Transcriber’s Notes.
The spellings of Schœffer and Schoeffer have been left as printed.
Footnotes were moved to the ends of the text they pertain to and
numbered in one continuous sequence.
Differences in hyphenation of specific words and missing punctuation
have been rectified where applicable.
Other changes made are noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: FROM SCHOEFFER’S CANON OF THE MASS]
Early Printed Books
By
E. Gordon Duff
[Illustration]
London
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd.
MDCCCXCIII
TO
THE MEMORY OF
HENRY BRADSHAW
ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλεῖ
Preface
In the following pages I have endeavoured to give a short account of
the introduction of printing into the principal countries and towns of
Europe, and to bring our information on the subject as far as possible
up to date.
Small books on large subjects are for the most part both superficial
and imperfect, and I am afraid the present book forms no exception to
this rule, but my excuse must be that I have attempted rather to draw
attention to more out of the way information than to recapitulate what
is already to be found in the majority of bibliographical books.
Above all, I have tried as far as possible to confine myself to facts
and avoid theories, for only by working from facts can we help to keep
bibliography in the position, to which Henry Bradshaw raised it, of a
scientific study.
And, in the words of a learned Warden of my own college, ‘if any shall
suggest, that some of the inquiries here insisted upon do seem too
minute and trivial for any prudent Man to bestow his serious thoughts
and time about, such persons may know, that the discovery of the true
nature and cause of any the most minute thing, doth promote real
knowledge, and therefore cannot be unfit for any Man’s endeavours who
is willing to contribute to the advancement of Learning.’
* * * * *
I must express my best thanks to two friends, Mr. F. J. H. Jenkinson,
University Librarian, Cambridge; and Mr. J. P. Edmond, Librarian to
the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, for very kindly reading through
the proofs of the entire book and making many useful suggestions and
corrections.
E. G. D.
_March 1893._
Contents
PAGE
CHAPTER I
STEPS TOWARDS THE INVENTION, 1
CHAPTER II
THE INVENTION OF PRINTING, 21
CHAPTER III
SPREAD OF PRINTING IN GERMANY, 39
CHAPTER IV
ITALY, 59
CHAPTER V
FRANCE, 78
CHAPTER VI
THE LOW COUNTRIES, 95
CHAPTER VII
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL--DENMARK AND SWEDEN, 113
CHAPTER VIII
WESTMINSTER: CAXTON--WYNKYN DE WORDE--JULIAN
NOTARY, 125
CHAPTER IX
OXFORD AND ST. ALBAN’S, 147
CHAPTER X
LONDON: JOHN LETTOU--WILLIAM DE MACHLINIA--RICHARD
PYNSON, 160
CHAPTER XI
THE SPREAD OF THE ART IN GREAT BRITAIN, 174
CHAPTER XII
THE STUDY OF BOOKBINDING, 185
CHAPTER XIII
THE COLLECTING AND DESCRIBING OF EARLY PRINTED
BOOKS, 201
INDEX OF PRINTERS AND PLACES, 213
Illustrations
PAGE FROM THE CANON OF THE MASS PRINTED BY
SCHOEFFER ABOUT 1458 (_much reduced_), _Frontispiece_
(From the unique copy in the Bodleian.)
PLATE PAGE
I. PAGE 3 OF THE ‘MIRABILIA ROMÆ,’ 11
(From the copy in the British Museum.)
II. THE CATALOGUE ISSUED BY SCHOEFFER ABOUT 1469
(_reduced_), 31
(Reproduced from a full-sized facsimile of the original
in the Munich Library, published in the _Centralblatt
für Bibliothekswesen_.)
III. PAGE 3 OF THE ‘LIBER EPISTOLARUM’ OF GASPARINUS
BARZIZIUS, the first book printed at Paris, 83
(From the copy in the British Museum.)
IV. FRAGMENT OF AN EDITION OF THE ‘DOCTRINALE’ OF
ALEXANDER GALLUS, one of the so-called ‘Costeriana,’ 98
(Reduced from the copy in the British Museum.)
V. PAGE OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THE ‘SARUM BREVIARY,’ 127
(Printed at Cologne about 1475.)
