lead, a character cut on wood, at the instant when, melted by heat,
the lead is about to harden. Matrices of lead made by this process are
subsequently justified for height and for lining, like other matrices.
Then, by the ordinary process of stereotyping, one may take from this
matrix, a duplicate in metal, which, after having been dressed, is
replaced in the matrix in lead, and fitted up to a mould. The melted
metal poured in this mould, not only makes the body of the type, but
at the same time solders itself to the stereotype [nested in the
matrix] which makes the face of the type. By this process one may take
from a matrix in lead, a type as perfect as that which is obtained
in the ordinary manner. But these matrices in lead will only make a
limited number of stereotypes. . . . By taking the precaution to cool
occasionally a matrix in lead, one can obtain from sixty to eighty
types, without being obliged to re-enter the old matrix with the punch
of wood, or to make a new matrix from the same punch. For vowels,
and for the letters that are more frequently used, it is necessary
to increase the number of matrices. But whenever the punch re-enters
the matrix, the form of the punch undergoes some alteration from the
effects of the pressure and the heat. It often happens that the punch
is burned during the little time that it is buried in the hot metal.
It then becomes necessary to re-engrave the punch. These are the
reasons why differences in shape are to be found in the letters that
are most frequently used.[159]
Whether the types of the unknown printer were founded entirely in
sand, or in matrices of lead, cannot be positively determined from the
appearance of the letters, for it seems that either method of founding
would produce types showing similar defects. It is probable that
the punches were cut on wood, and sunk in hot metal as described by
Didot, and that the types of the _Speculum_ were not only cast in lead
matrices, but that the matrices were sometimes conjoined, and that two
or more letters were cast together on one body. There is a closeness
of fitting in some of the words which cannot be [p303] explained
with entire satisfaction by the hypothesis that this closeness is the
result of flattening out under pressure. One is strengthened in this
belief when he discovers that it was not an uncommon practice in the
type-foundries of the fifteenth century to join the matrices. Six of
the matrices owned by Enschedé, and by him attributed to Schœffer, were
made to be combined. These leaden matrices were pierced through their
sides with a gimlet-hole, in which an iron wire was inserted to bind
them together, and keep them securely on the mould. The method was
faulty, for it could not keep the matrices in proper position; it could
not produce types uniform as to height and true as to line.[160]
The thick faces and flattened lines of the types in many of the unknown
printer’s books show that his types were of very soft metal, probably
of pure lead. To satisfy his doubts on this subject, Enschedé cast in
some of his antique moulds types composed almost entirely of lead.
The experiment succeeded: he was convinced that practical types of
lead could be founded in matrices of lead.[161] Blades carried this
experiment to a more successful conclusion, for he put the types to
practical use. He had cast for him a collection of types in [p304]
“unmixed lead,” with which he printed five hundred impressions on rough
and dry paper. He says that the types showed no appreciable wear; but
this is not surprising, for we have evidences that they were printed
by an expert pressman on an iron press provided with every appliance
requisite for a nice adjustment of the impression.
It is not at all probable that the press of the unknown printer had
these handy appliances. All the printing presses made before the
nineteenth century had wooden frames, with beds of slate or stone,
and platens or pressing surfaces of wood. Impression was given by the
direct action of a screw, the force applied being regulated only by the
discretion of the pressman. Knight, in his essay on Caxton, says the
press of that printer was a modification of the cheese-press, provided
with an attachment that permitted the form of types to be moved in and
out of the press. German authors say that the first printing press
was a modification of the wine-press. Bernard says it was, probably,
an improved form of coining or stamping press. But these are only
conjectures. We can find no engraving nor any verbal description of the
form of the printing press in use during the fifteenth century. The
general neglect by all artists and writers of this important auxiliary
to printing is an indication that no importance was attached either to
the mechanism of the press or to the principle of impression. It seems
to have been generally understood that, whatever merit there might have
been in the invention of printing, no noteworthy inventive skill had
been shown in the construction of the press. It was not only a rude but
an old contrivance.
We have many evidences that the press of the unknown printer was of the
rudest construction. Some pages have the marks of strong pressure in
one corner and of weak impression in another—manifestly the result of
the printer’s inability to regulate or control the force he exerted.
The margins of the _Speculum_ are of unequal width; the type-work is
rarely ever parallel with the engraving at the head or at a proper
[p305] distance from it. On some pages, the types overlap or bite on
the wood-cuts; on other pages they are too near or too far from them.
One of the reasons why the _Speculum_ was printed on one side only
was the deficiency in this press of any contrivance for determining
the proper position of the sheet before the impression was taken.
The pressman could not print one page truly and squarely on the back
of another page. Koning says that the printer did not have the least
idea of the means to be used for accomplishing this result.[162] This
defect of the press can be seen in the pages of the small books without
illustrations: they were printed on both sides, but the modern printer
would condemn the work as seriously out of register.
