye
youe/ in that youe is to consider and fulfill thentent made by acte
of p’lement and the speciall desire of oure forsaid lorde for the
publique weall of this lande and that due inqueraunce be made there
in that youe is for the complyshment of the same/ as right requyreth/
we willyng in no kynde the saide acte to be broken nor hurte by non
of oure felyshipp in that vs is and that the p’sones founde quycly yf
any suche be as god forbede that ye do correcion after th ordenauce
there made and thentent of yo^r lettre and as for yo^r desire of
aunsware of the lordes intent here as yitt we can not vnderstonde
their disposicion but as sone as we have knowlege ye shall haue
wittyng and as for the lettres that ye write ye shulde sent from
seint Omers we receyued non as yitt and as for any ioperdy that
shulde fall ye shall vnderstonde it ther soner than we here/ and if
we knowe of any ye shall have wrytyng &c.
Writ at london the iij^{th} day of June/
J. Tate/ J. Marshall/ Ed. Betts &
J. Broun Custoses of the mercery
& thaventerers of the same.
a Will^m Caxton Guno^r de la nacꝰ deng^{s.}
Envoye p’symond preste le iiij^{th} io^r de June.
1468.
[Folio xij recto.] Anno xiiij° lxviij°^{.}
[Sidenote: Parsones assiged to go in ambassate by the kynges
commaundment.]
Courte holden the ix daye of Septembr the yere aboue writte hit was
accorded and agreede thot for asmoche as the kyng & his Counsell
desyred of the felisshipp to haue certen p’sones of the same to go ou
in Ambassat w^t dius Embassatos into fflaunders as for the enlargyng
of Wollen clothe that theis persones vnderwritten shulde be p’sented
to the kynges highnes & his Councell/ they to do as shall pleas them/
William Redeknape
John Pykeryng
William Caxton
[Same Folio and year.]
[Sidenote: Mony assigned to the said ambassatos for theire Costs.]
Courte holden the xxviij daye of Septebr’ the yere aboue said
hit is accorded that William Redenape and John Pykeryng shall haue in
honde xl li st’ling towarde thoire costs & charges for thambassatt
of thenlargyng of Wollen clothe in the Duke of Burguñ londes whiche
shalbe leyde oute of the cundith mony at this tyme receyued vnto the
tyme another Courte be had for the p’vision of the same by the advise
of the Aldermen of oure felyshipp.
MERCERS’ RECORDS.--RENTER WARDEN’S ACCOUNTS.
(_Mercers’ Hall, London._)
A folio Volume on paper, in the Archives of the Mercers’ Company,
written in the 15th Century, being a continuation, on a different plan,
of the “Wardens’ Accounts.”
It appears that about 1463-4 the wealth of the Mercers, especially in
houses and lands, had so much increased, that it was found convenient,
out of the four Wardens, to appoint one whose business it should be
to keep an account of the Company’s estate. Accordingly every year a
“Renter Warden” was chosen; and from this period the Rent-roll is the
main feature in the books, the sum total only of the Fees and Expenses
of the Company appearing under their separate heads.
1463-1464.
Under “Qwyterents.”--3rd Edward IV.
Item paid to ye Chamberleyn of Westm^r for y^e pye at
S Martyns Otewich for iiij t’m^s at Est’ A° iij^{co} xx s
1464-1465.
4th Edward IV.
Item to ye m’ of S Giles in y^e ffeld for tent^s at
S Martyns Oteswich vj s viiij d
Item to y^e Chamberleyn of yabbey of Westm^r fer ye
same xx s
1467-1468.
7th Edward IV.
Item paid for Rep’ac^s done at S Martyns Oteswich as
ap’ith by ye pap’ of yacopts/ as in tyleng and oy^r
yings xx s vj d obꝰ
1475.
A° xiiij c lxxv. Under the head “Discharge by Qwyterents of the
mercery.”
Paid to the Chambleyn of West^r for the pye xx s
Same year. Under “Qwyterents of Whet’” (Whittington).
The Ward^s of O^r lady brethered of seint Margaret at
Westm^r v s
1477.
A° xiiij c lxxvij. Under “Qwyterents of Whetyngton.”
It’ of the Wardeyns of O^r lady brethered of Seint
Margarets at Westminster v s
1484.
Under “Qwyterents.”
Itm to the Chawmburleyn of west^r for the grehound iiij s vj d
Under “Other paiements.”
For a dener kept at the grehound at the visitacion of
lyuelod xxvj s viij d
Itm for wesshyng of a tabyll cloth ij d
A° xiiij c lxxxiiij Under the same.
It’ of the ward^s of o^r lady brethered of seint
marg’ets at Westemest^r for their tentꝰ in
Aldermare v s
THE WILL OF ROBERT LARGE,
Citizen of London and Mercer, dated 11th April, 1441. The original copy
is in the book, called “Rouse,” formerly deposited in the Prerogative
Court, Doctors’ Commons, and now in the Probate Registry of the High
Court of Justice. In Latin.
TRANSLATION.