THE EARLY PRINTER-PUBLISHERS OF FRANCE.
1458-1559.
THE first reference in the annals of France to the new art of printing
occurs in a record bearing date October 3, 1458, the original document
of which is still preserved in the Library of the Arsenal.[1] In this
document it is stated that the King, having learned that Messiro
Gutenberg, Chevalier, residing in Mayence, in Germany, a man dexterous
in the engraving of stamps and of letters, had brought to light, by
means of such characters, the invention of _printing_, and, curious
concerning such valuable knowledge (_bel trésor_), the King had ordered
the masters of the mint to select persons skilled in the engraver’s
art and to dispatch them to Mayence that they may inform themselves
of the said invention. Under this mandate, Nicholas Jenson, an expert
engraver, was sent to Mayence, where he did acquire the art as he had
been instructed to do. But before his return to Paris, the King had
died, and Jenson, understanding that the new monarch was not likely to
be interested in the undertaking, carried his knowledge to Venice, and
was the means (as we have seen in a previous chapter) of securing for
this city an early prestige for artistic typography and for scholarly
publishing.
The King who had planned to bring the printing-press to Paris was
Charles VII., whose reign had begun with a full measure of disaster
and misfortune, but who had succeeded, in his later years, in the task
of consolidating his kingdom and in securing for his subjects, long
harassed by wars and invasions, some years of peace and prosperity.
During his stormy reign, Charles could not have enjoyed much leisure
for the cultivation of literature, but he is described by his
biographers as an appreciative patron of learning and as possessing an
intelligent interest in scholarship. It is probable, therefore, that
if it had not been for his unexpected death in 1461, the beginning of
printing in Paris would have been advanced by a decade, and that, with
the aid of royal favour and influence, Paris would have taken a much
more important place than it did among the earlier publishing centres
of Europe.
Louis XI., the son of Charles, during his reign of twenty-two years,
busied as he was with the work of securing a firm foundation for the
authority of the Crown, was not able to devote much thought to the
interests of literature. He found time, however, to reorganise the
Library of the Louvre, which had been founded in 1369, by Charles V.
(the Wise), and the continuation of which is represented to-day by the
_Bibliothèque Nationale_. Louis, while characterised as miserly, was
also known as a collector of choice books, and was an important patron
of certain scribes and illuminators, among others, of Jean Fouquet of
Tours.
It was in 1462 that the first examples of printed books were seen
in Paris. In that year, Fust brought from Mayence a supply of his
folio Bible, copies of which he was able to sell for fifty crowns.
The usual price for manuscripts of this compass had been from four
to five hundred crowns. It seems probable that there was little or
no foundation for the stories that were, later, told of Fust’s being
harshly treated as a magician, on the ground that the volumes he
was offering for sale could not have been produced by human hands,
or without the aid of the powers of evil. There was a manifest
improbability in the idea that Satan would interest himself in securing
a wider circulation for the holy Scriptures, unless possibly he had
taken occasion to inject into falsified texts some heretical or
pernicious doctrine. It is probable also that, by the time of Fust’s
arrival, more or less information must already have reached Paris about
the new art, and that, while it was still regarded as mysterious and
wonderful, it was recognised as a human invention that had in other
cities already been applied to practical uses.
The first publishing office in Paris was founded, in 1469, at the
request of two _savants_ of the Sorbonne, Fichet and Heynlin, by
Gering, Krantz, and Friburger from Constance. The work was carried on
in one of the Halls of the Sorbonne. Forty years later, there were in
Paris over fifty printing concerns. The policy of cordial encouragement
still prevailed, and no restrictions had as yet been placed upon the
business. After the introduction of printing, the printers took a
position in society much above that occupied by their predecessors,
the copyists. The difference could have been due only in part to the
possession of greater scholarly attainments, for the better class of
copyists must themselves have had some knowledge of the subject-matter
of their manuscripts. The business of the printers required, however,
the control of a certain amount of capital, while the selection of
works for reproduction and the preparation for the compositors of
trustworthy texts called for a wide range of literary information and
scholarly training. The printers were, in the first place, left as
free as had been the copyists to reproduce such works as they might
select. No claim had thus far been made for exclusive ownership in, or
control of, literary productions, and no censorship supervision had
been established on the part of the Government. This state of things
continued during the reign of Louis XII., and, in an edict issued April
9, 1513,[2] the King confirmed and extended the privileges previously
acquired by booksellers as officials of the University.
In this edict, Louis speaks with great appreciation and admiration of
the printing art, “the discovery of which appears to be rather divine
than human.” He congratulates his kingdom that in the development of
this art “France takes precedence of all other realms.” A year later,
the King put on record his opinion that dramatic productions and
representations should be left free from any restrictions. In 1512,
the King writes to the University requesting the Faculty to examine a
book which the Council of Pisa had condemned as heretical. In place,
however, of demanding or suggesting that measures of severity should
be taken against the writer of the book, the King proposed that the
professors should have the book gone over chapter by chapter and should
put into form a refutation of any of its conclusions which seemed to
them to be contrary to the truth.
It was hardly possible that so wide a spirit of toleration should long
continue. Francis I. prided himself on his taste for literature and
was disposed to favour men of letters, but his fancies for toleration
were easily overcome by the persecuting earnestness which actuated the
clergy and the Parliament, and when his anger or his suspicions had
once been aroused, he showed himself to be fiercer in the infliction
of penalties than those whom he had at first restrained. The spirit
of the time was stronger than any one king, and it would be absurd to
suppose that in the sixteenth century the Church and the State could
be depended upon to permit the free development and the unrestricted
expression of thought.
The first book printed in Paris by Gering and his associates was a
collection of the _Letters_ of Gasparino of Bergamo. The volume was in
Latin, and the Roman form of type was used, notwithstanding the German
control of the office. Humphreys is of opinion that specimens of the
beautiful volumes which had been printed in Venice by Jenson had been
forwarded to Paris, and that these served as models for the earlier
issues of the Paris Press. The _Gasparino_ was followed by an edition
of Sallust’s _Catiline Conspiracy_ and by an epitome of _Livy_ compiled
by Florus. A little later, appeared a work on Rhetoric by Fichet
himself, one of the earliest printed volumes which was the production
of a contemporary writer.
The second Press established in Paris was that of Cæsaris and Stoll,
who began work for themselves in 1473. They were both students of the
University but they found it desirable to carry on their business
outside of the University limits. The demand in Paris, both within and
without the University, for printed books, increased very rapidly, and
before the close of the century the trade in books far exceeded that
of any city in Europe. For a number of years, however, a very large
proportion of this demand was supplied from the presses of Mayence,
Strasburg, Venice, Milan, Cologne, and Bruges.
Schoiffher, or Schöffer, of Mayence, was the first of the foreign
publishers who maintained a permanent agency in Paris. This agency
naturally excited the jealousy of the licensed Paris book-dealers,
and, in 1474, the stock was seized on an application from the Guild on
the ground that it was the property of an alien who was not a licensed
dealer. Louis XI. gave evidence, however, that his interest in the
new art was superior to any local or national prejudice, and, on a
petition from Schoiffher, he caused to be paid over to him the sum of
four hundred crowns as an indemnification for the loss of his books.
In 1474, the King also granted to Gering and his associates letters of
naturalisation which secured a protection for their business.
The first volume printed in Paris in French was _Les Grandes Chroniques
de France_, which was issued in 1477, by Pâquier Bonhomme, bookseller
to the University. This was, however, not the first printed book that
had appeared in French, as it had been preceded, by some years, by
the _Recueil des Histoires de Troyes_ published in Bruges by Caxton.
In 1495, Anthony Vérard, who had previously been an illuminator and
probably also an engraver of block-books, established a printing-office
and devoted himself particularly to the production of illustrated
works. In 1503, he printed in English, for sale in the English market,
the _Art of Good Living and Dying_, the illustrations in which occupy
about as much space as the text.
After Paris, Lyons was the city of France in which the art of printing
secured the earliest introduction and the most rapid development.
The printer-publishers of Lyons showed themselves “enterprising” in
more ways than one. They were free from the immediate supervision and
control of the authorities of the University of Paris, and, as the
history of the Paris Press shows, the difficulties placed in the way
of publishing undertakings by the bigoted and ignorant censorship of
the theologians, must have more than offset the advantages usually to
be secured in the production of scholarly publications, through the
facilities of the University collections and the editorial service
rendered by the University members.
In the matter of political censorship, Lyons was, of course, in form at
least, subject to the same regulations that controlled the presses of
Paris. It was, however, evidently much more difficult to exercise any
strict and continuous supervision over the printers of the provinces
than over those of the capital, and in politics, therefore, as well
as in theology, the publishers of Lyons enjoyed a greater freedom of
action. “The freedom of action,” of which their Paris competitors made
the sharpest criticism and the most reiterated complaints, was shown
in the practice of the Lyons competitors, of promptly appropriating
for their own profit and reproducing, with more or less closeness of
imitation, such of the Paris publications as they found available for
the markets within their reach. The “privileges” issued by the Crown
and the special authorisations given by the University appear to have
availed but little to repress this appropriating enterprise on the part
of the publishers of Lyons.
It was no consolation to the organised publishers, _les libraires
jurés_, to know that their Lyons competitors utilised, with precisely
the same freedom, the available publications of Venice, Milan, Mayence,
and Basel, and, later, of Geneva. For this class of reprinting there
was, as a rule, not even the nominal obstacle of the State privilege.
As a result of their favourable commercial position, the publishers
of Lyons were not infrequently able to secure for their unauthorised
reprints of the classic editions of the Paris Press a much larger
proportion of the foreign sales than was obtained by the original
publishers.
The enterprise of these early Lyons publishers was manifested also
in another and more legitimate direction. They gave attention to the
production of books in light literature, such as popular romances,
legends, folk-songs, etc., printed, of course, in the vernacular, at a
time when the printers of Paris and, for that matter, the printers of
nearly all the other book-manufacturing cities of Europe were devoting
their presses exclusively to theology and to the classics. Other
cities the printers of which interested themselves in light literature
were Bruges and London, the records of which are referred to in another
chapter.
In connection with these romances and with some few other classes of
literature, the book-makers of Lyons gave particular attention to the
production of high-class illustrations. They used for the purpose
the work not only of French, but of foreign designers and engravers.
The printer Le Roys, for instance, employed Holbein to design a new
_Dance of Death_, and also to prepare a series of illustrations for
the New Testament. In 1488, Jacques Locher published an edition of the
famous _Ship of Fools_, accompanied by graphic illustrations from an
unknown artist. Locher’s edition was issued in Latin. The first French
translation, under the title _La Nef des Fouls_, appeared in 1497.
This was followed a little later by a companion work published under
the title of _La Nef des Folles_, which illustrated in like manner the
absurdities of women in various walks of life.
The first Paris printer who was able to present in his text any Greek
characters was Jodocus Badius, who issued, in 1505, the _Annotationes
in Novum Testamentum_ of Laurentius Valla, in which several passages of
Greek were of necessity included. In 1519, the same publisher issued an
impression of the _Institutiones Imperiales_, in which were included
a few Greek passages. The characters for the type used in these were
designed by a certain Hermonymus, a Lacedæmonian, who was at the time
sojourning in Paris.
In 1507, a Greek Press was established in Paris by Giles Gourmont.
The Press was under the general supervision of the University, but
the immediate responsibility for the undertaking rested with Francis
Tissard. Tissard was a French scholar, who, having studied in Padua and
Bologna, had become imbued with an earnest zeal for the development of
classical scholarship in France. He had secured instruction in Greek
from a certain Demetrius Spartiata, and it was his special object to
establish in the University of Paris the study of Greek language and
literature, and to bring the cost of Greek books within the means of
the poorer instructors and students. The few scholars in France who had
heretofore been interested in Greek books had been obliged to incur the
expense of securing these from Milan or from Venice.