The most remarkable peculiarity in the presswork of the _Speculum_ is
the embossed letters at the ends of the short lines.[163] They are most
noticeable in the two Latin editions, which contain lines of unequal
length. To the modern printer the purpose to be accomplished by the
use of the old and worn types that produced these embossed letters is
apparent at a glance. They served as bearers or guards to shield newer
and better types in exposed positions from an impression which [p306]
could not be regulated. This exposed position was at the ends of the
long lines; the types that projected beyond their fellows received the
hardest impression, and the printer knew no better method of shielding
them than by the insertion of worn types at the ends of the shorter
lines above and below.[164]
This expedient was insufficient. On the margins of many copies of the
_Speculum_ can be detected (for the grain of wood is unmistakable) the
marks of impressions against wood. It seems that the pages of types
were fastened in a mortised block of wood of the same height as the
types. This block of wood not only served as a chase to hold the types,
but as a bearer to shield the types from uneven impression. It steadied
the descent of the platen, and diffused the impression equally over the
entire surface. These bearers shielded the types from undue impression,
but they made a new difficulty, for they were of the same height as
the types. The inking of a form so constructed must have blackened
with equal impartiality the types of the text, the worn types used as
bearers, and the wooden chase. To lay a sheet of white paper over such
a form would smear and blacken it at the ends of short lines and in
the margins where no color was required. It became necessary to put a
mask over these bearers, so that the ink on the bearers would not be
transferred to the paper.
This mask was substantially the same contrivance which modern printers
call the frisket. It shielded the white sheet from contact with ink
where ink was not required, but could not shield it from impression. It
really strengthened and deepened the impression, producing the embossed
letters in the short lines and the marks of wood in the margins. On
[p307] some pages the slipping or displacement of this paper mask
caused the false letters to be printed in black; on one other page the
mask slipped so trivially that one-half of the false types was printed
in black, while the other half was embossed in white; on another page
the mask slipped over the text type, and obscured the end of the line.
These were exceptional errors; the general execution of this part of
the work shows that the printer was a man of some intelligence, and
that with imperfect materials he performed a very difficult task.
[Illustration: The Frisket, Tympan and Bed of a European Hand Printing
Press.
_A C_ The Frisket.
_C B_ The Tympan.
_B D_ The Bed.
The operation of presswork begins with inking the form on the bed of
the press, which, in this illustration, is supposed to contain a form
not unlike that of the _Speculum_, nested in a chase type-high. The
sheet is laid on the tympan against guides that keep it in place. The
frisket, containing the paper masks cut out to sink the irregularities
of the form, is folded down in the line A B, partially covering the
paper on the tympan. The tympan is then folded over on the line C D,
which operation brings the paper down on the face of the form, ready
to receive the impression. These are the appliances of a modern press.
The frisket of the unknown printer was of much simpler construction,
probably nothing more than a mask of paper laid on the form of types by
hand.]
[p308]
XVI
The Period in which the Speculum was Printed.
The Paper-Marks of the Speculum, with Fac-similes . . . Not Evidence
of Age . . . The Earliest Dated Annotation . . . Earliest Known
Manuscript copy in Dutch . . . Indications that the Book was Printed
at Utrecht . . . Probably Printed in the Last Half of the Fifteenth
Century . . . Review of the Evidences . . . The Cambray Record . . .
Printers of the Fraternity of St. John at Bruges . . . Testimony
of Zell in the Cologne Chronicle . . . All Unsatisfactory . . .
Discordant Opinions . . . Dutch Printing probably Xylographic . . .
No Evidence of an Early Use of Types in Holland . . . Early Printing
in Haarlem . . . Jacob Bellaert . . . Fac-simile of his Types . . .
His Successors . . . Brito of Bruges, with Fac-simile of his Types
. . . Was not an Inventor . . . Netherlandish Knowledge of Printing
came from Cologne . . . Map of the Netherlands . . . Not probable that
Types were Used there before 1463.
* * * * *
The utility and charm of historical researches do not depend upon
the exactness of their results. Inasmuch as error is misfortune, so
examination is profitable, even that which does no more than declare
as evident the opinion which had been regarded as plausible.
