Transcriber’s note

Variable spelling and hyphenation have been retained. Minor punctuation
inconsistencies have been silently repaired. A list of the changes made
can be found at the end of the book. Formatting and special characters
are indicated as follows:

  _italics_
  =bold=




=By Geo. Haven Putnam=


    =Some Memories of the Civil War.=--Together with an appreciation of
    the career and character of Major-General Israel Putnam, Leader in
    the Colonial Wars and in the War of the Revolution.

    =Books and Their Makers during the Middle Ages.=--A study of the
    conditions of the production and distribution of literature, from
    the fall of the Roman Empire to the close of the Seventeenth
    Century. Two vols., sold separately. 8º, gilt top. Volume I.,
    476-1600. Volume II., 1500-1709.

    =The Question of Copyright.=--Comprising the text of the Copyright
    Law of the United States, and a Summary of the Copyright Laws
    at present in force in the Chief Countries of the World. Third
    edition, revised, with Additions, and with the Record of
    Legislation brought down to March, 1896. 8º, gilt top.

    =The Censorship of the Church of Rome and Its Influence upon
    the Production and Distribution of Literature.=--A Study of the
    History of the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes, Together with
    Some Consideration of the Effects of Protestant Censorship and of
    Censorship by the State. Two volumes, 8º. Uniform with “Books and
    Their Makers.”

    =Abraham Lincoln, the People’s Leader in the Struggle for National
    Existence.= Cr. 8º. With Portrait.

    =A Prisoner of War in Virginia, 1864-5.= Cr. 8º. Illustrated.

    =Authors and Their Public.=

    =Artificial Mother.= Illustrated.

    =Little Gingerbread Man.=

    =Memories of My Youth, 1844-1865.= Portraits.

    =Memories of a Publisher.= Portrait.




                        BOOKS AND THEIR MAKERS
                        DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

            A STUDY OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PRODUCTION AND
              DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE FROM THE FALL OF
                   THE ROMAN EMPIRE TO THE CLOSE OF
                        THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

                                  BY

                        GEO. HAVEN PUTNAM, A.M.

         AUTHOR OF “AUTHORS AND THEIR PUBLIC IN ANCIENT TIMES”
                   “THE QUESTION OF COPYRIGHT,” ETC.


                              VOLUME II.

                               1500-1709


                          G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
                          NEW YORK AND LONDON
                        The Knickerbocker Press




                            COPYRIGHT, 1896
                                  BY
                          G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

                 _Entered at Stationers’ Hall, London_

  [Illustration]

                 Made in the United States of America




[Illustration]




PREFACE.


In the general Preface to this work, printed in the first volume, I
pointed out that an account of the production and distribution of books
for the two centuries immediately succeeding the invention of printing,
must, of necessity, be chiefly devoted to the operations of the
printer-publishers of the period. During these centuries were produced
a number of the great books of the world’s literature, but it was not
possible, under the existing conditions, for the authors of these books
to influence materially the relations of literature to the State or
to the Church. Freedom of speech and even freedom of thought depended
very largely upon an untrammelled printing-press, but the authors
were able to give but little aid in the arduous task of securing from
the political and ecclesiastical authorities the right to multiply
books. It is true that the writers of the Reformation period were in a
position to render very important coöperation in the work of developing
a reading public and in the further work of creating machinery by
means of which such public could be reached. But notwithstanding
the noteworthy exception presented by the writings from Wittenberg
and Geneva, it remains the fact that for the centuries in question,
the works of contemporary authors constituted but an inconsiderable
proportion of the books published.

The lists of these earlier publishers were devoted to editions of the
complete Bible, and of the different groups of the Biblical books,
editions of the Greek and Roman classics and of the works of the
Church Fathers, and issues of certain philosophical treatises which
also were largely the work of writers of an earlier generation. To
these were added certain treatises on jurisprudence which came to be
accepted as authorities in the universities, together with the various
series of text-books adopted for college and for school work. With
the above were occasionally associated books by contemporary writers,
many of which became of continued importance. These formed, however,
as said, but a very small group as compared with the long series of
reissues of accepted classics, and it was by the latter that what
might be called the literary conditions of the time were in the main
determined. With the Reformation came an enormous increase in the
production of works by living writers. The controversies of the period
kept the printing-offices busy with the preparation of books and
pamphlets devoted to present issues, and the great output of current
controversial literature affected in several ways the conditions and
the methods of publishing. Up to this time the books that had been
published were nearly exclusively in the form of folios, quartos, or
large octavos. With an occasional exception, such as that of the Aldine
classics, the publishers and their scholarly customers appear to have
taken the ground that if a work was entitled to the honour of being put
into print, it was worthy of the most dignified form that the presses
were capable of producing; and, as was shown, later, in the criticisms
of correspondents of the Elzevirs and in other expressions, there was a
strong feeling among scholarly readers that the printing of a work of
literature in a sixteenmo or twelvemo volume, showed a lack of respect
for the author, for his public, and for literature itself.

This prejudice in favour of portly volumes was very largely modified,
although by no means entirely overcome, by the publications of the
Reformation. The intense interest in the theological issues and the
revival of religious fervour, brought into existence a new reading
public. The buying of books was no longer confined to princes and
scholars;--the masses of the people wanted to have in their hands
the writings of the Reformers or the replies of the defenders of the
Roman Church, and to an extent which is still cause for wonderment,
a very large proportion of the common people were able to read and
were eager to read the long series of argumentative essays many of
which were devoted to themes and discussions that could be described
as scholastic, and that the average citizen of to-day would certainly
consider hard reading. To meet the requirements of this new reading
public, requirements which called for material of small cost and in a
form convenient for distribution, the pamphlet came into existence,
and this was followed by the _Flugschriften_, or fly-leaf literature,
comprising papers or tracts of such brief compass that they could
be printed in four or even in two pages. These _Flugschriften_ were
carried in the packs of pedlars into the market-places of towns and
villages and from farmhouse to farmhouse, and they secured a wide
distribution even in territories in which their circulation was
strictly prohibited under the severest of penalties. Some description
of this feature of the literary work of the Reformation is given in the
chapter on Luther.

While one result of the literary activity of the Reformation was to
popularise the work of the printing-press, another was an immediate
development of the censorship of the Press, both heretical and
ecclesiastical. The contention that the productions of the printers
must be subjected to the approval of the authorities of the State was
made promptly after the printing-press began its work. It was, however,
only when the Press came to be utilised as the most effective ally of
the heretical reformers, that the Church found it necessary to put
into force its ecclesiastical censorship, and that the never-ending
task began of advertising through the various _Indices Expurgatorii_
the titles of the long series of wicked or dangerous books which the
faithful believers were warned not to read, and which brought very
serious perils indeed upon the faithless heretics who persisted in
writing, printing, selling, or possessing them.

The responsibility for the selection of the books to be printed, with
the exception of the controversial writings of the Reformation period,
rested with the publishers of the time, and the direction of the
literary interests of the book-reading public (still, of course, a very
small fraction of the community) must have been not a little influenced
by the decisions arrived at by these publishers. I conclude, therefore,
that the publishers of this period must have exerted a larger measure
of influence over the direction of scholarly investigation and in the
shaping of the literary opinions of their age, than has been possible
for publishers in the subsequent centuries after the production of
books had been enormously increased, and when all classes of the
community had become readers.

In these later times the direction of the literary interests of the
diverse circles of the reading public came naturally into the hands of
the contemporary writers. While the reissue of the accepted classics
of previous generations remained (and must always remain) an important
division of the business of publishing, an ever increasing proportion
of the work of the publishers came to be given to the comparatively
routine work of distributing among readers the literature of the day,
in the production of which literature the authors have, in part, led
and directed, and, in part, simply followed and supplied the tastes and
the demands of their readers.

The fact that the position and the personal influence of the earlier
publishers were so exceptional in their character and importance is
my excuse for presenting with some detail the record of the work of
a few individuals and families selected as fairly representative of
the class. It seemed to me necessary in so doing, even at the risk of
adding to the dryness of the narrative, to include in the record lists
of titles (selected from the catalogues) of the more important of the
books issued by such representative publishers. These titles give in
convenient form for reference, material from which can be secured not
only an interesting indication of the personal interests and capacities
of the publishers themselves but an impression of the literary tastes,
requirements, and possibilities of the times and of the several
communities in which the work of these publishers was done.

I judge that a work of this special character will be utilised
rather for reference than for consecutive reading, and with this
understanding, it has seemed to me desirable to make as complete as
possible the record, presented in each section, of the subject matter
considered in such section, even although such a method has rendered
necessary an occasional repetition of statements of fact or of
conclusions.

                                                               G. H. P.

NEW YORK, _September, 1896_.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CONTENTS.


                                                                    PAGE

  PREFACE                                                            iii

  PART II.--THE EARLIER PRINTED BOOKS.
  (CONTINUED.)

  IV.--THE EARLY PRINTER-PUBLISHERS OF FRANCE. 1458-1559               3
    The Estiennes                                                     15

  V.--THE LATER ESTIENNES AND CASAUBON. 1537-1659                     62
    Isaac Casaubon                                                    87

  VI.--WILLIAM CAXTON, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF PRINTING INTO ENGLAND,
       1422-1492                                                     101
    Wynken de Worde                                                  133
    Printing in Oxford                                               134
    Later English Presses                                            137

  VII.--THE KOBERGERS OF NUREMBERG. 1440-1540                        149

  VIII.--FROBEN OF BASEL. 1460-1528                                  178

  IX.--ERASMUS AND HIS BOOKS. 1467-1536                              192

  X.--LUTHER AS AN AUTHOR. 1483-1546                                 216

  XI.--THE HOUSE OF PLANTIN. 1555-1650                               255

  XII.--THE ELZEVIRS OF LEYDEN AND AMSTERDAM. 1587-1688              286

  PART III.--THE BEGINNINGS OF PROPERTY IN LITERATURE.

  I.--PRIVILEGES AND CENSORSHIP IN ITALY. 1498-1798                  343
    Censorship                                                       352
    The Earliest Legislation in Venice                               359
    The Guild of Printers and Booksellers                            364
    Copyrights in Venice                                             369
    The Inquisition                                                  371
    The Index and the Book-Trade                                     372
    The Interdict and Fra Paolo Sarpi                                384
    The Printers’ Guild and Press Legislation                        394
    The Last Contest with Rome                                       401

  II.--PRIVILEGES AND REGULATIONS IN GERMANY. 1450-1698.             407

  III.--REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL AND THE CENSORSHIP OF THE
        PRINTING-PRESS IN FRANCE. 1500-1700                          437
    Conflicting Authorities                                          437
    Parliament, the University, and the Book-Trade                   442
    The Beginning of Legislation for the Encouragement of Literature 446
    The Relations of the Crown to Literary Production and the Attempt of
    the Church to Secure a Portion of the Control                    456

  IV.--THE BEGINNINGS OF LITERARY PROPERTY IN ENGLAND. 1474-1709     464

  V.--THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY         477

  INDEX                                                              511

[Illustration]




PART II.

THE EARLIER PRINTED BOOKS.




[Illustration]

PART II.

THE EARLIER PRINTED BOOKS.

CHAPTER IV.

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]

CHAPTER V.

THE LATER ESTIENNES AND CASAUBON.

1537-1659.


IT is not necessary for the purpose of this study to give the record
in detail of the careers and publishing undertakings of all the
printers of the great family of the Estiennes. I have been interested
in presenting with some fulness the account of the life and work of
Robert, because he stands out as the most distinctive and forcible
member of a famous literary family, and because his experience
illustrates very fairly the characteristic features and the chief
difficulties of the business of publishing books in France in the first
half of the sixteenth century. The business careers of the brothers and
of the descendants of Robert should be mentioned, however, if only to
indicate the exceptional position occupied by this noteworthy family in
the history of printing and publishing, and the extent of the influence
exercised by it through successive generations upon the production of
scholarly literature.

Robert’s elder brother, Francis, was a _libraire juré_ of the
University of Paris. His publications were comprised within the ten
years from 1537 to 1547. He used as a mark a tripos which stands upon a
closed book and from which issues a vine shoot. The motto is _Plus olei
quam vini_. This is sometimes followed by the adage, which seems rather
a truism than a truth, πάντων δυσχερέστατον τὸ πᾶσιν ἀρέσκειν, “Of
all things, the most difficult is to please everybody.”[23] With the
exception of one _Psalterium_ and a _Horæ Virginis_ in Greek, his few
impressions were all in Latin, and were chiefly issues of the classics.
He appears never to have come into conflict with the divines whose
censorship gave so much trouble to his brother Robert.

Charles Estienne, who was the youngest of the three brothers, was
known as a printer and publisher in Paris between the years 1550
and 1560. He had originally adopted the profession of medicine and
attained high reputation as a physician and naturalist, and as a
classical and antiquarian scholar. While travelling in Italy, he became
intimate with Paul Manutius, the son of Aldus. He was a voluminous
author, and the first productions of his Press were the work of his
own pen, and comprised a treatise on Dissection, a series of volumes
on Horticulture, issued under the title of _Prædium Rusticum_, a work
on Birds, and one on Fishes. He also wrote a history of the Dukes
of Milan, a description of the Rivers of France, and a number of
narratives of travel. Finally, he produced a number of critical works,
such as a _Dictionarium Latino-Gallicum_.

This was published in 1552, and again in 1561, and remained for many
years a scholarly authority on its subject, and was honoured by being
largely “appropriated.” Cooper’s _Thesaurus Linguæ Romanæ_, published
in London in 1565, was said by Dr. White Kennett to be a _verbatim_
transcript of Stephen’s Dictionary.[24] It seems evident from the above
brief summary that Charles Estienne secured an honourable position as a
scholar and as an author.

In order to indicate the direction of his publishing interests, I
select a few of the more important of the titles from his catalogue.

    1554. “Compendium Michlol, authore Rodolpho Bayno Cantabrigiense,
    et sanctæ linguæ professore Regio Lutetiæ Parisior.” 4to.
    The author was an Englishman from York, who had accepted a
    professorship at Paris.

    “Institutiones Linguæ Syriacæ, Assyriacæ atque Thalmudicæ una cum
    Æthiopicæ atque Arabicæ collatione, Angelo Caninio Anglarensi,
    authore.” 4to.

    1555. “Ciceronis Opera omnia.” 4 vols. Folio.

    1558. “Petri Bunelli familiares aliquot epistolæ in
    adolescentulorum, Ciceronis studiosorum gratiam.”

    Petrus Bunellus was a native of Toulouse, who had studied in
    Italy, where he had for four years lived with Paul Manutius. He
    had evidently shared the interest of his friend and host in the
    writings of Cicero.

    1559. “Plutarque de la honte vicieuse, par Fr. le Grand.” 8vo.

    “Histoire du siège de Metz en 1552, par Barthélemy de Salignac.”

    “Traicté de la guerre de Malte, par de Villegagnon.” 4to.

    “Missives de B. de Salignac, contenant le voyage du Roy Henry II.
    aux Pays-Bas.” 4to.

    “De Latinis et Græcis nominibus arborum fruticum, herbarum, piscium
    et avium liber; ex Aristotele, Theophrasto, Galeno,” etc. This is
    described as an original and learned work.

The famous scholar Scaliger charges Charles Estienne with vanity and
irritability of temper, but a publisher may be angry occasionally
without any permanent imputation upon his morals or character. Scaliger
had, by a breach of promise and by ill usage, given to Estienne
just cause of offence. He had promised to place with Estienne the
publication for France of all his works, while he afterwards committed
to Vascosan and others such of them as seemed most likely to prove
profitable undertakings. To Charles Estienne he offered those which
on account of their special character promised neither popularity nor
advantage. Under these circumstances, Estienne returned Scaliger’s
manuscripts with an expression of indignation.[25]

Robert Estienne the second was the eldest son of Robert Estienne the
first, and had been brought up in the business of his more famous
father. He did not accompany the latter on his removal to Geneva,
having refused to abandon the Catholic faith. His remaining in Paris
brought to him certain business advantages, as he was put in charge
of the royal printing-office. As a further mark of confidence, and
possibly as special consideration for his fidelity to the Catholic
faith after the rest of his family had gone over to the heretics,
Charles IX. further honoured him with a royal commission to travel
in Italy in search of manuscripts and rare books for use in the
publishing undertakings of the Royal Press, and appointed a provision
for his family during his absence. In 1563, Robert received the formal
appointment as _Typographus Regius_, and by that date he appears to
have fully reconstituted his father’s establishment in Paris. He
numbered among his friends and clients some of the principal scholars
of the age, including Joseph Scaliger, George Buchanan, Sir Thomas
Smith, and others, and appears to have fully maintained the family
reputation for scholarly attainments and for devotion to higher
literature.

Among his more important publications may be cited:

    1565. “Josephi Scaligeri conjectanea in Varronem de Lingua Latina.”

    1566. “Georgii Buchanani Scoti Psalmorum Davidis Paraphrasis
    poetica.”

    “Psalmi Aliquot a Theodoro Beza versi.”

    1568. “De recta et emendata linguæ Græcæ pronounciatione Thomæ
    Smith. Angli, tunc in Acad. Cantabr. publici prælectoris, ad
    Vintoniensem episcopum Epistola.” 4to.

    “De recta et emendata linguæ Anglicæ scriptione Dialogus, Thoma
    Smitho equestris ordinis Anglo authore.” 4to.

Scaliger, while an Italian by race and a Frenchman by birth, is more
usually associated with Holland, where he passed the greater part of
his working years. As professor of belles-lettres in Leyden, he had
among his pupils the celebrated Grotius. He was himself possibly the
most noted of the group of Protestant scholars whose learning and
attainments secured for the Reformers of the time an intellectual
superiority over their Catholic opponents, a superiority which had as
one result a decided revival of letters within the Church of Rome. The
original editions of his books were issued in Leyden, but he was able,
as noted above, to arrange for the publication in Paris of authorised
editions from which he derived a profit, and of certain of these works
editions appeared also in Basel.

George Buchanan, poet and historian, is best known in connection with
his service as tutor for Mary Queen of Scots, and later, as preceptor
for her son James. The latter was possibly largely indebted to Buchanan
for his interest and proficiency in classical studies. Sir Thomas
Smith was the English Ambassador at Paris. The interest of scholarly
foreigners such as those named, in securing for their books the imprint
of Estienne, indicates that the repute of the firm had already extended
beyond the limits of France.

Henry Estienne the second, second son of Robert, carried on in Geneva,
after the death of his father, what may be called the Protestant branch
of the publishing concern, for a few years, when he returned to Paris
and established there a second Estienne Press. He was apparently the
most finished scholar of his scholarly family, and from an early age,
before he had entered upon business responsibilities, we find him
engaged in work as editor and translator. His father had taken special
pains with his education, and as a part of his general training had
caused him to travel as a young man in Italy, England, and the Low
Countries.

Henry had secured a familiarity with Latin in his home circle, where,
as before stated, Latin was practically the language of the household.
He took his first instruction in Greek from Petrus Danesius, one of the
Greek scholars who had been brought to the royal college of Francis I.
He spent nearly four years in travel and in sojourn in Italy, busying
himself while there in collecting and collating manuscripts for his
father’s Press. Maittaire states that he collated for this purpose no
fewer than fifteen manuscripts of Æschylus. Certain annotations made by
him in his transcript of _Athenæus_ were subsequently utilised by his
son-in-law, the famous scholar Casaubon, in the edition printed forty
years later.

In Venice he became acquainted with the Greek scholar Muretus, who, in
addition to his work in the University of Padua, had for a number of
years given editorial assistance in the Greek division of the Aldine
Press. In Henry’s diary of his journey, he speaks of being present at
a gathering in Rome of _literati_ and poets, who ignorantly condemned
Hebrew _ut linguam asperam et horridam_. The young publisher who was
well versed in Hebrew, successfully defended the sacred language and
resolutely vindicated the cause both of David and his interpreters.

A little later, he met, in Florence, Petrus Victorius, one of the
most profound Greek scholars at that time in Italy. Henry was able to
present to his host a valuable _Codex_ of Anacreon which the Greek
professor had not before been acquainted with. In 1550, Henry’s travels
extended to England, where he was introduced, as a scholar of note, to
King Edward VI. From England, he went to Flanders and became intimate
with some of the scholars of Louvain. While in Flanders, he devoted
himself to mastering the Spanish language, and he brought back with him
from Antwerp to Paris the texts of certain Spanish classics of which
he printed French versions. In the twenty-sixth year of his age, he
returned to Paris to begin his active business career, for which he had
certainly taken pains thoroughly to equip himself.

He began his publishing undertakings in 1554, with an edition of
_Anacreon_, beautifully printed in quarto. The volume contains, in
addition to the Greek text, Latin versions of the _Odes_ prepared by
the publisher who himself acted as editor. During 1555, he was again
in Italy collecting and collating manuscripts. In 1556, he issued
an edition of the _Psalms_ presented in a Latin version which was
the combined work of George Buchanan a Scotchman, M. A. Flaminius an
Italian, Solomon Macrinus a Frenchman, and Helius Eobanus a German.
He was this year busily engaged, in company with other scholars, in
editorial work on the _Thesaurus Græcus_.

In 1557, he produced editions of _Æschylus, Aristotle, Theophrastus_,
and _Athenagoras_. The notes to _Æschylus_ were the work of the scholar
Petrus Victorius, with whom Henry had a long-time friendship. In this
year was also issued the _Lexicon Ciceronianum Græco-Latinum_, which
had been compiled by himself and in which he had brought together
whatever passages or material Cicero had utilised from philosophers,
historians, poets, or essayists. This work secured for its compiler and
publisher high repute as a scholar of wide attainments.

In 1558, Henry assumed the appellation of a _Typographus illustris
viri Huldrici Fuggeri, Domini in Kirchberg et Weyssenhorn_.[26]
Huldric Fugger was a native of Augsburg, born in 1526, and belonging
to a family conspicuous for its antiquity, its mercantile ability,
and its wealth. Huldric was himself a scholar, and became an eminent
patron of literary men. He expended very great sums in the purchase of
trustworthy manuscripts of ancient authors, and in having produced from
these satisfactory printed editions. Henry Scrimger, a Scotch professor
of considerable erudition, was engaged by him, on terms described as
magnificent, to carry into effect those literary undertakings. Scrimger
was an old friend of Henry Estienne, and it was undoubtedly at his
instance that the baron conceived the plan of appointing Henry as his
typographus. The printer received from Fugger for some years a pension
of fifty gold crowns, but I have been unable to find any specification
of the precise nature of the services which were given in consideration
of this payment.

Expenditure for the promotion of literature was still very exceptional,
and it is perhaps not surprising that the family of Huldric considered
his patronage of letters as evidence of a deranged mind. They
instituted a legal process, and succeeded in inducing the court to take
their view of Huldric’s actions. They secured a decree which caused him
to be declared incapable of the administration of his own property,
and he was for a time placed under guardians. Eventually, however, he
recovered possession of his property, and in fact succeeded also to
the estate of his brother. With increased resources, he resumed his
interest in collecting books, and at his death, in Heidelberg, in 1584,
he bequeathed to the Palatinate a very fine library. It is probable,
however, that his confinement had tended to mitigate his ardour for
expending money in printing books, and his relations with Estienne
were not resumed. The several experiences endured by this would-be
German Mæcenas may have helped to discourage future similar attempts to
further the production of good literature. If the expenditure of money
in the production of books and the collection of libraries were to be
accepted as evidences of mental derangement, it is not surprising that
the printers and publishers of Germany secured during the sixteenth
century very little patronage or compensation from the nobility of the
land.

Huldric Fugger was, however, not the only one of his family who
interested himself in literature. His elder brother, Joannes Jacobus,
had a fine collection of books both printed and in manuscript, and was
proficient in Greek. Other members of the family were in relations with
Paul Manutius in Italy, with Koberger of Nuremberg, and with Froben of
Basel.

The first book printed by Henry Estienne under his new designation
of _Huldrici Fuggeri Typographus_, was an edition of the _Edicts_ of
Justinian, printed in Greek and Latin, which bears date 1558. In 1559,
he issued the _Bibliotheca_ of Diodorus, with annotations of his own,
and in 1561, a very elaborate edition of the complete writings of
_Xenophon_.

After the death, in 1559, of Henry II. and in 1560, of the young King
Francis II., there was for a number of years, during the minority of
Charles IX., a time of trouble and disturbance for France, during
which literary undertakings and business enterprises were of necessity
seriously interfered with. The Calvinists, who had been rapidly
increasing in numbers throughout the kingdom, were making an earnest
fight for consistent toleration, and, later, for official recognition
and for equality with the Catholics before the law, a contention which
was actively opposed by the Guises, and (with occasional pretensions of
concession) by the Queen-Mother, Catharine of Medici. The result was a
series of civil wars, with only occasional brief interludes of truce
and quiet.

In 1562, Estienne completed the publication of certain theological
works which had been left unfinished in Geneva at the time of his
father’s death,--an Exposition of the New Testament and an Exposition
of the Psalms.

The editor, a certain Marloratus, a Huguenot minister at Rouen, was
unfortunately, before the printing was completed, hanged as a heretic,
under the direction of the Duke of Guise, but the books themselves
were not suppressed nor was the publisher interfered with. In fact,
the Faculty of the Sorbonne appears for the time to have suspended its
censorious watchfulness over heretical publications, perhaps because it
found its hands sufficiently full with the active work of suppressing
by fire, gibbet, and sword the heretics themselves.

Henry Estienne had, as stated, established his printing-office
in Paris, where his business may be considered as in a measure a
continuation of the concern of his father Robert, although the post of
printer to the King had, as we have noted, been given to his uncle.
Henry continued, however, to print a certain portion of his books in
Geneva, although it is not clear whether or not he retained the control
of, or even an ownership in, the Press which had been established
there by his father.[27] He appears at this time to have divided his
publishing undertakings, executing at Paris reprints of the classics
and of works in general literature, and reserving for the Geneva Press
theological works which were likely to give offence in a period of
“religious irritation.” This term is, I may mention, Maittaire’s, and
it is perhaps not too strong a description of a period in which a
divine who had taken no part in politics could be hanged simply for
editing a Protestant commentary.

I add some further selections of certain of the more important of the
titles from Henry’s Catalogue.

    1563. “Rudimenta Fidei Christianæ; addita est ecclesiasticarum
    precum formula; Græc. Lat.” 12mo.

    This is Calvin’s Catechism, translated into Greek by Henry himself.

    “De abusu linguæ Græcæ in quibusdem vocibus, quas Latina usurpat
    admonitio.” 8vo. Of this treatise Henry was author as well as
    publisher.

    1564. “Fragmenta Pœtarum Veterum Latinorum, quorum opera non
    extant, Ennii, Accii, Lucilii” etc. This work was undertaken out of
    regard for the memory of his father, by whom the fragments had been
    collected, but who had not been able to complete the preparation of
    them for the press.

    1566. “La confirmation de la discipline ecclésiastique observée
    dans les églises réformées du royaume de France; avec la résponse
    aux objections proposées à l’encontre.” This was printed in Geneva.

In the same year, was issued a Greek _Anthology_ to which the publisher
added certain annotations of his own. By way of exciting the emulation
of young poets, Henry promised an addition of such Greek epigrams
as had been turned into Latin metre by himself and others, and as a
proof of his own facility, he introduced into his annotations to the
_Anthology_ above mentioned more than fifty translations of a single
distich.

The publisher, in thus assuming responsibilities as an author, could,
of course, not escape the criticism of other authors claiming authority
in the same studies. Vavasseur, for instance, says of Henry’s literary
productions: “His verse is more faulty than his prose, his numbers
are harsh and unpolished, his muse is often triflingly diffuse. He is
fluent in writing, but frequently not correct. He is both fastidious
and dictatorial, talking freely of others and much of himself, and
forgetting the modesty which becomes the author.”[28] It is fair
to remember that Father Vavasseur was a Jesuit and was possibly,
therefore, no dispassionate judge of the defects of the scholarly but
heretical publisher.

    1566. “Herodoti Historiæ Libri IX. et de vita Homeri Libellus,
    Latine. Folio.”

    This edition comprises also the _Opuscula_ of Herodotus, Plutarch,
    and Porphyrius, relating to Homer’s life and poesy.

M. de Sallengre relates that Henry Estienne, having printed at a great
expense the histories of Herodotus, his enemies and above all the
monks, who sought every occasion to bring trouble upon him, decried his
history as filled with fables _et de contes à dormir debout_, and that
Henry, to repel the effect of this accusation, undertook to justify
himself by the composition of the following treatise, _Apologia pro
Herodoto, sive Herodoti Historia fabulositatis accusata_.

This _Apologia_ is described by Greswell as a serious performance,
containing nothing that should be particularly offensive to the
monks or to the Roman clergy, unless it be an incidental mention of
_La papesse Jeanne_ and a description of certain superstitions that
Estienne had observed in his visit to the Church of our Lady of Loretto.

The _Apologia_ was, later, prefixed to another issue of a Latin version
of _Herodotus_ and was subsequently printed in French in a separate
volume under the title _L’apologie pour Hérodote_.[29]

The _Apologia_ appears to have been amplified and extended and to have
been made the vehicle of a severe attack upon the Roman Hierarchy and
a means of exposing the ignorance and vices of its ecclesiastics,
the fooleries of their pulpit elocution, the astonishing credulity
of the laity instructed by them, and the laxity of discipline and
deterioration of manners which seemed to be the inevitable result of
a corrupt faith. Greswell is of opinion that the motives which led to
this attack are not to be sought for in any imaginary affront which
Henry had experienced through the monkish accusations against his
_Herodotus_, but that they were rather to be found in the irritation
occasioned by the persecutions from which his family had suffered and
in his rooted antipathy to the principles of the Church of Rome.[30]

Maittaire’s description of Henry’s criticism of the manners and works
of the monks recalls certain portions of the _Encomium Moriæ_ of
Erasmus. The author’s general line of argument is as follows: The
circumstances related by Herodotus in his History ought not to be
pronounced fables on account of their seeming want of verisimilitude,
as in recent times many things have happened which, though in
themselves apparently far less probable than much that Herodotus has
recorded, cannot be called in question. It is contended further that
it is impossible for men ever to have been so stupid and so gross as
Herodotus describes them; but Henry shows by undeniable examples how
excessive in all respects was the grossness of many of those who lived
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, persons who were probably
no less degraded than were the classes whose lives are recorded by
Herodotus. In the account of the wrong-doings and degradation of
later generations, Henry does not spare the monks, who are attacked
without mercy, and he speaks with hardly more reserve of the popes
themselves. It is difficult to understand why divines of the Sorbonne,
whose theological ire had been so bitter against Robert Estienne on
account of Greek annotations to the Testament, should have allowed to
pass, apparently without a protest, so sweeping a denunciation of the
character of the ecclesiastics.

According to De Sallengre, the _Apologia_ was a book which everyone
wished to possess. It was read with avidity, and editions of it were
multiplied. The first three, all printed in Geneva, were issued before
the close of the year 1566. The fourth, fifth, and sixth were printed
at Antwerp in 1567, 1568, and 1569. The seventh, eighth, ninth, and
tenth were printed at Rochelle (the centre of French Protestantism)
between 1572 and 1582, and the eleventh and twelfth at Lyons in 1592
and 1607. These editions were all superseded by that printed at The
Hague in 1735, with notes by M. le Duchat.

An anonymous translation appeared in London in 1607, under the title
of _A World of Wonders, or an Introduction to a treatise touching the
conformitie of ancient and modern wonders; or a Preparative Treatise
to the Apologie for Herodotus, the argument of which is taken from the
Apologie for Herodotus written by Henry Stephen, etc_. I have thought
it worth while to present the specification of the editions of a book
which achieved, if not fame, at least popularity, as an indication of
the activity of the printing-presses even during a period of political
strife and of widely extended wars.

The book appears never to have been put into print in Paris, as it was
doubtless not considered wise to test too severely the censorship of
the University. According to De Sallengre, copies were, however, in
very general circulation in Paris society, which was always ready to be
amused with the recital of clerical enormities and with pictures of the
scandals of private life.

The years 1562 and 1563 were signalised by active operations in the
continued strife between the Protestants and the Catholics, and while,
after 1563, there was a brief cessation of hostilities, the civil war
broke out again in 1567 and continued with brief intervals until the
Massacre of S. Bartholomew in 1572. In each one of these years of
disturbance, however, we find Henry Estienne’s imprint associated with
important publications, principally reissues of the classics, although
it is not easy to understand how it could have proved practicable to
secure any continued sale at this time in France for costly editions,
or how there was in fact any opportunity of interesting the public
or of bringing adequately to the attention of the public, books of
any class. The frequent interference with the communications between
Paris and the cities east of the Rhine must also have rendered it
very difficult to arrange for the distribution of French editions in
Germany, or in the Low Countries, while the latter were themselves in
the throes of the great rebellion against the dominion of Spain.

In 1568, Henry printed _Henrici Stephani annotationes in Sophoclem
et Euripidem_, etc., which is evidence that such little matters as
the battles of St. Denis and Jarnac were not permitted to interfere
with his classical studies any more than with the work of his
printing-office. In the next year, he issued another work from his
own pen: _Comicorum Græcorum sententiæ, id est Gnomæ, Græce Latinis
versibus ab H. Stephano redditæ, et annotationibus illustratæ_. He also
completed the publication of a collection of Latin historians. The
list of the year includes a number of other titles of which the most
important (with reference at least to the personality of Henry) were
the two following:

_Artis Typographicæ querimonia et Epitaphia typographorum quorundam,
per H. Stephanum_. 4to; and

_Henrici Stephani epistola de suæ typographiæ statu; Index librorum
qui ex ejusdem officina hætenus prodierunt._ 8vo.

The former is a lament concerning the degradation of the noble art of
typography. An art which had, as he complains, fallen into the hands of
the most illiterate of persons, _quibus nihil cum musis commune est_.
“What,” he exclaims, “would Aldus Manutius say if, returning to life,
he could behold the present miserable condition of the art to which his
life was devoted!” He then proceeds to adduce various instances of the
gross ignorance and corresponding obstinacy of some of the printers and
editors of his time, exemplified by their adulteration of particular
passages of classic authors. These quotations are followed by a number
of _Latin Elegiacs_ and certain _Epitaphia_, partly in Greek and partly
in Latin, which appear to have been included in the volume as evidence
that one printer at least, was both a classical scholar and a man of
literary capacity. It is doubtful whether the condition of printing
throughout Europe at this time afforded any substantial justification
for this sweeping complaint of Henry’s. The presses of Plantin were,
during these very years, active in Antwerp, although Plantin, like
Estienne himself, was contending against manifold difficulties in
the task of carrying on an international publishing business in
the midst of civil war and political disintegration; and the books
produced by Plantin will, not only for the beauty of their typography,
but especially for the perfection of the magnificent copper-plate
illustrations utilised for many of them, stand favourable comparison
with the productions of earlier or later generations. The books issued
in Nuremberg during the same decade, by the second of the Kobergers,
who had built up the greatest publishing concern that Germany had ever
known, can also be specified as excellent examples as well of scholarly
editing as of tasteful and accurate typography. It was doubtless the
case that in Paris as elsewhere, there were, during the last half of
the sixteenth century, examples of scholarly and ignorant editing and
of careless and inaccurate typography, but the same may be said of
every century since the time of Gutenberg. Henry Estienne’s essay may,
I think, be considered partly as an affectation and partly as a piece
of self-conceit.

The second of these monographs presents a description of the status of
his Press, together with an _Index librorum_ or classified catalogue
of his publications. It forms in fact the chief authority for the
history of his business. A considerable portion of the _Epistola_ is
devoted to a description of the purpose and character of the great
_Thesaurus Linguae Graecae_, then in course of production. Henry
takes pains to explain that the plan and inception of the _Thesaurus_
were due to his father Robert, who had in fact, before his death,
collected a large amount of material for the great etymological and
lexicographical undertaking, which may be considered, therefore, as the
work of two generations of scholarly publishers. Greswell is in accord
with Maittaire in describing the work as an “admirable and unrivalled
monument of ardent zeal for the advancement of learning, and as an
example of unwearied diligence and of colossal erudition.”[31]

The remainder of the _Epistola_ is devoted to a recital of the injuries
done to the authors of classical antiquity by ignorant and careless
editors and by credulous printers, ready to accept on the authority
of such editors new readings and unfounded “emendations” in the text.
Henry announces that he has in preparation a treatise to be entitled
_De Origine Mendorum in authoribus Graecis et Latinis_, but Greswell
can find no evidence that this was ever published.

The _Epistola_ closes with a humorous complaint of the trivial and
harassing interruptions to which a scholarly publisher is exposed
at the Frankfort Fair and elsewhere, on the part of applicants for
information concerning his publishing undertakings and plans. The
complaint is printed in Latin iambics. I quote some of the lines as
Englished by Greswell. It will be noted that the _Index librorum_ or
catalogue of Estienne had been printed for the purpose of answering
such inquiries in print. Aldus had, it may be remembered, been driven
to a similar course in 1498, but catalogues were still the exception
rather than the rule.

    I’m harassed by the crowd of those
    At Frankfort who their wares expose;
    And ever ask “What are you doing
    In prospect of the Fair ensuing?
    New works you’ll shew, impressions splendid,
    Where learning stands by Art commended?”
    If I say “No,” “’Tis strange, what, none?
    At least then promise--next but one.”
    Still say I “No,” expostulation
    Assumes the tone of indignation
    That Frankfort’s mart’s so strongly slighted,
    And faith is broken--never plighted.
    Again, these quidnuncs set aside,
    With letters, ceaseless, I’m annoyed,
    Italian, English, German, French,
    All on my studious hours entrench;
    “What last has been achieved and ended?
    What are the impressions next intended?”
    Nor to such modest queries stinted,
    Of books in print or to be printed
    A thousand others they propound
    Which e’en a prophet would confound.

           *       *       *       *       *

    Of what advantage all these letters?
    Not stimulants are they, but fetters,
    As though you’d spur a steed that’s idle
    Yet check his progress with the bridle.
    My press resists the condescension
    That to such foppery gives attention;
    Stands still and bids them longer stay for
    All they suggest, or even pay for.
    For this annoyance then--be sure
    Not small intent to find a cure.
    Of books to former fairs I’ve given,
    Or now project by leave of heaven,
    These pages few, as best may suit you,
    In form of catalogue salute you;
    Which you’ll my Rescript please to call,
    Addrest to none and yet to all.

Henry’s complaints concerning futile and troublesome correspondence
might, of course, be repeated in many a publishing office to-day, but
the modern publisher is helped out of the difficulty to some extent
by his stenographers and typewriters. It remains a marvel how it was
possible, without any time-saving appliances, for the publishers of
the fifteenth century to conduct a complicated business, to give
personal labour to preparing for the press works calling for original
scholarship and detailed labour, and to carry on, in autographic
letters, literary and theological correspondence.

The _Epistola_ gives the titles or descriptions of a number of
important works which the ambitious publisher had in plan, a list, in
fact, too long to be completed within the lifetime or to be feasible
for the resources of any one publisher, and only a portion of which
were ever brought to completion. In 1571, Henry issued, among other
works, an edition of the works of Plutarch, which gives both the Greek
and the Latin text, in thirteen volumes octavo. In 1572, he completed
the great _Thesaurus_, the most important production of his busy life.
The full title is as follows:

_Thesaurus Græcæ Linguæ, ab Henrico Stephano constructus, in quo
præter alia plurima quæ primus præstitit (paternæ diligentiæ æmulus)
vocabula in certas classes distribuit, multiplici derivatorum serie
ad primigenia, tanquam ad radices unde pullulant, revocata. Thesaurus
Lectori._

    _Nunc alii intrepide vestigia nostra sequantur;
    Me duce, plana via est quæ salebrosa fuit._

_Anno MDLXXII. excudebat Henr. Stephanus, cum privilegio Caes.
Majestatis et Christianiss. Galliarum Regis._ 4 vols. Folio, with two
supplementary volumes containing an appendix and an index.

A seventh volume, issued a year later, adds two glossaries, and a
treatise on the dialects of Attica. This _Thesaurus Græcus_ was
completed by Henry at about the same age as that at which his father,
Robert, had published his Latin _Thesaurus_. The two works would
have been for any generation of publishers creditable examples of
scholarly and public-spirited enterprise, but when we remember that the
publishers were the compilers, and were also the authors of the notes,
commentaries, and separate treatises which make up a large portion of
the bulk of the volumes, and that their work as editors and authors
was done amidst the engrossing cares of the management in stormy times
of a complex and absorbing business, the _Thesauri_ remain magnificent
monuments to the scholarship, the capacity, and the persistent energy
of the two Estiennes.

The _Thesaurus Græcus_ was inscribed by Henry to the Emperor
Maximilian, Charles IX. of France, Elizabeth of England, and John
George, Marquis of Brandenburg. He secured for it, in addition to
the privilege of the French King, which bears date 1561, that of
the Emperor, issued in 1570. In one of the several prefatory words
Henry tells his readers that the only way in which he had found it
practicable to complete his task, was to bind himself to produce
each twenty-four hours, in readiness for the compositors who had
been detailed for the work, a stated quantity of written matter. The
interruptions were often, he says, so frequent that he was obliged to
lay aside the pen ten times in an hour; but there were few days on
which the “copy” that he had pledged himself to complete was not in
readiness at the hour fixed.

Henry makes a special appeal to scholars and to the public generally
to protect his great work against any piratical appropriations, or any
attempts on the part of epitomisers or abridgers. The appeal proved,
however, ineffective, and the _Thesaurus Græcus_ was utilised as a
convenient quarry by a number of later lexicographers. Greswell makes
special mention of Joannes Scapula as the first of the plagiarists
who took advantage of the labours of Henry. He states that Scapula
had been employed as one of Henry’s correctors, a position which gave
him convenient facilities for an early appropriation of the sheets of
Henry’s lexicon. The _Lexicon Græco-Latinum_, which bears the name of
Scapula, was printed in Basel in 1579. In his introduction, he speaks
of having had the plan of the undertaking long in mind, and of having,
in fact, made considerable progress in his work before Henry’s volumes
were printed. He does not admit the appropriation, or even the use of
any of Henry’s material, although, as Maittaire points out, whole pages
of the Basel lexicon are substantially identical with those of the
Paris work.

The lexicon of Scapula being in smaller and less costly form, was found
of convenience to students generally, but the scholars of Henry’s
generation did not hesitate to censure severely the conduct of Scapula
and to make strong condemnations of his literary dishonesty. Maittaire
quotes Malinkrot to this effect, and records also that the celebrated
Dr. Busby, of Westminster School, actually forbade his pupils, on the
ground of indignation at literary larceny, to use what he called “the
surreptitious lexicon” of Scapula. The instance is worth commemorating,
because it marks a distinct advance in the development of popular, or
at least of scholarly, opinion in regard to the rights of literary
producers. There had been not a few examples in previous generations
of indignation on the part of authors or editors concerning the
appropriation of their own works, indignation which was, to be sure,
chiefly concerned not with the diminution of the author’s proceeds,
but with the risk or certainty that the surreptitious editions would
be garbled and inaccurate, and would thus cause injustice to the
reputation of the author. I do not, however, find previous record of
instances in which scholars or readers not personally associated with
the author, had taken pains, simply on the ground of literary ethics,
to discountenance or discourage surreptitious or piratical editions.

It remains to add concerning the _Thesaurus_, that, in common with
not a few other public-spirited publishing undertakings, it brought
to its author-publisher loss instead of profits. Henry complains that
the publication involved him in serious pecuniary difficulties. La
Caille is authority for the statement that these difficulties and the
honour brought upon France by Henry’s publications were made the ground
of a donation, in 1578, by King Henry III. of three thousand livres.
Maittaire is, however, clear in his mind that while the King had
talked about such a compensation, and may even have promised it, the
money was never paid. The instance appears in several respects to be
parallel with that of the big Bible of Plantin, in connection with the
publication of which Plantin received from Philip II. promises many,
but no cash. A second edition was printed in 1572, the sale of which
may have helped to lessen the publisher’s loss. This was, however, the
year of the massacre of S. Bartholomew and of the battles of Brissac
and Moncontour, and it is probable that the business of selling books
could hardly have been in a satisfactory condition.

In 1574, Estienne printed an edition of _Apollonius Rhodius_, and, in
1575, a work of his own composition entitled _Pseudo-Cicero Dialogus
H. Stephani_, and, in the year following, a curious treatise compiled
by himself, entitled _H. Stephani Schediasmatum Variorum_. This year
also witnessed the completion of a magnificent impression of the works
of _Plato_, the editorial work on which was done largely by himself.
According to Maittaire and Fischer, hardly a single typographical error
is to be found in the three volumes. The first volume is dedicated to
Elizabeth, Queen of England, the second to James VI. of Scotland, and
the third to the Republic of Berne.

King Henry III. showed an intelligent interest in the work of the
Estienne Press, and appears to have extended to the printer not a
few marks of royal favour, although, as Maittaire points out, it was
the case in many instances that the gifts of money proffered by the
King did not get beyond the stage of promises. In 1578, the King sent
Henry into Switzerland in search of manuscripts and rare books, and in
1579, he conferred on him a general privilege, “_Tant pour tous les
Historiens Grecs et Latins que pour la Dictionnaire et Cours Civile._”

It is evident, from the various headings of the printer’s letters, that
he was continually shifting his residence. He writes most frequently,
to be sure, from Paris, but very often from Geneva, and again from
Berne, Orleans, Lyons, and Frankfort. He appears to have given his
personal attention, during many years, to the business of his House
at the Frankfort Fair. It is sufficiently surprising that, with this
migratory life, he was able to bring to a successful conclusion so many
important editorial and publishing undertakings, especially as the work
of the printing-office was so often interrupted by war or rumours of
war.

The years 1578-1583 chronicled the production of a number of important
books, chiefly editions of the classics. An edition of _Herodotus_,
issued in 1581, the publisher dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney, with a
prefatory address in which he reminds Sidney of their former literary
intercourse, first in Germany and later in Austria. During 1584,
Henry’s Press appears to have been idle, but the five following years
show a renewed activity. The assassination of his royal patron,
Henry III., in 1588, did not fail to call forth the lamentations of
Estienne’s muse, but his _Epitaphia_ on the monarch are said to evince
more loyalty than poetic excellence.

The last work bearing Henry’s imprint was an edition of the _Poemata
Varia_ of Beza, which bears the date of 1579. Henry’s death came in
1598, in a hospital at Lyons. The seventy years of his active and
eventful life had brought, as an offset to the well merited prestige
and honours that had been accorded to him for his distinctive services,
a full measure of vicissitudes and reverses. His life was full of sharp
contrasts. He had intimate relations with many of the rich and great,
and he found himself associated not infrequently with the splendours
of courts and enjoyed the favour of more than one monarch; yet poverty
was his prevailing lot, and his work was carried on under a constant
struggle with difficulties and obstacles of the most serious character.

When we recall the limited extent of the circles of students and
readers in France and throughout Europe who were interested in higher
literature, the constant absorption of the rulers and nobles and of the
active-minded citizens generally in war and in political strife to the
necessary exclusion of any adequate attention to the arts of peace;
and when, further, we remember the constant succession of wars, civil
and foreign, in which, during the lifetime of our publisher, France
was engaged, wars which must have rendered all traffic difficult and
have constituted a most serious hindrance to the business of producing
and of distributing books, we can but be surprised at the number and
the magnitude of his literary and his business achievements, and are
prepared to accord full appreciation to his courage, his patient
persistence, his enormous industry, and his omnivorous scholarship.
It has been possible in this article merely to touch upon some of
the more noteworthy of his own productions. The mere transcription
of the titles of the literary labours achieved or projected by Henry
would be a considerable task; and we gather the impression that in
his strength and capacity for continuous work he must have as far
exceeded the average literary worker of to-day, as the heroes of old
were said to have exceeded in their physical powers the men of later
times. In comparing the character of Henry with that of his father
Robert, Maittaire says that they evinced equal skill and zeal in their
profession, but speaks of Robert as less ostentatious of his own
merits, more ingenuous, and more ready to acknowledge the co-operation
of others. Greswell finds evidence of an arrogance and moroseness of
temper in Henry, which increased with age, and which frequently led him
into violent altercations.

Florence, the eldest daughter of Henry Estienne, had married (in 1586)
the famous scholar Isaac Casaubon, a son-in-law of whom a father like
Henry Estienne might well have been proud. Mark Pattison, in his
biography of Casaubon, suggests that the latter had probably fallen
in love with the manuscript collections of the father before he began
to pay his court to the daughter. It was fortunate for Casaubon that
his wife proved satisfactory in herself, as the jealousy of her
father prevented him from securing any benefit from the manuscript
collections. After a good deal of friction, Casaubon appears to have
given up the attempt to carry on scholarly work with Estienne, and,
according to Pattison, he never saw the inside of Estienne’s library,
notwithstanding the absence of the latter for months and even for years
at a time, excepting on one memorable occasion when he and Florence
summoned courage to break it open.[32]

According to Casaubon, Estienne was in fact a perfect dragon in the
close keeping of his books and manuscripts. Speaking of a new book of
Camerarius, Casaubon writes to Bongars, “Read it I have not; seen it
I have, but it was in the hands of Henry Estienne who would not so
much as allow me to touch, much less to read it, while he is every day
using or abusing my books as if they were his own.”[33] Pattison goes
on to point out, however, that Casaubon exaggerates the facts, when
he complains that Estienne would lend him no books, as both with the
_Strabo_ and with the _Athenæus_, he derived material assistance from
collations which Henry Estienne had made in Italy.

Casaubon contributed also to certain of the editions issued by his
father-in-law, such as the _Thucydides_ of 1588, the Latin _Dionysius_
of the same year, the _Plinius_ of 1591, and the _Diogenes Laertius_ of
1593. According to his own account, he was, however, jealously excluded
from all share in the text and the translation, or from any control of
the contents of the volumes, and his contributions appear to have been
limited to notes and commentaries.

Casaubon appears never to have secured from Estienne the payment of a
certain dower, that belonged to or had been promised to his wife, while
the portion of the property that finally came to Florence after the
settlement of her father’s very meagre estate was but trifling and was,
later, more than offset by a claim for which the estate was adjudged to
be liable for the re-payment of certain moneys that had been advanced,
on the security of the matrices of the famous royal font of Greek type,
which had been brought by Robert Estienne from Paris.

The business of the House of Estienne was carried on after Henry’s
death by his son Paul and his nephews. The publications of these
Estiennes of the fourth generation were chiefly, as heretofore, in the
division of Greek and Roman classics, and were of a character fairly
to maintain the high scholarly standard which had been established.
Robert was himself a classicist and a poet, and Maittaire speaks of his
literary productions as having secured a good repute.

Antoine, the son of Paul, succeeded his father in 1620, and in 1623 was
appointed _Imprimeur du Roy_. His son Henry succeeded in 1649 to the
latter title. Henry’s work closed about 1659. He left no children, and
was the last of the family who devoted himself to the work of printing
and publishing, and with his death, therefore, the history of the House
comes to an end.

During a term of more than a century and a half the Estiennes or
Stephani had, as printers, as publishers, and as scholars filled a
large place in the literary history of France and of Europe, and I find
record of no other family which has contributed to the profession of
publishing so many distinctive and distinguished men.

=Isaac Casaubon.=--As a supplement to this sketch of the history of the
Estienne family, I will add a brief reference to the literary work and
the publishing relations of Isaac Casaubon, the famous scholar, who, as
above mentioned, entered into the family circle as the son-in-law of
the second Henry.

In 1589, the city of Geneva was being besieged by the Duke of Savoy.
The siege continued, in form at least, during the ensuing nine years,
and although it was, of course, not practicable during the whole of
that period to maintain a close investment, the city suffered all the
privations and many of the horrors of continued war.

Geneva contained in 1589, at the time of the beginning of the siege, a
population of about 12,000. It was able to muster for its defence 2186
men capable of bearing arms. Against this little force the Duke brought
up an army of 18,000 regular troops, with the determination to destroy
the nest of heretics once for all. The importance of destroying the
city was fully understood by the Catholic party, and was especially
urged by S. Francis de Sales. The schools and the printing-presses were
particularly pointed out by the Saint as instruments of mischief. The
struggle against these odds was a gallant one, but the little Republic
succeeded in preserving its existence and its independence, although
when, by the peace of Vervins in 1598, it was released from its state
of siege, it had lost out of its little levy nearly three fourths.

Isaac Casaubon, who, later, took rank as one of the most learned
scholars of his time, was born in Geneva in 1559. He was the son of
Arnold Casaubon, a Protestant pastor of Dauphiné. He held the Chair of
Greek and of History in the Academy of Geneva from 1581 to 1596, (a
term which included the period of the great siege) when he migrated
to Montpellier. Isaac’s salary as professor in Geneva was two hundred
and eighty florins, to which he was able to add ninety florins from
boarding students. On this meagre income he ventured (in 1584) to marry
a wife and managed also to bring together a considerable collection of
books.

This first wife, who was a native of Geneva, died in two years, leaving
a daughter. In 1586, Casaubon took for his second wife Florence, the
daughter of Henry Estienne.

One of the manuscript-dealers with whom Casaubon, as an impecunious
collector, came into relations, was Darmarius, described as one of the
last of the caligraphs, a class which in Italy and in the university
towns of Germany survived for nearly half a century the invention of
printing. Darmarius had access to the libraries of Venice and Florence
and travelled about Europe to sell his copies. His manuscripts, says
Pattison, were not works of art like the productions of the pen of a
Vergecio or a Rhosus, made to adorn the collections of princes and
cardinals. The books sold by Darmarius were hasty transcripts, written
on poor paper, chiefly of certain unpublished works that he had found
in the library of Cardinal Bessarion.[34] They did not make up for
their want of beauty by the accuracy of their text, for the transcriber
does not seem to have known even the grammar of classic Greek, but for
these wretched copies he was able to secure from scholars hungry for
books, great prices. For a _Polyæmus_, Casaubon paid, in 1578, “a great
sum,” _magno ære_, and for a _Julius Africanus_ three hundred crowns,
almost its weight in silver, but neither of these authors was as yet in
print.

The admission of Casaubon into the family of the great publisher, so
far from adding to his opportunities for getting his writings before
the public, did not even secure for him any additional facilities for
their preparation. Reference has already been made in the sketch of
Henry Estienne to the jealous selfishness with which, particularly
in the later years of his life, he retained in his own hands his
collections of books and of manuscripts. But few friends appear to have
ever secured from him permission to utilise his literary stores, while
of his learned son-in-law he was particularly jealous. Casaubon was
one of the few scholars in Europe who was competent to edit, from the
original, a Greek text, and although in certain respects Estienne’s
scholarly ideals were high, he seems to have laid more stress upon his
individual prestige than upon the advance of learning.

Impecunious as Casaubon was during by far the greater portion of
his life, he appears to have been always ready to give orders or
commissions for the purchase of books or manuscripts. In some cases
he was able to arrange to pay for these by services in one direction
or another; in 1592, for instance, Henricus Petri of Basel sends
him two copies of his second edition of _Homer_, one for the King
of France and one for himself, the gift being accompanied with the
request that Casaubon would secure for the book a (copyright) privilege
for France.[35] In 1608, Biondi of Venice has a standing commission
to send books to Casaubon.[36] Many presents of manuscripts were
made to Casaubon, and in other instances manuscripts and books were
loaned to him which were never returned. Pattison speaks of this part
of Casaubon’s collection as becoming his by “process of adhesion.”
In 1595, Casaubon writes to Commelin, a publisher of Heidelberg, as
follows:

“If I ask you to send me direct all that issues from your press, it
is not, believe me, dearest Commelin, because I am unwilling to buy
these, but because I am unable. Our booksellers here in Geneva are a
blind sort, who are unwilling to bring back from Frankfort any books
that may not pay. I except Favre, who is not so stupid as the rest. You
will have to write to De Tournes [a printer of Geneva] directing him
to deliver to me the _Chrysostom_, as he refuses to do so without your
express commands.” Casaubon’s complaint about the lack of enterprise on
the part of the booksellers of Geneva has, of course, been frequently
enough repeated by scholars of later date, who are not always able to
understand that the bookseller who takes unwise risks in accumulating
stock that may not sell, will very soon cease to be a bookseller at
all. His annoyance at De Tournes for declining to hand over property of
Commelin’s without authority from the owner is equally naïve.

Casaubon tells us that Geneva in his day had a public library, but that
the collection, although valuable, was very small. The _Commentaries_
published by Casaubon in 1592, on Perseus, Theophrastus, Suetonius,
and Diogenes Laertius, were based upon the lectures given by him in
the Geneva Academy. The volumes were printed in Geneva, but I can
find no record of the arrangement made by him of their publication.
The references that he makes to the several sources of his very small
income include no mention of receipts from the sale of his books, and
it seems probable that these brought to their author no returns other
than the occasional expression of recognition or honorarium on the
part of scholarly patrons. If Henry Estienne had been willing to give
to these _Commentaries_ the service of the imprint of his Paris House,
the commercial results would probably have been much more satisfactory,
but, whatever the difficulty, it was the case that no writings of
Casaubon were issued by his father-in-law.

Casaubon tells us that the ministers of Geneva exercised a strict
surveillance over the teaching both of the scholar and of the Academy,
and that a professor in the latter could not even publish without first
submitting his book to the censorship of divines. It seems probable
that the Calvinistic scrutiny in Geneva may easily have been in its
narrowness and in its persistency a more serious obstacle during the
last ten years of the sixteenth century, in the way of publishing and
literary undertakings, than the censorship of the Catholic theologians
of Paris.

It is the conclusion of Pattison (which is not in harmony with the
earlier descriptions of the intellectual activities of Geneva) that
during the term of Casaubon’s work there existed in the town nothing
that could properly be called a literary interest. There was a poor
and starved seminary for pious instruction; an academic printing-press
devoted to the production of sermons and text-books; a theology
not formal or nominal, but interfused throughout the life and the
thought of each day. An armed enemy crouched at the gates of the
city, watching his opportunity for the death spring; while each week
brought news of some fresh outrage on believers with whom Geneva was in
sympathy in the countries where the Catholic reaction was in its full
tide.

On this ungenial soil, Casaubon developed out of his own instincts
the true ideal of classical learning. Not a scheme of philology, as
we now conceive it, but the idea of a complete mastery, by exhaustive
reading, of the thought of the ancient world, a reconstruction of Greek
and Roman antiquity out of the extant remains of the literature.[37]
Casaubon’s first literary work of importance, the _Animadversiones_
on Athenæus, was printed at Lyons in the year 1600. He was at the
time occupying a Chair in the Protestant University of Montpellier,
but there was no press in Montpellier with facilities for printing
Greek text. In fact, the printing of books in the city appears to have
begun only in 1597. Seventy years earlier, Rabelais had been obliged
to have printed at Lyons his edition of the _Hypocratic Aphorisms_.
Casaubon endeavoured to induce a Geneva printer to establish in
Montpellier a Press with a Greek font and a skilled corrector, but the
business connected with the little University did not offer sufficient
encouragement for the undertaking. It may be remembered that Oxford did
not possess any Greek type until 1586, and that Greek was first printed
in Cambridge some years later. Pattison is of opinion that there was
probably at the time a Greek Press at Toulouse, but no heretic could
print or even sojourn in this city of fanatical Romanism, a city in
which even the edict of toleration could never be put in force.

What Casaubon would, of course, have preferred and what ought, through
his father-in-law, to have been secured for him, was the advantage of
the Greek Press of Paris, which, during the previous half-century, had
secured for itself a well-earned pre-eminence. For the impecunious
professor a journey to Paris was, however, at this time, out of the
question, and he was obliged to content himself with a provincial
publisher. Of the book-trade of the French provinces, Lyons was at
that time the centre. In facilities for reaching the book markets of
Switzerland and Germany, it had advantages over Paris itself. Its
connections with Italy were, of course, very much more direct than
those possessed by the publishers of Paris, and it utilised these
connections not only for the prompt importation of the publications
of France, of Florence, and of Rome, but for the reproduction, often
in pretty close fac-simile, of the more noteworthy books issued from
the Italian presses. With the smaller outlay requisite in reprinting
works upon which the expense of editing and preparing for the press had
already been covered, the publishers of Lyons were able to undersell
Aldus and his successors and to secure for the Aldine texts a large
part of the returns from the markets of southern Europe. They did
not even limit their “appropriations” to the productions of foreign
publishers, such as Aldus of Venice, Froben of Basel, and Koberger of
Nuremberg. We find continual record of complaints on the part of the
publishers of Paris that their “privileges” were not respected and
that their more marketable books were reproduced by their piratical
competitors in Lyons. The “enterprise” of the publishers in Lyons seems
not even to have been restricted by their relations with the Catholic
Church, for they built up a trade in the production of Calvinistic
hymn-books for the use of the congregations of Switzerland.

The printers of Geneva, who were naturally of the opinion that
Calvinism was their legitimate stock in trade and should be for them
an exclusive possession, equally unmindful of their denominational
obligations, retorted by manufacturing cheap editions of missals,
books of hours, and even of Jesuit publications. The Lyonese printers
availed themselves of the brand of heretic to secure the confiscation
at the frontier of a good many shipments of the books from Geneva even
when these books belonged to “orthodox” Jesuit literature. The Genevese
could not easily meet this weapon, as there was at that time in force
in the Republic no _index expurgatorius_, and there was, therefore,
no means of securing an examination of books on the frontier. They
continued, however, their invasion of the French market after peace
had been restored between France and the Republic, and they managed
to evade the prohibition or the restriction upon the importation
of books printed in the Protestant city of Geneva, by placing upon
their title-pages the name of some other publishing centre, such as
Cologne or Antwerp. Occasionally even, the name of a French city was
substituted for the obnoxious Geneva. For instance, the edition of
_Aristotle_, printed in 1590 by Le Maire of Geneva, had upon it the
title _Lugdunæ_ (Lyons).

Henry Estienne died at Lyons in January, 1598, and Casaubon, on his way
to Geneva, to look after the settlement of his wife’s interest in the
estate, stopped at Lyons. He found there, in the person of a certain
Meric de Vic, a patron who was willing to co-operate with him in the
publication of the _Animadversiones_, and who, afterwards, gave him
the means of making his visit to Paris. In later years, De Vic was
known as a friend and patron of Grotius. I have been able to find no
exact record of the arrangement with the Lyons publisher. The work was
printed for the account of the author, by Antoine de Harsy, the cost
being in large part provided by De Vic.

Pattison speaks of De Harsy as “one of those cormorants who about this
time began to sit hard by the tree of knowledge,”[38] but he does
not give us the evidence for this unfavourable estimate. He goes on
to say, as if in mitigation of his harsh description of Casaubon’s
first publisher, that up to this time the publisher had usually been
the friend of the author, and often his collaborator, even when not an
author in his own name.

In arriving at Geneva, after the death of Estienne, Casaubon entered,
only for the second time in his life, his father-in-law’s library.
“Such a wreck of vast projects! A memorial of stupendous labour!” he
exclaimed, on seeing it. We learn from his diary that it was due to
his influence that the co-heirs permitted the manuscripts to pass to
Paul Estienne, to whom the Greek Press had been bequeathed. The printed
books were sold for the benefit of the creditors. Such a termination
of the scholarly labours and enormous energy of Estienne was hardly to
have been looked for.

In the year 1600, at the instance of his friend De Vic, Casaubon
journeyed to Paris, where he was hoping to receive from the King some
kind of appointment that would secure him an income. He was received
for a time as the guest of his wife’s cousin, Henry Estienne. The
publishing business of the old House of Estienne was then being carried
on in Paris by the Patissons, who had connected themselves with the
family by marriage.

The position which Casaubon understood from De Vic had been promised
by the King was not secured without discouraging delay. He had hoped
to be associated in some way with the instruction of Greek in the
University, but his Protestant faith proved an insuperable obstacle to
any University appointment. In 1601, after he had been kept waiting
nearly a year, a royal patent was given to him as keeper of the Royal
Library, where he succeeded the mathematician Gosselin. The salary was
1,200 livres, and the duties of the post left to the incumbent a large
measure of leisure time.

The Paris of that day contained about 400,000 people. Coryat, writing
in 1608, says that the Rue S. Jacques was “very full of booksellers
that have faire shoppes most plentifully furnished with bookes.” The
library in which the scholar from Geneva now found himself installed
contained about nine hundred works, a large proportion of which were in
manuscript. The collection of Greek manuscripts was said to be second
only to that of the Vatican.[39]

The new librarian found himself in favour with the King, who visited
the library from time to time and made gracious inquiries of the keeper
concerning the contents of the books. It was said by Scaliger of Henry
IV. that he could not keep his countenance and could not read a book.
Moderate as was the salary of the keeper of the King’s books, it was,
by not a few of those in authority in a Court where literature was
held in such low esteem, considered to be a wasteful and excessive
expenditure. “You cost the King too much, Sir,” said Sully to Casaubon;
“your pay exceeds that of two good captains, and you are of no use to
the country.”[40]

Casaubon’s position in Paris proved, after a few years, to be an
impossible one. It had, it seems, been the expectation of the King that
his librarian would, for the sake of remaining in Paris, follow the
royal example and accept (in form at least) the faith of Rome. This
course the student from Geneva had, however, no idea of taking. The
opposition of the theologians of the University and of the politicians
of the Court (including the great minister Sully) proved in the end
sufficient to withdraw from the librarian the King’s favour, and
Casaubon foresaw that he could not be assured of the continuance of
the royal protection. At the invitation of some scholarly English
friends--Spottswood, later, Archbishop of Glasgow, and Lamb, afterwards
Bishop of Galway,--Casaubon went to London, ostensibly for a visit.
He was presented to King James, whose ambition to be recognised as a
member of the fraternity of European scholars induced him to offer to
Casaubon a pension of three hundred pounds if he would make his home in
England. The offer was accepted, and the remaining years of Casaubon’s
life were spent in London, with an occasional sojourn in Ely, where his
good friend, Bishop Andrews, was always ready to tender appreciative
hospitality.