Tissard succeeded in interesting in his undertaking the Duke de Valois,
who afterwards, as Francis I., rendered most important service to the
cause of literature for France and for Europe. As the first Greek book
issued from the Press of Aldus, twelve years earlier, had very properly
been a _Grammar_ for the instruction in Greek of students already
proficient in Latin, in like manner the volume selected by Tissard as
the first issue from Gourmont’s Press was an elementary work containing
the Greek alphabet, the rules of pronunciation, and exercises for the
beginner.
The second Greek publication was the _Batrachomyomachia_, and the
third, an edition of the _Works and Days_ of Hesiod (probably the
first printed issue of this author). The fourth Greek volume was the
_Grammar_ of Emanuel Chrysoloras, a Greek scholar, whose influence had
been of so great service in furthering the study of Greek literature in
Florence.
After the publication of this _Grammar_, Gourmont assumed the title
which he had fairly earned, _Primus Græcarum Litterarum Parisiis
Impressor_. In the following year, he established his claim to the like
honourable distinction for the Hebrew, by his impression of two works
from the zealous pen of his scholarly patron Tissard, the _Grammatica
Hebraica et Græca_, in quarto, and the _Alphabetum Hebraicum et
Græcum_, also in quarto.
Shortly after the issue of these two volumes, Tissard died. His work as
the supervising scholar of the Greek Press in Paris was carried on by
Hieronymus Aleander, an Italian scholar who had been invited by Louis
XII. to take up his residence in Paris. Aleander gave lectures in the
forenoon in the University on the language and literature of Greece,
while the evenings were devoted to readings in Cicero. In the year
1512, he was elected Rector of the University, and in this position
and by means of a liberal use of the pension given him by the King, he
was able to do much in furthering the development of the printing, in
Paris, of Greek texts. In the year 1512, Aleander gave to the public
a _Lexicon Græco-Latinum_, which bore the imprint of Gourmontius and
Bolsecus, the latter being the second Greek typographer of Paris.
Aleander had been a member of the Academy of Aldus, who inscribed to
him his edition of _Homeri Ilias Græce_, and who speaks in high terms
of his literary qualifications. Aleander had also been a friend and
literary associate of Erasmus, and had given to the learned Hollander
valuable assistance in the compilation of his _Adagia_. This friendship
failed to stand the test of religious differences, and Aleander, when
later employed by Leo X. to combat the doctrines of the Lutheran
heretics, exercised his tongue and pen with great acrimony against the
Sage of Rotterdam.[3]
The next printer in Paris whose work, in connection with the production
of classic literature, was important, was Jodocus Badius Ascensius.
According to the record of the historian Panzer, there were produced
from the Press of Badius not less than four hundred separate works,
nearly all of which were printed in folio or quarto. The business
career of Badius extended over a period of about twenty-five years,
beginning with 1498. It is difficult to understand how it was
practicable to secure at this early age a remunerative sale for
costly editions of the Latin authors selected by Badius for his
Press. He was a Fleming by birth, and, as was the case with not a few
of the early printer-publishers, he united with his other business
responsibilities work as an instructor. He gave lectures on the Latin
poets, first in Paris and later in Lyons. It was in the latter city
that he first interested himself in printing, having been engaged by
Preschel as a corrector of the press. One of the more noteworthy of his
publications, outside of the list of Latin classics, was an edition of
the _Philobiblon_ of Richard de Bury. He was also the publisher of the
first Paris edition of the _Navis Stultifera_ (the “Ship of Fools”) of
Sebastian Brandt. Of this book he also printed a translation in French,
(the second French version) under the title of _La Nef des Folz du
Monde_, which was edited by himself and with which he included certain
variations of his own. It may be considered as an evidence of the
accepted orthodoxy of Badius that he was employed by the University to
publish certain censorial works which had been prepared _ex cathedra_
by members of the Theological Faculty. Examples of these, printed
respectively in 1521 and 1523, were treatises on the doctrine of Luther
and on “certain contentions of Dr. Luther.” Among the more important
works of later and contemporary authors that came from the Press of
Badius were editions of the _Opera Omnia_ of Politian and of the _Opera
Omnia_ of Valla, and a long series of works by Budæus, who ranked as
one of the most comprehensive and voluminous scholars of his time.
In 1500, Badius printed an edition of the _Regula S. Benedicti_, the
famous Rule which, as described in an earlier chapter, had exercised
so important and so abiding an influence on the literature and the
intellectual development of Europe.
Badius was a _libraire juré_ of the University, and the thoroughness of
his scholarship was attested by so good an authority as Erasmus, for
whom he published editions of the _Adagia_ and the _Praise of Folly_.
The printing mark of Badius is a representation of the printing-press
of the time. Beneath this he occasionally used the motto _Aere meret
Badius laudem auctorum arte legentum_. Greswell says that by filling up
the ellipsis, this is to be interpreted that Badius by his liberality
elicits the praise of authors, and by his typographic skill and
accuracy that of readers.
Budæus, whose friendship and scholarship were of marked service to
Badius during his career, was one of the most noteworthy scholars of
his generation and is to be ranked in the group with Erasmus, among the
great scholars of Europe. He had studied Greek with Laskaris, whose
lectures and whose Greek grammar had done so much to further the study
in Italy of the language and literature of Greece. Three of the kings
of France, Charles VIII., Louis XII., and Francis I., appreciating the
distinction given to France by the scholarship and literary productions
of a man like Budæus, had honoured him with their friendship and had
bestowed upon him various marks of distinction. It was a time when
learning was held to be an essential qualification for diplomacy and
statesmanship, and Budæus was more than once called away from his study
and from his lecture-room to take charge of important embassies. In
1520, he was in attendance upon Francis I. at the celebrated meeting
between Francis and Henry VIII. on the Field of the Cloth of Gold.
The subsequent interest taken by Francis in the work of the University
and in the foundation of the Royal Library at Fontainebleau was
doubtless due to the influence of Budæus, and it was in his power
so to educate the King as to enable the latter to realise the value
and importance to the kingdom of the work that was being done by the
printer-publisher, and to be ready to further this work with the royal
protection, with privileges, and at times with direct financial aid.
=The Estiennes.=--The history of the production of books during the
first century after the invention of printing is, of necessity, in
the main a record of the lives and of the work of certain typical
printer-publishers upon whom fell the responsibility of initiating
and of shaping the literary undertakings of their time. The business
carried on by these early publishers differed very materially from
that of their successors. All the machinery of book-making had to
be originated or created, while it was necessary also to establish
channels of distribution, and through these to discover and to educate
a reading public which should absorb the productions of the new
presses. The task of selecting the works which were best adapted for
the requirements of the first buyers of printed books, of securing
trustworthy texts of these works, of editing these texts, and of
supervising their type-setting, called for a large measure of literary
judgment and scholarly knowledge, combined with a capacity for
organising and directing an editorial staff. There was also necessity
for the gift of imagination, through which could be pictured literary
conditions and creations for which there were as yet no precedents.
And finally, steps had to be taken for securing a legal status for
the new class of property that was being brought into existence,
in order that some portion at least of the rights and advantages
assured by the State to owners of other classes of property might be
enjoyed by the producers of literature. In the absence of any accepted
principles or precedents, it became necessary to convince princes,
ministers, councils, and parliaments that it was for the interests of
the community to encourage the production of literature, and that this
could be done only by establishing and defending property rights for
the producers.
At this stage in the history of book-production, the “producers,” the
men who brought into existence the current literature of the time, and
who, having planned and initiated the undertakings, taken the risks,
met the outlay, and provided the labour (in many cases with their own
heads and hands), claimed the ownership of the works produced, were the
publishers. The literature with which the publishing of printed books
was entered upon was comprised, with a few rare exceptions, of editions
of old-time classics, prepared to meet the requirements of the scholars
of the day. It was for this class of publications that were secured
the first “protections” and “privileges,” and the labour of extracting
such privileges from the rulers first of one State and then of another,
until a sufficient territory to provide a market for the work had, at
least in form, been protected, fell of course upon the publishers.
These “privileges” were for but brief and varying terms, and often (as
in the small States of Italy and Germany) the territory covered by any
one privilege was very inconsiderable; while it was further the case
that the penalties for infringement were absurdly inadequate, and could
but rarely be enforced. The protection afforded to property rights was,
therefore, for the most part unsatisfactory enough, but it was the best
that in the existing state of public opinion could be secured. The
system of privileges marked an epoch in the history of human relations
and in the development of the recognition of human rights, and it
constituted, of course, the beginning of the later system of copyright
law.
The special labours of the earlier publishers were not even completed
when they had secured for their productions the protection, at least
_pro forma_, of the State. They still had upon their hands the work
of conciliating the Church, and, as has been noted in the account of
Aldus, and as will appear in the later chapters, the task of creating
and of carrying on the business of publishing of books for scholarly
and critical readers was enormously increased by the burdens and the
exactions of a zealous and ignorant ecclesiastical censorship.
The printer-publishers of the first century of printing who, in the
face of this complex series of difficulties, responsibilities, and
requirements, succeeded in creating a business and in producing for
their own generation and for posterity long lists of costly and
scholarly editions of the great books of their world, may fairly be
called men of achievement.
With the requirement came, as always, the men. The press that Gutenberg
had given to the world was not allowed to rust for want of plucky and
public-spirited printers to develop its full scope and usefulness.
In Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and England, scholarly
and capable pioneers devoted themselves to the new art until it had
become “understanded of the people,” had made a place for itself in
the community, and could be pursued as an industry and without the
necessity of exceptional individuals for its direction. Not a few
of these pioneer publishers founded families or dynasties which for
successive generations continued to discharge the responsibility of
providing high-class literature for the community, and at the same
time of fighting ecclesiastical and political censorships, of widening
precedents, and of maintaining and extending the claims of literature
and the rights of literary producers.
I have already noted for Italy the achievements of Aldus Manutius and
his successors, and I propose in later chapters (selecting a few of the
more typical of the great printer-publishers) to give some description
of the work of the Kobergers in Nuremberg, of Froben in Basel, of the
House of Plantin in Antwerp, of Caxton in Bruges and in London, and of
the Elzevirs in Leyden and Amsterdam.
For France, after the foregoing brief references to the undertakings
of the earliest printers, some special mention is fairly due to the
famous family of the Estiennes or Stephani, the members of which took
rank not only with the great publishers but with the distinguished
scholars of their time, while they are also to be commemorated as
having, in troublous times, shown themselves to be strong-hearted men,
possessing the courage of their convictions. No other family, excepting
possibly that of the Elzevirs, was for so many generations engaged in
the business of printing and publishing, while the work of the Stephani
was carried on under exceptional difficulties, commercial, literary,
theological, and political. The editorial responsibility in preparing
for the press the scholarly publications of later publishers was for
the most part confided to professors or other scholarly associates, but
it was the case that the books issued by the Stephani were, with a few
exceptions, edited and supervised by the publishers themselves, nearly
all the members of the family being men of scholarly training, while
one or two took rank with the most learned men of their generation. No
publisher, except Aldus of Venice, has ever contributed to the issues
of his press as much original scholarly work as is to be found in the
books bearing the imprint of Robert Stephanus.
The founder of the family, or at least the man whose name first becomes
known in connection with the production of books, was Henry, known
as Henry the elder, in order to be distinguished from his grandson.
His name first appears as a printer in the year 1496, in conjunction
with that of a German named Wolffgang Hopyll. The book bearing this
double imprint was an introduction to the _Ethics_ of Aristotle,
written by a certain Jacobus Faber. The first book issued by Estienne
bearing his sole imprint, and which may therefore be considered as
the earliest publication of a House whose business was to continue
for nearly a century and a half, was an edition of the _Ethics_ of
Aristotle, Latinised by Aretinus, which bears date 1504. According to
Panzer, Henry Estienne the first published in all about one hundred
separate works, which, with hardly an exception, were issued in Latin.