_Daunou._
* * * * *
The paper-marks[165] of the _Speculum_ and of other works of the
unknown printer have been repeatedly examined in the belief that
they would reveal the place where and the time when the paper was
manufactured. A Dutch author has said that these marks enable us to
determine when the books in which they are to be seen were printed. An
English author, [p309] who devoted the larger part of a folio volume
to a review of the paper-marks of the block-books, undertook to prove
from them that the _Speculum_ must have been printed before 1440.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
All known copies of the _Speculum_ contain a variety of dissimilar
paper-marks. Among them are the hand, the dolphin, the lily, the
unicorn, bulls’ heads, the letter P, the letter Y, the letters M A, the
spurred wheel, and the papal keys. Many of these marks are found in the
paper of the _Canticles_ and the _Bible of the Poor_. It is evident
that papers bearing so great a variety of paper-marks were not made at
one mill, and probably not in the same district. They were not made in
Holland, at least not during the first half of the fifteenth century,
for there were then no paper-mills in that country. The early records
of the treasury of the city of Haarlem, which are written on papers
containing paper-marks like those of the _Speculum_, show that the
paper was bought at Antwerp. Koning thinks that the _Speculum_, and the
block-books which are printed on the same paper, must have been printed
between 1420 and 1440; that the paper of the books was made in Brabant;
and that many of the paper-marks are the initials or arms of the house
of Burgundy. According to Koning, the letter P stands for Philip the
Good, Duke of Burgundy, who reigned from 1419 to 1467; the letter Y
stands for Ysabella of Portugal, who married Philip in 1430; M A stand
for Margaret, who was countess of Holland before that state was ceded
to Philip in 1433. These are very confident assumptions; they require a
careful examination.
A closer investigation has elicited these facts: the letter P has
been found in the accounts of the Count of Holland at the Hague for
the year 1387; paper bearing the same P was used by many printers of
the Netherlands, by one printer in Paris, and by several printers in
Germany in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. It is found in
paper made before and [p310] after the reign of Philip, and in cities
over which Philip never ruled. Paper containing the letter Y was used
in 1395, before Ysabella was born; it was in use for many years after
she was dead; paper with the letters M A joined to the arms of Bavaria
must have been made before her daughter Jacqueline was married, or,
in other words, before 1422, an earlier date than can be claimed for
any typographic book. The rude paper-mark of the bull’s head was in
frequent use between the years 1370 and 1523 in the Netherlands and in
Germany; it is found in the great Bible of Gutenberg. It is, therefore,
of no value in an inquiry concerning the date of any book in which
it has been found. The paper-mark of the lily was used even in the
fourteenth century; in the fifteenth it was as common as the bull’s
head. It is found in books that were printed in Cologne and in Paris,
in Utrecht, Gouda, Delft, Louvain and Deventer. Paper marked with the
unicorn was frequently used by the later Netherlandish printers. It did
not go out of use until 1620. It is found in so many shapes that it is
impossible to determine by it the date, or the printer, of any book on
which it was used.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
When we find that these marks were used in manuscripts before the
fifteenth century, and in printed books at the end of the fifteenth
century, we have to conclude that they are almost worthless as
evidence[166] in an inquiry concerning the printer of the _Speculum_.
Instead of proving that the _Speculum_ must have been printed between
1420 and 1440, they really show, so far as paper is connected with the
question, that the various editions of the book could have been printed
in the third, and perhaps in the fourth, quarter of the century. [p311]
We have a clearer indication of the period of the unknown printer
in the fragments of his work that have been discovered in the cover
linings of manuscript and printed books bound in the latter part of
the fifteenth century. It is obvious that the fragments are older than
the bindings, but it is not probable that they are much older, for no
fragment has been found in any book made before the year 1467. The
larger portion came from bindings made after 1470.
A copy of _William of Saliceto on the Health of the Body_ contains a
written memorandum or annotation to this effect: “This book was bought
by Lord Conrad, abbot of this place, XXXIIII [?], who died in the year
1474.” Conrad du Moulin was abbot between the years 1471 and 1474 only.
Another inscription in the same book states that it once belonged to
the Convent of St. James at Lille.[167] These inscriptions have been
cited to show that the unknown printer preceded every other typographic
printer in the Netherlands; but the precedence claimed is unimportant,
for we know that Ketelaer and De Leempt printed books at Utrecht in
1473.
In a public library at Haarlem is a manuscript copy of a version of
the _Speculum_ in the Dutch language—an admirably illustrated book of
290 leaves of vellum—which contains these inscriptions: “This book was
finished in the year of our Lord 1464, on the 16th day of July. . . .
An Ave Maria to God for the writer. . . . . This book belongs to Cayman
Janszoen of Zierikzee, living with the Carthusians near Utrecht.”[168]
Van der Linde says that the text of the two editions in Dutch described
on a previous page, is really an abridgment of the text of this Utrecht
manuscript of 1464.
This fact established, the claim that the Dutch editions of the book
were printed before this date becomes untenable. Nor is there positive
evidence that the book was printed anywhere out of Utrecht. Utrecht
was the residence of David, a prince of Burgundy and a notable patron
of literature; it was also the residence of the bishop of the diocese;
it had a [p312] gymnasium (as the high school of the time was then
designated) of some reputation; it was a favorable location for an
early printer; it was in Utrecht that the mutilated blocks of the
_Speculum_ were printed by John Veldener in 1483.