VI. PART OF A PAGE FROM THE ‘GOLDEN LEGEND,’ 144
(Printed by Julian Notary in 1503. From the copy in
the British Museum.)
VII. FIRST PAGE OF THE ‘EXCITATIO AD ELEMOSINAM
FACIENDAM,’ 152
(Printed at Oxford about 1485. From the unique copy
in the British Museum.)
VIII. PAGE OF THE ‘HORÆ AD USUM SARUM,’ 163
(Printed at London by Machlinia. From the fragment
in the University Library, Cambridge.)
IX. LAST PAGE OF THE ‘FESTUM NOMINIS JESU,’ 167
(Printed at London by Pynson about 1493. From the
unique copy in the British Museum.)
X. STAMPED BINDING WITH THE DEVICE OF PYNSON, 193
(From the original in the British Museum.)
EARLY PRINTED BOOKS.
CHAPTER I.
STEPS TOWARDS THE INVENTION.
When we speak of the invention of printing, we mean the invention
of the art of multiplying books by means of single types capable of
being used again and again in different combinations for the printing
of different books. Taking the word printing in its widest sense, it
means merely the impression of any image; and the art of impressing
or stamping words or pictures seems to have been known from the very
earliest times. The handles of Greek amphoræ, the bases of Roman
lamps and vases, were often impressed with the maker’s name, or other
legend, by means of a stamp. This was the basis of the art, and Cicero
(_De Nat. Deorum_, ii. 37) had suggested the combination of single
letters into sentences. Quintilian refers to stencil plates as a guide
to writing; and stamps with letters cut in relief were in common use
amongst the Romans. The need for the invention, however, was not
great, and it was never made. The first practical printing, both from
blocks and movable type, was done in China. As early as A.D. 593 the
more important texts were printed from engraved wooden plates by the
order of the Emperor Wên-ti, and in the eleventh century printing from
movable type was introduced by a certain smith named Picheng. The
multiplicity of Chinese characters rendered the discovery of movable
type of little economical value, and the older system of block printing
has found favour even up to the present time. In the same way, Corea
and Japan, though both had experimented with movable type, returned to
their former custom of block printing.
It is impossible now to determine whether rumours of the art could have
reached Europe from China and have acted as incentives to its practice.
Writers on early printing scout the idea; and there is little to
oppose to their verdict, with our present uncertain knowledge. Modern
discoveries, however, point to the relations of China with foreign
countries in the fourteenth century having been much more important
than is generally supposed.
The earliest productions in the nature of prints from wooden blocks
upon paper which we find in Europe, are single sheets bearing generally
the image of a saint. From their perishable nature but few of these
prints have come down to our times; and though we have evidence that
they were being produced, at any rate as early as the fourteenth,
perhaps even as the thirteenth century, the earliest print with
a definite and unquestioned date still in existence is the ‘St.
Christopher’ of 1423. This print was discovered in 1769 by Heinecken,
pasted inside the binding of a manuscript in the library of the Convent
of the Chartreuse at Buxheim in Swabia. The manuscript, which is now
in the Spencer Library,[1] is entitled _Laus Virginum_, is dated 1417,
and is said to have been given to the Monastery of Buxheim by a certain
Anna, Canoness of Buchau, ‘who is known to have been living in 1427.’
On the inside of the other board of the binding is pasted a cut of the
Annunciation, said to be of the same age and workmanship as the St.
Christopher. It is worth noticing that there seem to have been some
wood engravers in this Swabian monastery, who engraved the book-plate
for the books given by ‘Dominus Hildibrandus Brandenburg de Bibraco’
towards the end of the fifteenth century; and these book-plates are
printed on the reverse sides of pieces of an earlier block-book, very
probably engraved and printed in the monastery for presentation to
travellers or pilgrims.
[1] The Spencer Library has now passed into the possession of Mrs.
Rylands, of Manchester; but as many of the early printed books in it
are described in Dibdin’s _Bibliothecá Spencerianá_, and as it is so
widely known under the name of the Spencer Library, it has been thought
best, in order to avoid confusion, to refer to it under its old name
throughout the present book.
The date on the celebrated Brussels print of 1418 has unfortunately
been tampered with, so that its authenticity is questioned. The print
was found by an innkeeper in 1848, fixed inside an old chest, and it
was soon acquired by the Royal Library at Brussels. Since the date has
been touched up with a pencil, and at the same time some authorities
consider 1468 to be the right reading, it is best to consider the St.