He associated with the editorial work of his printing-office three
learned doctors, Charles Boville, Jacques Le Fèvre d’Estaples, and
Josse Clictou. Le Fèvre is known as the instructor of the reformers
Calvin and Farrel. His so-called heretical opinions rendered him
obnoxious to the Doctors of the Sorbonne, and if it had not been for
the special interference of Francis I., by whom his learning and his
merits were held in high esteem, his life would more than once have
been in jeopardy. His theological opponents succeeded, however, in
procuring his expulsion from the University, and, driven from Paris, he
was compelled to seek the protection of the Queen of Navarre.
The case above cited is one of a long series of instances in which the
liberal views and the scholarly interests of King Francis brought him
into conflict with the Doctors of the Sorbonne. In the end, however,
the Theological Faculty, backed by the majority of the ecclesiastics
of France and by the continued influence of the papacy, proved too
strong for the liberal tendencies of the Crown. With the final triumph
of Catholic orthodoxy in France, the leading publishers and their
editorial associates found so many difficulties placed in the way of
their literary undertakings, that these could no longer be carried on
to advantage in Paris. While it was the case that a large number of
these publishers and of their authors were in sympathy with the views
of the Reformers, this formed only the smaller part of the difficulty.
The chief trouble was due to the ignorance and the suspiciousness of
the Doctors of the Sorbonne. These doctors possessed at this period
little or no knowledge of Greek, and were inclined to imagine that
any Greek sentence must contain, or might contain, some dangerous
heresy. Any critical analysis of Latin texts which, in some earlier
and usually imperfect or defective form, had received the approval of
the Church, also seemed to them likely to prove dangerous, and in any
case constituted a reflection upon the orthodox scholarship of the
previously accepted versions. Their apprehensions became most keen
and their indignation most active when the “new criticism” (as they
probably called it) was applied to the text of the Scriptures, whether
for the purpose of correcting the early, clumsy, Latinised versions
of the New Testament, or of securing more accurate rendering of the
texts of the Hebrew books. The production of editions of the Scriptures
constituted, however, during the first half century of printing,
the most important division of publishing undertakings. It is not
surprising, therefore, that the printers, who were giving their time
and their capital to the preparation of these editions, and who found
themselves hampered and harassed by ignorant and bigoted censorship,
came to the conclusion that the advantages of Paris as a literary
and commercial centre were not sufficient to offset the continued
difficulties and annoyances of such antagonism. If the publishing
business of Geneva received, after the beginning of the Reformation,
an exceptional impetus and development through the migration of Paris
publishers and the transfer of the literary undertakings of French
scholars, the responsibility for the loss to France must rest first
with the Doctors of the Sorbonne, and secondly with the weakness and
vacillation of the successors of Francis I.
Henry Estienne associated with his imprint the arms of the University,
but he had no exclusive control of such use, as these same arms
appear on the title-pages of the publications of one or two of his
contemporaries. He appears to have been one of the first of Paris
printers to assume a personal responsibility for the typographical
accuracy of his texts, and in securing the services of competent
scholars as correctors for his Press, he made a practice of adding
their names to the title-pages or to the colophons of their editions.
This served at once to secure for them the credit of good work and
to fix the responsibility for work that did not stand the test of
later criticism. Greswell mentions that the celebrated scholar Beatus
Rhenanus was at one time discharged by Henry from the post of press
corrector, because he had permitted certain errors or oversights to
remain in the printed text as passed by him. Henry took the ground
that the publishing imprint should stand as a voucher or guarantee for
trustworthy work and that every typographical error constituted a stain
upon his character as a publisher.
Henry died about 1520. The work of his Press was at the outset
continued by Colines, who married his widow. Colines gave special
attention to the production of impressions of the best Latin classics,
and was the first of Paris printers to adopt for these the italic
type and the more convenient cabinet or sixteenmo form which had been
first utilised by Aldus. Robert Estienne, the most famous printer of
his name, owed to his step-father his typographical education, and
it must have been largely due also to the influence of Colines that
the taste of the young Robert was from the beginning directed to the
dissemination of classical literature.
The editions of Colines included a very full list of the leading Latin
authors, special attention being given (as was the case with nearly
all the printers of the first and second generations) to the writings
of Cicero. In preparing the works of Cicero for the press, Colines
had the advantage of the carefully revised and ably annotated text of
Paul Manutius, the son of Aldus. The most important of the works of
contemporary writers which bore the imprint of Colines was an edition
of the _Colloquies_ of Erasmus, which was issued with the authorisation
of the author, by whom it had been carefully revised. The sale and
perusal of this book were interdicted by the censor of the Sorbonne,
but before it was withdrawn from the market there were printed,
according to the account given by Erasmus, no less than twenty-four
thousand copies.
The chief prestige that attaches to the undertakings of Colines was
secured through his beautiful editions of works in the Greek character.
The list of these comprised in all fourteen separate issues, including
his three impressions of _Euclid_. As a _libraire juré_ of the
University, Colines was employed to print the Acts of the Council of
Sens, in which council, in the year 1528, the Lutheran heresies were
condemned. He also printed, probably in his official capacity, a number
of the tracts or treatises which were issued under the direction of
the Theological Faculty to combat the Protestant heresies. To his long
list of publications must be added a complete edition of the works of
_Galen_, which was followed by several other medical treatises.
As has been previously pointed out, up to the year 1507, the University
of Paris was practically destitute of texts for the study of Greek,
although for nearly twenty years, in the universities of Italy, Greek
lecturers had found a large support for their work, and although, since
1495, the presses of Aldus in Venice had been busied in the production
of carefully edited and well printed editions of the Greek classics.
While it is probable that there was no serious difficulty in securing
in Paris at this time copies of the issues of the Venetian Press,
it would appear that the knowledge of Greek in the University and
the interest in acquiring such knowledge prior to 1510 had been very
inconsiderable.
The Greek exiles from Constantinople who had done so much to further in
Italy an enthusiasm for Greek literature, not only in the university
towns but in great commercial centres like Florence and Venice, had
apparently been less attracted towards France, and it was not until
later in the sixteenth century that we find the names of Greek
instructors associated with the Faculties of Paris and Orleans. Greek
had been taught in Paris as early as 1472, by a certain Tiphernas, an
Italian, who had been a pupil of Chrysoloras. He was succeeded after a
considerable interval by Hermonymus and Laskaris. The latter was the
author of the famous _Grammar_, which was the first Greek publication
of Aldus. According to Greswell, Laskaris never secured any official
appointment in the University, although he had the favour of Charles
VIII. and of Louis XII.
Gourmont, whose name has already been mentioned, was the first of the
Paris typographers who was willing to incur the very considerable risk
and expense required for the production of a series of Greek texts. His
list included an edition of the _Institutiones Grammaticæ_ of Aldus
Manutius, issued in 1513, and the _Grammatica Græca_ of Theodore Gaza,
in 1521. In 1522, Pierre Vidouvé, of Verneuil, printed the _Dragmata
Græcæ Litteraturæ_ of John Œcolampadius, and a Greek and Latin Lexicon
edited by Magnus and Chæradamus. The former was preceptor to the
children of Budæus.
These ventures were followed by similar undertakings on the part
of Colines and Badius. The former issued editions of _Sophocles,
Aristophanes, Demosthenes_, and _Lucian_, while from the press of the
latter came the great _Commentary_ of Budæus on the Greek language, and
the _Areopagiticus_ of Isocrates.
Another Greek printer of enterprise was Christianus Wechel, who was
a friend of Erasmus. He issued, in 1529, a further edition of the
frequently printed Greek _Grammar_ of Gaza, and, later, many of the
_Opuscula_ of Galen, the latter printed in the original Greek with
Latin versions. Wechel came into trouble in 1534 for having sold
the treatise of Erasmus _De esu interdicto Carnium_, which had been
censured by the Theological Faculty.
In the year 1530, the production of Greek books in Paris was taken up
energetically by Gerardus Morrhius Campensis, who dates his impressions
from the College of the Sorbonne. His list includes a _Lexicon
Græco-Latinum_, the _Rhetorica_ and _Poetica_ of Aristotle, the _Ajax_
of Sophocles, and a number of the essays of Galen. The titles of the
works selected by these earlier Parisian printers have interest as
indicating the direction of the studies pursued at the time in the
University, or which were taken up in connection with special scholarly
undertakings outside of the routine university curriculum. While these
printer-publishers were usually able to secure, in preparing their
editions for the press, the services of scholarly editors (or, as they
were more frequently called, correctors), it is evident that no little
original learning as well as scholarly judgment was required on the
part of the publishers themselves in the selection of the texts and
in the supervision of the correctors, while in the majority of cases
the publishers added to their volumes original work of their own. Thus
to the _Lexicon Græco-Latinum_, Morrhius had contributed an elaborate
Latin preface, while to the _Interpretatio Didymi in Odysseam_, he
prefixed an analytical introduction in Greek.
Morrhius, writing in 1531 to Erasmus, says: “There are even within
the precincts of this college [the Sorbonne] those who wish well to
you, but they are obliged to whisper, fearing to declare in public
their real sentiments, to such a pitch has tyranny attained here.
Your friends rejoice exceedingly that you have replied with so much
moderation to the _Determinationes_ of our divines, for they were
afraid you would have branded the whole Faculty with a stigma that
would have marked them to posterity, which you would have certainly
been justified in doing.” It is apparent from this and from many
similar references that Erasmus was obliged to carry on contentions, so
to speak, with both hands. On the one side, he was bitterly assailed
by Lutherans no less than by Calvinists for failing to support with
his talents, his learning, and his world-wide influence the cause
of the Protestants. On the other side, the divines of the Roman
Church stigmatised as a dangerous heretic a man who insisted that the
writings of the Fathers, and even the Roman versions of the Scriptures
themselves, must be subjected to critical analysis and to textual
corrections, and that not a few of the _dicta_, which had been made
the basis of doctrines called authoritative, were either fraudulent
interpolations in the original texts, or were the result of the glosses
and blunders of incompetent copyists.
Vascosanus, who was a son-in-law of Badius, continued the work of
printing classic texts, and won repute for the beauty and correctness
of his editions. He interested himself particularly in the production
of the works of Cicero, printed in quarto with commentaries. The
writings of Cicero were, as we shall note, very largely favoured by
the publishers of the first century of printing. The only important
contemporary author with whose work the imprint of Vascosanus is
associated, was Budæus, for whom he published an edition of the
treatise _De Asse et ejus Partibus_. The device adopted by Vascosanus
was a fountain, delineated, according to Maittaire’s description, with
artistic ornaments, and surrounded by the motto, ἐν βιβλίοισ ῥέει ἡ
Σοφίας πηγὴ.[4] From 1566 to 1576, Vascosanus was _Typographus Regius_.
The great typographer, Frederic Morel, was one of his grandsons.
Without undertaking to give in detail the list of the
printer-publishers who are recorded by Maittaire and Greswell as having
rendered honourable service during this period in the production in
Paris of scholarly Latin and Greek texts, I will proceed at once to
the record of Robert Estienne, whose work was of first importance
for France and for Europe, and who is to be ranked with the great
printer-publishers of the world.
Robert’s responsibilities as a printer in his own name begin with 1524,
in which year he became proprietor of the paternal _Imprimerie_. He was
then twenty-one years of age. He had been able to profit but little
from the training of his father, Henry, the first of the Estiennes who
had devoted himself to printing, as the latter had died when Robert
was but seventeen, but he had, as before noted, had the advantage of
the supervision of his step-father Colines, himself both a skilled
printer and a good scholar. The work of the young printer was begun
in troublous times both for France and for Europe. It was but eight
years since, by the burning at Wittenberg of the papal bull, Luther had
initiated the great contest of the Reformation. The wordy strife of
the theologians was proceeding with increasing bitterness throughout
all Christian lands, and behind the theological contentions of the
scholars, the feelings of the common people were being aroused into
a condition of ferment and dogmatic partisanship such as the world
had not yet witnessed, and which was for years to come, in the name
of Christianity, to bring desolation upon many lands. This excited
condition of France, Germany, and Switzerland, the desolating wars
which followed, the absorption of the minds of men in theological
issues, and the measures for a repressing censorship of the productions
of the printing-press, which, immediately after the beginning of the
Reformation, were instituted by the authorities both of Church and of
State, were, of necessity, serious obstacles in the way of development
of publishing undertakings, or at least of undertakings depending upon
purely literary interests. On the other hand, the general ferment
in the minds of men, a ferment which, as we have noted, was by no
means confined to the scholarly circles, brought about a very great
development in the intellectual activities and the literary interests
of Europe, causing “many to read who never read before, while those
who read before, now read the more.” Mark Pattison points out that
the Reformation was not only an appeal to Scripture versus tradition,
but also “an appeal to history.”[5] The makers of such an appeal must,
of course, in order to render their contention effective, place within
the reach of their communities the literature of the history cited as
authoritative. The printing-press had been in use for three quarters
of a century, but the demand for books had still (as in the manuscript
period) been in large part restricted to the scholarly circles of the
universities and of the educated ecclesiastics.
It was only with the eager popular demand for instruction and
information which developed with the outbreak of the Reformation, that
there came to the people at large a realisation of the value to them
of the invention of Gutenberg, and an understanding of its importance
for the work of educating and of organising the people for the securing
of the right of individual thought and for protection against the
oppression of Church and State. The work of publishing material for
popular circulation begins practically with the Reformation. As the
people came to realise the value of the new weapon that had been
shaped for its use, there was developed a corresponding distrust and
antagonism on the part of the Church (which had at first been a liberal
supporter of the printers), and on the part also of not a few of the
State rulers. The system of censorship, ecclesiastical and political, a
system which was to do much to hamper the development of literature and
of publishing, dates in substance from the Reformation; no censorship,
however rigorous, was competent to restrain the growing activity of
the press, an activity itself awakened by the increase in the popular
demand for literature, and, notwithstanding all the difficulties above
referred to, the reading public within reach of Robert Estienne was
very much greater than that which twenty-five or thirty years back had
been available for his father. At the time Robert began his business
career, Francis I. was King of France, Charles V., Emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire, Henry VIII., King of England. The Paris of 1524 contained
about 350,000 inhabitants. The University, which under Louis XI. was
said to have comprised over 20,000 students, had seriously declined,
and was destined to lose still more during the succeeding century as
the Romanist spirit secured the complete control. It included, however,
under Francis, not less than 10,000 students, and must still have
ranked as the leading university of Europe. The printer-publishers of
the city carried on their work in close connection with the University,
of which, in fact, under the system handed down from the manuscript
period, the _libraires jurés_ were still members, and the University
continued to claim the right to control such supervision and censorship
as might be exercised over the productions of the press. The syndic
of the Sorbonne (the theological division of the University) was
at this time Noel Bedier, who affected the name of Beda, after the
venerable Bede. He is described as a fanatical pedant and an incessant
disputant, always on the lookout for heresy and for some new victim
to persecute.[6] It was a gratification to him to have been born in
this age of heterodoxy, and he was constantly goading the Sorbonne to
censure.
King Francis gave evidence of an intelligent appreciation of the
importance, as well for the prestige of the Crown as for the welfare
of the State, of the development of learning and literature. He showed
a cordial regard for the scholarly publishers and editors who were at
that time gathered in Paris, and was ready in most instances to throw
the influence of the Crown upon the side of a liberal standard of
supervision for the productions of the Paris Press. The authority of
the University, on the other hand, as expressed through the Theological
Faculty of the Sorbonne, was, from the time of the beginning of the
Reformation, exercised persistently in behalf of a narrower and more
rigorous censorship, and was used to restrict and to hamper nearly
all classes of publishing undertakings. Behind the Sorbonne stood the
Church of Rome. The co-operation of the Papacy with the literary spirit
of the age, appears to have come to an end with the death of Leo X. His
successors, Adrian VI., Clement VII., and Paul III., had learned to
regard the printing-press as an efficient ally of the Reformers, and
therefore as the enemy of the Church. They had convinced themselves
that if the spread of pernicious doctrine among the people was to be
checked, the issues of the press must be controlled by a rigorous and
persistent censorship. As far as France was concerned, the persistency
of the Church proved too strong to be offset by the friendly interest
and rather vacillating liberalism of the Crown, and the ecclesiastical
control of the printing-press became, before 1540, an established and
an obstructive fact. One of the results of the antagonism of the Church
to critical scholarship was to drive into the ranks of sympathisers
with the Reformers, if not into Protestantism itself, very many of
the scholars who were not at the outset Reformers and who were not
keenly interested in the theological issues of the period, but who were
naturally indignant at the reiterated interference, often on the part
of very ignorant men, with scholarly undertakings. The men engaged in
preparing for the public critical editions of the world’s literature,
asked to be let alone, but they asked in vain.
It was under such conditions of strife and disturbance, of contests
political and religious, of wars civil and foreign, of revolts against
the Church, and of fresh assumptions on the part of the Church against
any liberty of action for the community or for the individual, that
the life-work of Robert Estienne was begun. He was born in 1503, and
appears to have imbibed his scholarly interests and to have secured
his early scholarly training principally from the learned men who
had served as correctors of the press for his father, Henry. Henry
died in 1520, and his widow married, in 1522, Simon de Colines, whose
work as a typographer has already been referred to. Robert speedily
became the assistant of his step-father, and the first important
undertaking entrusted to him was the supervision through the press
of an edition of the _Novum Testamentum_.[7] The text followed the
version of the Vulgate, but the youthful editor found occasion for
certain corrections. The textual changes ventured upon in the volume
at once called forth criticism from the divines of the Sorbonne,
who were already raising objections to any general dissemination of
the Scriptures, and Robert found himself classed with the group of
heretical persons who required watching. This reputation clung to him
through all his career, and the hostility of the divines, thus early
aroused, was never withdrawn. According to Robert’s correspondence,
he held himself always ready to justify on critical grounds and by
theological arguments the corrections in the Vulgate text upon which he
had ventured. The divines, however, while continuing their invectives
from their instructors’ Chairs and even from the pulpit, took pains to
avoid any direct controversy on the points at issue.[8]
In 1525, appeared the first work published with the individual imprint
of Robert, an edition of the _Apuleii Liber de Deo Socratis_, which
was followed in 1526 by the _Ciceronis Epistolæ_, without which hardly
any publishing list of the time could be begun. Robert adopted as his
device a spreading olive tree, with one or more branches broken off,
and the motto _Noli altum sapere, sed time_. This appears to be based
upon the words in _Romans_ xi. 20, “Be not high-minded, but fear.”
Robert’s career was, however, in a sense, a contradiction of his motto.
He was high-minded, and he refused to fear, or at least to be fearful.
Shortly after his majority, Robert married Petronilla, a daughter
of the famous publisher Jodocus Badius, and the co-operation of his
wife proved of no little service in the management of the editorial
portion of his business, as she was herself a thorough scholar, and
could read, write, and speak Latin fluently. The publisher’s household
included for many years, in addition to the members of his family
circle, a number of his editors and press-correctors. These assistants
represented a number of nationalities, and they had, as a convenience,
adopted Latin as their common tongue. Through the example of these
permanent guests, aided by the facility of the mistress of the house,
Latin became the language first of the table and finally of the whole
domestic establishment, even the servants and children having gained
a sufficient mastery of the idioms. Maittaire mentions that it was a
custom of Robert Estienne to hang up in the streets or in the precincts
of the University proof-sheets of important works which were passing
through his Press, and to offer a reward for every error that might be
discovered.
The following list of works, selected from among the more important of
the publications issued by the second Estienne during the succeeding
fifteen years, will serve to give an impression of the character of his
undertakings. For the titles in this list I am indebted to Greswell.[9]
1528. Linacer, Thomas, “De Emendata Latini Sermonis Structura,”
quarto. Robert printed two later editions in octavo. Linacer was a
learned Englishman, physician and ecclesiastic, and a correspondent
of Erasmus, through whom probably he became known to Estienne.
His death occurred in 1524, and this Paris edition of his most
important work could, therefore, not have had the advantage of the
author’s supervision. “Justiniani Institutiones,” and “Digestorum
seu Pandectarum volumina quinque Biblia utriusque Testamenti
Latina, ex veteribus MSS. exemplaribus emendata, fol. cal. Mart.”
This was Robert’s first impression of the complete Bible. For its
preparation he had made a very comprehensive collation of the
existing manuscripts of the Vulgate with the texts heretofore
printed.
“Dictionarium seu Latinæ Linguæ Thesaurus.” This work was not
completed in 1528, but during this year and the two years
following, its preparation was in progress. Robert’s part in
the undertaking was by no means restricted to the planning, the
printing, and the publishing. Not having succeeded in securing
the services of a competent editor, he finally decided himself to
attempt the task of the compilation and the editing. Having secured
from scholarly friends a favourable opinion on the first few
sheets prepared for the press, he was encouraged to persevere, and
applied himself to the task day and night for more than two years,
during which he had also on his hands the responsibilities of his
printing and publishing business. The work was adopted at once
by the University of Paris, and, superseding the existing Latin
dictionaries (of which the “Cornucopia” of Aldus Manutius, issued
in 1513, was perhaps the most important), it remained for many
years the standard authority on its subject, as well as a monument
to the learning and industry of a representative publisher.
1529. “Plinii Epistolæ, Panegyricus de Viris Illustribus, Suetonius
de Claris Grammaticis,” and “Terentii Opera.” In this last,
Robert, with great trouble, restored the Greek passages cited by
Donatus. In all preceding editions, blanks appeared where these
Greek citations should have been inserted. The publisher claimed
that he had also been able, by collation of the best MSS., to
correct no less than 6000 errors that had found their way into
texts previously accepted. Between the years 1529 and 1551, Robert
printed of “Terence” no less than eleven editions.
1530. “Plauti Opera,” in folio, and “Rhetores Latini.”
1531. The first edition of the previously referred to “Dictionary
of the Latin Language” bears date this year; it is printed in
folio. In the course of twelve years, two later and revised
editions were issued. The general acceptance of the Dictionary as
the best work on its subject made it an object for the rapacity
of a number of unscrupulous reprinters, and various unauthorised
reprints appeared, some of which were seriously incorrect or
incomplete. Estienne appears to have accepted with philosophy
the inevitable injury to his business interests, but complained
bitterly at the loss to his repute as a scholar, caused by foisting
upon the public, over his name, slovenly and inaccurate work.
1532. “Virgilii Opera cum Commentariis Servii Valeriani
Castigationibus”, in folio. A second impression of the Scriptures,
entitled “Biblia.” “Breves in eadem Annotationes ex Doctiss.
Interpretationibus et Hebræorum Commentariis, etc., cum Priv.
Regis.” This was magnificently printed in a handsome folio, with
brief notes or _apostilles_ on the margin. Notwithstanding Robert’s
care in fortifying himself with the royal privilege, and with a
license from the University censors (who for theological works
were at that time appointed by the Sorbonne), the divines of the
college renewed their warfare against him on the ground that he had
dared to print the Scriptures at all. From the severest effects of
this _odium theologicum_ Robert was preserved through the personal
influence of King Francis. He was obliged, however, to engage to
print nothing further, presumably nothing of a doctrinal character,
_nisi cum bona eorum gratia_.
1533. “Virgilii Opera.” 8vo. (Again.)
“Horatii ars poetica.” 4to.
“Plinii epistolæ.” (Again.) The edition of 1529 had apparently
lasted for four years.
1534. Robert again hazarded the wrath of the divines by a third
edition of the “Biblia,” for which the demand had evidently
continued. This time he escaped without interference.
1535. “Budæi Annotationes in Pandecta” and “Budæi de transitu
Hellenismi ad Christianismum Libri tres.” Folio.
1538. “Dictionarium Latino-Gallicum.” Folio.
“Dictionnaire François-Latin.”
“Ciceronis Epistolæ.”
1539. “Ciceronis Opera Omnia,” two volumes, octavo, probably the
most beautiful edition of this oft printed author which had yet
appeared.
1540. This year was marked by the appearance of a fourth impression
of the Latin Scriptures. This presented some considerable
modifications from the plan of the previous issues. It gave the
Vulgate text, but with new and important elucidations, and it gave
further, for comparison with the text, various readings based upon
the Hebrew and Greek. The title is elaborate: “Biblia, Hebræa,
Chaldæa, Græca et Latina, nomina virorum, mulierum, populorum,
idolorum, urbium, fluviorum, montium cæterorumque locorum, quæ
in ipsis Bibliis leguntur, restituta, cum Latina interpretatione
et ipsorum locorum descriptione ex Cosmographis. His accesserunt
schemata Tabernaculi Mosaici et Templi Solomonis, quæ præunte
Francisco Vatablo, Hebraicarum literarum Regio professore
doctissimo, summa arte et fide expressa sunt.”
“Parisiis ex officina Roberti Stephani, Typographi Regii, MDXL. cum
privilegio Regis.” Folio.
This is the first publication of Robert’s containing the
specification of his title as “Printer to the King.” His
acknowledged erudition and the importance of the scholarly
undertakings carried on by him had long before attracted the
attention and the favour of Francis, and in 1539, in the
thirty-sixth year of the typographer’s age, the King conferred upon
him the honourable distinction of _Imprimeur Royal_ for works in
Hebrew and Latin. After June, 1539, Robert styles himself _Regius
Typographus_ or _Librarius_, or _Regius Hebraicarum et Latinarum
Literarum Typographus_.
In 1540, on the death of Neobarius, the first who had received the
title of “Printer in Greek to the King,” this distinction also was
conferred upon Estienne. The official recognition and approval given
by the Crown to his undertakings could not, however, save these
from the censure and indignant opposition of the divines, and they
did what they could to check and to discourage his publications.
Robert was brought into special jeopardy and trouble through an
impression of the Decalogue executed (in 1540) in large characters,
and printed in the form of a hanging map for affixing to the walls of
chambers and school-rooms. Such an undertaking seems to our present
understanding innocent enough, whether considered from a Romanist
or from a Protestant point of view, but in this publication of the
Ten Commandments, the divines appear to have discovered little less
mischief than in all the heresies of Luther.[10] Robert relates that
the orthodox censors caused a counter impression of the Decalogue to be
prepared by one Johannes Andreas, in which the first two commandments
were combined into one, omitting the prohibition of making and
worshipping images, and the tenth commandment was divided into two in
order to make up the denary number.
During this year, Estienne goes on to say, there were instituted
against him on the part of the Sorbonne, various rigorous proceedings.
His house was frequently searched for heretical works, and in order
to avoid being arrested, he was not infrequently compelled to absent
himself from home and to betake himself for safety to the King’s
Court. This description of a publisher taking refuge at Court in order
to protect himself against the violence of officials who were (at
least nominally) the King’s censors, throws a curious light on both
the strength and the weakness of the Crown. With all the authority
of the kingdom at his command, Francis was evidently unable to put
any restriction upon the operations of the ecclesiastical censors,
who in their dogmatic and unruly zeal were doing what was in their
power to throw the influence of the University against the literary
development of France and of Europe. On the other hand, the Doctors
of the Sorbonne, although backed by the authority of Rome, were not
strong enough, at least for a number of years, to put a stop to
the publication in Catholic Paris of works stigmatised by them as
dangerously heretical.
In 1541, undismayed by the dissatisfaction and continued threats
of the Sorbonne, Robert put forth a Latin Pentateuch, entitled
“Libri Moysi quinque cum annotationibus,” etc., in folio, and as
a companion volume, a “Novum Testamentum Latine, cum brevibus
annotationibus,” in octavo. This last was sharply attacked on the
ground that the editor (in this case the publisher himself) had
expressed himself objectionably on the subjects of purgatory and
confession.
1542. He published, as a companion to his “Cicero,” an edition in
quarto of “Quintiliani Institutiones Oratoriæ.”
1543. Appeared a new impression of the entire works of “Cicero,”
the demand for whose writings appeared to be steadily increasing.
1544. Editions were printed in octavo of a number of the Latin
historians, including “Sallust” and “Suetonius.”
1545. The completion of the quarto edition of the Hebrew
Scriptures, issued in twenty-four parts, which Maittaire describes
as a magnificent work.
In this year appeared also, printed in folio, the magnificent
series of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, the Greek texts in
which were printed with the royal Greek characters recently cast
under instructions from the King. The series bears the title
“Ecclesiastica Historia Eusebii, Socratis, Theodoriti, Theodori,
Sozomeni, Evagrii, Græce.” To the “Historia” Robert prefixed a
Greek epistle, in which, with what Maittaire calls Attic eloquence,
he has celebrated the praises of Francis I., extolling at once the
munificence of the King and the discriminating support given by him
to the highest literary undertakings.
“Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicæ Demonstrationes, Libri X., Græce.”
Folio.
“Moschopuli de Ratione Examinandæ Orationis Libellus, Græce.” 4to.
This was a grammatical work for the instruction of youth, now first
printed.
Impressions of “Juvenal, Persius, Valerius Maximus, Lucian, and
Terence.”
A fifth impression of the complete “Biblia Latina,” for the fourth
impression of which sale had evidently been found notwithstanding
the denunciations of the Church authorities. Robert had for five
years been making preparation for this edition by the collection
both of printed texts and of MSS. For the notes, use had been
made of the material of Erasmus, Gualtherus, and particularly of
Vatablus, the learned Professor of Hebrew in the _Collége Royal_.
The citations from the latter had been collected by diligent
students who had attended the Professor’s lectures. The captious
divines, finding the notes sanctioned by such an authority, did
not at first venture to cavil at this edition. Later, however,
they threatened Robert with various pains and penalties because he
had omitted to procure for the work their license. They contended
that the title of “Printer to the King” did not exempt him from
a compliance with the regulations prescribed by the University.
This claim on the part of the University, that the approval of its
own representatives must be secured even for works issued under
the direct authority of the Crown, was throughout the following
century a frequent cause of contention. It appears never to have
been formally adjusted. The charge was made at the time that the
_scholia_ or _annotationes_ complained of were really the work not
of Vatablus, but of Robert himself. Such an accusation does credit
to the publisher’s scholarship if not to his truthfulness, but
there is no evidence to support it.
1546. “Biblia Hebræa,” 16mo, or _forma minima_, issued in eight
volumes. Le Long speaks of the correctness and extreme beauty of
this edition.[11]
A sixth edition of the Latin Bible, with a text more pure and more
accurate than had been secured in any of the previous issues. This
was the second of Robert’s Latin Bibles which escaped censure.
1546. The first and only publication from his press in Italian,
which is ranked as one of the most interesting literary curiosities
bearing his imprint, “La Coltivatione di Luigi Alamanni, al
Christianissimo Re Francesco primo, con privilegi.” 4to. This is
the first edition of what Greswell calls the georgical poem of
Alamanni. The character is a bold italic, and the volume is a
beautiful piece of book-making. The author was a Florentine poet,
banished from his native country, who had found refuge at the Court
of Francis. He is one of the very few contemporary writers who
secured the advantage of Robert’s imprint.
1547. “Dionysii Halicarnassei Antiquitatum Romanarum, Libri X.,
Græce,” which Fabricius calls one of the most beautiful books
produced by the Greek Press.
“Ciceronis Epistolæ.”
In this year (which witnessed the death of King Francis), Robert
had occasion to publish various monographs presenting the funeral
sermons, and describing the obsequies.
1548. “Alexandri Tralliani Medici, Libri XII., Græce;” and “Rhazæ
de Pestilentia Libellus ex Syrorum lingua in Græcam translatus.”
“Dionis Romanarum Historiarum, Libri XXIII., Græce.”
1549. “Hebraicarum Institutionum, Libri IV. Pagnino auctore.” 4to.
“Dictionnaire François-Latin.” Folio.
“Virgilii Opera.”
“Horatii poemata, scholiis et argumentis ab H. Stephano illustrata.”
“Novum Testamentum, Græce.” This edition was described by
Colomesius as not containing a single error, but the industrious
Greswell finds in the preface itself _pulres_ for _plures_.
1550. “Novum Testamentum, Græce,” in folio, with Robert’s own
“Præfatio Græce et Latine scripta et annotationes,” Greek Tabulæ,
and biographical notices of the writers of the Gospels and of St.
Paul. To the Epistles are prefixed arguments and introductions
from various writers, and in all the books marginal readings are
given. The work also includes what Maittaire calls an extensive
copy of Greek hexameters, composed by Henry Estienne (the second),
the eldest son of Robert, who was at the time barely twenty-one
years of age. This magnificent edition was long accepted as a most
important authority on New Testament text, and critics like Gibbon,
and scholars like Porson, have held this book and its publisher
(who was also its editor) chiefly responsible for the perpetration
of the interpolation of the famous verse in John i., 5, 7, on the
heavenly witnesses.[12] The record, however, of the long contests
between the critics and the theologians, concerning this verse
(now generally admitted to be an interpolation) and other similar
textual issues, is foreign to my subject. It may, I think, fairly
be assumed that in this instance, as in all editorial work, Robert
acted honestly enough, following the best information and the most
trustworthy authorities within his reach. The matter of the long
contests with the Sorbonne brought about by this critical edition
of the Testament, will be referred to a little later. I will here,
for the convenience of reference, complete the list of selections
from Robert’s list of publications:
1551. “Justini Philosophi et Martyris Opera, Græce.” Folio.
Chevillier considers this the most excellent of the Greek
impressions of the Estiennes. He contends that, “whether for the
accuracy of the text, the superlative beauty of the characters, the
excellence of the paper, or the evenness of the impressions, the
work of Robert Estienne bore away the palm not only from the other
typographers of Paris, but also from the most skilled printers in
other countries.” “Robert,” he says, “raised the art to the summit
of perfection.”[13]
“Rudimenta fidei Christianæ, Græce, nunc primum in lucem edita.”
Maittaire (“Vita Stephani”) explains that this is Calvin’s
Catechism translated into Greek by the printer’s son Henry. The
omission of any reference to Calvin was doubtless due to the
desire to avoid arousing fresh indignation at the Sorbonne. It is
difficult to understand, however, how a volume of this character
could in any case have escaped the vigilance of the censors.
“Novum Testamentum, Græce, cum duplici interpretatione Erasmi et
veteris interpretis,” etc. Yet another impression of the volume
which had already brought upon the publisher the censorship and
antagonism of the jealous divines. It contained a few changes from
the text of the earlier issues, but the principal peculiarity of
the edition is the fact that the text appears for the first time
divided into verses, _versiculi_.
“Sententiæ Veterum Poetarum per G. Majorem in locos communes
digestæ. Antonii Mancinelli de Poetica virtute libellus. Index
sententiarum,” etc. 8vo.
“Commentarius puerorum de quotidiano sermone, Maturino Corderio,
auctore.” 8vo. Cordier was one of the small group of contemporary
authors with whose work Robert’s imprint is associated. He was a
schoolmaster of Paris, but having adopted the reformed faith, he
withdrew to Geneva.
“Dionis Nicæi Rerum Romanarum Epitome, Græce, auctore Joan.
Xiphilino; ex Bibl. regia, ac. off. R. Stephani, Typogr. regii,
regiis typis.” 4to. “Eadem Latine, Gulielmo Blanco Albiensi
interprete.” 4to.
The _Epitome Dionis_ is the last work printed by Robert in Paris
prior to his removal to Geneva. Before giving the titles of the more
important issues of his Press in Geneva, it is desirable to go back
in the narrative for a few years, and in outlining some of the events
in the long contest between the private publisher and the divines of
the Sorbonne, to indicate some of the causes which brought about the
transfer of the great publishing establishment from Paris, at that time
the most noteworthy and possibly the greatest city in Europe, to the
quiet little town on Lake Geneva.