One of the famous controversial publications of the latter half of the
sixteenth century was the series entitled the _Magdeburg Centuries_.
The purpose of the Lutheran writers of this work was to present a true
history of the Church of Christ. According to this Protestant view, the
Church had been instituted in the Apostolic age in perfect purity, but
had been perverted by a process of slow canker, until it had become the
Church, not of Christ but of Anti-Christ, an instrument not for saving
men, but for destroying them. The _Centuries_ were completed, in 1574,
in no less than thirteen folio volumes. It was evident that, for a
work of this compass, no wide circulation could be looked for with the
impecunious public of Protestant Germany, but the historical thesis of
which these folios were the laborious evidence made a deep impression
upon the thought of the time.[41]

A young priest named Baronius was selected by the authorities in Rome,
or rather by S. Philip Neri, to prepare a reply to the _Centuries_,
and he devoted his life to the task. The result was the production
of the _Annales Ecclesiastici_, the most comprehensive work which
the controversies of the Protestant revolt had as yet produced. The
_Annales_ were completed, as far as the work of Baronius was concerned,
in thirteen folio volumes, in 1600, but the series was continued by
various writers until, in the edition issued at Lucca in 1738-1786, it
had grown to thirty-eight folio volumes, a work of which purchase was
difficult and perusal impossible.

Of the original work, the circulation, considering the bulk and the
costliness of the volumes, was unprecedented. The printing was done at
the Papal Press, the same press which had originally been organised
by Paul Manutius. The cost was borne by the papal treasury and the
full weight of the authority of the influence of the Church was given
to securing the widest possible distribution. As a result, edition
after edition was taken off by the demands from the libraries of the
monasteries, the cathedral chapters, and the Jesuit colleges and also
by individual prelates and princes, who had remained in the orthodox
fold.[42] The amount of the original labour put into the book by
Baronius must have been enormous, as his texts, his notes, and even
his extracts were all made with his own hand. According to his own
statement, the continuous labour could never have been supported, had
it not been in the first place for the stimulating authority of S.
Philip Neri, and secondly for the special aid given by the Virgin, the
saints, and the apostles Peter and Paul. Pattison sums up the purpose
and the result of the work as follows: “Baronius exhibited the visible
unity and impeccable purity of the Church founded upon Peter and
handed down inviolate; such at this day as it had ever been ... the
_Annales_ transferred to the Catholic party the preponderance in the
field of learning, which ever since Erasmus had been on the side of the
innovators.”

It was the turn of the Protestants to feel the need of an antidote
to Baronius and an attempt to supply this need was made in the
_Exercitationes_ of Casaubon. Casaubon’s work, however, never
passed beyond the status of a fragment, although this fragment was
sufficiently ponderous to form eight hundred folio pages. According
to the Protestant authorities, Casaubon had no difficulty in showing
the great lack of accurate scholarship on the part of Baronius and in
pointing out in the earlier portions of the _Annales_ (it was only
the first two volumes that were considered in his _Exercitationes_) an
enormous number of errors and misstatements. It was in fact difficult
to understand how the task of writing the early history of the Church
could have been undertaken (even with the aid of S. Peter and S.
Paul) by an author who was ignorant both of Greek and of Hebrew. The
volume of _Exercitationes_ did not, however, secure any such general
circulation or wide-spread influence with Protestant readers as had
been gained among the Catholics by the great series of _Annales_. There
was no ecclesiastical authority to induce the purchase as an act of
piety and no ecclesiastical machinery available to further circulation.

These three works seemed to me to call for some special reference,
because they present noteworthy and characteristic examples of the
theological controversies of the century and of the employment of
scholarly labour to secure or to affirm the foundations of religious
faith. The very great advantages possessed by the Roman writer in
securing immediate channels of distribution and an assured reading
public are also to be noted in connection with the serious obstacles
existing at the time in the way of any general distribution of books by
means of such machinery as was available for the publishers.

The _Exercitationes_ was printed for Casaubon by the King’s printer in
London and was issued by a publisher named Bell. I can find no record
of the publishing arrangement, but the cost of the undertaking appears
to have been provided for in part by the royal treasury and in part by
the aid of Bishop Andrews, who was an old friend of the author.

Casaubon’s sojourn in England was more favourable for his literary
labour than had been his position as royal librarian in Paris, but
while he was the most industrious of students, and, according to
his biographies, practically killed himself by close application to
his desk, the number of his completed works is but inconsiderable.
Pattison gives the titles or descriptions of not less than twenty-four
books, which had been planned out and many of which had been in
part written, but which remained at the death of the scholar either
fragments or simply titles.

Of the twenty-five works that were finished during the lifetime of
the scholar, a portion were afterwards characterised by himself as
_juvenilia_ which he was unwilling even to acknowledge. The edition
of _Theophrastus_, published in 1592, is the first work with which in
later years Casaubon expressed himself as satisfied. No one of the
books appears to have retained for itself a literary life, that is to
say, to have become a part of the world’s literature or even to have
remained in demand with the scholars. It was the case with Casaubon,
as with Scaliger, that his reputation has remained greater than that
of his productions. The scholar was more important than his books. It
seems evident, as far as can be gathered from the scanty references to
business details in Casaubon’s correspondence, that he never earned
anything, at least directly, through the labours of his pen. His books
must all have produced deficiencies instead of profits, and the sum
required for their publication had to be obtained from the few wealthy
friends who were able to appreciate the value to the world of a life
devoted to scholarship.

Casaubon died in London in 1614, in his 55th year.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER VI.

WILLIAM CAXTON, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF PRINTING INTO ENGLAND,
1422-1492.


A SKETCH of the early printer-publishers of Europe would of course be
incomplete without some reference to the career of the man whose work
will always be associated with the history of printing in England.
The publishing undertakings of Caxton were, however, of much less
considerable importance than those of his continental contemporaries
to whom chapters have been devoted, while it is also the case that the
events of his life have been so fully set forth in various English
histories that they are already familiar to readers interested in the
record of printing and publishing. It would, therefore, be superfluous
for me to attempt to present, in a general sketch like the present,
any extended or detailed information concerning Caxton’s career.
For my present purpose, it will be sufficient to indicate briefly
the influences from which Caxton derived his interest in literary
undertakings, and the sources from which he secured his training as
a printer, with some reference to the character of his publishing
undertakings as compared with those of the printers whose work had
already been begun in Germany, France, and Italy.

Caxton was born in the Weald of Kent, about 1422, and died in London in
1492. His life covered, therefore, the period during which Gutenberg
was perfecting his printing-press, and included also the years in which
Koberger was beginning his publishing work in Nuremberg and Froben was
organising his publishing concern in Basel. The first publication of
Aldus in Venice was issued in the year after the death of Caxton. While
the larger number of the early printers had had training in technical
or mechanical work, which secured for them a certain preparation for
the technical requirements of the new art, and others, as in the case
of Aldus, had had experience as students and as instructors which
gave them advantages for the editorial work of scholarly publishing,
the larger proportion of the active life of Caxton had been devoted
to business as a wool-merchant, in connection with which business he
could, at least in his earlier years, have had but few opportunities
for coming into relations with men interested in literature. His
literary interests came to him comparatively late in life, as a result
of his association with the Court of the Duke of Burgundy, while his
first knowledge of and attraction towards the work of printing were the
result of the acquaintance formed at that Court with Colard Mansion,
the first printer of Bruges.

Caxton’s business work began as an apprentice to Robert Large, who
was an eminent member of the Mercers’ Company of London. It is the
conclusion of Mr. Blades, who has made himself the authority on the
subject of Caxton, that the admission of the young Kentishman to such
a household as that of Large was in itself sufficient evidence, under
the conditions of the time, that Caxton was a man of good family. It is
Mr. Blades’s belief that Caxton was a descendant of the Caunstons, who
owned the manor of Caunston in the Weald.

In 1441, when Caxton was about twenty years old, his first master
died and he was sent to Bruges, where he became a member of the
English _House_ or the English _Nation_, the term applied to the
association of English merchants residing in Bruges, and carrying on
from there business with England and with the other trade centres of
the Continent. His early associations had given him some preparation
for a sojourn in Flanders. A colony of Flemish wool-manufacturers had
been established in the Weald by Edward III., and the Flemings, having
inter-married with the Kentish families, had impressed their language
and their social habits very largely upon that portion of the county.
Of the English _Nation_ in Bruges Caxton became governor, in or about
1462, a position which made him the leading Englishman in the dominions
of Burgundy. His selection for such a position confirms the impression
that he was a man of birth, while it was also evidence that he had been
successful in his business undertakings and that he was recognised as a
man of character and of executive ability.

His position brought him into official relations with the Court of
Burgundy and with the new Duke, Charles the Bold, who, in 1467,
succeeded his father, Philip the Good. Princess Margaret of England,
the sister of King Edward IV., who became the wife of Charles, seems
to have taken a keen, personal interest in Caxton, and, a year or two
after her coming to Bruges, she induced him to give up his mercantile
career and his honourable position as governor of the English merchants
and to attach himself to her personal service. Lord Scales, afterward
Earl Rivers, who had visited Bruges as one of the ambassadors to
conclude the treaty of marriage, was, later, one of the most liberal
patrons of Caxton the printer, and his translation of the _Dictes
and Sayings of the Philosophers_ was the first book with the date of
imprint issued from Caxton’s London Press.[43]

After 1467, while Caxton still held his official responsibilities and
before he had begun to investigate the new art of printing, we find
him interesting himself in literary pursuits. He began in that year
the translation of the _Histories of Troy_ (_Le Recueil des Histoires
de Troye_), which translation was printed in 1474. In 1471, Caxton
was in the service of the Duchess, receiving a yearly salary and other
advantages, and being under instruction to proceed with his literary
undertakings. Margaret seems, in fact, in giving Caxton an income in
order that he might devote himself to literature, to have had in view
a kind of endowment of research. He presented to the Duchess, in 1471,
as a first result of his literary labours, a manuscript copy of his now
completed translation of the _Histoires_, and the favour given by her
to the work appears to have secured for it an immediate reputation, not
only with the English-speaking members of the Court, but with their
friends and correspondents in England, so that demand for Caxton’s
translation soon became more active than could be supplied by the
work of the scribe. In the epilogue to the first printed edition, he
speaks of his hand becoming “wery and not stedfast with much writing”
while his eyes were “dimed with overmuch lokyng on the whit paper.”
Then it was, apparently, that, through the suggestion of his friend
Colard Mansion, he was led to turn his attention to the new art of
printing.[44]

As has been mentioned in an earlier chapter, literary interests
had, for a number of years before the beginning of printing, found
a favourable environment in the dominions of the Duke of Burgundy.
Burgundy and Flanders were, during the last half of the fifteenth
century, among the richest territories in Europe. The arts and the
luxuries of civilisation had at that time attained a higher development
in Bruges than in almost any other capital, and with the other
refinements of life, had come an active interest in literary pursuits
and in the collection of libraries. These literary interests had been
furthered by the example of the ruling family, successive dukes having
set the fashion of collecting rare and costly works and of employing
great staffs of skilled scribes, illuminators, and binders, to put
into the most beautiful possible dress the manuscripts that had been
secured from all parts of Europe. David Aubert, a well-known scribe,
writing in 1457, thus describes the literary interests of Duke Philip
the Good: “This renowned and virtuous prince has been accustomed,
for many years past, to have ancient histories read to him daily.
His library surpasses all others, for from his youth he has had in
his service numerous translators, scholars, historians, and scribes,
working diligently not only in Bruges but in various countries, so that
now there is not in all christendom a prince who has so varied and rich
a collection.”[45]

Barrois, in describing the library of this sovereign, gives (as
a selection only) the titles of nearly three thousand works, the
greater part being magnificent folios, written on vellum, beautifully
illuminated, and bound in velvet, satin, or damask. Many of the volumes
were studded with gems, and were fastened with gold clasps, jewelled or
chased.

The fashion set by the Court was followed by the opulent nobles,
and, later, by the wealthy merchants, who vied with each other
in multiplying libraries. A nobleman whose name became famous in
connection with literature was Louis de Bruges, Seigneur de la
Gruthuyse, who afterwards received from Edward IV. of England the title
of Earl of Winchester. The larger portion of his manuscripts were
the work of Flemish scribes and were decorated by Flemish artists.
His library afterwards came into possession of the kings of France,
being added to the collection of the Chateau of Blois. A number of the
manuscripts are now preserved in the _Bibliothèque Nationale_ of Paris.
The Flemish armorial bearings had been partly obliterated in order to
be replaced with those of the French King, but the obliteration was
not so complete as to prevent the identification of the manuscripts
with the original collection of Louis. It was to Louis de Bruges that
Colard Mansion owed the first assistance he secured in the attempt
(which was finally unsuccessful) to establish a printing concern in
Bruges. It is somewhat surprising, in consideration of the great wealth
of the Flemish capital, the large measure of literary interest shown by
its noblemen and its merchants, the extensive collections of beautiful
and accurate manuscripts available for the use of the printers, and
the exceptional trade facilities and connections possessed by a city
which was at the time the commercial capital of North Europe, that the
art of printing should not at once have secured an assured foothold,
and that some printer should not have built up in the Flemish capital
a successful publishing concern. The first publishers who did secure
an assured business foundation and a wide-spread literary prestige
were obliged to do their work under conditions which appeared to be
much less favourable than those existing in 1470 at Bruges. Bruges was
probably the first city in Europe which possessed, some years before
the beginning of printing, a guild of makers of books, the organisation
of which was entirely on a mercantile basis, that is to say, which had
no connection with any university and was under no other supervision
or control than that of the monarch. The company, which in 1454
received a formal charter, is styled _Der Ghilde van sinte jan Ewagz_,
or the Guild of S. John the Evangelist, who was the patron saint of
scribes. The branches of industry connected with book-making which
were represented in this guild are specified by Van Praet as follows:
scriveners, illuminators, printers (that is to say, those who produced
from blocks impressions of illustrations), parchment and vellum makers,
letter engravers, figure engravers, carvers, cloth shearers, curriers,
bookbinders, painters, vignette designers, print sellers, booksellers.

In Antwerp a similar guild, instituted at about the same time,
was called the Guild of S. Luke; while at Brussels the scriveners
instituted a limited guild of their own, called _Les Frères de la
Plume_. It is to be borne in mind that there was in England no guild
of writers or makers of books until a number of years after the
introduction of printing, the charter of the Stationers’ Company dating
from 1552.

It was the good fortune of Caxton to be for thirty-three years a
resident of the city which could divide with Paris the distinction of
being the literary capital of North Europe, and for the latter portion
of that time, in his close association with the Court, to have had
access to the ducal libraries and the other great collections of the
city. Mr. Blades is of opinion that, in the course of his mercantile
business, Caxton must often have had occasion to fill commissions,
from correspondents in England who were interested in literature, for
transcripts of Flemish manuscripts. If this be the case, he became a
connecting link between his native country and the literary treasures
of the continent a number of years before he began in London the
work of printing for English readers his own versions of the Flemish
manuscripts.

Of the history of Colard Mansion, the first printer of Bruges, but few
details have been preserved. He is known to have been a skilled scribe,
and one of the earliest references to him occurs in 1450, when there
is record of his receiving from Duke Philip fifty-four livres for the
manuscript of a romance entitled _Romuleon_, which was illuminated and
bound in velvet. This copy is now in the Royal Library at Brussels.[46]
From 1454 to 1473, Mansion’s name is found in the list of subscribers
to the Guild of S. John, and, in or about the year 1471, he removed
from Brussels to Bruges, and devoted himself to the work of printing.
In 1484, he appears to have broken down in resources and in credit. He
left Bruges, and after that time nothing further is known of him. He
was at the time in arrears to the chapter of S. Donatus for the rent of
his printing-office, the work of which he had carried on in two rooms
over the porch of the church, but the value of the printed sheets left
in the rooms appears to have been sufficient to liquidate this debt.
Van Praet speaks of twenty-one works as having been printed by him,
while Blades finds record of twenty-two. Of these, the most important
was probably the edition of Ovid’s _Metamorphoses_, printed in French,
in a large folio, with numerous woodcuts. The practice of adorning
books with illustrations and with ornate initials and tail-pieces
remained a characteristic of the Press of the Low Countries. Other
noteworthy works on the list were French editions of _Boëthius_ and
_Boccaccio_. With the exception of one work, _Dionysii Areopagiticæ
liber_, all of Mansion’s publications were in French. In this respect
he forms a noteworthy exception to the printers of his generation,
whose earlier works were nearly exclusively in Latin. One or two of the
first printers in Lyons also began their work with volumes in French.
Mansion’s undertakings were divided nearly equally between books of
devotion and books of frivolity, such as _Les Advineaux Amoureux_, the
only volume on the list which reached a second edition. The opinion of
Mr. Blades, that the fonts of type used by Mansion were identical with
those later employed in the first books of Caxton, may, I judge, be
considered as established.[47]

It is the contention of the German historians that Caxton secured
his training as a printer not in Bruges but in Cologne, and that the
initiative for the introduction of printing into England is, therefore,
to be credited to Germany. The evidence for and against this theory,
evidence which depends largely upon technical details, such as the
identity of certain fonts of type, the spacing of lines, etc., has
been very thoroughly and skilfully analysed by Mr. Blades, and his
conclusion, that Caxton did no work in the Cologne printing-offices
and that his first printed books did not follow the Cologne models,
can, I judge, be safely accepted. Some reference to the grounds for the
German belief may, however, be made. Printing had been introduced into
Cologne by Ulrich Zell, who was a fugitive from the sack of Mayence.
His first publication, or at least his first book with a date, was
the _Liber Joannis Chrysostomi super Psalmo quinquagesimo_, issued in
1466. His second undertaking was an edition of the _De Officiis_ of
Cicero. He printed in all no less than one hundred and twenty separate
works, and was the leading printer in the city at the time of Caxton’s
visit in 1471. In connection with his business as a wool-merchant
and his official responsibilities for the English _Nation_, Caxton
had had continued relations with Cologne, and must have had a full
acquaintance with the city. Madden speaks of Caxton as being a visitor,
in 1470, at the Weidenbach convent of the Brothers of Common Life
in Cologne, at which time the Brothers had their printing-office in
active operation.[48] Caxton’s diary tells us that the translation of
his _Recueil_, begun in Bruges and continued in Ghent, was completed
at Cologne on the 19th of September, 1471. Kapp concludes that his
first idea for reproducing his translation in printed copies most
probably came to him from an examination of the work of the presses
of Zell or of the Brothers. It is of course possible enough that
Caxton interested himself, while in Cologne in 1471, in inspecting the
printing establishment of Zell, which must, as a novelty, have been one
of the noteworthy sights of the city. It seems evident, however, from
Mr. Blades’s analysis of the fonts of type used by Mansion and, later,
by Caxton, that these were not secured from Cologne, but were cast in
Bruges, while various details of the workmanship of Caxton’s earlier
volumes show methods entirely different from those of the Cologne
printers. As one such detail, Mr. Blades points out that Zell, after
1467, always spaced out the lines of his books to one even length, and
feels convinced that he would have taught any one learning the art from
him to do the same; yet this improvement was not adopted by either
Mansion or Caxton until several years later. “Whoever may have been the
instructor of Mansion and Caxton, and whatever may have been the origin
of their typography, the opinion that either of them, after learning
the art in an advanced school such as that of Cologne, would have
adopted in their first productions, without any necessity for so doing,
primitive customs which they had never been taught, and would have
returned in after years by slow degrees to the rules of their original
tuition, has only to be plainly stated to render it untenable.”[49]

The chief information concerning Caxton’s training as a printer is
derived from his own _Prologues_ and _Epilogues_. The first six books
ascribed to Caxton’s Press are:

  “The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye.”
  “Le Recueil des Histoires de Troye.”
  “The Game and Playe of Chesse, with Prologue by Caxton.”
  “The Meditacions sur les Sept Pseaulmes Penitenceaux.”
  “Les Fais et Processes du Chevalier Jason.”
  “Les Quatre Dernières Choses Advenir.”

Without going into the careful analysis presented by Blades of the
evidence concerning the production of these books, it is sufficient
to give his conclusions. The _Recueil_, with the translation of which
Caxton had begun his literary undertakings, was probably first printed
(in Caxton’s version) in 1474, and the edition of the French original
must have followed shortly afterwards. The remaining four books were
brought before the public between this date and 1476.

It is interesting to note the character of the selections made by
Caxton for the first issues of his Press. With the exception of the
_Meditations on the Psalms_, this group of books belongs entirely
to what to-day would be called light literature. The same general
character obtains with the books printed by Mansion, and, excepting
with one or two Houses in Lyons, it could not be paralleled by the
lists of any other of the printers of this generation, whose first
undertakings were almost exclusively devoted to the service of the
Church or to the revival of the classics. How far the responsibility
for the literary standard of the two printers of Bruges rested with
themselves, and how far it was determined by the preferences and
suggestions of their patroness the Duchess, it is probably not now
practicable to determine.

The German printers, Heynlin and Fichet, who introduced printing into
Paris, and their successors, Krantz, Gering, and others, beginning
their work under the instructions of the University, had printed the
books which were selected for them by the University authorities, and
these earlier issues of the Paris Press were restricted to theology
and jurisprudence. Later, were added the works of certain selected
classic authors. It was a number of years, however, before any volume
was printed in Paris in the French language. The first volume printed
in French in Europe was, in fact, Caxton’s edition of the Burgundian
romance, _Le Recueil_. The first French books printed in France were
issued in Lyons, where the publishers were free from the hampering
supervision of the theologians of the University. The early Lyons lists
of the fifteenth century included indeed a series of quite frivolous
publications, in the vernacular, such as _Le Roman de la Rose_, _La
Farce de Pathelin_, _Les Quinze Joies de Mariage_, _Le Champion des
Dames_, and a French version of the _Facetiæ_ of Poggio. The publishers
of Paris, working under the restrictions of the University censors,
must not infrequently have looked with envy at the publishing
undertakings of their enterprising Lyons competitors, who were, with
the exception of Caxton, the first to address themselves to the
tastes and to the interests of the unscholarly and pleasure-seeking
readers. In the matter of cultivating and supplying a taste for popular
literature, Mansion and Caxton were in accord with the methods of Lyons
rather than those of Paris.

It is the conclusion of Mr. Blades that the books above specified,
while nominally issued by Caxton, were actually printed by Mansion.
However this may be, it is evident that, in connection with the
production of these books, Caxton secured a sufficient knowledge
of the technicalities of the art to be qualified to carry on a
printing-office himself. It is probable that the ready sale found
in England for the printed copies of the _Recueil_ which were sent
over there gave him encouragement concerning the possibilities of the
English market for similar printed books. It is certain that, in 1476,
he gave up his home in Bruges, resigning at the same time the honours
and privileges pertaining to his position at Court, and, retiring to
England, established himself at Westminster. The type, and probably
also the presses, taken over for his Westminster office, were those of
Mansion, which had become the property of Caxton, doubtless through
purchase from Mansion’s creditors. It was during the fifteen years
that remained to him of active work after his varied life experience
as an apprentice, a merchant, a governor of a great mercantile colony,
a magistrate, and a courtier, that he was able to complete the
undertakings with which his name will always be associated, and to
bring to his native country the most important result produced by the
activity of man during the noteworthy fifteenth century.

In the advertisement or announcement of his business, issued by Caxton
about 1480, he professes himself ready to satisfy any man, whether
spiritually or temporally inclined. The wording of the advertisement is
as follows:

“If it plese any man spirituel or temporel to bye ony pyes of two and
thre _comemoracios_ of Salisburi ose emprynted after the forme of
this present lettre whiche ben and truly correct, late hym come to
Westmenester in to the almonesrye at the reed pale and he shall have
them good chepe.”

The phrase “printed in the Abbey of Westminster,” which is affixed to
some of the books, is not to be understood as indicating that the work
of the printing-office was actually carried on within the walls of the
church itself. The tenement occupied by Caxton, called the “red pale,”
was in the almonry, this being a space within the abbey precincts,
where alms were distributed to the poor. In the same enclosure were
other buildings, including the almshouses built by Lady Margaret,
the mother of Henry VII., who was one of Caxton’s patronesses. Some
chroniclers have suggested that the _scriptorium_ of the abbey
would have been a very appropriate place in which to begin the work
of producing printed books for England. One difficulty with this
suggestion is the lack of evidence that the abbey had ever contained a
_scriptorium_. No mention of such a place is made by any historian, nor
does any existing manuscript bear record of having been produced within
the abbey. Caxton’s immediate successor, Wynken de Worde, who had been
his assistant, continued for some years after Caxton’s death to carry
on the work of the printing-office in the same building. He placed on
his books, for the Latin form of imprint, the words, “In domo Caxton in
Westmonasterio.” His English imprint, with sundry variations, was most
frequently “Printed in Caxton’s house at Westmynstere.”

Mr. Blades gives a list of ninety-eight separate works identified
as Caxton’s, in addition to which there are eight or ten others
concerning which the evidence is doubtful. The titles of the first
five, printed in Bruges, in co-operation with Mansion, have already
been cited. I give the titles of the remaining ninety-three:

    1477. “Dictes and Sayings of Philosophers,” translated by Earl
    Rivers. This was probably the first book printed in England.
    The first printed book in Italy was issued in 1464, and was a
    “Donatus.” The first book printed in France bears date 1469, and
    was an edition of the “Letters of Kaspar von Bergamo.” A large
    proportion of the publications identified as Caxton’s were printed
    without imprint or specification of the place or date of issue. Mr.
    Blades is able, however, to give a list of twenty books which bear
    the record of having been printed at Westminster. The imprints and
    colophons show a pleasing variety in form and in spelling.

    1478. Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales.” 1st edition. Folio.

    The “Canterbury Tales” had been written about 1395, and during the
    century which preceded this first printed edition, the work had
    secured an assured prestige and a circulation which for a book in
    manuscript must have been very considerable. As one of the most
    famous productions of English literature, it was a very natural
    selection to be included with Caxton’s earlier publications. This
    first edition was in fact the tenth work produced from the Caxton
    Press. The second edition was printed about six years later (Blades
    says “probably 1484”), and appears to have had the advantage of a
    more correct or more complete text. In a prefatory note printed by
    the publisher in this volume, Caxton gives the following account of
    the way in which this better text came into his hands: “Of which
    book so incorrect was one brought to me six year passed, which I
    supposed had been very true and correct, and according to the same
    I did imprint a certain number of them, which anon were sold to
    many and divers gentlemen: of whom one gentleman came to me, and
    said that this book was not according in many places unto the book
    that Geoffrey Chaucer had made. To whom I answered that I had made
    it according to my copy, and by me was nothing added or diminished.
    Then he said he knew a book which his father had and much loved,
    that was very true, and according unto his own first book by him
    made; and said more, if I would imprint it again, he would get me
    the same book for a copy. How be it, he wist well his father would
    not gladly part from it; to whom I said, in case that he could
    get me such a book true and correct, that I would once endeavour
    me to imprint it again, for to satisfy the author: whereas before
    by ignorance I erred in hurting and defaming his book in divers
    places, in setting in some things that he never said nor made, and
    leaving out many things that he made which are requisite to be
    set in. And thus we fell at accord; and he full gently got me of
    his father the said book, and delivered it to me, by which I have
    corrected my book.”

    1478. “The Moral Proverbs of Cristyne,” translated by Earl Rivers.
    Folio.

    Christine de Pisa wrote these “Proverbs” about 1400. Thomassy
    speaks of her as, with the exception of Joan of Arc, the most
    famous woman of her age.[50] Blades says of her that she was early
    left a widow, with children and parents to support, and urged on
    by necessity, she devoted herself to a literary life, and soon
    became famous, and that for many years her labours were incessant.
    He appears to be of the opinion that she succeeded in securing a
    livelihood by her pen. If this opinion be correct, Christine was
    certainly a marked exception to the other authors of the fourteenth
    century.

    1478. “The Horse, the Sheep, and the Goose.”

    This is not a treatise on the care of domestic animals, but a
    series of dialogues in verse, attributed to Dr. John Lydgate. It
    reached a second edition.

    1478. “The Chorle and the Bird.” 4to. A Fable, probably by Lydgate.
    This reached a second edition.

    1479 (about). “The Book of Courtesy.” 4to.

    1479. “The Temple of Brass or the Parliament of Fowls.”

    “Envoy of Chaucer to Skogan.” 4to.

    1479. “Queen Anelida and False Arcyte.”

    “The Complaint of Chaucer to His Purse.”

    1479. “Boethius de Consolacione Philosophiæ,” translated into
    English by Geoffrey Chaucer. Folio. “I William Caxton have done my
    devoir to emprinte it.”

    With the exception of the anonymous French version printed by
    Mansion in Bruges, in 1471, this was the first edition of this
    perennial work issued in Europe in any version but the original
    Latin. The earliest printed edition of the Latin, that of Koberger,
    had been issued in Nuremberg in 1473. Boëthius had received
    continued attention at the hands of the scribes, and the number
    of manuscript copies available for the earlier printers was
    possibly greater than of any other classic. M. Paris speaks of five
    different translations of the “De Consolacione” into French verse,
    which had been produced in the fifteenth century. Mr. Blades says
    that the version by Chaucer was made not from the French, but from
    the original Latin. One of the three copies of the Caxton edition
    in the British Museum, which was discovered in the library of the
    school attached to the Abbey of St. Albans (an abbey which had had
    an old-time association with literature), was noteworthy because
    in the covers were discovered certain printed sheets of other of
    Caxton’s publications not previously known.[51]

    Chaucer appears to have considered this translation to be one of
    his praiseworthy undertakings. He writes:

    And for to speke of other holynesse
    He hath in prose translated Boëce.[52]

    1479. “Cordyale, or the Four Last Things.” Folio. Translated from
    the French by Earl Rivers.

    1480. “The Chronicles of England.” Folio. “Emprynted by me William
    Caxton in thabbey of Westmynstre.” 1st edition.

    This work is often referred to as “Caxton’s Chronicle.” It
    presents, in substance, the chronicle of Brute, with the narrative
    brought down to the battle of Towton (1461). The old chronicle of
    Brute was so called from the opening chapter, which describes the
    settlement in Britain of Brutus, the descendant of Æneas.[53]

    1481. “Parvus et Magnus Chato.” 3rd edition. Folio.

    This edition contains two woodcuts, which Mr. Blades believes to be
    the earliest specimens of wood-engraving in England. In the matter
    of book-illustrations, the printers of England were, during the
    fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, very much surpassed by those of
    the continent.

    1481. “The Mirrour of the World,” translated from the French by
    Caxton. Folio, with illustrations.

    The French version from which Caxton worked was that of “Maître
    Gossevin,” which was itself based upon the metrical version,
    prepared, in 1245, by the Duke of Berri. The Latin original,
    “Speculum vel Imago Mundi,” was the work of some unknown author
    writing early in the thirteenth century. The number of manuscript
    copies which had been preserved, is evidence of its early
    popularity. Caxton’s judgment in reviving the work in an English
    version and a printed edition proved to be well founded, as it
    passed through various editions. This first edition was, however,
    not the speculation of the printer, the cost of its production
    having been borne by Alderman Hugh Brice.[54]

    1481. “The History of Reynard the Fox.” Folio. A translation
    prepared by Caxton from a Flemish version of the popular legend.

    1481. “Tully on Old Age”; “Tully on Friendship”; “The Declamation
    of Noblesse.” Folio. “Emprynted by me, symple person, William
    Caxton.”

    This translation was made, as is stated in the Prologue, “at the
    ordinance and desire of Sir John Falstoffe.”

    1481. “Cura Sapientiæ,” or the “Court of Sapience.” By John Lydgate.

    This poet, several of whose productions have been preserved by
    Caxton’s Press, died in 1461, about fifteen years before Caxton
    began his printing work. While not quite a contemporary, he was
    one of the few English authors of his own times with whom Caxton’s
    imprint is associated. The poem presents a debate between Mercy,
    Truth, Justice, and Peace, together with a metrical description
    of theology, geography, natural history, horticulture, grammar,
    rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. I am not
    sure from the description whether it is to be classed with light
    literature, or may properly be considered as one of the publisher’s
    “solid” productions.

    The author is frank enough in regard to his own deficiencies. He
    writes:

    I am a monk by my profession,
    Of Bury, called John Lydgate by my name,
    And wear a habit of perfection,
    Although my life agree not with the same.

    1481. “The History of Godfrey of Bulloigne, or the Conquest of
    Jerusalem.” Folio. A translation by Caxton from an anonymous French
    chronicle.

    “Polychronicon.” Folio. “Imprinted and set in forme by me William
    Caxton.”

    This volume includes the most considerable and important original
    work undertaken by Caxton. The “Polychronicon” had its origin with
    Roger Monk, of St. Werberg in Chester, early in the fourteenth
    century. It was continued by Higden of the same monastery, and,
    in 1387, Trevisa, chaplain of the Earl of Berkeley, prepared from
    the Latin text an English version. Caxton revised this version of
    Trevisa, and added a continuation of the history, bringing the
    record down to 1460.

    1483. A “Vocabulary” in French and English. Folio.

    1483. Gower’s “Confessio Amantis.” Large folio. “Emprynted at
    Westmestre, by me William Caxton.” Gower had died in 1408, and
    belonged, therefore, to a previous century, but even as late as the
    century succeeding his death, he continued to be the most widely
    read (at least in England) of the English poets. It is probable
    that the literary authorities of Caxton’s time rated Gower higher
    than Chaucer. It is certain that the “Confessio Amantis” was one of
    the most successful of Caxton’s publications. Some lines of Gower’s
    give an impression of the taste of English readers in his time.

    Full oft time it falleth so,
    Mine ear with a good pittance
    Is fed of reading of romance,
    Of Iodyne, and of Amadas,
    That whilom weren in my case,
    And eke of other many a score,
    That loveden long ere I was bore.

    His “Confessio Amantis” had, he states, been written at the command
    of King Richard II., the same monarch to whom Froissart tells us
    he presented a volume of the famous “Chronicles,” “fair illumined
    and written, and covered with crimson velvet, with ten buttons of
    silver and gilt and roses of gold in the midst, with two great
    clasps, gilt, richly wrought.” Richard’s interest in books must,
    therefore, have included literature in two languages.

    1484. “The Book which the Knight of the Tower Made to the
    ‘Enseygnment’ and Teaching of His Daughters.” Folio. “Emprynted at
    Westmynstre the last day of Januer the fyrst yere of the regne of
    Kynge Richard the Thyrd.” This was a translation by Caxton of a
    book by Geoffrey de la Tour, written in 1371.

    1484. “The Golden Legend.” Folio. “Fynysshed at Westmere the twenty
    day of Novembre/ the yere of our Lord M/CCC/LXXXIII/. By me Wyllyam
    Caxton.”

    This work is described as the most laborious and most important
    of Caxton’s literary and publishing undertakings. The collection
    from which the various versions of “The Golden Legend” were derived
    was a compilation entitled “Legenda Aurea,” made in the thirteenth
    century by Jacobus de Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa, in which were
    narrated the lives and miracles of the Saints.[55] Caxton appears
    to have had before him, in preparing his volume for the press, one
    of the many Latin texts, an English version compiled about 1450,
    and the French version of Jean de Vignay. In editing the collection
    for English readers, Caxton omitted a number of the more incredible
    and more objectionable of the stories. Some of the best of these
    stories are identical with those given in the “Gesta Romanorum,”
    the first printed edition of which was issued by Koberger in 1493.
    Caxton’s volume was extensively illustrated, and he speaks of the
    preparation of the designs as having caused him much trouble and
    expense. The undertaking was suggested by the Earl of Arundel, who
    agreed to take “a reasonable number of copies,” and further to pay
    as an annuity “a buck in summer and a doe in winter.”

    1484. “The Fables of Æsop”; of “Avian”; of “Alfonse”; and of “Poge”
    (Poggio), the Florentine. Folio. “Emprynted by me William Caxton at
    Westmynstre.” Illustrated. The text was translated by Caxton from
    the French, and was the first version of “Æsop” in English.

    1485. “Troylus and Creside.” Folio.

    1485. “The Lyf of Our Ladye.” Folio. “Emprynted by Wyllyam Caxton.”

    This poem was the work of John Lydgate, and had been written at
    the “excitation” of Henry V. It belonged to what may be called the
    popular group of Caxton’s publications.

    1485. “The Noble Histories of King Arthur and of certain of his
    Knights.” Folio. “Emprynted in thabbey of Westmestre.”

    This was the work of Sir Thomas Malory, and was generally known as
    the “Morte d’Arthur”; it was completed, as the author states, in
    1470. Caxton states in his Prologue, that Sir Thomas had “reduced”
    the romances “from certain books in French.” I have not been able
    to find record of the date of Malory’s death, but as Caxton makes
    no reference to any relations with him, it is probable that in
    1485 he was no longer living. His “Histories” certainly, however,
    could be classed as contemporary literature, and their selection by
    Caxton for the honour of a printed edition gives the impression of
    a publisher who was not so absorbed in the literature of the past
    as to be unmindful of the literary activities and possibilities in
    his own community.

    Caxton gives in his Prologue his reasons for the selection of
    Malory’s work for publication. He considers Arthur to be a national
    hero and one of the nine great characters of the world’s history,
    his list comprising Hector, Alexander, Arthur, Charlemagne, and
    Godfrey of Bouillon. “In these playsaunt historyes,” says Caxton,
    “may be seen noble chyvalrye, curtosye, humanyte, frendlynesse,
    hardynesse, love, frendship, cowardyse, murdre, hate, vertue and
    synne. Doo after the good and leve the evyl and it shal brynge
    you to good fame and renommee.” A book containing all this was
    certainly deserving of the honour of a printed edition. Caxton’s
    selection of the “Morte d’Arthur” showed admirable publishing
    judgment. The book was not only excellent “copy” for the time, but
    has had a more abiding repute than perhaps any production of its
    age.

    1485. “The Life of the Noble and Christian Prince Charles the
    Great.” Folio. “Explicit per William Caxton.”

    This “Life” was based upon the biography (itself a compilation) by
    Henry Bolomyer, Canon of Lausanne. The work, which is something
    more than a translation, was undertaken by Caxton at the instance
    of Danberry, treasurer of the King’s jewels, and of certain other
    persons of noble estate and degree.

    1485. “The Knight Paris and the Fair Vienne.” Folio. “Explicit per
    Caxton.”

    A translation by Caxton of a famous romance, which had originally
    been written in “Catalane,” but of which versions had appeared in
    a number of languages. It can be described as belonging to the
    popular literature of Europe, for after securing a wide circulation
    in manuscript editions, it was printed in Trevisa as early as 1482,
    in London, as above, in 1485, in Antwerp in 1487, and frequently
    thereafter.

    1487. “The book of Good Manners.” Folio. “Explicit et hic est finis
    per Caxton.”

    This is the work of Jaques Legrand, an Augustinian friar, said to
    have been a native of Toledo. It was written about 1370. Legrand
    was also the author of the “Sophologium.” Caxton states in his
    Prologue that he undertook the translation in response to a
    “death-bed request” of his friend William Pratt, who was a man of
    influence in the Mercers’ Guild, and Caxton refers to him as “a
    singular friend of old Knowledge.”

    1487. “Speculum Vitæ Christi.” Folio. “Emprynted by Wyllyam
    Caxton.” Probably a translation of the French version of the “Vita
    Christi,” written in 1410, by S. Bonaventura.

    1488. “The Royal Book, or Book for a King.” Folio. “Translated out
    of Frensshe into Englysshe by me Wylyam Caxton.”

    This is a translation of “Le Livre des Vices et des Vertus,” said
    to have been written early in the fourteenth century by Friar
    Laurent, confessor of Philip the Bold. The book had come into
    general circulation in France and had been twice translated into
    English before the version of Caxton.

    1489. “The Faytes of Arms and of Chivalry.” Folio. Per Caxton.

    This is a translation by Caxton of the work of Christine de Pisa
    of Venice. It was written in France about 1400. In her preface,
    Christine says: “Because men of arms are not clerks, nor instructed
    in the science of language, I have assembled and gathered together
    diverse books to produce this work, and because that this is a
    thing not accustomed and out of usage to women, which commonly do
    not intermit but to spin on the distaff and to occupy themselves in
    the things of the household; I supplicate humbly ... to have nor to
    take for no evil if I, a woman, charge myself to treat of so high a
    matter.”

    1489. “Statutes of Henry VII.” Folio. The earliest known volume of
    statutes, and noteworthy also because printed in English.

    1489. “The Governal of Health”; “The Medicina Stomachi.”

    The “Governal” was originally written in Latin, but was translated
    into English before Caxton’s time. It is a compilation from the
    writings of certain Greek and Arabian physicians. The “Medicina” is
    attributed to Lydgate, who seems to have been Caxton’s favourite
    author.

    1489. “The Four Sons of Aymon.” Folio.

    A translation by Caxton of a very famous and popular romance, which
    originated probably as early as the twelfth century. Caxton’s
    version was apparently produced from the volume printed in Lyons in
    1480, “Les Quatre Filz Aymon.”

    1490. “Eneydos.” Folio. “Translated by me Wyllyam Caxton.”

    The original was not a version of the “Æneid,” but a romance based
    in part on the “Æneid,” and in part on the “Fall of Princes” of
    Boccaccio. Mr. Blades points out that a good sale was probably
    expected for it, as a large impression was struck off, and the
    existing copies are therefore comparatively numerous. The book
    failed, however, to reach a second edition.

    1490. “A Book of Divers Ghostly Matters.” “Emprynted at
    Westmynstre. Qui legit emendet, pressorem non reprehendat Wyllelmn
    Caxton. Cui, de alta tradat.”

    The volume contains, with various writings, the “Rule of S. Benet.”
    The compilation is credited to Jehan de Sonshavie.

    1491. “The Arte and Craft to Know Well to Die.” Folio. Translated
    by Caxton in 1490.

    The complete work, of which Caxton’s volume is an abridgment, had
    been known during the century, in manuscript form, under the title
    “The Art and Craft to Live Well and to Die Well.” It had been
    printed in Latin in Paris in 1483. Caxton had probably utilised for
    his translation the French version printed in Bruges by Mansion.

    1491. “The Chastening of God’s Children.” Folio. Authorship unknown.

    1491. “Ars Moriendi”: That is to say, “The Craft for to die for the
    Health of Man’s Soul.”

    A translation, by Caxton, of a Latin tract. The only copy known,
    either in MS. or in print, is in the Bodleian Library. This is the
    latest work certainly identified as Caxton’s, and, as he died in
    1491, it is very possibly the last undertaking of his busy life.

I have classed under the dates specified, the works selected as
representative of Caxton’s undertakings. I should explain, however,
that the greater number of them were issued without date, and many
without imprint of any kind. Mr. Blades has, with painstaking skill,
identified the volumes issued from Caxton’s Press during the lifetime
of the master, by a careful analysis and classification of the type
used. He finds that six different fonts were utilised in all, the first
being that secured from the wreck of Mansion’s concern in Bruges and
forming the beginning of Caxton’s plant at Westminster, and the others
having been added from year to year, according to the requirements and
according also to the resources available. Very few of the books had
any title-pages, and when the name of the author is mentioned, it must,
as a rule, be looked for in the publisher’s or translator’s prologue.
In some instances the dates of the printing have been arrived at or
approximated by the references made by Caxton in his Prologue, or in
a concluding paragraph, to the date when the work of the translation
had been completed. In the small number of volumes containing an
imprint, the pleasing variety of the form and spelling of such imprint
is to be noted. The more usual wording is “Emprynted by me Wyllyam
Caxton at Westmynstre,” but from this form there are a number of
modifications. In selecting from the list of Caxton’s publications
certain titles taken as fairly representative of the general character
of his undertakings, I have avoided specifying any re-issues or later
editions. As the entire typesetting had to be repeated, the labour and
expense of producing a second edition was for the manufacturing items
very nearly as great as for the original publication. The illustrations
were, however, in the majority of cases, available for the reissue,
while the work of translating or of the compilation, collation, and
revision of texts needed, of course, to be incurred but once. There
was, therefore, a better prospect of satisfactory returns if a second
edition could be reached, while the record of such editions serves
also as a partial test of the publisher’s judgment in gauging the
taste and the interest of his public. Of the ninety-eight works issued
by Caxton, three reached, during his lifetime, a third edition, the
_Dictes of Philosophers_, the _Parvus Chato_, and the _Horæ_. While of
fifteen, including, of course, the above, second editions were called
for, the other twelve titles being: _The Horse, the Sheep, and the
Goose_, _The Chorle and the Bird_, _The Game of Chesse_, _Indulgence_,
_The Chronicles of England_, _The Canterbury Tales_, _The Golden
Legend_, the _Speculum Christi_, _The Mirrour of the World_, _The Book
of Courtesy_, and the _Liber Festivalis_. A number of Caxton’s books
were issued, after his death, by De Worde in later editions. The more
noteworthy of these were _The Canterbury Pilgrimage_, _The Chronicles
of England_, and _The Golden Legend_.

Caxton’s absorption in his printing business at Westminster and in
his literary occupations did not prevent him from continuing his
association with the Mercers’ Company, in which he must have retained
a number of old friends. Blades finds record of a payment made, in
1479, to Caxton from the royal treasury, of thirty pounds (equal to
about four hundred and fifty pounds at this time), “for certain causes
or matters performed by him for the said Lord the King”; and thinks it
probable that this payment was for assistance rendered to Edward IV.
and his retinue when fugitives at Bruges. It seems certain that the
friendship of Margaret of Burgundy, Edward’s sister, secured for Caxton
royal favour and interest in his venturesome undertakings. _Tully_
and _Godfrey_ were printed under the “protection” of the King, which
probably means that the cost of their production was supplied from the
royal treasury. Margaret, Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII.,
and Earl Rivers, brother to the King, were included in the list of
Caxton’s Court friends. _The Chesse Booke_ was dedicated to the Earl
of Warwick, which probably also meant some measure of co-operation.
_The Order of Chivalry_ was dedicated to Richard III. _The Faytes of
Arms_ was translated and printed by Caxton, at the request of Henry
VII., while the _Eneydos_ was specially presented to Arthur, Prince
of Wales. Caxton appears to have been more fortunate than some of the
courtiers of his time, in being able, after the battle of Bosworth
Field, to retain with Henry the favourable relations he had had with
Richard. Caxton speaks of William Daubeney, the treasurer of Henry VI.,
as his “good and syngular friend.” William, Earl of Arundel, showed his
interest in the work of the Caxton Press by allowing to the printer a
“yearly fee of a buck in summer and a doe in winter.” Other of Caxton’s
friends, whose names are given by Blades, were Sir John Falstoffe,
described as a great lover of books, and Hugh Bryce and William Pratt,
important members in the Mercers’ Company. Some of Caxton’s clients
utilised his services with commissions for translating as well as for
printing. For one “noble lady with many fair daughters,” he produced
_The Knyght of the Toure_. _The Book of Good Manners_ was printed by
Caxton at the special request (made on his death-bed) of Caxton’s
old friend, William Pratt, the purpose of the publication being “the
amendment of manners and the increase of virtuous living.”

It is a suggestion of Blades that the occasion for the publication of
the treatise _The Arte and Craft to Die Well_, was the death, in 1490,
of Caxton’s wife Maude. Blades goes on to say, however, that there is
no direct evidence that the Maude Caxton who died in that year and who
was buried at S. Margaret’s was the wife of the printer.

The work done by Caxton as a translator includes versions of the
following books: _The Whole Life of Jason_, _The Mirrour of the World_,
_Reynard the Fox_, _Godfrey of Bulloyne_, _The Golden Legend_, _The
Book Called Caton_, _The Knight of the Tower_, _Æsop’s Fables_, _The
Order of Chivalry_, _The Royal Book_, _The Life of Charles the Great_,
_The History of the Knight and the Fair Vienne_, _The Book of Good
Manners_, _The Doctrinal of Sapience_, _The Faytes of Arms_, _The
Arte and Craft to Die Well_, _Eneydos_, _The Curial_, _The Life of
S. Winifred_, _Blanchardin and Eglantine_, _The Four Sons of Aymon_,
_The Gouvernayle of Health_, and the _Vitæ Patrum_. This last was,
at the time of his death not quite finished. These volumes, when
printed, comprised together more than forty-five hundred pages. It
would appear, therefore, that, apart from the very considerable labours
and responsibilities of the management of his printing-office, nearly
all the employees in which must have required training in each detail
of their work, Caxton must have kept his time very fully occupied.
Blades finds record from Caxton’s journal, that ten weeks’ time was
required for the translation of _The Mirrour of the World_, containing
one hundred and ninety-eight pages, and twelve weeks for _Godfrey of
Bulloyne_, which contained two hundred and eighty-four pages. It may
be assumed, however, that leisure for the literary work could be found
only occasionally when the labour in the printing-office did not happen
to be continuous. The time required for printing these books varied
materially, according to the book. The edition of _Cordyale_, a volume
of one hundred and fifty-two pages, was completed in seven weeks, while
the _Godfrey_ took nearly six months. I do not find any record of the
number of copies printed in the editions, nor does there seem to have
been any uniform list of selling prices.

Under Caxton’s will, it appears (the will itself not having as yet been
discovered) that fifteen copies of _The Golden Legend_ were “bequothen
to the Chirch behove by William Caxston.” The citation is from the
parish accounts of S. Margaret’s. In 1496, or about five years after
the death of Caxton, the churchwardens had sold but three of the
fifteen copies, for two of which they secured 6s. 8d. each and for the
third 6s. 4d. The remaining copies were sold within the next sixteen
years at an average price of 5s. 8d. It is probable that the price
asked for these copies by the churchwardens was, at the outset at
least, based upon the usual selling price of the printing-office.

Caxton died in 1491, when he was nearly seventy years of age. He was
at work until within a few hours of his death upon the translation
of the _Vitæ Patrum_. His assistant and successor, Wynken de Worde,
in the colophon to the edition of this volume, makes the following
record of his master, the translator: “Thus endyth the moost vertuous
hystorye of the dewoute and right renowned lyves of holy faders lyvynge
in deserte, worthy of remembraunce to all wel dysposed persones which
hathe be translated oute of Frenche into Englisshe by William Caxton of
Westmynstre late ded, and fynysshed at the laste daye of hys lyff.”

The list of Caxton’s publications, as compared with the lists of the
first printers in Germany, Italy, and France, is noteworthy in a
number of respects. Caxton did not undertake a single edition of the
Scriptures or of any portion of the Scriptures, while the books of
the Bible had formed the first and most important ventures of all the
early printers of the continent. Caxton’s judgment that the England
of his day was not asking for Bibles, was confirmed by his immediate
successors, and no edition of the Bible was printed in England
before the close of the fifteenth century. The list contains also no
theological works, no editions of the Fathers, and, with the exception
of a single treatise of _Cicero_ and a volume of _Boëthius_, no works
belonging to the older classics. Its most distinctive feature is the
long series of romances and legends translated from the French, the
translations of which were largely the work of the printer himself.
Noteworthy also, of course, is the appreciation of the abiding literary
importance of Chaucer, the recognition of the availability for popular
sale of Gower, and the discovery and prompt utilisation of Malory.
Caxton was not only his own translator, but he was his own adviser,
that is, he seems to have been dependent for his selections chiefly
upon his own knowledge of the literature of France and of Flanders.
While the earlier issues from the presses of Mayence, Basel, Paris, and
Venice, restricted almost exclusively to the Scriptures, to editions
of the Fathers, and of classics, were in Latin, Caxton’s books were,
with hardly an exception, printed in English. It was evidently his
purpose to reach not the circles of scholars and theologians (circles
which undoubtedly were at the time small in England), but as large
a proportion as possible of the English public. I can but think, in
looking at the long series of romances and poems and treatises on
love, and the like, that Caxton had in mind the taste and requirements
of women readers as well as of the men. In fact, in the fifteenth as
in the nineteenth century, there must have been a larger share of
leisure for the “fair ladyes” than for the noble gentlemen, and it is
to be borne in mind that the first incentive towards his literary and
publishing undertakings came to Caxton from a woman, his noble friend
the Duchess Margaret of Burgundy. Caxton’s books give us the impression
that they were the selections and productions of a man with a clear
understanding, a wide knowledge of the world, a keen sense of humour,
and a sympathy for pleasure-loving people, who proposed to do what
was in his power to imbue his fellow-countrymen with an interest in
literature. He printed certain stories which, from a modern point of
view, are open to criticism, but it is evident from the pains taken
by him in his selections and eliminations, that he had a standard of
his own, and that in rejecting material which seemed to him unworthy,
he had in view the directing and developing of the standard of his
English readers. He seems to have made comparatively few serious
blunders, and must be credited with good publishing judgment. He had
also the business wisdom not to attempt to go ahead too fast. Copeland,
one of his workmen, who was later in business for himself, says in
the Prologue to his edition of _Kynge Apolyn of Thyre_, his first
publication: “I am gladly followynge the trace of my mayster Caxton,
begynnynge with small storyes and pamfletes, and so to other,” a very
sound policy for any publishing concern.

In the preface to his translation of _Blanchardin and Eglantine_,
Caxton makes an “apologie” for the literature of romance and chivalry,
which is worth quoting. The translation had been made from the French,
at the command of the Duchess of Somerset, mother of King Henry VII.
The passage shows us that the old printers were dealers in foreign
books as well as in their own productions: “Which book I had long to
fore sold to my said lady, and knew well that the story of it was
honest and joyful to all virtuous young noble gentlemen and women, for
to read therein, as for their pastime. For under correction, in my
judgment, histories of noble feats and valiant acts of arms and war,
which have been achieved in old time of many noble princes, lords, and
knights, are as well for to see and know their valiantness for to stand
in the special grace and love of their ladies, and in like wise for
gentle young ladies, and demoiselles for to learn to be stedfast and
constant in their part to them that they once have promised and agreed
to, such as they have put their lives oft in jeopardy for to please
them to stand in grace, as it is to occupy the ken and study overmuch
in books of contemplation.” This is possibly the earliest defence of
novel-reading which occurs in the records of English literature.

The historian Gibbon makes it a cause of special regret that, in
the choice of his authors, Caxton “was reduced to comply with the
vicious taste of his readers; to gratify his nobles with treatises
on heraldry, hawking, and the game of chess, and to amuse the popular
credulity with romances of fabulous knights and legends of fabulous
saints. The father of [English] printing expresses a laudable desire
to elucidate the history of his country; but instead of publishing
the Latin Chronicle of Radulphus Higden, he could only venture on the
English version by John de Trevisa.... The world is not indebted to
England for a single _first_ edition of a classic author.”[56]

Blades, taking up the cudgels for his hero, points out that Caxton very
properly made a careful study of the wants of the public which was
about him. It was essential for his purposes that the business should
be placed on an assured foundation and should be made profitable.
Caxton tells us in the preface to his _Charles the Great_, that he
earned his living by his printing-office. It seems probable that he
could have brought with him from Bruges no further property than was
required to get his printing business into working shape, and it
appears that at his death he left for his heirs very little beyond his
presses, his type, and the remainders of the editions of his books.

It is probable that the knowledge of Latin, even among the circles that
were interested in literature, must have been at this time much less
general in England than on the Continent, and it is certain that the
interest in theological writings continued during the century following
to be very much smaller with Englishmen than with the Germans reached
by the presses of Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Basel. It is, I judge,
generally accepted that during the fifteenth and the first half of
the sixteenth century, the standard of general cultivation was lower,
and the extent of learning and of literary interests more limited in
England than in Italy or the Low Countries.

“The demand in England in the fifteenth century,” says Blades,
“was not for Bibles in the vernacular, nor for Horace nor Homer,
whose writings very few could read in the original texts; but the
clergy wanted service books, and Caxton accordingly provided them
with Psalters, Commemorations, and Directories; the preachers wanted
sermons, and were supplied with _The Golden Legend_; the ‘prynces,
lordes, barons, knyghtes, and gentilmen,’ were craving for ‘joyous
and pleysaunt historyes’ of chivalry, and the Press at the Red Pale
produced a fresh romance nearly every year. Poetry and history required
for their appreciation a more advanced standard of education [than at
this time obtained in England], and of these, therefore, the issue was
comparatively scanty.”

The England of Caxton’s time was torn asunder by civil war. The year
1471, in which Caxton was beginning his printing undertakings in
Bruges, was the year in which was fought, only a few miles from London,
the battle of Barnet, and it was the year of the death of Warwick
and of Henry VI. The year 1485, in which Caxton was busied with the
translation and printing of several of his most important books,
including _Charles the Great_, witnessed the battle of Bosworth Field
and a change of monarchs in England. All the troubles of the civil wars
and the excitement connected with the overthrow of a great political
party and the accession of a new king had, it seems, little influence
upon the preference of that small portion of English society which was
interested at all in literature, for “joyous and pleasant histories.”
It was doubtless also the case that this direction of literary taste
was influenced by the preferences and the knowledge of Caxton himself
and of his associate and successor, Wynken de Worde. They brought with
them to England the literary interests and standards of the gay Flemish
capital, in which the capacity for pleasure and enjoyment was developed
to its fullest extent. The rule of the Puritans in England was still
more than a century distant.

It is probable that a remunerative demand could have been secured
for an edition of the Bible or of the New Testament printed in the
vernacular. There were, however, difficulties in the way. Sir Thomas
More has clearly shown the reason why Caxton could not venture to
print a Bible, although the people would have greedily bought Wyclif’s
translation. There were translations of the Bible before Wyclif, and
that translation which goes by the name of this great reformer was
probably made up in some degree from those previous translations.
Wyclif’s translation was interdicted, and thus More says: “On account
of the penalties ordered by Archbishop Arundel’s constitution, though
the old translations that were before Wyclif’s days remained lawful and
were in some folks’ hands had and read, yet he thought no printer would
lightly be so hot to put any Bible in print at his own charge, and then
hang upon a doubtful trial whether the first copy of his translation
was made before Wyclif’s days or since. For if it were made since, it
must be approved before the printing.” This was a dilemma that Caxton
would have been too prudent to encounter.[57]

Caxton’s experience as a publisher did nothing toward the development
of any conception of literary property. Such literary labour as was
contributed to his publications was his own work, and if there had
at that time existed in England anything of the nature of copyright,
the ownership in such copyright would, for the series of translations
which comprised the most important portion of Caxton’s list, have been
vested in the publisher himself. There seems to be, in the record of
his business in Westminster, no reference to any literary payments
whatever, that is to say, to any arrangements for editorial service
or to compensation to scholars for the collection or collation of
manuscripts. In this matter of the securing of “copy” for his Press,
Caxton’s task was assuredly less arduous than that which came upon the
first printers in Germany or Italy. He had at his command or within his
reach the manuscript treasures of the great collections in Bruges, and
during the years which were spared to him for carrying on the work of
his Press, he was able to make but a very small beginning in the work
of placing before the English public the legends and histories selected
from those collections.

Caxton brought into his publishing business methods and standards which
were the results of a long and honourable experience as a merchant.
While he did not amass wealth, he seems to have sufficiently mastered
the principles of a balance-sheet to have been able to carry on his
undertakings with a full measure of independence and with no such
serious financial anxieties as those which oppressed Gutenberg or which
hampered the too idealistic ventures of Aldus. Caxton was evidently a
clear-headed, practical man of business (although his interests came to
be rather literary than commercial), possessing a keen sense of humour,
shown in his appreciation of the best humorous literature of the time,
and with a perception far beyond that of his publishing contemporaries
as to the actual requirements of the public he was endeavouring to
serve. Caxton made no claim to scholarship in the sense in which the
term was used in the fifteenth century, but he is justly to be ranked
with the men of letters. He was evidently a good linguist, having a
thorough knowledge of French and Flemish, and a sufficient familiarity
with Latin to enable him to print correctly books in that tongue, and
to translate from Latin into English. In his edition of _The Golden
Legend_, in the _Life of S. Roche_ he prints the following record:
“Which lyff is translated oute of latyn in to englysshe by me, Wyllyam
Caxton.” His English style was fluent, and will compare favourably
with that of other writers of the time. In the prologues and epilogues
attached to his translations, he utilised freely (as was the custom
of the time) material from various sources, altering this as he found
convenient, and it is not always easy to distinguish between the pages
that were original with himself and those of which he was simply the
translator. He was able, however, to stamp his own individuality
pretty thoroughly on all the editorial portions of his volumes, and
occasionally, as in the sharp satire of women in the _Dictes and
Sayings of Philosophers_, we find something which seems to be very
definitely an expression of personal opinion.

For poetry Caxton had a cordial appreciation, and he printed the most
noteworthy poems which were within his reach. In his second edition
of _The Canterbury Tales_, he speaks of Chaucer as “the first founder
of ornate eloquence in our English.” In history, the only works at
that time available in English were the _Chronicle of Brute_ and the
_Polychronicon_. To the latter, Caxton himself prepared a continuation,
bringing the narrative down nearly to his own time. Some of the
earlier English authors, in recognition of the value of his work as a
chronicler, class Caxton among the historians, while overlooking his
distinctive service in introducing into England the art of printing.
He was evidently a man of wide reading, and the acquaintance which he
possessed with existing literature must have seemed very exceptional
for his generation. His great delight was in romances, but he takes
pains to tell us that these pleased him not simply for their accounts
of feats of personal prowess, but rather for the examples presented in
them of “courtesy, humanity, friendliness, hardiness, love, cowardice,
murder, hate, virtue, and sin, which inflamed the hearts of the readers
and hearers to eschew and flee works vicious and dishonest.[58]”

In his long and varied business career Caxton appears to have made no
enemies and to have given no grounds for criticism or complaint, and
during the troublous times of civil war he was able, notwithstanding
his intimate relations with some of those high in authority, to
preserve his independence of character and an unsullied record. He was
not a man of genius, nor, perhaps, of the highest ideals; but he showed
imagination, enterprise, and persistent courage. His work was honestly,
intelligently, and effectively done, and his country has good reason to
honour the memory of its first publisher.

=Wynken de Worde.=--Caxton’s successor, Wynken de Worde, was by birth
a Lorrainer, and had accompanied Caxton on his removal from Bruges to
London. He had made good use of his years of preliminary training, and
he was able largely to improve upon Caxton’s printing methods, while
in his publishing undertakings, he had the advantage of a constantly
widening circle of readers of books. His publications comprised no less
than four hundred separate works, covering a wide range of literature.
He does not appear himself to have undertaken any translating or
editorial responsibilities, and in fact no one of the English printers
of the sixteenth century is to be placed in the group of scholars to
which belonged Aldus, Froben, and the Estiennes.

The demand for printed books in England, a demand which had, as we have
seen, antedated the establishment of Caxton’s Press at Westminster, was
much greater than could be satisfied by either Caxton, or his immediate
successors, De Worde and Richard Pynson, and the importation of books
from Paris, Rouen, Bruges, Antwerp, Cologne, and other continental
cities, increased steadily during the last part of the fifteenth
and the first portion of the sixteenth century. Of a number of the
English publications of this period, the editions were printed on the
Continent especially for the English market. Humphreys cites, among
other instances, a series of missals printed in 1516 by Olivier of
Rouen for the church of York, and an edition of the _Chronicles of
England_ printed (in English) in Antwerp, in 1493, by Gerard Leew.[59]
These Rouen missals were among the last of the Roman Catholic books
of service printed abroad for the use of the English churches, as, in
1534, these churches adopted the _Ritual of the Reformation_. The title
of the chronicles reads, “_Chronycles of the Lond of Englond_.”

=Printing in Oxford.=--The second printing-office established in
England was that of Oxford. The authority on the earlier history of
printing in Oxford is the treatise and comprehensive bibliography of
Mr. Madan, published in 1895, under the title of _The Early Oxford
Press_. Some of the earlier historians of the University had claimed
for the Oxford Press an earlier date than that of Caxton’s undertaking.
This claim has rested almost entirely on the date 1468, which appears
in the colophon of a treatise on the Apostles’ Creed, which treatise,
says Madan, was undoubtedly the first product of the Oxford Press.
The authorship of the volume as printed is ascribed to S. Jerome, and
it is so referred to by Humphreys and other writers. Madan points
out, however, that the actual author was Tyranneus Rufinus. It is his
conclusion that the date 1468 (which is nine years earlier than the
date of the first Caxton publication) is undoubtedly an error, and an
error probably due to a single misprint.

The history of this volume came to possess some importance apart
from its relation to the chronology of the English printing-press.
In 1664, Richard Atkyns, a graduate of Balliol, printed in London a
monograph entitled, _The Original and Growth of Printing, Collected
out of History and the Records of this Kingdome. Wherein is also
Demonstrated that Printing Appertaineth to the Prerogative Royal, and
is a Flower of the Crown of England._ It was the purpose of Atkyns to
recommend himself to the attention of King Charles II. by proving that
printing was a royal privilege, and for this purpose it was desirable
that there should be evidence of the introduction of the art into
England under royal protection. The history of the establishment of
the printing-press of Caxton did not give grounds for such a claim.
In this Oxford volume bearing date 1468, Atkyns found, however, the
evidence which could be made to serve his purpose. He goes on to
give in his narrative a story, more or less confused, as to persons
and places, the purport of which was, that at the instance of Thomas
Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, King Henry VI. had taken measures
to bring into the kingdom a “printing-mold.” The King, says Atkyns,
was a “good man and much given to works of this nature.” He was very
ready to further the undertaking, and he provided a considerable
sum of money, to be used for enticing away some of the workmen from
_Harlein in Holland_, where the art had recently been invented by _John
Cuthenberg_. “The money was confided to me, Robert Tournour, Master of
the Robes, who took into his assistance Mr. Caxton, a citizen of good
abilities, who traded much in Holland.” Further details of the journey
to Holland made by Tournour and Caxton are given, with the final
result that they succeeded in getting off one of the under workmen,
whose name was Frederick Corsells (or Corsellis). It was not thought
prudent to set Corsellis to work in London, and he was, therefore,
taken to Oxford, where, according to this theory, he instituted the
first printing-press in England. Atkyns goes on to point out that “This
press at Oxon was at least ten years before there was any printing in
Europe (except at _Harlein_ and _Mentz_) where also it was but new
born.” Later, “the King set up a press at St. Albans and another at
the Abbey of Westminster, where they printed several books of Divinity
and Physics (for the King, for reasons best known to himself and
Council, permitted no law books to be printed), nor did any printer
exercise that art but only such as were the King’s sworn servants;
the King himself having the Price and Emolument for Printing Books.”
For the mixing up in this narrative of Harlem and Koster and Mentz and
Gutenberg, it is to be noted, Atkyns refers, as his authority, to an
old manuscript in Lambeth, which has, however, not been found.

This story of Atkyns is dismissed by Madan (as it had previously been
dismissed by Humphreys and Blades) as a “clumsy forgery.”[60] It is
of interest, however, as indicating the theory of the Crown, or at
least the theory which the Crown was supposed to favour at the time
of Charles II., concerning the relation of the printing-press to the
Crown and the historic foundation for the royal claim to control and
supervise printed literature.

If the corrected date of 1478 be accepted for the _Rufinus_, it still
appears that the work of printing in Oxford began very promptly after
the establishment of the Caxton Press in Westminster. It is further
evident from the comparison of the typography and other manufacturing
details of this first Oxford volume and of its immediate successors,
that the methods and instruction of the Oxford printers were not
derived from London or from Bruges, but are to be connected directly
with the undertakings of the printers of Cologne, and more particularly
with the orifice of Ulrich Zell, whose name has already been referred
to.

The second Oxford publication, bearing an unquestioned date of 1479,
is an edition of a treatise by Bishop Ægidius de Columna, of Rome.
The third work, issued in the same year, was a Latin translation,
prepared by Brunus of Arezzo, of the _Ethics_ of Aristotle. The fourth
publication, issued in 1480, was an edition of the oration of Cicero,
_Pro Milone_. Both Madan and Blades are of opinion that the book
probably belonged to Oxford and to this year, although the evidence is
not conclusive. If the book has been correctly placed, it is the first
Latin classic printed in England, the second being a _Terence_ issued
(in London) in 1497.[61] The work of the first printing-press of Oxford
came to a close suddenly in 1487. The printing at St. Albans ceased at
about the same time. The first printers in Oxford did not connect their
names with their volumes. The name of the printer of the _Rufinus_ and
of the _Ægidius_ has not been traced. The printer of the _Cicero_, and
of some works following the _Cicero_, is identified as Theodoricus Rood
de Colonia. The same name appears in connection with that of Thomas
Hunt (Anglicus) as the printers together, in 1485, of the _Letters
of Phalaris_. Thomas Hunt’s name is recorded in 1473, as that of a
_Universitatis Oxoni Stationarius_. A record has been preserved,
bearing date 1483, in which Sir Thomas Hunt agrees to sell certain
books in Oxford at fixed prices. Madan suggests that the stopping of
the Oxford Press in 1487 may have been due to the departure of Rood for
Cologne, as he finds record of the printing in Cologne in that year of
certain books in a type similar to that used for the preceding Oxford
volumes, by a printer registered as _Theodoricus_.

During the years 1517 and 1518, editions of Burley on _Aristotle_,
Burley’s _Principia_, and three or four other books were printed in
Oxford by Johannes Scolar and Carolus Kyrfoth. These were evidently
Germans, and were probably from Cologne. Three of the works were issued
_cum privilegio_. After 1518, printing ceases in Oxford for nearly
forty years.[62]

=Later English Presses.=--The third place in England in which a
printing-press was established was the Abbey of St. Albans, an abbey
which during the manuscript period had had a long and honourable
association with literary activity. The first book issued from the St.
Albans Press, the _Exempla Sacræ Scripturæ_, bears date 1481. The type
is from the same font, or from a precisely similar font, as that used
in the Caxton volumes of this year, and Humphreys is of opinion that
Caxton was concerned in this St. Albans undertaking. The most famous
publication of the St. Albans Press, which is also printed in what may
be described as a Caxton font of type, is _The Bokys of Haukyng and
Huntyng and also of Cootarmuris_, by Dame Juliana Berners, who was
Prioress of Sopwell Nunnery near St. Albans. This work was printed in
1486, and is frequently referred to as _The Book of St. Albans_.

The beginning of printing in the University of Cambridge was delayed
until about 1520. This was nearly fifty years later than the
establishment of the printing concerns connected with the University of
Paris, and twenty-five years later than the beginning of the series of
editions of the classics issued from the Aldine Press of Venice, which
may properly also be described as the Press of the University of Padua.
The first publication of importance bearing the imprint of Cambridge
University was an edition of Bulloc’s translation of _Lucian_, issued
in 1521.

The business of printing in London took a great development when De
Worde associated with him in the management of the Caxton Press his
assistant Richard Pynson, who had been one of Caxton’s apprentices.
These printers made a large use in their volumes of engraved
illustrations, the blocks for which were in great part imported from
the Continent. Many of these engravings had evidently been prepared
originally for Flemish or German books, and, having been purchased at
second hand, were frequently introduced into English books, without
any regard to their fitness in character, or to any relation to the
text. They were apparently, in fact, utilised not as illustrations but
simply as adornments. This practice of importing illustrations from the
Continent and of scattering them miscellaneously through texts with
which they have no relation, is not unknown among English publishers of
the nineteenth century.

After the death of De Worde, Pynson continued the work of the Caxton
Press with his own imprint. Among the more important of his earlier
issues were the translation of _Froissart_, by Lord Berners, and his
English version of the famous _Navis Stultifera Mortalium_, issued
under the title of _The Shyp of Folys_. Up to the date of about 1490,
the fonts used in the Caxton Press were purchased either in Bruges
or in Cologne. In 1493, Pynson imported some French fonts, which
probably came from Rouen. Lord Berners makes the “Book-fool,” the first
described of the passengers of the _Ship of Fools_, to speak as follows:

    “I am the firste fole of all the whole Navy
    To kepe the pompe, the helme, and eke the sayle;
    And this is my mynde, this one pleasure have I
    Of books to have great plenty, and aparayle
    Yet take no wisdom by them; nor yet avayle,
    Nor them perceyve not.”

“The fole” (whose modern name would, of course, be “bibliomaniac”)
possesses his books, in short, for show, for the repute of having a
library, and for their fine binding:

    “Full Goodly bounde in pleasant Couverture
    Of Damas, satin, or else of velvet pure.”

Pynson did not confine his list to books of satire or of amusement,
although these formed by far the larger proportion of his publications.
He continued the series of chronicles begun by Caxton. In 1516, he
published the _Chronicle Fabyan_, in which Brute, of the regal family
of Priam of Troy, is made the founder of the first colony in the
British Isles. With hardly an exception, the books of both De Worde
and Pynson were very fully illustrated. Their interest in illustrated
texts had been formed in the environment of the Flemish school,
the printers in which seem to have considered that a book without
illustrations was hardly complete. It was of course also the case that
the class of literature selected by the first group of the English
printers was in its subject-matter much more available for illustration
than were the classical texts or the controversial and theological
treatises which were at this time absorbing so large a share of the
attention of the printers in Paris, in Germany, and in Switzerland.

The first Bible published in England was Tyndale’s English version
of the New Testament. This first issue, however, was printed, not in
England, but in Cologne, at the Press of Quentell. Tyndale was by birth
a Welshman. After studying in Oxford and in Cambridge, he sojourned
in Antwerp, and in that city he completed, in the year 1525, with the
assistance of John Fryth and Joseph Royes, his translation of the New
Testament. The supplies of the book when forwarded to London were very
promptly bought up; but as soon as the ecclesiastical authorities had
an opportunity of examining the book, it was put under ban, and all
copies that could be found were seized and destroyed. At the instance
of the Roman Catholic party in England, Tyndale was, in 1536, arrested
at Antwerp, under the authority of the Emperor Charles V., and after
being imprisoned for eighteen months, was burned. A similar fate befell
his assistants, Fryth having been burned at Smithfield, and Royes in
Lisbon. It is not clear from the record at what time the translation by
Tyndale of the Pentateuch was produced, but it appears not to have been
printed until after Tyndale’s death. In 1535, a complete English Bible,
comprising Tyndale’s version of the New Testament and the Pentateuch
and a translation prepared by Coverdale and others, of the remaining
books of the Old Testament, was printed on the Continent, the name of
the printer not being given. Humphreys is in accord with Wanley in the
belief that this Coverdale Bible was printed at Zurich by Christopher
Froschauer. Coverdale utilised, as the basis of his portion of the
translation, the German Bible of Luther, but makes references also to
the Latin Vulgate.

Fortunately for the freedom of the English Press and for the spread of
religious belief through the instruction of the Scriptures, it happened
that, shortly after the completion of the Coverdale Bible, Henry
VIII. wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. I need not here refer to the large
results brought about in connection with this particular preference
of the King. It is sufficient to point out that, with the close of
the supremacy of the papal power in England, and with the addition of
Great Britain to the list of the countries accepting the principles of
the Reformation, the printing and distribution of the English version
of the Scriptures became practicable. It would not be correct to say
that from this date the printing-press in England was free, but it
was the case that it became free for the production of the Protestant
Scriptures and of other Protestant literature, while it was also
the case that the censorship put in force by the authorities of the
English Church never proved as severe, or as serious an obstruction to
publishing, as had been the case with the ecclesiastical censorship of
the Catholics.

The Coverdale Bible contains a series of graphic illustrations, the
designs for which some of the historians have attributed to Holbein.
The work was dedicated to King Henry VIII., and the dedication makes
reference to his “just wyfe and vertouous prencesse Queene Anne.” In
the later editions, the name of Anne is replaced in succession by those
of the later queens.[63]

The Bible known as “Matthews’s” was published in London, in 1537,
by Grafton. This appears to have been the first English Bible that
was published under the authority of the State. A royal license or
privilege for the publication was procured for it by Archbishop
Cranmer, who had interested in the undertaking Thomas Cromwell, Earl of
Essex. Humphreys speaks of Grafton, the English publisher, as having
furnished five hundred pounds for the undertaking, the remaining
portion of the cost being provided by Cranmer and Cromwell. The text
was a combination of Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s. The type is from a
German font, and the work was probably printed in Hesse.[64]

The first English Bible printed in England was the translation by John
Hollybushe, which was issued in 1538 by John Nicholson, in Southwark.
The great Cranmer Bible was printed between 1539 and 1541, by Richard
Grafton and Edward Whitchurch. The funds for its publication were
supplied by Cranmer and Cromwell, and the magnificent illustrations are
ascribed to Holbein. This work is described as the finest specimen of
typography and the best example of artistic and graphic illustrations
that had as yet been published in England. The text contains a number
of variations from that of Tyndale and Coverdale. The first edition
bore on the title-page the arms of Cromwell, but in the second edition,
printed in 1540, these arms were omitted, the Earl having perished on
the scaffold in July, 1540. A separate edition of this Cranmer Bible
was printed in 1539 by John Bydell, under the editorship of the Greek
scholar Taverner. This publication constituted an infringement of the
patent issued to Grafton, but no steps appear to have been taken for
his protection. Grafton continued for some years to be the authorised
publisher for the Reformed Church of England, and he published in 1549
the first authorised Prayer-Book of the Church.

Next to Grafton, the most eminent of the English printer-publishers
of the sixteenth century, was John Day, who has been called the
English Plantin. He greatly improved the Greek and the italic types,
and was the first to make use of Saxon characters. His most important
publication was _The Acts and Monuments of the Church_, by John Fox,
commonly called _Fox’s Book of Martyrs_, issued in 1563. This work
exercised probably a larger influence than any English book of the
century in completing the conversion of England from Romanism to
Protestantism, an influence which continued through the following
centuries. John Fox was a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and after
the death of Queen Mary (during whose reign he had been an exile in
Switzerland) he was made a prebendary in Salisbury. I do not find any
record of his publishing arrangement with Day. The _Book of Martyrs_
came into immediate and continued demand and ought to have brought
to its author large returns. His interest in the undertaking was,
however, evidently in connection with the fight against Rome, and it
is quite probable that he made his literary labour a contribution to
the cause of the Reformation. The book, which was dedicated to Queen
Elizabeth, was printed in excellent style, and the effectiveness of the
long series of dramatic and tragic narratives was very much heightened
by the graphic and well-executed illustrations. Its publication was
evidently considered by the Protestant friends of Day to be the chief
glory of his career. Over his tomb in the village of Bradley Parva, the
following epitaph is inscribed:

    “Here lyes the Daye that darkness could not blinde,
    When Popish fogges had overcast the sonne;
    This Daye the cruel nighte did leave behinde,
    To view and shew what blodi actes were donne.”[65]

The plan and compass of the present work will not permit any detailed
account of the work of the English printers and publishers during the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These centuries were periods
of very great literary activity, and were rendered noteworthy by
the production of some of the greatest works in the literature of
the world. A list of authors which includes such names as those of
Shakespeare, Spenser, Jonson, and Bacon, gives an indication of the
importance as a lasting property of the books of the Elizabethan
writers. The literary productiveness of England came, however, in
advance of any system of law for the protection of literary producers,
and it is probable that neither the writers above specified, nor any
of their contemporaries, secured compensation from the sales of their
books.

Miss Scott,[66] in her scholarly monograph on Elizabethan translations
from the Italian, in referring to the large influence exercised by the
literature of Italy upon the work of the writers of the Elizabethan
age, says that she has “collected more than one hundred and sixty
translations from the Italian, made by ninety translators. The
translators include nearly every well-known Elizabethan author, except
Shakespeare and Bacon.” Apart from the translations, it is evident
that a very liberal use was made by English authors of the time, and
especially by the dramatists, of Italian stories and other literary
material which could be reshaped for the requirements of English
readers. Italy seems in fact to have served as a kind of literary
quarry for the authors of Elizabeth, very much as Greece had done for
the writers of the Augustan age.

The taste for romances appears to have continued without abatement
throughout the sixteenth century, the stories put into print being very
largely translations or free adaptations of French and Italian tales.
It was a period when Italian thought and Italian literary methods
were beginning to exert a very large influence upon both writers and
readers in England. Roger Ascham declaimed against the pernicious
tendencies of the Italian literature in much the same language as has
been used to-day against the influence of French books upon the morals
of English readers. From Paynter’s _Palace of Pleasure_, printed in
1561, which contained a series of studies from French and Italian
authors, were derived the plots of several of Shakespeare’s plays,
including that of _Romeo and Juliet_.[67] Certain of these volumes
secured what can be described as a popular success. _The Goodli History
of the Ladye Lucres of Scene in Tuskane and of her Lover Eurialus_, a
translation from the _Æneas Piccolomini_, went through twenty-three
editions in the fifteenth century and was eight times translated.[68] I
do not find record of the names of the fortunate publishers, but it is
not probable that the publisher who arranged for the translation first
issued, was able to keep his version from being appropriated by others.

Mr. Furnivall cites a curious list of books which, in 1575, were
recorded as the property of a man of the lower-middle class, a mason
by trade,--such a man, remarks Jusserand, as would have been an
average member of a Shakespearian audience. The titles include _Kyng
Arthurz Book_, _Huon of Burdeaus_, _The Foour Suns of Aymion_, _Bevis
of Hampton_, _Lucres and Eurialus_, and a number of other illustrated
romances.[69]

English readers of the time were not only interesting themselves in
translations from the Italian, but were evidently to some extent
prepared to read their Italian literature in the original. Among the
books of which editions printed in Italian were issued in London in the
latter part of the sixteenth century, was the _Pastor Fido_ of Guarini,
published in 1590.[70]

During the lifetime of Shakespeare, there were published of his
no less than seventy-two separate original works, plays and poems,
the first in date being _Venus and Adonis_, in 1593, and the last,
_The Rape of Lucrece_, in 1616. A number of these volumes reached a
third or fourth edition, and, notwithstanding the lack of adequate
book-selling machinery, the sales of many of them appear to have been
considerable. The authorities on the life of Shakespeare are, however,
I believe, in substantial accord in the conclusion that the author
secured from these sales no direct benefit, and that the independent
fortune accumulated by him was derived from his pay as an actor, from
the interest later possessed by him in the business of the theatre, and
probably, also, from some recognition on the part of the performing
companies of the author’s right to a share of the profits earned by
his plays. Shakespeare apparently benefited by stage-right if not by
copyright. The seventy-two publications above referred to include only
those which, having been duly entered for copyright, may be described
as “authorised.” There are various references to unauthorised editions,
but no record of any one of these having been suppressed. The first
issue of _Venus and Adonis_, printed by Richard Field, was certainly
authorised, as it contained a dedication by the author. The copyright
was registered in the name of Field, while the book was published by
John Harrison. A diary of the time speaks of the selling price as being
twelve pence.[71] _Lucrece_, published in its first edition in the year
following, was, like the earlier book, dedicated by the author to the
Earl of Southampton, and was likewise printed by Field for Harrison.
We find from this time an increasing tendency to separate the business
of printing from that of publishing, while the copyright entry is
nearly always made in the name of the printer. _The Comedy of Errors_,
printed in 1594, was entered as belonging to the Lord Chamberlain’s
company, that to which Shakespeare was at the time attached. It
was the case with other, though not with all, of the plays, that the
copyright was vested in the company for which they had been written.
The first publisher who secured copyright in a play of Shakespeare’s
was Andrew White, who, in 1597, made entry of _Richard the Second_.
Neither in this case nor in that of the long list of other printers
and publishers who, during the lifetime of the author, “claimed
copie” in Shakespeare’s writings, does it appear by what authority
they undertook to control such “copie.” While there may possibly in
the case of the plays have been assignments or authorisations on the
part of the theatre company, there is, I understand, no record of, or
specific reference to, any such assignments. The first collection of
Shakespeare’s plays for which any measure of completeness was claimed,
was presented in the well-known folio of 1623, the publication of which
was supervised by Heminge and Condell, who had been fellow actors with
the dramatist. It does not appear what compensation, if any, the two
editors secured for their labours from printer or from publisher.

In order to find an instance of the payment of “copy money” for an
original work, we must look forward sixty years later than the death
of Shakespeare. The oft cited agreement between Milton and the printer
Samuel Simmons, which was executed in April, 1667, is possibly the
earliest of the kind in the history of publishing in England. Under
this agreement, the copyright of _Paradise Lost_ was assigned for a
present payment of five pounds, with the obligation for a further
payment of the same amount when 1300 copies had been sold. The
agreement authorised the printing of a second and a third edition (no
limit being fixed for the number of copies in either) on the payment,
at the time of each printing, of the further sum of five pounds. The
author received before his death ten pounds in all, and his widow
later relinquished for the sum of eight pounds all further right in
the “copy.” The first impression of the poem had not been sold at the
expiration of seven years, and trivial as the honorarium to the author
certainly was, it is probable, as Sir Walter Scott remarks, that the
publisher did not make much by his bargain.

As an example of a more remunerative transaction, may be cited, among
others, the arrangement between Dryden and the publisher Tonson for
the poet’s translation of _Virgil_, an undertaking from which Dryden
received nearly £1300. The date of the agreement was 1695, less than
thirty years later than the date of the sale of _Paradise Lost_. We
are now, however, approaching the period of copyright law, while it
was the case that during the last years of the seventeenth century,
the printer-publishers of the Stationers’ Company appear to have been
sufficiently powerful, in advance of copyright statutes, to secure
for their “copies” a substantial measure of protection, and thus to
maintain the common-law property rights assigned to them by their
authors.

The earliest catalogue of books published in England contains a list
“of all books printed in England since the dreadful fire, 1666, to
the end of Trinity term, 1680.” The statistical results of this
catalogue of the productions of the press for fourteen years have been
ascertained. The whole number of books printed was 3550; of which 947
belonged to divinity, 420 to law, 153 to physic; 397 were school-books.
About one-half of these works were single sermons and tracts. Deducting
the reprints, pamphlets, single sermons, and maps, it is estimated
that, upon an average, 100 new books were produced in each year.[72]
This average, which is based upon the estimate of Knight, does not,
however, give an accurate impression of the actual production of each
year,--the output of the later years of the series being much more
considerable than of those immediately succeeding the fire.




[Illustration]

CHAPTER VII.

THE KOBERGERS OF NUREMBERG.

1440-1540.


ANTHONI KOBERGER (the elder), who for a number of years held the
position of the leading publisher of his time, came of an old Nuremberg
family. One of his ancestors had been a burgomaster of Nuremberg as
far back as 1349, and took an active part at that time in a successful
effort to overthrow the rule of the nobles over the city, and, during
the two centuries following, the Kobergers continued to be leading
citizens.

Anthoni was born about 1440, or ten years before the completion of
Gutenberg’s printing-press. He was probably brought up as a jeweller,
an occupation in which in the later years of his life he was again
interested, but in 1472, he devoted himself to the new art of printing,
and in 1473 he issued the first volume, bearing a date, which is
certainly identified as his. The work chosen was one of the great books
of the world’s literature, _Boethii Liber de Consolatione Philosophiæ
cum Commentario Thomæ de Aquino_, a dignified and judicious selection
with which to initiate the publishing undertakings of the Kobergers,
and one which was fairly representative of the general character of
their subsequent issues.

Albert Dürer, whose original trade was that of a goldsmith, had served
as godfather for Anthoni Koberger, and Anthoni’s eldest son was
apprenticed to Dürer. There was a close connection, in Germany as well
as in Italy, between the earlier book illustrators and the goldsmiths
and other artificers in metals, and not a few of the first designers
and engravers, together with some of the best of the printers, came,
like Dürer, from the ranks of the metal-workers.

The first printing-office in Nuremberg had been established in 1470, by
Heinrich Kefer, of Mayence (who had been an assistant of Gutenberg), in
company with Sensenschmid from Eger, and their first publication was a
tract on the Song of Solomon, by Dr. Gerson, Chancellor of Paris, who
had died in 1429. It was very exceptional for printers of this time to
begin their operations with a work by a contemporary or recent writer.

Anthoni’s active work as a publisher continued until about 1513. His
contemporary, Johann Neudorffer, writing about 1509, says that he was
then employing about twenty-four presses, with over a hundred workmen,
the latter comprising compositors, pressmen, binders, correctors,
illuminators, and designers.[73] All of these, says Neudorffer, were
provided with their meals by their employer, in a building apart from
the works, and they were obliged to go between the two buildings at
regular hours and with military discipline. It is noteworthy to find
so fully organised and disciplined a book-manufacturing concern within
half a century after the beginning of printing, and we may fairly
assume that the founder was a man of distinctive character and ability.

In the actual number of separate works issued, Koberger was possibly
equalled by one or more of his contemporaries, but in respect to
literary importance and costliness, and in the beauty and excellence
of the typography, the Koberger publications were not equalled by
any books of the time excepting the issues of Aldus in Venice. He
did not limit his publishing undertakings to the works printed from
his own presses, but gave contracts for the printing of a number of
important publications to printers in other cities. In 1525, for
instance, Grüninger of Strasburg prints for Koberger the translation
by Pirckheimer of the _Geography_ of Ptolemy, and Amerbach of Basel,
who had begun his work as a corrector with Koberger, printed for him,
later, a number of works.

Koberger’s correspondence shows that he had agents or active
representatives not only in the other book-centres of the empire, such
as Frankfort, Leipzig, Vienna, Basel, Strasburg, and Cologne, but in
more distant cities, with which business interchange must, during the
first years of the sixteenth century, have been subject to serious
risks and to many interruptions, such as Paris, Buda-Pesth, Warsaw,
Venice, Florence, Rome, Antwerp, Bruges, and Leyden. In this matter
of organising connections and distributing machinery throughout the
Continent, Koberger had a decided advantage over his great contemporary
Aldus, who found, as we have seen, no little difficulty in maintaining
permanent satisfactory arrangements for the distribution of his books
north of the Alps. Aldus was obliged to depend chiefly upon his direct
correspondence with individual buyers among the scholars of Europe,
but Koberger secured larger results by utilising the services of the
book-trade, the organisation of which in Germany and France was now
taking shape. He was himself, in fact, a bookseller as well as a
publisher and printer, selling both to the book-trade and at retail,
and he was the first of the booksellers of Germany, and possibly of
Europe, to issue a classified catalogue of current publications. Kapp
describes his book-shop as the best equipped repository for standard
literature (_Sortiments-Buchhandlung_), in Germany. Possessing full
knowledge and experience of all divisions of book-making and of
book-selling, Koberger was in a position to take an active part in
furthering the organisation of the German book-trade, of which for a
number of years he was recognised as the natural leader.

One of the results of the Reformation had been, as will be noted in the
chapter on Luther, to transfer the centre of literary activity from
the south to the north of Germany. Previous to this time, Nuremberg
had been conveniently enough located for the publishing trade and for
the distribution of books, but, if it had not been for the energy
and enterprise of Koberger, it would doubtless have been very much
outclassed in the importance of its book-trade by some one of the
cities possessing facilities for water transportation. Koberger appears
not to have been a bigoted Romanist, but his sympathies were on the
whole with the Church party, and his theological publications, which
formed by far the most important portion both of his undertakings
and of his retail stock, were nearly all in line with conservative
Catholic theology. The sales of all the older theological works, the
writings of the Fathers, etc., were very much lessened by the effects
of the Reformation, and, after the Reform doctrine had begun to take
root in Nuremberg, this division of the business of the Kobergers was
materially interfered with. Notwithstanding the very considerable
demand that came up in Nuremberg for the writings of the Reformers, the
imprint of Anthoni Koberger appears never to have been associated with
any of these.

In order to indicate the general character of his undertakings, I give
the titles of some of the more characteristic of his publications.
I omit half a dozen volumes issued prior to 1473, which have not
certainly been identified as Koberger’s.

    1473. “Boethii Liber de Consolatione Philosophiæ, c. comm. Thomæ de
    Aquino.” (Reprinted four or five times later.)

    1474. “Duns Scoti, in quartum librum sententiarum.”

    1475. “Thomæ de Aquino, glossa continua super quatuor Evangelistas
    Biblia Latina.”

    1477. “Walteri Burley, Libellus de Vita et Moribus Philos. et
    Poetarum.”

    “Biblia Latina.”

    1478. “Biblia Latina.” (Printed twice in this year.)

    “Antonini Summæ Theologicæ, pars prima.”

    “Ludolphi Carthusiensis, Vita Christi.”

    1479. Gritsch, Joannis, “Quadragesimale.”

    1480. “Biblia Latina.”

    Duranti, Gulielmi, “Rationale Divinorum Officiorum.”

    Petrus Daubussen. “Relatio de Obsidione Urbis Rhodiæ.”

    1481. “Biblia Latina cum postillis.” Nicolai de Lyra, 4 vols.

    “Duns Scoti, in quatuor libros. Sententiarum Petri Lombardi.”

    “Æneæ Sylvii Epistolæ.”

    1482. “Biblia Latina.”

    “Clementis Papæ V. Constitutiones c. apparatu.”

    “Alexandri de Ales Summæ Theologicæ pars prima, pars tertia, pars
    quarta.”

    “Justiniani pandectarum opus. Digestum vetus Glossatum.”

    1483. “Die Deutsche Bibel, mit Bildern.” This was the version which
    preceded Luther’s by about a third of a century.

    “Hugonis de Prato Sermones Dominicales Super Evangelia et epist.”

    “Vincentii Belluacensis Speculum Historiale.”

    “Vincentii Belluacensis Speculum Naturale.”

    1484. “Antonini Opus Historiarum seu Chronicarum Tribus const.
    part.”

    1485. “Biblia Latina cum postillis, Nicolai de Lyra.”

    “Fortalitium Fidei Contra Judæos, Hæreticos et Saracenos.”

    1486. “Justiniani Institutiones cum glossa.”

    “Gratiani Decretum.”

    “Breviarum Romanorum,” C. Calend.

    1487. “Meffreth”, “Hortulus Reginæ seu Sermones de temp. et de
    Sanctis.”

    1488. “Justiniani Imperatoris Codex repetitæ prælectionis cum
    glossa.”

    1491. “Antonini Opus Historiarum seu Chronicarum.”

    1492. “Summa Angelica de Casibus.” “Conscientiæ P. Angelum de
    Clavastio.”

    “P. Virgilii Maronis Opera cum Comment. diversis.”

    “Vocabularius Utriusque Juris.”

    1493. “Gregorii IX. Decretales cum summariis.”

    “Gesta Romanorum.” The first printed edition.

    1494. “Psalterium Brunonis.”

    1495. “Hieronymi Epistolarum omnes partes.”

    1496. “Heinrici Institoris tractatus varii contra quatuor Errores
    novissime exortos adv. Diviniss. Eucharistiæ Sacram.”

    “Guillermi postilla in Epistolas Pauli et Evangelia.”

    “Gregorii IX. libri quinque Decretalium.”

    “Guillermi Opera de Fide, Legibus etc.”

    “Guillermus de Universo.”

    “Thesaurus Novus Sermonum de Tempore.”

    “Thomæ de Aquino Summæ Theologiæ tres partes.”

    1497. “Marsilii Ficinii Epistolæ.”

    “Ciceronis Opera.”

    “Juvenalis Satiræ.”

    1498. “Alexandri Doctrinalis Partes quatuor de verborum significat.”

    “Vocabularis Breviloquus.” Joh. Reuchlin.

    “Summa Angelica de casibus Conscientiæ p. Angelum de Clavasio.”

    1499. “Wann, Pauli, Sermones de Tempore.”

    “Johannis de Friburgo Summa Confessorum.”

    1500. “Revelationes S. Birgittæ.”

    “Mariæ Virginis Privilegiæ et Prærogativæ.”

    “Alexandri Doctrinalis tertia et quarta partes.”

    1501. “Biblia Latina.”

    “Jacobi de Voragine Historia Lombardica.”

    1502. “Das Buch der Himmlischen Offenbarung der heil. Wittiben
    Birgitta.” One of the very few German volumes from Anthoni’s press.

    1503. Justiniani Pandectarum opus.

    1504. “Biblia cum postilla Hugonis.” 7 vols. Printed by Amerbach.
    The commentaries were those of Cardinal Hugo, written in the latter
    part of the thirteenth century. This was, in point of labour and
    costliness, the most important undertaking of Koberger.

    “Volumen de Tortis” (Justiniani authenticæ seu novellæ
    constitutiones).

    1509. “Hortulus Animæ.”

    1511. “Biblia Latina.”

    1512. “Augustini Tractatus Super Evangelium Johannis.”

    “Augustini Liber Epistolarum.”

The total list for the forty years from 1473 to 1513, in which year
Anthoni Koberger died, aggregates no less than two hundred and
thirty-six separate works. These were nearly all in large octavo or
quarto form, and the larger number comprised several volumes. The most
considerable and the most costly undertaking was the Hugo Bible issued
in eight volumes. Anthoni issued in all no less than fifteen issues or
impressions of the Scriptures. A very large proportion of his books
were, as the selection indicates, devoted to theology, and the list
includes a number of collections of sermons and tracts (always in
Latin text) by writers whose names are known otherwise little or not at
all. It is possible that the cost of the printing of these was in some
cases borne by the divines who were responsible for them, but there is
no reference in the record of Koberger’s business to any publications
“for the author’s account.” It is not easy to understand how it was
practicable, within half a century of the beginning of printing, to
build up a publishing machinery adequate for the effective distribution
of such a collection of solid literature. In fact, a publisher of
to-day, whether in Germany or elsewhere, would hardly venture to base
his business upon such a series of heavy books.

During the forty years of his work, Anthoni’s imprint appears upon but
three publications in German. The number of classical editions is also
much smaller than is usual with the publishing lists of the period. In
planning his big series of Latin tomes, Koberger was addressing himself
to scholars, and only to scholars of the orthodox Catholic faith.
The production of editions of the pagan writers he left to his great
contemporary, Aldus of Venice, and to Badius of Paris. The latter, in
the preface to his edition of the _Letters of Politian_, refers to
Koberger as “that glorious Nuremberger ... esteemed by honourable men
everywhere as the prince of booksellers ... the man who conducted his
business with the most exact integrity, and with the highest ideals ...
with whom the production and distribution of good books was carried on
as a sacred trust.”[74]

Conrad Leontorius, a Cistercian monk, and the well-known Jacob
Wimpfeling, both speak of Koberger as “a true Humanist,” which
is evidence that, notwithstanding his theological interests and
associates, Koberger was by no means to be classed with the narrow or
bigoted Romanists. A man who stood in intimate friendly relations with
such leaders of liberal thought as Conrad Celtes, Albert Dürer, and
Pirckheimer, must himself have possessed some intellectual breadth and
distinctiveness. Koberger had a full mastery of Latin, which was, in
fact, a first requirement for any publisher of scholarly literature,
but with Greek his acquaintance appears to have been limited. He did
not venture upon any such serious editorial responsibilities with his
publications as those undertaken by Aldus, and later by the Estiennes,
but he appears to have possessed excellent judgment in the selection
of scholarly editions and advisers. One of Koberger’s associates
emphasises “his enormous capacity for persistent work, the far-seeing
and wide-reaching enterprise, the conscientious regard for the rights
of others, the large conceptions and the careful attention to details,
the keen sense of humour, and genial and cheerful manner,”[75]
qualities which must certainly have formed an exceptionally
advantageous combination for an effective business career. His
correspondents in Basel speak of him with a cordial affection which
indicated a closer relation than that of mere business, and further
evidence of such friendship is afforded, after the death in Basel of
his old associate Amerbach, by the care given by Koberger to Amerbach’s
children. In 1500, the Emperor Maximilian writes to “our trusty Anthoni
Koberger, whose great service entitles him to honour, alike from
ourselves and from the realm.”

Koberger seems to have had the all-valuable faculty of making many
friends and no enemies. He was valued by the Catholics as a most
serviceable ally and representative, while by not a few of the
Reformers he was regarded as a personal friend, and in all the bitter
controversies of the time (the years immediately preceding the
Reformation) there appear never to have been any harsh expressions used
concerning the Nuremberg publisher. It is true, however, that it was
not until after Koberger’s death that the religious contests developed
into their fiercer phase.

The most important work on the foregoing list of Anthoni’s publications
was, as said, the edition of Cardinal Hugo’s Bible, in eight volumes
folio. This work was undertaken in co-operation with Koberger’s friend
Amerbach in Basel, and the volumes were printed in Basel. The plan of
the publication had, however, originated with Koberger, and the larger
portion of the very considerable investment required for its production
was supplied by him. The Hugo, whose notes and commentaries formed the
basis for this edition, had been born at St. Cher in Dauphiné, about
the year 1200. He was for a time an inmate of the Dominican cloister
of S. Jacob, but, later, became an instructor in the Theological
Faculty of the University of Paris. He prepared a revised text of the
Vulgate, known as the _Correctorium Bibliæ_, which was never printed,
but which was afterwards utilised in the preparation of what was known
as the Bible of the Sorbonne. The work published by Koberger had been
written about 1240, under the title _Postilla in Universa Biblia juxta
Quadruplicem Sensum_. It was used for two centuries (of course in
manuscript form) as one of the theological text-books of the Sorbonne,
but the codex from which Amerbach’s type-setters did their work was
secured from the Cistercian monastery in Heilsbronn.

Hugo was made a cardinal by Pope Innocent IV., and died in Italy in
1263. The text of the Scriptures as revised by him, together with his
notes, were utilised by Luther and by a number of the later editors
and translators of the Scriptures, and the enterprise of Koberger in
preserving this text in printed form was, from a scholarly point of
view, fully justified. As a commercial venture, the undertaking was,
however, a mistake, the sales not proving sufficient to return the very
considerable outlay. The Greek Testament of Erasmus, and the Lutheran
versions of the New and of the Old Testaments, while not the only
editions of the Scriptures which proved remunerative publications,
were certainly very noteworthy exceptions as to the extent of their
popularity and of their commercial value.

Koberger’s publishing catalogue had included, as said, no less than
fifteen impressions of the _Biblia Latina_, eight of which presented
material differences of notes and commentaries which entitled them
to be described as distinct editions. In addition to these, he
interested himself in keeping in stock, and in describing in his
_Sortiments-Catalog_, examples of all the noteworthy issues of the
Bible as yet in print. These included the four-volume Bible printed
in Strasburg, 1478-1480, containing the commentary of Walafrid Strabo
(dating from 849) and the notes of Anselm of Laon, written in 1117,
the Lyons editions of Castellanus and of Gradibus, and the several
issues of Froben and others in Basel. The characteristic feature of
all the editions of the Scriptures preceding the Reformation was the
long series of notes and commentaries. Luther took the ground that the
words of God in Holy Writ had been so overlaid and overweighted with
the comments of men that their true purport was in danger of being lost
sight of or not properly apprehended. In Luther’s Bible, therefore,
the bold innovation was adopted of printing the text of the Scriptures
without note or commentary.

In the year 1483, the year in which Luther was born, Koberger published
his German Bible. The text was translated from the Latin of the
Vulgate, and was illustrated with woodcuts. I have not been able to
ascertain what was the German idiom used for this version, but it
was a form that never took any permanent place in the literature of
the country. Luther, referring to the Nuremberg Bible, declared that
“no one could speak German of this outlandish kind.”[76] Two German
versions of the Bible had been published before this of Koberger, one
in Strasburg and one in Cologne. They were both based on the Vulgate,
and neither was complete. Some years after the death of Anthoni
Koberger, his nephew Johannes issued the first Nuremberg editions
of Luther’s version of the New Testament and of the Psalms. Both
volumes were printed by Friedrich Peypus, and both were illustrated by
woodcuts. The fonts of type were the same as those used in Anthoni’s
Bible of 1483. The imperial edict and the ecclesiastical censure do
not appear to have been effective in preventing the sale through South
Germany, in the usual channels, of these Nuremberg editions. I have
not been able to find record of any correspondence between Johannes
Koberger and Luther in regard to these editions. In 1525, Luther made
overtures to Melchior Koberger concerning publishing arrangements
for the Lutheran books in South Germany, and suggested using his
book-shop in Wittenberg as a depot for the Koberger publications. The
negotiations came to nothing however. The activity of the House appears
by that time to have been exhausted.[77]

Anthoni Koberger had born to him no less than twenty-five children, and
it appeared, therefore, as if there should have been no difficulty in
perpetuating the family name or in carrying on the work which had made
the name famous. The publishing concern was continued, however, only
until 1540, first by his nephew Johannes, and later by his sons Anthoni
and Melchior. With the death of the founder, however, the energy and
the initiative of the House appear to have departed, and, during the
succeeding twenty-seven years, but fifty-three works were added to
the list of its publications. These additions included a number of
impressions of the _Biblia Latina_, editions of _S. Augustine_, _S.
Ambrose_, and _Fulgentius_, and the _Geography_ of Ptolemy, edited
by Pirckheimer. The last work bearing the Koberger imprint was the
_Bohemian Bible_, issued by Melchior in 1540. This was printed for
him by Melchtaler, and, according to Hase, was not so much a business
undertaking as a contribution made by Melchior to the cause of the
Bohemian Brothers, a sect in the teachings of which he had interested
himself.

The fact that the first place in their undertakings was given by the
Kobergers to editions of the Bible is the more exceptional, as, in the
theological instruction of the time, the Scriptures certainly occupied
no such place, and, for the thirty years following 1493, the Kobergers
were the representative theological publishers of Germany. As their
catalogue shows, however, they added to their long series of Bibles the
chief works, first, of the Fathers of the Church, and, later, of the
great scholastic writers. The editions of _S. Ambrose_, _S. Augustine_,
_S. Jerome_, and _S. Chrysostom_, have already been referred to. Of
these works there were, however, other, if less desirable, editions
already in print. Among the authors first presented in printed form
through the enterprise of the Nuremberg publishers were Petrus
Lombardius (d. 1164), Hugo of St. Victor (d. 1141), Alexander of Hales
(d. 1245), Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Bonaventura (d. 1274), and Duns
Scotus (d. 1308).

The authoritative works on Canonical Law were issued from the Koberger
Press, together with the series of Papal Decretals of Gregory IX.,
Boniface VIII., and Clement V. A much smaller measure of attention was
given by him to classic writers, but his list included an edition of
_Selections from the Teachings of Plato_, prepared by Alkinous, and the
_Introduction to Aristotle_ of Porphyry. A work which has retained a
longer vitality than any of the writings of the above formidable series
of scholars is the collection of monkish tales, probably compiled
in the thirteenth century, and known as the _Gesta Romanorum_, the
first printed edition of which was issued by Koberger in 1494. In the
year 1518 (that is, five years after the death of Anthoni), there
was published from the Koberger Press the _Germania_ of Franciscus
Irenicus, which included a special chapter on Nuremberg, contributed by
Conrad Celtes. Hase speaks of this as the first noteworthy attempt to
present German national history from a popular and patriotic standpoint.

The catalogues of nearly all of the publishers whose work was done
within the half century succeeding Gutenberg were devoted to what
would to-day be described as “heavy” literature. The most noteworthy
exception to this statement is the list of publications issued by
Caxton in London, between 1476 and 1492, a list which included hardly
any “solid” books. The long lists of folios of scholastic writings give
to the student of to-day the impression that these first publishers
felt a very serious responsibility indeed in connection with the use
of this “God-given art” of printing, and would have considered the use
of the printing-press for frivolous literature as a kind of breach
of trust. This description would, however, apply with exceptional
force to the undertakings of the first Koberger, whose name appears
to have been associated with no work more trifling than the famous
_Gesta Romanorum_, which, while indeed to be described as fiction,
was fiction of a very pious character and purpose. The catalogue of
Koberger constituted, in fact, a very good representation of the
foundations of scholarly Catholicism. The Catholic teachers, who rested
their contention for the supremacy of the Roman Church upon history
and tradition as interpreted for fifteen centuries by the scholars of
the Church, depended for the material of their teachings upon such
folios as those produced by Koberger. Weighty as were these folios,
and assured as appeared to be the foundations upon which the great
structure of ecclesiasticism had been raised, their instruction was
undermined, and their authority, for a large portion at least of the
community, was overthrown a little later by the influence of the widely
circulated pamphlets and sheets, the _Flugschriften_, which brought to
the people the teachings of the Reformers.

For the years between 1517 and 1532, the contest for the control of
German thought and of German faith was fought out very largely by means
of the productions of the printing-press, and with these productions
the fight was between the folios and the pamphlets, the former standing
for the traditional faith of the Church Universal, and the latter
for the doctrines of the Reformers. In North Germany the victory
rested with the pamphlets. Anthoni Koberger’s death occurred before
the beginning of this new epoch of thought and of this new phase of
publishing. His work had been completed during the age of orthodox
scholarship, the authority of which, previous to 1513, had hardly been
seriously questioned.

Jacob Wimpfeling, a Humanist, who was also an orthodox Catholic,
writing in 1501, says (in a phrase which is curiously akin to the
expressions from the Berlin or Leipzig of to-day): “We Germans
practically control the intellectual world. We use our power and our
influence for the service of God, for the care of souls, and for the
development of the people.... It is for this work that we owe the
largest acknowledgment for the service of a man like Koberger, who
employs his publishing facilities only for the production of that which
is best.”

At about the same date Amerbach writes to Koberger: “You have never
printed anything that is worldly or frivolous; your books are all of
righteous and godly literature. For the support of the true faith and
for the development of godly scholarship, you have brought before the
world the books which are the most trustworthy and authoritative, the
books which have stood the test of time.”[78]

It was to Koberger’s business advantage that the fiercer strife of
the Reformation was delayed until his own career was at an end. As
already indicated, the religious controversies and the strife which
they engendered interfered seriously with the demand for existing
literature. The lists of the German publishers of the first decade of
the sixteenth century, were devoted almost exclusively to editions
of the Fathers and to works of doctrine or of devotion prepared for
Catholic readers, together with editions of certain selected classics.
The Lutheran movement lessened to a very great extent the demand for
these three classes of books. With such burning issues before them as
were presented by the leaders on either side of the great controversy,
the people no longer had leisure for pagan writers or for old-time
theological writings. While large numbers were absorbed in the tracts
coming from Wittenberg, the others whose sympathies and belief remained
with the Church of Rome were more interested in the pamphlets of
writers like Eck or Cochläus, than in the _Confessions_ of S. Augustine
or the treatises of S. Jerome. The publishers heretofore devoted to
theology, who were unwilling to place their imprints upon the works of
the Lutherans, and who were also out of sympathy with the bitter and
often by no means scholarly pamphlets of their opponents, found their
business seriously undermined by the great contest which was dividing
Germany. While the Reformation did very much to increase the demand for
printed material and to further the business of a number of publishers
and booksellers throughout Germany, it had a disastrous effect upon the
business of the Kobergers, and was an important factor in bringing that
business to a close.

A further important cause of the weakening of the foundations of the
concern was the impairment of the capital, caused by the withdrawal
from year to year of the amounts due to the long series of heirs, but
few of whom were prepared to retain any interest in the book business.
Several of the sons and grandsons returned to the old occupation of the
Kobergers, and became workers in gold and silver.

Anthoni Koberger had, in common with the other printers of Germany,
followed Gutenberg in adopting for his type the style that we describe
as Gothic, but for which the German writers of the time use the term
_fractur_. In 1492, however, he used for his edition of _Virgil_ a
type based upon a Venetian model, similar to that in use at this
time by the father-in-law of Aldus. It is probable that the most
distinctive contribution which had been made by Gutenberg to the work
of book-printing was the discovery of a method of making type by
casting. The art of cutting or engraving letters and other symbols
was, of course, no new thing. The technical training of Fust, himself
a goldsmith and stamp-cutter, was doubtless of material service in
connection with the development of the manufacture of type, as well as
in the production of designs for initials and tail-pieces. Nuremberg
had long been a centre for skilled artificers in metals, gold, silver,
and copper, and their services were largely made use of by Koberger and
other of the earlier printers.

One result of utilising the letters of known scribes as models for
the fonts of type was to secure for each font a very distinctive
individuality of its own. Luther was, for instance, able to claim that
through the special character of his Wittenberg type, modelled on the
script of his own scribes, the authorised editions of his books could
be identified, and could be guaranteed as correct and complete.[79] The
fonts in Koberger’s printing-office did not include any Greek text,
and in the edition of _Boëthius_, issued by him in 1576, which was in
other respects a beautiful piece of typography, the lines of quotations
from the Greek were left blank, to be filled in by hand. Very few of
the German printers of the time possessed any Greek fonts. While Latin
was their working language, the newly revised or newly discovered
Greek had for them still an unfamiliar aspect. Thomas Anshelm, writing
from Hagenau in 1518, says of one of Koberger’s younger authors: “His
style is bad; he is bringing in too much Greek.” Hans Grüninger, of
Strasburg, who took charge for Koberger of the printing of the great
_Geography_ of Ptolemy, found no little difficulty with the Greek
terms. He writes to the editor, Pirckheimer: “The Greek is very
troublesome, and is costing me altogether too much.” Pirckheimer on
his part complains: “Koberger promised me that there should be a full
supply of Greek type, and I find out only now, in reading the proofs,
that your type has neither accents nor points.” In the printing
of Greek, the publishers of Venice and of Paris were at this time
considerably in advance of their German contemporaries.

The leading German publishers of Koberger’s generation were fortunate
in having at hand a number of scholars who were ready to render service
in the selection and editing of manuscripts, in the collating of
texts, and in the supervision of the work of the typesetters. In the
beginning of the sixteenth century, a man who was competent to fill
the office described in the publishing records as “press-corrector,”
required to possess a varied and comprehensive scholarship. A mastery
of Latin was an acquirement so usual as not in itself to constitute
any claim to scholarly attainment. With this knowledge, it was,
however, essential, at a time when so large a proportion of the works
printed belonged to the class of theology, for the corrector to be
versed in Hebrew and in Greek. As the typesetters were collected from
different parts of Europe, it was also convenient, if not necessary,
for the man who supervised their work to possess a working knowledge,
at least, of German, French, Italian, and Dutch. The selection and
collation of manuscripts, with the purpose of securing a fairly correct
“copy” for the printed text, called for a certain measure of skill in
palæography, and also necessitated such familiarity with the classic
writers or Church Fathers as would enable the more evident blunders of
the scribes to be corrected by the general sense of the context. It
was not unusual, as the records of various of the earlier publishing
offices show, to utilise as the basis of the printed text half a
dozen, or occasionally as many as a dozen manuscripts, in which case
the preparation of the final “copy” for the typesetters rested with
the correctors. Among the scholarly associates who did work of this
kind for the Press of Koberger, were his friend Amerbach, of Basel;
Professor Frissner, of Leipzig; Pirckheimer, of Nuremberg; Von Wyle,
Wimpfeling, and Beckenhaub. The last named was an ecclesiastic from
Mayence.

Among the responsibilities that came upon the correctors was that of
visiting the libraries or monasteries where famous manuscripts were
preserved, and of arranging, when practicable, for the hire or the loan
of such manuscripts. When, as was frequently the case, the custodians
were unwilling to permit their parchments to go out of their hands, the
transcripts for the use of the typesetters had to be prepared (often
with considerable difficulty) in the place where the manuscript was
stored--sometimes even on the old _armarium_ (or library chest) to
which the parchment was chained. Some of these transcripts were made
by the correctors themselves. From time to time, when it did not seem
practicable to arrange for the copying, we find the publishers offering
for the original manuscripts prices which, under modern calculations,
seem to be exorbitant, and which must have constituted a very serious
addition indeed to the risk of these earlier publishing undertakings.

Pirckheimer writes to Hans Koberger, in 1520, concerning a manuscript
of Fulgentius: “They told me in the first place that it absolutely
could not be bought, but finally, after increasing our offer step by
step to a sum that I am almost afraid to report to you, I managed
to bring the volume away with me.” In September, 1485, Busch writes
from Italy to Amerbach, who is acting on behalf of Koberger: “I am
sending to you with this what I believe to be a magnificent copy of
the _Institutes_ (of Cassian), the text of which has been carefully
collated. This parchment must be preserved with exceptional care, as,
if a single spot should come upon it, we should be liable for heavy
damages. It must be returned to me not later than S. Martin’s Day,
and the transcribing must be done in your own house, from which the
parchment must not be taken.”

Busch appears to have continued to perform this class of service for
Koberger, for we find him, ten years later (in May, 1495), writing
again as follows: “I have succeeded in getting hold of a beautiful copy
of _Hugo_. I am not allowed to remove the manuscript, but am having
transcripts prepared from it. I have three good writers employed in
the work, who are able to turn out each six _quaternes_ a week.” The
_Hugo_ here referred to was the text of the _Postillas_ or commentaries
written in the thirteenth century by Cardinal Hugo, which formed the
basis of the great Hugo edition of the Scriptures, the publication
of which was begun by Koberger in 1497, and was completed in 1504.
The set comprises seven volumes folio. The manuscripts upon which the
text was based and which were doubtless those referred to by Busch,
formed the great treasure of the library of the Cistercian Monastery at
Heilsbronn. This particular parchment, or series of parchments, had
been written by, or had been written under the direction of, Abbot
Conrad, between the years 1303 and 1329. The editors who coöperated
with Koberger in the production of the Hugo Bible were, in addition to
Amerbach, Conrad Leontorius, the Humanist Jacob Wimpfeling, and Heynlin
von Stein. For the editing of _S. Augustine_ Koberger secured the help
of Augustin Dodo, and his edition of _S. Jerome_ was supervised by the
great scholar Reuchlin.

The association of Koberger with Albert Dürer has already been referred
to. Some time before Koberger’s book-presses began their work in
Nuremberg, Dürer had been using hand-presses for the impressions of his
woodcuts and of his designs engraved on copper. Hase is of opinion that
Dürer gave direct coöperation in Koberger’s press-room, and that the
excellence and evenness of print of the Koberger editions may be very
largely credited to Dürer’s artistic supervision.[80]

At least one work remains which bears the imprint of Dürer as printer.
A volume containing the _Book of Revelation_ bears on its title-page,
_Gedrücket zu Nürnberg durch Albrecht Dürer, Maler, nach Christi Geburt
MCCCC. und danach im XCVIII. jahr_. There is, however, no record of the
establishment of any book-printing-office under Dürer’s ownership, and
it seems probable that the volume in question was printed on a Koberger
press under Dürer’s supervision.

A few years later, we shall find the artist and engraver Cranach
associating himself in a similar manner with the work of Luther’s
printers in Wittenberg. The connection between the work of designers
who were also engravers and who usually did the printing of their own
impressions, and that of the book-printers in whose volumes many of the
same designs were included, is a very obvious one.

After the time of the close of the business of the Kobergers, a
considerable change took place in the character of the publications
issued in Germany. A continually increasing proportion of these were
printed in German, while the costly folios, quartos, and octavos
were to a very great extent replaced by low-priced duodecimos, cheap
pamphlets and tracts (_Flugschriften_). The burning issues brought
to the front by the Reformers were of interest not only to scholars,
but to the mass of the people, and to supply information on these
issues called for reading-matter printed in the vernacular, and in the
cheapest possible form. There would not, at first thought, seem to
be any reason why this new demand for cheap books on the part of the
masses should lessen the sale to the educated classes of literature
in more costly and permanent form. This was, however, certainly the
effect during the quarter of a century in which the earlier issues of
the Reformation were fought over. The Reformers had their hands full
with the controversy. They were making Church history, and had little
time for the study of the history of the Church in past centuries. The
writings of the Fathers of the Church, who were the spiritual ancestors
of the Protestants no less than of the Catholics, were for the time put
to one side, although some years later they again found place in the
libraries and in the university work of the Protestants. For the study
of the philosophy of the schoolmen and for a proper appreciation of the
literature of classic times, the period of the Reformation was likewise
unfavourable. Philosophy and poetry demand periods of leisure and
cannot be pursued to advantage during periods of civil and religious
strife.

The bearing of these influences upon the publishing conditions of
Germany in the sixteenth century is obvious. There was, after 1517,
an enormous increase in the circulation of printed matter and a very
great development in the habit of reading on the part of the people
at large, and the intellectual activities engendered by the popular
interest in the religious and ecclesiastical controversies had in the
end a very important part in furthering the growth of the literary and
the publishing activities of Germany. During the earlier years of the
contest, however, the first result was an actual diminution in the
demand in Germany for the class of books to the production of which
publishers of the higher grade had devoted themselves. Some of the
firms, who could not easily adapt themselves to the new conditions,
or who did not find themselves in sympathy with the new influences,
decided, like the Kobergers, to retire altogether. New men took the
lead in the publishing business of Germany. The first period in the age
of printing, the period in which its service had been rendered almost
exclusively to scholars, came to a close. German replaced Latin, and
the Press became the servant of the people at large.

In the general course of Koberger’s publishing undertakings, the
question of compensation for authors, or at least for original work
of authors, could have arisen but very seldom, and in this respect
his experience was identical with that of publishers generally in his
generation. Their publications consisted chiefly, and with some firms
exclusively, of works of an earlier time, the authors of which had long
been dead; in the limited instances in which they used their presses
for the books of living writers, the main purpose of these writers
was to bring their productions before the public, and they considered
themselves under obligations to the publishers who were willing to
incur the risk and expense of the undertaking. The books written by the
few authors of Koberger’s generation were for the most part works of
doctrine or having a dogmatic purpose of some kind. The object of their
production was not the possibility of gain, but the influencing of
public opinion, the furthering of a cause, the overthrow of abuses, or
the defence of institutions that had been assailed. For such aims the
chief thing, almost the only thing, to be considered was the securing
of as wide a circulation as possible. Apart from this consideration,
these writers might easily have considered it presumptuous to expect
compensation for the publication of their productions, when the
publishers had available for their use all the literary heritage of
antiquity, together with the long series of writings of the Church
Fathers. It was also, of course, the case that under the publishing and
bookselling conditions of the time, when it was by no means easy to
bring effectively before a reading public the works of authors whose
names were famous in literature or in the records of the Church, the
difficulty must have been enormously greater in the case of books,
however distinctive in themselves, by writers who were not known to
the public. There was, in fact, no adequate machinery for bringing
new books to the attention of possible readers. Many years were still
to elapse before anything in the shape of a periodical came into
existence, and in the impossibility of reviews or of advertisements,
there was no way of giving or of distributing information about new
books except by word of mouth or by personal correspondence.

It is to be borne in mind that I am speaking of the years immediately
preceding the Reformation. The enormous public interest aroused by
the writings of Luther and his associates brought about an immediate
change in publishing methods and possibilities, a change which will
be described in a later chapter. The books of Erasmus, which in large
part preceded the Lutheran writings, must be considered as having
constituted a noteworthy exception to the literary conditions of his
time. Their record also will be given farther on. It remained the case,
however, that with a few inconsiderable exceptions, the only moneys
paid to authors by the first Koberger were for editorial service. Hase
mentions that in the production of the great _Chronicle_ of Schedel,
funds had to be provided only for the illustrations and for the
printing, the compiler, Hartmann Schedel, and his associate, George
Alt, being willing to accept their compensation in the form of sets of
the work.

The scholars of the Humanistic school had made it their chief interest
to further the production and the understanding of the works of the
classic writers, and when the influence of the Reformation brought
about a reaction against the influence of the literature of Greece and
Rome, these Humanist scholars found their special occupation gone.
Many of them sought occupation on the staffs of the publishers and
earned a livelihood in editorial service of a different character,
or sometimes in purely hack work in collating and proof-reading.
When the Basel edition of _S. Jerome_ was in preparation, Amerbach
applied to Reuchlin for aid in connection with the printing of the
Hebrew portions, and wrote, “We shall be very ready to pay for your
help whatever you may ask.” Reuchlin had shortly before completed
the publication of his _Rudimenta_. The work had been undertaken at
the author’s cost, and as the sales were but small, he found himself
in trouble with his printer, Anshelm. He wrote to his good friend
Amerbach, “I shall be well pleased to do the editorial work required
for the _Jerome_ without compensation if you will relieve me from the
claims of this troublesome Anshelm.”[81] It is evident that Reuchlin,
while imagining that he was publishing his _Rudimenta_ at his own risk,
had in fact left the payment of the printer’s bill to be contingent
upon the sales of the book, having no other resources available, and
the printer had, therefore, been made involuntarily a sharer of the
risk, while if the work had succeeded, he would have been entitled to
no share in the profits. Anshelm’s account must, however, have been
settled by Amerbach, in consideration of the work done by Reuchlin on
the _Jerome_, as we find him, later, again in friendly relations with
the Hebrew scholar.

Shortly after the death of Anthoni Koberger, we begin to find more
frequent references in the correspondence of the publishers of Germany
to compensation for original literary work. Boniface Amerbach had
recommended to Froben the _Lucubrations_ of Zasius, and writes in 1518
concerning the author: “Zasius thinks that he ought to be paid for
this work, and speaks of thirty florins as a proper price. I should,
however, not assent to any such demand. He is anxious to get his book
into print, and had said before that he should expect to be paid well
if it succeeded, and should be quite ready to accept little or nothing
if it failed to sell, a result which, however, he could not believe
possible.”[82] In 1524, Hans Koberger arranged with Zasius, through Dr.
Roth, for the publication of the _Intellectus Juris_. He first offered
as honorarium fifty or sixty copies of the book. To this suggestion
Zasius replied: “I must have my honorarium in hard cash.... I have
had an enormous amount of labour and pains in getting this material
into shape, and I ought to receive not less than fifty guldens.”
This was an early instance of the very natural, though not very
reasonable, expectation or requirement on the part of the author that
his compensation ought to be based upon the extent of the labour given
to the book, instead of upon the return that the public was willing to
make for the book itself.

Koberger did not come to terms for the _Intellectus Juris_, and it
was finally published by Cratander, who paid for it twenty florins.
Zasius does not appear, however, to have got along very well with
Cratander, for we find him a little later breaking away from him
with the word, “The devil take the printers [_zum Teufel mit deinen
Drückern_], who never have treated me decently.”[83] Zasius appears to
have had his full share of the _genus irritabile_. Some expressions in
his correspondence recall the references made by Martial to his four
publishers.

He was a near friend of Zwingli, and a number of the letters preserved
in the _Epistolæ_ were addressed to Zwingli. Zasius was in sympathy
with the earlier efforts of the Reformers against the abuses that
had crept into the Church, but he held with Erasmus that the duty of
Christians was to reform and not to destroy or to divide the Church.

The authors were doubtless in a position in many cases to dispose of
their free copies for money. It is evident, however, from the literary
correspondence of the time, that the practice was very general on
the part of authors of sending complimentary copies to each other, a
practice which, as developed, came to absorb a substantial portion of
the edition. Authors were able to build up their libraries with books
received in exchange, but collections of books, however essential or
desirable, did not help directly towards income. This distribution
of complimentary copies became naturally a still more considerable
item when there was question, not simply of an exchange of scholarly
compliments, but of the widest possible distribution of a teaching or
a doctrine. Thus Luther is described as giving away whole editions of
certain of his monographs, which he could do the more easily as the
editions printed in Wittenberg were, for the most part, the property of
the author.[84]

The practice of securing money presents in consideration of dedications
or of eulogies printed in prefatory epistles, seems to have played
an important part in the calculations of certain classes of authors
during the first half of the sixteenth century. Cuspinian writes to
Pirckheimer, in 1501, asking counsel concerning the advisability of
dedicating the first volume of a work he had in press with Koberger
to the chief magistrate of Nuremberg. Pirckheimer tells his friend
that some more advantageous patron could doubtless be found. “You
must remember,” he writes, “that we are here a very commercial
people ... and some among our magistrates hardly understand what
literature is.”[85] Five years earlier, however, Martin Behaim (or
Behem) had received from the Nuremberg magistrate of that day a gift
of twenty-four florins for some honourable mention of the magistrate’s
name on his big map of the world.[86] A year or two earlier, namely in
1488, the magistrates in Nuremberg had given to Siegmund Mensterlin
thirty-seven florins for his _Chronicle_ of the city. This may,
however, be considered in the light of a direct payment for a service
to the city, rather than as an honorarium for a compliment. In 1502,
Conrad Celtes received in like manner from the treasury in Nuremberg
the sum of twenty florins, “for his labour in the description of our
city and for the record of its origin.”

The general question whether it befitted the dignity of authors
(considered possibly not so much in the light of literary producers as
of gentlemen who had happened to interest themselves in literature) to
receive compensation for their work, was a matter of debate during a
large part of the sixteenth century. It was inevitable, while all the
conditions of literary production and distribution were still to be
shaped, and while the difficulties of estimating with any degree of
accuracy the possibilities of securing commercial returns for literary
productions were still so great, that many questions concerning the
division of ownership and returns, when any returns accrued, must
arise and must for some time remain unsettled. The whole matter of
compensation for literary service remained, therefore, during the
period between the beginning of printing and the establishment of some
system of control of the books printed, in a hap-hazard and anomalous
condition. We find authors of one group, whose interest is limited
exclusively to the circulation of sound doctrine, wondering that any
writers of doctrinal works could permit themselves to receive pay
for bringing the truth to mankind. We find other equally unselfish
but more far-seeing authors like Luther and Melanchthon, accepting
pay for books sold, if only for the purpose of instituting a larger
production and a wider distribution of similar books. We find writers
devoting their pens to the defence of the Roman Church unwilling to
accept any returns from their booksellers, but quite ready to receive
compensation for their labours in the form of presents of money from
pope, cardinals, or bishops. Other authors, such as Cuspinian, whose
letter has been quoted, who considered it beneath their dignity to make
an agreement with their publishers for a royalty or an honorarium, were
quite willing to utilise their pens in the composition of high-flown
complimentary epistles or of fulsome dedications, which were, as they
hoped, to result in bringing to the writers substantial presents from
the patrons thus flattered. In the bitter controversy which Ulrich
von Hutten, in the last year of his life, carried on with Erasmus,
and in the course of which the knight took pains to bring together a
long series of invectives, he found no ground for criticism in the
relations borne by Erasmus to various patrons for whose gifts he had
been a supplicant, but thought he could say nothing more invidious
of his scholarly opponent than that he had received moneys from the
publisher Froben, moneys which had been earned by the sale of the works
of Erasmus.

The point of view and the standard of action were, however, in the
course of a few years to be materially changed. The organisation of
the German book-trade, carrying with it a substantial though by no
means complete measure of protection for the productions of each of
the publishers taking part in the organisation, had as its immediate
result a great development in literary production, in the circulation
of books, and in the extent of the returns secured. A later and hardly
less important result was the securing for original literature of an
assured business foundation. Literary producers, thus placed in a
position to secure a compensation for their labours proportioned to
the extent of the value placed by the community upon their production,
were freed from the necessity of earlier years, of seeking gifts and of
depending upon patrons.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER VIII.

FROBEN OF BASEL.

1460-1528.