The book containing the _Eulogy_ on Pope Pius II, which must have
been printed after the year 1459, and the _Abecedarium_, with its
evenly spaced lines and its arrangement in octavo, are specimens of
the typography, not of the second, but of the third, quarter of the
fifteenth century. The Latin editions of the _Speculum_ were, no doubt,
printed before the Dutch editions; but when we consider the activity
of nearly all the early printers, and their frequent publication of
popular books, it is hazardous to concede to the Latin editions a
priority of more than five years. But Dutch bibliographers claim that
the earlier editions of the book were printed at least thirty-three,
perhaps fifty, years before the arrival of German printers in the
Netherlands. To support this claim, they refer to passages or
annotations in old manuscript books, which seem to show that printed
books were common in the Netherlands during the middle of the century.
These passages and annotations demand critical examination.
There is an entry in an old diary which, on its first reading, produces
the impression that printed books were sold in Bruges as ordinary
merchandise in the first half of the fifteenth century. This entry was
made by one Jean le Robert, abbot of St. Aubert in Cambray, then a city
of Burgundy.
_Item._ For a doctrinal _getté en molle_, which I sent to Bruges for
in the month of January, 1445, from Marquart, the first copyist at
Valenciennes, for Jacquart, twenty sous, currency of Tours. Little
Alexander had a similar copy for which the church paid.
_Item._ Procured at Arras a doctrinal for the instruction of the
Lord Gerard, which had been bought at Valenciennes, and which was
_jettez en molle_, and which cost twenty-four groots. He [Lord Gerard]
returned to me this doctrinal on All Saints’ Day, in the year ’51,
saying that he set no value on it, and that it was altogether faulty.
He had bought another copy in paper for ten patards.[169] [p313]
The importance of this document depends entirely upon the construction
of these words, _getté en molle_. Bernard says that they have always
been regarded in France as the equivalent of printing, or of printed
letters.[170] The literal meaning of the words is, _cast in mould_.
So construed, no words could more clearly define founded types. This
construction of the phrase would prove the existence of a typographic
printer in Bruges at least as early as 1445. The dry, matter-of-fact
way in which the words were used would show that books of this
description were not novelties; that they were sold in Arras and in
Bruges; that book-buyers were critical about their workmanship, and
knew how they were made.
This construction of the phrase has been keenly disputed. Van der
Linde says that the books were printed, but not from types—from blocks
that had been _getté en molle_, or put into form, or put into readable
shape, by the art of engraving. He cites authorities showing that the
word _molle_ or _mould_ had been applied to forms of manuscript.[171]
Dr. Van Meurs proposes a new construction—that _getté en molle_ has
nothing to do either with types or blocks. “Who does not perceive,
while reading the Cambray document, that in 1451, the term _getté en
molle_ is used in contradistinction to _in paper_? Do not these terms
make us rather think of books in loose sheets as opposed to sheets
that are bound? What can _molle_ mean but form? What is a book _getté
en molle_ but a book brought together in a form, or in a binding, in
[p314] opposition to another book in paper, or in a paper cover?” This
conjecture is reasonable. No one knows of an early edition of this book
from engraved blocks. As the seller of one copy was a copyist we may
conclude that both copies were written.
Equally unsatisfactory to an unprejudiced reader is the misconstruction
of the word printer in the list of the different arts or trades
embraced by the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist, at Bruges.
It has been inferred that the printers here noticed were printers
of types, and that typographic printing was done in 1454, when the
following list was written:[172]
Librariers en boeckverkopers, or booksellers.
Vinghettemakers, or painters in miniature.
Scrivers en boucscrivers, or scriveners and copyists of books.
Scoolemeesters, or schoolmasters.
Prentervercoopers, or image sellers.
Verlichters, or illuminators.
Prenters, or printers.
Boucbinders, or bookbinders.
Riemmakers, or curriers who prepare skins for parchment-makers.
Perkementmakers en fransynmakers, or makers of parchment.
Guispelsniders, or makers of decorations for bound books.
Scoolevrowen, or schoolmistresses.
Lettersnyders, or engravers of letters.
Scilders, or painters.
Drochscherrers, or shearers of cloth.
Beeldemakers, or makers of images.[173]
We have here a careful and, probably, a complete specification of
all trades contributing to the manufacture of books, but there is no
mention of type-makers nor of typographers. [p315]
In 1442 there was an organized society of book-makers in the city of
Antwerp, known as the Fraternity of Saint Luke. Like the association
of Bruges, it comprised every trade that contributed to the making
of books. The trade of printer is in their list, as it is in that of
the Confraternity of Saint John of Bruges; but in this list there is
no mention of the makers or printers of types. The printers of the
fraternities were, no doubt, the printers of playing cards, images and
block-books.[174]
The earliest notice of book-printing in the Netherlands is that of the
_Cologne Chronicle_ of 1499, which is to this effect: