four distinct editions, of the _Donatus_ have been found. This type,
which does not closely resemble the faces previously described, was
founded on a body a little larger than Paragon. The largest book in
this type is a treatise on the Roman Law, apparently an abridgment of
the fifth book of the _Pandects of Justinian_. It is described in the
preface as _The Peculiarities of Criminal Law, by Lewis of Rome_. This
treatise, which consists of forty-four pages, is printed in the form of
small folio, twenty-six lines to the page. It was the largest book and
contains the largest type of the unknown printer. [p287]
TYPE V. The forty-fifth page and all subsequent pages of the book
previously described are devoted to a _Treatise and Epitaphs by Pope
Pius II_, and a _Eulogy on Lorenzo Valla_. In these names we find sure
indications of the probable age of the book: Cardinal Piccolomini or
Æneas Sylvius was made Pope Pius II in the year 1458; Lorenzo Valla
died in 1457. The book must have been written and printed after
these dates. The workmanship of this part of the book is of superior
character: the types were fairly founded on a body about the size of
Great-primer; they were decently printed in good black ink and on both
sides of the paper, but the remarkable defect of embossed letters which
has been noticed as one of the blemishes of the _Speculum_ is also
noticeable in this book.
This Type V seems to have been more frequently used than any other
type in the list, but it was always on petty books or pamphlets. One
book printed in it has only twenty-four pages, but it is made up of
four distinct tracts: _William of Saliceto on the Health of the Body_;
_Torquemada on the Health of the Soul_; _A Treatise on Love, etc., by
Pope Pius II_; _The Iliad of Homer_, or more definitely, a commendation
of the _Iliad_. Two editions of this book have been discovered. A
fragment of one edition was found in the binding of a work printed by
Jan Andrieszoon, of Haarlem, in the year [p288] 1486. Another book in
the same type, which consists of ten leaves, contains an abridgment
or an epitome of the _Iliad_, with a preface by Pius II in praise of
Homer. Of this book two editions were printed. Six editions of the
_Donatus_, four editions of the _Doctrinal of Alexander Gallus_, and
one edition of the _Couplets of Cato_ were also printed in this type.
[Illustration: Type V. Fac-simile of the Types of the Epitaphs of Pope
Pius II.
[From Koning.]]
TYPE VI. An edition of the _Donatus_, twenty-seven lines to the page,
is the only known book in this type, which was founded on Great-primer
body.
TYPE VII. Four leaves of a _Donatus_ on vellum, taken from the binding
of a book printed in Strasburg in the year 1493, and belonging to a
convent in North Brabant, are all that is known of this type, which
closely resembles the character described as Type V.
TYPE VIII.[147] Impressions from this face of type have been found
in the fragments of only two books. Two broad bands of parchment
printed upon one side only with the text of a [p289] _Donatus_,
which were discovered in the cover linings of a manual of devotion,
printed at Delft in 1484, are the only known relics of one of these
books. The types are barbarous, of singularly ungraceful cut, of
uneven height and out of line, evidently founded by a man who had no
skill in type-founding. They are printed in pale ink which is readily
removed by the application of water. The presswork is as slovenly as
the type-founding, but the composition was done with some care and
intelligence. The lines of type are nearly even as to length, and the
words, when broken, are properly divided in syllables. It is evident
that the compositor knew how to space and divide words, but the
font of type that he used was not provided with hyphens or marks of
punctuation. The fashion of the letter is in the Dutch style as may be
seen in the final _t_ with the perpendicular bar.
The other fragment in this type is a little pamphlet of eight pages,
printed on parchment and upon one side only. It is described by
some as a _Horarium_, or a little book of prayers; by others as an
_Abecedarium_, or a child’s primer. It contains the Alphabet (all the
small letters but not the capitals), the Lord’s Prayer, the Ave Maria,
the Apostles’ Creed, and two prayers. The Alphabet has the _k_, a
letter that was not used in the Latin language; it has no _w_, this
letter being formed by the union of the two characters _v_. Holtrop
says that the types seem to have been made for the Dutch language.