Christopher as the earliest dated woodcut. Though these two are the
earliest dated prints known, it is, of course, most probable that some
others which are undated may be earlier; but to fix even an approximate
date to them is in most cases impossible. The conventional way in
which religious subjects were treated, and the extraordinary care with
which one cutter copied from another, makes it difficult even for a
specialist to arrive at any very definite conclusions.
In England, wood engraving does not seem to have been much practised
before the introduction of printing, but there are one or two cuts
that may be assigned to an earlier period. Mr. Ottley, in his _Inquiry
concerning the Invention of Printing_, drew attention to a curious
Image of Pity which he had found sewn on the blank leaf at the
beginning of a manuscript service-book. This cut, of which he gives
a facsimile in his book, is now in the British Museum. Another cut,
very similar in design and execution, and probably of about the same
date, was found a few years ago in the Bodleian, also inserted at the
beginning of a manuscript service-book. In the upper part of the cut
is a half-length figure of our Lord, with the hands crossed, standing
in front of the cross. On a label at the top of the cross is an
inscription, the first part of which is clearly O BACIΛEVC, but the
second part is not clear. In the British Museum cut it has been read
‘hora 3ª;’ and though this interpretation is ingenious, and might be
made to fit with the Museum copy (which has unfortunately been touched
up), the clearer lettering of the Bodleian copy, which has evidently
the same inscription, shows that this reading can hardly be accepted.
Below the figure we have the text of the indulgence—
‘Seynt gregor’ with othir’ popes & bysshoppes yn feer
Have graunted’ of pardon xxvi dayes & xxvi Mill’ yeer’
To theym that befor’ this fygur’ on their’ knees
Deuoutly say v pater noster & v Auees.’
Ottley was of opinion that his cut might be of as early a date as
the St. Christopher; but that is, of course, a point impossible to
determine. From the writing of the indulgence, Bradshaw considered
it to belong to the northern part of England; and the subject is
differently treated from other specimens of the Image of Pity issued
subsequently to the introduction of printing, for in them the various
symbols of the Passion are arranged as a border round the central
figure. Inserted at the end of a Sarum Book of Hours in the British
Museum is a drawing of an Image of Pity, with some prayers below, which
resembles in many ways the earlier cuts.
The woodcut alphabet, described by Ottley, now in the British Museum,
has been considered to be of English production, because on one of the
prints is written in very early writing the two words ‘London’ and
‘Bechamsted.’ There seems very little reason beyond this for ascribing
these letters to an English workman, though it is worth noticing that
they were originally bound up in a small volume, each letter being
pasted on a guard formed of fragments of English manuscript of the
fifteenth century.
In the Weigel Collection was a specimen of English block-printing which
is now in the British Museum; it is part of some verses on the Seven
Virtues, but it is hard to ascribe any date to it. Another early cut
is mentioned by Bradshaw as existing in Ely Cathedral. It is a cut of
a lion, and is fixed against one of the pillars in the choir, close to
the tomb of Bishop Gray, whose device it represents. This bishop died
in 1479, so that an approximate date may be given to the cut. It is
very probable that these last two specimens of block-printing are later
than the introduction of printing into England, and the only ones that
should be dated earlier are the British Museum and Bodleian Images of
Pity.
A good many single woodcuts were executed in England before the close
of the fifteenth century. They were mostly Images of Pity, such as
have been mentioned, or ‘rosaries’ containing religious emblems, with
the initials I. H. S. A curious cut in the Bodleian represents the
Judgment, and below this a body in a shroud. Above the cut is printed,
‘Surgite mortui Venite ad Judicium,’ and below on either side of a
shield the words, ‘Arma Beate Birgitte De Syon.’
A curious devotional cut is inserted in the _Faques Psalter_ of 1504 in
the British Museum, containing the emblems of the Passion and a large
I. H. S. At the base of the cut are the initials d. h. b., perhaps
referring to the place where the cut was issued. Most of these cuts
were doubtless produced in monasteries or religious houses to give or
sell to visitors, who very often inserted them in their own private
books of devotion, and in this manner many have been preserved. The
Lambeth copy of the Wynkyn de Worde _Sarum Horæ_ of 1494 shows signs of
having contained eighteen of such pictures, though only three are now
left.