JOHANN FROBEN, who achieved a well-deserved reputation as one of the
most enlightened and enterprising publishers of the sixteenth century,
and who will be remembered as having been honoured with the friendship
and confidence of Erasmus, was born in 1460, in Hammelburg, a village
in Franconia. He studied in the University of Basel (which had been
founded the year before his birth), and achieved distinction as a
scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He was trained as type-setter and
press-corrector by the famous printer Amerbach, and thus equipped, he
secured citizenship in Basel in 1490, and in the following year began
business in his own name as a master printer and publisher. Gutenberg
had been dead for twenty years, but the business established by Fust
and Schöffer with the original Gutenberg plant (representing the
earliest printing concern in Europe) was still being carried on by the
son of Schöffer. The work of Caxton, which had been begun in Bruges in
1470, had, in 1474, been transferred to London, and closed with his
death in 1492, the year in which Aldus Manutius began his printing
operations in Venice. In Paris the leading typographer of the town was
Badius, the predecessor of the more famous Estiennes.

At the time Froben began his work, the methods of carrying on a
printing-office, and the machinery for the production and distribution
of books, were still to be established. Type-setters, pressmen, and
correctors were all to be trained, and every technical detail of the
work of book-making called for the personal supervision and often
for the individual inventiveness of the master. Upon him came also
of necessity the responsibility for the selection of the work to
be undertaken, the securing of text for “copy,” the collation and
preparation of the “copy” for the type-setters, and an unremitting
watchfulness over each page as put into type. It is to be borne in mind
that nearly all the earlier books were printed in Latin, which for the
majority of the Swiss or German compositors was an unfamiliar tongue,
a circumstance that very seriously increased the risk of type-setting
errors. It is surprising that in the face of difficulties of this kind,
the books of the fifteenth century present, with rare exceptions, a
fairly correct text.

Froben’s first publication was a Latin Bible in convenient octavo
form. The several earlier Bibles had been issued in folio, and this
less costly edition won for itself at once a widespread appreciation.
Froben’s undertakings were restricted to books in Latin and Greek--that
is, to works addressed to scholars. He left to later publishers the
task of preparing books in the vernacular for the unlearned reader. In
fact, the interest of the latter in 1492, was in the main limited to
almanacs, horn-books, legends, and such picturesque compendiums as the
_Sachsen-Spiegel_. For general literature, the common folk was not yet
ready. The educational influence of the Reformation was required to
arouse the intelligence of the people and to induce a popular demand
for reading-matter.

In 1500, Froben, then forty years of age, married Gertrude, the
daughter of a prosperous bookseller named Lachner. The latter supplied
means for the extension of the printing-office in which, in 1504, seven
presses were at work. During the thirty-six years of the business
career of Froben, he printed no less than two hundred and fifty-seven
separate works, many of these being of distinctive importance and
of considerable compass. Among these were the complete works of S.
Jerome, which appeared in 1516 in nine folio volumes; the works of S.
Augustine, completed in 1529, in ten folio volumes; the New Testament
in Greek (this was the first edition of the Greek text, and it was,
later, utilised by Luther in the preparation of his German version);
and the writings of Erasmus, who appears to be the only contemporary
author whose books were undertaken by Froben. These proved to be good
property for both the author and publishers, as Erasmus was addressing
himself to the scholarly readers of the civilised world, and his
writings were eagerly read throughout Europe by both the clergy and the
laity. In addition to the authorised editions issued in Basel, Venice,
and Paris, there were many piracy reprints, but notwithstanding the
competition of these, the author was able to secure from his three
publishers, Froben, Aldus, and Badius of Paris, returns that made a
material addition to his income. He was probably the first author
in Europe, writing after the invention of printing, who made any
money by his pen. Froben secured the coöperation, in the course of
his publishing work, of a number of learned associates who rendered
assistance as literary advisers, editors, and press-correctors, the
list including, among other scholars, Erasmus (who was for many
years an inmate of his house), Oecolampadius, Heiland, Musculus, and
Gelenius. To Froben also is to be credited the discovery of Hans
Holbein. Holbein was born in Grünstadt in 1497, and came to Basel about
1517, with the view of making his living as a wood-engraver. Froben was
one of the first to give him employment, and many of the designs in the
Froben books issued between 1518 and 1522 were both drawn and engraved
by young Holbein. It was through Froben that the talent of the young
artist was brought to the attention of Erasmus, and Erasmus was the
means of securing an invitation from Sir Thomas More for Holbein to
visit England, where he spent the rest of his life and where his most
important art-work was done. King Henry VIII. attached him to the Court
and bestowed on him a pension.

Froben’s list included a number of “orthodox” theological works, and
remaining as he did in the fold of the Church, the influence of his
Press was as a whole exercised consistently against the doctrines of
the Reformers. His imprint appears never to have been associated with
any of the doctrinal books or tractates of the Lutherans, Calvinists,
or Zwinglians.[87] Not a few of Froben’s more costly publications were
undertaken in coöperation with other publishers, a kind of partnership
agreement being entered into for each particular book taken up in this
manner. His more important associates were Johann Amerbach, who took
high rank among the scholarly printers of the time, Johann Petri, also
of Basel, and Franz Birckmann of Cologne. This method of dividing the
risk of an undertaking between several publishing concerns became,
later, a very general practice with the publishers of London.

Erasmus, writing from Basel, in 1523, to Vergilius Polydorus, says: “I
find here three methods of bringing a book into print. Sometimes Froben
takes upon himself the entire risk and outlay.... In other cases the
publication is undertaken for the account of some person interested,
and Froben simply reserves a commission for his services; and under a
third arrangement, the publication is undertaken by two or more firms,
associated as a temporary company.... It is now being considered in
Paris whether this book of yours [Erasmus does not mention the title of
the book] is to be published by Birckmann alone, or by the ‘Company.’
As soon as Froben has returned from the Fair (at Frankfort) I will
write to you what the decision has been. I hope that I shall be able to
arrange the matter to your best advantage.” Whatever may have been the
pressure of work in the Froben printing-office, either in connection
with the completion of books for the Frankfort Fair, or for any other
cause, there appears never to have been question of postponing the
publications of any of the writings of Erasmus himself. For these the
presses were always ready because for these there was always a waiting
public.

A year or two later Erasmus writes: “Froben is expending enormous sums
for manuscripts and for collation and revision of these.” Among the
revisers referred to in this statement was the famous scholar Beatus
Rhenanus, who having studied philosophy in Paris and sojourned for a
brief period in Strasburg, had migrated to Basel, and was devoting
himself exclusively to the work of the Froben Press. He served not only
as a reviser and press-corrector, but as a literary counsellor, to
whose suggestions were due a number of Froben’s scholarly undertakings.
Erasmus speaks with high regard of his learning and conscientiousness
and of the value for Froben of his coöperation.

One of the charges made by Ulrich von Hutten in his little controversy
with Erasmus (a controversy in which the last word was the _Spongia_,
or _Sponge_, of the latter) was that he received money for work done
for a printer. The charge was well founded, for Froben paid Erasmus
two hundred guldens a year for his services as editor or reviser. It
does not appear from the records that have been preserved whether he
received, in addition, his board and lodging during the time that he
sojourned in his publisher’s house, or whether there was for this a
separate arrangement. There is also no precise statement concerning the
receipts that came to Erasmus from the sale of Froben’s editions of
his books, but the scholar makes a number of appreciative references
to the effective service rendered by his Basel publishers and to the
importance of these receipts. It is evident from the phrases used by
the pugnacious Von Hutten that the earning of money by labour was still
considered by many as something unbecoming a man of gentle birth or
gentle station,--and, as before said, Erasmus was one of the first of
European authors who had secured an income from the work of his pen.
It would be more exact to say, from the sale of his own productions,
for a considerable number of scholars of his generation were accepting
compensation for services as editors and press-correctors.

Kapp is of opinion that Luther, whose writings secured a wider
circulation than even those of Erasmus, never accepted any honorarium,
and that his compensation for his books was limited[88] to a few
complimentary copies. Luther speaks of “the exceptional greed” of a
translator who secured a gold gulden for the rendering of a quarto.
The number of pages is not specified, but we may hope, for the sake of
the translator, that the quarto was a thin one.[89] On the other hand,
Thomas Murner sold his _Geuchmatt_ to the Strasburg publisher, Hupfuff,
in 1514, for four guldens, a sum which Kapp estimates as the equivalent
of forty guldens to-day. I will give consideration in a later
chapter to the data that have been preserved concerning the general
compensation secured in Germany during the century succeeding Gutenberg
for literary or editorial work. The first of the books of Erasmus to
be issued by Froben was the famous _Encomium Moriæ_ (_The Praise of
Folly_), printed in 1515. Of the first Basel edition, 1800 copies were
sold in the first six months. The Latin version was printed also by
Aldus in Venice and by Badius in Paris. A German version was speedily
issued, illustrated with designs by Holbein, and this was followed by
translations in French and Dutch. During the lifetime of the author,
no less than twenty-seven editions appeared, the larger number of
which were unauthorised and brought to the author no returns. _The
Praise of Folly_ was the first printed book that secured during the
lifetime of its author what may be called a “world-wide circulation,”
which for the “world” of that time was practically limited to Europe.
The circulation of many of the treatises of Luther was very great,
but these found their way to few but Protestant readers, while in its
original Latin and in the various versions in the vernacular, _The
Praise of Folly_ was welcomed in all circles--Protestant, Catholic,
lay and ecclesiastical, scholarly and unlearned. _The Praise of Folly_
has taken its place with the world’s literature, but a still greater
success with the generation of the author was secured by the next book
of Erasmus, the _Adagia_, or _Proverbs_. Of this there were printed
in the authorised editions, by Froben, between 1513 and 1539, ten
thousand; by Aldus, in Venice, between 1508 and 1524, eight thousand;
by Schürer, in Strasburg, between 1513 and 1520, eleven thousand; by
Badius and Philippus, in Paris, three thousand; or, in all, thirty-two
thousand copies. There were also a number of unauthorised editions
issued in Lyons, Cologne, and elsewhere, the statistics of which are
not available.

The third of the more important works of Erasmus, the _Colloquia_,
which may be described as a kind of predecessor of Landor’s _Imaginary
Conversations_, also published in Basel, Venice, and Paris, found a
sale (for the authorised editions) in a term of ten years, of about
twenty-four thousand copies. The demand for this was hastened by the
rumour that it was shortly to be placed on the _Index Expurgatorius_.

Erasmus speaks of Froben as “the Aldus of Germany,” and can give him
no higher commendation. Froben had selected for his publishing symbol
or trade-mark a design representing an upright staff on the point of
which rests a dove, about which are twined two serpents with their
heads raised towards the dove. It is not difficult to imagine the
kind of interpretation that would be given by the wits of a modern
authors’ society to such a symbol, with its suggestion of the innocent
and hapless author lifting his aspirations towards the heavens, but
powerless to escape the toils of the wily publishers of the earth,
earthy. No such criticism appears, however, to have arisen in the
sixteenth century to disturb Froben’s peace of mind.

His best friend, the most influential author of his time, expresses
the wish that his serpents may prove as serviceable for Froben as
the dolphin has been for Aldus, and that in combining, as he does,
the innocence of the dove with the wisdom of the serpent, Froben
may achieve a well-earned fame and future.[90] Rhenanus, Mutianus,
Rufus, and many others of those who were proud to call themselves
the _Auctores Frobeniani_, are all in accord in their appreciative
references to the high literary ideals, the thorough scholarship, and
the liberal business methods of the great Basel publisher.

I insert here certain letters from Zwingli to Beatus Rhenanus, which
have a bearing upon the esteem in which Froben was held by his literary
friends, and which contain also some interesting references to the
books most desired by Zwingli.[91]


_Zwingli to Beatus Rhenanus._

  ZURICH, February 22, 1519.

    ... We have received from Froben certain presents of books. While
    they are pleasing on account of their contents, that they are the
    gifts of Froben, adds to their value.... If Froben has them, let
    him send three copies of _Sallust_. Also send some more copies of
    the _Paraclesis_ and _Compendium_ of Erasmus.

  March 25, 1519.

    ... Urbanus Rhegius has just sent us a little book, edited by
    himself, on the _Dignity of Priesthood_.... We wonder very much
    that Froben, who is usually so wide awake, has in this instance
    been asleep and has allowed such a book to go forth from his
    press. While the book has been made by _Faber_ it is not well
    “_fabricated_.”

  April 24, 1519.

    ... _Phalarismus_ has not yet come to us; and only a single
    copy of _Febricula_ (two dialogues of Hutten’s); please send if
    possible several copies; also the _Paraphrases_ (of Erasmus) and
    the _Apology_ of Zasius against Eck.... We will send the money to
    Froben, I trust, sometime within the month. We are continually
    in want of the _Etymologicum_ and of _Pliny_, _Lucian_, and
    _Cyprian_.... Greet Froben and all of his....

  June 7, 1519.

    ... I am indebted to Froben for many favours and am also under
    great obligations to yourself because you are at such pains to
    provide me and my flock with the things of value to us which appear
    from time to time. Will you be so kind (for what will one not ask
    of a patron of letters?) as to put into the press, if Froben is
    not thereby inconvenienced, some dialogue of Lucian annotated by
    Erasmus, yet not so annotated as to become an interpretation, for
    that would induce laziness in the boys. He may, if he will, take in
    its place the first book of Aristotle on animals.... Clauserus the
    physician asks from Froben the works of Copus to be prepared in his
    own name.... Greetings to Froben.

  June 25, 1519.

    ... Lichtenberg says that Capito has a copy of _Lucian_ and of
    _Aristophanes_; these I wish you would induce him to sell to us as
    soon as he returns home. When the writings of Luther have come from
    the press, please send them to us by the first messenger or carrier
    who can bring a considerable number of copies. He shall have the
    money at once.

  Oct. 12, 1520.

    ... Jerome Froben had accommodated us with a Greek _Euripides_
    which now, as is right, he wants back. Still he holds out the hope
    that he will be able to buy a copy from Curio, and so I send three
    florins that he may buy one there and may bind it in place of the
    one I have.... We gladly send him this copy of his and he can give
    the money to his father for the Greek books which he promised to
    let us have for ten florins.

  September 8, 1521.

    John Froben sent me as a gift some time ago the _Complaint_ of
    Hutten, the Apostolic man (for the man is a bubble) whom Eck
    cudgelled.

The following letter from Froben himself is interesting as indicating
the personal relation borne by the publisher to certain of his
publishing undertakings:


_John Froben to his friend Zwingli._

    Just as I was about to publish the little book of C. Cornelius
    Tacitus upon the customs and locations of the Germanic tribes, a
    friend [Beatus Rhenanus] showed me a brief commentary which he
    had prepared stating who now live in the locations described by
    Tacitus. This seemed to me to be a good idea, as it is a mistake to
    confine one’s reading to the more ancient authors to the neglect
    of those less remote. Think of the changes which have occurred
    since Cæsar’s day! Therefore, while his _Commentaries_ are worthy
    of the highest praise in point of truthfulness and style, yet it
    is necessary to read also Spartianus, Vopiscus, Trebellius Pollio,
    Ammianus Marcellinus, and Eutropius Procopius. Surely, if Cæsar
    were to return from the shades, he would scarcely recognise his
    former localities. The races have become so mixed, the population
    so changed, partly through destruction and partly through
    transplanting, that I may say all things are different. Because I
    know that you interrupt your higher studies to nibble on tit-bits
    of this description, I dedicate to you this commentary, which
    students will find useful. Thus light has been shed upon antiquity
    by the labours of the Swiss scholars, two of whom should especially
    be mentioned, Henricus Glareanus, my dear friend, and Joachim
    Vadianus, whose notes upon Pomponius Mela, I am happy to report,
    have received the applause of all the learned.

  Farewell.

    BASEL, 1519.

Rhenanus, in referring to the intimate relation between Erasmus and
Froben, speaks of it as a friendship between the prince of scholars
and the prince of publishers. The circle of intimates who were
gathered about the two “princes” during the nine years of the sojourn
of Erasmus in Basel (1521-1530) included the brothers Amerbach,
Glareanus, Oecolampadius, Rhenanus, Listrius, Gerbelius, Fontejus, and
Eobanus Hessius. The older Amerbach, who coöperated with Froben in
many of his more important publications, trained three sons to take
responsibilities in the editorial division of his business. One became
an expert in Greek, the second in Latin, the third in Hebrew. One of
the books in which the Amerbachs took an important part was the great
edition of the works of S. Jerome. Concerning this, Erasmus writes
in April, 1515, to Pope Leo X.: “A great work is being carried on in
this city, in the establishment of Froben, most trustworthy and most
capable of all publishers; S. Jerome is again in life and his words are
to be freshly given to the world. Providence itself appears to have
brought this firm into existence, in order again to cause to be felt
the influence of S. Jerome. Froben himself, Amerbach and his three sons
are devoting their whole energies to the undertaking.”

Through the influence of Erasmus, a papal privilege was secured in
the name of Froben, for the works of Jerome for a term of five years,
for which privilege six ducats had to be paid. The publication of
the _Jerome_ was a notable event in the world of scholarship and
in ecclesiastical circles and brought great prestige to the Basel
publisher. Many congratulatory letters were received from all parts of
Europe. Dorpius, writing in July, 1515, to Erasmus, asks the latter
to give to Froben, “chief among printers,” a cordial greeting for the
great services rendered by him to the Church and to learning. “May the
Lord give to him,” he continues, “many long years in which to carry on
his noble undertakings.” Erasmus himself, writing to Feltichius, in
December, 1526, says: “No one who has not been intimately associated
with my friend Froben, can fairly realise the extent of his devotion
to good work and the toilsome labour that he has given to his
undertakings. The world has never seen a publisher who has striven so
earnestly and so unselfishly in the cause of scholarship.” After the
death of Froben, which occurred in 1528, Erasmus writes again: “We have
lost Froben, that most exceptional man. His life was devoted to earnest
and conscientious labours and he died at his work.... For the past
eight years I have been his house guest and have had with him the most
cordial friendship. A truer friend than Froben, I could not wish from
the Gods. For the family that he has left I feel for his sake a cordial
affection.”[92]

Writing in August, 1531, to Jerome, the son of Froben, Erasmus says:
“Many virtues possessed Johann Froben of blessed memory, but through
nothing did he bring himself to me so closely as in this, that he gave
the devotion of his life to the task of bringing to the world the best
literature; a task in furthering which, his death came to him.... So it
resulted that he gave more thought to his scholarly ideals than to his
own fortunes, and thus has left to his heirs a great repute but a small
estate.... Now that I understand that his son has inherited his high
purposes, so can I assure this son that the good will and coöperation
which I extended to his father will not be intermitted for him.”

One of the most important of the works which was left unfinished at the
time of Froben’s death and to which his own last working hours had been
given, was the edition of _S. Augustine_, which was to form a companion
to the works of S. Jerome. The _S. Augustine_ was published by Froben’s
son with the coöperation of the younger Amerbachs and with the
all-important aid also of Erasmus and Rhenanus. Erasmus exerted himself
to secure for the _S. Augustine_ a privilege for France, but for some
reason not given this privilege was denied. Erasmus does not mention
what amount he received for his editorial service in the undertaking,
but (writing in September, 1528) says that he would not have undertaken
such a task for two thousand guldens. According to Kapp, he refused
to receive from Froben the elder more than one third of the annual
payments that the publisher wanted to make to him, and he also refused
to accept a house which Froben had tendered to him as a gift. The
entire relation between the two men forms a noteworthy episode in the
somewhat chequered history of authors and publishers.

Froben had at one time taken up the publication of the writings of
Luther. On the fourteenth of February, 1519, he writes to Luther that
he has made very large sales of Luther’s books in France, Spain,
Italy, Brabant, and England.[93] This reference is to the first
collection of Luther’s writings, which had been printed by Froben in
October, 1518, and of which further impressions were made in August,
1519, and in March, 1520. After 1520, Froben prints no further books
for Luther, although it is evident that an assured and increasing sale
was being secured for these. It is probable that he was influenced to
this decision by the counsels of Erasmus and in connection with his
relations to Leo X. It seems evident that Froben, while not a bigoted
Romanist, had not been attracted by the doctrines of the Reformers.
Irrespective of his long personal association with Erasmus, it is
probable that his own scholarly temperament and direction of thought
would have brought him into sympathy rather with the views of the
scholar of Rotterdam than with those of the monk of Wittenberg. He
believed that the Church was to be set right not by being broken into
fragments, but by being brought back to the teachings of its founders
and of their successors, the Fathers, and he was prepared to do his
part in this work of reform and of re-inspiration by devoting his life
and his fortunes to the task of presenting to believers these teachings
in accurate and accessible texts. Froben’s editions of the Scriptures,
the works of S. Jerome and of S. Augustine and of other of the Fathers,
and his issues of the books of Erasmus, to the production of which he
devoted a lifetime of conscientious toil, constituted the publisher’s
contribution to the settlement of the vexed questions which were
bringing turmoil upon Europe and by which the Church was rent in twain.
But the contest was too bitter, and the passions it had aroused were
too fierce to make it possible for either the wisdom of the Fathers or
the scholarship and wit of Erasmus to be of much present service in
furthering a peaceable outcome.




[Illustration]

CHAPTER IX.

ERASMUS AND HIS BOOKS.

1467-1536.


IT is convenient to make in this place such further reference as is
pertinent to my subject to the literary undertakings of Erasmus, of
whom I have before spoken as perhaps the most typical author of his
time. In popularity, as far as popularity is to be gauged by extent of
circulation, his books were excelled only by the writings of Luther,
while the range of their distribution--that is, the extent of the
territory reached and the variety of the circles of readers by whom
they were welcomed--must have been much in advance of anything attained
by the writings of Luther. The direct influence of these last was, for
a long time at least, limited to Germany and to the Low Countries,
while their principal sale was in the common tongue and among the
masses of the people. The writings of Erasmus, in their original Latin
form, found their way in the first place to the educated circles of the
upper classes, and to the more liberal minded of the ecclesiastics,
while the versions in the vernacular which speedily followed, in both
authorised and unauthorised editions, were taken up with cordial
appreciation by all classes of readers throughout Europe.

It is undoubtedly the case that, while Erasmus always refused to take
sides with the Protestants and held himself to be a dutiful son of the
Catholic Church, the influence of his writings was a most important
factor in bringing about the conditions that made the Reformation
possible. Drummond speaks of the _Praise of Folly_ as “the first
decisive trumpet-blast summoning the friends of right and learning
to gird on their armour, and heralding the advance of that reforming
spirit with which the Papal power was destined ere long to engage in
deadly and terrible encounter.”[94] It would, however, be outside of
the plan of this study to go into the question of the relations of
Erasmus to the Reformation, a theme which has been treated with full
knowledge and excellent critical judgment in the scholarly biography of
Mr. Drummond, and more recently, with less thoroughness, but with no
little force and suggestiveness, in the brilliant biographical study of
Mr. Froude.

The following are the dates of the more important events in the career
of the man who is to be described, not only as a great scholar but as
the most successful and influential author of his age. He was born in
Rotterdam in 1467, seventeen years after Gutenberg had printed his
first book. He was placed as a boy at the school carried on at Deventer
by the Brothers of Common Life. The interest taken by this fraternity
in the multiplication and circulation of literature, and the importance
of its publishing undertakings both during the manuscript period and
after the beginning of printing, have already been noted.

In 1485, when he was eighteen years old, Erasmus took vows as a monk
of the Order of S. Augustine (the same Order to which, later, Luther
belonged), vows from which a number of years afterwards he was released
by Pope Leo X. In 1492, through the favour of the Bishop of Cambray,
he was enabled to pass some years at the University of Paris, which,
though at that time not a little degenerated, was still the leading
university of Europe. In 1498, Erasmus made his first visit to
England, where he remained nearly two years, chiefly in Oxford, and
where he was at once brought into relations with a number of famous
men, some of whom became valued friends, such as Thomas Linacre,
William Grocyn, John Colet, and Sir Thomas More. In 1500, Erasmus,
then again in Paris, published the first edition of the _Adagia_, a
collection of proverbs, which became in its subsequent and enlarged
issues a very different work from the first small volume.

In 1506, Erasmus made his first visit to Italy, and received at Bologna
the degree of Doctor of Divinity. He remained at Venice, in the house
of the publisher Aldus, until 1509, and published through Aldus, in
1508, the enlarged edition of the _Adagia_. In the latter part of 1509
he is again in England, living with his friend More, and publishes the
famous satire, _The Praise of Folly_ (_Encomium Moriæ_).

In 1514, Erasmus makes his first sojourn in Basel, and begins the
intimacy with Froben which was to continue during the lifetime of the
latter. In 1516, he prints, in Basel, _The New Testament_ in Greek and
Latin; this was the first time the complete Greek text had been put
into type.[95] In 1517, Erasmus takes up his residence for a time at
the University of Louvain, and during the two or three years following,
devotes much earnest correspondence to the Lutheran controversies. He
is still at Louvain in 1520, but in 1521, at the time of the Diet of
Worms, he removes to Basel, where he takes up his abode with his good
friend Froben, with whom he remains until Froben’s death in 1527. In
1529, he moves to Friburg, but in 1534, he returns to Basel, where he
died in 1536.

The _Adagia_, the first of the books of Erasmus which brought him
into fame, was originally printed in Paris in 1500. Drummond is of
opinion that this first edition was put together hurriedly for the
purpose of recruiting the exhausted finances of its author by means
of a publication which was “sure to sell.”[96] It seems evident that
Erasmus considered the receipts from its sale important, but he
fails to mention the amount actually realised or the nature of the
several publishing arrangements under which it was published. Several
references give the impression, however, that the author himself
retained the ownership of his Paris edition. He writes in 1504 to
Colet, Dean of St. Paul’s, asking the Dean to look up for him the
matter of one hundred copies of the _Adagia_ sent to London three years
back, for “which he had received no returns.” He understands the copies
have all been sold, and concludes, not unnaturally, that “somebody must
have got the money.”[97] He makes no later reference to the business,
and we may therefore hope that the books were finally paid for.

While it is certain that Erasmus secured considerable sums for the
sale of the _Adagia_, and, later, from the _Encomium Moriæ_, it is
equally clear that during all the earlier portion of his life he
was in continued need of money, and in addition to accepting with
expectant gratitude presents from various friends, he found occasion
for frequent applications for gifts to other friends and to possible
patrons. From the point of view of to-day, many of these letters appear
to be seriously lacking in the dignity and self-respect which ought to
have characterised a great author and an intellectual leader. It would
however be very absurd to arrive at a judgment in the matter from the
standpoint of the nineteenth century, when from the vantage-ground of
an assured copyright protection, authors are able to dictate terms
to publishers and readers. In applying to people of wealth for means
with which to continue or extend his studies, Erasmus feels evidently
that he is asking help not so much for himself personally, as for
the literature and scholarship of which he is the representative.
It is an appeal for the endowment of research. He appears also to
have possessed no capacity for keeping a balance-sheet, or for a
business-like management of his resources, and when money did come into
his hands, it disappeared very rapidly. It is to be remembered that
while he was willing to beg, and was ready for the sake of financial
aid to write flattering letters to possible patrons, he appears never
to have been willing to sacrifice for the favour of such patrons any
measure of conviction or of consistency. On various occasions he put
to one side opportunities for gain or for advancement which involved
as conditions what seemed to him to be a sacrifice of personal
independence or of honestly held opinions. In fact, excepting in this
matter of subsidies from patrons, Erasmus may fairly claim to have
shown in his career, under very great pressure from various quarters,
a clear-headed, well-balanced and courageous independence of opinion
and of action that was most exceptional at a time when theological
partisanship was bitter to the point of ferocity. It is also to be
borne in mind that when, through the satisfactory management of his
literary undertakings on the part, first of Aldus, and later and most
importantly, of his good friend Froben, Erasmus began to secure from
his writings an assured income, the disagreeable subsidy suggestions
disappear from his correspondence, although he is still very ready
to accept _honoraria_ from appreciative friends. It is certainly not
a little to the credit of both Erasmus and his publisher, that there
is no single instance in the long correspondence of an application
to Froben for moneys, either as “advances” or as loans, or a single
complaint about inadequacy of payments. In fact, as specified later,
Erasmus criticises Froben for undue liberality to himself.

The first journey to Italy would probably not have been undertaken (or
at least not at that time) if it had not been for the friendly help
of the Lady of Vere. Froude doubtless, however, sacrifices (and not
for the first time) accuracy of statement to dramatic antithesis when
he writes: “Without Mæcenas we might have had no _Odes_ or _Satires_
from Horace; without the Duke of Lerma we should have had no _Don
Quixote_; without the Duke of Weimar we might have had no _Faust_;
without the Lady of Vere there would have been no _New Testament_, no
_Moriæ_, no _Colloquies_.” This is a kind of _reductio ad absurdum_, an
attempt to make the production of men of creative power depend upon,
instead of being merely furthered by, the help of their patrons. But
Froude probably does not mean to be taken seriously. He goes on to
say: “The patronage system may not be the best, but it is better than
leaving genius to be smothered or debased by misery, and when genius
is taught that life depends on pleasing the readers at the shilling
book-stalls, it may be smothered that way too, for all that I can see
to the contrary.”[98] It is not easy to understand to what book-stall
influences Froude refers, although we can recall certain strictures of
Freeman to the effect that Froude himself attempted to debase history
to the level of the readers of “shilling shockers.”

The Paris edition of the _Adagia_ is not the work in the form in which
it is now known. When Erasmus, in 1507, took up his abode for a time
with Aldus in Venice, he re-wrote and greatly enlarged the book to
such an extent as almost entirely to change its character. He tells
us that for a large proportion of the new material he was indebted
to the suggestions and to the magnificent library of Aldus.[99] He
had, he goes on to say, brought with him to Venice little more than a
confused mass of materials derived from authors already in print. Aldus
and his associates, Laskaris, Marcus Musurus, Aleander, and some even
whose names were not known to Erasmus, placed at his disposal many
valuable manuscripts which had not before come into print. The number
of proverbs collected now amounted to thirty-five hundred, and a vast
mass of learning, drawn from the most varied sources, was thus given
to the world. Erasmus writes with candid appreciation of the generous
encouragement given to a foreigner, in this and his other literary
undertakings, by the Italian publisher and his associates.

The motto used by Aldus under his famous emblem of the dolphin and
the anchor, _festina lente_, was borrowed from a coin by the Emperor
Vespasian, with whom as well as with Augustus, this saying was a
great favourite. Erasmus writes in 1508: “If some deity friendly to
literature will but favour the truly royal vows of Aldus, I can promise
that within a few years the studious will possess, by his work alone,
all the good authors there are in the four languages, Latin, Greek,
Hebrew, and Chaldee, in a complete and accurate form, and no one need
have any lack of literary material. And then we shall see how many
excellent manuscripts there are still hidden, which are either kept
back through ignorance, or which are suppressed, owing to the ambition
of certain persons who care for nothing except that they may be thought
the only wise men. Then, too, we shall know with what prodigious errors
existing texts abound which are now considered tolerably correct....
The library of Ptolemy,” he adds, “was contained within the walls of a
house, but Aldus is constructing a library which shall have no limits
but those of the world.”[100]

In the same volume of his correspondence, Erasmus speaks of himself as
having surpassed Hercules, who was unable to grapple with two monsters
at once, whereas he has not only brought out at the same time the
great edition of _S. Jerome_ and the enlarged edition of the _Adagia_,
but in so doing has overcome the greatest enemy of the works of man,
Time, which is devouring its own offspring.[101] In its expanded and
final form, the _Adagia_ fills one of the eleven folio volumes which
constitute the set of the works of Erasmus. Drummond speaks of it as
“a monument of vast learning ... and a rich repository of anecdotes,
quotations, and historical and biographical sketches.... It formed
an introduction to the Greek and Latin classics, and it furnished
eloquent declamations against kings and monks, war and priestcraft. It
served the purpose of a dictionary and a grammar, a common-place book,
a journal, and a book of travels all in one.”[102] Froude says that
“through the _Adagia_ can be traced the spirit of Lucian, so like was
the Europe of the fifteenth century to the Europe of the second.”[103]
The divines were outspoken in their indignation. They said (again
to quote Froude) that the Proverbs of Solomon were enough, without
adding the Proverbs of Erasmus. The revised edition of the _Adagia_
was reprinted by Froben in 1513, from the text of Aldus, in an edition
rivalling that of Aldus in the beauty of its typography. The two
publishers appear to have made a friendly arrangement with each other
and with Erasmus to divide between them the market for the writings of
their famous friend.

The _Praise of Folly_ (_Encomium Moriæ_), the book which exceeded
the _Adagia_ in its final popularity, and which is possibly the only
work of Erasmus that continues to be read, three centuries after his
death, was written in 1509. Erasmus was at the time again in England,
living in the family of his friend, Sir Thomas More. He mentions in
the preface that the plan of the work had taken shape in his mind as
he was riding across the Alps on his way from Venice to London, and
that it had then occurred to him how odd it was that the wisest and
wittiest man he knew should have a name which in Greek signified a
fool. In another letter, Erasmus gives a somewhat different account,
saying that the first suggestion of the book came from More, and that
it was, in part at least, based upon More’s conversations with him
at Chelsea.[104] I find record of an edition of this book, which is
probably the first, printed in Strasburg in 1511 (three years earlier
than the issue in Basel) by a printer named Schürer. The text was
revised and added to before the printing in Basel and in Paris. It does
not appear what relations, if any, the author had with the printer
Schürer, whose name was not again associated with his writings.

The Froben edition, printed in Basel in 1514, included a commentary
by Gerard Listrius, a physician of Basel and a trusted friend of
Erasmus. The book was reprinted several times by Froben, one of the
editions containing the famous illustrations by Holbein. Authorised
editions were also published by Aldus in Venice, and by Badius in
Paris, while unauthorised issues of the Latin original appeared in
Cologne, Lyons, Salamanca, and elsewhere. A number of translations
appeared in different parts of Europe, the majority of which were
probably unauthorised, although on this point trustworthy information
does not exist. In its various forms it possibly secured a larger sale
than any book, except the Bible, that had as yet been printed. Erasmus
was able to write that kings, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals
were delighted with it, and Leo X. read it through from beginning
to end.[105] Drummond sums up the volume as “containing in a short
compass the author’s whole philosophy of man, all that he ever wrote
on the abuses of his times, on the superstitions of monks and the
pride of kings;... abounding in wit and eloquence and displaying great
knowledge of the world and keen observation of men and things, it has
its deep and serious meanings beneath the light satire.” One result
of the publication of the _Praise of Folly_ was the prohibition of
the writings of Erasmus in many of the universities, including Paris,
Louvain, Oxford, and Cambridge, where the ecclesiastical influence
controlled. “See what comes of Greek,” cried the clergy.[106]

Drummond assigns as an important reason for the departure of Erasmus
from England in 1514, the fact that the Press of England was at the
time too far behind the Press of the Continent to permit of the
satisfactory printing of important works. The reputation of the
scholarly work done by Froben, and the news that he was at work on an
edition of _S. Jerome_, had reached England, and were the means of
directing Erasmus to Basel and of bringing about an association that
proved of no little importance for both author and publisher. It was on
the journey that he met Sebastian Brandt, author of one of the famous
works of the century, _The Ship of Fools_, Wimpfelingus, Listrius, who
wrote a commentary on the _Praise of Folly_, and Beatus Rhenanus, who
became a life-long friend.

On arriving at Basel, Erasmus plunged at once into the work of Froben’s
publishing office. During his first year in Basel, in addition to
revising his _Encomium Moriæ_, and preparing for the press successive
editions of the _Adagia_ and the _De Copia_ (Book of Similes), he gave
arduous labour to the _S. Jerome_, the investment in which he shared
with Froben, and to another great undertaking, a complete edition
of the works of Seneca. He also began a series of translations from
Plutarch, and, a little later, undertook the editorial work on the
Froben edition of the New Testament. In 1515, while on a third visit to
England, Erasmus wrote his treatise on the _Education of a Christian
Prince_ (_Institutio Principis Christiani_), which was printed by
Froben in the year following. The prince on whose behalf the essay had
been prepared, and to whom it was dedicated, was Charles of Austria,
the Arch-duke of Burgundy, then a lad of fifteen, who was afterwards
known to history as the Emperor Charles V. Erasmus had visited
Brussels in 1513, and, while there, had been appointed a Councillor to
the young prince. The treatise is spoken of by biographers as sound in
counsel and wholesome in tone, but as possessing no very distinctive
importance, and Erasmus himself speaks slightingly of it. The essay
written by Erasmus for the guidance of the future emperor will
naturally be compared with the more famous treatise of Machiavelli,
_The Prince_, which was composed at about the same time, probably in
1516. _The Prince_ was prepared for the private use of Lorenzo de’
Medici, and was not designed for publication. It was put into print
in Florence about 1520, and despite the harsh criticisms that have
been brought upon it for what in modern times would be termed its
“Machiavellian” morality, it is to-day, nearly four centuries after its
publication, considered as belonging to the world’s literature.

In 1515, Erasmus took time from his literary work to interest himself
in behalf of his friend, the learned and high-minded Reuchlin, the
greatest Hebrew scholar of the age. Reuchlin had fallen under the
persecution of the Dominicans, led by the ignorant and bigoted
Hochstraten, for his opposition to the diabolical proposal to destroy
all existing Hebrew literature, the Scriptures alone excepted. He
had defended himself in a book entitled _The Eyeglass_ (_Speculum
Oculare_), and on a mandate being issued by Hochstraten to burn this,
Reuchlin had appealed from the Inquisition to the Pope.[107] The Bishop
of Speyer, to whom Leo committed the case, gave judgment in favour of
Reuchlin, and imposed on his enemies perpetual silence, a sentence
which proved difficult of execution. Reuchlin was condemned by the
Universities of Mayence, Erfurt, Louvain, and Paris, although there
were at the time professorships of Hebrew both in Louvain and in Paris.
The matter, in some fashion, was again brought before the Pope. Erasmus
made an earnest and eloquent appeal to the Pope on behalf of his
friend, and the support of the Emperor Maximilian was also secured for
the aged scholar who had done so much to bring honour upon the cause
of learning in Germany and in Europe. The Pope finally confirmed the
previous decision in favour of Reuchlin, a decision which rescued from
the status of heresy, in which it had been placed by the Dominicans
and the learned Faculties of the universities above specified, the
language of the Hebrew Scriptures and the literature of the chosen
people of God. Reuchlin’s books were rescued from the ban and their
learned author was saved from the risk of the stake. He continued to
teach Hebrew in Tübingen and in Ingolstadt, and published in 1520, in
Stuttgart, the first Hebrew Dictionary issued in Germany. In the appeal
made to the Pope by Erasmus, he is shrewd enough to emphasise the
importance of the collaboration rendered by Reuchlin in the preparation
of the _S. Jerome_, a work which had been fitly spoken of as an
enormous service rendered to the Church, and which the Pope himself had
specially commended.

The edition of the New Testament, edited by Erasmus at the instance
of Froben, was based in part upon the previous labours of Laurentius
Valla, to whom must be given the honour of having been the first to
attempt a revision of the text by a comparison of authorities. In
fact, some time before beginning work on his New Testament, Erasmus
had edited for Froben a volume containing the annotations of Valla.
In April, 1515, Beatus Rhenanus writes to Erasmus from Basel: “Froben
wants you to place in his hands your proposed edition of the New
Testament, and promises that he will give for your work as much as
anybody.”[108] A sentence so worded, written by one literary man
to another, has quite a modern sound, giving the impression that
several publishers were prepared at this time to bid against each
other for the editorial service of the first scholar of Europe. As a
fact, however, such a work as was projected could at this time have
been undertaken in but three or four places, while only two or three
publishers possessed the knowledge, the enterprise, or the plant
requisite for its production. The New Testament with the Erasmian notes
might have been printed in Paris, as far as the facilities for Greek
type were concerned, but the influence of the Theological Faculty of
the Sorbonne was entirely unfavourable to the presentation to the
public of any critical or analytical work on the Scriptures, and it
was very difficult, if not impracticable, for a university publisher
to handle successfully a work in the department of theology, of
which the Sorbonne disapproved. Koberger of Nuremberg had publishing
facilities adequate for such an undertaking, but Koberger appears to
have associated himself with the more conservative group of Catholic
scholars, and to this group the Testament of Erasmus, with its critical
notes, seemed to be a very dangerous innovation.

The result showed that there was ground for their misgivings, as the
Testament of Erasmus was to prove of most vital service to the cause of
the Reformation, although the learned editor himself was at the time
regarded with suspicion, if not with enmity, by the larger number of
Protestant leaders. There remained the Press of Aldus; the Venetian
would unquestionably have been very ready to take charge of the book,
and his Press possessed at the time larger facilities for the printing
of Greek than could be offered by Froben, or than existed outside of
Venice. Erasmus appears, however, to have decided that for the purposes
of this work Basel was a better centre of distribution than Venice,
and it was doubtless the case that a much larger circle of readers
could be looked for in Switzerland, Germany, and other regions to be
conveniently reached from Basel, than was to be found in the market
more immediately at the command of Venice.

Notwithstanding the very large investment of skilled labour and of
money that the New Testament called for, the publication proved
a financial success. A second edition was required within three
years, making a total printing, up to 1519, of 3300 folio copies.
In this second edition the text was largely altered and the volume
was fortified with a papal brief, a copy of the Nicene creed, and an
engraving of the Trinity, which ought, as Drummond remarks, to have
proved effectual in protecting the work against charges of heresy.
Above the letter of the Pope is printed a quaint device, a woodcut
representing the victorious Germans under Arminius overthrowing the
legions of Varus, and accompanied by an inscription, _Tandem, vipera,
Sibillare desiste_. The insertion of this German device with its motto
was probably the work of the printer. The purport of it could hardly be
considered as complimentary to an Italian Pope. Froude, in commenting
upon the great popular interest in the book, says that 100,000 copies
were speedily sold in France alone,[109] but I can find no evidence
in the records of the printing of any such number, and I think that
Froude must have been misled by some general reference to its wide
distribution.

There is not space here to consider the long series of controversies
provoked by the publication of the Testament of Erasmus, a volume which
undoubtedly contained the first text approximating to correctness that
Europe had as yet known. As before stated, the text was utilised by
Luther as the basis of his own all-important German version, although
in the bitterness of the disappointment on the part of the Lutherans
that they had not secured the adherence of the great scholar, they
appear never to have made any very specific acknowledgment of the
enormous service rendered to the cause of the Reformation, as well
by his scholarship as by his courage. On the side of the Church, the
murmurings were many and soon became bitter. Accusations were heard
of heresy and Arianism. Erasmus had departed from the version of the
Vulgate, and had substituted comparatively pure Latin for the monastic
barbarisms, and he had even, it was said, charged the Apostles with
writing bad Greek. He had had the temerity to correct a number of
texts in such a way as materially to alter their meaning, and he had
omitted altogether the testimony of the “Three Witnesses” in the first
Epistle of John. This unfortunate verse, after being accepted by the
Protestants on the strength of its retention by Luther, and of the
later and more scholarly authority of the editors of the King James
version, was finally condemned as an interpolation by the revisers
under Victoria, who were thus in a position, after an interval of three
and a half centuries, to bear testimony to the accurate scholarship and
the editorial boldness of Erasmus. It is to be regretted, on the ground
of the consistency of Erasmus, that he was induced, in a later edition,
to restore this text (I John, v. 7).

That Erasmus did possess the courage of his convictions was evidenced
by the character of the notes appended to the volume. I have space
for but a single instance. In commenting upon the famous text, Matt.
xvi. 18, “Upon this rock will I build my church,” he takes occasion to
deny altogether the primacy of Peter, and to express his surprise that
words undoubtedly meant to apply to all Christians should have been
interpreted as applying exclusively to the Roman Pontiff; and this is
said, it should be remembered, in a volume dedicated to the Pope.[110]

In 1524, Erasmus completed his _Paraphrase of the New Testament_,
which was also printed by Froben. Drummond speaks of this book as of
no great intrinsic importance, but says further, that no other of his
productions gave such universal satisfaction, or so entirely escaped
criticism. An English version was printed in London under the authority
of the author, and the work was so highly appreciated in England that
a copy was ordered to be placed in every parish church beside the
Bible.[111]

It had been the hope of Erasmus that the reformation of the Church, the
necessity for which he so fully recognised, was to be brought about by
the advancement of sound learning and the diffusion of the Scriptures.
By this means, as he believed, the superstitions of the monks and their
followers would be dissipated, the corruptions of the Church would be
purged, and the unity of christendom be preserved. To the production of
literature planned to further this great purpose, Erasmus had devoted
a lifetime of arduous and scholarly toil, and to his books he added
the influence of an enormous and far-reaching correspondence. It was
also to the initiation and inspiration of Erasmus that must be credited
not a few of the great undertakings of his earnest friend Froben,
“the publisher of high ideals,” undertakings which, with hardly an
exception, had for their purpose the enlightenment and development of
a perplexed world. The final work of the Reformation was to be done
under other leaders than Erasmus, and the results were to be brought
about by other means than the publication of correct texts, scholarly
commentaries, or even of satires upon monkish abuses. But the wit,
learning, and intellectual force of Erasmus, brought to bear, in part
through his correspondence, and in part through the Presses of Froben,
Badius, and Aldus, exerted a wider influence and played a much greater
part in the long contest against the rule of monkish superstition than
was understood at the time, or than has, in fact, been fully recognised
until a comparatively recent period.

In 1519, Erasmus completed for Froben an edition of _Cyprian_, planned
as a companion to the _Jerome_, and an edition of Cicero’s _Offices_,
a book which, as before mentioned, the list of no scholarly publisher
could be without. In 1518, Froben published for his friend the
_Familiar Colloquies_, which became, next to the _Praise of Folly_, the
best known work of Erasmus, and which is accepted by his biographers,
as expressing, perhaps more directly and comprehensively than any other
of his writings, his personal opinions, prejudices, feelings, and
preferences. Drummond says of it: “The established fame of the author,
the intrinsic merits of the work itself, its adaptation to the times,
the pungent epigrams which glittered on every page, and, perhaps not
least, the suspicions of heresy which began to be whispered round,
all contributed to secure for it an immense circulation.”[112] Froude
writes: “The _Colloquies_ are pictures of his own mind, pictures of men
and things which show the hand of an artist in the highest sense, never
spiteful, never malicious, always delightful and amusing, and finished
photographs of the world in which the author lived and moved.”[113] The
book was translated into nearly every European tongue. The authorised
editions were many and profitable, and the unauthorised, still more
numerous. One printer in Paris took advantage of a report that the
University was about to condemn the work, to print no less than
twenty-four thousand copies.[114] From this edition the author appears
to have derived no advantage. He bears patiently enough the financial
injury caused by the unauthorised issues, but becomes justly indignant
when a Dominican friar publishes an “expurgated edition” from which are
eliminated or “corrected” the passages bearing hardly upon the monks,
of which there were not a few. The work was finally condemned by the
Sorbonne, and it had the honour, somewhat later, of being placed by the
Inquisition in the first class of prohibited books.[115]

In 1523, Erasmus published through Froben the first complete edition of
the writings of S. Hilary, a work which, owing to the great corruption
of the manuscript, cost him, as he tells us, enormous labour, and which
was also for the publisher a very costly undertaking. The account
books of Froben have, unfortunately, not been preserved, but it is
probable from the references in his correspondence, that the _Hilary_,
undertaken at the instance of Erasmus, brought upon him a loss. This
was followed in the same year by an enlarged edition of his _Method of
True Theology_, in which Erasmus draws a laboured comparison between
the pains of authors and those of mothers, remarking that some of the
former are like bears, which bring forth mere lumps of flesh and then
are compelled to lick their cubs into shape.[116]

In 1524, Erasmus published his famous treatise on _Free Will_, in which
he defined clearly his relations to the Lutheran movement. In so far as
this movement represented a protest and revolt against the many abuses
that had crept into the Church, Erasmus had found himself in cordial
sympathy with it, and, in fact, by no one had these abuses been set
forth more graphically and more boldly than by himself. His criticism
of the corruption and the evils of the Romanists had been so keen and
so unsparing that the Protestants could not understand why he did not
join hands with their leaders and break altogether with Rome. Erasmus
was prevented from taking this course by two considerations: he did
believe in a Church Universal, and he did not believe in the Lutheran
doctrines. Condemned as a heretic by many of the Roman ecclesiastics,
he was stamped by the Protestants as a coward and a time-server. To
the student of to-day, it would appear that the course taken by him was
the result of honest and consistent conviction, and gave evidence of a
higher and more discriminating courage than would have been evidenced
by an acceptance of the cardinal’s hat that was waiting for him in
Rome, or of the leadership in a popular cause which was proffered from
Wittenberg. The treatise on _Free Will_ was the statement of Erasmus of
the grounds on which he was unable to accept the conclusions of Luther.

In 1526, the Dean and Faculty of the Theological School of Paris
came together to consider the erroneous, scandalous, and impious
propositions contained in the book by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam,
called _Familiar Colloquies_, and decided that the reading of the
same should be prohibited. The prime mover in this censure was the
Chancellor Bedier, who was for many years the persistent opponent of
the liberal-minded publisher, Robert Estienne. The writings of Erasmus
had secured a considerable circulation in Spain, the editions which
were sold there being at the outset supplied from Basel and from
Paris. Later, unauthorised issues of the Latin version were printed in
Salamanca, and the _Enchiridion_ and the _Colloquies_ were both printed
also in Spanish translations. The Dominicans and Franciscans attacked
furiously both the books and their author, but the authority of the
Archbishop of Seville, directed probably by the favourable influence of
the Emperor, was sufficient for a quarter of a century to prevent the
books from being formally condemned. Their titles finally appear in the
_Index_ of the Inquisition in 1550 (see the chapter on Plantin).

In 1527, there came to Erasmus a great loss in the death of his
trusted friend Froben. “I bore with calmness the death of my brother,”
writes Erasmus, “but I cannot endure the loss of Froben. He was a true
friend, so simple and sincere, that even if he had wished to conceal
anything, it was so repugnant to his nature that he would have found
it impossible, so ready to do good to all that he was glad to confer
a favour even where it was not desired, which made him an easy prey
to thieves and impostors.... To me his kindness was unbounded. What
plots would he not lay, what occasions would he not seek, to force some
present, upon me! nor did I ever see him better pleased than when he
had prevailed upon me, either by artifice or by entreaties, to accept
one ... nor did I ever find more use for my rhetoric than to invent
pretexts for declining the munificence of my publisher without giving
umbrage to my friend: for I could not bear to see him disappointed....
He paid bills for me before I suspected it, nor could he be prevailed
upon by any entreaties to take back the money ... and this kind of
contest went on between us continually ... but I am sure all his
family will bear witness that I availed myself of his kindness very
moderately. Whatever labours I undertook for him I undertook for the
love of learning. Considering that he gave up his whole life to the
advancement of such labours, avoiding no fatigue by day or night, but
esteeming it a sufficient gain if a good author came into the hands of
the public with due dignity, how could I prey upon a man thus minded?
Sometimes, when he showed to me and to other friends the first pages
of some great author, how he danced for joy, how his face beamed with
triumph! You would have thought he was already reaping in the greatest
abundance the fruits of his labours and expected no other reward....
Within these few years, how many volumes, and in what noble type, have
issued from Froben’s office.... He has refrained from having anything
to do with controversial tracts, from which no small profits have been
made by others, lest he should bring useful learning into disrepute....
He was bent on printing _Augustine_ to equal the splendour of the
_Jerome_, notwithstanding the discouragements of myself and other
friends, and he was wont to say that he desired no longer life than
would suffice to finish _Augustine_, of which he saw the completion
of the first and second volumes only. It was a pious wish, and the
spirit by which he was animated was deserving of immortality.... He
leaves wife, children, friends, the whole city, all who knew him or
his work, bitterly to lament his loss.... Gratitude demands that we
give our hearty support to the printing-office of Froben, which is to
be continued, so that what he has so well begun may ever improve and
develop.”[117] This letter is certainly most honourable both to the
writer and to the man whose faithful work is thus commemorated, and the
friendship between the two men forms an interesting and characteristic
episode in the long history of the relations of publishers and authors.

The later productions from the pen of Erasmus may be briefly noted:
A treatise on the Confessional, which appeared in 1524, and which,
with characteristic boldness, contains a scathing exposure of the
evils of the institution; an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, printed
at about the same date; a series of devotional addresses and brief
commentaries, in 1524 and 1525; a treatise on the use and abuse of the
tongue, in 1525; the _Institution of Christian Matrimony_, in 1526;
the _Christian Widow_, in 1527, written in compliment to Maria, sister
of Charles V., whose husband, the King of Bohemia, had been killed
shortly before; an edition of _Irenæus_, in 1526 (_Irenæus_ had not
before been printed, and the work of Erasmus had, therefore, to be done
from manuscripts); an edition of _Ambrose_, in four volumes, in 1527;
an essay on the correct pronunciation of Latin and Greek, in 1528; an
edition of _Seneca_ (of whom he speaks as a pagan saint), in 1529; the
concluding volumes of the great _S. Augustine_, in the same year; the
works of S. Chrysostom, in 1530 (this contains a Latin translation
and a memoir); the _Apopthegms of the Ancients_, in eight books, in
1531; the works of S. Basil, in 1532; and, finally, _Ecclesiastes_, a
treatise on the preacher, in 1534. This was the last book completed
by the busy scholar, but his correspondence continued active until
his death, which occurred in July, 1536. A number of the larger works
mentioned in the above brief summary, such as the _S. Augustine_ and
the _S. Chrysostom_, were prepared for the press with the co-operation
of others, but even these represented very considerable labour on the
part of the responsible editor, and it is not easy to understand how,
dyspeptic invalid that he was, he was able to find the time and the
strength for such continuous and such arduous labour. Nearly all of the
books of the last nine years were printed in the Froben Press, which
was being successfully carried on by Jerome Froben, the eldest son of
its founder, with the aid of his friend Boniface Amerbach. Erasmus had,
in 1529, on the ground of the increasing bitterness of the Protestant
feeling in Basel, given up with no little regret his home in that city,
and had removed to Friburg. His intercourse with the Frobens continued
unbroken, however, and Jerome Froben was with him at the time of his
death.

I have given a fuller reference to the literary undertakings of
Erasmus than might seem to be warranted by the general purpose and
proportion of my narrative. I had, however, thought it desirable to
present with some detail the record of the publishing relations of
some representative author of the time, and the career of Erasmus
rendered him, on a number of grounds, the most distinctive author for
my purpose. His commanding position and world-wide celebrity as a
scholar, his relations with men of note and of learning in Protestant
as well as Catholic circles, the wide circulation secured for his
writings, a circulation absolutely without precedent in the history of
the world’s literature, and, finally, his close association with the
most famous publishers of their time, two of whom, Aldus and Froben,
must take rank with the most famous publishers of any time--all these
considerations unite to make the experience of Erasmus, as an author,
one of exceptional interest in the history of publishing undertakings.
To the above summary must be added the important detail that Erasmus
was the first author, after the invention of printing, to secure a
large and continued return from the sales of his writings. From the
time of Gutenberg on, payments had been made by publishers to the
scholarly editors whose services were utilised in preparing for the
press the editions of the classics and the Fathers, to whose works the
earlier publishing undertakings were with rare exceptions restricted.
There is record also of the publication before the close of the
fifteenth century and early in the sixteenth, chiefly in Paris, of
occasional volumes of original writings. Few of these, however, were
addressed to what we should call the general public, and before the
time of Erasmus there is no record of an author’s making money by the
sale of original productions. While the correspondence and diaries of
Erasmus have been preserved, I find no mention of any accounts, and,
in fact, he was not the kind of a man who would have been likely to
trouble himself with such details as account-books. Unfortunately,
the records of Froben’s business have disappeared, and we have no
means of ascertaining the precise amounts paid to Erasmus by his
publishers, either for his editorial services or for royalties on
his books. Drummond is, however, of opinion that these receipts were
very considerable. Erasmus spent from year to year considerable sums
in journeys, in books and manuscripts, and in other ways, although
during the years of his sojourn in the house of Froben, his actual
living expenses must have been moderate. He had no property, the small
inheritance from his father having been dissipated by his guardians.
In addition to the income from his books, he had, after 1507, a pension
of sixty pounds settled on him by Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury;
there was, for a time at least, a pension from Lord Mountjoy; and a
pension of some smaller amount (I have not been able to find the exact
figures) from the Emperor Charles V. after 1523. Froude estimates his
income from pensions in 1529 at four hundred florins.[118] He also
received from time to time various presents of money from his wealthy
English friends, such as Colet, More, Warham, and the Lady of Vere, and
from Popes Leo X., Adrian VI., and Clement VII. According to Froude, he
had no capacity for taking care of money, and however much he received,
he was always in need. In his earlier years he found occasion, in
fact, to write not a few applications for money, in a style of appeal
which strikes the reader of to-day as entirely unbefitting for a man
of his character, education, and intellectual distinction. It was,
indeed, not until his association with Froben had made clear to him
that his writings possessed commercial value, that he was able to
shake off the feeling of dependence upon the purses of patrons. With
his earlier books, his first thought appears to have been to utilise
the appreciation of them by his friends as a means of securing gifts.
After Froben had shown him that by proper management the books could
be made to secure from the appreciation of the public at large good
returns for the author, the letters of Erasmus became free from the
repeated suggestions concerning gifts and financial aid which formed a
disagreeable feature of much of the earlier correspondence.

It was not the least of the important services rendered by Froben that
he was able to further the development of a spirit of independence on
the part of the greatest author of his time, and to rescue him from the
demoralising influences of literary patronage.




[Illustration]

CHAPTER X.

LUTHER AS AN AUTHOR--1483-1546.


IN the long list of the noteworthy men of the sixteenth century, the
men who helped to shape the history not only of their own generation,
but of long series of generations to come, a leading place, possibly
the leading place, must be assigned to Martin Luther.

The story of the bold-hearted Augustinian monk, who, strong in his
convictions of the justice of his cause, and strong in his faith that
the Lord would protect his own, ventured to assail the abuses and,
finally, even to question the authority of the Church of Rome, the only
Church then known to Europe, and who dared, standing almost alone, to
withstand the mandates of pope and of emperor--this story, forming one
of the great dramas of history, has been often told. For the purposes
of the present narrative, however, I am not concerned with Luther as
a Reformer, as a fighter, or as a Christian hero, but simply with his
work and his relations as an author.

It was inevitable, in selecting two authors as examples of the literary
activities and of the publishing methods of the first part of the
sixteenth century, that one of these two should be Luther, whose
writings achieved a larger popularity and exercised a more far-reaching
influence than could be claimed for any books of the century. It is
to be borne in mind, however, that Luther’s work as an author was not
something apart from his interests as a Reformer. He wrote because
he felt the spirit of the Lord to be upon him, and because he had
the conviction that he was God’s instrument for bringing a message to
the world, and for delivering the true Church from the burdens and
corruptions that had been brought upon it through the wiles of Satan.

The Reformation was an intellectual revolution, and the immediate work
of the Reformers was carried on by argument, presented in part by
preaching, but very largely by means of printed material, books and
pamphlets. It is difficult to conceive of the accomplishment of the
Reformation without the aid of the printing-press, and it is probably,
in fact, not too much to say that, without the printing-press, the work
done by the Reformers could not have been brought about at all. The
Church authorities had, as we have seen, given to the first printers a
cordial welcome, and many of the earlier typographers had been indebted
to ecclesiastics for all important co-operation and support. After,
however, the printers of Wittenberg had begun to send out by thousands
the pamphlets of Luther and Melanchthon, and when, a little later,
the presses of Geneva and Zurich were being devoted to supplying to a
public still nearer to Rome the writings of Calvin and Zwingli; when,
in fact, Europe seemed to be full of “winged words,” words the sting of
which was nearly always directed against Rome, the ecclesiastics began
to realise the extent of their blunder. Repression in various forms was
attempted: rigorous censorship, prohibition, confiscation and burning
of copies, the _Index Expurgatorius_, the ban of excommunication on
writers and printers of forbidden books--all these and other forms
of restriction were put into force, with the very general result
of advertising the objectionable literature, of emphasising its
importance, and of adding to its circulation and its influence. The
Church finally took the printing-press into its own service, and it
succeeded, in the course of a generation or two, in training up a
school of literary defenders and apologists who, in the period of the
Catholic revival, were able, in a measure at least, to hold their own
in controversy with the Protestant opponents of Rome. It was certainly
the case, however, that, taking the sixteenth century as a whole, the
printing press proved one of the most effective of the influences for
undermining the authority of the Papacy and for restricting the rule of
the Roman Church.

Luther had been prompt to recognise the value for his work of the new
art. He was equally keen in his appreciation of the fact that if the
fight against Rome was to secure a popular support, it was necessary to
reach with the teachings of the Reformers not only the limited circles
of the educated, but the masses of the people. It was for this purpose
that Luther, first among the leaders of the Reformation, put forth his
sermons, tracts, and controversial pamphlets at once in the language
of the people, and he completed his great appeal to the understanding
and the moral sense of his fellow countrymen with the stupendous and
magnificent achievement of the German Bible. For thousands of Germans,
the first practical knowledge of the existence of the possibilities of
the printing-press came to them with the sight of the sheets of the
Wittenberg pamphlets or of the volumes of the Wittenberg Testament.

It would doubtless have seemed to Luther a small thing in his life’s
work that, while carrying on his great fight against Rome, he was also
laying the foundation of the book-trade of Germany and of Europe,
but this was a matter of no little moment, if only for the lasting
influence of the Reformation itself. The historians of the time are
certainly in substantial accord in the conclusion that the enormous
impetus given to the education and active-mindedness of the people
through the distribution and the eager acceptance of the writings of
the Reformers, the habits then formed of buying and of reading printed
matter, the incentive secured for the work of the printers and the
booksellers, and the practice that came into vogue of circulating
books and pamphlets by means of pedlars and colporteurs in districts
far beyond the reach of the book-shops, had both an immediate and an
abiding effect upon the reading habits of the German people and did
much to bring about the development of the publishing and bookselling
business in Germany.

Luther’s life covered the sixty-three years between 1483 and 1546. At
the time of his birth, the printing-press had been in operation for a
third of a century. When, in 1517, he printed, in Wittenberg, his first
book (a collection of sermons on the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s
Prayer), the production of printed books was still an unfamiliar art.
The principal German centres of the new publishing trade were Basel,
Frankfort, Augsburg, and Nuremberg. In the North of Germany, much
less had been done, although, for some years, there had been presses
in Cologne, and a beginning had been made in Leipzig. It was the
Reformation and the superior intellectual activity of the Protestants
that transferred the literary and publishing preponderance from South
to North Germany, a preponderance that through the succeeding centuries
has continued and has increased.

The list of Luther’s works is not a long one, and is made up in great
part of pamphlets. His chief writings may be briefly summarised as
follows:

    1516. “Sermons on the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer.”

    1517. “Commentary on the Seven Penitential Psalms.”

    The title-page of this volume reads: _F. Martinus Luder Augustiner
    zŭ Wittenberg_. (The Seven Penitential Psalms was one of the two
    devotional publications of Colard Mansion, the first printer of
    Bruges, whose edition was issued in 1471.)

    1517. “A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace.”

    The immediate incentive to this sermon was the sale of Indulgences
    by Tetzel.

    1518. “Conclusions.” The title given to the famous ninety-five
    theses.

    1518. “Lectures on the Epistle to the Galatians.”

    1520. “Address to the Christian Nobility of Germany.”

    The title-page bears no date and no imprint. Below the name of the
    author appears simply “Zu Wittenberg.”

    1520. A treatise entitled “Why the Books of the Pope and his
    Disciples were burnt by Dr. Martin Luther.”

    This was published shortly after the burning by Martin Luther, in
    Wittenberg, of the papal decretals, the name given by Köstlin to
    the papal law-books, and a collection of the writings of Eck and
    other papal advocates.

    1521 (The year of the Diet of Worms). A series of controversial
    pamphlets in reply to Emser.

    1521. An “Exposition of the Gospel” and a Commentary on the
    “Magnificat.”

    1521. Tracts on “The Abuse of Masses,” and “On Monastic Vows.”

    1522 (September). The complete German version of “The New
    Testament.”

    The first edition comprised 5000 copies.

    1522 (December). A second edition of 5000 copies.

    1527. Various treatises in reply to the teachings of Zwingli and
    Œcolampadius.

    The four years following 1522 appear to have been chiefly devoted,
    as far as literary production was concerned, to the revision of
    “The New Testament” and to work on the version of the books of “The
    Old Testament.”

    1528. Various treatises or tracts on “Confession,” the “Lord’s
    Supper,” “Anabaptism,” the war against the Turks, a commentary on
    the first twenty-five Psalms, and a version of thirteen of the
    “Fables of Æsop.”

    1530 (The year of the Diet of Augsburg). A series of tracts on
    “The Keys of the Church,” “The Forgiveness of Sins,” and “The
    Sacrament,” “The Duty of Keeping Children at School,” and a
    commentary on the 118th Psalm.

    1531. The German version of the Psalms.

    1531. Gloss on the supposed “Edict” of the Emperor, and a “Warning
    to his Beloved Germans.”

    1532. “Exposition of Genesis.”

    1537. A treatise on German Names.

    This was issued at Wittenberg, anonymously, but, according to
    Köstlin, was unquestionably the work of Luther.

    1539. A treatise on Councils and Churches.

    1539. A tract against the practice of usury.

    1541. A treatise on Biblical Chronology.

    1541. The completed German version of the Bible.

    Revised issues of this were printed in 1543 and in 1545.