We have seen that the work of the enterprising and scholarly publisher
was regarded with intelligent and appreciative interest by King
Francis I., and that while the King had in various ways furthered the
undertakings of Estienne, his most important service had been rendered
in utilising the royal influence to protect the printer against the
divines of the Sorbonne. The title of “Printer to the King,” while
fully deserved, of course, on other grounds, was given to Robert with
the special purpose of securing for him an additional safeguard against
the assaults of the theological censors. These theological censors were
irate at the assumption by the publisher, acting as his own editor,
of the right to correct the text of Scripture, and to add marginal
commentaries, while they were also indignant at what they considered an
unwarrantable interference on the part of the King with the old-time
right of the Theological Faculty of the University to exercise a
censorship control over all theological and religious publications
emanating from the French Press.
The interest of Francis in scholarship and the influence of Budæus
and other scholars led him to initiate or to accept the scheme of a
Royal College, to be devoted more particularly to instruction in the
ancient languages. It was a part of the plan that Erasmus should be
called from his peaceful retreat in the house of his friend Froben, the
publisher of Basel, to the headship of the new college. The Emperor
(Charles V.) put an end to the negotiation, however, by forbidding
Erasmus to leave the territory of the empire, and by threatening him,
in the event of his disobedience, with the stoppage of his pension.
It is interesting to think of the most Catholic Emperor on the one
hand, and the “eldest son of the Church” on the other, contending for
the services of the scholar whose writings had been condemned in Rome
as heretical, and were prohibited in Spain, and who could not at this
time obtain from the Paris University a printing privilege. The college
failed to secure Erasmus, and failed also, at least during the lifetime
of Francis, to secure the buildings that the King had planned for it,
but its professorships were finally endowed in 1539. The authorities
of the University were, with hardly an exception, bitterly opposed to
the new foundation, and the considerations they presented against the
plan were substantially the same as those which were from year to year
being urged by the same group of divines against the printing and the
distribution of “pagan,” _i. e._ classic, literature, and of works
undertaking to criticise and to correct texts which had been accepted
and approved by the Church. The argument of the University against the
new college was presented before the Parliament of Paris (that is to
say, the High Court of the capital) by M. Gaillard. He urged that “to
propagate the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages would operate
to the absolute destruction of all religion.” “Were these professors
theologians,” he asked, “that they should pretend to explain the Bible?
Were not indeed the very Bibles of which they made use in large printed
in Germany, the region of heresy? Or at least were they not indebted
for them to the Jews?” The new professors made their rejoinder through
Marillac, whose arguments covered, it will be noted, the points raised
by Estienne in defence of his annotated editions of the Scriptures. “We
make no pretensions,” said the professors, “to the name or the function
of theologians. It is as philologists or grammarians only that we
undertake to explain the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. If you, who are
criticising our teachings, possess any knowledge of Greek and Hebrew,
you are at liberty to attend our lectures and, if you find any heresy
in our instruction, to denounce us. If, however, you are yet ignorant
of both Greek and Hebrew, on what grounds can you base your fitness
as censors or your claims to forbid us to teach in these tongues? In
teaching Greek, it is for us to decide what literature is best suited
for our purpose. In teaching Hebrew, if, for various reasons, we find
the Hebrew Scriptures best adapted for our classes, what right have you
to complain? What other Hebrew book, indeed, would you select for us?”
It is to be borne in mind that for the texts used for these lectures,
the professors of the _Collége Royal_ were largely dependent upon the
presses of Estienne, and that in defending their right to teach Greek
and Hebrew, they were also contending for his right to print and to
sell the books required.
Impressed by these reasonings, and influenced also, of course, by the
authority of the King, who had accepted for himself the responsibility
for the scheme of instruction in his new college, the Parliament
studiously avoided any decision in the controversy. This was, under
the circumstances, a substantial victory for the defendants, and the
_Collége Royal_ not only maintained its ground, but continued to
increase in importance and in influence.[14]
Maittaire quotes, in this connection, the testimony of Conrad
Heresbach, a learned jurisconsult, who says that (in 1540) he heard a
monk speaking thus from the pulpit: “A new language has been discovered
which they call Greek. Against this you must be carefully on your
guard, for it is the infant tongue of all heresies. There is a book
written in that language called the New Testament. It is _un livre
plein de ronces et de vipères_. As to the Hebrew tongue, it is well
known that all who learn it presently become Jews.”
In the edition of _Horace_ prepared by Lambinus, the editor says,
in the epistle dedicatory addressed to Charles IX.: “The University
of Paris was then [in the time of Francis] equally destitute of
sound philosophy and of elegant learning. The poets, historians, and
philosophers of ancient Greece were scarcely known by name, and ...
scarcely a single professor was acquainted with even the rudiments
of Greek or Hebrew, or was capable of teaching Latin in its genuine
purity.” Erasmus writes, in 1529, to some friends in the _Collége
Royal_, encouraging them to persevere in their efforts to raise the
standard of liberal scholarship in France, and referring to the
progress of the College of Louvain, which had recently been instituted
through the munificence of Busleiden, a simple canon of Brussels, and
for the general organisation of which Erasmus was largely responsible.
The original purpose of the college (which became, in the next century,
a headquarters for Catholic theology) was the prosecution of Greek,
Hebrew, and Latin.
It was in connection with the _Collége Royal_, and as, in fact, an
essential part of his great scheme for the development of higher
education, that King Francis instituted the _Imprimerie Royale_, with
its appendage of _Typographus Regius_, an arrangement which was at
the time unprecedented in the annals of literature. “By an apparatus
which nothing less than princely munificence could have provided,” says
Greswell, “the admirable productions of classic genius and taste, and
particularly those of Greece, were now to be given to the public with
a beauty of characters and an exquisiteness of technical perfection
to which no typographer had ever yet attained or even in imagination
aspired.”[15]
The fonts of Greek type which came later to be known as _Characteres
Regii_, were cast under the direction of Claude Garamond, from designs
furnished by Angelus Vergetius, of Candia, whose Greek penmanship was
so singularly beautiful as to have been selected as the pattern for
Garamond to follow. Vergetius was appointed by the King to a post in
the new college, as the King’s _Escrivain en Grecque_, with a stipend
equal to that of the professors.
As has already been noted, the distinction of _Regius in Græcis
Typographus_, was first conferred on Neobarius, who received an
annual stipend of one hundred gold crowns. Neobarius died before the
organisation of the _Imprimerie_ was completed, and the first of the
King’s printers to assume the direction of the royal establishment and
to make use of the new Greek fonts was Robert Estienne, who, both by
technical knowledge as a printer and by his attainments as a scholar,
was exceptionally fitted to carry out the large schemes the King had
in mind, and who, in fact, was only too eager to supplement these
with still larger schemes of his own. It was equally fortunate that
the most enterprising and most scholarly printer-publisher in Europe
should have been able to secure the all important co-operation of the
resources and influence of an enlightened and ambitious monarch, and
that the King should have had at hand for the first direction of his
novel undertaking, a man possessing for the task such exceptional
qualifications. Francis was the only ruler of the time in Europe who
gave any important co-operation to the encouragement of literature and
to the development of the still new art of printing and book-making,
and, as far as intelligent literary interest is concerned, we must,
to find any such distinctive service on the part of a monarch, go
back to Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the third century B.C. Francis had a
personal interest also in the process of printing, and took pleasure in
inspecting from time to time the work in his _Imprimerie_. Maittaire
relates that, calling one day at the _officina_ of Estienne, the King
found Robert engaged in correcting a proof, and would not permit the
printer to interrupt his work, but waited until this was finished.
It was Francis who instituted the office of Librarian to the King,
_Bibliothécaire du Roy_, a post which was first held by the great
scholar Budæus. In connection with the great development in the art
of printing which took place during his reign and of which a full
measure of the credit must be ascribed to the King, there arose a large
interest in artistic bindings. The fashion of a taste for books set by
the King was naturally taken up by many of the noblemen, who began to
form libraries of handsomely printed and choicely bound books. One of
the most zealous collectors of the time was Grolier de Servier, Vicomte
d’Aguisy, who was for some years Ambassador of France at the Court
of Rome. His library was said to have contained no less than three
thousand volumes, an enormous collection for the sixteenth century, and
the greater portion of these were elaborately and tastefully bound.
The name of Grolier has ever since been held in honour by admirers of
artistic book-making, and, in connection with the establishment in New
York of a Grolier Club of book-collectors, is assured of preservation
in appreciative memory.
In 1546, the continued antagonism of the Sorbonne to the publishing
undertakings of Estienne, brought the divines into direct conflict with
the authority of the King. In presenting to the King this year a copy
of his fine edition of _Eusebius_, Robert wrote to Du Chastel, Bishop
of Mascon, complaining that the divines were privately soliciting an
interdict of the latest issue of his annotated Bible, and declared
his willingness to submit the work, together with the censure of the
Faculty, to any competent theologians whom the King might select. The
King found this proposal satisfactory, and instructed the Bishop to
transmit his royal mandate to the Doctors of the Sorbonne to institute
an examination of Robert’s Bible, to prepare a list of the alleged
errors, and to submit this list to him. They promised compliance,
but, in spite of a second mandate, no such list was prepared. It is
probable that they did not possess the requisite scholarship for the
purpose, while it is also evident that what they objected to was
not an incidental error, but the whole spirit and character of the
undertaking. In the meantime, they induced the theologians of Louvain
to procure the insertion of Robert’s Bible in an _index expurgatorius_
which was at that time in preparation in Louvain. Du Chastel was
directed to address a third injunction to the divines, and the King
forbade the printing (at least in France) of the catalogue of Louvain.
Finally, the Faculty submitted a list of fifteen passages which they
claimed to contain dangerous heresies. The King ordered these to be
examined by the Bishop of Mascon and the Chancellor of the University,
whose report was favourable to Robert, and who pointed out that the
divines had not properly understood either the text or the notes. The
King issued a Brief with the royal seal affixed, ordering the divines
to complete their list of _censuræ_, or to withdraw their strictures
upon the book, strictures which, for a work of this character,
naturally interfered with the sale. The divines persisted in their
contumacy, while Robert, trusting in the support of the King, went on
with the printing and sale of his Bibles. In March, 1547, King Francis
died. His death was a serious misfortune not only to Estienne but to
the cause of liberal scholarship and literary production in France.
Francis was at the time of his death in his fifty-third year and had
reigned for nearly thirty-three years. As before pointed out, no
other monarch of Europe had done so much for scholarly literature. In
Italy, valuable co-operation was given by certain of the princes and
individual noblemen, while in Germany, the earlier printer-publishers
were dependent rather upon the scholarly men of the middle classes and
upon wealthy towns-people than upon princes or nobles. The same year,
1547, saw the death of Henry VIII. (who will in our memories always
be associated with Francis on account of the famous meeting on the
Field of the Cloth of Gold), of Vatablus, the learned Paris professor
of Greek, and of Beatus Rhenanus, scholar, humanist, and friend of
Erasmus and Froben. Luther, whose life-work had, in addition to the
great results usually connected with it, exercised such a wide-spread
influence on the production and distribution of literature, had passed
away the year preceding.
Du Verdier (himself a Catholic) expresses the opinion “that the
Lutheran heresy, and the controversies to which it gave rise, conspired
greatly to the development of literature.” The advocates of the
Reformation showed themselves to be persons of great intellectual
ability and profound research in sacred and classical literature, of
which they made in their writings a great use. The severe ridicule
that they brought upon the ignorance and barbarism of their opponents
finally aroused the Catholic doctors to similar scholarly researches,
and to call in the aid of erudition, which they had previously
imagined to be some species of heresy.[16]
The famous Marguerite de Valois, sister of King Francis, was prominent
both as an authoress and as a protectress of literature, and her
influence was always ready in behalf of the undertakings of Estienne.