After the single leaf prints we come to the block-books, which we may
look upon in some ways as the precursors of printed books.
‘A block-book is a book printed wholly from carved blocks of wood.
Such volumes usually consist of pictorial matter only; if any text
is added in illustration, it likewise is carved upon the wood-block,
and not put together with movable types. The whole of any one page,
sometimes the whole of two pages, is printed from a single block of
wood. The manner in which the printing was done is peculiar. The block
was first thoroughly wetted with a thin watery ink, then a sheet of
damp paper was laid upon it, and the back of the paper was carefully
rubbed with some kind of dabber or burnisher, till an impression from
the ridges of the carved block had been transferred to the paper. Of
course in this fashion a sheet could only be printed on one side; the
only block-book which does not possess this characteristic is the
_Legend of St. Servatius_ in the Royal Library of Brussels, and that is
an exceptional volume in many respects besides.’[2] These block-books
must be considered as forming a distinct group of themselves, radically
different from other books, though undoubtedly they gave the idea to
the inventor of movable type. They continued to be made during the
whole of the fifteenth century, almost always on the same plan, and
each one as archaic looking as another. The invention of movable type
did not do away with the demand, and the supply was kept up.
[2] Conway’s _Woodcutters of the Netherlands_. Cambridge, 1884. 8vo.
Unfortunately we have no data for determining the exact period at which
these books were made; and it is curious to note that all the editions
which are dated have a late date, the majority being between 1470 and
1480, and none being earlier than the first date, with the exception of
the Brussels block-book, which is dated 1440.
The number of different block-books in existence is hard to estimate,
but it must approach somewhere near one hundred. Many of these are
of little importance, many others of too late a date to be of much
interest.
The best known of the earlier block-books are the _Ars Moriendi_, the
_Biblia Pauperum_, the _Apocalypse_, and the _Canticum Canticorum_.
Of these, the first and third are probably German, the second and
fourth Dutch. Of all these books there are a number of editions, not
easily distinguishable apart, and which it is difficult to place in
chronological order. These editions are hardly editions in the modern
sense of the term. They were not produced by a printer who used one set
of blocks till they were worn out, and then cut another. The woodcutter
was the only tradesman, and he sold, not the books, but the blocks.
He cut set after set of blocks to print the few books then in demand,
and these were sold to private purchasers. We find wealthy people or
heads of religious establishments in possession of such sets. In the
inventory of Jean de Hinsberg, Bishop of Liège, 1419-1455, are noticed—
‘Unum instrumentum ad imprimendas scripturas et ymagines
‘Novem printe lignee ad imprimendas ymagines cum quatuordecim aliis
lapideis printis.’
Thus, these editions do not necessarily follow one another; some may
have been produced side by side by different cutters, others within the
interval of a few months, but by the same man. Their date is another
difficult point. The copies of the _Biblia Pauperum_, _Apocalypse_,
and _Ars Moriendi_, which belonged to Mr. Horn, were in their original
binding, and it was stamped with a date. The books were separated and
the binding destroyed. Mr. Horn asserted from memory that the first
three figures of the date were certainly 142, and the last probably an
8. Mr. Conway very justly points out that the resemblance of a 5 of
that date to our 2 was very strong, and that Mr. Horn’s memory may
have deceived him.
It will be noticed in examining block-books generally, that the
letterpress in the majority of the later examples is cut in imitation
of handwriting, and not of the square church hand from which printing
types and the letterpress of the earlier block-books were copied. The
reason of this probably is, that it was found useless to try to compete
with the books printed from movable type in regularity and neatness.
To do so would have involved a much greater expenditure of trouble by
the woodcutter and designer. The illustrations were the important part
of the book, and the letterpress was put in with as little trouble as
possible.
The sheets on which the early block-books were printed were not quired,
_i.e._ placed one inside the other to form a quire or gathering, as was
done in ordinary printed books, but followed each other singly. In many
of the books we find signatures, each sheet being signed with a letter
of the alphabet as a guide to the binder in arranging them.