The “turning upside down” of four letters on the second page of this
little work proves that the letters are impressions from movable types.
Line 2. _Paue_ should be Pane.
Line 3. _Cotidiaun_ should be Cotidianu.
Line 5. _uobis_ should be nobis.
Line 6. _uostra_ should be nostra.
This little tract was discovered in 1751 by the celebrated type-founder
Enschedé, of Haarlem, in a manuscript breviary of the fifteenth
century, among the books of the descendants of John Van Zuren, a
printer of Haarlem in 1561.
If barbarous type-founding and shabby printing could be accepted as
conclusive evidence of the superior antiquity of [p290] the book
in which these faults occur, the _Abecedarium_ should be the oldest
piece of printed matter. One cannot imagine a printed book with more
slovenly workmanship. Its types present all the irregularities of the
_Donatus_ previously described. The pages have but nine lines of types
to each page, yet they are very crooked. This crookedness was partially
produced by an unskillful fastening, or locking-up of the types, but
it is plain that the types were of irregular size as to body, and that
the letters were badly adjusted upon the bodies. Some types are high
and others low to paper, and there are types that are legible at one
end of the face and not at the other. The presswork is wretched: we
see the evidences of too weak and badly distributed ink and of uneven
impression. The text shows many faults of composition in the division
of syllables. To the observer who is not an expert in typography, the
workmanship of the book seems that of a man who had no experience in
any department of printing: the faults do not appear to be those of a
badly taught printer, but those of an experimenter.
[Illustration: First Page.
The Enschedé Abecedarium.
[From Holtrop.]]
[Illustration: Second Page.
The Enschedé Abecedarium.
[From Holtrop.]]
For this reason the _Abecedarium_ has been claimed by the Dutch
historians of typography as the first production of the inventor of the
art. They say that it was printed before any edition of the _Speculum_,
and probably in the first quarter of the fifteenth century. A closer
[p291] examination of the book does not lead to this conclusion: the
printer of the book was, no doubt, a careless workman, but he had been
taught the trade. The fragments of the tract are in four pieces, but
they were printed in one form of eight pages, and by one impression.
This artificial arrangement of the pages, in the arbitrary position
which allows them to be folded together in regular order, reveals an
expertness in little technicalities on the part of this early printer
which is somewhat unexpected. The method of printing sheets imposed in
forms of eight pages was not in fashion before it was adopted by Aldus
Manutius, of Venice, in his edition of Virgil dated 1501. It is not
an invention of the first, but of the last quarter of the fifteenth
century, to which period this book belongs.[148]
The types of the book were not set up by an experimenter or ignoramus.
The comparatively even outline to the right of every page shows that
the compositor tried to space out his lines and to give every page an
appearance of uniform squareness. As full and even-spaced lines are not
to be found in any edition of the _Speculum_, nor in any of the first
books of the early printers, we may conclude that the _Abecedarium_ was
printed at a later date, when this improvement had been adopted by all
printers.
It has been maintained that the book must be very old, because it is
printed on one side only, after the fashion of the block-printers.
This is an improper inference, for each fragment has the appearance
of a spoiled impression which was rejected before the sheet had been
perfected by printing on the other side. The unfilled space for the
initial letter shows that the work on the sheet was never completed.
[p292]
The eight faces of types show their relation to each other, not only
by common features, but by the occasional appearance of two faces
in one book. That they were never used by any printer of Germany,
nor by any known printer of the Netherlands, is acknowledged even by
those who dispute their age. That they were founded and used in the
Netherlands, and probably in Holland, may rightfully be inferred from
the language of two editions of the same book, from the Dutch fashion
of the letters in all the books, and from the fact that all existing
copies or fragments of works in these types have been discovered in
the Netherlands. That they were the work of one printer, or of the
successors of that printer, is highly probable. But this admission
involves difficulties. These eight faces of types were founded on
as many different bodies: four of these faces are on bodies nearly
the size of English; two of them are on bodies about the size of
Great-primer. The modern printer is at a loss to imagine why his
unknown predecessor should have cut so many punches and made so many
fonts of types with faces closely resembling each other, yet so unlike
that they could not be used together. His perplexity is increased when
he discovers, after careful measurement, that each face on English
body and each face on Great-primer body was cast in a new or different
mould. It would seem that the unknown printer of the _Speculum_ not
only incurred the needless expense of cutting new punches and making
new moulds for every new font of types, but that he intentionally
introduced in his printing office bodies so nearly alike that they
could not, in the shape of single types, be distinguished apart.
The questions at once arise, Why were so many faces and bodies of types
that could be readily mistaken for each other, and were so liable to
be mixed together, allowed in one office? Why were so many punches
cut for such trivial differences of face, and so many moulds made for
such slight differences of body? These questions can be answered only
by conjectures fairly derived from the remarkable workmanship of the
books. [p293] The harsh indentation of the types in the paper shows
very clearly that the types were roughly used, and that they wore out
rapidly. We can see, also, that the method of making types was as
imperfect as the method of obtaining impression. It is possible that
the matrices and moulds wore out as fast as the types, but they could
not have been renewed if they had not been made by a much quicker
and cheaper method than that of modern type-founders. It is not at
all probable that these different types were in use together. We may
suppose that as soon as a font of types was worn out, it was replaced
by another font, which may have been cast from new matrices and a new
adjustment of mould. A new font made in imitation of the old one, but
made without scientific method, and without regard to exact accuracy,
would show the difference in face and body which seems so strange to
the modern printer.
These eight fonts of type seem all the more unnecessary when we
consider the trivial nature of the unknown printer’s works.[149]
The _Speculum_ is the only book of respectable size; the others are
so diminutive that they could be classified as pamphlets. They were
cheaply made, adapted, apparently, to the wants of school-boys, and
were probably sold for small sums. It is evident that the books met
with ready sale. We find four editions of the _Speculum_ in two faces
of type and in two languages; nineteen editions of the _Donatus_ in six
faces of type; six editions of the _Doctrinal_ in two faces; and twelve
editions of other books.
From the character of the books, one might judge that they had been
printed for the use of some school, and at the suggestion, or under
the direction, of the authorities of the church. The _Abecedarium_ was
a primer for small children. The books most frequently published, the
_Donatus_ and the _Doctrinal_, were those most needed by very young
scholars. [p294] The _Couplets of Cato_, the curt treatise on the
_Roman Law_, and the _Praise of the Iliad_, are, in size and subject,
the books that would be suitable for a boy’s school in the middle ages.
The _Treatises_ of Saliceto and Torquemada, the _Witty Sayings of Great
Men_ and the _Eulogy_ of Pope Pius II, may also be included in the list
of books that were intended to be used in schools for the teaching of
morals. The character of these works is more juvenile than that of any
other typographic printer of that century. Whoever compares them with
the ponderous theological works that were printed by Mentel, Gutenberg
and Schœffer, and by numerous printers in Germany, and subsequently in
the Netherlands, will at once see that this unknown printer made books
for boys where other printers made books for men. Probably he could
secure no other buyers. His workmanship was so rude that it could not
be sold to an intelligent or critical reader. His process was suitable
only for the cheapest work and the simplest tastes.
[Illustration: 1. Experimental Letters Drawn on Wood.
[From De la Borde.]]
[Illustration: 2. Experimental Letters Drawn on Wood.
[From De la Borde.]]
[Illustration: 3. Types made from the Experimental Letters.[150]
[From De la Borde.]]
It is unnecessary to prove that the types of these books, like the
types of the _Speculum_, were founded in a mould. They show the same
features, and must have been made by the same process. It is, however,
necessary to show that neither these types, nor [p295] any types made
in the infancy of the art, could have been cut on wood or metal. There
is a tradition, which has found its way in many popular treatises on
typography, and even in encyclopædias, that the first types were cut
or sawed out of wood. We are told that separate letters, drawn at
graduated distances, were engraved on blocks of wood, and that a saw
cutting through the intervening spaces separated the fixed letters
and made movable types. According to Meerman, the uncouthness of the
types of the _Abecedarium_ is fully explained by the acceptance of this
tradition. It is necessary, at the outset, to show the impracticability
of these imaginary types of wood. This can be done in no better way
than by presenting the illustrations of Leon De la Borde, one of the
most eminent defenders of the theory. In these engravings, we see how
the letters were drawn on the blocks, how lines were marked out to
guide the saw that cut them apart, and how the dissected letters were
recombined in new positions. But this illustration really proves the
reverse of what was intended: it proves that types may be cut out of
wood, but that they cannot be used after they have been cut. In this
third illustration, the lines of type are separated by leads,[151]
but the types stand more unevenly in line than the letters of any
xylographic book. It is obvious to every printer that they could not
have been printed at all, if they had not been [p296] leaded. As
an imitation, the illustration is of no value, for it illustrates a
method of arranging types which was never practised by the unknown
printer, whose types were always composed without leads. This pretended
demonstration must be put aside as a complete failure.[152]
Those who have written in defense of types of wood have failed to see
that the cutting of the faces is the least difficult part of the work.
The real difficulty is in the cutting of the bodies—in making bodies so
accurate that they can be interchanged with facility, in all kinds of
combinations, without showing distortion in the line of the face. In
small types made of wood this accuracy is not possible. Even if it were
possible to cut them, it would be impossible to use them. No care could
keep them from warping. Types must be wet with ink, and they must be
cleansed with lye or water; they must be exposed to changes from heat
to cold, from dampness to dryness. Under these influences, the little
skewers of wood, for so they must be regarded, would soon be twisted
out of shape, and unfitted for future service. It is in this liability
to warp that types of wood fail most signally. It is not enough that
they can be made to serve for one experiment; the only demonstration of
practicability that a printer can accept is [p297] that of repeated
distribution and recomposition, a feat which has never been done. That
types of wood were tried by the inventor of typography is probable;
that single leaves were printed, experimentally, is possible; but the
statement that any printer used them repeatedly in the printing of
books, cannot be admitted. No book was ever printed in Europe with
small types of wood. It is time, says Van der Linde, that criticism
made a bonfire of these imaginary types.[153]
The hypothesis of types of wood has been given up reluctantly. It was
considered that the singular variety of letters, so noticeable in all
the books of the unknown printer, and so contrary to the usage of
the modern type-founder, could have been produced only by engraving
the types. A demonstration of the impracticability of bodies of wood
seemed to [p298] destroy with it the only reasonable explanation of
the greatest peculiarity of these types. To place this imaginary method
of making types on unassailable ground, Meerman offered a modification
of the theory. He supposed that the first printers of Germany founded
little cubes of metal, with truly squared bodies, upon one end of
which the faces were subsequently engraved. The misconstruction of
the language of a chronicler of the sixteenth century—who, in trying
to explain the process of making types, carelessly placed the cutting
of the punch after the founding of the type—seemed a full warrant for
this conjecture. It is, however, but a conjecture: there is no credible
authority for the statement that the printers first cast the bodies and
then cut the faces. Cut types, if made at all, were made only in the
way of preliminary experiment. The method is as impracticable as it is
absurd. “He must have been an imbecile,” says Bernard, “who could not
see that the process of founding in a mould which made the body would
also make the face.”