    1543. “The Summer Postills,” with a series of sermons on the
    Epistles.

    1545. A pamphlet entitled “The Popedom at Rome Instituted by the
    Devil.”

    1545. Cranach’s Caricatures against Popedom, with brief verses on
    texts by Luther.

    1545. A revised edition of his collected Latin writings.

All the above were printed at Wittenberg.

The greater number of the pamphlets were issued at once in two
editions, one Latin and one German.

One of the more important of the earlier pamphlets or _Flugschriften_
of Luther was the _Address to the Nobles of Germany_, which was printed
in August, 1520, and of which five thousand copies were sold in five
days. Of the pamphlet containing his controversial address against
Eck, printed in 1518, fourteen hundred copies were sold in two days at
the Frankfort Fair. The popular interest excited by the writings of
Luther and his associates brought about a great change in the trade of
the book-shops. Editions of the Fathers and of the lives of the Saints
were pushed to one side from the counters or the book-shelves, or were
stored away in the warehouses, and even the classics were neglected.
All the demand was for the writings of the Reformers. The replies of
the defenders of the Church found for some years a comparatively slow
sale, as the sympathies of the larger book-publishing centres and of
the public reached by them were largely with the Protestants. Some few
of the leading publishers, including the two most important in Germany,
Froben of Basel and Koberger of Nuremberg, remained, however, in the
orthodox fold, and Froben, possibly at the instance of Erasmus, gave up
printing the writings of Luther.

Luther’s first publisher was Johann Weissenburger from Nuremberg, who
had, in 1513, established himself in Landshut in Bavaria. In Landshut
he printed, in 1517, a tract by Luther entitled _Tractatus de his qui
ad Ecclesias Confugiunt_. Later in the same year, the treatise on the
Seven Penitential Psalms was printed by Joh. Grunenberg in Wittenberg,
also in Latin. This was, however, immediately followed by a version in
German, of which in five years no less than nine editions appeared.
The ninety-five theses, copies of which, on the 31st of October, 1517,
Luther had nailed on the doors of the Wittenberg castle church, were
printed in that town, in the same year, in Latin, under the title
_Disputatio pio Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum_. This first
edition was followed by three others printed in Wittenberg, and one in
Nuremberg. A year later appeared, also in Wittenberg, the first edition
in German, which, in the course of the next two years, was followed by
twenty-two other editions. These were printed in Wittenberg, Leipzig,
Nuremberg, Augsburg, Basel, and Breslau. It does not seem practicable
to ascertain, either from the publishing records or from the references
in the various biographies, how far these editions were authorised or
how far they represented simply the enterprise of piratical printers.
What is made quite clear in the various utterances of Luther himself,
is the fact that his only desire was to secure for the theses the
widest possible circulation. He made no criticism of the action of
any of the printers who put into the market editions of this or of
his other writings, excepting when such editions, not having had the
benefit of the author’s supervision, were printed in incorrect or
incomplete form.

The _Sermo de Digna Preparatione Cordis_ was published in 1518, and
the German version followed a few months later. Of the original were
printed during the next two years eight editions in Wittenberg,
Leipzig, and Augsburg, while of the translation, during the same
period, were issued no less than thirteen editions. Of the tract
entitled _Die Deutsche Theologie_, printed at once in Latin and
in German in 1518, appeared during the succeeding four years from
seventy-five to eighty separate editions. The bibliographers are in
doubt as to the precise number.[119]

Of the sermon or tract upon the _Sale of Indulgences_, Kapp records
ten authorised editions in the two years succeeding 1518, and three
editions issued respectively in Leipzig, Nuremberg, and Augsburg, which
are specifically described as unauthorised. The next of the series of
tracts of this year, _Decem Precepta Wittenbergensi Predicata Popula_,
was printed in the Latin form in five editions, and in the German
version in seven. Among the latter are included three unauthorised
issues, again dating from Leipzig, Augsburg, and Basel. There was also
a Bohemian edition issued in Prague in 1520. It is not surprising that
printers like Petri, working at so distant a point as Basel, should
have felt free, with “missionary” material of this kind for which
there was an immediate popular demand, to put forth editions without
reference to the author. It is somewhat surprising, however, that
unauthorised editions should also have been issued in Leipzig, but a
few miles from Wittenberg, as with the leading publishers of Leipzig
Luther and his Wittenberg associates had maintained satisfactory
relations. Other tracts of this period, the most of which were
printed in the same publishing centres, and the editions of which,
both Latin and German, were promptly absorbed by the public, were the
_Resolutiones Disputationum de Indulgentiarum Virtute_, the German
version of the hundred and tenth _Psalm_, and the _Sermo de Virtute
Excommunicationis_.

The complete Lutheran version of _The New Testament_, published in
1522, constituted not only, as the historians of the time make clear,
a central fact of first importance in the work of the Reformation, but
the most noteworthy of the literary productions of its author. The work
is of necessity classed as a translation, but it was a translation into
which had been absorbed, in very large measure, the individuality and
original thought of the writer. The production of this German Bible was
an essential part of the work of the Protestant Reformers. The teaching
that Christian believers must base their relations with their Creator
upon the inspired Word required that this Word should be placed within
reach of all Christians and should be in a form to be understood by the
unlettered as well as by the scholarly.

In addition to the great work done by Luther for the world at large,
he rendered to Germany the essential service of initiating (or, as
some German historians say, of creating) high German literature. The
half century’s work of the printing-press had thus far been devoted
almost exclusively to the production of books for scholars, printed in
Latin, the universal language of scholarship, or, in a few instances,
in Greek. The Brothers of Common Life in Holland, and a small number
of other printers in North Germany, had printed for the use of the
people books of a popular character in low German, _platt-deutsch_. It
was Luther who recognised the better possibilities of development and
for literary expression existing in the division of the language known
as high German, the form that (with the changes of three centuries)
has since been known as German. In selecting this tongue for his own
writings, and, what was of more abiding importance, for his version
of the Bible, Luther made of it the foundation of modern German
literature. He did not, in fact, find a vehicle ready-made and fully
fitted for his purpose, but through his own wealth of imagination
and study and incisive speech, he contributed not a little to secure
for this new language of literature strength and flexibility for
forcible and varied expression. The printed books in German before the
appearance of the first tracts of Luther, formed but an inconsiderable
group, and were restricted practically to chap-books and almanacs, and
to popular medicine or herb-lore, a few folk-songs and tales, and some
editions of lives of the Saints, printed principally by the Brothers of
Common Life.

The labour and natural philological capacity required for such a task
as producing a German version of the Bible at a time when no such
thing as a German dictionary existed, and when there was, in fact, no
accepted standard for literary expression in the German tongue, must
have been very considerable. It was peculiarly fortunate that this
capacity was, in Luther, united with the strenuousness of purpose and
persistent industry which rendered the work possible at all. The final
work of his translation was completed in the Castle of the Wartburg,
during his sojourn there as a voluntary prisoner in charge of his
valiant defender, Ulrich von Hutten, after his return from the Diet of
Worms.

The piratical reprinters took prompt advantage of the popular interest
in the work. The “enterprising” Petri of Basel was the earliest in
the field, getting his first reprint into the market before the close
of the year (1522) in which the original had appeared. During the
succeeding three years, Petri printed in all seven editions, four in
octavo and three in folio. His neighbour and rival, Wolf, printed
during the same time five editions, and Schönsperger of Augsburg
followed with three. I do not find record of the number of copies
comprised in these several editions, but they must have aggregated a
good many thousands. In estimating the cost of their production, it
is to be borne in mind that the process of taking casts or _clichés_
of the type was an invention of a much later period, and it was,
therefore, necessary with each fresh impression to reset the type.

In 1520, a Bull of Leo X. excommunicated Luther, condemned his works
individually and collectively, ordered existing copies to be burnt, and
prohibited, under severe penalties, the printing, sale, distribution,
or even possession of any of his writings. The immediate effect of
this Bull was to cause a largely increased sale throughout nearly all
parts of Germany for everything that Luther had written, and to bring
about also a very considerable demand for them from other countries.
Köstlin estimates that by 1520, more than one hundred editions had
been printed of the German versions of Luther’s sermons and tracts.
This estimate includes, of course, all the unauthorised issues,
as well as the editions printed at Luther’s Wittenberg Press. The
distribution of these pamphlets was effected only in part through the
regular book-trade. Thousands of copies were sold in the market-places
by dealers of all kinds, many of whom had never before handled books;
and large supplies were distributed among readers out of reach of
the book-shops and the market-places, by travelling pedlars and by
colporteurs. Many of the latter were travelling students, who were
working not for gain, but in the cause of the Reform. These popular
tracts of the excommunicated heretic appear to have met the needs of
all classes, educated and uneducated, and secured a wider circulation
than had heretofore been achieved by any religious works, or, for that
matter, by any writings whatever.

During the earlier years of his work, while this work was directed
rather against the abuses that had grown up in the Church than against
the authority of the Church itself, and before the Reformers had
attempted any constructive theology, Luther was able to preserve
relations with the leaders of the Humanistic movement, and received
encouraging letters from men like Erasmus and Reuchlin, who stood at
the head of the liberal scholarship of the time. It was only later,
when the Church had cast out Luther and the Lutherans had definitely
repudiated the authority of the Church, and when the doctrines
of the Lutheran creed had been finally formulated, that Erasmus,
who had heartily sympathised with the fight against the abuses of
ecclesiasticism, but who believed that the Church Universal should be
preserved, and who did not believe in the doctrine of justification by
faith, cast in his lot with the opponents of Luther, a decision that
was marked by the publication of his famous essay on _Free Will_. The
Reformers took pains, however, to utilise for their cause, as far as
practicable, the influence and the learning of the Humanists.

In 1520, Ulrich von Hutten published a translation of the treatise of
Laurentius Valla, one of the earliest of the Italian Humanists, which
had been first issued in Naples in 1450, and in which was exposed
the forgery of the _Donation_ of Constantine. The _Donation_ was the
document or edict in which Constantine was supposed to have granted to
the Roman See the possession and control of the entire western world,
making the Church the heir of the Roman Empire. The scholarly argument
of Valla had never been refuted, and its republication at this time
dealt a heavy blow to the traditional pretensions of the Papacy; but
this purpose did not prevent von Hutten from dedicating his translation
to Leo X.

Shortly after the publication of the revised edition of _The New
Testament_, the indefatigable Luther entered upon the still more
laborious task of translating the books of _The Old Testament_, the
work upon which continued for a number of years. He secured the help
of a group of scholarly collaborators, of whom the most important was
Melanchthon. For _The New Testament_ he had had the use of the Greek
edition edited by Erasmus, and recently published by Froben of Basel, a
volume which, as well for the accuracy of its text as for the scholarly
authority, the boldness and the original information of its notes, far
surpassed any texts of the Scriptures as yet issued. Luther expresses
very freely his obligations to the learning and industry of Erasmus,
and never got over his astonishment that a man who had the scholarship
and the courage to puncture so many of the unwarranted assumptions
of the Roman Church, could still believe that Church to be worth
preserving.

The Catholic theologian Cochläus, a violent opponent, says: “Luther’s
_New Testament_ was multiplied by the printers in a most wonderful
degree, so that even shoe-makers and women and every lay person
acquainted with the German type, read it greedily as the fountain of
all truth, and by repeatedly reading it impressed it on their memory.
By this means they acquired in a few months so much knowledge that
they ventured to dispute not only with Catholic laymen, but even with
masters and doctors of theology, about faith and the gospel.”[120]

Luther’s young friend, Mathesius, thus describes one of the meetings
of Luther and his collaborators on the work of the German Bible: “Dr.
Luther came to them with his old Latin Bible, his Hebrew texts, and
the portions of his German translation. Philip (Melanchthon) brought
the Greek text, and Dr. Kreuziger (Cruciger), besides the Hebrew, the
Chaldaic Bible (the translations or paraphrase in use among the ancient
Jews); the other professors had with them their ‘Rabbis’ (_i. e._ the
Rabbinical writings of the Old Testament). Each one had previously
armed himself with a knowledge of the text and had compared the Greek
and Latin with the Jewish version. The president then pronounced a text
and let the opinions go round. Speeches of wondrous truth and beauty
are said to have been made at these sittings.”[121]

The most important of the publishers who issued unauthorised editions
of Luther’s writings was, as stated, Adam Petri, of Basel. During the
ten years between 1520 and 1530, he made a special business of the
issue of these reprints, and according to Kapp, he derived from them
large profits. I find no record of any complaints from Luther directed
specifically against Petri. His principal annoyance about reprints had
been in connection with inaccurate and incomplete texts, but the Petri
Press had a good repute for the excellence of its typography.

In Augsburg, where had appeared some of the earliest issues of the
Bible, Hans Schönsperger printed, in 1523, an (unauthorised) edition
of Luther’s _New Testament_, with woodcuts by Schäuflein. In 1524, a
complete series of Luther’s writings was printed by Sylvan Othmar. It
is not clear whether or not this edition received the sanction of the
author. Siegmund Grimm, of Augsburg, acted as the principal publisher
of the writings of Hutten. Hase tells us, in his history of the great
Koberger publishing house of Nuremberg, that during the ten years
succeeding 1517, the sales of the works of theology (orthodox Catholic)
of which the Kobergers made a special interest were very seriously
lessened through the influence of Luther and of Luther’s writings.

During the years 1520-1523, Magdeburg became a centre for the
production and distribution of Protestant polemical literature, and
a great number of controversial pamphlets were issued there. Through
the influence of Luther, these were for the most part first printed in
high German, but towards the latter portion of the period, many of the
briefer and less scholastic tracts were issued also in low German in
order to reach the lower classes and readers of the Northwest. After
the death of the liberal-minded and tolerant Archbishop Ernst, and
with the accession of the bigoted Albert of Brandenburg (who was also
Archbishop of Mayence), the publishing activities of the city were
seriously hampered. The Roman side of the controversy was then taken up
in Magdeburg by Dr. Mensing, the Court preacher, and by Dr. Cyclops.
Tübingen, however, became for a time the centre for the controversial
publications of the Romanists, and it was there that appeared, between
1519-1522, the works and pamphlets of Luther’s opponents, Eck,
Cochläus, Dietenberger, Neudorffer, and others.

The presses of Tübingen were, however, also utilised for the cause
of the Reformers. In 1529, Primus Truber and Ulrich Morhart issued
(under an assumed imprint) a Slovenic or Slovakian version of Luther’s
Catechism. The same men printed the first Slovenic primer and
dictionary, and were thus instrumental in fixing a printed form for
Slovenic literature. In 1530, they printed an edition in Bohemian of
Luther’s _New Testament_, a work that should have rejoiced the spirit
of John Huss, dead one hundred and nine years earlier. The work of
these enterprising printers was of no little importance in furthering
the spread of Lutheran doctrines among the Slovaks of Moravia, Bohemia,
and Hungary. In 1557, the Freiherr of Ungnad, an earnest Protestant,
placed funds at the disposition of Truber for the printing of editions
of Luther’s writings in the Croatian tongue.

In 1518, Luther brought to Wittenberg from Leipzig Melchior Lotter, who
was an experienced printer and a man of good training and scholarship.
Lotter brought with him a good equipment of presses, type, and moulds,
and also a valuable collection of collated texts. In 1519, Luther is
able to write with satisfaction to Lange, the Augustinian Vicar in
Erfurt: “Lotter has completed the organisation here in Wittenberg of a
well-appointed printing-office, fitted for work in three languages.”
The languages were probably Latin, Greek, and German, but, a little
later, Hebrew fonts must also have been added. Lotter did not give up
his business in Leipzig, but after the completion of the organisation
of the Wittenberg establishment he placed in charge of it his two
sons, and arranged to pass the greater portion of his time in Leipzig.
I do not find any record of the arrangement entered into by Luther
with Lotter. It seems probable that the printer, who was a man of
established business and with resources, entered upon the undertaking
in Wittenberg as a venture of his own, on the strength of the assurance
from Luther that he could depend upon securing the printing commissions
of Luther and his associates and of such further material as might
come from the University. Luther had paid Grunenberg for the printing
of the earlier volumes, and he probably also retained in his own hands
the ownership of the editions manufactured by Lotter. Unfortunately,
the accounts of these editions appear not to have been preserved.
In 1531, Rhaw printed the Augsburg Confession, his edition of which
was accepted as the standard. He printed also many of the writings
of Melanchthon. Hans Lufft, whose work continued from 1523 to 1584,
printed after 1524 many of the publications of Luther. His special
achievement was the production of the German Bible in the several parts
and in the completed volume.

The printing and publishing interests of Wittenberg, which had their
beginning under the direction of Luther, in the University, continued
during a large part of the existence of the University to be associated
with and directed by it.

The first issue of Luther’s Bible in low German was printed in Lübeck,
in 1533, by Ludwig Dietz, of Rostock. In Jena, Conrad König was agent
for the sale of Luther’s works. The price per volume for the Bible was
eighteen groschens for Jena, at the Leipzig Fair nineteen groschens,
and at the Frankfort Fair twenty groschens.[122]

These earlier printers were fortunate in securing in their offices
the services, as revisers and correctors, of learned men who had
a scholarly interest in the work. Melanchthon served as editor,
reviser, and press-corrector in 1514-15 with Thomas Anshelm in
Tübingen. Professor Johann Hiltebrand, of the University of Tübingen,
Melanchthon’s predecessor in Anshelm’s office, named himself with pride
_Castigator Chalcographiæ Anselmitanæ_. He had supervised the printing
of several Latin and Greek grammars, and also of the _Epistolæ Virorum
Clarorum_, published as a rejoinder to the famous _Epistolæ Virorum
Obscurorum_. Pellican (Conrad) supervised for Petri of Basel the
printing of the piracy edition of Luther’s Bible, receiving for his
service board during the months he was occupied. The long association
of Erasmus with Froben has been already referred to. Rhenanus writes to
Erasmus, May 10, 1517: “Lachner promises to secure due acknowledgment
to you for your services. In September you will receive payment for the
work of revising the text of _S. Augustine_. He is now arranging the
matter with Koberger in Frankfort.”[123]

Kapp is authority for the statement that Luther received for his
literary work no honorarium or compensation other than occasional
copies of the printed volumes. This statement has reference doubtless
only to those publications of Luther’s (many of them wholly
unauthorised) which were issued by printer-publishers as ventures
of their own. It is probable, however, as before stated, that the
Wittenberg editions of the miscellaneous writings, and that of the
German Bible, were printed at Luther’s risk and expense, and it is fair
to assume that for the sale of these editions, which were his property,
the receipts (less some selling commission) were paid over to Luther.
The sale of Luther’s writings (both books and pamphlets) certainly
exceeded anything that had as yet been known in the book-markets
of Germany or of the world, and from the Wittenberg editions alone
there must have been some proceeds. The first editions of Luther’s
smaller and larger catechisms were printed in 1529 by George Rhaw, who
had established himself as a printer in Wittenberg in 1521. He was
distinguished as a musician and a mathematician, and, later, became
magistrate of the town.

After the publication of the Edict of Worms, Duke George of Saxony
took ground against the Reformers and forbade the printing and the
distribution of their literature. The authority of the Duke was
sufficient to put a stop to the larger portion of the printing that had
been carried on in Leipzig for the Reform writers, but Wittenberg was
outside of the Duke’s domain, and the Elector Ernest and his successor
Frederick, were both friendly to the Lutheran cause. As a result of the
restrictions in Leipzig, a number of the exiled printers made their way
to Wittenberg, and the presses of Wittenberg became busier than ever.
The printing of the German New Testament, begun in April, 1522, was
completed on the 22d of September of the same year, the first edition
comprising five thousand copies. By the end of July, Luther reports
that three presses were at work upon the book. This first edition was
printed in folio, and with the simple title, _Das Neue Testament,
Deutsch, Vuittenberg_. Neither the translator nor the printer is
specified, and the title-page bears no date. The volume was published
at one and a half guilders, the equivalent of twenty-five marks of
to-day, or $6.25. The edition was exhausted within three months after
publication. The German edition of the Old Testament appeared in
divisions; the Pentateuch was issued in January, 1523, and by the end
of 1524 had been published all but the Books of the Prophets. There
was then a long gap in the publication, the work being finally brought
to completion in 1534, in which year appeared the first edition of the
entire Scriptures in one volume.

In 1524, the artist, Lucas Cranach, an old friend of Luther,
instituted, in company with a goldsmith named Döring, a new
printing-office, to which was afterwards confided a large proportion
of the work of Luther. Cranach appears to have been a man of varied
activities. The portraits from his brush that have been preserved give
evidence of continuous work in his studio during this period, while
in addition to the printing-office above referred to, he carried on a
paper-warehouse and a book-shop. His several portraits of Luther are
the chief authority for the Reformer’s personal appearance. In 1534,
the Cranach-Döring printing establishment was transferred to three
new partners, Goltz, Schramm, and Vogel, who had secured from the
Elector Johann Friedrich a privilege covering the complete Bible. They
purchased the woodcuts that had been prepared from Cranach’s designs
for the Apocalypse, and they appear to have continued to utilise the
co-operation of Melchior Lotter (the younger).

Kapp records that during the lifetime of the Reformer, not less than
100,000 copies of Luther’s New Testament were printed in Wittenberg. It
would be much more difficult, and probably impracticable, to arrive at
any trustworthy estimate of the aggregate of the various unauthorised
editions issued in Germany. The circulation of both the authorised
and unauthorised editions was very much furthered, outside of the
regular channels of the book-trade, by the work of the pedlars and the
travelling preachers.

As has before been indicated, it would not be in order to judge by the
standards of later times the “reprinting” undertakings of the period
of the Reformation. It was not only the case that the larger number at
least of these reprinters felt no consciousness of wrong-doing or of
the infringement of any rights either of the author or of the original
publisher, but that, as far at least as the controversial writings of
the time were concerned, they believed they were rendering a material
service to the cause, and were carrying out the wishes of the Reformers
in securing for these writings the widest possible circulation. The
German Bible, having been placed under the ban of the Church, must be
classed with the controversial writings referred to, and it was, of
course, the most influential publication of the series in extending the
doctrines of the Reformation.

At the time of the death of Luther, there appear to have been no
privileges in force covering his version of the Bible, although claims
to its ownership were asserted by Hans Lufft. In 1500, Rühel and
Sulfisch of Wittenberg secured a privilege for printing the Bible,
but this evidently did not convey any exclusive right, and should
therefore be regarded rather in the light of a permit. Other editions
soon appeared in Leipzig, which was the best market for the sale of the
Bible, and for the control of this market various contests arose. The
restrictions upon the Leipzig publishers in regard to the printing of
the Luther versions were gradually removed, but it was not until 1564,
and chiefly at the instance of the Duke of Weimar, that this version
became common property (_literärisches Gemeingut_) for all Germany, and
was formally declared free of privilege.

Well pleased as Luther and his associates certainly were in being
able, either through their own publishers or through the reprinters,
to reach so many thousand readers, they were not a little troubled at
the inaccuracy and incompleteness of much of the material sold over
their names. In September, 1525, Luther writes to inquire whether his
printers have not been heedless in permitting thieves or burglars
to make away with “copy” or sheets for use in unauthorised printing
elsewhere. “It is bad enough,” he says, “for these rascals to get the
advantage, through theft, of my labour and pains, but with that I would
be patient, if it were not for the shamelessly false and blundering
form in which they issue books described as mine.... In looking at one
of these appropriated volumes, I find here a big gap, there something
entirely transposed, here a sentence falsified, and, again, an entire
paragraph left without corrections. It seems to me an abominable thing
that we should labour while others secure the results of our toil,
leaving for us only annoyance and shame.”

Luther closes his complaint, however, not with any contention for the
complete control of his material, but with the very moderate suggestion
that the reprinters ought, if only as a matter of Christian feeling
(_aus Christlicher Liebe_), first to wait a few months in order to
give to the original edition a fair chance before interfering with
it, and, secondly, to print their own issues with a decent regard for
correctness and completeness.

In September, 1525, Luther writes to the magistrates of Nuremberg,
complaining that a large portion of the proof-sheets of a volume of his
sermons had been stolen from his printing-office in Wittenberg, and had
been made use of in Nuremberg for the production of a piracy volume.
The publication of this volume in advance of the issue of the complete
work had caused his printers serious injury. (_Wodurch seinen Drückern
ein merklichen Schaden zugefügt sei._) He speaks here, it is to be
noted, as if the risk and ownership of this publication rested not
with himself, but with his printers. He goes on to say in his letter
to Nuremberg that he believes the printer Herrgott had been concerned
in this affair. He begs the magistrates to use their influence with
the local printers to induce them to delay bringing out reprints of
his writings until seven or eight weeks after the publication of the
original editions; certainly a very moderate request. He concludes, “If
you can give me no help in this matter, I shall be obliged to make an
open publication to warn the public against these thieves and robbers,
but I should be sorry to have to print in such a connection the name of
the city of Nuremberg.”[124]

The magistracy promised in reply to this appeal, that an edict should
be issued forbidding the reprinting, within a specified time, of
Luther’s writings. It appears, nevertheless, that for some years at
least no further action was taken. In 1532, however, in response to a
renewed appeal from Luther, an edict was issued, not forbidding the
Nuremberg printers to issue reprints, but simply forbidding the use on
publications printed in Nuremberg of the false imprint of Wittenberg.
This prohibition was, however, simply a repetition of a provision of
the imperial Act. The Nuremberg edict also insisted upon greater care
for an accurate text (_besser correctür befleyssen_).

In a letter from Luther to Spengler, the Syndic of Nuremberg, dated
November 7, 1525, he refers to an association that had been formed of
certain leading printers of the Rhine cities to repress or discourage
piracy (_diese Buberei_ is the expression used by Luther), and asks the
Syndic to induce Koberger to give to the association the aid of his
all-important influence and co-operation. It does not appear, however,
that the Kobergers interested themselves in the undertaking. Their
publications were almost exclusively works of a scholarly character,
issued (in Latin) in folio or in quarto, works which did not tempt the
German reprinters, whose appropriations were chiefly devoted to volumes
of a popular character and to pamphlets, _Flugschriften_. Aggravating
as this very general practice of piratical reprinting was to Luther
and to such other authors of the time (a group, however, at best but
inconsiderable) who had secured a popular hearing, and also to their
authorised publishers, it seems evident not only, as before pointed
out, that it furthered very largely the rapid spread of the doctrines
of the Reformation, but also that it helped to build up the business of
publishing and bookselling, and to develop the habit among the masses
of the people of buying and of reading books, and of being influenced
by printed arguments.

During the first years of the sixteenth century, instructors and
students were much hampered by the scarcity of text-books. When, in
1520, Reuchlin began his lectures in Ingolstadt, he reports that there
was in the town no single volume in Greek or Hebrew. He was obliged,
therefore, in his instruction work to write out texts in the two
languages on black-boards for the students to transcribe. Basilius
Amerbach, when he was a student in Tübingen, speaks of hiring on
certain hours in the week a copy of the _Corpus Juris_. Trutwetter,
the teacher of Luther, had taken his own classical instruction from
Publicus Rufus, a Florentine who had brought to Erfurt, shortly after
1500, the revived Italian enthusiasm for classical studies. The
University of Erfurt was one of the oldest in Germany, dating from 1392.

Luther mentions, as if it were an exceptional instance, that in
1506, when he was a student in Erfurt, he had bought a copy of the
_Corpus Juris_ (the book from which the lecturer was then giving
instruction).[125] It was evidently at this time not common for
students to own copies of the text-books in use. Thomas Plater relates
in his autobiography that in the school of S. Elizabeth at Breslau,
as late as 1515, there was usually but one text-book for each class.
The instructor or one of the students would read this for dictation,
and the students having taken their notes would memorise them for
recitation.[126] When Melanchthon began, in 1524, his lectures on
Demosthenes, the only copy of the _Orations_ in town was that owned by
the lecturer.

The chief representative of the intellectuality of the Lutheran
movement was doubtless Philip Melanchthon. Of Melanchthon’s relations
with the literary and publishing activities of the time, the limits of
this chapter will not permit any full consideration. It is sufficient
to say that, apart from his service as a preacher, and as collaborator
on the German Bible, he devoted himself particularly to the work of
preparing text-books for higher grade students, a work which earned
for him the title of _Præceptor Germaniæ_. He edited, and himself
in part wrote a series of text-books for use in the high schools and
universities on the subjects of Latin and Greek Grammar, Rhetoric,
Theology, Ethics, Physics, and Physiology. These books displaced in the
institutions of Protestant Germany the works of Catholic writers, many
of which were survivals of the schoolmen, and were entirely antiquated
and inadequate. The contention maintained by so many good Catholics,
that no literature that had once been sanctioned by the Church as
good and sufficient, could ever lose its value or authority, was of
course especially abused when applied to works of instruction. Under
the initiative chiefly of Melanchthon, Wittenberg became the centre of
instruction for the preachers and teachers of all Lutheran Germany,
while for a considerable period Strasburg filled a similar place for
the Calvinists of the South-west.

While the immediate direction of this educational work fell to
Melanchthon, the inspiration for it, as for so much of the intellectual
activity of the Reformation, is very largely to be credited to Luther,
who had from an early stage in the Reform work insisted upon the
necessity of defending the minds of the younger generation from the
influence of the educational traditions and routine doctrinal teachings
of the Church schools.

The work of the Lutheran educators would, of course, have been
impracticable if it had not been for the rapid development of the
publishing and book-selling trade of the country, a development the
chief incentive of which is also due to Luther. “Now the printers
will have their hands full,” writes Hutten in 1517, to the Count of
Neuenar, when he hears of Luther’s declaration against the operations
of Tetzel. Hutten’s prophecy was fulfilled far beyond his largest
imaginings. The bold attack of Luther was directed not merely at Tetzel
and his fraudulent auction sales of God’s forgiveness of sins, but at
the corruption and demoralisation of the Church, a demoralisation of
which, as Luther recognised, Tetzel and his Indulgences were but an
inconsiderable symptom.

The downfall of imperial Rome, which (irrespective of the internal
causes) was brought about by persistent Teutonic onslaughts, terminated
the period of the world’s history which is, for convenience, called
classic or ancient. In like manner, the overthrow of the world-wide
domination of ecclesiastical Rome was brought about by the attack of
the Teuton Luther, an attack which, backed up by the Teutonic forces
of North Europe, developed into a revolution against Italian rule, and
terminated the epoch of mediævalism. For long periods to come, however,
the questions raised by Luther and his fellow Protestants were to bring
anxieties and conflicts upon popes, emperors, princes, and people.
These questions were also to provide issues and themes for innumerable
writers, and to secure an apparently inexhaustible supply of material
for the printing-presses and the booksellers. It is only with this
last-named result that, for the purposes of the present study, I am
concerned.

According to the statistics of book-production collected with
painstaking thoroughness by Panzer, Weller, and Kuczynski, and
tabulated by Kapp, the total number of separate works (principally
pamphlets, _Flugschriften_) printed in German in the year 1513 was 90;
in 1518, 146; in 1520, 571; and in 1523, 944. The aggregate for the
ten years is 3113. Of the total for the decade, no less than 600 were
printed in Wittenberg, a place which before 1517 had not possessed a
printing-press[127]; this is an indication of the immediate effect
produced by the Lutheran movement upon the work of the printers. The
revolution in publishing methods brought about in connection with the
Reformation was not restricted to the introduction of German as a
language for popular publications. Of almost equal importance was
the change in the form and the price of books, the costly folios and
quartos being replaced by comparatively inexpensive twelvemos and
sixteenmos, and by far the larger proportion of the writings which
exercised the most immediate influence on the thought of the time
being issued in the form of pamphlets. These pamphlets, sold in the
market-places, along the highways, and from house to house, by pedlars
working for gain, and by colporteurs having a missionary purpose, took
the place which in modern times is filled by the magazine or weekly
paper.

Luther recognised at once the importance of the printing-press for
the work he had in hand, but he was himself amazed at the extent of
the public that he was able to reach when, after 1518, his tracts and
sermons came to be printed in German. Up to this time these had been
originally issued, according to the prevailing practice, in Latin, and
only in part translated into German. It is not easy at this period
to understand how the middle and lower classes in Germany had been
able, by the beginning of the sixteenth century, to secure so general
a proficiency in reading as to be able to profit by the pamphlet
literature of the time, but, that a widespread elementary education
existed, is evident from the circulation secured for these pamphlets,
and from their immediate influence upon opinion and belief. I can but
think that the high standard of popular intelligence which rendered
possible the comprehensive and general acceptance of the doctrines of
the Reformers, doctrines largely made known through printed arguments,
may very properly be taken as a limitation upon the rather highly
coloured descriptions given by D’Aubigné and some other Protestant
historians of the extreme ignorance in which the masses of the people
had been left under the ministrations of the Church of Rome.

The Edict of Worms of 1521, which committed the Emperor Charles V.
to the support of the contentions of the Papacy, and threw the great
weight of the Holy Roman Empire against the cause of the Protestant
Reformers, marks also an important stage in the history of publishing
undertakings in Germany. It announced the beginning of an imperial
censorship, a censorship which was confirmed and extended by the Edict
of Nuremberg of 1524. The first part of the edict may be summarised
as condemning Luther and all his works, while the second, under the
head of “regulation of printing” (_Gesetz der Druckerey_), forbids the
printing of all writings that have not secured the explicit approval
and sanction of the ecclesiastical authorities. In the regions under
Lutheran influence, the only effect of the imperial and ecclesiastical
prohibition was, as noted, to increase largely the circulation of the
writings of the Reformers. In the districts into which the Reform
doctrines had only begun to penetrate, the ecclesiastics were able in
great part, at least, to stop the further circulation of the pamphlets,
by taking prompt and harsh measures against the colporteurs. From this
time and until the close of the Thirty Years’ War, Church and State
worked together (though not always in harmony) against the freedom of
the Press, on the broad ground that such freedom necessarily resulted
in heresy and in treason. The first imperial Act in regard to libellous
publications appears to have been framed on the assumption that every
writing by a Protestant, even if entirely unconnected with theology or
with politics, must be libellous.

Charles V. had been willing to leave the responsibility for the
censorship of the Press in the hands of the Church. During his reign,
the printers were busying themselves chiefly with controversial
material, and in the effects of this upon the minds of the people
the State was interested only indirectly. The Emperor Ferdinand was
a more faithful, that is to say, a more bigoted, son of the Church
than Charles, but he refused to admit that the control of the Press
was a Church matter. He took the ground that censorship was a matter
pertaining to the State, that is, to the Crown, and that the Bishops
could take part in it only as delegates of the authority of the State.
This was the contention asserted and finally secured by Francis I. and
his successors in France.

In 1528, under the authority of the Emperor, Balthasar Hubmayer, a
preacher, printer, and travelling bookseller of Nikolsburg, was burned
in Vienna, together with his wife and two apprentices, for spreading
false doctrines. Hubmayer had at first accepted the Lutheran views,
but had, later, associated himself with the Anabaptists. In 1529, the
persecution of the printers and of the Protestants in Austria was for
the time relaxed because of the peril of Vienna from the Turks, an
exigency which absorbed the full attention of the imperial authorities.
In 1564, was published in Rome an _Index librorum prohibitorum_, the
first of a long series.

The censorship was by no means left exclusively in the hands of
the imperial or of the ecclesiastical authorities. With no little
variation of policy both as to the theory or standard of supervision
and as to the methods of carrying out the restrictions imposed, many
of the States established censorship of their own, and the same
course was taken by a number of the cities like Nuremberg, Strasburg,
Frankfort, and others, in which the printing business had begun to
assume importance, and where the Church authorities had not already
taken charge of the function. In Nuremberg, one of the earliest
instances of the exercise of a city censorship occurred in 1527, in
the case of a volume containing woodcuts illustrating the history of
the Tower of Babel, for which cuts a rhyming text had been supplied
by the cobbler-poet, Hans Sachs. The book had been printed without a
licence or permission from the magistracy. The magistrates decided
that the book must be suppressed. They further cautioned Sachs that
the writing of verses was not his proper business, and that he should
keep to his own trade of shoemaking. _Nun seye solches seines Amtes
nicht, gebuhre ihm auch nicht.... Rathes ernster Befehl dass er seines
Schuhmachens warte, sich auch enthalte Büchlein oder Reymen hinfür
ausgehen zu lassen._ The edict was simply an emphatic reiteration of
the old proverb, “Shoemaker, stick to your last,” or _Ne sutor supra
crepidam_. The difficulty appears in this case to have been due not to
the Lutheran tendencies of Sachs’s rhymes, but to the lack of respect
shown to the magistrates in issuing a book without a permit; and to
the further breach of authority on the part of a man licensed only as
a shoemaker, undertaking also to carry on the avocation of a poet.
Sachs’s later history shows, however, that it did not prove practicable
to keep the poetic shoemaker from writing and from printing his
productions.

Luther was, it should be remembered, thoroughly in accord with Pope
and with Emperor in the belief that it was the duty of the believers
to stamp out heresy. He only differed with them as to what constituted
heresy. In 1525, we find him invoking the aid of the censorship
regulations of Saxony and of Brandenburg for the purpose of stamping
out the “pernicious doctrines” of the Anabaptists and of the followers
of Zwingli. The Protestant princes were, for the most part, more than
willing to establish and to maintain a censorship for the presses of
their several localities, as such a system served in more ways than one
to strengthen their authority, while it could be utilised also to head
off undesirable criticism.

As an evidence of the very general distribution secured for Luther’s
writings, may be cited a letter, dated February 14, 1519, written to
the Reformer from Basel by the publisher Froben, in which he speaks
of large supplies of the Basel editions being called for, not only
in Germany, but in France, Spain, Italy, Brabant, and England. The
reference is to the first collection of Luther’s works, of which
impressions were printed in 1518, 1519, and again in 1520.[128] Kapp
is of opinion that from these sales the author asked for and received
no return either in the form of royalty or honorarium. His purposes
were accomplished when his teachings, correctly printed, in editions
authorised and supervised by himself, and sold at the lowest prices
compatible with accurate typography, had secured the widest possible
circulation. While, therefore, Luther serves as an example of a
successful author, the most successful, in fact, that the world had
as yet seen, his experience as an author did not help to advance the
recognition of the rights of an author in his literary productions.
To Luther, his writings were not property, to be controlled for the
benefit of the author, but great truths and sound doctrine essential
for the saving of souls, and to be scattered widely for the benefit of
the reader. Köpflin, writing to Luther from Hagenau in 1519, says, “We
have printed your books one after another, and within six months have
disposed of all the copies.”

Luther himself writes to Cardinal Lang, in the same year, that his
books were being read by the theologians of the Sorbonne. Johann Faber,
Vicar-General in Constance, writes in 1521 to Vadian, “Through the
wrong-doing of irresponsible printers, all kinds of unlettered people
have read or have had read to them the teachings of Luther: even the
old women in the streets stop to chatter about them.”[129] It is to be
remembered that the effective circulation of Luther’s pamphlets (and
of all the popular publications of the time) was very much multiplied
by the practice on the part of those interested in the doctrines,
of reading such pamphlets out loud in the market-places, to all who
might be interested. After the Lutheran writings had been put under
interdict, such public readings had to be discontinued in the towns and
districts which remained under Catholic control; but the pamphlets were
still widely (though surreptitiously) sold by pedlars and colporteurs,
and the readings continued in places which were less liable to
interruption than the inns and market-places.

The jurist Scheurl writes from Nuremberg to Cardinal Campeggi, March
15, 1524, “Every common man is now asking for books or pamphlets, and
more reading is being done in a day than heretofore in a year.”[130] In
Nuremberg, as in other towns, it became the practice to read the books
of Luther out loud in the market-place. Erasmus complains, in 1523,
that since the publication of the New Testament, the whole book-trade
seems to be absorbed with the writings of Luther, and to be interested
in giving attention to nothing else. He says that it is very difficult
to find publishers willing to place their imprint upon works written in
behalf of the papacy. In one form or another, the German Testament and
the other writings of Luther were distributed with surprising rapidity
among all classes of people. As an example of the kind of interest
they excited, it is recorded that the magistrates of Bremen sent a
bookseller to Wittenberg for the purpose of purchasing for their use a
set of Luther’s works. The citizens of Speyer are described as having
the books read to them at supper, and as making transcripts of them. In
hundreds of towns throughout Germany, Luther’s writings were brought
to the notice of the people by means of the very edict which had for
its purpose their final suppression, and after the Diet of Worms, the
demand for them rapidly increased. The preacher Matthäus Zell writes
from Strasburg in 1523, “The Lutheran books are for sale here in the
market-place immediately beneath the edicts of the Emperor and of the
Pope declaring them to be prohibited.”

In the first half of the sixteenth century, means of communication were
very imperfect, and the delays and difficulties of transportation of
goods from one part of the country to another (particularly on routes
away from the rivers) were very considerable. With no trustworthy
postal system, and with very restricted facilities for remitting money,
the hindrances in the way of ordering books, of delivering them, and
of collecting the amounts due for them, must have been very great. In
the absence of journals, it could have been by no means an easy matter
even to make known to possible buyers the fact that certain books had
been published. The booksellers depended for information concerning new
publications upon the semi-annual Fair which had been instituted at
Frankfort, but at this period it was only the more considerable dealers
who could afford to make regular visits to the Fair, while it was also
the case that a considerable proportion of possible buyers were not
within reach of book-dealers of this class. There were, therefore,
in this initial stage of the book-trade, not a few inducements for
the production in various places, for supplying the demand of the
particular locality, of books of a popular character, and this practice
of producing unauthorised reprints, while often causing grievances
of one kind or another, was hardly regarded as a misdemeanour, if
carried on with moderation and with some little regard for the wishes
of the author. The practice had also certain specific advantages for
the community, in ensuring prompter supplies of books of present
interest, and in furthering the developing of local bookselling and of
general education. The material service rendered to the cause of the
Reformation by these earlier “book-pirates” has already been touched
upon.

Under the pressure of the widespread interest in the writings of the
Reformation, publishing business was done in a number of out-of-the-way
little towns which would to-day hardly support a printing-press.
Lutheran tracts were printed, for instance, in such places as Grimma,
Zwickau, and Eilenburg, principally for sale through the pedlars.
These issues were very frequently published without imprint or date,
and the tracing of the history of their publication has, therefore,
been difficult. The patience of the German bibliographers is, however,
inexhaustible, and the lists of the presses of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries are probably now fairly complete.

Kapp says that the Petri edition of Luther’s _Testament_, printed in
Basel, could hardly have found its way as far north as Saxony, and
when, therefore, he finds record of the sale of copies in Meissen in
1523, as low as fifteen groschens, when the Wittenberg price was thirty
groschens, it is evident that piracy editions must have been produced
in the North as well as in the South. The activity of Magdeburg as a
centre for the production and distribution of Protestant literature,
has already been referred to. After the death of Luther, the publishing
trade of Wittenberg, which had been the creation of his personality,
slackened, and Magdeburg became the headquarters of the literary
interests of the Reformers. The trade in Bibles and hymn books, and in
the collected works of Luther was especially important, and continued
until the destruction of the city by Tilly in 1631.

The city of Münster was another place where Protestantism had taken
a strong hold, and large supplies of the New Testament and of the
Lutheran writings were distributed from the presses of Münster
throughout Westphalia and the adjoining provinces on the north.
The excesses of the Anabaptists, who, under John of Leyden and his
associates, had possession of the town for a number of months, 1535-36,
were, however, wellnigh destructive of its Protestantism, and proved
fatal to its publishing business. In the general havoc which obtained
both before and after the overthrow of the Anabaptists, books and
printing-presses perished together. When the Catholic Bishop resumed
his sway, the production of the Lutheran literature ceased, and there
were but few Catholic publications to take its place. The story of the
brief and dramatic rule of the Anabaptists in Münster was utilised by
Meyerbeer for his opera, _The Prophet_. In 1562, an edict issued by the
Bishop ordered the destruction of all Protestant books in Westphalia,
and made it a misdemeanour to print, sell, or possess any such books.
The sales continued notwithstanding, the supplies coming mainly from
Magdeburg.

In the Austrian dominions, the Church succeeded, in 1525, in inducing
the Emperor Ferdinand to prohibit the sale or the possession of
Lutheran or Calvinist literature. The book-pedlars succeeded for a
time in evading the prohibition and in distributing large supplies
of the Testament and of the tracts. The persistency of the Jesuits
was, however, in the end successful in crushing out the business.
Book-pedlars were treated as malefactors, the peasantry and the
townsfolk were frightened, and the demand gradually died away. In other
portions of Germany, the circulation of the Protestant literature was,
on the whole, increased through the prohibitions. The usual price for
the Protestant tracts was one groschen, equal to two and a half cents,
or in purchasing power to perhaps twelve cents to-day. Each tract
reached, as a rule, a number of readers or of hearers, for the old
Oriental and Greek practice of reading aloud to an audience was carried
on in hundreds of market-places, shops, and other informal auditoriums.

One of the travelling printers and book-pedlars who came to a tragical
end was Johann Herrgott, who has before been referred to as a reprinter
in Nuremberg of Luther’s writings, and who appears to have circulated
also a number of tracts considered by Luther to be extremely heretical.
He was executed, in 1527, in Leipzig, under the instructions of Duke
George of Saxony. The Duke was an old-time opponent of Luther, and
he appears to have taken the ground that freedom of speech in any
direction was objectionable. There was paid for the burial of this
too-persistent bookseller the sum of six groschens.

The circulation of the Lutheran tracts was taken charge of not only by
the book-pedlars and colporteurs but by a large number of travelling
preachers, _Prädikanten_. These “preachers” were, in part, old-time
priests, but in many cases laymen of very varying degrees of education
or of ignorance. The Wittenberg tracts gave, however, a supply of
ammunition which even the most ignorant preachers could make effective.
In reaching the masses of the people, such tracts could be made more
serviceable than the rejoinders of the Catholic writers, as these last
were, with hardly an exception, written in Latin.

During the troublous times of the war of the peasants, the progress
of the Reformation was checked, and the circulation of the Lutheran
publications, in the districts affected by the uprising, was for the
time brought to a close. As one of the historians expresses it, “The
bloody crushing out of the revolting peasants cut through the vital
nerve of the Lutheran movement towards the creation of a national
Church.... Luther showed, however, the capacity to meet the crisis....
Fortunately for the nation, he now possessed the influence which
enabled him to direct.... Repressing, on the one hand, the tumultuous
contentions of his followers among the peasants, using his influence,
on the other, to temper the fierce indignation of the noble class,
he was in a position to do much to further the final settlement, and
was able, finally, to save from the ruin that had seemed imminent the
beginnings of the Lutheran Church.”[131]

The active leadership of the Reform movement had fallen upon Luther,
who, while quite conscious of the power of argument, of which he made
full use, was by nature a fighter, and whose very arguments, in their
forcible and trenchant and sometimes brutal character, had the effect
of verbal cudgels. One characteristic, in fact, of the literature, or
perhaps it is more accurate to say of the controversial literature, of
the sixteenth century, was the tendency to coarseness of expression,
and the frequent use of libels and lampoons. When great scholars like
Erasmus and Reuchlin permitted themselves to indulge in satirical
invective, of which, judged by the standard of to-day, the coarseness
was often more apparent than the wit, it is not surprising that
fighters like Luther and Hutten should be ready to indulge in verbal
onslaughts which seem more akin to brutal horse-play than to reasonable
argument. Luther’s last publication, issued in 1545, was a series of
theses written in reply to a fresh condemnation pronounced against him
by the theologians of Louvain, in which series he included a final
paper against the Zwinglians. His death occurred in 1546.

Enormous as was the circulation of Luther’s writings at the time,
and important and far-reaching as was their influence, they have not
taken a place in the world’s literature, and but few of them would
to-day find readers except among special students of the period. It
is to be borne in mind, however, that while the writings of Luther
have not lived as books, the teachings and doctrines presented in them
have formed the basis of an enormous mass of doctrinal and religious
literature, and have continued to direct, or at least to influence,
the thought and the faith of a very large division of the Christian
world. Luther as an author may be dead, but three hundred and fifty
years after his death, his thoughts and teachings are still, through
the books of his followers, reaching thousands of readers, and on both
sides of the Atlantic his spirit is still preaching in thousands of
pulpits.

I have presented this summary of the published writings of Luther
simply as an example of the literary undertakings and of the publishing
methods of the time. What has been said about the printing and the
distribution of the works of Luther could be repeated in regard to
the long series of productions of most of the other writers of the
Reformation, such as Melanchthon, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and also
those of their opponents, Cochläus, Eck, and the others.

It was doubtless an obstacle in the way of the development of the
conception of property in literary productions, that during the
first century of the printing-press, so large a proportion of the
publications which were the work of contemporary writers, belonged to
the class of religious, doctrinal, and controversial literature. The
chief purpose of authors like Luther and Zwingli, was, as we have seen,
to secure the widest possible distribution for their teachings. They
believed that a right understanding of certain doctrines was essential
to salvation, and they believed, further, that the responsibility had
been confided to them of bringing these doctrines to humanity. It was
not easy for authors holding such a conviction to undertake to restrict
or control the sale of their writings for the purpose of securing
profits for themselves. There would, of course, under the existing
conditions, have been many difficulties in the way of carrying out such
control if it had been attempted. The fact remains, however, that such
attempts were but infrequent. With this attitude on the part of the
writers, and of those who were earnestly interested with these writers
in establishing creeds and in influencing public opinion, it is not
surprising that the practice became general of reprinting any material
for which there was demand, or for which it was believed that a demand
could be created.

Such reprints were made in many cases by zealous disciples, who
multiplied and distributed copies for “missionary” work, but outside
of the believers, there were naturally many others, printers and
book-pedlars, who were very ready to take advantage of a time of
religious fervour or of controversial interest, and to make money
by supplying the literature produced by the Reformers or by their
antagonists. The objections that came from the authors were mainly
on the ground of inaccuracy in the printing of these unsupervised
editions. If the cause was to be furthered by the wholesale
appropriation and general distribution of their writings, they were
estopped from any serious opposition to the reprinters. The habit thus
became very generally established on the part of the printers and
the booksellers, of regarding literary productions as _feræ naturæ_,
in connection with which no property right could be claimed. The
reading public, which, as far as the mass of the people was concerned,
came into existence only with the application of the printing-press
to the literature of the Reformation, grew up, therefore, with the
general belief that nothing more was due to the author than to read
his teachings in any form in which they could be obtained, and for
these earlier readers any distinction between an authorised and an
unauthorised edition was, for more reasons than one, an impossibility.
While Luther received moneys from the sale of the Wittenberg editions
of his books and possibly from a few others, it is certainly the case
that he made no money from these sales. Every gulden that was paid for
the books, every pfennig that came in from the fly-leaves or pamphlets,
appears to have been at once expended in further printings and in
instituting further distributing machinery. The same was the case with
the other writers of the Lutheran group and also with Zwingli and the
Swiss reformers generally. The books of Calvin formed to some extent
an exception. They were less available for popular circulation, and,
being addressed more particularly to scholarly readers, were for the
most part printed in Latin. For them, the publishing arrangements
were more in accord with later methods, and the competition of
piracy editions was less serious. It is probable, therefore, that
they produced some returns for the author. Some details concerning
the Calvin publications are given in the chapter on Robert Estienne.
We may conclude that while the Reformation was of important service
in furthering the work of the printers, in giving material for the
booksellers, and in inducing the habit of buying and of reading printed
matter, it probably helped to delay for a number of years the formation
of a correct conception of literary productions as property. The one
writer of the time who was, however, able to do something to establish
such an understanding, and who succeeded also in securing some
substantial returns from the sale of his works, was Erasmus. An account
of the publishing undertakings of Erasmus has been given in another
chapter.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER XI.

THE HOUSE OF PLANTIN.

1555-1650.


THE House established in Antwerp, in 1555, by Christophe Plantin
secured for itself high distinction among the printer-publishers of the
century, and, as well for the beauty and importance of the productions
of its presses, as by reason of the exceptional length of its history
as a business concern, it must always hold an honourable place in
the record of the great publishers of the world. Plantin’s work as a
pioneer was, however, not so difficult, so distinctive, or so important
as that of several of his great predecessors, such as Aldus, Badius,
Estienne, or Froben. At the time Plantin printed his first book, in
1555, a century had elapsed since the Press of Gutenberg had begun
its work, and the technical difficulties which had beset the earlier
printers had been very largely overcome; publishing machinery had been
created, and methods for the distribution of books had been arrived
at; while the scholars of the universities had learned to utilise
their attainments for editorial work, and fairly trustworthy texts of
the greater number of the world’s classics were already available in
printed form for the use of the compositors in the preparation of later
and possibly improved editions.

Unlike many of his famous predecessors and contemporaries among the
publishers, Plantin laid no claim to erudition, and although he was a
good linguist, he is not to be classed with the scholars of his time.
Nor would it be fair to say of him that he was actuated in his work by
as high ideals as those which impelled men like Aldus and Estienne. He
had, like them, literary ambitions, and a certain literary imagination,
but the question of direct profit filled a larger place and exercised
a more continued influence on his business policy and decision. In
religion and in politics Plantin was also evidently something of a
trimmer, and he was prepared from time to time, if not to sacrifice
convictions, yet to be very economical in the assertion of convictions
if reticence seemed likely to further commercial advantage.

While Plantin belongs, therefore, both chronologically and in personal
prestige, rather to the second than to the first grade of the earlier
printer-publishers, he is to be credited with the accomplishment of a
great work, and a work carried on in the face of many difficulties,
including wars, foreign and civil, the hampering censorship of the
Church, the bad faith of princes, his own over-optimism, and the
financial embarrassments resulting from these and from other causes.
As a result of his energy, creative capacity, and persistency, he was
able to overcome these serious obstacles and to impart such vitality to
his concern as to secure for it a life of three centuries, the longest
continued existence ever enjoyed by any publishing House. Its business,
begun in 1555, came to a close only in 1867, when the city of Antwerp
bought the printery in order to perpetuate its reputation through the
establishing of the Plantin Museum. The chief authority on the life of
Plantin and on the history of the publishing undertakings of his House,
is the beautiful memorial volume by Max Rooses, published in Antwerp in
1883. The full title is given in the Bibliography. To this work I am
chiefly indebted for the materials for the present chapter.

Christophe Plantin was born in 1514, in a village near Tours. He died
in Antwerp in 1589, continuing to the last year of his long life to
be active in his business affairs. He appears to have had what to-day
would be called a good school education; this included (what is to-day
not so common as a result of school training) a working knowledge
if not a full mastery of Latin, which, as the universal literary
language of the time, was an essential part of the training of all
printer-publishers. His work as a printer was begun in Paris, but
when he was twenty-five years of age, he moved to Caen, in Normandy,
a town which, in connection with its University, was already assuming
importance as a literary and publishing centre. The printing of books
in Caen had been begun by Durandas and Quijone as early as 1480, a
few years after the first German printers settled at Paris. Plantin
completed his apprenticeship with Macé (the second of the name) and, in
1546, married and moved to Antwerp, where he secured citizenship and
became a master-printer.

From the middle of the sixteenth century and until the time of the
great disasters brought on during the revolt of the Netherlands, the
“Spanish fury” of 1576, and the great siege of 1585, Antwerp was at
the height of its prosperity, and in the extent and varied character
of its commercial relations, it was, possibly, the leading city of
Europe. While the enterprise and the genius for commerce of the
Netherlanders had brought into their hands so large a proportion of the
trade of the world, the people were very far from being mere traders.
Their active-mindedness and incisive energy caused them to be keenly
interested in intellectual pursuits and in all pending issues in
religion, politics, and literature, while their sturdiness of character
gave them a respect for their own opinions and made them ready to
support these not only with arguments, but, when the time came, with
the devotion of their lives. It is probable that, except in Florence,
Venice, and a few other communities in Italy, there was no country
in the world in which during the sixteenth century intelligence and
cultivation were so widely diffused as in the Netherlands.

Before the life and death struggle with Spain, the differences between
Flanders and Brabant in the South and Holland and its sister provinces
to the North were much less strongly marked than was the case after
the division of the Netherlands had left one part Catholic and one
part Protestant, and had brought about, through exiling over both
borders, the concentration of the Protestants in the free provinces of
the North, and of the Catholics in the provinces which remained under
Spanish rule in the South. At the time of Plantin’s settlement in
Antwerp, Flanders (using this term to cover roughly the modern Belgium)
contained a large Protestant population, and the relations of the city
with the towns of the Northern provinces were active and intimate. The
neighbouring University of Louvain supplied the scholarly coöperation
which was so essential for all the publishing undertakings of the age,
while not a few scholars who, a few years later, found themselves
with the exiles in Leyden or in Amsterdam, were at that time resident
in Antwerp, and were already largely associated with the work of the
printing-press.

It will be recognised, therefore, that Antwerp possessed exceptional
advantages as a centre of book-production, advantages so great that
they could not be entirely destroyed even by “the Spanish fury,” the
disastrous siege, and the confirmation of the Spanish domination. In
fact, before the close of the fifteenth century, out of the sixty-five
printers who were at work in the Netherlands, no less than thirteen
were in Antwerp. At the time of Plantin’s arrival, an entire quarter of
the city was devoted to the making of books, a circumstance at the time
without a parallel among the cities of Europe.

Plantin began his work in Antwerp as a binder, but he shortly added
to his business a shop for books. In 1555, he entered upon his
responsibilities as a printer and publisher by the publication of
a small volume entitled _Institution d’une Fille de Noble Maison_.
This was followed, in the same year, by _Flores de l’anneo Seneca_,
translated into Spanish “with privilege of the magistracy.” The
following titles, selected from the publishing record and catalogues,
will give an impression of the general character of Plantin’s
undertakings during the earlier years of his career:

    1556. “Le Favori du Court.”
    “Comites Flandriæ,” by Jacob Meyer.
    “Sossiego de Lalma” (in Spanish).
    “Lettres Amoureuses de Messer Girolam Parabosque.” Translated from
    Italian into French.

    Almanacs and Calendars: the printing of these, begun in 1556,
    continued for many years as a most important division of his
    business.

    1557. Liturgies.
    “Vocabulaire François-Flameng,” by Meunier.
    “La Grammaire Française,” by Meunier.
    These two were printed at the expense of the author, to whom the
    privilege was issued.
    The Four Orations of Cicero against Catiline.
    “Le Livre de la Victoire contre toutes tribulations.” Translated by
    Doré.
    “La Divine Philosophie de Vivre.”

    1558. “Virgil,” “Horace,” “S. Jerome” (in Latin).
    “Theologia Germanica.”
    “Letters of Phalaris.”
    “Isocrates.”
    “Histoire et description de l’Ethiopée.”
    “Theologia Germanica.” Printed (in Latin and French) with privilege
    royal, having been approved by Alva or by his examiners.
    “Chiromancie de Fricasse.”

    1559. The “Decameron” of Boccaccio (in French).
    “Le Nouveau Testament.”
    Of the latter he printed 2500 copies. In 1560, he had remaining 372
    copies.
    A Description of the Funeral Ceremonies of Charles V. (a
    magnificent folio, printed at the expense of Philip II.).
    “Les Amours et Opuscules de Ronsard.”
    “L’Histoire et description de l’Afrique,” par Jean Léon.

    1560. “Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus,” by Olaus Magnus.
    A portion of the edition was sold at Frankfort, while plates of the
    illustrations were sold to Paul Aldus, in Venice.
    “Le Premier Livre des Odes, de Charles de Rouillon,” _Avec grâce et
    privilége du Roy_.
    This privilege is given by the Privy Council in the name of the
    King. The document certifies that the Odes “ne contiennent aucune
    mauvaise secte ou doctrine.”
    “Terentius,” “Catullus,” “Tibullus,” “Propertius.”
    “Dictionnaire Tetraglotton.”

    1561. “Amadis de Gaule.”
    In this year, Plantin secured in all seven privileges.

    1562. “Traité sur la Réformation,” by de Sainctes.
    Boëthius, “De Consolatione Philosophiæ.”

    1564. “Virgilii Opera.”
    “The Psalms.” French Version (with royal privilege).

    1565. “Plautus,” “Juvenal,” “Ovid.”
    Reprints (issued apparently under arrangement with Paul Aldus) of
    several of the Aldine classics.

    1567. “Corpus Juris Civilis,” in ten volumes.
    The writings of Galen, and a number of other medical and scientific
    works.
    The Breviary of the Council of Trent.

    1568. “La Bible Royale, ou Bible Polyglotte,” edited by Arias
    Montanus and his collaborators.

This was by far the most important work ever issued by the printers of
the Low Countries, and the most scholarly edition of the Scriptures
that had thus far been put into print. A polyglot Bible had been
planned by Aldus but he had not lived to complete it. In 1517, the
Cardinal Ximenes had had printed at Alcala a polyglot edition of the
Old Testament, and, in 1547, an edition of the Pentateuch, in Hebrew,
Latin, Greek, and Syrian, was printed in Constantinople under the
supervision of certain Jewish editors. Plantin secured for his Bible
a subvention (or at least the promise of a subvention) from King
Philip II. of 21,000 florins, which amount was to be repaid to the
King in copies of the book. The general editor, Bénoît Arias Montanus,
was appointed by the King, and Montanus associated with himself in
the editorial work certain members of the Theological Faculty of the
University of Louvain. The enterprise received also the coöperation
and support of Cardinal Granvelle. One of the most important and also
one of the most difficult parts of the undertaking was the securing
of the various privileges required to authorise the sale of the work
and to protect it from infringement in the several countries in which
a demand for it was expected. A general privilege was first obtained
from the Governor-General of the Netherlands, acting on behalf of the
King, and this secular authorisation was supplemented by a certificate
of orthodoxy issued by the Theological Faculty of Louvain, which was
naturally prepared to approve of its own work. The Pope, Pius V., or
his advisers, took the ground, however, that any general circulation
of the Scriptures might prove dangerous, and in spite of the approval
given to the work by the Catholic theologians of Louvain, he refused
to sanction its publication. This refusal blocked the undertaking for
some years, and brought upon Plantin serious financial difficulties in
connection with the heavy outlays already incurred. The history of the
undertaking presents a convenient example of the special difficulties
attending publishing enterprises of the time. The examiners or
censors, whether political or ecclesiastical, were prepared to make
their examinations and to arrive at decisions only when the work in
question was already in printed form. It was necessary, therefore,
that the expenses of the editing, type-setting, and printing should
be incurred before the publisher could ascertain whether or not the
publication would be permitted. It was quite possible also that the
plan of the publication might be approved by one authority while the
work, when completed, might fail to secure the sanction of some other
or succeeding authority. With Plantin’s _Bible_, the history took a
different course. Pope Gregory XIII., who succeeded Pius V., was
finally persuaded to give his approval to the work, and, in 1572, he
issued a privilege for it which gave to the publisher an exclusive
control for the term of twenty years, and which brought upon any
reprinter excommunication and a fine of two thousand livres. When the
papal sanction had been secured, the royal privilege covering all
the dominions of Spain, which, after first being issued, had been
withdrawn pending the papal decision, was confirmed for twenty years.
Other privileges were secured as follows: From Germany, in the name
of the Emperor Maximilian, for ten years; from France, in the name
of King Charles IX., for twenty years; from Venice, in the name of
the Doge and the Senate, for twenty years, and from Naples for twenty
years. Montanus, after finishing his editorial labours and supervising
the printing of the final sheets of the Bible, was obliged to devote
some years to travelling from Court to Court, and to a long sojourn
in Rome, in order to secure these privileges. Even after the work
had secured the approval of Gregory, it was vigorously attacked by a
group of the stricter Romanists, headed by Professor Leon de Castro,
of Salamanca. De Castro took the ground that the Vulgate had been
accepted by the Church as the authoritative text, and that all attempts
to go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, or Syriac, must, therefore,
be sacrilegious. As early as 1520, Noel Beda, Dean of the Faculty of
Theology of the Sorbonne, had taken similar ground in connection with
the editions of the Bible printed by Henry Estienne. Beda contended
that the study of Greek and Hebrew would bring religion into peril, as
it would tend to undermine the authority of the Vulgate. When Montanus,
after completing his work in Antwerp, returned to Spain, he was accused
of being a partisan of the Jews and an enemy of the Church, and was
threatened with a trial for heresy. He was able, however, through his
own scholarship and with the backing of the Pope, to hold his own
against his accusers, and no formal trial ever took place. He died in
Spain in 1598. He may be considered as the most distinguished of the
scholarly associates of the great Antwerp publisher, his relations
with whom were in many ways similar to those which had obtained half a
century earlier between Erasmus and Froben of Basel.

The polyglot Bible, the result of the enterprise and persistence of
Plantin, and of the erudition, independence of thought and courage
of Montanus, survived all the attacks that were made upon it, and
remains one of the greatest monuments as well of the erudition as of
the publishing enterprise of the sixteenth century. From a financial
point of view, the undertaking was, however, a failure. It had
probably been planned on too large a scale, while the outlays were
seriously increased and the returns from sales not a little delayed
and lessened in connection with the many obstacles in the issue of the
privileges, and in connection also with the serious assaults made upon
the orthodoxy of the book by certain Spanish ecclesiastics. The first
edition printed had comprised 1213 copies, a considerable proportion
of which were, five years later, still in the hands of the publishers.
Plantin was left heavily in debt, the amount of the deficiency being
increased by the failure of King Philip to complete the payment of the
promised subsidy.

The more important of the publications of Plantin’s Press which
followed the big Bible, are as follows:

    1571. The “Psalterium,” printed with the aid of Cardinal Granvelle.
    An “Index Expurgatorius,” prepared, under the direction of Philip
    II., for the use of the censors throughout the kingdom.

    The preparation of the “Index” was confided to a college or
    commission of ecclesiastics sitting at Antwerp, and comprising,
    among others, the Bishop of Louvain and Arias Montanus. The “Index”
    specified what portions of the books condemned contained heretical
    material, and the booksellers in each town were charged to cut
    out the condemned pages and were permitted to sell the books thus
    expurgated. The first of the “Indexes” issued in the Low Countries
    had been printed in Louvain in 1546, by Seruacs van Sassen (see
    reference later in this chapter).

    1573. An “Antiphonaire,” printed with the aid of the Bishop of
    Tournai.

    The “Hours” of the Virgin.

    For this work, the Pope gave to the publisher a privilege
    (confirmed by his representative in Brussels) covering all the
    countries of Europe.

    1573. “Thesaurus Theutonicæ Linguæ,” a dictionary of French,
    Flemish, and Latin.

    This was edited by Cornelius Kiel, who was the most important of
    the philological scholars associated with the Plantin Press.

    “Vivæ Imagines Partium Corporis Humani.”

    1575. “Corpus Civile, Pandectæ, Codicis Justiniani,” twelve books.
    A long series of Greek and Latin texts.

    “Origines Antwerpianæ,” by Becanius.

    The author was a physician and an old friend of Plantin. His
    treatise proves that Flemish is the most ancient of the mother
    tongues of the world. The edition was paid for by the author, in
    whose name the royal privilege was issued.

    1576. The works of Tertullian, in three volumes.

    “Historia Frumentorum,” with eighty-four plates.

    1581. Works of S. Augustine, in ten volumes.

    Works of S. Jerome, in five volumes.

    Ortellius, the Geographer, Maps and “Theatrum Orbis.”

    Mercator, the Maps of.

    1583. “Stirpium Historia Pomptades Sex.”

    A Description of the Netherlands, by Guicciardini, printed, with
    many illustrations, in German, Latin, French, Flemish, and Italian.

    The elaborate plans of the cities were paid for by the
    municipalities interested. The author received as his compensation
    one hundred and fifty florins and a number of copies of the book.

    “Humanæ Salutus monumenta,” by Arias Montanus, with seventy-two
    plates.

    1575-85. A long series of Musical Works, for the text of which
    special fonts had to be made.

In 1567, Plantin coöperated with Paul Manutius (the son of Aldus), who
was at that time established in Rome, in the production of a series of
Breviaries, eleven in all. Manutius had secured for the work a papal
privilege covering all the Catholic States, and as consideration for
the assignment of this privilege for the Netherlands, Plantin was to
pay one tenth of all the copies printed by him. A royal privilege,
confirming the papal sanction, was secured from Philip II., who also
advanced 2000 florins to facilitate the publication. Later, Plantin was
relieved from the payment to Manutius of the tenth, the Pope having
authorised, for the dominions of Philip, a somewhat different form of
Breviary. This undertaking proved very remunerative.

In 1557, Plantin’s consignment to the Frankfort Fair comprised no
less than 1200 volumes, together with a large assortment of prints
from copper plates. He was at this time, unquestionably, one of the
two leading publishers of the world, the other being Henry Estienne
of Geneva. In the publication of elaborately illustrated works, of
illustrations for separate sale, and of finely engraved maps, his work
represents an enormous advance over anything that had before been
attempted, and it is difficult to-day to understand how the resources
at his command and the markets within his reach could have been
sufficient to warrant the production of works of such magnitude and
costliness.

In 1562, a grave misfortune came upon Plantin, which caused serious
interruption to his business, and consequent loss. He was accused by
the Margrave of Antwerp of heresy, because there had been printed
in his establishment an edition of a treatise entitled _Brièfve
instruction pour prier_. Plantin was condemned _in absentio_ (he was
at the time in Paris) and his goods were seized and sold at auction.
He was able, however, later, to show that the book had been printed
during his absence and without his knowledge, and for the account not
of his own publishing concern but of some outside customer of the
printing-office, and he was finally acquitted. The more important
portion of the goods that had been sold at auction had been bought in
for him by personal friends, so that he was shortly again in a position
to go on with his business. Some of these friends supplied further
capital, and, in 1563, a company was organised for the printing and
publishing of books, of which company Plantin became manager.

Plantin came under suspicion of heresy a number of times, but he was
always able to present evidence of his orthodoxy in the Catholic
faith. It was, I understand, only after his death that the documents
were found showing that, as early as 1550, he had been a member of
a sect known as _La Famille de la Charité_, the leader of which was
Niclaes. Plantin printed for Niclaes (but without the imprint of his
printing-office) the _Spiegel der Gherechtigkeit_ or _Le Miroir de la
Justice_. He did not fail, however, during these years, to continue to
do whatever was requisite to preserve his good standing in the Church
of Rome, a course that was certainly judicious at a time when Antwerp
was in charge of rulers like Alva, and when the publisher was carrying
on undertakings which required the coöperation or the support of the
theologians of Louvain, of King Philip, and of the Pope. Whatever
the temptation or the necessities, it seems certain that Plantin was
willing, for the sake probably, in the main, of his business interests,
to act the part of a trimmer, and it must be admitted that he played
the rôle skilfully and successfully.

The censorship of the Press, as far at least as Germany and the Low
Countries were concerned, began with the time of Luther. Before the
burning of the Papal Bull at Wittenberg, the Press had enjoyed the same
measure of freedom as that accorded to other industries. On the 25th of
May, 1521, an imperial edict of Charles V. ordered that, thereafter,
all books must, before being printed, secure the approval of censors
appointed for the purpose under imperial authority. The first censors
so appointed were ecclesiastics, and the censorship appeared to have
reference only to matters of theological heresy. In the same year,
1521, the Diet of Worms placed under condemnation the writings of
Luther. All existing copies of these writings were ordered destroyed,
and those convicted of printing, selling, or reading the same were
adjudged guilty of treason (_lèse-majesté_).

In 1529, a further imperial edict forbade the printing of all books
containing the new heresies, and forbade also the printing (unless
with the special sanction of the Church) of any portion of the
Scriptures. The penalty for printing any book without the authorisation
of the Government was fixed at five florins gold. Two years later,
a supplementary edict added to this fine the punishment of public
exposure and of branding with a hot iron, or of having an eye put out
or the hand chopped off, as the judge might decide.

In 1550, an imperial ordinance punished with death those who printed or
published the books condemned in 1529, and the fine for printing other
books without authorisation was raised to twenty florins gold. No one
could become a printer without an imperial license. Booksellers could
open their packages only in the presence of the censors. They were
obliged to post in their shops the lists of books condemned, and also
the lists of the books kept in sale. The penalty for failure to do this
was fixed at one hundred florins. Under the direction of King Philip
II., the Inquisition took into its own hands, in all the countries of
his dominions, the supervision and censorship of the Press.

In 1895, Mr. A. M. Huntington, of New York, printed, at the De Vinne
Press, reproductions in facsimile of five of the _Indexes_ issued
during this period under the authority of Charles V., of Philip II.,
and of the Spanish Inquisition. The following brief summary will give
an impression of the purpose and character of the group of _Indexes_, a
group which can, I judge, be considered as fairly characteristic of the
whole series.


I. THE LOUVAIN INDEX OF 1546.

    “Mandamêt der Keyserliicker Maiesteit vuytghegene int laer Xlvi.
    Met Dintitulatie ende declaratie vande geroprobeerde boecken,
    gheschiet beiden, Doctoren inde Faculteyt van Theologie in
    D’universiteyt van Loeuen, Duer dordonnantie ende beuel der seluer
    K. M.”

    Text of the edict of his Imperial Majesty concerning books the
    circulation of which is prohibited under the censorship of the
    doctors of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Louvain;
    issued in the year 1546; printed at Louvain by Seruacs van Sassen,
    1546, with favour and privilege.

    The monograph, which as printed in the edition of Mr. Huntington,
    comprises about ninety pages, is made up as follows: I. The text
    of the privilege. II. The full text of the edict (“Mandamêt”).
    The edict closes with a list of the books the circulation of
    which is permitted, a list which includes: the “Syntaxis” of
    Erasmus, “Grammaticæ” by several authors, “Fabulae Æsopæ,” the
    “Dialectica” and “Rhetorica” of Agricola, editions of the “Letters”
    of Cicero, of the works of Virgil, Lucan, Horace, Cæsar, Livy,
    the “Orations” of Cicero, the writings of Boëthius, the works of
    Gaza and of Laskaris, the works of Lucian, of Isocrates, Xenophon,
    Horace, Aristophanes, Hesiod, and Plutarch, and the “Orations” of
    Demosthenes. III. An address to readers by the Theological Faculty
    of Louvain. IV. A list of the forbidden books, comprising: the
    editions of the Bible issued by Robert Estienne of Paris, Goinus
    of Antwerp, Savoris of Lyons, Boule of Lyons, Cæsar of Antwerp,
    Froben of Basel (this last was probably the edition with the notes
    of Erasmus), Stelsium of Antwerp, Gabianus of Lyons, Regnault of
    Paris, Gryphium of Paris, Paganus of Lyons, Münster of Basel, the
    Greek editions of the Bible by Argentoratus. Dutch editions as
    follows: Liesuelt of Antwerp, Vorsterma of Antwerp, Peeters of
    Antwerp. Flemish editions as follows: by Martinus of Antwerp, by
    Antoninus of Antwerp. Editions of the New Testament as follows:
    by Robert Estienne of Paris, by Maranus of Antwerp, by Batman
    of Antwerp. Editions of the New Testament in Dutch as follows:
    by Gymmick of Cologne, by Cornelius of Antwerp, by Lieseult, by
    Godifredus of Antwerp, by Keyser of Antwerp, by Petrus of Leyden,
    by Van Loe of Antwerp, by Crom of Antwerp, by Mirdmans of Antwerp,
    by Coch of Antwerp, by Claes of Antwerp, by Hage of Antwerp; the
    New Testament in Flemish by De Monte of Antwerp, by Petrus of
    Antwerp, and by Richart of Antwerp. This list includes in all
    forty-nine editions of the Bible and of the New Testament. The
    schedule of Bibles is followed by a list of works, also prohibited,
    aggregating one hundred and fifty-eight titles. In addition to the
    books prohibited by name, this division of the _Index_ includes
    a prohibition of “all the writings” of the following authors:
    Luther, Wiclif, Huss, Massilius of Padua, Oecolampadius, Zwingli,
    Melanchthon, Lambertus, Pomerinus, Brunselsius, Justus Jonas. I add
    a selection of the more noteworthy titles from the list of separate
    works:

    “Historia de Germanorum Origine.”
    “Commentaria Pythagoræ poema.”
    “Erasmi Scholia in Evangelium Secundum.”
    “Matthaeum, Marcum, et Lucam.”
    “Erasmi Postilla in Evangelia dominicalia, per totum annum.”
    “Epitome Chronicorum Latine et Teutonice.”
    “Agrippa de Vanitate Scientiarum.”
    “Chronicon regum et regnorum, authore Paulo Constatino Phrygione.”
    “In Joannis Catacuzeni contra fide Mahumeticam librû præfatio,
    Gualteri Tigurini.”
    “Geographia Universalis, Basileæ, per Petri.”
    “Joachimi Camerarii Commentarii in Tusculano quæstionis Ciceronis.”
    “Paidalogia Petri Mosellani.”
    “Judocus Uvelichius de pronunciatione Rhetorica.”
    “La Louainge du Mariage et recueil des Histoires de bonnes
    (vertueuses) et illustres femmes, composée par Maistre Pierre de
    Lesuanderie.”

    The greater portion of the list is devoted to the controversial
    works of Protestant writers, works which we should expect to
    find in such an Index. It is, however, somewhat surprising that
    the Divines of Louvain should have thought it necessary to place
    their condemnation also upon such apparently innocent productions
    as treatises on the origin of the “Germans” or on “Universal
    Geography,” or on the “Tusculan Disputations” of Cicero, and it is
    difficult to understand the ground on which these should have been
    considered as likely to prove dangerous to the true Faith.

    In the spelling of the titles, I have followed Mr. Huntington’s
    text, which has, I understand, been reproduced from the original by
    a photographic process.

    The lists in the several _Indexes_ repeat titles very largely, and
    in nearly all, after the writings of an author have been condemned
    _in toto_ under some such head as “opera omnia,” a number of them
    are afterwards condemned under their separate titles.


II. THE LOUVAIN INDEX OF 1550.

    This comprises the following material: A catalogue of the books
    condemned according to the judgment of the University of Louvain,
    and under an edict of “his Cæsarean Majesty” (this list is in
    part a repetition of that of 1546); a Bull of the Holy Father,
    Pope Julius III., against all those possessing or reading copies
    of the forbidden or condemned books; a further catalogue of books
    previously condemned under the authority of the most illustrious
    and reverend Lord Don Ferdinand of Valdes, Archbishop of Seville,
    Inquisitor-General of the Council of the holy general Inquisition;
    together with the edict of the apostolic inquisitors in the city of
    Toledo, under whose decree the titles of several later books are
    added to the original list. The _Index_ was printed in Toledo in
    the office of Joh. de Ajala, in 1551. The title-page closes with a
    clause inflicting excommunication and a fine of 50,000 maravedas
    upon those who may sell or possess copies of the works condemned.

    Following the title, comes an address to the reader from the Rector
    and Faculty of the University.

    The Louvain catalogue comprises 295 titles, of which 62 are of
    works in Flemish and in Dutch, and 233 of works in Latin. The
    Archbishop’s catalogue comprises 69 titles, of which 55 are of
    works in Latin and 14 of works in Spanish. In the Louvain list are
    included certain specific writings of Erasmus, and also his entire
    works (“Opera Omnia”). Erasmus was himself the most distinguished
    student whom Louvain had sent out. There are also editions of the
    Bible as printed in Paris by Robert Estienne, the works of Luther,
    Zwingli, Melanchthon and other Reformers, etc. The Latin books are
    from presses in Paris, Antwerp, Basel, Cologne, The Hague, etc. The
    Flemish and Dutch titles are from Antwerp, Ghent, Middelburg, and
    Leyden. The Archbishop’s Latin list includes the Koran and “all
    books containing the errors of Mahomet,” the writings of Servetus,
    Œcolampadius, and Zwingli, and the “Colloquies” of Erasmus. His
    Spanish list includes “all books printed in Hebrew,” and “all
    theological works printed in Arabic”; also “all editions of the
    Bible printed in the vulgar tongue.”


III. THE SAME LOUVAIN INDEX OF 1550.

    Printed in Cordova, by Francisco Ferdinand in 1551. This volume
    includes, in addition to the titles of the books condemned by
    the Divines of Louvain, a list of thirty works sanctioned by the
    University for use as text-books. Among these are a Syntax, a Greek
    Grammar, a “Copia,” and a Guide to letter-writing, by Erasmus of
    Rotterdam, volumes which under a strict construction of language
    might naturally be understood to be included among the “Opera
    Omnia” of Erasmus, condemned in the previous list.

    Following the list of the text-books authorised, is the catalogue
    of the books previously condemned by the Inquisition, comprising
    eighty-five titles. This includes various writings of Erasmus,
    Luther, Servetus, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and other Reformers, also
    all versions of the Bible in Spanish or in other vulgar tongues.


IV. THE CORDOVA INDEX OF 1554.

    This is described on its title-page as a “Censura Generalis contra
    errores, quibus recentes haeretici Sacram Scriptorem asperserunt,
    edita a supremo senatu Inquisitionis adversus hereticam provitatem
    et apostasiam in Hispania, et aliis regnis, et dominiis Cæsareæ
    Majestatis constituto.”

    It was printed at Cordova by Francisco Ferdinand, and was sold for
    forty maravedas.

    The volume contains an edict of the King (printed in Spanish)
    approving the list as constituted; a statement (printed in Latin)
    from Ferdinand, Archbishop and Inquisitor-General, of the reasons
    for the condemnation of the heretical interpretations that had
    been permitted to obscure or to dishonour certain passages of the
    Scriptures and also other Sacred writings; the same printed in
    Spanish; an Introduction (_Præfatio_) to the list of condemned
    texts; a list of the editions of the Bible which at this time call
    for correction and condemnation.

    The list comprises forty-seven editions. Of these, twenty-eight are
    printed in Lyons, eight in Paris, six in Basel, three in Venice,
    one in Antwerp and one in Tigurium. The Paris editions include
    those of Robert Estienne, who was at this time engaged in his long
    fight with the Sorbonne. The Lyons list contains the title of the
    great Bible of Hugo, later reprinted by Koberger in Nuremberg. The
    schedule of Bibles is followed by a list of one hundred and thirty
    texts from the Old and New Testaments, together with the heretical
    interpretations and the orthodox refutations and corrections of
    these. Then comes a general condemnation of all the errors which
    are to be found in the Bibles that have been thus corrupted by the
    heretics, with an enumeration of the chapters misinterpreted. A
    Bible printed at Basel by John Oporimus, receives the honour of a
    special condemnation, with which the volume closes.


V. THE VALLADOLID INDEX OF 1559.

    This is a catalogue of the books which are prohibited according to
    the mandate of the most illustrious and reverend Doctor Ferdinand
    of Seville, Inquisitor-General of Spain, and under the authority
    of the Supreme Senate of the Holy Inquisition. It was printed at
    Valladolid, by Sebastian Martinez, in 1559, and was sold for seven
    reals.

    The volume includes a special edict of the Archbishop, prohibiting
    the printing of this _Index_ by any one but Martinez.

    Following the title-page is a letter from Pope Paul IV. to
    Ferdinand, setting forth the necessity of protecting the orthodox
    faith against the assaults of the heretics.

    The schedule of books prohibited comprises about 620 titles, of
    which 350 are in Latin, 140 in Spanish, and 120 in Dutch. This is
    followed by a supplementary list of 32 titles, comprising 12 in
    German, 10 in French, and 10 in the (vulgar) Lusitanian tongue.

    Among the noteworthy titles in the two schedules I find “The
    Koran,” Commentaries on Aristotle by Hegendorf, a long series of
    Bibles from the presses of Robert Estienne and others, the works of
    Melanchthon, the works of Gesner, various writings of Hegendorf,
    a long series of writings of Erasmus, specified by separate
    titles, followed by his complete works, “Opera Omnia,” the works
    of Bullinger, the works of Cornelius Agrippa, the works of Jerome
    Cardan, the works of Calvin, Huss, Œcolampadius, and Servetus, the
    “Commentaries” of Julius Cæsar, edited by Tigurinus, the works of
    Reuchlin, the “Lexicon of Civil Law,” by Spiegel, the works of
    Luther, Bucerus, and Börrhaus, the “De Officiis” of Cicero, edited
    by Betuleus, the same, edited by Melanchthon, the writings of Peter
    Martyr, the works of Dolet, the works of Ulrich von Hutten.

    The Spanish list includes the versions in Spanish of several books
    of Erasmus, who appears to have been one of the most thoroughly
    “condemned” and at the same time one of the most widely circulated
    authors of Europe; also all the editions in the vernacular of the
    Old and New Testaments.

    It was doubtless the case, as has been indicated in previous
    chapters, that the general circulation of these official _Indexes_
    had the effect of calling public attention to the books described
    and unquestionably kept certain writings in demand which would
    otherwise have been lost sight of very speedily.

    The general circulation of the books of more permanent importance
    was also materially furthered by the information given in these
    official denunciations, information which was particularly
    serviceable at a time when there were so many difficulties in the
    way of making known to the public the existence of books. The
    ecclesiastical condemnation undoubtedly blocked the use of certain
    books as texts in the universities, but the surreptitious sales
    probably more than offset the circulation which was lost in this
    way. An incidental result was probably the furthering the sale
    of unauthorised editions at the expense of those issued by the
    authorised publishers. This interference was bitterly complained
    of, for instance by Erasmus.

It is convenient to make reference here to the earlier regulations
for the censorship of the Press, as well in order to make clear the
conditions under which the publishers of Antwerp had to carry on their
business, as because Plantin himself held an important post among the
newly-appointed censors. In 1569, Philip II. instituted the office
of proto-typographer, or supervisor of printing for the Netherlands.
Master-printers applying to the supervisor for authorisation for a
work to be printed, must show the certificate of approval of the
diocesan bishop or of his vicar, and also of the local magistrate.
Printers were required to take an oath of conformity to the doctrines
of the Church as set forth by the Council of Trent. In 1570, Philip
II. appointed Plantin proto-typographer. No remuneration was attached
to the office, but the incumbent was freed from the duty of lodging
soldiers. The important service of the post for Plantin was, of
course, the increased facility it secured for him in obtaining
approvals and privileges for his own publications. The theologians of
Louvain (through whom the ecclesiastical censorship for Antwerp was,
in the main, carried on) were not likely to raise question concerning
the undertakings of the literary representative of the King. In fact,
after 1570, Plantin took the title of “Printer to the King,” a title
which proved of service during the years of war when the Southern
provinces were being harried for heretics by the Spanish officials.
Even the printer for the King could not, however, ensure the protection
and profitable continuance of his business during times of civil war,
and notwithstanding the pains he had taken to make himself safe with
both parties to the great contest, the period was, for Plantin (as
for Antwerp traders generally) one of serious difficulty, and nearly
brought him to ruin.

In 1576, the troubles which had for a number of years been gathering
force, brought about the league or union of the seventeen provinces,
described as the Pacification of Ghent, and in the same year came the
sack of Antwerp (known as the “Spanish Fury”). At this time Plantin
had twenty-five presses, and about one hundred and fifty employees.
According to his biographer, Rooses, the work of his printing-office
was not at any period of the struggle entirely stopped, but it had
gradually dwindled until, in 1585, when the authority of the King over
the city of Antwerp had been finally established, Plantin had but one
press at work, and that was the only press at the moment in operation
throughout the city. The war had brought about a separation of the
Netherlands, giving to the new Dutch Republic the Protestant States
of the North, and leaving under the control of Spain the territory
corresponding, in the main, to modern Belgium, the population of which
was (after the Protestants had been killed or driven into exile)
chiefly Catholic. One result of the contest and of this concentration
of Protestantism in the Republic was to transfer to Amsterdam the
larger share of the trade of which Antwerp had heretofore been the
centre, and with this general trade departed also, in great measure,
the publishing business and the literary activities of the city of the
Scheldt.

By the year 1585, the independence of the new Dutch Republic, while
not formally recognised until a number of years later, was practically
assured. In the Southern provinces, however, of which Antwerp was
the chief city, the authority of the Spanish King was restored. The
business of the city was resumed, but under sadly changed conditions.
The city itself had been seriously devastated by the siege and
ransacked by the Spanish troops. Many of the enterprising citizens who
had been leaders in its trade and in its civic history had lost their
lives, while many others, convicted or suspected of Protestant views,
had been forced into exile or had voluntarily cast in their lot with
their Protestant friends in the Dutch cities.

Antwerp was left impoverished as to both men and resources. Her ships
had disappeared, her commerce had been brought to a standstill. The war
had been harassing and exhausting also for the States of the Republic,
but they had won their independence, and had never lost their control
of the sea. Their losses in men were, in part at least, offset by
the immigration of Protestants from the provinces which had remained
subject to the Spanish yoke, while their losses in property were to be
speedily made good by the profits of a rapidly increasing trade.

Among the industries of Antwerp which suffered most seriously was,
as may easily be understood, that of the production of books. The
departing Protestants had taken with them much of the intellectual
life and of the literary activity of the city, while Amsterdam and
Leyden, free from the hampering restrictions of Catholic censorship,
presented many advantages for publishing undertakings. Plantin refused,
however, to be discouraged, and beginning his work again in 1585, with
one printing-press, was able in the course of the next two years to
reorganise an effective establishment. The office of proto-typographer
had fallen into desuetude, but Plantin still called himself Printer to
the King.

His first publication for the new year was an official list of the
books at that time under prohibition, a list comprising, in one hundred
and nineteen pages, some six hundred titles. Various similar lists had
been published during the preceding half century. In 1546, Charles V.
had had printed in Worms a list of heretical books the circulation and
possession of which were forbidden; and in the same year, the same
list, with a few additions, was printed in Louvain, by Van Sassen,
also under the instructions of Charles. A fuller specification of this
Louvain _Index_ of 1546 has been given on an earlier page. In 1551,
the Faculty of the Sorbonne published, through Jean André, of Paris, a
similar list. The first _Index Expurgatorius_ of the Inquisition was
printed in 1554, in Venice, by Julitus, and in 1559, this was reprinted
in Rome, in Aragon, at Pforzheim, and in Cologne. The four _Indexes_
printed in Spain between 1550 and 1559 have been already referred to.
There need, therefore, have been no lack of information on the part of
printers or booksellers as to the books the production and distribution
of which were forbidden under various penalties. It seems probable,
however, as previously said, that, with the possible exception of
Spain, the placing on the _Index_ of the title of a book, constituted
for it a valuable advertisement, serving to increase the circulation
of works of distinctive character, and even securing a continuity
of repute and of influence for not a few books of less intrinsic
importance which would otherwise have fallen into oblivion. It was
hardly effective, for instance, to prevent the printing of a book in
Paris, when the heretically disposed readers in France could easily
be reached by the productions of the presses of Geneva; and in like
manner, to the printers of Leyden and Amsterdam the censorship of the
Roman ecclesiastics was of no importance excepting as ensuring a demand
for their heretical publications among readers in the easily reached
territory of France or of the Spanish Netherlands.

The account books of Plantin have been preserved, giving the records of
his undertakings during the larger portion of his business activity.
Among the entries of disbursements which have an interest for readers
of to-day are those recording the payments for editorial service or for
other literary work. In a number of cases, these payments, whether to
authors or to editors, were made in the shape of copies of the book on
which the work had been done.

Thus, Jean Isaac received, in 1554, in full for the copyright of his
Hebrew Grammar, a hundred copies of the book, while, in the year
following, he was paid for his abridgment of the Hebrew Dictionary
of Pagnino, the sum of fifteen crowns. Dodonaeus, in 1565, accepted
fifty copies of his _Frumentorum Historia_ (which had been a very
expensive work to produce). Hunnaeus, in 1566, was given two hundred
copies of his _Dialectica_. Pierre de Savonne, for a treatise on
book-keeping, was paid, in 1567, forty-five florins and one hundred
copies; Guicciardini, for a Description of the Poetry of the Low
Countries, received eighty-two florins and fifty copies. Stadius,
for his _Commentaries_ on Florus, was paid, in 1567, twenty florins;
Carrion, for editorial work on _Sallust_, fourteen florins; Venutius,
for a Spanish translation of the _Theatrum Orbis_, was paid one hundred
florins; while Everaert, for the translation into Flemish of Porta’s
_Magia Naturalis_, received fifteen florins. The four theological
professors of Louvain who revised the _Bible Française_, were paid
each twenty-five florins.

Plantin had on his permanent staff a number of correctors and revisers.
Ghisebrecht, with a knowledge of Latin and Greek, and with capacity
to edit texts, received board and lodging and sixty florins yearly,
and Van der Eynde, with a somewhat larger range of scholarship, was
paid yearly one hundred and fifty to two hundred and ten florins.
Plantin had, in the organisation of his staff, a more complicated task
than had fallen upon his publishing predecessors. The books of Aldus,
Badius, and Estienne had been published almost exclusively in Latin or
in Greek. With the enlargement of the range in the demand for books
adapted for the wider education of the generation supplied by Plantin,
it became necessary to provide reading material in the vernacular.
Latin, while still the language of scholarship, was ceasing to be the
exclusive language of literature. It was further the case that the
publishing undertakings of the second half of the sixteenth century
were no longer limited to reissues of the works of classic writers.
Plantin’s list included the writings of a considerable number of
contemporary authors. The work of providing literature of the day for
readers of the day had begun to take shape, and Plantin was the first
of the mediæval publishers whose books were deliberately planned for
what to-day would be called a popular circulation. With this widening
of the circle of readers, came at once a problem which, for a capital
like Antwerp and for dominions like those of the King of Spain,
presented special complexities. Plantin’s catalogue of 1566 included
works in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, Spanish, Italian,
Flemish, Dutch, and English. In order properly to supervise for the
compositors the text of works in these various tongues, and in order to
ensure a correct reading of the proofs, it was, of course, necessary
to secure the services of editors, proof-readers, and compositors who
possessed a scholarly, or at least a working knowledge of the languages
in question. A similar requirement obtained in the publishing-office,
the business of which had to be conducted in three or four languages.
It was necessary, therefore, for Plantin’s purposes, to employ a
polyglot staff, a necessity which had obtained to a much smaller degree
with the contemporary publishers in Paris, Basel, or Nuremberg, and
which at that time hardly called for consideration in London.

Among the regulations of both the office and the workshop was one
forbidding the discussion of religious or political questions.
Bearing in mind the variety of nationality of the employees in the
establishment, and bearing in mind also the bitterness with which
religious and political questions were held at the time of the revolt
of the Dutch provinces, a regulation of this kind was certainly
sensible enough. Plantin had the reputation of being in his business
methods precise and systematic, and the records of his business which
have been preserved, present evidence to this effect. He was certainly
popular with his employees, although strict and exacting. He accepted,
in framing the regulations for the work of the establishment, the
coöperation of delegates from his own workmen, and in the few instances
in which serious differences of opinion arose, and in the one or two
cases of strikes, the difficulties were finally adjusted with the aid
of this coöperating committee of the workmen.

Of the more popular works published by him, the editions ranged from
one thousand to fifteen hundred copies.

Of the _Frumentorum Historia_ (issued in 1566) eight hundred copies
were printed. Of the sixteenmo edition of _Virgil_, issued in 1564, he
printed 2500 copies. An edition of the _Pentateuch_, printed in 1566,
comprised 3900 copies, while of the complete _Scriptures_, issued in
the succeeding year, the edition was 2500.

The selling prices of Plantin’s publications appear low as compared
with the prices of to-day, and taking into consideration the necessary
limitations of circulation. I quote a few examples selected from the
catalogue of 1576.

  Pocket Classics, for each 6 sheets                             1 sou.
  Octavo Classics, for each 4 sheets                             1 sou.
  Virgil, octavo, 38 leaves                                      5 sous.
  Horace, octavo                                                 4 sous.
  Horace, quarto, 86 leaves                                     25 sous.
  Virgil, folio, 165 leaves                           3 florins, 5 sous.
  Euripides (in Greek) 27 leaves                                 7 sous.
  Sophocles (in Greek) 14 leaves                                 6 sous.
  “Biblia Hebraica” (in Hebrew), octavo, 125 leaves             45 sous.
  The same in Latin, with the New Testament in Greek, 38 leaves 25 sous.
  “Corpus Juris Civilis,” for each 3½ leaves                     1 sou.
  “Thesaurus Theutonicæ Lingual,” 70 leaves                     30 sous.
  “Humana Salutis Monumenta,” of Arias Montanus, with 72 plates, quarto,
  11½ sheets                                                  3 florins.
  The “Bible Royale” (a publication on which, as before stated, there
  was a serious deficiency), price to the public             70 florins.
    To dealers                                               60 florins.

The florin of Plantin’s catalogue was the equivalent of about forty
cents. The average discount given by him to his book-selling customers
was fifteen per cent. The agent in charge of the Paris branch received
forty per cent.

In 1579, Plantin consigned to the Fair at Frankfort 5212 copies of
sixty-seven works. During 1570, he sent to his Paris agent books to the
value of 19,000 florins. Perez, of Salamanca, was his agent for Spain,
where a branch office was carried on at first for the account of the
Antwerp concern, and, later, as an independent House. The annual sales
through Salamanca of the Plantin publications ranged from 5000 florins
to 15,000 florins. In 1579, Plantin had in plan the establishment of a
branch in London, but in connection with the difficulties brought on
by the war, this scheme failed to take shape. To one correspondent in
London his sales, in 1568, amounted to 4400 florins.

The average price of a quarter of a sou per sheet made the cost of
an octavo volume of three hundred and twenty pages something less
than four francs. The paper and the ink used were of decidedly
better quality than those that can be purchased by the most exacting
publishers of to-day. Scholarly service could be obtained from
editors and authors at very moderate rates, while the labour of the
employees was also low priced. The general purchasing power of money
three centuries ago was far greater than to-day, and can possibly be
estimated between, for instance, Antwerp of 1560 and London of 1890,
as worth three times as much, valued by its equivalent in food and
clothing. In 1577, Plantin sold his shop in Paris to his agent Sonnius,
accepting for the business a sacrifice price. The Netherlands had been
devastated by years of war; trade was practically at a standstill, and
Plantin was in pressing need of funds.

In 1575, the University of Leyden was founded by William of Orange, in
commemoration of the success of the Dutch the year before in raising
the siege of the city. Notwithstanding the absorption of the resources
of the country in the fierce struggle for independence and for national
existence, the University secured almost at once an honourable position
and speedily became one of the most influential centres of scholarship
in Europe. The printing and publishing business of the town began with
the life of its University. The publishers secured important service
from the scholars of the Faculty, and were able on their part to do
much to further the work of higher education. The printing-office of
Louis Elzevir (the first) whose family name was, later, to become so
famous in the annals of publishing, had been established, but was
already in difficulties. In 1583, Plantin found it convenient to leave
Antwerp for a time, to escape the pressure of his creditors. The war
had undermined his business, and he was also seriously hampered by the
failure of King Philip to make payment of the amount due for the great
Bible, or to pay a certain pension which had been promised him and on
which he had been depending.

Plantin made his way to Leyden at the instance of the historian
Lipsius, whom he had known at Louvain and who had recently accepted a
Chair in the new University. He purchased the establishment in which
the work of Louis Elzevir had been begun three years before, and
he put Elzevir in charge of his Leyden presses. The founder of the
long line of printers was able thus to secure under the supervision
of the veteran Plantin a training which in later years stood him in
good stead. Louis Elzevir was himself one of the Protestant exiles
from Flanders, having begun his work as a binder in Louvain. Plantin
apparently had in view, for a time, a permanent removal of his home
and of his business interests to Leyden. He was discouraged about the
future of the half ruined city of Antwerp, and was indignant with
King Philip for his failure to fulfil the obligations on the strength
of which Plantin had entered upon important undertakings. He also
realised how important a group of the learned authors and editors upon
whose coöperation he was dependent for the scholarly portion of his
undertakings, had cast in their lot with the Protestants, while it was
further the case that the Protestant States presented a much better
market for the publisher than could be depended upon in the Catholic
communities where both the production and the reading of books were
supervised by a rigorous ecclesiastical censorship.

Plantin’s Catholic affiliations, and his old-time official connection
with the Spanish Government do not appear to have caused any difficulty
in his work in Leyden or to have aroused any serious antagonism on
the part of the sturdy Protestants of the University. If there was
any theological opposition, it was probably offset by the belief that
the settling in Leyden of the man who ranked as perhaps the greatest
printer-publisher in Europe, must bring prestige and advantage to both
city and University. It was doubtless on this ground that, in 1584,
Plantin received the appointment of Printer to the University. He was
the second to hold the position, his predecessor, Silvius, having
died in office. The annual stipend was fixed at two hundred florins.
Notwithstanding this honourable reception, Plantin could not make up
his mind to remain in Leyden. He was now an old man, and exile from
the city with which were connected nearly all the associations of
his long years of active life, was probably felt as a hardship. In
November, 1585, he transferred the Leyden printing to his son-in-law,
Raphelengius (who also succeeded him as Printer to the University) and
returned to Antwerp. There he met with criticism from his Catholic
friends, who had heard that he had become a heretic. He was able,
however, to make a successful defence of his orthodoxy, and there
seems, in fact, to have been no ground for the accusation that for the
sake of business advantage in Leyden, he had abjured the faith of his
fathers. One may gather, however, from his experience both in Leyden
and in Antwerp, that Plantin held his Catholic doctrine with no very
great strenuousness, and it was quite natural that his long association
with critical scholars, many of them Protestants, should have prevented
him from being in any way a fierce Romanist, and should have furthered
the development in him of a spirit of toleration. It is possible also
that his personal grievance against the King had strengthened the
indignation that any good citizen of Antwerp may well have felt at
the dogmatic and relentless policy which had brought such disasters
upon the city. Great as had been her misfortunes, however, the spirit
and energy of the Flemish capital had by no means been destroyed, and
by the time of Plantin’s return, a decided revival of the trade and
industries of the city had taken shape. In 1586, the printing and
publishing offices were reconstructed, and a year later the business
was fairly re-established, no less than forty works being issued within
the twelve months.

In 1589, was published the _Martyrology_ of Baronius, the last work
completed under Plantin’s personal supervision. He died in the latter
part of the same year, being then seventy-five years of age. By his
will, the larger portion of the property in Antwerp, together with
the responsibility for its direction, was left to his son-in-law,
John Moretus, who had for some years had a part in its management.
Plantin had no sons, but appears to have been exceptionally fortunate
in his sons-in-law. He had had seven daughters, six of whom lived to
be married. John Moretus was the husband of the eldest. The third
had married Raphelengien or Raphelengius, who had taken over, before
Plantin’s death, the printing-office at Leyden, and who, as Printer for
the University, issued an important series of scholarly and scientific
works. Later, he was made Professor of Hebrew, uniting with the
responsibilities of an instructor the work of a printer.

The printing and publishing business of the Plantin House in Antwerp
was largely expanded by Balthasar Moretus, son of John who died in
1641. The work of the printing establishment continued in the hands
of Plantin’s descendants until 1867, and the concern had, therefore,
a continuous existence of nearly three centuries, being at the time
its work terminated, probably the oldest book-manufacturing firm in
the world. In 1867, the buildings of the Plantin Press were purchased
by the city of Antwerp for 1,200,000 francs, and the Plantin Museum
was instituted. In this museum are exhibited all the details of
book-making in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, together
with the earlier records and correspondence of the firm, the series
of which has been preserved nearly complete. As far as can be judged
from this correspondence, and from memoirs of the men of letters
and others with whom the great Antwerp publisher had dealings, his
relations with his authors, editors, and correspondents generally
were thoroughly harmonious and satisfactory both ways. The years of
Plantin’s business career had been troublous ones, and had brought with
them many disasters, losses, and perplexities. He appears, however, to
have been exceptionally successful in avoiding quarrels and disputes.
The only client with whom he had an issue was King Philip, and the only
lawsuit in which he was engaged was that brought against him for heresy
(_in absentio_) by the censorship of Antwerp. This is an extremely
creditable record for a publisher who carried on such extended and
varied undertakings, and who, in many of his arrangements with authors,
was obliged himself to make the business precedents. The authors must
have been fairly satisfied, for in the long series of the letters of
the publishing business, there are practically no complaints; and there
is no record of anything in the shape of an issue or even of a serious
difference of opinion between Plantin and any of his correspondents,
either commercial or literary.[132] Lipsius, writing to Montanus (while
Plantin was still active), says: _Si la race de Plantin venait à
faillir, je ne croirais plus à personne au monde; l’amour et confiance
que l’auteur de la ligne m’a inspirée, je les transporte sur tous ses
proches_. After the death of the publisher, Lipsius speaks of him
as _l’ami qu’il avait aimé et qui l’avait aimé plus fidèlement que
personne_.

Plantin read, wrote, and spoke French, Spanish, German, Flemish, and
Latin, and had some knowledge of English and Italian. While making no
claim to scholarship, he had scholarly tastes and ideals, and he knew
how to select scholars as associates and workers in the undertakings
planned by him. He may also be classed with the artists. In the
sixteenth century, typography was a liberal art, and Plantin was in
typography an artist and a liberal artist. He was, further, also the
first publisher to associate with typography on any large scale the
work of the engraver, and the series of copper plates produced under
his direction for his great series of illustrated works, constituted
an enormous advance in artistic publishing. While Plantin cannot take
rank with Aldus as a great man, he may fairly be described as a great
publisher. He possessed imagination, courage, high ideals, and public
spirit, and he showed himself not infrequently more ambitious to do
important work for literature than to amass wealth.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER XII.

THE ELZEVIRS OF LEYDEN AND AMSTERDAM.

1587-1688.


THE name of Elzevir has for more than two centuries been a familiar one
to collectors of choice books. These Dutch printer-publishers of the
seventeenth century were able to associate their imprint with certain
publications of such distinctive typographical excellence as to ensure
for the editions known as “Elzevirs” a prestige that has endured to the
present day. Aldus alone among the early publishers has had a similar
fortune, and while the “Aldine” editions are, of course, in respect
to their number and to their typographical excellence, much less
important than the “Elzevirs,” it must be remembered that having been
issued more than a century earlier, their production called for a much
larger measure of originating capacity and initiative on the part of
their printer-publisher. The principal authority on the history of the
Elzevirs is a comprehensive and carefully written monograph of Alphonse
Willems, published in Brussels in 1880.

Louis Elzevir, who, as far as its publishing undertakings are
concerned, was the founder of the family, had been brought up as a
binder in the Flemish University town of Louvain. He was a Protestant,
and in 1580, when existence for Protestants had been made difficult
in the Catholic provinces of Flanders, Elzevir, in company with
hundreds of others of his faith, made his way across the border to
Holland, and settled, with his family, at Leyden. He was at this time
about forty years of age. Leyden was, in 1580, next to Amsterdam,
the most considerable and the most important city in Holland. The
heroic resistance that its citizens had made during the long siege by
the Spaniards had earned fame for the city throughout all Protestant
Europe, while the University, which had been founded by William the
Silent in commemoration of the glory of the struggle, had at once
secured for itself a prestige among the scholars of Europe, and in
making Leyden a centre for the literary activities of the Dutch
provinces, had given a great incentive to its publishing and printing
trade.

Louis Elzevir found at Leyden a considerable group of Flemish
Protestants who had, like himself, found it wise to get away from the
rule of the Spanish soldiers and of the Roman ecclesiastics who were
dominating Flanders. Among these exiles were certain men whose names
became known, later, in connection with literature or with the work
of the University, such as Vulcanius, Drusius, d’Audenard, Lipsius,
Stevin, Heinsius, Baudius, Polyander, and Silvius, the first Printer to
the University.

Elzevir began work as a book binder for the students and instructors of
the University, adding to this business, a little later, a book-selling
shop. The undertaking proved, however, unsuccessful. During the
troublous times in which the new nation was still struggling against
the power of Spain for the right to exist, the number of students in
the University was at best but limited, and in Leyden as in Heidelberg,
Erfurt, and other of the German universities of the time, the practice
of hiring or borrowing text-books, or of arranging in some manner to
make one or two volumes serve for the requirements of an entire class,
must have interfered not a little with the possibility of securing a
living from the post of University bookseller.

Louis found himself, therefore, obliged to give up his first place of
business, but he was not willing to confess himself defeated. During
his brief experience as a bookseller, he had been able to impress
himself favourably upon some of the authorities of the University, and
in his present distress he applied to them for help. The University
council, recognising the value for higher education of the service
to be rendered by a skilled and conscientious bookseller, gave him
permission to construct within the limits of the University court a
small book-shop, and authorised Elzevir to announce himself officially
as the bookseller, and, later, as the publisher, to the University.

With this fresh starting point, Louis succeeded, after some years of
persistent and painstaking labour, in creating an assured business
foundation. He had never mastered the art of printing, and the
typographical work of the publications issued with his name was done
under contract with different printers, and presented no feature of
special excellence or distinctiveness. The works selected, however,
for Elzevir’s publishing list, together with the books selected by him
through Frankfort and Paris for sale in his shop, gave evidence of a
good literary and scholarly ideal and of a continually widening range
of knowledge of existing literature.

His correspondence throughout France, Germany, and Italy brought
the name of the new University to the knowledge of many literary
circles, and established for Leyden and for the towns of Holland which
depended upon Leyden for their foreign literature, connections with
the book-producing centres of Europe, connections which were never
thereafter to be severed. Louis was, during the greater part of his
lifetime, the only publisher and bookseller of Holland having such
foreign relations. At the time when the new State was securing through
the force of arms and the skill of its ambassadors the political
recognition from the Courts of Europe upon which its continued
existence depended, its literary representative, Louis Elzevir, was, in
like manner, securing for Dutch scholarship and for Dutch publishing
enterprise an honourable recognition from the scholars and with the
book-trade of Europe.

The first work published by Louis as a venture of his own was an
edition of _Eutropius_, issued in 1592. It was, however, not until
after 1594 that his publications began to appear with any regularity.
In 1595, he first utilised as a trade-mark the design of an eagle
grasping in its claw seven darts, an emblem which was retained by the
House for nearly a third of a century.

The name of Louis Elzevir is chronicled for the first time, in 1595,
in the list of publishers offering books at the Fair in Frankfort.
From the year 1602 he appears to have made regular annual sojourns in
Paris. In the _Journal_ of Pierre de Lestoile, under date of August,
1609, is a reference to a purchase made by him from Elvisier (_sic_) of
Leyden, of a treatise (by Grotius) entitled _Mare Liberum_, together
with certain orations of Heinsius and of Baudius. Lestoile goes on to
say that the said Elvisier had described to him the bequest recently
made by Baudius to the public library of Leyden of his collection of
books, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian, Persian, and
Armenian, a collection estimated by said Elvisier as worth not less
than three thousand crowns. It would appear from this reference that
the scholars and the publishers of Leyden must have had available for
their use an exceptionally comprehensive reference library.

The more distinctive work of the Elzevirs began, however, only
after the death of Louis, which occurred in 1617. He left six sons,
two of whom were carrying on book-shops in Utrecht and The Hague,
in affiliation with the present concern in Leyden. One was in the
service of the Dutch East India Company, and a fourth had adopted
the profession of an artist. The eldest and the youngest, Matthew and
Bonaventure, joined hands to carry on the business of their father, a
business which they were able very largely to extend and develop. The
form of imprint, _ex officina Elzeviriana_, dates from the year 1617,
when the two young men assumed the direction of the concern.

At the time the two young Flemings were beginning work with their
publishing operations, the independence of the Dutch Republic, though
not yet formally acknowledged by Spain, was an assured fact, and the
territory of the seven United Provinces was free alike from invaders
and from civil strife. The Thirty Years’ War was, however (in 1618),
just beginning in Germany, and until the peace of Westphalia, in 1648,
the business connections of dealers in books with the book-trade
centres in Frankfort, Leipzig, Cologne, etc., were, in common with
all trade operations on the Continent, very much interfered with. The
energy of the Dutch traders, however, repressed in one direction,
found vent in another. Dutch fleets overcame the Spanish naval forces
in the Pacific and transferred to the Dutch the control of many of
the Spanish possessions in the East, while the trade between the
Mediterranean and the North of Europe was largely transferred from
Venice and Genoa to Amsterdam and Harlem. The devastation that had been
brought upon Antwerp during the struggle with Spain, and the migration
to the provinces of the North of thousands of the Protestants who
had constituted a very important portion of the more intelligent and
enterprising of the inhabitants of Flanders and Brabant, had helped
to develop in the cities of the Dutch Republic the industries and the
commerce of which Antwerp and Bruges had so long been the centre.

While for a large part of Europe the Thirty Years’ War meant a
throttling, or at least a serious hampering, of its trade, the
commerce of the Dutch flourished behind the guns of their fighting
vessels. With the expansion of the ambition and of the material
resources of the new nation, came a rapid development of its
intellectual activities and of the productive work of its scholars and
writers.

The Elzevirs had (as would naturally be the case with men who were
exiles on the ground of their faith) associated themselves with the
stricter and more earnest of the Calvinists of their adopted country.
Bonaventure, the youngest of the sons of the first Louis, makes various
references in his correspondence to the acceptance of and his cordial
sympathy with the creed of the Calvinists as formulated by the Synod
of Dort. The first publication which bore his individual imprint was
a work of religious controversy bearing the rather ponderous title,
_Censura ne Confessionem sive Declarationem Sententiæ eorum qui in
Fœderato Belgio remonstrantes vocantur, super Præcipues Articules
Christianæ Religionis, A. SS. Theol. Professoribus Academiæ Leidensis
Instituta. 1626. Cum Privilegio._

Bonaventure married the daughter of a zealous Calvinist preacher, and
he himself remained until his death an important lay member of the
Council of the Ancients of the Walloon Church, a council which was
charged not only with the government of the Church itself, but with a
large measure of responsibility in connection with both the spiritual
and the civil administration of the community.

The intellectual ferment of which the bitter theological controversies
that raged about the name and the doctrines of Arminius were an
evidence (or a result), stimulated the production of books and
furthered the habit of reading among many classes of the people to
whom printed matter had previously been comparatively unfamiliar. The
period immediately succeeding the Synod of Dort witnessed an enormous
increase in the list of publications by Dutch writers. The views of
the Remonstrants and of their opponents the Contra-Remonstrants on
the famous five points of predestination, redemption, depravity,
conversion, and perseverance, required for their adequate setting forth
a long series both of folios and of pamphlets. On these and other
grounds, the year 1618 proved to be an exceptionally favourable period
for the beginning of a great publishing concern, and the two Elzevirs
showed themselves fully capable of taking advantage effectively of
the opportunity. The printing-office in Leyden appears to have been
completely organised early in the year 1618. Its first immediate
director was Isaac, the grandson of Louis. In 1625, he retired from the
concern, leaving both the printing and the publishing business in the
hands of his uncle Bonaventure and his brother Abraham. The year 1626
is considered by Willems to have marked the most brilliant period in
the long record of the House, although in later years a longer series
of important works was produced. The productions of the Elzevir Press
during the next two or three years were in part devoted to the theology
of the period (such as the acts of the National Synod), but were
principally represented by the great editions of the classics for which
the Elzevir imprint will always remain famous.

In 1625, the Elzevirs took over the printing-office of Erpenius, who
was at the time the only printer in the Netherlands, and one of the few
in Europe, who possessed any Oriental fonts. In 1629, they initiated
with _Horace_ and _Ovid_ the series of Latin classics in sixteenmo, a
form which followed very fairly the proportions of the famous series of
Aldus. In 1641, they began, with the issue of _The Cid_, a series of
contemporary French drama, and in 1642, with the works of Regnier, a
series of the chief monuments of French literature.

Bonaventure and Abraham died in the same year, 1652, but their sons,
John and Daniel, were already of sufficient age and of sufficient
training to assume the direction of affairs. Among the earlier of the
works issued by these two, were an edition of the _Imitation of Christ_
and one of the _Psalms_, which are described by the enthusiastic
Willems as “jewels of typography.” In 1655, Daniel transferred himself
to Amsterdam, where he was associated with his cousin Louis. John’s
death came a year or two later, leaving in Leyden no member of the
Elzevir family. John’s widow, Eva van Alphen, thereupon made herself
the head of the printing and publishing concern, and was able also to
retain control of the business of the University. The activity of the
publishing lessened during the following few years, but the excellence
of the work turned out by the printing-office seems not materially to
have suffered, and a number of the more important publications issued
with the imprint of the Elzevir firm in Amsterdam, were manufactured
in the Press of the Elzevir widow in Leyden. After the death of
Eva, in 1681, there was, however, a rapid deterioration not only in
the activity of the publishing, but in the work turned out by the
printing-office. Her son Abraham appears to have been both ignorant
and incapable. His business was before long limited to the printing of
the University theses, and there were at the time not a few complaints
from the instructors concerning the badness of the work put into these.
Abraham’s death occurred in 1712, and it seems probable that even if he
had had a longer life, the work of the printing-office would speedily
have come to a close from inanition or from lack of intelligent
direction.

The plant and material of the once famous printing-office was sold at
auction, in 1713, for the benefit of the creditors and of a daughter
left by Abraham. For nearly a century the printing of the University
had been in the hands of the Elzevir family, but after the migration
in 1665, of Louis to Amsterdam, the more important of the publishing
undertakings of the Elzevirs bear the imprint of the Amsterdam House.
The first printer to the University had been William Silvius, who had,
before coming to Leyden, held in Antwerp the title of Printer to the
King. Silvius was a scholar as well as a printer, and having given
evidence of sympathy with the Protestant group, he found it desirable
to get away from Antwerp. He held the post in Leyden for but a few
months, dying in 1580. For nearly four years, the University appears
to have dispensed with the services of a University printer and
publisher, but in 1584, the position was given to Christophe Plantin,
the famous Antwerp publisher, who was at the time, in connection with
certain difficulties, an exile from his home city. It is probable
from his acceptance of the post and from the labour given by him
to the organisation of an effective printing establishment, that
Plantin had seriously in view at the time the plan of a permanent
transfer to Leyden of his business interests. In 1585, however, his
difficulties having been adjusted, Plantin found it practicable to
return to Antwerp, but he was able, in leaving Leyden, to secure from
the University authorities the appointment as his successor of his
son-in-law Raphelengius. The latter added to his duties as a printer
the professorship of Hebrew in the University, and it is evident from
the record that he was more assiduous in his work as an instructor than
in attention to the rather complex responsibilities of the University
printing-office. On the death of Raphelengius, in 1597, the post
was given to his son Christopher, who survived his father, however,
but for four years. The successor of the younger Raphelengius was a
certain Johannes Patius (Jean Paedts). His work appears to have been
unsatisfactory, and, in 1620, Isaac Elzevir, grandson of Louis, came
into direction of the University printing.

The annual compensation given to Silvius and, later, to Plantin, was
two hundred florins. Under the agreement with Isaac Elzevir, the
money payment was fixed at fifty florins. It seems probable, however,
that during the thirty-five years that had passed since the first
establishment of the office, there had been a sufficient development
in the incidental business connected with the University printing and
publishing to render the post more valuable in 1620 with a stipend of
fifty florins, than it had been in 1585 with a payment of two hundred.

The agreement with Isaac Elzevir provided that he should hold at
the disposition of members of the University Faculty one press and
during certain seasons of the year two presses, the work of which was
apparently devoted to the _précis_ or papers of instruction recognised
for use in the class-room. The productions of more considerable
compass of which the professors were the authors, were passed upon by
the curators of the Press and by the senate of the University with
reference to their publication through the University Press and at the
charge of the University treasury. The printer was under obligations to
secure for the Press the service of correctors competent to supervise
the text of any language required. In the majority of cases there
should, of course, have been no difficulty in securing such correctors
from the membership of the University itself. Any illustrations to be
included in the University publications were to be “supplied to the
printer,” but it is not clear whether this provision implies that the
authors of books, the remaining expense of which was provided by the
University, must themselves meet the outlay for the production of the
illustrations.

One copy of every work printed by the Publisher to the University was
to be deposited in the University library. The publishing undertakings
were, in the matter of Press censorship or supervision, to be subject
to the regulations of the States-General. What censorship was put
in force appears, however, to have been exercised through certain
selected members of the Theological Faculty of the University. I find
no reference to any political questions arising in connection with
these Leyden publications, and apparently there was, outside of the
theologians, no keen interest in censorship or in Press supervision.
The privilege of occupying for the printing-office a portion of
the court or quadrangle of the University buildings, was doubtless
estimated as a portion of the compensation and must have been of
material service for the prestige of the concern, irrespective of the
detail of the saving of rent.

Reference has been made to a certain Erpenius (Th. van Erpen), whose
Oriental fonts were taken over, later, by the Elzevirs. Erpenius was
one of the more noteworthy scholars who brought prestige to the Faculty
of the University. Not content with the task of giving instruction in
the languages and literatures of the Orient, or possibly influenced
by the difficulty of carrying on such instruction without an adequate
supply of texts, Erpenius set up a printing-office in his own house and
undertook at his own cost the production of a series of the works of
representative Eastern writers. His death, at the early age of forty,
interrupted the scholarly undertaking. His widow had had in view the
sale to some printers in Paris of the costly collection of type moulds
and punches, which constituted, in fact, almost the entire property
that had been left to her. The University authorities were averse to
permitting this collection to go out of the country, but there happened
to be at the time no funds in the treasury adequate to give to the
widow the sum she had been offered from Paris. Isaac Elzevir himself
provided the amount required, and purchased the material in his own
name. It was transferred to his successors, but when the University
confirmed them as the official printers, it was made a condition that
this Oriental material should be retained in Leyden at the disposition
of the University. The annual compensation was at the same time raised
to one hundred florins. There was a further specification in the
agreement to the effect that any books required by the professors or
_notabilités académiques_, the University publisher was to procure
(from Frankfort or Paris) “at his own risk or peril,” and was to
charge for the same no higher price than was to be charged by other
booksellers. In 1631, the annual stipend was increased to three hundred
florins, “in consideration of the exceptional outlays required by the
Oriental work of the printing-office and of the cost of providing a
special corrector for the Oriental works.”

Up to the time of the death of Abraham, the last member of the Leyden
family, no further changes of importance occurred in the relations
between the University and its Press. In a number of respects the
general organisation and regulation of the Leyden University Press
appear to have been quite similar to the arrangement which was put
into force, in 1632, in Oxford at the institution of the Clarendon
Press.[133] It is, of course, probable enough that the history of the
University of Leyden was well known in Oxford and that the regulations
controlling the Leyden Press may have served, if not as a model, at
least as a general suggestion for the scheme of the organisation of the
Clarendon Press.

The number of theses printed by the University printer increased
steadily, the increase being an indication, in part, of the growth
of the University, and, in part, of the development of the literary
activities of its members. The summary of the theses is as follows:

  1654, printed by John and Daniel Elzevir       2
  1655-1662, printed by John                    61
  1662-1681, printed by the widow of John      775
  1681-1712, printed by Abraham               1899

The cost of the several buildings erected for the work of the printers
was borne by the Elzevirs. These buildings all stood, however,
upon land owned by the University, and were, in fact, immediately
connected with the buildings of instruction. The printing-offices
remained, therefore, the property of the University, doubtless under
the usual conditions of a ground lease. In August, 1641, John Evelyn,
writing from Leyden, speaks of visiting the famous Heinsius, and also
of inspecting the famous book-shop and the printing-office of the
Elzevirs, “renowned throughout Europe for the importance of their
publications and for the beauty of their typography.”[134] Evelyn
goes on to speak of a statue carved in stone which stood opposite the
gateway of the printing-office enclosure, a “representation of the
fortunate monk who, as is claimed by the Hollanders, was the first
inventor of printing, an opinion combated by the Germans, who insist
that the glory of the invention belongs to Gutenberg.” It is not quite
certain that the printing-office enclosure or the University court did
include at this time a statue of Koster. There was, however, such a
statue in the city, in the _Haarlemmerstraat_, and the English tourist
may either have confused his memory as to the location of this, or
possibly have thought himself justified, for the sake of dramatic
effect, in placing the statue where, according to his judgment, it
properly belonged, in front of the headquarters of the printing
interests in Holland.

The work of the Elzevirs in Leyden had continued from 1621 to 1712,
a period of ninety-one years. The printing and publishing House
instituted by the Elzevirs in The Hague began its operations in
1590. Its first head was Louis, the second son of the founder of the
dynasty. His work was, however, limited to the business of bookselling,
his establishment containing one of the most comprehensive and best
organised collections of scholarly publications to be found in the
North of Europe. After his death, in 1621, the business was carried on
for about twenty years, first by his brother Bonaventure and, later, by
his nephews and their cousins. In 1661, the book-shop at The Hague was
finally closed, the stock being, in part, transferred to Amsterdam, and
in part, sold at auction.

The continuity of the printing and publishing work originated in
Leyden, was maintained by the branch of the Elzevir family which
settled at Amsterdam, and the Amsterdam House continued active
operations until about the close of the seventeenth century. The
book-shop in Amsterdam was instituted in 1638, by Louis, grandson of
Louis of Louvain. In 1640, Louis added to his book-shop the plant of
a printing-office, and when, in 1655, he obtained the coöperation
of his cousin Daniel from Leyden, the Amsterdam House was able to
secure for itself a foundation and a prestige which exceeded that
of the parent concern in Leyden. In fact the series of publications
issued from Amsterdam during the twenty years following 1655 was more
considerable and important than the list of the Leyden Elzevirs during
the same period. It is proper to add, however, that even for the books
of this period the experts give the palm for typographical excellence
to the volumes bearing the Leyden imprint. The most noteworthy of
the publications of the first ten years of the new partnership, from
the point of view at least of typographical excellence, were the
_Corpus Juris_, published in folio in 1663, and the French text of the
Scriptures edited by Desmarets, issued in 1669.

Louis retired in 1665, and on the death of Daniel, in 1680, there being
no sons old enough to carry on the concern and no cousins available,
the business was wound up. The last publication bearing the imprint of
Elzevir of Amsterdam was issued in 1680, by Anna, the widow of Daniel.
The emblem of the Elzevirs, which appeared on the signs of the several
buildings occupied by them in Amsterdam, was an elm. An important
feature in the rapid development of the publishing business of the
Elzevirs, a feature which may be considered partly as cause and partly
as effect, was the extensive series of foreign connections, connections
initiated by the first Louis, and maintained and extended by two
generations of his successors. The majority of the Dutch publishers of
the time were content to limit their trade connections to the towns of
their own country, with an occasional correspondent in Frankfort. But
Louis Elzevir, with a larger ambition and a more comprehensive view
of the requirements of a high-grade publishing business, decided from
the outset that the widest possible connections with the scholarly
book-buyers of Europe was essential in order to ensure adequate support
for the class of undertakings he had in view. Within fifteen years
of the death of the founder, the firm had a direct representation in
nearly every one of the book-selling centres of Europe. A number of
these agencies were placed, either temporarily or permanently, in the
charge of some member of the family, and it became the usual routine
for the younger Elzevirs to secure in turn in this manner an important
part of their education and their business training, in different
foreign cities. The fact that during nearly a century the family circle
was so large, facilitated not a little the carrying out of a general
scheme of a federation of book-selling agencies, whose special purpose
it was to make known to the reading public of Europe, and to find an
outlet for the productions of the Elzevir Presses. The first Louis
was able, notwithstanding his active labours in Leyden, to pass a
considerable portion of each year on the trade routes of Germany and
France. His youngest son, Bonaventure, had, before his twenty-third
year, sojourned in all the more important of the cities of Italy, and
the nephews and grandchildren appear to have, so to speak, parcelled
out Europe between them, carrying on literary campaigns from Naples
in the South, to Copenhagen in the North. These “campaigns” had for
their purpose not only the distribution of the Elzevir publications,
but the collection from literary centres throughout Europe of “copy,”
“texts,” and literary suggestions, to utilise for future publishing
undertakings. The travelling Elzevirs were also, of course, in a
position to secure to advantage the supplies required for their retail
concerns in Leyden, Amsterdam, and The Hague. Willems finds records of
large purchases of books made by the Elzevirs in Italy between 1606 and
1652. In 1622, there are references showing the existence in Venice of
a depot for the sale of the Elzevir publications, and it appears that
this depot was within a stone’s throw of the site of the establishment
of Aldus, closed nearly half a century earlier. It was the Aldine
classics that served as a model or at least as a suggestion for the
more beautiful and more accurate sixteenmo editions of Elzevir. There
was also an agency in Florence which, in the seventeenth century, was
more nearly than Venice the literary centre of Italy.

Even at this time, 1675-1700, there was no organised system of
transportation between Holland and Italy that could be depended upon
for regular shipments of books. There is a reference in the Elzevir
correspondence in 1675, and again in 1679, to the forwarding of bales
of books through the kindness of travellers, in the former instance
through Charles Dati,[135] and in the latter through the Abbé
Brassetti. _De exemplaren von Virgilius sign door schipper Jan Willis
op Livorno versonden ende geaddresseert aen Abbate Brassetti, soo dat
met twyffele ofte sullen wel te recht koomen._[136]

With England the Elzevirs had important relations, not only in the
matter of buying and selling books, but in connection with the
publication of a considerable number of books by English authors. Some
of these publications were undertaken either for the account of the
authors or of English publishers, who desired to secure the advantage
of the Elzevir typography, which could not at that time be equalled by
the work of any printers in England. It was the England of Charles II.,
of Pepys, Evelyn, Dryden, and Baxter, of which we are speaking.

In Frankfort the Elzevirs instituted, as early as 1595, a permanent
depot for their publications, utilising their agency also for the
collection of stock for the retail departments both of the Leyden
and of the Amsterdam House. The first general catalogue of the
books offered at the Frankfort Fair was printed in 1564, by George
Willer, a bookseller of Augsburg. After 1595, these semi-annual
Fair catalogues always contained an important representation of the
Elzevir publications. The semi-annual gatherings of the booksellers
at Frankfort were maintained, at least in form, during the stormy
period of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), although at certain of the
appointed dates the attendance was very small and the business done
but trifling. The records of the Fair give evidence, however, that
notwithstanding the serious difficulties and dangers of travel during
this period, a representative of the Elzevirs made his way from Holland
and was recorded as present at every one of the Fairs during the thirty
years. From the middle of the seventeenth century, the Frankfort Fair
decreased in importance, the centre of the book-trade of Germany
being transferred to Leipzig. For a number of years the Fair was held
in both places, but before 1700 its business was transferred entirely
to Leipzig, which became the headquarters of the book-trade in Germany,
the best organised book-trade in Europe. The change was brought about
through a variety of influences. The operations and results of the
Thirty Years’ War had doubtless something to do with the matter, but
it is possible that a large factor was the increasing intellectual
activity of the Protestant States of North Germany as compared with
that of the territory, in the main Catholic, of the South. Leipzig was
of course better situated to serve as a centre for book production and
for book distribution for these Northern States. It lacked, however,
the very important advantage which had so long furthered the trade of
Frankfort, the convenience, namely, of direct connection by water (the
river Main) with the great highway of the Continent, the Rhine. For the
traders from Holland, the Rhine was the natural means of communication
with Germany, and made easy an important portion of the route to Italy.
For this and for other reasons, the Elzevirs opposed the removal of the
Fair from Frankfort to Leipzig, and their influence was sufficiently
powerful to delay this removal for a quarter of a century.

The Elzevirs retained in their hands for many years a very large
proportion of the business of supplying Germany with foreign
publications, including more particularly those from Holland, England,
and France. The German booksellers of this period appear to have been
comparatively unenterprising in the matter of maintaining direct
foreign connections. With Paris, the energetic Louis had taken pains to
open relations almost at the outset of his business career. Reference
is made as early as 1602 to a sojourn by Louis in Paris, and to a
privilege extended to him for a term of three weeks of accepting
orders for his books from the Paris dealers. Under the regulations
which had been established for the French book-trade, regulations
emanating in part from the University that had from an early period
assumed the right to control bookselling, and in part from the
Booksellers’ Guild itself, foreign dealers could do business in Paris
only under a very narrow system of restrictions. They were forbidden
either to buy or to sell at the Fairs of St. Germain and St. Laurent;
they were forbidden to come to Paris more frequently than once a year,
or to sojourn there for a longer period than three weeks, counting
from the date of the opening of their bales; they were, further,
forbidden to accept orders from any but the booksellers of the Guild
(_les libraires jurés_). Bonaventure, the son of Louis, appears to
have made, after 1624, regular annual sojourns in Paris. In 1626, he
brought back with him to Leyden a series of unpublished letters of
the scholar Scaliger, who had died in Leyden seventeen years before.
Scaliger had held in Leyden the Chair of Belles-Lettres, and had done
much to add to the prestige of the University. Among his pupils was
Grotius. The list of the Leyden publications gives evidence that these
Paris visits were utilised for the collection of material from French
authors and editors. Against this kind of competition on the part of
foreign publishers the French book-trade was evidently unable to frame
any effective regulations.

One of the most distinctive of the Elzevir undertakings in foreign
parts was the branch House established in 1632 in Copenhagen. The
Danish community proved to be a good customer as well for the
publications from Holland as for the books which the Elzevirs were
able to supply to advantage from Germany, Italy, and France. One
evidence of the importance attached by the Elzevirs to this branch
House in Copenhagen was the printing (in 1642) of a separate catalogue
of the books there offered for sale. The first of the Elzevirs to
visit Denmark was probably Louis (the second) in 1632. There are
references to later visits by him in 1634, and in 1637. On the occasion
of his first visit, he had opened a shop and appointed a permanent
representative. The record of the town library of Copenhagen contains
an entry of the payment to Elzevir, in 1632, of two hundred and
sixty-four _rigsdaler_ for books imported, and of a further payment, in
1634, of one hundred and twenty _rigsdaler_.[137]

In 1650, it was Daniel who represented the House in the North,
sojourning in both Sweden and Denmark, and having for his travelling
companion one of his famous authors, Nicholas Heinsius. While Daniel
Elzevir was in Sweden, he received a proposition from Queen Christina
to establish a printing and publishing concern in Stockholm. Christina
of Sweden was a daughter of Gustavus Adolphus. She was at the time
but twenty-eight years of age, but she had already given evidence
of a strength of character and a brilliancy of intellect that made
her personality a very distinctive one. She was a scholar of varied
attainments and a great collector of books, and she was ambitious
to make her capital city a literary centre for the North of Europe.
Mr. Myrop speaks of the proposition made to Elzevir as being a very
flattering one, and it is easy to understand that the ambitious
Queen could hope to secure in her literary undertakings the kind of
service she required from a House like the Elzevirs, who were alike
the greatest publishers, the most distinguished printers, and the
most extensive booksellers of their time. For some reason, however,
the suggestion of a Stockholm branch did not happen to fit in with
the policy of the House, and the proposition was declined.[138] A few
years later, a printing and publishing concern was established in
Stockholm, under the protection of King Charles Gustavus, by Johann
Janssons of Amsterdam. The visit to Stockholm of Daniel Elzevir and his
negotiations with Christina preceded by but four years the abdication
of the brilliant but erratic Queen, which took place in 1654. She
became a Catholic (her intention of abandoning Protestantism was one
ground for her abdication) and made her home in Rome. She brought with
her to Rome no less than 2145 books in manuscript, and after becoming
a Roman citizen, she added to the collection several hundred valuable
works. With a few exceptions, the entire collection now rests in the
Vatican.

The most valuable of the books she had owned in Stockholm was the
famous _Codex Argenteus_, which contains a portion of the Gospels
in the Merso-Gothic version of Ulfilas. This _Codex_ the Queen had,
however, given away, before her abdication, to a certain Count Magnus
de la Gardie, and it remained in Sweden, where it is still preserved as
one of the greatest treasures of the State. Among the more important
of the literary antiquities that the Queen had taken with her to
Rome, were the codices of the _Septuagint_, written in the seventh
century, several manuscripts dating from the Carlovingian times, a
very old _Psalter_, and a copy of the Theodosian Code and the Laws of
the Visigoths, which was said to have been written in the middle of
the seventh century. There is also a fragment of the Theodosian Code,
written in the Tironian character. In addition to this great series
of manuscripts, the Queen left nearly six thousand printed books, an
enormous library for a collection made as early as the middle of the
seventeenth century. She died in 1689.[139]

The many who have admired the typographical _chefs-d’œuvre_ which
issued from the presses of the Elzevirs, neglect to give due credit
to the name of the man to whose artistic skill is to be credited
the designing and engraving of the punches from which were produced
the exquisite Elzevir fonts of type. It is the general opinion of
typographical experts that these fonts, in the beauty of their
proportion, the delicacy of their outline, and the distinctive grace
of their general effect, surpassed anything that had as yet been
produced in Europe. The discovery that the designer of these fonts
was Christophe Van Dyck is due to the researches of Willems. Van
Dyck’s work appears to have been done between the years 1630 and
1640. The name is a famous one in the annals of the Netherlands, but
there is, I understand, nothing to show that this artistic engraver
and type-founder was connected with Sir Anthony Van Dyck, the Flemish
painter. The latter was born in 1599, and died (in England) in 1641, so
that the two men were, however, contemporaries.

During the larger portion of time in which the presses of the Elzevirs
were active, the publishers had the advantage of carrying on their work
under comparatively slight restrictions in the matter of government
censorship, while to censorship on the part of the Church there are
but few references. It is probable that during the seventeenth century
the Press of the Dutch Republic was more untrammelled than that of any
State in Europe. It is true that there is record of various edicts
and regulations on the part of the States-General prohibiting the
printing of libellous material, or of works directed against princes
or governments which were allied with the Republic. There is also an
occasional edict against the circulation of publications classed as
“irreligious” or “obscene.” With the latter class of publications the
Elzevirs took no part either as printers or as booksellers. It did
occasionally happen, however, that they interested themselves in the
production and in the circulation of publications, the purpose or
influence of which might evoke criticisms or complaints from friendly
governments or from individual statesmen. For such publications they
found it wise to make use of some _nom de presse_ or to issue the same
without imprint of name or place. Such publications can be identified
as coming from the Elzevirs either by means of books of account or
through the evidence of their very distinctive fonts of type.

Among the books for the anonymous circulation of which the House was
responsible, were the _Defensio Regia_ of Saumaise, the _Defensio
Populi Anglicani_ of Milton, and the _Mare Clausum_ of Selden. The
interest of the Elzevirs in circulating the last named treatise (which
was an argument to justify certain pretensions of England) is somewhat
to be wondered at, because, only shortly before, they had published
with their imprint the famous argument of Grotius, _Mare Liberum_, in
which was upheld the Dutch contention in behalf of the freedom of the
seas.

On a number of the unavowed publications of this kind, the Elzevirs
placed the imprint _Lugduni_ (Lyons), in place of _Lugduni Batavorum_
(Leyden). This was done particularly in the case of the writings of the
French Jansenists, who would not wish to emphasise the fact that these
were printed in such an heretical headquarters as Leyden. One of the
bogus names employed quite frequently for these unavowed publications
was that of Jouxte, and another was Jean Sambix. The imprint of Nic
Schouten, Köln, was also utilised, together with a number of mythical
or manufactured names connected with actual places.

The Elzevirs, following the example set a century and a half earlier
by Aldus, but since that time very generally lost sight of by the
later publishers, initiated a number of series of books in small
and convenient forms, twelvemo and sixteenmo, which were offered to
book-buyers at prices considerably lower than those they had been in
the habit of paying for similar material printed in folio, quarto,
or octavo. For volumes of classics printed in twelvemo, such as the
_Virgil_ of 1636, the _Pliny_ of 1640, and the _Cicero_ of 1642,
volumes containing an average of five hundred pages, the catalogue
price was one florin, the equivalent in currency of about forty-three
cents. _Quintus Curtius_, published in 1633, is catalogued at sixteen
sous, the equivalent of thirty-five cents. _Sallust_, _Terence_, and
_Florus_, sold at fifteen sous; and _Livy_, in three volumes, at four
florins ten sous.

These well edited, carefully printed, and low priced editions of the
classics won for the Elzevirs the cordial appreciation of scholars
and of students throughout Europe. Matthew Berneggerus, professor of
Strasburg, in the preface to his translation of Galileo’s _System of
the Universe_, speaks of the Elzevirs as unquestionably the first
typographers of the world, _Elzevirios Leydenses typographus, artis
nobilissime facile princeps universio de studiis præclare meritos_.
The professor was writing in 1635, only six years after the appearance
of the earliest of the noteworthy specimens of the Elzevir typography,
which gives the impression that, notwithstanding all the general
obstacles and the special hindrances of war times, the diffusion of
information concerning new publications, at least in the university
centres, must have been fairly prompt. A few years later, Galileo (who
died in 1642) himself gave testimony to the excellence of the work done
by his Dutch publishers.[140] I do not find record of the arrangements
entered into by Galileo for the publication of the translation of
his treatise, but it is evident that he considered the undertaking
a desirable one. The approval on the part of the scholars of these
smaller and more economical editions of the Elzevirs was, however,
not unanimous. The scholar, De Put (Erycius Puteanus), writing to
Heinsius, in 1629, to acknowledge the receipt of the new _Horace_,
says: “The Elzevirs are certainly great typographers. I can but think,
however, that their reputation will suffer in connection with these
trifling little volumes with such slender type. An author like Horace
deserves to be produced in a dignified form, with a certain majesty
of appearance, and not to have his thoughts buried in shabby little
type like this.” It was not unnatural that the long-time association
of great authors with big volumes should have brought about the
impression, not easily to be outgrown, that the size of the book
should be in direct proportion to the literary importance of its
contents. This view of the requirements and limitations of book-making
was, however, based on the assumption that books were for the use
of the wealthier classes only, or for placing in libraries which
were accessible only to privileged bodies of scholars. The tendency
of the age was, on the other hand, towards a continually increasing
distribution of literature among impecunious scholars and with the
public at large; and the Elzevirs, while doubtless shaping their
publishing plans with a view to securing the largest business returns,
were also, in popularising the best literature, doing their part
towards the spread of the higher education of the community.

Some authors of their time were, in fact, so fully appreciative of the
service rendered to their fame by the circulation of their writings
in the attractive form given to them by the Elzevirs, that in place
of considering the appropriation of their productions as a grievance,
they were ready to express their satisfaction at the compliment thus
paid to them. In 1648, the Elzevirs printed an unauthorised edition
of _Les Lettres Choisies_ of Balzac (Jean Louis Guez), putting on the
title-page, according to their usual routine for “appropriated” books,
the words _Suivant la copie imprimée à Paris_. So far was the author
from feeling any annoyance at this proceeding, that he promptly wrote
to express his gratification, and to suggest that the Elzevirs might
also be interested in publishing in the same form an edition of his
_Œuvres Diverses_. A further correspondence followed, and finally the
Elzevirs received from Balzac (some time in 1651) a letter of which the
following is the substance:

  “TO THE ELZEVIRS,
  Publishers and Printers of Leyden.

  _Gentlemen_:

    I am under larger obligations to you than you may yourselves fully
    realise. I consider the right of Roman citizenship to be a small
    privilege compared with that which you have conferred upon me in
    including my name in the list of your authors. This is to give me
    rank with the consuls and senators of Rome; I am made an associate
    of the Ciceros and the Sallusts. What glory comes to me when I
    can say ‘I am a citizen of the Republic of Immortals; I have been
    received into the circle of the demi-gods.’ In the literary palace
    of Leyden we have in fact all been made sojourners under the same
    roof. Thanks to your efforts, I find myself at one moment opposite
    Pliny, at the next by the side of Seneca, or a little later placed
    with Tacitus and Livy; and although I may myself occupy but an
    inconsiderable place, I have at least the satisfaction of making
    part of a great company, a company of which Homer himself is the
    patriarch.... For them, as for myself, the repute has been extended
    by the skill and judgment of the typographical artist. For some
    architects reputation has come through the construction of pyramids
    and colossi, while others have gained no less fame through the art
    put into rings and seals.... The excellence of work depends not
    upon its extent but upon its appropriateness and perfection. I am
    therefore well pleased for my part that in place of putting me into
    folio, you have printed my productions in these exquisite little
    volumes.... I subscribe myself

                                                  Your obliged servant,
                                                          BALZAC.”[141]

The letter is worth quoting if only to indicate the different point
of view of the author of the seventeenth century and of him of the
nineteenth. The letters written, prior to the Convention of Berne, by
the Parisian authors of the present time concerning the books which the
publishers of the Low Countries had done them the honour of reprinting,
are expressed in a very different manner.

In 1663, Daniel Elzevir had consented (this is the phrase used in the
correspondence) to reprint a collection of the poetry of Ménage. The
poet was so well pleased to have secured the imprint of the great
publisher of Europe, that he took pains to insert in the volume an
introduction in Latin verse to express his gratification. The lines
begin somewhat as follows:

    “Ye gods and goddesses what do I behold!
    My verse presented in the type of the Elzevirs.
    Oh type graceful and exquisite!
    Oh volume charming and artistic!

           *       *       *       *       *

    But thou, Elzevir, my sweet glory,
    Thou the father of this type without rival,
    Tell me, honoured friend, what I can offer thee in exchange for this
                                                                honour.
    May the friends of literature ever gather about thy House;
    May the crowd of buyers of books ever press forwards towards thy
                                                            book-shops;
    May the name of Elzevir, transmitted by the voice of his poets from
      century to century, be heard through the entire earth and rise to
                                                the heavens themselves;
    May the fame of the Elzevirs eclipse that of the Turnèbes and the
      Vascosans and rise superior even to the renown of the Estiennes
                                                         and of Aldus!”

At the time when Ménage was expressing in florid eloquence his
gratification at being accepted as an Elzevir author, the new
typographical form had finally established itself against all
criticism. A large proportion of the publishers, not only of the
Netherlands, but also of Paris and of Florence, had adopted the Elzevir
model, and the folios and quartos which had characterised the first
two centuries of printing were put to one side as representing the
literature of the middle ages. The earlier forms of printed volumes, at
least in the divisions of classics and theology, were preserved to a
later date in England than on the Continent.

As was necessarily the case with a firm acting as printers for the
University and whose publications included so long a list of scholarly
works, the Elzevirs had associated with their publishing office a
group of scholarly editors and press-revisers. Apart also from the men
who were directly in their employ or with whom they had arranged for
editorial service, they enjoyed the benefit of the suggestions and the
counsel of a number of scholarly friends and correspondents, without
whose aid it would in fact not have been practicable to initiate or
to carry on to a successful completion not a few of their important
undertakings. The adviser whose coöperation was most important, and
whose influence in directing the publishing policy of the House was
most considerable, was Daniel Heinsius. After the year 1630, Heinsius
acted as the chief literary adviser of the House, and to his hand can
be traced a number of the dedicatory epistles, announcements, and
introductions which (written nearly always in Latin) found place in a
large number of the Elzevir editions.

Heinsius was a native of Ghent. He studied at Leyden, where he was the
favourite pupil, and, later, the successor of the celebrated Scaliger.
He filled in succession the Chairs in the University, of Greek, of
History, and of Political Science. Later, he was placed in charge of
the library of the University, and served also as secretary of the
Academic Senate. He was so far accepted as an authority on orthodox
Calvinistic theology that he was selected to be the secretary of the
Synod of Dort. He possessed the faculty, not very common with a man of
scholarship, of writing and speaking gracefully not only in Latin, the
literary language of the time, but also in his mother tongue. The young
publisher, Louis Elzevir, while a man of ready intelligence and of
rather varied attainments, had never had the leisure or the opportunity
for scholarship. He may well, therefore, have considered himself
fortunate in being able to secure at the outset of his ambitious
publishing schemes the coöperation of a man like Heinsius, and it is
not surprising that the influence of the professor became all-important
in the direction of the publishing business. In many ways this relation
was a fortunate one, but there were some offsetting considerations. The
scholars of the time appear to have been not only a controversial but
an irritable group, and Heinsius possessed the _genus irritabile_ to an
exceptionable degree. He succeeded in embroiling the firm with a number
of its scholarly friends and correspondents whose influence and whose
coöperation it was important to retain. He was charged with having a
special prejudice against, or hate of the German scholars, even of
those who had associated themselves with Flemish or Dutch institutions.
Among the men of note in the scholarly world who brought accusations
against Heinsius for bad treatment and for malice, and who contended
that the Elzevirs were seriously interfering with their relations with
the scholarly world in retaining as their adviser so bad tempered,
so unreasonable and so malicious a person, were Gebhardt, who held in
the University of Groningen the Chair of Greek, Grotius the well-known
publicist, Vossius, and, above all, Saumaise. The controversies
between Saumaise and Heinsius, controversies carried on in part, so to
speak, over the bodies of their publishers, continued over a series of
years, and might well have formed the subject of a text in Disraeli’s
_Amenities of Literature_. Saumaise, or Salmasius, was by birth a
Frenchman, and his earlier university work was carried on in Paris. He
then became intimate with Casaubon, through whose influence he became a
Protestant. Later, he studied at Heidelberg, and the years between 1632
and 1650 he was associated with the University of Leyden. He then, at
the instance of Queen Christina, passed some years in Sweden. Famous in
various departments of learning, he was probably the chief authority
of his time on philology. At the request of Charles II., at the time
an exile in Holland, Saumaise wrote, in 1649, his _Defensio Regia pro
Carolo I._, which brought forth the more famous _Defensio pro Populo
Anglicano_ of Milton. Hallam says that “what Saumaise did not know was
considered to be beyond the bounds of knowledge.”[142] Notwithstanding
some frictions caused by the antagonism of Daniel Heinsius, Saumaise
remained a valued friend to two generations of the Elzevirs, by whom
were issued editions of most of his works. The most important of them
was _Plinianæ Exercitationes in c. j. Solini Polyhistoria_, published
(by Bonaventure) in two volumes in 1629, three years before the
author’s arrival in Leyden.

Bonaventure, whose control of the business had covered the most
noteworthy and prosperous years of the Leyden House, died, as we have
noted, in 1652. Among the undertakings which were at the time in train
and which were interrupted by his death, was a complete edition, based
upon the Vatican manuscripts, of the Greek historian Procopius; a Latin
version of the same, to be prepared by Grotius; a complete edition of
_Alemanus_, edited by Holstenius; the complete works of Galileo, in
folio; the Latin epistles of Grotius; the works of Montaigne, which
were to follow Comines in the collection of French classics; an edition
of _Tacitus_, edited by Gronovius; the Latin Dictionary of Calepino, as
a companion to the Greek Lexicon of Scapula; and, finally, a complete
and definitive edition of the _Corpus Juris_. This summary of the
undertakings that were in hand during the month of Bonaventure’s death,
gives an indication of the activity of the House at the time, and of
the direction of its enterprises. The _Corpus Juris_ was afterwards
completed by the Amsterdam firm.

The most famous of the authors whose works were associated with the
imprint of the second Louis, who was the founder of the publishing
establishment of Amsterdam, were Descartes, Velthuysen, Wittichius,
Coronius, Vossius, and Grotius. The first complete edition of the
works of Descartes was issued in 1643, with the imprint of Louis of
Amsterdam. The new philosophy became at once a cause of strife not
only with the metaphysicians but with the theologians. The partisans
of Aristotle made common cause with the ministers of the Reform Church
against the “Cartesian heresies.”

By the year 1655, the publishing undertakings of the Amsterdam House
exceeded in importance those issued from Leyden. It is with this date
that the presses of Amsterdam begin to produce the series of Latin
authors in the twelvemo form of which Leyden heretofore held the
monopoly. It is also with this date that the Amsterdam imprint finds
place upon the works of Balzac, Barclay, Charron, Du Refuye, etc. The
most considerable of the undertakings of Louis of Amsterdam, in respect
at least to the risk incurred and the investment required, was the
French Bible of Desmarets, a work that had been begun in 1664 and
that was completed, in two folio volumes, in 1669. This work was the
culmination of the publishing career of Louis, whose death occurred in
the year following its completion.

His successor in the management of the Amsterdam House, his cousin
Daniel, gave to the business a large measure of skill, experience,
judgment, and activity, which appears to have been without break.
Daniel’s first experience as sole partner came in a time of difficulty.
The disastrous war with England during the years 1665-1667 interfered
very seriously with the general prosperity of the State, and caused
special embarrassments to the book-trade and publishing interests. This
was the war which resulted in the transfer to the English flag of the
colony of New Amsterdam, thereafter to be known as New York. Daniel
succeeded in weathering the storm, and by the time of the Peace of
Breda, he had been able, with the aid of his editorial adviser Wetterus
and of the skilled typographer Wetstein, to place the business on what
seemed to be an assured foundation. One of his correspondents of the
time was the ingenious Nicholas Thoynard, author of the _Harmony of the
Gospels_. Thoynard gave special study to the possibility of improving
the methods of printing, and, as early as 1680, put before Elzevir a
scheme for placing on the presses _formes solides_, apparently the
first suggestion of the modern stereotype plates. Daniel dismissed the
scheme as impracticable. “To print two forms at one time,” he said,
“is something absolutely impossible to carry out, and it would in any
case be of no service.” Nicholas Heinsius (the son of Daniel Heinsius),
who had first been associated with Daniel in Leyden, had, when the
latter migrated to Amsterdam, transferred his own literary interests
and editorial service to the Amsterdam House. The intimacy of the two
men continued through their lives, and they died within a few months of
each other.

The work of Heinsius as adviser for and business associate with his
publishing friend was interrupted by various periods of public service,
as he served as Ambassador both in Sweden and in Russia, but on being
relieved from office, he always returned to his literary studies
and to his friend’s publishing-office. It is somewhat surprising
that the States-General should have favoured Heinsius with posts of
honour, as he appears to have been wanting in public spirit, or at
least in patriotic feeling. When, in 1674, the armies of Louis XIV.
were carrying ruin and devastation through the territory of Holland,
Heinsius, in a country retreat at Vianen (well out of the course of
the campaigning) was amusing his leisure in composing verses in honour
of the oppressor of his country, verses which he utilised later as a
dedication to his _Virgil_. “The true country of Heinsius,” says his
biographer, “was imperial Rome, and in looking upon Louis XIV. as
Augustus, he thought of himself as a Horace or a Virgil.”

The war with France, which continued for six years (1672-1678), a war
which brought with it all the horrors of occupation of the country by
invading armies, caused almost a complete cessation of all business
undertakings and of all literary enterprises. The presses stopped
work and the book-shops were closed. The whole energy of the people
(excepting only in the case of an occasional dilettante like Heinsius)
was concentrated in the defence of the country. Daniel Elzevir devoted
a part of this period of enforced idleness to the preparation of a
classified catalogue of his general stock, a catalogue more extensive
and more comprehensive than any heretofore issued. Daniel died in
1680, in the midst of a long series of unfinished undertakings and of
literary plans. Graevius, in sending the news to Heinsius, says, “This
is a great loss to letters.” The philosopher Locke writes, “The death
of Elzevir is a public misfortune.” Such indeed was the universal
feeling throughout the world of letters and the community of scholars.
With the death of Daniel, the history of the House of Elzevir comes
to a close. Some printing of college theses was, in 1680, still being
done by Abraham in Leyden, but the work of the great family, which had
for nearly a century stood at the head of the book-making and of the
bookselling business of Europe, occupying the first places alike among
typographers, publishers, and booksellers, was completed. Daniel left
no son, and the widow dying the year following, the concern was wound
up by the administrators.

The limits of this sketch will not permit even a summary of the long
list of books issued by the Elzevirs during this century in which
they were doing business as publishers. It is only practicable to
refer to the general character of these publications and to point
out that they included the most considerable and comprehensive
series of important literature that had been associated with any
imprint since the invention of printing, while it is also in order
to remember that a very large proportion of the volumes represented
the highest development of the art of typography. After two centuries
of competition, the country of Koster had, in the work of the
printing-press, unquestionably outclassed the country of Gutenberg and
the rest of the world.

The publishing career of Louis Elzevir, the founder of the House,
continued from 1583 to 1617, a period of thirty-four years. During this
term he published a hundred and one separate works. His first book, the
work which initiated the publishing undertakings of the Elzevirs, bears
the title:

  “Drusii Ebraicarum quæstrinum, sive quæstrinum æ responsionum, libri
  duo, videlicet secondus œ tertrus. In Academia Lugdunensi.” 8vo.  1582

The following were the more noteworthy of the later publications of
Louis:

  “Chronique et Histoire Universelle,” etc., “Par Jean Carion, Ph.
    Melanchthon, et Gaspar Pencer,” 2 vols., 8vo.                   1596
    This was the first work printed in French by the Elzevirs.

    Sundry Treatises of Scaliger.

  A Memoir of Scaliger by Heinsius.                                 1607
    The first work of an author whose name was to appear in the Elzevir
    lists more frequently than that of any other writer.

  Certain works of Aristotle, edited by Heinsius.                   1609
  The complete works of Horace, edited by Heinsius.                 1612
  The Essays of Heinsius.                                           1612
  The Homilies of Heinsius.                                         1613
  The Letters of Puteanus.                                          1614
  A History of the Frisians, by Emmius.                             1616
  “The Catechism of the Reformed Church.”                           1617

With a few exceptions in Dutch and in French, the works of Louis were
printed in Latin.

The greater number bear on their title-page the words _cum privilegio_.
The privilege, when secured, was issued by the States-General, and the
usual term was from ten to fifteen years. I find in the catalogue of
titles no specification (such as was at this time usual in France) of
an official censorship.

The association of Matthew, Bonaventure, and Abraham Elzevir, who
succeeded to the business of their father Louis, and with whom was
associated as the printer to the concern their brother, Isaac Elzevir,
continued from 1617 to 1625. During these seven years, they published
one hundred and twenty-two separate works and editions. I specify
certain of the more important:

  The works of the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, edited by
      Mersius. 8vo.                                                 1617
  The Decisions of the Courts of Holland, Zealand, and West Frisia,
      edited by Weytsen. 4to.                                       1617
  The Life of Thuanus, by Heinsius. Folio.                          1617
  The Lectures of Mersius on Greek Literature. 4to.                 1617
  The “Mare Liberum” of Grotius. 8vo.                               1618
  The Works of Puteanus. 8vo.                                       1618
  The writings of Julius Cæsar. 8vo.                                1619
  The complete works of Mersius. 2 vols. 8vo.                       1619
  An Analysis of the Arminian Heresy, by Peter Molinæus. 4to.       1619
  The works of Terence, edited by Maretus. 8vo.                     1619
  The Acts of the Synod of Dort. Folio.                             1620
  The Orations of Heinsius, a reissue. 8vo.                         1620
  The Works of Aristotle, edited by Heinsius. 8vo.                  1621
  Paraphrase of the Psalms of David, by George Buchanan. 24mo.      1621
  The Poetical works of George Buchanan. 8vo.                       1621
  Various Treatises of Heinsius. 4to.                               1621
  Essays and Addresses of Mersius. 4to.                             1621
  The works of Virgil, edited by Mersius. 8vo.                      1622
  The New Testament in Greek. 8vo.                                  1622
  History of the Saracens, by George Elmacenus. 4to.                1625
  Further Orations and Treatises of Heinsius and of Mersius. 8vo.   1625
  The “Epistles” of Sir Thomas More. 8vo.                           1625
  The Psalms of David, printed in Syriac (from the press of Erpenius).
      8vo.                                                          1625
  “Republica Anglicorum,” by Thomas Smith. 8vo.                     1625

The third concern, comprising Bonaventure and Abraham, continued from
1625 to 1652, a period of twenty-seven years. Their list comprises four
hundred and sixty-one works. These included: A long series of Greek and
Latin classics, in the new twelvemo form. The texts were officially
adopted or prescribed for use by the University, and the titles bear
the words _editus in usum scholarum Hollandiæ et West Frisiæ; ex
decreto Illustriss. D. D. Ordinum ejusdem provinciæ_. There is also a
long series of theological works, an increasing proportion of which
are printed in Dutch, indicating an extending popular interest in this
class of literature.

  A Series of Court Decisions and of Codes.
  A new edition of the works of Scaliger.
  The Oriental Series of Erpenius.
  “L’Académie de l’espée,” de Girard Thibault d’Anvers. Folio, with 46
  elaborate double or folding plates.                               1628
    This was the most sumptuous publication yet issued by the Elzevirs.
    It was protected by privileges from both the King of France and
    the States-General.
  A Description of the West Indies, by John de Laet, in Dutch, with
      maps. 4to.                                                    1628
  The Babylonian “Talmud.” Folio, with plates. 4to.                 1630
    The “Republica Anglicorum,” by Thos. Smith (a reissue)
  The Histories of Quintus Rufus, edited by Heinsius. 12mo.         1633
  The Essays of Grotius. 24mo.                                      1633
  The Mathematical works of Simon Stevin, of Bruges. Folio.         1634
  A series of Treatises on Fortification, by Fritach. Folio.        1635
  The works of Galileo, translated into Latin by Berneggerus. 4to.  1635
  The Natural History of Pliny. 3 vols. 12mo.                       1635
  The Life of Tamerlane, in Arabic. 4to.                            1636
  The Dissertation of Beza on the Plague. 12mo.                     1636
  The “Colloquies” of Erasmus. 12mo.                                1636
  The “Mare Clausum” of John Selden. 12mo.                          1636
  “Le Cid. Tragi-comédie nouvelle, par le Sieur Corneille. Jouxte,
      suivant la copie imprimée à Paris.” 8vo.                      1638
    This volume belongs to the books (the list of which is quite
    considerable) which were “appropriated” by the Elzevirs.

    Their edition was issued in 1638, two years after the first
    appearance of the tragedy in Paris. It was the third work of the
    dramatist, and probably the first which made his name known outside
    of France.
  “L’Annaeus Florus,” Cl. Salmasius addidit Lucium Ampelium, etc.
      12mo.                                                         1638
    This publication brought out a complaint from the learned editor,
    who had evidently not been consulted concerning the reissue, and
    who did not think the small form of the volume was fitting for
    the dignity of either the author or the editor. He writes in May,
    1683, as follows: “Je suis en cholère contre les Elzevirs, de ce
    qu’ils ont mis mon nom au Florus à mon insceu et contre ma volonté.
    Je suis meshui trop vieux pour rechercher de la réputation par de
    si petites rubriques, oultre que de tout temps j’ai toujours esté
    ennemi de la vanité. Ces gens ne sont dévoués qu’ à leur proffit,
    et ne se soucient point aux despens de qui.”[143] Later, Salmasius
    forgave his Dutch publishers, and came into friendly relations with
    them.

  A treatise by Salmasius (Saumaise) in defense of Usury. 8vo.      1638
  The treatise of Comenius entitled “A golden method for the mastery
      of four languages” (Latin, German, French, and Italian). 8vo. 1642
      This had a great popularity.
  The complete works of Grotius. 8vo.                               1642
  Various reissues of the different works of Heinsius. 12mo.        1642
  The Greek Commentaries of Salmasius. 8vo.                         1643
  “L’Illustre Théâtre de Corneille.” This edition, printed in 1644,
    bears the Elzevir imprint. It is probable, however, that like
    the “Jouxte” issue of the “Cid,” it was unauthorised. 12mo.     1644
  “De la Sagesse,” by Charron. 12mo.                                1646
   This had been issued in Paris in 1592. The author died in 1603.
  “Lettres Choisies du Sieur de Balzac. Suivant la copie imprimée à
    Paris.” 12mo.                                                   1648
  A Greek version (attributed to Hierotheus, abbot of Cephalonia) of
    the Confession of faith of the Reformed Church. 4to.            1648
  Further Treatises of Saumaise. 8vo.                               1648
  “Defensio Regio pro Carolo I.” by Saumaise. 8vo.                 1649
    A third edition, revised by the author, was issued in 1652, by the
    Amsterdam House.
  “Histoire du ministère d’Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Duc de
    Richelieu,” etc. 4 vols. 12mo.                                  1650
  “Les Oeuvres Diverses” du Sieur de Balzac. 12mo.                  1651

The firm of John and Daniel Elzevir continued for three years, from
1652 to 1655, during which time it published fifty-four works. The list
includes an increasing proportion of light literature. I cite a few
titles:

  “Recueil de Diverses Poésies.” 12mo.                              1652
  “Les Satyres” by Sieur Regnier. 12mo.                             1652
  A collection of Proverbs from Greek Authors, in Greek. 4to.       1653
  The Poems of Nicholas Heinsius (son of Daniel). 12mo.             1653
  “The Civil Polity” of Thomas Hobbes, translated by Sorbière.
    12mo.                                                           1653
  Burlesque versions, in French, of Homer’s “Odyssey,” and of the
        “Odes” of Horace. 12mo.                                     1653
    These two volumes bear the bogus imprint of “John Sambix,” as if
    the Elzevirs were somewhat ashamed to be associated with such
    frivolities.
  “The Imitation of Christ,” by Thomas à Kempis, in Latin. 12mo.    1653
    The most beautiful edition that had yet been printed of the famous
    Catholic Classic. The imprint is “Lugduni,” instead of “Lugduni
    Batavorum,” because the publishers expected to secure for it a sale
    in Catholic countries.
  The “Institutes” of Calvin, in Latin. Folio.                      1654
  “Polyeucte martyr,” tragédie de Corneille. Chez “Jean Sambix.”
    12mo.                                                           1655
  “Le Romant comique,” par Scarron. Chez “Jean Sambix.” 12mo.       1655

John Elzevir carried on the business for six years, from 1655 to 1661,
during which time he printed one hundred and twelve works.

Among these were the following:

    The works of Huygens, in Latin, reissue.                        1655
    These had been originally printed in 1644 by Bonaventure, and it is
    noted that the expense was borne by the author. We may, therefore,
    conclude that the reissue was a venture of the publishers. Huygens,
    who was famous as a physicist and a mathematician, lived till 1695.

    “Lettres de Monsieur de Marigny.” 12mo.                         1655

    “A defence of the Doctrines of the Socinians,” by an unknown writer
    who uses the name of Slichtingius, in Latin. 4to.               1656

    A Refutation of the same, by Cocceius, in Latin. 8vo.           1656

    The fact that an Elzevir was willing to issue with his own imprint
    a Socinian volume, is evidence of an increasing liberality of view
    either of the University or of the publishers.

    “Les Comédies de Scarron.” 12mo.                                1659
      (The author died the year following.)
    “Medical Treatises of Celsius.” 12mo.                           1657
    “Les Lettres de Monsieur Descartes.”
    Further Treatises of Salmasius, in Latin. 8vo.                  1659
    The Treatises of Hippocrates, in Greek and Latin. 8vo.          1659
    “Les Oeuvres du Sieur de Balzac,” reissue, after the death of the
      author. 3 vols. 12mo.                                         1659
    “Des Lettres Provinciales,” and “La Théologie Morale des Jésuites,”
      etc., of Pascal. 8vo.                                         1659

    These two volumes, issued 8vo, 1659, bear the bogus imprint, “À
    Cologne, chez Nicholas Schoute.”

    They had first appeared in Paris in 1656. Pascal died in 1662.

    “Recueil de diverses pièces servans à l’histoire de Henry III.”
      12mo. Bogus imprint, “À Cologne, chez P. du Marteau”.         1660
    Treatises of Hippocrates, in Greek and Latin. 12mo.             1661

The widow of John continued the business for twenty years, from 1661 to
1681. During this period she issued or printed forty-seven works.

These included:

  “The Bible,” printed in Dutch, in a handsome folio volume.        1663
  “Mémoires Maréschal de Bassompierre.” 2 vols. 12mo.               1665
  “À Cologne, chez Pierre du Marteau.”
  “Hippocrates,” complete works, in Latin. The first edition issued
   to this date. 24mo.                                              1666

Abraham Elzevir, with whose life was terminated the record of the
Leyden House, carried on the business for thirty-one years, from 1681
to 1712, during which time he printed but twenty-three works.

The last twenty years were devoted, as stated, entirely to the printing
of theses, the publishing business having gradually been allowed to
rust out.

His publications and printings included:

    “Bibliotheca Heinsiana,” a catalogue of the collection of Nicholas
    Heinsius.

    Epictetus, the “Enchiridion” of, in Latin, and various Funeral
    Orations and Memorial addresses on William III., of England, who
    died in 1702.

Louis Elzevir, the second of the name, initiated, in 1638, the
publishing business of the Amsterdam House, which he conducted until
1655, when he was joined by his cousin Daniel, from Leyden.

During these seventeen years he published one hundred and eighty works.
His first publication belonged to a lighter class of literature than
had previously been associated with the Elzevir imprint. It bore the
title: _Dominici Baudii Amores, edente Petro Scriverio, inscripti. Th.
Graswinkelio, equiti._ 12mo. 1638. It comprised a series of letters
and views in which Baudius gives an account of his various amorous
misadventures. Willems speaks of the work as originating in Holland,
but I do not understand that it could very well have been the work of
the Baudius who held the Chair of History in Leyden up to 1613.

    “Renati Descartes, Meditationes de primo-philosophia,” etc. 2 vols.
                                                                    1642

    On the title-page of the second volume appear the words _cum
    authoris concensu._

    Hooft’s “Nederlandsche Historien,” etc. Folio. 2 vols. This work
    was the most important of the Dutch national histories which had
    thus far appeared. Although published by Elzevir, it was printed
    by Blaen, who was a connection of the author. The first volume was
    issued in 1642, and the last only in 1654. The author died in 1647.

    “Rerum Scoticarum historia, auctore Georgio Buchanano.” 8vo.    1643
    “Renati Descartes Principia philosophiæ, cum privilegio.” 4to.  1644
      ”            specimina philosophiæ, cum privilegio.” 4to.     1644

    At the time of the publication of these first editions of
    treatises which were to revolutionise the thought or at least
    the metaphysical theories of Europe, Descartes was living at The
    Hague. He died in Stockholm (whither he had been called by Queen
    Christina) in 1650.

    The works of Descartes were reprinted by the Amsterdam House no
    less than six times.

    “Thomæ Cartwright, S. S. Theol. in Academia Cantabrigensi quondam
    professoris. Harmonia Evangelica,” etc. 4to. 1647 “Elementa
    philosophica de cive, auctore Thom. Hobbes, Malmesburiensi.” 12mo.
                                                                    1647

    The author was at this time 59 years old. He lived to be 91, dying
    in 1679.

    Fr. Baconis de Verulamio “Sylva Sylvarum.” 12mo.                1648
    “Les Passions de l’Ame, par René Descartes.” 8vo.               1649

    “L’Alcoran de Mahomet, traduit d’arabic en françois par le Sieur du
    Ryer, suivant la copie imprimée à Paris,” etc. Another issue of the
    same date bears the words “Jouxte la copie,” the old indication of
    an “appropriated” work.

    A series of Latin and Greek classics in 12mo, in the general style
    of the series issued some years earlier in Leyden, was published
    between the years 1640 and 1655.

    “Adagiorum Des. Erasmi Roterodami epitome.” 12mo.               1650
    “Colloquia Desid. Erasmi Roterodami, nunc emendatiora,” etc. 12mo.
                                                                    1650

   “Hugonis Grotii, quaedam haetenus inedita aliaque ex belgice editio
    latine versa,” etc. 12mo.                                       1652

    “Francisci Baconi Scripta in naturali et universali philosophia.”
    12mo.                                                           1653

    “Historia Gothorum, Vandalorum et Longobardorum, ab Hugone Grotio,”
    etc. 8vo.                                                       1655

    With this important history, Louis completed the record of his
    individual publications.

Louis and David Elzevir were associated from 1655 to 1664, a period of
nine years, during which time they published one hundred and forty-nine
works. These included a number of new editions of works previously
published by the House, either in Leyden or in Amsterdam.

I cite the following titles, omitting all reissues:

    “Le secrétaire à la mode, par le Sieur de la Serre, contenant
    l’instruction d’escrire des lettres,” etc. 12mo.                1656

    “Le Pastissier François.” 12mo.                                 1656
    Two volumes of practical household instruction, forming an
    exception to the general character of the list.

    “Johannis Maccovii, S. S. Theol. Doct. et Profess. Opuscula
    philosophica omnia,” etc. 4to.                                  1660

    “Histoire du Roy Henri le Grand, composé par messire Hardouin de
    Perefixe, ci-devant précepteur du roi.” 12mo.                   1661

    Hugo Grotius, “de Veritate religionis christianæ.” 12mo.        1662
    This work was later reprinted by the Elzevirs five times.

    “Corpus juris civilis, Pandectis ad Florentinum archetypum
    expressio,” etc. 2 volumes. Folio. This is described as the most
    beautiful piece of typography produced from the Press of the
    msterdam House.                                                 1663

    Four volumes of the “Comedies” of Molière, printed (in French)
    “suivant la copie imprimée à Paris.”

    The last of these, “L’Étourdi,” was printed the same year in which
    the original appeared in Paris.

    Molière’s first comedy, “Les précieuses Ridicules,” was performed
    and was printed in 1659. He died in 1673.

    “Les Oeuvres” de M. François Rabelais. 2 vols. 12mo.            1663

    “Recueil de quelques pièces nouvelles et galantes tant en prose
    qu’en vers. ‘À Cologne, chez Pierre du Marteau.’”

    One of the pieces of “lighter” literature upon which the Elzevirs
    did not wish to place their imprint, and they, therefore, utilise
    their “John Doe,” the mythical du Marteau of Cologne.

    “Dictionarium gallico-germanico-latinum. Dictionnaire
    françois-allemand-latin, par Nathanael Duez, avec priviléges.” 4to.
    1115 pp.                                                        1664

    The final publication of the firm was a reissue of the Heinsius
    edition of Virgil, printed in 1664.

Daniel Elzevir, with whose death terminated the publishing work of the
House, carried on the business after the retirement of his cousin, from
1664 to 1680, a period of sixteen years. During this term, he published
two hundred and fifty-nine works, a very large proportion of which were
reissues, often corrected and improved, of the earlier publications of
the House.

I cite a few titles, omitting for the most part the re-issues.

    The first undertaking was a third edition of the “Oeuvres diverses
    du Sieur de Balzac,” which had evidently retained their popularity
    for Dutch readers.

    “Il Decameron di Messer Giovanni Boccacci, cittadino Fiorentino,”
    etc. 12mo 1665 “Les constitutions du monastère de Port Royal du S.
    Sacrement, avec privilége et approbation.” 12mo.                1665

    Issued without imprint.

    “Recueil des défenses de M. Fouquet.” 5 vols. 12mo.             1665

    “Suite du Recueil des Défenses de M. Fouquet.” 7 vols. 12mo.    1667

    “Conclusion des Défenses,” etc. 1 vol. 12mo.                    1668

    These volumes appeared without imprint, but were promptly
    identified in Paris as coming from Elzevir.

    Fouquet, who died in 1680, had been minister of Finance for Louis
    XIV., and had achieved exceptional success in dissipating the
    resources of the realm. His trial lasted three years, and he was
    condemned to imprisonment for life.

    “Le Nouveau Testament” from the Vulgate. “À Mons, chez Gaspard
    Migeot.” 2 vols. 12mo.                                          1667

    This is the first edition of this translation, known as the “New
    Testament of Mons.” It was printed for Migeot by Elzevir, and was
    also sold by Elzevir in the Low Countries.

    “La Vie du Roy Almansor, écrite par le vertueux capitaine Aly
    Abencufian, traduit de l’espagnol par le P. Fr. d. Obeilh.” 12mo.
                                                                    1671

    “Les Fourberies de Scapin” and the other comedies of Moliere were
    printed by Elzevir promptly after their appearance in Paris.

    “Augustini Confessionum Sommalii.”

    This bears the imprint _Lugduni_ (Lyons), in place of _Lugduni
    Batavorum_, for the purpose, as before explained, of facilitating
    its sale in Catholic countries. This was one of the first editions
    of the Fathers of the Church issued by the Elzevirs.

    “Les Oeuvres complètes de Molière.” 5 vols. 12mo.               1675

    “P. Virgilii Maronis, Opera. Nic. Heinsius recensuit.” 12mo.    1676

    A famous specimen of the best of the typography of the Elzevir
    Press. The long series of Latin classics previously issued by his
    uncle and cousins were frequently reprinted by Daniel, indicating
    that the increasing reputation secured for the series had kept them
    in continued demand throughout Europe.

    “Gierusalemme Liberata, poema heroico del Sig. Torquato Tasso,”
    printed in the Italian, with twenty illustrations. 2 vols.      1678

    Several other of Tasso’s poems were, later, issued by Elzevir.
    Tasso had died in 1595.

    The last work issued by Daniel Elzevir was an edition by Francis
    Delebve of the “Opera medica” of Sylvius, printed in a handsome
    quarto volume.

The widow of Daniel Elzevir (who survived him but a year) was able to
complete the printing of a few volumes which had been left unfinished,
but the publishing record of the House was practically closed with the
death of Daniel in 1680.

The Elzevirs had carried on business as printers, publishers, and
booksellers, in their several Houses in Leyden, Amsterdam, Utrecht, and
The Hague, from 1583 to 1681, a period covering nearly a century. Their
several catalogues give the titles of 1608 separate works or editions
issued or printed by them during this time, an average of about sixteen
each year. It was naturally the case, however, that the publications
issued annually during the later period very much exceeded those for
which the founder of the House was responsible.

A very large proportion, and, as the years went by, an increasing
proportion of the publications of each year consisted of new editions
of the earlier issues of the House, but it is to be borne in mind that
while, as a rule, these reissues did not call for further publishing
initiative or editorial labour they did require an entire resetting
of the type, and, therefore, involved a repetition (except perhaps
as to the item of illustrations) of the first publishing outlay. The
invention of stereotyping and electro-typing, by means of which the
form of type once set can be cast, and the plates preserved for use in
printing further editions, belongs to a later century. The process of
stereotyping was probably first perfected in Paris in 1795, by Firmin
Didot.

The categories and bibliographies from which I have cited the
preceding statistics include not only the books printed and published
by the Elzevirs, but the more important of the works which were
printed by them for the account of other publishers, and which were,
therefore, not issued with their publishing imprint. In the majority
of instances, however, the Elzevirs retained, in their hands as
booksellers, the agencies for the sale of these books for the Low
Countries, for Scandinavia, and frequently for Germany. The lists
cited also include the titles of certain books (the number being at
best but inconsiderable) which, while published by the Elzevirs, had
been printed for them by other printers; and, finally, they include
the titles of a number of works which, while not bearing the name of
Elzevir, and in fact usually having on their title-page a Lyons or
a Cologne imprint, have been identified, through the character of
their typography, as coming from one of the Elzevir printing-offices,
while, later, it was discovered, chiefly through the investigation of
Willems, that for certain classes of books the Elzevirs had made a
practice of utilising one of two or three bogus imprints which they had
invented for the purpose. By far the larger proportion of the Elzevir
publications, probably more than nine-tenths, were printed in Latin.
The texts in French were the next in importance, followed, in the order
named, by those in Dutch, Greek, Italian, and Arabic.

The general character of the literature in the production of which
the family had interested itself, is indicated, however roughly, by
the titles cited. The books belonged, in the main, to the class that
would to-day be described as “heavy literature.” The classics, Greek
and Latin, form the larger portion of the list, while there were
also groups of important works in Calvinistic Theology, Metaphysics,
Medicine, Natural Science, Political Science, History, and Biography.
Fiction and legend were represented not at all, and poetry to but
an inconsiderable extent. The dramatic list, while not large, was
important, including as it did the great productions of Corneille and
Molière.

The works of the Fathers of the Church, which had formed so important a
portion of the undertakings of the printer-publishers of the preceding
century, were represented on the Elzevir list only by an edition of the
_Confessions_ of S. Augustine. It is evident that the demand for these
had been naturally lessened by the influence of the Reformation. It
is rather surprising that the Elzevirs did not give a larger measure
of attention to the publication of editions of the Scriptures, as the
interest in the Bible was unquestionably very great in the communities
which had accepted the Calvinistic and Lutheran doctrines. According
to the catalogues, however, they published during the century but
one edition of the Bible in Dutch and one in French. To these should
be added several issues of the New Testament, printed in Greek, and
evidently planned to meet the University requirements. The most
noteworthy publishing undertaking, and the one which probably brought
to the name of Elzevir the largest measure of prestige throughout
Europe, and also the largest business returns, was the magnificent
series of Classics, printed in duodecimo.

While by far the larger proportion of the publications of the century
were the work of authors of a past generation, the Elzevir catalogues
included the names of a number of contemporary writers, the works of
whom have achieved an abiding fame. Without repeating the catalogue,
I will refer here only to Descartes, Galileo, Grotius, Salmasius,
Heinsius (father and son), Molière, Hobbes, etc. The historians of
the Elzevirs do not give (doubtless because they have not been able
to find) the record of the arrangements entered into between these
contemporary authors and their publishers. They can only point out
that, according to the evidence of the correspondence, the relations
between the Elzevirs and the scholars resident in the Low Countries,
whose works they printed, appear to have been very satisfactory, and
resulted in a number of cases in close personal friendship. As far
as the foreign authors were concerned, the Elzevirs appear to have
followed simply the dictates of their own convenience and advantage.
They took what material they thought they could use, without troubling
themselves to make either requests or acknowledgments. They were, in
fact, the most extensive piratical publishers that the world had as yet
seen, and may be said to have reduced piracy to a business system.

It would, however, be very absurd to pass judgment by the standard of
later times, upon the literary appropriations of the publishers of
the seventeenth century. It is not probable that either the Elzevirs
or their publishing contemporaries had any thought that in reprinting
French, English, or German books, they were causing wrong either to
the writers or to the original publishers, or that their action could
be considered as an interference with any existing rights. Using the
term in its strict legal sense, there were, of course, at this time no
“rights” in literary productions outside of the territory covered by
any particular “privilege.” The Elzevirs were accustomed to protect
their own books, both the works of contemporary authors and the
editions of old time writers, by privileges covering the territories of
the Republic, and they occasionally secured also a privilege from the
French Crown.

It does not appear that any of the foreign works reprinted by them had
been placed under the protection of a Dutch privilege, and, in fact,
I find no references in the correspondence that has been preserved
to any questions of infringement of privilege protection, with which
the Elzevirs had to do either as complainants or as defendants. It
is probable that even in the territory covered by a privilege, the
difficulty of enforcing the same under the law was considerable, and
that publishers and editors found it wise for the most part to accept
the annoyance of interference and of competition rather than to incur
the labour and expense of an appeal to the authorities. It was also
doubtless the case that the superior facilities for production and
for distribution possessed by the Elzevirs, enabled them to protect
themselves pretty effectively against any unauthorised competition, at
least in the Low Countries.

I find record of no complaints from Molière, Scarron, or Hobbes, or
from any other of the foreign authors whose works the Elzevirs printed,
and it is probable either that these authors did not think it worth
while to waste words on an evil for which there was no remedy, or that
(as was the case with the Sieur de Balzac, whose letters have been
quoted) they considered the issue of Elzevir editions of their writings
as an honour which added to their literary fame.

While many details have been preserved of the business history of
the Elzevirs, I find no reference to their books of account, and no
record of manufacturing expenditures such as has been preserved of
the Antwerp publisher, Plantin. I have, therefore, been unable to
ascertain what payments were made to the home authors like Descartes,
Grotius, Heinsius, and others, of whose works repeated editions were
issued. As these later editions were in the majority of cases revised
by the authors themselves, it is evident that they must have been
published under some satisfactory arrangement. It would also have been
interesting to ascertain what remuneration was paid for editorial
service, especially in such undertakings as the great series of
Classics, for translations, for the work of press supervision, and
for the service of literary counsel, of which the Elzevirs secured
from scholarly associates a very full measure. But the data for such
information are not available.

There is a similar lack of information concerning the success or
the lack of success of the different publishing undertakings. We
can only conclude from the fact that so large a proportion of the
books printed reached later editions, in some cases being reprinted
five or six times, that for these works, at least, a continued and a
remunerative sale was secured. The references in the correspondence
from different parts of Europe give evidence that the most important of
the undertakings of the House, the series of Latin and Greek Classics,
had won for itself a favourable reception with students and scholars in
far distant educational centres, and it is evident that the total sale
of these volumes must have been very considerable.

There is also what might be called the negative testimony to the
general success of the publishing judgment of the Elzevirs, that there
is record on their long list of no single undertaking of importance
which proved a burdensome failure, as was the case, for instance, with
the great Bible of Plantin. It was certainly the case that the thorough
organisation of the bookselling business of the House, an organisation
which included connections not only throughout the Netherlands, but
with the principal book-centres of Germany, France, Scandinavia, and
Italy, gave them in the work of finding a market for the output of
their presses, a very material advantage over the firms whose business
was limited to printing and publishing. The catalogues issued by the
several retail concerns carried on by the Elzevirs were by far the most
comprehensive, the best classified, and in every way the most complete
that had as yet been known in the book trade, and these catalogues
served as models for the trade bibliographies of the succeeding half
century.

One very material advantage which was enjoyed by the Elzevirs as
compared with other families whose names belong to the record of
publishing, was the continued vitality of the family itself, a vitality
which ensured the carrying on of the work of the House effectively
through three generations. In each one of the two generations which
succeeded that of Louis the founder, there were from two to five
representatives who had the interest and the ability to continue the
special work which had brought fame to the family. Such a persistency
of family purpose and of living representatives of the family competent
to carry out such purpose has been paralleled in but few other
instances. The publishing business of the Rivingtons of London is now
(1896) being directed by a Rivington of the fifth generation from its
foundation by Charles Rivington, in 1711, and with an existence of one
hundred and eighty-five years, has doubtless a longer career to boast
of than can be credited to any other family which has devoted itself to
publishing. The House of Murray, of London, is now in the hands of two
Murrays of the fourth generation, and can show an unbroken record of
about a century.

In certain respects, however, the Harpers, of New York, present a
closer parallel to the Elzevirs. The two English firms above referred
to, have depended for their continuation in more than one of their
generations upon a single representative. The Harpers, however, whose
business is now in the hands of a third generation assisted by active
members of a fourth, have, like the Elzevirs, found in each generation
a sturdy group of representatives, imbued with the traditions of the
House, and able and willing to devote themselves to carrying forward
its work, and the activities and prestige of the House bid fair to be
extended and expanded through the twentieth century.

Omitting the names of certain Elzevirs of the fourth and fifth
generation who, while continuing certain interests in connection
with book-selling, did not continue the business of printing or of
publishing, eleven Elzevirs were, in the three generations from the
founder, actively engaged as typographers and as publishers. Four
names are, however, to be borne more particularly in mind, of the men
who impressed their individual force and character upon the business
and to whom its creation, expansion, and direction were practically
due. Louis, the founder, had, in various respects, by far the most
difficult task of the four. The special character of his work and the
nature of the obstacles overcome by him, have already been described.
His ambition and ability passed in largest measure to his youngest
son, Bonaventure (leaving out of the count Adrian, who died young).
Bonaventure directed the fortunes of the Leyden House during the most
successful period of its existence. The grandsons of Louis, Louis the
second and Daniel, can share between them the responsibility for the
distinctive work done by the House in Amsterdam, a work which, by the
time Daniel was left in sole control, very much exceeded in importance
all that had been accomplished in Leyden.

It seems evident that, while the connection with the University had
been, as was so frequently the case with the earlier publishing
undertakings of Europe, of very material and perhaps indispensable
service in initiating the business of the House, the trade facilities
offered by a great commercial centre like Amsterdam were of still
greater value than the coöperation and material to be secured from the
University.

No one of the Elzevirs appears to have been entitled to be described as
a scholar, although Daniel, the last of the House, was evidently a man
of a wide range of cultivation and of attainments. Each one, however,
of the family who had responsibilities in the management of the
publishing interests, evidently possessed adequate judgment as to what
constituted scholarship, and they were always able to secure in the
selection of their material, in the higher class of editorial work, and
in supervising the printing of the more exacting classes of books, the
service of some of the most learned men who were at the time resident
in Holland. Not a few of these scholarly assistants and associates
became, as said, near friends of their publishers or of their chiefs.

The Elzevirs did not have upon their hands the peculiar
responsibilities that had to be met by the printer-publishers of
the preceding generations. It was not necessary for them, as it had
been for Aldus, to ransack distant convents for manuscripts, and to
do the personal work of collating and preparing these manuscripts
for the compositors. The Elzevirs were, in nearly every instance, in
a position, for their classical publications, to give to the type
dealers printed “copy,” the text of which had had the advantage of
the supervision of a long series of previous editors. It was not
necessary for the Elzevirs to create methods of organisation for a
printing-office, or themselves to invent mechanism for the production
of books. At the time their work was begun, printing was already if not
a perfected at least a well developed art, the processes of which had
been very fully worked out. They were able, after utilising to best
advantage the experience of previous generations, so far themselves
to develop and improve methods and results as to make of printing
not only an art but a fine art; and even if they had never placed a
publishing imprint upon a title-page, they would, through their service
as typographers, have earned an honourable place in the annals of
bookmaking.

In their work as publishers, they had a very great advantage in doing
business in a country in which literature was practically free from
the burdensome interference of censorship. When we recall the long
series of contests carried on by the printers of Venice and of Florence
against the ecclesiastical censorship of Rome, and the almost equally
hampering obstacles placed upon the printer-publishers of Paris, first
by the theologians of the Sorbonne, and, later, by the officials of
the Crown, we can appreciate the value of the freedom enjoyed by the
Press in Leyden and in Amsterdam, in the history of publishing in
which places, there is hardly a single reference to the burdens of
interference or censorship.

The successive generations of Elzevirs seem always to have been (as
was certainly the case with Louis the founder) consistent Calvinists,
and they were unwilling to place their imprint upon any publications
assailing the doctrines of the Reformed Church. While they certainly
rendered a very large service indeed to the development of book-making
and of book-selling in Europe, and by this means, to the extension of
the influence of literature, it would probably not be accurate to claim
that they were men of exceptionally high ideals. They were traders,
although traders on a great scale and with comprehensive and far
reaching ideas as to the possibilities of their trade. Their business
appears to have been carried on, however, with little reference to
anything except their own business advantage. It could not be said of
them, as it was of Aldus, that they were willing to risk their fortunes
for the sake of bringing new ideas to Europe; or, as was the case with
Robert Estienne, that they were prepared to sacrifice both fortune and
life, if necessary, in order to maintain the freedom of the Press and
the right of bringing the Scriptures to the people.

It was probably true that, however unconsciously, they were able to
do an important work in helping to prepare the way for interstate
copyright. They had themselves, as we have seen, no idea of the
possibility of securing the protection of the law for literary
productions beyond the territory that could be covered by a privilege
or by a series of privileges. In extending, however, the sale of their
own publications in countries far distant from the “country of origin”
and in finding sale not only in their home city, but in the cities of
Germany and Scandinavia, for the works of widely separated authors,
they helped to develop in several communities the understanding that
literary productions had nothing to do with political boundaries,
that the readers of one country were of necessity dependent upon the
literature of all countries, and that the boundaries of the world of
literature were the boundaries of civilisation.

This is the conception that forms a necessary foundation for the
idea of International Copyright. It is under such a conception that
the reader comes to feel that sense of obligation to the author,
which makes him more than ready to pay to such author a return for
the service rendered. When such a relation has once been established
between authors and their readers, it becomes practicable to secure
from communities the recognition by law of the rights of authors to
such returns. It may fairly be said, therefore, that in creating and in
developing the business of distributing literature throughout Europe,
the Elzevirs took the first step that was necessary in order to bring
about the European copyright, which was finally secured, two centuries
later, under the Convention of Berne.

[Illustration]




PART III.

THE BEGINNINGS OF PROPERTY IN LITERATURE.




[Illustration]

PART III.

THE BEGINNINGS OF PROPERTY IN LITERATURE.

CHAPTER I.

PRIVILEGES AND CENSORSHIP IN ITALY.

1498-1798.


THE legislation of the Venetian Republic in regard to privileges,
monopolies, and copyrights was more continuous and more important
than that of any Italian State. In fact, the enactments of the other
States for the supervision of printing and for the encouragement and
protection of literary productions were so far similar to those of
Venice (upon which many of them had probably been modelled) that the
series of Venetian laws can be taken as fairly representative of the
general system prevailing in Italy during the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. The requirements of my subject will, therefore, be most
conveniently met by confining my record for Italy to a summary of the
copyright legislation of Venice, in place of undertaking to give the
details for each Italian city in which printing was carried on. For the
data of this record I am largely indebted to the scholarly treatise of
Horatio F. Brown, on _The Venetian Printing Press_, to which previous
reference has been made.

The action of the Government in regard to the book-trade presents
itself in two main divisions: the first including the steps taken to
protect and encourage the new art and those concerned in it; and the
second, the measures planned to protect the State from certain dangers
which it was dreaded might be brought upon it by the operations of
the Press. Under the first heading are to be classed monopolies,
copyrights, patents, and protection against foreign competition; while
under the second come the measures of censorship--religious, moral,
and political. The term “_privilegii_” was applied to all copyrights,
patents, monopolies, and special concessions having to do with books
and printing.

Between 1469 and 1517, these _privilegii_ were, as a rule, granted
by the College or Cabinet of Venice, and their record is to be found
in the Minutes of the Cabinet. Occasionally, however, the Senate
conferred the privilege, and sometimes a concession was issued under
the direction of the chiefs of the Council. While privileges appear to
have been freely granted to all _bona fide_ applicants, the Government
did not make the securing of a privilege obligatory upon the publisher.

The first kind of privilege was a simple monopoly, under which the
Government granted to the beneficiary for a term of years the sole
right to print or to sell a whole class of books. The earliest Venetian
privilege on record, which is also probably the earliest in Italy, was
that of 1469, under which a monopoly was given to John of Speyer, for a
period of five years, for the printing of books in Venice. Fortunately
for the development in this city of the art of printing and of the
business of publishing, John died shortly after securing this monopoly.
It was not continued to his heirs, and Jenson, Nicolas of Frankfort,
and their associates were left free to push their printing operations
as they saw fit.

The second class of privilege was that securing to an author the
copyright in his production. This constitutes, of course, a recognition
of the existence of literary property and of the rights of literary
producers. The earliest record of such a copyright in Venice (and
also the earliest for Italy) bears date September 1, 1486. It secures
to Mr. Antonio Sabellico, historian to the Republic, for apparently
an indefinite term, the sole right to publish, or to authorise the
publication of, his _Decades rerum Venetarium_. The penalty for
infringement was five hundred ducats. The words of the concession are
worth quoting, as, in securing for the author a literary proprietorship
in his work, it established a precedent of great importance:

_Quod opus prefatum per Marcum Antonium prefatum dari possit alicui
diligenti impressori qui opus illud imprimat suis sumptibus et edat et
nemini præter eum liceat opus illud imprimi facere._[144]

In the year 1493, a more formal and explicit recognition of literary
proprietorship was given in the privilege granted to Daniele Barbaro,
securing to him for ten years a copyright in the work of his deceased
brother Hermolao Barbaro, the _Castigationes Plinii_. In January, 1492,
a copyright for an unspecified term was granted to Peter of Ravenna for
his work _Phœnix_ or _Fœnix_. The form used is the same as that of the
privilege given to Sabellico. No one is to print the work except under
the authority of the author. Klostermann and others have referred to
this privilege for Peter’s _Phœnix_ as the earliest instance in Europe
of government recognition of an author’s copyright, but, as we have
seen, the protection given to Sabellico antedates this by nearly six
years.

The third class of privilege is that securing to an editor or
publisher a copyright for works not of his own (literary) production,
and it is of this class that the instances are the most numerous. The
earliest example of a copyright to an editor is that granted, in 1493,
to Joannes Nigro for his edition of _Haliabas_. The formula is the same
as that used in the copyrights to authors. In the same year a copyright
(also without a term limitation) was given to the printer-publisher
Bernadino de Benaliis for the work by Giustiniani, entitled _De Origine
Urbis Venetiarum_.[145]

In connection with this class of copyrights, abuses soon arose.
Copyrights were secured by a number of printers, or printer-publishers,
for works which they never issued, and which, in not a few cases, they
apparently never intended to issue. The possession of these privileges
was used to obtain from _bona fide_ publishers purchase moneys for
which no service had been rendered either to the community or to the
individuals, and when these moneys could not be afforded or were not
paid, there resulted a block in publishing undertakings.

The fourth kind of privilege conceded by the Venetian College was of
the nature of a patent rather than a copyright. It secured a protection
for improvements and developments in the art of printing, or for
specific classes of literature. In 1496, for instance, a privilege was
given to Aldus by the Venetian Government, for a term of twenty years,
for all books that he might print in Greek text. In connection with
this copyright, he secured what might be called a patent right for
his particular character of Greek type and for his special method of
printing. In his petition he represented that in the making of these
Greek fonts, he had invested a large part of his resources.