Among the dated block-books may be mentioned an edition of the
_Endkrist_, dated 1472, produced at Nuremberg; an edition of the _Ars
Moriendi_ cut by Hans Sporer in 1473; and another of about the same
period cut by Ludwig zu Ulm. Of the _Biblia Pauperum_ there are three
dated editions known, one of 1470 and two of 1471. A copy of the _De
generatione Christi_ has the following full colophon:—
‘Johannes Eysenhut impressor, anno ab incarnationis dominice Mº
quadringentesimo septuagesimo Iº.’ Hans Sporer of Nuremberg produced an
edition of the _Biblia Pauperum_ in 1475, and Chatto speaks of another
of the same year without a name, but containing as a mark a shield with
a spur upon it, which he supposes to stand for the name Sporer. Many
of these later books were not printed in distemper on one side of the
paper only, but on both sides and in printer’s ink, showing that the
use of the printing press was known to those who produced them.
[Illustration: PAGE 3 OF THE ‘MIRABILIA ROMÆ’]
Among the late block-books should be noticed the _Mirabilia Romæ_
[Hain 11,208]; for why it should have been printed as a block-book
is a mystery. It consists of 184 pages of text, with only two
illustrations, printed on both sides of the page, and evidently of late
date. The letterpress is not cut in imitation of type, but of ordinary
handwriting, and the book may have been made to sell to those who were
not accustomed to the type of printed books. The arms of the Pope which
occur in the book are those of Sixtus IV., who occupied the papal
chair from 1471 to 1484, so that the book may be considered to have
been produced within those two dates, probably nearer the latter. The
accompanying facsimile is taken from the first page of text.
The best known of the block-books, and the one which has the most
important place in the history of printing, is the _Speculum Humanæ
Salvationis_. While it is called a block-book, it has many differences
from those we have previously spoken of, and occupies a position midway
between them and the ordinary printed book.
The earliest block-books were printed page by page, and the sheets
were bound up one after the other; but the _Speculum_ is arranged in
quires, though still only printed on one side of the page. In it, too,
the text is, as a rule, printed from movable type, except in the case
of one edition, where some pages are entirely xylographic. There are
four editions known, printed, according to the best authorities, in the
following order:—
1. Latin, printed with one fount. [Hessels, 2.]
2. Dutch, printed with two founts. [Hessels, 3.]
3. Latin, with twenty leaves printed xylographically. [Hessels, 1.]
4. Dutch, with one fount. [Hessels, 4.]
In all these four books the same cuts are used, and the type with which
they were printed was used in other books.
Edition 1 contains sixty-four leaves, made up by one gathering of
six leaves, three of fourteen, and one of sixteen; the text is
throughout printed from movable type. In two copies, those in the
Meerman-Westreenen Museum at the Hague, and the Pitti Palace at
Florence, are to be found cancels of portions of some leaves. Either
the text or the illustration has been defectively printed; in each case
the defective part has been supplied by another copy pasted on.
Edition 2 contains sixty-two leaves, made up in the same way as the
first edition, but having only four leaves in the first gathering. Two
leaves in this edition are printed in a different type from the rest of
the book.
Edition 3 contains the same number of leaves, and is made up in the
same way as edition 1. It is remarkable for having twenty leaves
printed entirely from blocks, text as well as illustrations.
Edition 4 is made up in the same way as edition 2. The copy in the
library at Lille contains some leaves with text printed upon both
sides, seemingly by an error of the printer. The very fact of their
existence shows that it was possible to print the text on both sides
of the leaf. There must therefore have been some reason other than the
ignorance or incapacity of the printer for printing these books on one
side only, or, as it is called, anopisthographically.
There can be very little doubt that Mr. Sotheby is correct in
his conjecture, that ‘the then usual process of taking off the
wood engravings by friction, rendered it impossible to effect two
impressions back to back, as the friction for the second would
materially injure the first. On this account, and on no other, we
presume, was the text printed only on one side.’ In the Lille copy
above mentioned, two leaves, 25 and 26 (the centre sheet of the
third quire), contain printed on their other side the text, not the
illustrations, of leaves 47 and 62 (the first sheet of the fifth quire.)
From this we learn three things of great importance--1. That the text
and the cut were not printed at the same time, and that the text was
printed first. 2. That the printer could print the text, for which he
used movable type, on both sides of the paper. 3. That the book was
printed, not page by page, but two pages at a time.
Mr. Ottley was strongly of opinion, after careful examination, that the
book was certainly printed two pages at a time. He says, ‘The proofs
of this are, I think, conclusive. The upper lines of the text in those
two pages always range exactly with each other.... Here and there, in
turning over the book, we observe a page printed awry or diagonally
on the paper; in such case, if the other page of the same sheet be
examined, the same defect will be noticed. Upon opening the two Dutch
copies of the edition, which I shall hereafter show to be the fourth
at Harlem, in the middle sheet of the same gathering we find, upon
comparing them, the exact same breadth and regularity of the inner
margin in both, and the lines of the two pages range with each other
exactly the same in both copies, which could not be the case had each
page been printed separately.’
Where and when was this book printed? Conjectural dates have been
given to it ranging from 1410 to 1470. The earliest date that can be
absolutely connected with it is 1471-73. Certainly there is nothing in
its printing which would point to its having been executed earlier than
1470. Its being printed only on the one side of the leaf was a matter
of necessity on account of the cuts, and is not a sign of remote
age, while the printing of two pages at a time argues an advance of
knowledge in the printer, and consequently a later date. About 1480-81
the blocks which had been used for the four editions of the _Speculum_
passed into the hands of John Veldener. This Veldener printed in
Louvain between 1475 and 1477, and he was not then in possession of
the blocks. ‘At the end of 1478 he began work at Utrecht, still,
however, without this set of blocks. For his second edition of the
_Fasciculus temporum_, published 14th February 1480, he had a few new
blocks made, some of which were copied from _Speculum_ cuts. At last,
on the 19th April 1481, he published an _Epistles and Gospels_ in
Dutch, and into that he introduced two cut-up portions of the real old
_Speculum_ blocks. This was the last book Veldener is known to have
printed at Utrecht. For two years we hear nothing more of him, and then
he reappears at Kuilenburg, whither he removed his presses. There, on
the 27th September 1483, he printed a quarto edition of the _Speculum_
in Dutch. For it he cut up all the original blocks into their separate
compartments, and thus suited them to fit into the upper portion of a
quarto page. He had, moreover, twelve new cuts made in imitation of
these severed portions of the old set, and he printed them along with
the rest. Once more, in 1484 he employed a couple of the old set in the
Dutch _Herbarius_, which was the last book known to have been issued by
him at Kuilenburg. Thenceforward the _Speculum_ cuts appear no more.’[3]
[3] Conway’s _Woodcutters_, p. 13.
The only place, then, with which the _Speculum_ blocks are definitely
connected is Utrecht, and there they must be left until some further
evidence is forthcoming respecting their origin; nor have we any
substantial reason for believing that when they passed into the
possession of Veldener they had been in existence for more than ten or
twelve years.
Some among the late block-books are of interest as having been produced
by men who were at the same time printers in the ordinary sense of the
word. There is part of a _Donatus_ in the Bodleian, with a colophon
stating it to be the work of Conrad Dinckmut, a printer at Ulm from
1482 to 1496. In the British Museum is a German almanac of about 1490
produced by Conrad Kacheloffen, who printed a number of books, many
with illustrations, at Leipzig. For a book so small as the _Donatus_,
a book which was always in demand, it would be almost as economical to
cut blocks as to keep type standing, and we consequently find a number
of such xylographic editions produced at the very end of the fifteenth
century. In the Bibliothèque Nationale are two original blocks, bought
by Foucault, the minister of Louis XIV., in Germany, and probably cut
about 1500 or shortly before. The letters are cut in exact imitation of
type, and with such regularity that a print from the block might almost
pass for a print from ordinary type, did not the bases and tops of a
few letters overlap.
The latest block-book of any size was printed at Venice. It is the
_Figure del Testamento Vecchio_, printed about 1510 by Giovanni Andrea
Vavassore.
In the library at Lambeth Palace are two curious block-printed leaves
of early English work. Each leaf contains an indulgence printed four
times, consisting of a figure of Saint Cornelius and five lines of
text. ‘The hole indulgence of pardon granted to blessed S. Cornelis is
vi score years, vi score lentes, ii M ix C and xx dais of pardon for
evermore to endure.’
It shows us very clearly the cheapness with which such work could be
produced; for, in order to save the time which would be occupied in
taking impressions singly from one block, two blocks have been used
almost exactly the same, so that two impressions could be taken off at
once. This was usually done in printing indulgences from movable type,
for there the trouble of setting up twice was very small compared to
the gain in the time and labour which resulted from it.
There still remains to be noticed the one specimen of xylography
produced in France. This is known as _Les Neuf Preux_. It consists
of three sheets of paper, each of which contains an impression from
a block containing three figures. They are printed by means of the
frotton in light-coloured ink, and have been coloured by hand. The
first sheet contains pictures of the three champions of classical
times, Hector, Alexander, and Julius Cæsar; the second, the three
champions of the Old Testament, Joshua, David, and Judas Maccabæus; the
third, the three champions of mediæval history, Arthur, Charlemagne,
and Godfrey of Boulogne. Under each picture is a stanza of six lines,
all rhyming, cut in a bold type.
These leaves form part of the _Armorial_ of Gilles le Bouvier, who
was King-at-Arms to Charles VII. of France; and as the manuscript was
finished between 9th November 1454 and 22nd September 1457, it is
reasonable to suppose that the prints were executed in France, probably
at Paris, before the latter date. The verses are, at any rate, the
oldest printed specimen of the French language.
When we consider that printing of a rudimentary kind had existed
for so many centuries, and that during the whole of the early part
of the fifteenth century examples with words or even whole lines of
inscription were being produced, we can only wonder that the discovery
of printing from movable types should have been made so late. It has
been said inventions will always be made when the need for them has
arisen, and this is the real reason, perhaps, why the discovery of
printing was delayed. The intellectual requirements of the mediæval
world were not greater than could be satisfactorily supplied by the
scribe and illuminator, but with the revival of letters came an
absolute need for the more rapid multiplication of the instruments
of learning. We may even say that the intellectual activity of
the fifteenth century not only called printing into existence, but
furnished it with its noblest models. The scholarly scribes of Italy at
that epoch had revived the Caroline minuscules as used in the eleventh
and twelfth centuries, and it was this beautiful hand which the early
Italian printers imitated, thereby giving us the ‘Roman’ type in which
our books are still printed.
I cannot more fitly close this preliminary chapter than by quoting
from the MS. note-books of Henry Bradshaw the opening sentences of his
article ‘Typography’ for the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, an article
which unfortunately was never completed.
‘Typography was, in the eyes of those who first used it, the art of
multiplying books, of writing by means of single types capable of being
used again and again, instead of with a pen, which, of course, could
only produce one book at a time.[4]
[4] This is clearly brought before us by the words of the first
printers at Avignon, ‘ars artificialiter scribendi,’ a phrase used
several times over in speaking of their new invention.
‘The art of multiplying single sheets, for which woodcut blocks
could be used to serve a temporary purpose, may be looked upon as an
intermediate stage, which may have given the idea of typography. When
the reproduction of books had long passed out of the exclusive hands
of the monasteries into the hands of students or hangers-on of the
universities, any invention of this kind would be readily and rapidly
taken up. When there was no Greek press in Paris, we find Georgius
Hermonymus making a living by constant copying of Greek books for
the scholars who were so eager for them. So Reuchlin in the same way
supported himself by copying.
‘In fact, the two departments of compositor and corrector in the
printing office were the direct representatives and successors of the
scribe and corrector of manuscripts from the early times. The kind of
men whom we find mentioned in the early printing offices as correctors,
are just such men as would be sought for in earlier times in an
important scriptorium. In our modern world, printed and written books
have come to be looked upon as totally distinct things, whereas it is
impossible to bring before our minds the state of things when books
were first printed, until we look upon them as precisely the same. They
were brought to fairs, or such general centres of circulation as Paris,
Leipzig, or Frankfort, before the days of printing, just as afterwards,
only that printing enabled the stationer to supply his buyers with
much greater rapidity than before, and at much cheaper rates; so that
the laws of supply and demand work together in such a manner that
it is difficult to say which had more influence in accelerating the
movement.’