The allusions to letter-cutting that are so frequent in all the earlier
notices of type-making can be readily explained. The cutting is not
that of types used for printing, but of the punches by which the
printing types were made. The types of the early printers were made by
two classes of workmen: he who poured the melted metal was the founder;
he who made the model letters was the cutter. Performing the more
artistic and the more difficult part of the work, the punch-cutter was
properly regarded as the maker of the types.
The variety of faces in the types of the unknown printer can be
explained in a much more satisfactory manner than by attributing them
to the accidental slips or deviation of the graving tool. The letters
of the manuscript books of that century were not uniform; it was not
necessary that printed letters should be uniform. The fashion of the
day did not require it. On the contrary, it did seem desirable that
the letters should be printed with the variety of shapes to which
readers were accustomed. Whether this variety of shape in [p299] type
was the result of design, of accident, or of necessity need not now
be considered; in this place it is enough to say that all the early
printers made many varieties of the letters which they most frequently
used.[154] It should, however, be noticed that this apparent taste for
variety of form was confined to the small or lower-case letters. Two
forms of a capital letter are rarely found in the same book, but the
same form of capital is occasionally used with two faces of lower-case
types that are decidedly different.
The dissimilarity of the small types has been made greater by faults
of type-founding and of presswork. In all copies of the _Speculum_
the careful observer will see the impressions of types with imperfect
faces. There are many half-formed letters, with little peculiarities
of appearance which can be satisfactorily explained only by the
conjecture that the types in leaving the mould, carried with them the
impress of defects in the matrices. We can see that the types were
unequal in height, and that the over-high types have been flattened out
under impression. This flattening-out of the soft metal has produced
a strange appearance of compactness, making letters that were really
separate seem connected. The ink, which [p300] was sometimes thin
and gray and sometimes thick and strong black, was applied by an
imperfect method which has filled the counters of some letters until
they are almost illegible, while it has not fairly covered the faces of
other letters. The singular irregularities of a collection of types,
apparently new on one page and worn-out on another, which have provoked
the astonishment of many critics, are chargeable, not to the condition
of the types, but to faulty methods of inking and impression. Few
persons have a proper notion of the changes that can be given to the
appearance of the best modern types by substituting wet for dry paper,
hard for light impression, and thin for thick ink.[155]
How the types of these and of other early books were founded cannot
be learned from the vague descriptions of the early chroniclers of
typography. We have to conjecture the process from the workmanship of
the books. The discrepancies in the bodies and the imperfections of the
faces indicate that the process was rude and unscientific, and that the
mould was not of metal. It is possible that the maker of these types
followed the example of other founders in metals, and made types in
moulds of sand.[156] There are some peculiarities in his types which
almost confirm this conjecture. The difficulty encountered in fitting
matrices to these moulds, or in adjusting the mould of the face of the
letter in proper position on the body, a difficulty that calls for no
explanation, may be the reason why the types are so often out of line,
crookedly set on body and of irregular height to paper. The feebleness
of the sand mould, its liability to damage, and the necessity for
its frequent renewal are, possibly, the reasons why we find in the
[p301] impressions of the unknown printer types of so many bodies,
and with such singular defects.[157] The rounded edges, spotted stems
and deficient lines of many of the letters seem the faults of types
unskillfully founded in moulds of sand, from metal insufficiently hot,
poured in without the force that is needed to make it penetrate all the
finer lines of the matrix.[158]
Koning, the author of a prize essay on the invention of typography
by Coster, expresses his belief in the theory that the types of the
_Speculum_ were made from punches of wood and were founded in matrices
of lead. His belief in the use of these rude implements is based on
the well known fact that matrices of lead were frequently used by the
earlier German and Dutch printers. Enschedé of Haarlem had in his
type-foundry matrices of lead, which he claimed were used by Peter
Schœffer in the fifteenth century. Firmin-Didot, the eminent [p302]
type-founder of Paris, says that punches of wood and matrices of lead
were used in his type-foundry for the casting of large ornamental types
even as late as the beginning of the present century. His description
is as curious as it is instructive.