Pierre du Chastel, who had been an instructor of Marguerite, and
who was one of the few Greek scholars of the kingdom, was also a
serviceable friend to Estienne. Du Chastel had succeeded in securing a
patron for the unfortunate Dolet after his first heretical offences (an
interposition which brought upon Du Chastel himself the suspicion of
the orthodox), and he had also obtained from the King a pardon for the
Waldenses. In neither case did it prove possible to secure a lasting
protection. Dolet was burned a few years later, while the persecution
of the Waldenses was also renewed with fresh bitterness after the death
of Francis. Dolet was a scholar who, having studied jurisprudence and,
later, served as instructor, finally became a printer. He devoted
himself particularly to the study of the writings of Cicero, and
published a _Commentaria Linguæ Latinæ_ and also the _Formulæ Latinarum
locutionum illustriorum_. Niceron says that he was the author of not
less than twenty-four separate works. He was imprisoned on various
occasions for his freedom of speech on religious subjects, and was
finally burned as a heretic in 1546. His heresy was evidently not of
the kind to secure the sympathy of Calvin, who referred to him as an
“impious wretch.”
Henry II., who, in 1547, succeeded to the throne of France, while
not possessing the distinctive interest in literature which had
characterised his father Francis, was, nevertheless, at least at
the outset, favourably disposed towards the men of letters with
whom Francis had come into personal relations, and he was prepared
to carry out the engagements into which his father had entered
concerning the printing-office and type-foundry. He also took up the
issue that had been raised between his father and the divines of the
Sorbonne. In the first year of his reign, he commanded the divines
forthwith to complete their list of _censuræ_, and threatened, in the
event of further contumacy, severe measures for their chastisement.
This produced an engagement on their part that by the following All
Saints’ Day should finally be made public the long-promised schedules
of all the errors and heresies discovered by them in the several
Bibles of Robert Estienne. On the day specified, however, in place
of the promised _censuræ_, the divines presented simply a fresh
petition that the sale of the Bibles might be interdicted, on the
general ground that their editor was a sacramentarian, and that he
had spoken of the souls of men as mortal. The petition received no
attention, and after some months’ further delay, ten divines presented
themselves at the palace at Fontainebleau, with a list of forty-five
objectionable articles or passages. The presentation was made before
the King’s Council, with which were sitting several cardinals and
bishops. The printer was heard in his own defence, and the matter was
then taken into consideration by the Council. The prelates decided
that in forty of the passages specified there was no just ground for
criticism. The remaining five were liable to objection, but might be
satisfactorily explained. The contending parties were then recalled
before the Council, and the divines were rebuked for their groundless
interference, and were forbidden to arrogate to themselves in future
the _jus censorium_, which was declared to belong to the bishop only.
Enraged and disappointed, the deputies returned to Paris, and there,
by some special management, they succeeded in procuring an order for
a temporary suspension of the sale of Robert’s Bibles. Later, as a
result, apparently, of some vacillation on the part of the King, they
secured also a royal mandate that the case should be submitted for the
examination of certain judges whose office it was to take cognisance
of matters of heresy. After an anxious contest extending over eight
months, Robert finally succeeded in securing a counter mandate
cancelling the foregoing order, and confining the jurisdiction of the
affair to the Privy Council. This served to protect him for a brief
period.
I have given the account of this contest with some detail because it
was the first case in France that had come to a formal trial, in which
publications were charged with heresy, and because also the animus
shown by the ecclesiastics of the Sorbonne emphasised the divergence
of the University from the interests of literature and of critical
scholarship, and foreshadowed the transfer of literary and publishing
activity from Paris to Switzerland, Germany, and the Low Countries.
In 1548, King Henry was intent on passing the Alps, and began his
expedition from Troyes. The absence of the Court, and the necessity,
in connection with his contest with the Sorbonne, of pursuing its
movements, gave occasion to Robert to visit Lyons, and in this journey
he is supposed to have performed the task of subdividing into verses
the chapters of the New Testament. A great part of this labour he is
said to have performed on horseback.[17] The invention, if it may be so
described, proved a convenience and found general acceptation, and has
been followed in all later editions of the Testament.
In the same year, the divines completed a second series of one hundred
and seven “articles” or charges of heresy against Robert’s Bibles,
and through the influence of the King’s confessor, the vacillating
monarch was induced to issue a new mandate prohibiting the sale of the
Bibles. Robert now declared to his friend Du Chastel his intention of
abandoning his native country, and the King, persuaded by the Bishop
that this would be a serious misfortune for France, finally, after
a delay of some months, issued a new _brevet_ of protection for his
printer. In 1550, fresh attempts were made by the divines to secure the
complete suppression of the Bibles, the sales of which had of necessity
already been materially interfered with. On this occasion, Du Chastel,
who was looking forward to a cardinal’s hat, finally abandoned his
advocacy of Estienne. Robert secured an interview with the divines, and
presenting a copy of the latest issue of the New Testament complained
of, he requested, as before, a specific statement of the charges.
The two divines who acted as spokesmen, were, according to Robert’s
report, evidently ignorant of Greek. They demanded, however, that
the original “copy” or manuscript should be placed before them. He
replied that the original was not one manuscript only, but fifteen,
the several texts of which had been with great diligence collated
and the result printed with all possible fidelity. After some weeks
of further “consideration,” the divines finally gave their decision,
to the effect that this edition of the New Testament could not be
permitted to be sold. Robert requested that a copy of this decision,
together with a specification of the grounds on which it had been
based, should be presented to the King, but this the divines refused
to do. Robert thereupon presented to the King a handsomely bound copy
of this new impression of the Testament, and when he had received the
royal acknowledgment of the receipt of this copy, he felt himself
to be sufficiently assured of protection to be able to proceed with
his sales. The divines were indignant that a mere typographer should
presume thus to act in defiance of a _decretum theologicum_, but the
royal weathercock being for the moment set fair in the direction of
a liberal standard of Scriptural interpretation, they were helpless
to stop the sales of the book to the general public, although they
were still able to prevent its acceptance within the precincts of the
University.
While Estienne had thus far been able to secure a successful result
in each one of his several contests with the Sorbonne, these contests
had been for him not only anxious and troublesome in themselves, but
seriously hampering to his business undertakings. It had also been made
clear to him that the new monarch could not be depended upon for any
such intelligent understanding of literary and scholarly requirements
as had been shown by King Francis, and that his policy in the control
of the royal Press, or in the assertion of the authority of the Crown
over final censorship of publication, was certain to vacillate from
month to month according to the personal, political, or ecclesiastical
influences that might for the moment be brought to bear.
It was manifestly impossible to carry on with any sufficient assurance
as to the future a publishing business involving the planning of
large undertakings, unless some consistent and intelligent policy of
censorship could be depended upon. The enmity of the Sorbonne appeared
to be persistent and irremediable. The irritable suspicions of the
divines concerning the heretical character of texts printed in Greek
could hardly be removed as long as these divines remained ignorant of
Greek. As Robert was not prepared, under the behests of such ignorant
censorship, to discontinue his scholarly publishing undertakings, there
remained for him no resource but to abandon Paris, and to transfer
his business to some city where the censorship would be either less
rigorous or more intelligent.
The removal of the business to Geneva took place early in 1552. The
Swiss capital, while at the time a town of but moderate population,
presented certain special advantages, which could at the time have been
found in no other city out of France, for carrying on a publishing
business of the character of Robert’s. The sharp contests of the
Reformation, turning as they did largely upon intellectual issues, such
as the history of the Church, and the exegesis of the Scriptures and
of the writings of the Fathers, had developed no little intellectual
activity throughout Europe. Geneva had become the most important centre
for the production of the dogmatic and controversial literature of the
Protestants, or at least of the Calvinists. Its University, which dated
from 1368, and had been reorganised by Calvin in 1539, was already a
place of resort for students and scholars from all parts of Europe
who were interested in the doctrines of the Reformers, or who were
attracted by the commanding personality of Calvin, while the Swiss
printers had established channels of distribution for their books
not only through Germany and the Low Countries, but even in far off
England. The distribution in France of the publications from Geneva,
even for books of accepted orthodoxy, was very much restricted and
hampered by the regulations of the University, which had been framed
for the purpose of keeping the sale of the books in France in the
hands of the French dealers. Heretical works, under which were classed
all the writings of the Protestants, were, of course, prohibited
altogether. It was not possible, however, through any amount of
restriction or prohibition, to prevent the Geneva printers from making
sale of their works across the easily reached frontiers, and in fact
the forbidden French territory formed a most important part of their
market.
Robert Estienne had not thus far classed himself with the Protestants,
but the persistent and ignorant hostility shown by the Catholics of
the Paris University to his efforts in behalf of scholarly literature,
and the fact that the principal interest in his undertakings had
come from the liberals and the Reformers, had doubtless had the
effect of bringing him into close sympathy with the Protestants, and
particularly with the followers of Calvin. In 1552, at the time of
Robert’s arrival in Geneva, Calvin was probably at the height of his
influence. Servetus, whose medical treatises had been published in
Paris, printed at Vienne, in 1553, his _Christianity Restored_, the
work which was the more immediate cause of his persecution. Escaping
from the French Inquisition, Servetus took refuge in Geneva, and
there, in the latter part of 1553, was burned at the stake, under the
instructions of Calvin. To a man like Robert Estienne, who was seeking
for a place where the production of good literature could be carried on
freed from the blighting interference of ecclesiastical bigotry, the
death of Servetus may well have served as a warning that Protestant
Geneva was no more ready than was Catholic Paris to tolerate free
speech or a free press.
Robert had found it necessary, in order to gain time to prepare for his
escape, to temporise with his censors, and to go through the form of
submitting to their authority. Their indignation when they found that
he had given them the slip was very keen, and according to Beza, the
divines went to the point of burning him in effigy.[18] At the time
of Estienne’s arrival in Geneva, Switzerland had become a place of
refuge for Protestant heretics from various parts of Europe, and the
exiles were chiefly attracted either to Zurich, as the headquarters
of the followers of Zwingli, or to Geneva, as the home of Calvin. A
little later, the groups in those cities from Italy, France, and South
Germany were added to by a number of divines and scholars from England,
whence they had been driven by the persecution under Queen Mary. Among
the sojourners from Italy were Lelius and Faustus Socinus (uncle and
nephew) from Siena, whose name afterwards gave a designation to the
group of Arians known as Socinians. The nephew was, later, active in
diffusing Socinianism in Poland, where, however, it failed to secure
any lasting foundation. The inscription on his tomb, in Warsaw, is said
to read as follows:
_Tota jacet Babylon; destruxit tecta Lutherus,
Muros Calvinus: sed fundamenta Socinus._[19]
One may recall in this connection the description given by Lowell
of that later vigorous Protestant, Theodore Parker: “He was so
ultra-Cinian, he shocked the Socinians.”
There came also from Italy, Bernardus Ochinus, of Siena, and the more
famous Peter Martyr (Vermilius), from Florence, the latter having,
however, more recently been lecturing in Oxford, where he had been
suspended from his lectureship on the accession of Queen Mary. A
companion to Martyr was John Jewell, also from Oxford, who, later,
became a bishop. Names like the above will give an impression of
the character of the circle in which Estienne now found himself. It
was not only for the scholar a personal gratification to be thrown
into association with intellectual leaders skilled in critical and
theological learning, but it must also have been of no little service
for the reorganisation of his publishing business to have at hand
a group of advisers and of editors who would have a keen personal
interest in a large proportion at least of his scholarly undertakings.
The following titles of the more important publications issued by
Robert after the establishment of the Geneva Press will give an
impression of the general direction taken by his business.
1552. “Ad Censuras Theologorum Parisiensium, quibus Biblia a
Roberto Stephano Typographo Regio excusa calumniose notarunt,
ejusdem Roberti Stephani Responsio.” The “Response” was also
printed in French.
In his “Histoire Critique du Nouveau Testament,” Father Simon, a
good Catholic authority, has entered into a minute examination
of the points at issue between Robert and his accusers, and his
decisions are almost uniformly in favour of the publisher.[20]
1553. “La Bible,” in folio.
“Catéchisme,” by Jean Calvin.
“La Forme des Prières Ecclésiastiques.”
With these were a number of other devotional and doctrinal
treatises printed under the immediate direction of Calvin. These
treatises, being planned for popular circulation, were largely
printed in French, and the Geneva list includes, in fact, a much
larger proportion of works in the vernacular than had been issued
in Paris.
1554. “In Genesin Commentarius Calvini.”
“Exposition Continuelle sur les Evangiles.”
“Ambrosii Calepini Dictionarium.”
“Defensio Orthodoxæ Fidei de Sacra Trinitate, contra prodigiosos
errores Michælis Serveti Hispani, ubi ostenditur hæreticos jure
gladii cœrcendos esse, et nominatim de homine hoc tam impio justi
et merito sumptum Genevæ fuisse Supplicium, per Johannem Calvinum.”
“De Hæreticis a Civili Magistratu puniendis Libellus, Theodori
Bezæ.”
It is somewhat to be wondered at that Robert, fresh from harassing
persecution in Paris, should have been willing to place his imprint
upon this argument of Calvin as to the rightfulness of the punishment
of Servetus, and upon the companion treatise which the zeal of Beza had
prompted him to compose in defence of the right of the civil magistrate
to punish heretics. Assuming that by this time Estienne had thrown in
his lot entirely with the Calvinists, it is nevertheless to be borne in
mind that the record and the utterances of the man had heretofore shown
him to be a consistent advocate of intellectual liberty. Even after his
sojourn in Geneva, there is on record no utterance of Robert’s which
is not in accord with this view of his own personal predilections.
Robert had, moreover, always taken such high ground as to publishing
responsibility, that he cannot escape being held accountable for the
approval implied in the association of his imprint with these zealous
defences of an act that must always remain a serious blot on the
history of Protestantism.
1555. “Concordantiæ Bibliorum utriusque Testamenti.”
“Calvinus in Acta Apostolorum.”
1556-57. “Commentaries (in Latin) on the New Testament, and on the
five Prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonas.”
“Liber Psalmorum Davidis.”
“Dictionnaire des Mots François tournés en Latin.”
1558. “Phrases Hebraicæ.”
“Adagiorum chiliades quatuor, cum sesquicenturia Erasmi, cum H.
Stephani animadversionibus.” Folio.
This edition of the famous “_Adagia_” of Erasmus, first published
in 1500, contained the latest revisions of the author. After the
death of Erasmus, which had occurred in 1536, his works fell into
the public domain and were reprinted by any publishers who were
interested in them. This edition of Robert Estienne contained the
first work as an editor and commentator of his son Henry.
1559. This was the last year of Robert’s typographical labours.
The more important impressions were:
“Kimhi in Habacuc, recognitus a Vatablo.”
“De Cœna Domini plana et perspicua tractatio in qua Joachimi
Westphali calumniæ postremum editæ refelluntur, Theodoro Beza
auctore.” 8vo.
“Calvini Commentarii in quinque libros Mosis.” Folio.
“Glossæ in tres Evangelistas, cum Calvini Commentariis, adjecto
seorsim Johanne.” Folio.
“Harmonia ex tribus Evangelistis, adjuncto seorsim Johanne, cum
Calvini Commentariis.” Folio.
“Le Nouveau Testament, revu et corrigé sur le Grec par l’avis des
Ministres de Genève.”
“Calvini Institutio Christianæ Religionis, in libros quatuor nunc
primum digesta, certisque capitibus distincta.” Folio.
The _Institutes_ is the great work of Calvin, and is possibly the most
important intellectual production of the Reformation. This edition of
Robert Estienne’s contained the final revision of the author, and was
given by the author to the public as the _édition définitive_. The
publication of this authoritative edition of a book which belongs to
the distinctive literature not only of the sixteenth century but of
the world’s history, was a fitting undertaking with which to close the
labours of the great publisher.
Robert Estienne died in the latter part of this year 1559, having
continued actively engaged in the work of his printing-office until
within a few weeks of his death. In the same year occurred the death of
Henry II., the French King, which was occasioned by a wound received
in a tournament. By Robert’s will, the bulk of his property, including
the printing-office and publishing business in Geneva, was left to
his son Henry, who had for some years been actively associated in
its management, and who had inherited a full measure of his father’s
scholarly interests and business capacity. The second son, Robert,
who had remained in Paris as a printer, was, according to Maittaire,
disinherited, possibly because he had thrown in his lot with the
extreme Catholics of the Sorbonne.
Thuanus ascribes to Robert Estienne the praise of excelling in
judgment and in technical skill and elegance such masters of the
typographical art as Aldus and Froben. Without lessening the praise
justly belonging to Estienne, it must be remembered in any comparison
of his publications with those of Aldus, that the work of the latter
was carried on fifty years earlier, when it was necessary to do
much more creative work in organising book-making appliances, and
when the difficulties in the way of distributing books were still
greater than those with which Estienne had to contend. Thuanus is on
firmer ground when he asserts that more real lustre and glory were
reflected upon the reign of Francis I. by the genius and exertions of
this single individual than by all the achievements of that monarch,
whether in peace or in war. Scævola Sammasthanus speaks of Estienne
as _Typographus solertissimus et splendidissimus_, and Gesner, in
inscribing to him the fifth book of his _Pandects_, terms him _entre
les Imprimeurs et Libraires ce qu’est le soleil entre les étoiles_.
The exceptional personal erudition of Robert Estienne, the distinctive
importance of his publishing undertakings, the zeal evinced by him
from the beginning of his career for the advancement of learning
and for critical scholarship, and the courageous fight made by
him against the assumption of the bigoted divines of the Sorbonne
of the right to exercise censorship over a literature of the very
language of which they were for the most part ignorant, constitute
the grounds for my selection of him as the most worthy representative
of the printer-publishers of France of the sixteenth century, and for
presenting with some little detail the chief incidents of his career.
While the early memoirs give pretty full information concerning the
literary side of Estienne’s publishing undertakings and present also
the history of his long series of contests in behalf of the freedom
of the Press, the records of the business details of his enterprises
are scanty and inadequate. We have no such information as has been
preserved in the account books of Aldus, Koberger, and Plantin, showing
the cost of the production of his books, or the amounts paid to editors
and authors. The extent of the financial aid extended to Robert by the
wise liberality of King Francis is also not clearly specified, although
we can realise how important in many ways this royal assistance must
have been, and especially in connection with the use of the great fonts
of Greek type for the making of which the King had paid. We know that
he was the only one of the pioneer printers who secured any intelligent
and effective co-operation from a royal treasury, and we know also that
important as this co-operation was, it was in the end more than offset
by the disastrous antagonism of the ecclesiastics of the Sorbonne,
whose persistency finally triumphed over both king and printer.
Information is also wanting as to the channels which were available
for the distribution of the books when made, and concerning the
methods employed for their sale. It is, in fact, very difficult to
understand how, during a period of frequent war, when communications
were irregular and travel was difficult not only between France and
the adjoining states, but throughout the kingdom itself, it could
have proved practicable to secure a remunerative sale for costly
works of such special character as the majority of those issued by
Estienne. The difficulty must have been considerable even in making
known to scholars throughout Europe the fact of the publication of the
books, and after the orders were received, there remained the task of
making the deliveries and of collecting the payments. It is further
to be borne in mind that the adverse influence of the divines of the
Sorbonne must have hampered materially the demand from university and
ecclesiastical centres for the editions of the Scriptures and for
all the works possessing any theological character, while it was the
case that of the Bibles at least, the sale was absolutely blocked
for several long periods. Notwithstanding all the difficulties and
obstacles, Estienne must have succeeded in building up throughout
Europe a remunerative demand for his publications, for at the time of
his migration from France he was reputed to be a man of means, and even
after all the losses and expenses attending the sudden closing of his
concern in Paris and its re-establishment in Geneva, he was able, a few
years later, to leave to his son a business on an assured foundation,
and resources for carrying it on. An important part of these resources
consisted in a great collection of texts, both printed and in
manuscript, and in a comprehensive and valuable library. The career of
Robert Estienne was assuredly both distinctive and honourable, and the
services rendered by him to the cause of scholarly literature fairly
entitle him to the name of the Aldus of France.
Some years after Robert’s death, the charge was made by some of his
old-time opponents that he had wrongfully carried away to Geneva
certain of the matrices of the Greek type which belonged to the
_Imprimerie Royale_ of Paris, and of which he had the use as Printer
to the King. According to Le Clerc, Robert took with him not the
matrices, but the punches (_les poinçons des matrices_) of certain of
the Greek fonts which had been made for the _Imprimerie Royale_, but
this theory does not accord with the final history. It seems certainly
to have been the case that the type used by Robert’s son Henry for
Greek books issued by him in Geneva after the death of his father,
was identical with that of the royal Greek characters which had been
made for King Francis under Robert’s supervision. Greswell is of
opinion that the charge was well founded, but he points out certain
considerations which probably influenced Robert’s action, and which
seemed to him (as they seemed to Maittaire) to constitute, in some
measure at least, a justification for such action. Robert left Paris
hurriedly, and it could in any case have been no easy task to arrange
for the transportation of the material of his printing-office and
publishing concern without attracting the attention of his enemies in
the Sorbonne.
1. If information had been given to King Henry concerning the
preparations of the printer, the removal would doubtless have been
forbidden. If Robert had taken pains to deposit the matrices in
the chamber of accounts (where the punches of the three fonts were
preserved in boxes lined with velvet),[21] he would at once have
betrayed his plans for removal.
2. The removal of this set of matrices does not appear to have excited
any sensation whatsoever, either at the time of Robert’s departure or
at any later period; nor do we hear of any impediment being caused
through the want of them to the business of the future _Impressores
Regii_.
3. At the time of Robert’s departure, the royal treasury was greatly
in arrears to Robert, not merely for the King’s promised remuneration
of his losses, which the malevolence of the divines had intercepted,
but also for the stipend due to him as _regius typographus_. He may,
therefore, have believed himself to be warranted in retaining the set
of matrices either as an offset or as a pledge.[22]
4. Chevillier, and others of the authorities of the time, writing from
the Catholic point of view, while very indignant with Robert for having
induced two monarchs to give to him, “an outrageous Calvinist heretic,”
the post of royal printer, make no mention of this accusation, while
they would certainly have been very ready, if they had before them any
evidence of such a theft, to include it among the sins of the heretical
printer.
M. de Guignes finds evidence that under the reign of Louis XIII.
certain of the divines of the Sorbonne, who had in preparation a new
edition of the Greek Fathers, presented a petition to that prince
requesting that the Greek matrices might be repurchased from Geneva,
and that, in consequence of this petition, the King, in May, 1619,
directed the sum of three thousand livres to be paid for them to Paul
Estienne, the grandson of Robert, and that the matrices were brought
back to the royal printing-house.
In the same essay, M. de Guignes mentions that in the year 1700,
the University of Cambridge requested the Government (that of Louis
XIV.) to favour it with a cast or font of the Greek characters of
Francis I., then known by the name of “the King’s Greek.” The matter
was referred to the French Academy, which expressed its willingness
to send the font, under the condition that in all works in which the
characters were used, there should be placed at the bottom of the
title-page, after the usual subscription _Typis Academicis_, the
words _Characteribus Græcis e Typographeo regio Parisiensi_. To this
stipulation, however, the curators of the Cambridge University
Press were not willing to consent, and the negotiation therefore fell
through. The incident indicates that after the lapse of a century and a
half, the Greek type planned by Estienne was still considered to excel
fonts of later workmanship.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]