In 1501, Aldus obtained a copyright of ten years for all works printed
in the cursive or italic character, of which he claimed the invention,
and which possessed the special advantage of compactness. The Greek
type was said to have been modelled on the script of Musurus, as the
cursive was a fac-simile of the writing of Boccaccio.

In 1498, a monopoly for the term of twenty-five years was granted to
Terracina for all books printed in Arabic, Moorish, Syriac, Armenian,
Indian, and Barbary. Throughout the sixteenth century, a number of
patents were granted for improvements in the art of printing.

The four classes of privileges thus far cited were concerned with the
protection of the individual producer against competition within the
Venetian State. A fifth kind of privilege had for its purpose the
protection of Venetian printing and publishing as a whole against the
competition of foreign rivals. The Government of Venice upheld what
would now be called a protective system, and it undertook to secure its
industries against interference or competition from foreigners.

In the printing privilege granted to John of Speyer, in 1469, provision
was made to prohibit the importation of books printed elsewhere,
a provision that, if strictly enforced, must have weighed rather
heavily upon Venetian scholars and students, and in necessitating the
reprinting, for a comparatively small community, of any books required
for Venetian readers, must have tended to keep the price of those books
high.

In all the privileges subsequently granted appears a provision
prohibiting the importation of any foreign edition of the work securing
Venetian copyright. Such a prohibition, however, is of course in line
with the restrictive and protective features of modern copyright
law, and is a very different thing from the attempt made in the
edict of 1769, previously quoted, to prevent the importation into
Venetian territory of any books printed abroad. The former restriction
constitutes an essential feature of any system of copyright, while
the latter was a kind of _reductio ad absurdum_ of the theory of
“protection to home industries.” In 1519, in a copyright granted
to Manenti, physician to the Duke of Urbino, appears the condition
that the book securing Venetian copyright must be printed in Venetian
territory; and in the copyrights issued thereafter this proviso is
seldom omitted. A similar provision finds place in a number of the
copyright enactments of later times, the most recent instance being the
American law of 1891.

The applications for privileges or copyrights submitted by the
printer-publishers were quite frequently accompanied by special
reasons why in each particular case such a petition should be granted.
Sometimes it was on the ground of the general excellence of their
printing and their guaranty that the edition now proposed shall possess
special beauty and accuracy of typography; sometimes they engage to
secure the highest grade of scholarship for the text revision and for
the editorial work; again they will plead poverty or distress, or large
families to support, or special need of some kind.

In the year 1493, we have an example of an application for a privilege
being accompanied by a certificate from certain competent authorities
as to the value and the importance for the community of the work to
be published.[146] The applicant was Bernardino de Benaliis, and the
publications in question were the works of Beato Lorenzo Giustiniani
and of Tartagni da Imola. Benaliis submitted from a number of the
doctors in law at the University of Padua certificates as to the value
of the book.

Foreigners made a practice of supporting their petitions with letters
of commendation, either from the ambassadors of their own states,
or of some other of the foreign ambassadors. The applications or
petitions were not always granted, and, occasionally, conditions were
attached upon which the continued validity of the privilege was made to
depend. Such conditions fell into four general divisions, concerned
with, first, the quality of the work to be produced, secondly (though
infrequently) the speed of its production, thirdly the price at which
it was to be sold, and fourthly the rights of the producers, _i.e._,
publishers. As an example of the first kind can be noted the privilege
granted to Benaliis, already cited, under which he is bound not to
publish the works of Tartagni without those of Giustiniani, nor _vice
versa_, and he must further guarantee to print the volumes in the
finest style of typography and with the most correct text.

The privilege given in 1494 for certain books to be issued by Matteo de
Codeca, is coupled with the condition that the volumes are to be sold
at a “fair price” (_pretio honestissimo_), and a similar term is used
in the privilege given in 1496 to Landriano. In a certain number of the
privileges, principally those of earlier date, we find the condition
that the works must be published within a year from the date of the
application, or must be printed at a certain rate per week.

The College kept no register of the privileges issued by it other than
the entries in its minutes, and it happened not infrequently, as the
number of petitions increased, that exclusive privileges for the same
work were granted to different applicants. Conflicts naturally arose
between two publishers claiming control of the same work, but when any
cases of the kind were brought up for adjudication, they were decided
in favour of the privileges bearing the earliest date, providing
always that the condition of publishing within a certain term had
been complied with. As a result of these complications, however, the
practice came to be adopted of attaching to a privilege a saving clause
to the effect that it should be invalid in case any earlier privilege
should already have been issued for the same work.

Among other instances of such a proviso, Brown quotes that included
in the privilege granted, in 1493, to Calcedonio, which closes thus:
_declarato, quod hæc gratia intelligatur casu quo opera ipsa sint nova,
et aliquis alius jam non cœperit illa imprimere, vel sibi promissum
fuerit_. Another form, occurring in 1502, was _dummodo prius dicta
volumina non fuerint impressa_.[147]

The Minutes of the College were not open to the inspection of the
public, and it appears that no subject indexes were kept of the
business transacted, while, as before said, no attempts were made to
preserve any list or register of the privileges issued. The printers
and publishers had, therefore, no safe means of ascertaining whether or
not they were infringing a previous copyright.

The average term of the earlier privileges was ten years. In the
latter half of the sixteenth century, however, it became the practice
to grant longer terms. There are examples, in 1569, of privileges of
twenty years, and, in 1596, of twenty-four and twenty-five years. The
terms varied, however, very greatly, and it is difficult to trace the
grounds upon which a longer or a shorter time was decided upon. We find
instances of one year, five years, ten years, fifteen years, etc.

The copyrights run sometimes from the date of the application and
sometimes from that of the publication. After 1505, the practice
obtained of granting prolongations of privileges in cases in which
good cause had been shown for such prolongation. An instance of such
an extension is the case of Leonardo Crasso’s edition of the works of
Polifilo, for which, in 1508, a second copyright term of ten years
was granted on the ground that the wars had prevented the publisher
from getting back his investment. The principal difficulty with these
earlier privileges was the absence of any machinery to secure their
enforcement or the protection of the owners of the copyrights. Brown
says that there is no instance or record of a suit being brought by
one printer against another for infringement of copyright. Complaints
for infringement were presented from time to time to the College or
to the Council of Ten. In 1499, the Council of Ten issued an order to
publishers to respect the copyrights granted to Antonio Moretto of
Brescia.

In 1495, Biondo and Giambattista secured for ten years a privilege
in the Letters of S. Catherine of Siena. The same work was, however,
published by Aldus in 1500, five years before Biondo’s privilege had
expired. The _Letters of Phalaris_ were published in 1498 by Braccio,
and in 1499 by Aldus, and there appears to have been no determination
of the question to whom the privilege or copyright belonged. The whole
business of copyrights resting upon individual privileges fell into
confusion, and the difficulties in the way of protecting literary
property must have seriously interfered with the development of
publishing undertakings.

It must be remembered also, that these privileges, even if not
interfered with, covered the control of but a limited market, that,
namely, comprised in the territory of the Venetian Republic. In
any other States of Italy, the reprinters were, of course, free to
appropriate the results of the enterprise of the Venetian publishers
and of their expenditures for manuscripts, editorial service, etc.;
while the Venetians had, of course, the same freedom in utilising the
works initiated in Rome, Florence, Milan, or Verona. In competing for
markets outside of Italy, however, the Venetian publishers had the
advantage of the wide commercial connections possessed by their city.

With an entire absence of protection for his literary undertakings
outside of his own State, it was, of course, of first importance that,
within these limits at least, the publisher should have secured to him
the results of his planning, his labours, and his investment. Such
security was, however, given but very inadequately by the system of
privileges. The penalties attached to infringements hardly acted as
deterrents, principally because there was no effective machinery for
their enforcement. These penalties comprised the confiscation of the
contraband material, with fines varying (for each unauthorised copy
of the book) from twenty soldi to one thousand ducats. The latter
was the fine prescribed, in 1515, in the case of a piratical edition
of Ariosto. The fine, when collected, was usually divided into three
parts, one third going to the court, one third to the complainant,
and one third to some city charity. Occasionally, though very rarely,
there was added to the penalty a sentence of confinement in prison for
one or two months. There are one or two instances also of suspension
of the offender from the exercise of the art of printing. Complaints
concerning infringement could usually be brought before any magistrate
of the Republic; but in some cases it was specified in the privilege
itself that a trial for its contravention should be held before a
special court, such as that of the fiscal procurators, or of the
police magistrates. What uniformity of procedure came finally to be
established, was due, however, less to the regulations of the law than
to the precedents established by the printers and publishers.

=Censorship.=--After the earlier measures having for their purpose the
encouragement of the new art of printing, the actions of the Government
of Venice (as of the other States where the business of publishing
became of importance) were more largely concerned with the supervision
and regulation of the Press for the safety of the interests of State
and Church, than with the protection of literary property.

As in the case of the privileges, the censorship was, for something
more than half a century, that is, from 1469 to 1528, carried on
without the aid of any general law, and was based simply upon a
practice or series of precedents evolved from the individual action
taken by the Government in each instance as it arose. The granting
of privileges had, as we have seen, been the duty sometimes of the
College, sometimes of the Senate. The responsibility concerning
censorship rested naturally with the Council of Ten, which in its
capacity as a standing committee of safety, assumed a general charge of
the morals of the community.

The censorship of the Press in Venice, as elsewhere, was concerned with
three aspects of literature: the religious, the moral (which included
the political), and the purely literary. Morality was considered from
both the public and the private or personal point of view, the former
including as its chief consideration the safety of the State.

The operation of the censorship was marked by the presence of an
_imprimatur_ or record of authorisations. As has already been noted,
applications for a privilege were occasionally accompanied by a
certificate or _testamur_ from certain competent authorities, who had
examined the work in question and who were willing to certify as to its
soundness and importance.

The earliest example of an ecclesiastical _testamur_ printed in a book
published in Venice, appears at the beginning of the _Nosce Te_, issued
by Jenson in 1480. The _Nosce Te_ was a book of devotion, written
by a Carthusian monk, Giovanni di Dio, and the _testamur_ in this
case might, therefore, be interpreted simply as an approval by his
ecclesiastical superiors of the work done by him as an ecclesiastic.
There is no record that the _Nosce Te_ ever secured a privilege from
the Venetian Government, and it seems certain that at the date in
question no such _testamur_ was required under the regulations of the
secular government.

No further instance of a clerical _testamur_ occurs before 1505, when
Jacomo di Penzi, of Lecco, a printer, in applying to the Council for a
privilege for certain books he desired to print, states that he has
an _imprimatur_ from the Council of Ten, and a _testamur_ from the
Patriarch as to the merit of one of the works, the _Tre famosissime
Questioni_, by Zane, Archbishop of Spalato. In the year 1508, we have
the first example of an ecclesiastical _testamur_ being required by the
Council of Ten, as a condition for their own _imprimatur_. The work was
the _Universalis animæ traditionis liber quintus_ of Gregoriis, and the
ecclesiastical censor appointed to examine the work from a theological
point of view, reported that he found in it nothing opposed to Catholic
verity.

This is the first instance of a religious censorship exercised by the
secular government. The case may be considered as fairly indicating
the position the Venetian Government proposed to take in regard to the
supervision of books touching upon theological matters. The State had
a personal interest in protecting the Church against the attacks of
books likely to be subversive of the faith, and it was glad to secure
the opinion of the Church in regard to the character or tendency of a
doubtful work; but it intended to retain in its own hands the final
decision as to the permission to print; and it contended that the
interests of Church and State could be best protected by the State
taking action for both. The conclusion arrived at was, therefore, that
there should be religious censorship, but that the censor should act
only through powers delegated to him by the secular government.

A case occurring in 1516 shows, however, that this policy speedily
became modified. Soardi, a publisher, applied for an _imprimatur_
for certain theological works. The Council of Ten replies that as
Soardi has already secured the _testamurs_ of the Patriarch and
the Inquisitor, they, _quoad se_, have no objection to offer, and
_permittunt fieri quantum præfati Reverendissimus et Inquisitor
concessere_.[148] Brown accepts this phrase, _quoad se_, which occurs
also in later _imprimaturs_, as evidence that the Council of Ten had
practically resigned the direct control of the religious censorship,
and had accepted the Patriarch and the Inquisitor as the proper persons
to deal with the responsibility. It is still, however, the secular
authority and not the ecclesiastical which grants the _imprimatur_,
and the term _permittunt fieri_ implies that the permit was necessary
and could be withheld. In this same year, 1515, a claim was raised by
the Papal Government which, later, gave rise to many disputes between
the Church and the Republic of Venice, and also between the Church and
several other of the States of Italy.

The Holy See assumed the right to grant copyrights and _imprimaturs_ in
States other than those of the Church, and to support these monopolies
by the threat of spiritual punishments. The earliest instance of such
a contention was that of Fra Felice of Prato, a converted Jew, who
secured from the Pope, for certain Hebrew books and translations of
the same, a copyright which covered not only the States of the Church
but all the States of Europe. The punishment of excommunication was
threatened against any who refused to recognise this copyright or who
committed infringements against it. Fra Felice, desiring to print his
book in Venice, and apparently distrusting the adequacy of the Pope’s
privilege, applied to the College for a copyright for ten years, which
was duly granted to him; while the College of Venice apparently made
no comments upon the Papal brief which had also undertaken to give him
authority for Venice. Later on, the Venetian Government found occasion
to make vigorous protests against similar contentions from Rome.

The second class of censorship, that relating to literary quality, also
developed but gradually. The need for some kind of literary supervision
is indicated by the publishers themselves, who in their petitions
make reference to the misprints and scandalous errors in editions
previously produced, and promise that their own editions shall be
printed with the utmost care and accuracy.

The earliest instance of the establishment of a literary censorship
was in 1503, when the Senate made Marcus Musurus censor of all books
printed in Greek. Thirteen years later Musurus was still holding the
office.

In 1515, an order was issued by the Council of Ten which established
a general censorship for the literature of the Humanities. The order
was worded as follows: “In all parts of the world, and in the famous
cities not only of Italy but also of barbarous countries, that the
honour of the nation may be preserved, it is not allowed to publish
works until they shall have been examined by the most learned person
available. But in this our city, so famous and so worthy, no thought
has as yet been bestowed on this matter, whence it comes to pass that
the most incorrect editions which appear before the world are those
issued in Venice, to the dishonour of the city. Be it, therefore,
charged upon our noble Andrea Navagero to examine all works in Humanity
which, for the future, may be printed; and without his signature in the
volumes they shall not be printed, under pain of being confiscated and
burned, and a fine of three hundred ducats for him who disobeys this
order.” This is the first Italian example of a general or prevention
censorship, applied to a whole class of literature.[149]

The third kind of censorship concerned itself with the morals of
literature, political morality, the attitude of the writer or of the
publisher towards the State or rather towards government, and private
morality, having to do with the influence of the book upon decency and
_bonos mores_. The Government of Venice was peculiarly sensitive in
regard to any criticism, direct or indirect, of its public documents.
In 1515, the Council of Ten granted permission to Marino Sanuto,
who was engaged in the preparation of a history of the operations of
Charles VIII. in Italy, to examine the State Papers of more than two
years back, on the condition that the work should, when completed, be
submitted for the approval of the Council, before any one else should
have seen it. Later in the same year, an _imprimatur_ was granted to
Andrea Mocenigo for his history of the League of Cambrai, the work
having been examined and approved by the Grand Chancellor, who had the
special custody of the State Papers.

The political censorship was apparently more effective than the
censorship of morals. It was certainly the case that the _imprimatur_
was given to not a few books of a scandalous character.

In 1527, Alvise Cynthio (or Fabritii) published a work on _The Origin
of Vulgar Proverbs_. He had secured from the Senate a copyright for ten
years, which prohibited any one from reprinting the collection unless
he should add to the material as many new proverbs as were contained
in the original. Cynthio took occasion to say in one of his editorial
paragraphs that he intended to show the true character of those who
pretended to follow the rule of S. Francis. The Franciscans naturally
found objections to the book, and registered a complaint against it on
the ground of heresy and indecency.

The Council of Ten issued in January, 1526-1527 a general order,
reciting that, owing to the freedom which everyone enjoys in Venice,
it sometimes happens that obscene and corrupt works issue from the
Press. It is, therefore, decreed that for future publications, the
_imprimatur_ of the Council of Ten shall be required, and that before
this is given, the work must have been examined by two censors, who
shall make a sworn report that its character is satisfactory. This
order is of importance as being the first official recognition of the
necessity of a moral censorship.

The censors who examined Cynthio’s volume, ordered the author to
expunge the obnoxious passages. In the meantime, however, the monks
took the matter into their own hands (although they claimed to act
with the authority of the Council) and carried off from the printer’s
shop all the copies on hand. Cynthio petitioned the Council for their
restoration, and the printer put in a claim on his part that the
volumes should be replaced in his hands until his printing account
had been paid. An order to such effect was given, but apparently
only a small portion of the volumes were received, the others having
disappeared while in the custody of the monks. Copies of the work
have since been extremely rare. The author is reported to have died a
violent death.[150]

Up to this time there had been no attempt to formulate a code of laws
for the regulation of the Press; such action as had been taken by the
Government, had been in the shape of isolated decrees, or special acts
prepared to meet specific cases. There was no such thing as preventive
legislation; it was always planned either to present a remedy for
some immediate difficulty or to repress some specific wrong-doing.
The lines upon which the press-code of Venice was finally promulgated
had, however, been gradually indicated by the customs and precedents
established for particular cases.

Before the period of general legislation, the practice had, as we
have seen, been arrived at by securing, first from the College,
and later from the Senate, privileges, taking the shape either of
monopolies or of copyrights; while for the _imprimatur_ or authority
to print, application was made to the Council of Ten. The first law of
censorship made such _imprimatur_ obligatory. The censorship of the
character of the books thus fell upon the Ten, which retained in its
own hands the direct control of the political censorship and delegated
to ecclesiastical examiners the task of theological censorship,
accepting, as a rule, the report of such examiners as final. When,
later, it was found necessary to give consideration not only to the
political and theological influence of books, but to their literary
quality and their moral character, these divisions of the censorship
were also assumed by the Council of Ten.

In 1487, was issued the first Papal Bull having to do with the
productions of the printing-press. It was addressed by Pope Innocent
VIII. to seven governments as follows: Romana, Curia, Italia, Germania,
Francia, Hispania, Anglia, and Scotia. It is entitled: _Bulla S. D. N.
Innocentii contra Impressores Librorum Rebrobatorum_, and was printed
in Rome in 1487. The opening paragraph reads: _Et ea propter nos qui
illius locum tenemus in terris qui ad illuminandum hominum mentes et
errorum tenebros exterminandum descendit e coelis_ (and, therefore,
we who hold on earth the place of Him who came down from heaven to
enlighten the minds of men and to disperse the darkness of error).

The Bull does not appear to have attracted any special attention in
Venice, and the Government of the Republic continued to frame in its
own way the regulations for the control of the printers.

=The Earliest Legislation in Venice.=--The legislation of the Republic
relating to the productions of the printing-press concerned itself
with five general purposes: first, the embodiment into law of custom
and precedent; second, the protection against outside competition
of the book-manufacturing trade of Venice, and the preservation of
the excellence of the Venetian Press; third, the protection of the
book-buyer against bad workmanship and exorbitant charges; fourth, the
protection of the author’s rights; fifth, the institution of a Bureau
to administer the Press laws and to regulate the industry.

The legislative bodies of the State were the Senate and the Council of
Ten. The earliest legislation for the regulation of the Press (unless
we may count as a law the general order of the Ten, previously referred
to, establishing a literary censorship for works in Humanity) was a law
of the Senate passed August 1, 1517. This law recalled every privilege
heretofore granted, placing in the public domain, open for the use of
any one, all of the works named in these cancelled privileges.

The purpose of this law was to sweep away a mass of obstruction,
and in giving full freedom to printing undertakings, to further the
development of Venetian publishing. Among its advocates were many
of the printer-publishers, who were willing to lose their property
rights in existing copyrights for the sake of getting rid of the evils
that had arisen from the accumulation of overlapping privileges,
or of privileges which had been secured not for direct use but for
obstruction and for sale, and of privileges which on various grounds
had not been obtained in good faith. Under the law of 1517, privileges
were thereafter to require a two-thirds vote in the Senate and were to
be issued only for works which were new or which had not before been
printed. (_Solum pro libris et operibus novis, numquam antea impressis
et non pro aliis._)

The next law, that of 1526, has already been referred to in connection
with the case of Cynthio’s _Origin of Vulgar Proverbs_. It provided
that no book should be printed without the _imprimatur_ of the Council,
and that this _imprimatur_ should be granted only after the book had
been approved by two censors appointed by the Council as free from
scandalous or objectionable matter.

In 1533, the question of copyright was again attracting attention.
The law of 1517 had not worked well, and abuses had arisen under it.
No definition had been given limiting or constructing the term _opus
novum_, and the contention had been made that very slight additions or
alterations in a book already published would constitute it a new work
within the meaning of the act. It was only necessary for a publisher
to make application, under such a contention, for a copyright for a
previously unprinted classic, to prevent the work from being printed by
any other publisher.

A decree was now issued ordering that a publisher must complete the
publication of a work within twelve months from the date of securing
his copyright, under pain of the forfeiture of the copyright. A
modification was afterwards made under which, if the work was too large
to be completed within a year, the copyright could be preserved by the
production of not less than one folio a day. If the work were printed
out of Venice, the copyright was forfeited. No publisher could apply
twice for a copyright for the same work. The matter of prices was also
gone into; and publishers were directed to submit to the Bureau of
Arts and Industries an advance copy of each new book, which was to be
appraised by experts and the price set by them was to be that at which
the book should be published. No copies were to be sold at any higher
price.

In 1537, a further law was enacted, directed to the protection of the
interests of the consumer, and to the wholesome development of the
trade of book-manufacturing. The preamble speaks of “the ruinous and
disgraceful practices of the Venetian printers,” who used to be the
best in the world, and complains that now, for the sake of gain, they
use vile paper that will not hold the ink and that cannot be written
upon with marginal notes. This blemish cannot be due to any difficulty
in securing proper material, as foreign books come to Venice printed on
excellent paper.

It is, therefore, ordered that under a penalty of forfeiture of
copyright and a fine of one hundred ducats, all copyrighted books must
be printed on paper that can be written upon without blotting. This
penalty shall be incurred if of any edition five copies blot, and
a copy shall be held to be defective if any five leaves in it blot.
Pamphlets and books below the value of ten _soldi_ are excepted from
the provisions of the law. New books are again defined as works which
have never been published before. The execution of the law is given to
the _Avogadori di Comun_, the law officers of the State.[151]

The enactments of 1542-1543 give evidence that the regulations for the
supervision of the publishing trade had not yet produced satisfactory
results, and that there was no little irritation on the part of the
Government at their failure. The Council complains that, contrary to
the censorial law of 1526, its _imprimatur_ was not always sought for
new publications, and that, as a result of this non-observance, books
were being printed and sold which offended the honour of God, were
repugnant to the Christian Faith, and were in many instances most
licentious. To remedy these evils, it was decreed that the printers
of unlicensed books should be fined fifty ducats, in addition to the
penalties previously decreed. The booksellers dealing in them were to
be fined twenty-five ducats, while those who hawked unlicensed books
about the streets were to be flogged from S. Mark’s to the Rialto, and
to be imprisoned for six months. A publisher using a false imprint was
to be imprisoned for twelve months, and then banished from Venice in
perpetuity.

In spite of these severe penalties, the law does not appear to have
secured more satisfactory obedience than had been given to the previous
decrees. As Brown points out, the law was probably not supported by
public opinion.

In 1544, the Commissioners of the University of Padua were constituted
the permanent censors of Venetian books submitted for the _imprimatur_
of the Council. The censorship of the Commissioners covered all points
excepting those relating to religion or theology, which were still
left to be passed upon by ecclesiastical censors.

In 1544-5, the Council of Ten gave attention to the question of the
ownership of literary productions. In no one of the several acts
that had been passed for the regulation of the Press, had it been
made apparent whether literary property was brought into existence
as property, by the process of securing the copyright, or whether
it existed, _ipso facto_, in the author of a work. In the latter
case, the copyright entry and the issue of the privilege constituted
simply an official recognition of the right and not a creation of
it. During the half century in which their business had been carried
on, the printer-publishers in Venice (in common with those of the
rest of Europe) were in the habit of ignoring literary proprietorship
altogether, and were accustomed to print any work they pleased, even
in direct opposition to the wishes of the author. It became evident
that some measure for the protection of the author was necessary, and
in the year 1544-5, a decree was issued forbidding anyone to print or
to sell a work without having first presented to the _Rifformatori_
(the University Commissioners) documentary proof of the consent of the
author or of his representatives.

All books printed without the consent of the author were to be
confiscated and burned; the printer was to be fined one ducat for each
copy of the book printed, and was to be imprisoned for one month. In
1547, a fresh attempt was made to restrain the sale of blasphemous or
obscene books.

One manner in which the law of 1543 had been evaded was by importing
books of a character for which an _imprimatur_ in Venice could not have
been secured. Brown says that in a number of cases, however, books of a
scandalous character, sold as importations, had really been printed in
Venice, the foreign imprint being forged. It was now ordered that any
one importing scandalous books should pay a fine of fifty ducats, the
books themselves being also forfeited.

The _Savii Sopra l’Eresia_, the three Venetian noblemen who served
as assessors to the Holy Office, and who now had in their hands the
examination of new publications with reference to matters of religion
or doctrine, were charged with the supervision also of imported books.
The Lutheran heresy was beginning to be promulgated by means of the
Press, and the ecclesiastical authorities were, therefore, especially
suspicious of literature coming from Germany.

In 1548, the first catalogue of prohibited books was issued in Venice.
The addition to the regular executive of the three Commissioners on
Heresy indicates as well a greater activity on the part of the Church
in regard to the supervision of literature, as a readiness on the part
of the Government to accept this ecclesiastical coöperation as long as,
in form at least, the State was recognised as the controlling authority
in the matter.

The year 1548-9 marks an era in the history of printing and publishing
not only in Venice, but of the world. In that year, under a decree
of the Council dated January 18th, the printers, publishers, and
booksellers of Venice were organised into a guild. The very natural
reason assigned for the formation of such a guild was that the trade
in question was the only important trade in the city that was not
already so organised. We find, however, as an additional reason,
which doubtless acted as an important incentive, the necessity of so
organising the business of the production of books that the work of the
Commissioners of Heresy in discovering and in punishing the publishers
of heretical books, should be facilitated.

=The Guild of Printers and Booksellers=, 1549-1595.--The organisation
into a guild of the printers and publishers of Venice was an important
event in the history of literary property in Italy. This guild was
the earliest trade association of book-men in Europe, the decree for
its institution bearing date 1548-9, or six years earlier than the
charter of Queen Mary of England, under which was incorporated the
Stationers’ Company. The publishers of Germany had organised the
Frankfort book-fair (in connection with the general Fair) as early as
1500, but this organisation had not yet taken the shape of a guild.
The _Libraires jurés_ of Paris, comprising members of the University,
organised as a division of the University, and subject to the control
of the University authorities, cannot, at least in its earlier stages,
be classed as a trade guild.

The Guild of Venice had, as we have seen, been brought into existence
not merely for the protection of trade interests, but for the purpose
of facilitating the work of the State and of the Church in keeping
a close supervision upon all the productions of the Press, and of
promptly suppressing those likely to prove pernicious. The regulations
framed by the Guild and the enactments secured by it were of service
in defining literary property and in protecting copyrights, but this
result was rather an incidental than an essential part of its work.

Seventeen years elapsed after the decree of 1548, before the
organisation of the corporation was fully completed through the
formulation of its by-laws; but from various references during that
time, it seems evident that shortly after 1548, an association was
in existence with a President and a Council, exercising some general
supervision over the printers and publishers. When the Guild was
finally organised, it appears to have been a more official and more
authoritative body than the London Company of Stationers. Its officers
comprised a prior, two councillors, six assessors, a secretary,
and a beadle. Membership in the Guild was compulsory upon all
master-printers, publishers, and booksellers, and each member was to
pay annually the sum of one lira, five soldi. The list of officials
included two syndics, one of whom was to be present at each election
and to administer the oath of office to the new officers. No member was
permitted to decline either nomination or election, under a penalty of
ten ducats. No member of the Guild could hold office unless during five
years previous he had been a master-printer or had kept a book-shop.
The by-laws of the Guild were called _Mariegole_, a term which is said
to come from _Matricule_, or matriculation books.

The Guild thus constituted, outlived the Government that had created it
and many succeeding governments. It even survived the Republic and the
period of revolutions and of Napoleonic invasions; and came to a close
only with the first decade of the present century, after an existence
of more than two hundred and fifty years. The Stationers’ Company of
London still exists under that name, but its control over the printing
and publishing trades of England disappeared many years before the
dissolution of the Guild of Venice.

The Guild appears to have moved but slowly in the work of controlling
the printing and the book-trade of the city; it was not until 1571
that it issued a decree (which apparently had the force of a decree
of the Council) forbidding anyone not a member of the Guild from
setting up a printing-press or opening a book-store. It was also
forbidden for anyone to exercise any of the functions of a printer or a
bookseller unless he had served a five years’ apprenticeship in Venice.
Foreigners who desired to exercise the art of printing, or to carry
on the business of bookselling, must first serve five years in some
shop in Venice, and after examination and approval by the authorities
of the Guild, must pay ten ducats for matriculation. The penalty for
infringement of the above decree was fifty ducats.

A protest was made to the _Proveditore di Comun_ concerning the
authority of the Guild to make or to enforce any such regulation, but
the _Proveditore_ promptly confirmed the action of the Guild, and in so
doing confirmed its authority to control the business of printing and
book-selling.

This control seems, however, during no period to have been complete.
Up to the year 1600, the Guild had at no time contained more than
seventy-five members. In 1596, according to the reports of the
_Rifformatori_, there were one hundred and twenty presses at work
in Venice, and it was necessary to print one hundred and fifty
copies of the _Concordat_ of 1596, in order to distribute them
among the booksellers of the city. It is probable, therefore, that
the master-printers and book-sellers must together have exceeded
seventy-five, and in that case the Guild could not have included them
all. While the Guild claimed, as we have seen, full jurisdiction over
the printers and booksellers, and claimed also the right to forbid any
person to carry on these trades without having obtained a certificate
of competence from its own examiners, it is probable that it lacked the
power to enforce its authority or to carry into effect its decrees.

The establishment of a system of censorship did not meet all the
difficulties in the way of a thorough supervision and regulation of
literature. The University Commissioners, to whom had been referred
the censorship other than ecclesiastical, were apparently not always
able to make examination of all pending publications or did not, at
least, always insist upon a personal examination. The publishers began
to make a practice (on the ground of lightening the labours of the
Commissioners) of having their forthcoming works examined by readers
selected by themselves.

On the strength of a favourable report from these friendly examiners,
the Commissioners would issue their certificate that the work contained
nothing objectionable, and with this _testamur_ the publishers
would secure, without further question, the _imprimatur_ of the Ten.
Under this procedure a number of objectionable works found their way
into print. The Commissioners finally, in 1562, gave orders to their
secretary that thereafter no authorisations should be given for any
printing whatsoever until the work had been examined and favourably
reported upon, first, by the Inquisitor or one of his vicars, or by
some person selected by the Tribunal of the Inquisition; second,
by the Reader in philosophy or some other public reader; third, by
a ducal secretary. The petitioner for a certificate was to bring a
_testamur_ signed by each of these, declaring that there was nothing
in the book contrary to religion, nothing injurious to morality, and
nothing hostile to princes, and that it was worthy to see the light.
The _testamurs_ should state the number of leaves in the book and must
quote the first and last lines.

After the book had been printed, but before it was issued to the
public, a copy was to be submitted to the _Rifformatori_ in order that
they might assure themselves that no additions or alterations had been
made after the securing of the _imprimatur_. Each of the three persons
who should examine the book was to be paid the sum of one _bezzo_ for
each leaf (sheet?). The _bezzo_ was worth the one hundred and sixtieth
part of a ducat. All the expenses connected with the three examinations
and with the issue of the _imprimatur_ must be borne by the petitioner.

Four years later, in 1566, it was ordered that all persons obtaining
licences should, before printing their works, register their licences
at the office of the _Esecutori contro la Bestemmia_, but for such
registration there should be no charge. This is the first attempt
that was made to institute a complete registry of the publications
of Venice. Unfortunately, the law was persistently evaded, and the
registers which have come down to us are very incomplete.

The system of censorship, as now completed, proved both cumbersome and
irritating, and must have seriously interfered with the development
of the publishing business of Venice. It was, however, not quite so
exacting as might have been expected from the stringent nature of
its provisions, for the reason that these were not and could not be
effectively enforced. The Government of Venice lacked the means to
enforce its literary regulations, and had no police adequate to the
special requirements of these regulations.

While the censorship of the State became more or less nominal, that of
the Church was enforced with comparative rigour, and exercised a very
material influence on the selection of the literature to be printed.
The Church had at hand a very effective machinery for the enforcement
of its supervision, as every priest and every friar was ready to act as
a policeman for the cause of ecclesiastical control over the Press.

=Copyrights in Venice=, 1500-1600.--Up to the middle of the fifteenth
century the average term of a copyright had been ten years. From the
year 1560, the terms began to increase, until towards the close of the
century the average is nineteen years. There are, however, examples
of terms as short as one year, and as long as thirty; while it is not
easy to trace the grounds for the discrimination. The fines inflicted
for contraband publications also varied very considerably. The amounts
collected were usually divided into three parts, which were assigned
one to the informer, one to the author, and the third, either to the
court, the arsenal, or to one of the three asylums. There is record
of but one instance during the century of a piratical printer being
deprived of his licence to print. It was the case of a copyright
granted to Pappa Alesio, of Corfu, the infringer of which was fined two
hundred ducats, and ten ducats for each unauthorised copy printed, and
was forbidden to print for ten years.[152]

The number of works for which copyright was secured varied very much
from year to year. The largest number of entries during the century was
one hundred and seventeen in 1561, and the smallest seven, in 1599. The
decrease during the last quarter of the century was in part due to the
Great Plague.

There were but two instances during the century in which the Senate
refused to grant an application for copyright, one of these refusals
being for the _Lettere Amorose_ of Pasqualigo. While the greater number
of the copyrights were issued in the names of the publishers, there
is, after the middle of the sixteenth century, an increasing number of
entries in the names of the authors. A copyright was given, in 1515,
to Ariosto for his _Orlando_, to last for his lifetime; and in 1535, a
copyright was given to his heirs for a period of ten years for certain
of the poet’s works. Copyrights were also issued directly to Tasso,
Aretino, Giraldi, and other authors.

The making of maps and charts formed, as was natural in a great
centre of commerce, an important feature in the publishing of Venice;
while in company with these, there were long lists of works of
travel and adventure. Early in the sixteenth century, the production
of engravings, on wood and on copper, grew to be a considerable
industry. In 1521, a copyright was issued to Castellazzo for certain
illustrations for the _Pentateuch_ which he had engraved and for
certain others which he had in plan.

During the whole of the century, Venice continued to be the chief
publishing centre in Europe for Greek literature, and a place of resort
for Greek scholars. Its presses also became noted for the printing of
books in Hebrew. This latter industry, however, had to encounter no
little opposition on the part of the Government, an opposition in the
main due to jealousy of the ecclesiastical censors, who dreaded the
heresies that might be hidden in the unknown tongue. The dread was,
however, one that might be overcome if the inducement were sufficient.
The printer Bomberg, who had been refused a renewal of his ten years’
privilege for his Hebrew publications, made fresh application with
successive offers of one hundred, one hundred and fifty, and three
hundred ducats, all of which were rejected. A fourth offer of five
hundred ducats, however, finally secured the desired privilege.
Privileges were granted in 1498, and again early in the sixteenth
century, for the printing of works in Arabic and in other Oriental
languages, but the total number of Arabic books issued appears to
have been small. Beginning with the year 1565, there are from time to
time examples of publications in Armenian. The list of musical works
produced and copyrighted during the century was large and important.

=The Inquisition.=--The first instance of trials undertaken in Venice
by the Holy Office for offences committed through the printing-press,
was in the year 1547. The list is closed in 1730 with the trial of
Giovanni Checcazzi. In the sixteenth century there were one hundred and
thirty-two cases; in the seventeenth, fifty-five, and in the eighteenth
but four. It is not clear whether the diminished activity of the
Inquisition during the later years was due to the increasingly hostile
attitude taken by the Government of Venice towards the Church of Rome
after 1596, or to the fact that the vigour of the Press prosecutions
during the last half of the sixteenth century had effectively stamped
out the publication in Venice of heretical and immoral publications.
The great activity of these prosecutions between 1549 and 1592,
was doubtless due to the dread of the Lutheran heresy, and of its
propagation throughout Italy by means of the printing-press.

Heretical books could be presented to the Holy Office by denunciations
submitted without signature. If the court held that there was
ground for prosecution, the charges were formulated and the accused
was directed to appear for his defence within eight days from the
publication of the summons. The writers and the printers of heretical
books appear to have been considered about equally guilty, while the
offence of keeping such books for sale (even though ignorance of their
contents could be shown) was also a very grave one. In the great
majority of cases, the accused allowed judgment to go by default.

=The Index and the Book-Trade.=--It is in connection with the _Index
Expurgatorius_ of Pope Clement and the _Concordat_ that the history of
publishing in Venice comes for the first time into touch with general
history. The claim of the Church to the supervision of all publications
soon became involved in the larger question of the relation between
Venice and Rome.

Paolo Sarpi, who became the champion of the cause of the independence
of the State against ecclesiastical domination, comes into the
history of literature as the upholder of the rights of authors and of
publishers against the crushing censorship of the Inquisition. The
problem presented to the Venetian Government was: whether the Venetian
Press, supported in its liberty by the Government, should continue to
maintain its character as the freest Press in Europe (and therefore one
with the most active production); or whether it should be permitted,
for want of the support of the Government, to fall under the repressive
influence of the Inquisition and the _Index_.

The earliest instance of a censorial order on the subject of books in
Venetian territory, and also in Italy, is the order issued in 1491 by
Franco, Bishop of Treviso and Papal Legate. This decree prohibited
anyone from printing, or from causing or permitting to be printed,
any books treating of the Catholic faith or of matters ecclesiastical,
without the express permission of the Bishop or Vicar-General of the
diocese. The Legate proceeded at once to name two works, Rosselli’s
_Monarchia_ and Mirandola’s _Theses_, which were absolutely prohibited,
and all existing copies of which were to be burned in the cathedral
or in the parish churches within fifteen days from the publication of
the decree.[153] There was no charge that these works were in any way
immoral or scandalous. They were condemned simply on the ground of the
unsoundness of their doctrine. The contention raised in this order on
behalf of the Church was far-reaching. If it were heretical to discuss,
in a sense at all hostile to the Curia, the relative powers of the
Pope and the Emperor, there would be an implied right in the Church to
censure and to condemn any political writings in which the authority of
the Pope or the responsibilities of the Emperor were referred to.

It became, in fact, the keystone of the ecclesiastical position that in
the case of the Church no separation was possible between politics and
ecclesiastical dogma. The work which had been condemned to the flames
had been dedicated to the Doge Foscari, but the Government appears to
have taken no notice of the Bishop’s decree.

In 1544, the University of Paris published a catalogue of books
adjudged worthy of censure, and, in 1546, the University of Louvain
issued a similar catalogue of books which had been condemned by its
Faculty of Theology. The first Italian catalogue or index of censurable
books was that of La Casa, printed in Venice, either in 1548 or in
1549. No copy is known to exist, and the precise date is a matter
of dispute. La Casa was the Papal Nuncio, and his catalogue may,
therefore, be considered as the act of the Holy See, differing in this
respect from the black lists issued in Louvain and in Paris.

In 1554, the Inquisition first takes action in regard to books,
publishing a catalogue based upon that of La Casa and the Milan _Index_
of Arcimboldi. This catalogue of the Inquisition was largely utilised
for the first _Index_ issued from Rome, that of Paul IV. In the year
1558, the Inquisition in Venice issued a decree forbidding importers
from taking any books out of bond until they had deposited with the
tribunal a full list of the books imported. Such a list rendered, of
course, comparatively easy the subsequent seizure in the shops of any
works considered heretical or suspicious. As, under the laws of 1562,
the Inquisition had secured the right to take part in the censorship
required for the _imprimaturs_, it now possessed supervision over all
the literature supplied to the Venetian public.

The first Roman _Index_ was that published in 1559 by Paul IV., under
the title of: _Index auctorum et librorum qui ab officio sanctæ Romanæ
et universalis Inquisitionis caveri ab omnibus et singulis in universa
Christiana Republica Mandantur._ The _Index_ was divided into three
lists: first, the names of those authors each and all of whose works,
whether published or to be published, were absolutely prohibited;
second, names of writers certain of whose works (the titles of which
were given) were prohibited; third, the titles of anonymous books
prohibited. At the close of the _Index_ appears a list of sixty-one
printers with a prohibition of all works printed by them. In this list
there is but one Venetian name, that of Francesco Riccioli. Throughout
Italy, the _Index_ was received either coldly or with hostility. The
Viceroy of Naples and the Governor of Milan refused to allow it to be
published in their dominions. In Venice it appears never to have been
in force, while the Government of Florence waited to see what action
would be taken in other countries. In Spain, permission to print the
_Index_ was refused, and in Paris it was never published.

In the year 1562, the Council of Trent turned its attention to the
question of book-trade, and, after a long discussion, appointed a
committee of eighteen members to examine into the subject, and to draft
a decree, together with a revised _Index_.

The _Tridentine Index_ is based upon the _Index_ of Paul IV. Both
devote almost their entire space to works of heresy, giving but
trifling consideration to the question of immoral literature. The
_Tridentine Index_ presents ten rules for guidance in the enlargement
and continuation of the _Index_. It introduces also the formula _donec
corrigatur_. This formula signified either a temporary or partial
prohibition of a work not absolutely condemned, or a conditional
permission for its continued sale, provided that, in all copies of
existing editions, the condemned passages were either blotted out or
corrected by pen, while in all subsequent editions they were to be
omitted or modified. The fifth rule provided that all booksellers must
have in their shops a list of the books which they kept on sale, such
list being signed by the Inquisitor and the Bishop’s delegate; and
they were forbidden to have, to sell, or to distribute any other books
than those on said list, under penalty of forfeiture of the books and
of such other punishment as might be ordered by the Inquisition. Under
the seventh rule, one who had imported books was forbidden to give or
to loan them for the reading of another, or to part with them in any
way without written permission. The eighth rule provided that heirs
were to submit to the authorities a list of books inherited by them,
before using or parting with any of them. The ninth rule gave to Bishop
and Inquisitors-General the authority to forbid within their diocese
or provinces books other than those which appeared in the _Index_.
This _Tridentine Index_ appears to have been recognised at once as the
authoritative utterance of the Church on the subject of books, and to
have been very generally circulated. It was printed in Venice by the
Aldine Press, and it was printed ten times subsequently between 1564
and 1593. The whole position of the censorship of the Press, as well
in Venice as in the other publishing centres of Italy, was essentially
modified through the publication of the _Tridentine Index_. The
coöperation or approval of the secular authority, which, in Venice at
least, had kept in its own hands the nominal control of the censorship,
was now disregarded; while the powers of the Inquisition and the range
of its detailed supervision were widely extended.

The stringent effects of the _Index_ and the _Rules_ soon made their
influence felt upon the publishing and book-selling trade throughout
Europe. In 1581, the Dominican Castiglione writes: “The Inquisitors
frequently publish orders forbidding the sale of this or that work.
The booksellers are no longer willing, therefore, to take the risk of
importing books, while they are frequently prevented from selling those
already in stock. There must be in Rome at present unsalable books to
the amount of several thousand scudi.”

As early, in fact, as 1565, just after the publication of the _Index_,
Josias Simler writes: “A new _Index_ has appeared wherein so many books
are condemned that a number of professors in the Italian universities
complain they cannot lecture if the edict remains in force. Frankfort
and Zurich and other German cities have written to the Senate of
Venice, urging it not to accept an edict whereby the book-trade will be
ruined.” As a matter of fact, the Italian book-trade with Germany was
all but destroyed, while the home book-trade was isolated and gradually
starved.

As it was in Venice that the importing as well as the publishing
business had been the most important, so it was the Venetian book-trade
which now suffered more seriously than that of any other Italian
city. The relations of Venice with Germany were particularly close,
and the annals of the Frankfort as well as of the Zurich publishers
give frequent instances of works of importance being undertaken in
coöperation with Houses in Venice, and of the division with such Houses
of editions of books which had already been printed.

The Venetian Government, however, accepted in full the authority of the
Council of Trent in the matter, and, in 1567, new regulations for the
book-trade were drawn up, based upon the ten _Tridentine Rules_. From
this date, the number of Holy Office trials for offences of the Press
shows a steady increase. In the year 1571, Pope Pius V. instituted
the Congregation of the _Index_ for the purpose of dealing with all
questions relating to the examination, prohibition, or expurgation of
books; and in the year 1588, Sixtus V. ordered the Congregation to draw
up a new and enlarged edition of the _Tridentine Index_. This contained
large additions to the lists of prohibited books, and amplified the ten
_Rules_ to twenty-two.

In 1596, appeared the _Clementine Index_, of Clement VIII., and shortly
thereafter, friction arose between Rome and Venice in connection with
the supervision of the Press. In 1593, Maximus Margounios, a learned
Greek, who was Bishop of Cythera, was resident in Venice, and was
engaged in editing numerous Greek works for the Venetian publishers.
He had made himself obnoxious to the authorities at Rome for certain
heretical utterances, and he was summoned to appear at the Vatican.
He declined to leave Venice and the Senate refused to give him up.
In July, 1593, Paruta, the Ambassador of Venice at the Vatican,
submitted to the Pope a vigorous protest against the publication of the
_Clementine Index_, which was then in readiness, but which the Pope was
still keeping under advisement. Paruta set forth before the Pope the
various grounds for objection to the proposed _Index:_

1st. The great commercial importance of the book-trade in Venice, which
he represented as exceeding that of any city in Europe;

2d. The contention that the book-trade was in itself worthy of
protection and consideration;

3d. That a sufficient censorship was already exercised by the
_imprimaturs_ of the Council of Ten, which were not conceded without
the _testamurs_ of the examiners, among whom was the Inquisitor;

4th. The fact that the publication of this _Index_ would destroy the
property and might cause the ruin of many who, believing it safe as
long as they kept within the regulations of the Council of Trent, had
published books which were now to be prohibited in the _Clementine
Index_;

5th. That the new _Index_ not only made long additions to the lists
of prohibited books, but proposed a radical change in the standard of
prohibition. A great number of books were now to be condemned which did
not touch at all upon ecclesiastical or religious questions, simply on
the ground of some trivial expressions having nothing to do with dogma;

6th. The importance for the Church of keeping the men of learning
throughout the world well affected, and the certainty that they would
be very much troubled by any measures which interfered with scholarly
undertakings and with the distribution of important literature.

Venetian publishers had interested themselves largely in the production
of non-religious books, such as editions of the classics, the writings
of the poets, and romances, and Paruta was especially anxious to
prevent this class of publications from being interfered with, and
took pains, therefore, to emphasise that it had no importance for
the purposes of the Church. The arguments of Paruta, and similar
protests which came to Rome from Germany and from Paris had the effect
of convincing the Pope that some modifications in his _Index_ were
necessary. The matter remained in abeyance for some four months longer,
when the _Index_ was finally printed, but much altered and diminished.
Among the omissions from the first lists were the titles of the whole
class of non-religious books printed in Venice, in behalf of which
Paruta had spoken.

In the year 1594, Clement VIII. granted to a Venetian publisher,
Domenico Bassa, a copyright of a very comprehensive character. It
covered, in the first place, a specific list of books (which was
attached to the order), and, secondly, all other books of which
Bassa should issue the first editions, and gave him full control
of the same for the term of ten years. Any persons infringing this
copyright were to be subjected to fines, confiscation of their books,
and excommunication. The privilege covered territory both within and
without Italy. The book-trade of Venice petitioned the Government
against the continuance of any such privilege, contending that it
was calculated to bring immoderate gains to one man, and that if
it were fully enforced, the Venetian publishers would be compelled
either to emigrate to Rome or to abandon their business. The Venetian
Government instructed its Ambassador, Paruta, to protest against
this extraordinary monopoly granted to Bassa, as well because of its
interference with interests of the home book-trade, as on the broader
ground that it was an assault upon the independence of the Republic. He
also contended that there was no precedent for the use in purely lay
matters of ecclesiastical weapons.

The Pope replied that according to his understanding, the copyright
given to Bassa applied only to books in the Vatican library, but that
he would refer the matter to the Congregation of the _Index_.

Paruta reported to his Government that Bassa was bankrupt, and that the
Venetian publishers need not fear his competition. It was, further,
his impression that Bassa had obtained the privilege principally as
a “bluff” to his creditors. The privilege was not recalled, but does
not appear ever to have been utilised by Bassa. Much to the discontent
of Venice, however, the precedent remained of authority claimed if not
exercised by Rome over copyrights throughout Italy. The _Clementine
Index_ was published in 1596, and, as finally framed, modified very
materially the severe regulations of the _Sistine Index_ of 1590.

Between the years 1564 and 1596, the Inquisitorial censorship of
books had been weighing more and more heavily on the publishers and
booksellers in Venice and throughout Italy. The _Indexes_ which had
appeared since the issue of La Casa’s Catalogue had so increased the
number of unpublishable books, many of them forming a large staple
in the trade of Venetian publishers, that the interests of these
publishers, and particularly their export trade, had suffered severely.
The attempt had been made to take away the right of the Venetian
printers to print Bibles and missals, and to restrict the printing of
such books to Rome. The business was interfered with for a time, but
the attempt to stop it altogether was in the end successfully resisted.

In spite of Paruta’s opinion that Venetian interests had been
sufficiently consulted, the printers and booksellers at once appealed
to the Senate for support against the new _Index_. The negotiations
lasted for some months, but in the end the Pope gave way on the more
important points complained of, and a Declaration or _Concordat_
was agreed upon which lessened, as far as Venice was concerned,
the stringency of some of the more objectionable features of the
_Index_. When this _Concordat_ had been signed, the Senate authorised
the publication of the _Index_. The most important clause in the
_Concordat_ was the seventh, which provided that the right of the
Bishops and Inquisitors to prohibit books which are not on the present
_Index_, should refer only to books which attacked religion, or which
were printed outside of Venice, or which were issued with a false
imprint. This right was to be exercised only on just cause shown, and
with the consent of the three lay assessors. This limitation of the
ecclesiastical Inquisition to purely religious or theological questions
constituted a most valuable precedent in the long fight between the
Church and the secular authorities concerning the control of the Press.
The fifth clause drew a nice distinction: Printers were forbidden to
use lascivious woodcuts, but they might use cuts which were profane
without being lascivious.

A few months before the arrangement of the _Concordat_, and while
the settlement was still pending, the Senate had published a decree
condemning the practice which had begun to come into vogue among the
publishers and printers of Venice of applying to Rome for privileges
and monopolies. The Senate announced that any privileges that had
been thus obtained must be renounced or they would be disregarded and
prohibited, under penalty of a fine of ten ducats, any future attempts
to secure, either directly or indirectly, publishing privileges from
any authority other than the officials appointed for the purpose by the
Government of the Republic.

The _Concordat_ was the last arrangement arrived at between Rome
and Venice on the matter of the supervision of the Press until the
year 1766. During the century and a half following the date of the
_Concordat_, repeated attempts were made by the Holy See to induce
the Venetian Government to authorise the publication of an augmented
_Index_, but the Republic had persistently refused. The list of new
prohibitions finally accepted in 1766 was announced as _juxta formam
concordatorum_.

The contest of 1596 gave evidence of a material change in the attitude
of Venice towards the Church since the passing of the law of 1562. The
tone of the Government had become suspicious and hostile. While it was
still ready to leave to the Church the responsibility of supervising
matters which were purely theological or dogmatic, it objected
decidedly to the attempts made by the Church to extend its control over
all classes of literature, and still more to the tendency of the Church
to utilise the censorship of literature as a means of asserting its
authority over the State as a whole.

The varying phases of the long contest between the Papacy and the other
Catholic States of the world, had of necessity an important influence
upon the stability and upon the value of literary property, and, in
fact, in not a few instances, upon its existence. When the promulgation
of a new _Index_ could, without warning, stop the sale and therefore
destroy the selling value of a book or of a series of books, the
readiness of the publishers to invest capital in literary undertakings
must have been not a little hampered, and the possibility of securing
from such undertakings any adequate returns for the authors was much
lessened.

The efforts of the Church to extend its control over all literature
and to enforce a general censorship which should expurgate and, if it
seemed necessary, re-shape books in every division of thought, hampered
enormously the development of literature and of publishing not only in
Italy but in Spain and France. In Germany and in England the Papacy
was never permitted to interfere seriously with the production or the
distribution of books.

It was not only in Venice and in Florence that the attempts of the
Church of Rome to enlarge its control over the Press excited active
opposition. King Philip II. had refused to permit the promulgation in
Spain of the _Tridentine Index_ and its ten _Rules_. He wrote to his
ambassador at Rome that, “Spain has her own special _Index_ and her own
special _Rules_ on the prohibition of books. It cannot be permitted to
Rome to place her under general orders. Books which in one country may
be innocuous, in another may be dangerous.”

Between 1596 and 1623, the contest of Venice to retain in the hands
of its own Government the control of its printing and publishing,
continued with varying success. The contention that it endeavoured to
establish was that the Holy Office was not and could not be a separate
and independent power in the State; but that the Inquisition could take
action in Venetian territory (in regard not only to the censorship
of books but to matters of any kind) only through the consent of the
Government.

The theory was that the Government could delegate some particular
function to be performed by an ecclesiastic official, and that (even
though such official should be selected by the Church) he would, in
fulfilling such function, be an officer of the State. Under such a
theory, the idea was preserved of the independence of the State.
This view of the organisation of the censorship was preserved under
the provisions of the _Concordat_, and the _Concordat_ soon became,
therefore, an object of attack by the Church. The further contention
of the Venetians that the duties of the ecclesiastical Inquisitor
should be limited to questions of theology and dogma could be more
easily evaded by the Church, for it raised the wide question--what is
heretical? and what is the limit of dogma?

In the face of many difficulties, however, the Republic succeeded for
some years in maintaining its position, and fought hard to protect
its book-trade from further burdens. After securing the _Concordat_
from an unwilling Pope, and insisting upon the enforcing of its
provisions, it succeeded in absolutely preventing any public and
official enlargement of the _Index_ within Venetian territory. It is
evident, notwithstanding, that even with the restricted powers conceded
by the _Concordat_, the _Index_, and the Inquisition were able largely
to increase the rigour of their censorship, and the results of their
supervision and interference were shown in the very considerable
decline in printing and publishing undertakings immediately after 1596.
Within a few months of the publication of the _Index_, and in spite of
the protection of the _Concordat_, the presses of Venice were reduced
from one hundred and twenty-five to forty. The copyright entries which,
in 1596, had aggregated twenty-four, amounted in 1597 to only seven.

It was evident that the attempts of the Republic to protect publishing
undertakings and to further literary production had not been
successful, and that the failure was in the main due to the relation
of the Venetians to the Church. The effect of the _Concordat_ in
lessening the burdens of the censorship under the _Index_ was in great
part nullified by the labours of the clergy, who, for the purpose of
carrying out the policy of the Church, made full use of the powerful
instrumentality of the confessional.

The confessors announced to their penitents that books condemned in
Rome were prohibited for believers; and as a rule such books, although
not included in any _Index_ accepted by the Republic, could find no
sale in Venice. While other causes also contributed to the extinction
of the prestige of the Venetian Press, and to the very great decline
in its business, the chief responsibility for such decline must rest
with the Church for its persistent hostility to the smallest measure of
freedom of the Press, and for its insistence upon restrictive measures
of censorship which were absolutely incompatible with publishing
activity and with literary production.

=The Interdict and Fra Paolo Sarpi.=--While the contest between Rome
and Venice had turned very largely upon questions connected with the
censorship of the Press, many other matters were involved which assumed
still larger proportions in the relations between the Church and the
Republic.

Between 1605 and 1650, a number of issues were fought over, issues
connected sometimes with the control by the State Government of
ecclesiastics accused of crimes or misdemeanours, sometimes with the
control exercised by the Church over ecclesiastical property within
the borders of the Republic, and again with the relations of the
Jesuits and Capuchins to the law of the State. Venice was fighting
for her civil and secular independence; while the Pope had declared
his position when he announced that he would not submit to be Pope
everywhere save in Venice. Paul addressed a _monitorium_ to the clergy
of Venice, threatening excommunication to the Doge and Senate and
interdict upon the Republic. The Doge forbade the publication of the
_monitorium_, and the excommunication and interdict came into operation.

While all the business of the Republic necessarily suffered, its export
trade in books was, for a time, brought practically to a standstill.
The interdict lasted for a little more than a year, when it was finally
removed under a compromise settlement brought about through the French
Ambassador.

The most prominent figure in the whole of the struggle of this period
between Venice and the Papacy was Fra Paolo Sarpi. Cleric though he
were, he contended vigorously that the Church was embarking upon a
wrong course, and he held that the State was justified in resisting,
in secular matters, ecclesiastical encroachments upon the rights of
the sovereign. In the end, notwithstanding some temporary success
on the part of the State Governments of Italy, the Papacy succeeded
in establishing nearly all of its contentions, including a rigorous
censorship of the Press and the resulting limitations in literary
activities.

The fight made by Sarpi on behalf of the independence of the State, and
particularly of the right of the State to supervise and control its
literary productions was, notwithstanding, of first importance for
the intellectual activities of Europe. The arguments used in Venice
were repeated in Madrid, Paris, Zurich, and Oxford. Time was gained for
authors and for printers until, largely by means of the presses which
the Church was endeavouring to throttle, the spirit of resistance to
the domination of the Papacy and the feeling of national independence
against the right of Rome to lay down the law for Europe had gathered
so much strength that the claims of the Church were either withdrawn or
very much moderated.

In 1602, an instance occurred of censorship on the part of the Church
not for the expression of heretical opinions, but for the omission from
a work of authority of certain passages which the Church considered to
be important. The work was a commentary by Suarez on the Tractate _De
Censuris_ of Thomas Aquinas. The permission to the booksellers Ciotto
and Franceschi to print the volume was given by the Venetian censorship
only on condition of the omission of the passages in question. The
Congregation of the _Index_ at Rome thereupon forbade said booksellers
to continue the printing of the work (the publication of which was
stigmatised as a _crimen falsi_) under penalty of excommunication.

The omitted passages contained attacks upon the temporal authority
of princes. Sarpi pointed out that the formula of the _imprimatur_
was unwisely worded, in that it expressed the “approbation” of the
Government for the works issued, thus assuming on the part of the State
a practical approval of the doctrines contained in such work. The term
should, he suggested, be modified to “with the permission.”

In 1611, Thomas Preston, writing under the _nom de plume_ of Roger
Widdrington, published his _Apologia Cardinalis Bellarmini_, and in
1613, his _Disputatio Theologica_. Both works were placed on the
_Index_ by a special decree of the Congregation, _Nisi auctor quam
primum se purgaverit_.

The Nuncio in Venice begged that the decree might be published and
enforced upon Venetian booksellers. The Government, acting under
Sarpi’s advice, refused to allow the prohibition to take effect in
Venice, on the two grounds that the theological doctrines taught by
Widdrington were sound and orthodox, and that his arguments against the
pernicious doctrine of the temporal authority of the Pope over princes
were eminently worthy of dissemination. It will be noted that the
Nuncio had in his application expressly conceded one of the principal
contentions of the Republic that no Roman prohibition was valid in
Venice until confirmed by the Government.

In 1615, Andrea Morosini completed his History of Venice, in which
he had occasion to deal with the question of Interdict. The Venetian
Inquisition refused to sign the _testamur_, which was requisite before
the Council of Ten could grant an _imprimatur_. Paolo Morosini, who
was in charge of his brother’s work, appealed to the Senate, and
secured a declaration to the effect that the narrative in the History
was an exact and trustworthy account, that the Inquisitor drew his
authority to act from no other power than the Republic, that that
authority extended only to the supervision of books having to do with
questions of faith, and that no such questions came into the History.
The Government thereupon ordered the immediate publication of the book
without the _testamur_, and with the words _superiorum permissu_. It
is to be noted that the prohibition of Rome probably prevented the
sale of the book in Italy outside of Venice, and must, therefore, have
materially lessened the prospects of profit for author or publisher.

There were also instances of books which were approved by the Church
but the publication of which was considered detrimental to the
interests of the State, and their sale in Venice was accordingly
prohibited. One book of this class was the _Recantation_ of the
Archbishop of Spalato, printed in Rome in 1623, by the Apostolic
printers. The Republic objected to the contention of the Archbishop
that the Pope had power in things temporal as well as in things
spiritual.

A second example is the _History of the Council of Trent_, by Cardinal
Pallavicini, written in answer to Sarpi’s History. Through the Venetian
Ambassador at Rome, Pallavicini made application for permission to sell
his book in Venice. The application was refused on the ground that
the History contained sentiments obnoxious to the Government of the
Republic.

In a report written to the Government by Sarpi at this time, he takes
the ground that the tendency on the part of the Church during the
past few years has produced a whole series of books whose doctrines
are entirely subversive of all secular government. They teach that no
government but the ecclesiastical has a divine origin; that secular
government is a thing profane and tyrannical which God permits to
be imposed upon His people as a kind of trial or persecution; that
the people are not in conscience bound to obey the secular law or to
pay taxes; that the imposts and public subventions are, for the most
part, iniquitous and unjust, and that the princes who impose these
have in many cases been excommunicated, and that because of such
excommunication of princes, death, want, and other public misfortunes
have come upon their communities. In short, princes and rulers are
held up to view as impious and unjust; subjects may have to obey them
perforce, but, in conscience, they are free to do all that in them lies
to break their yoke.

Sarpi goes on to point out that the prince who had first perceived
the danger was Philip II. of Spain. The only books that he allowed
to remain under the censorship of the Inquisition were missals,
breviaries, and school-books. The censorship of all other literature
was confided to a commission appointed by himself. Sarpi recalls that
this had been the course taken also by the Republic, and emphasises
the importance on the part of the Republic of retaining in its own
hands a similar control of literary censorship. Sarpi closes his report
by recommending the establishment of a code of general rules, behind
which the ducal secretary can shelter himself from the importunate, the
interested, and the over-zealous, and by means of which a consistent
censorship policy can be maintained.

While Sarpi’s main purpose was the maintaining the independence of the
State against the encroachments of the Papacy, the principles for which
he contended were of first importance for the prosperity and, in fact,
for the continued existence of the Venetian publishing interest. Unless
the burden of Papal censorship could be lessened, literary production
in Venice must cease. In the schemes submitted to the Government for
a code of general rules by which was to be directed the system of
political censorship, Sarpi specified four classes of writers whose
books, in his judgment, ought to be placed upon the _State Index_:

I. Those who attack the Constitution of the Republic and its laws by
name; II. Those who attack the laws and constitution adopted by the
Republic without naming her; III. Those who, even within the limits of
fair controversy, argue against the legislation of the State; IV. Those
who attack no laws of the State, but who broadly maintain the absolute
and universal superiority of the ecclesiastical over the temporal
authority.

Sarpi further contended that “In the correction of books which are
open to censure, it is not advisable to follow the practice of the
Church in raking through the entrails of an author and altering the
sense and the intention of whole passages, so that the writer is made
to say the reverse of what he desired to say; first, because all the
world stigmatises such action as falsification; secondly, because such
conduct would bring upon Venice the infamous charge of castrating
books; thirdly, because the Court of Rome assumes for itself the sole
right to alter passages in books.” Sarpi concludes his report by
submitting ten propositions, upon which he recommends the Government to
take action:

I. The _Index_ of 1595, having received the consent of the Prince, the
books which appear upon it must remain there. II. For the future, no
prohibition is to be permitted unless corroborated by public authority,
as agreed upon in the _Concordat_. III. If ecclesiastics ask civil
authorities for support in prohibition of heretical works, it must
be granted to them after the works have been examined. IV. Under the
title of heresy, dogmatical support of civil authority in its own
proper sphere, is not to be included. V. Foreign books inimical to
good government are to be absolutely prohibited. VI. In the reprints
of books, nothing favourable to good government is to be removed. VII.
In issuing these reprints, the old editions, before the ecclesiastical
expurgations were made, are to be used. VIII. In printing the
_Index_ of 1595, no new names are to be allowed to creep in. IX. The
prohibitions of the Inquisitor shall be confined entirely to heretical
works. X. The _Concordat_ shall always be printed along with the
_Index_.

As well from these propositions as from the general course of the long
controversy, it is evident that Venice was, ostensibly at least, as
anxious as the Church could be for the purity of the Press. In fact,
judging from the _Indexes_, this point had not caused the Church any
particular anxiety. The unsettled question was, which should exercise
the censorship over the offences of libel, scandal, and obscenity--the
Church or the State. It was the opinion of Sarpi that all such books
should be absolutely prohibited. The risk, as emphasised by Sarpi, was
that the _Concordat_ might fall into desuetude, leaving the Venetian
Press completely under the control of the Inquisition and deprived of
the bulwark which the State had secured for its defence.

The future justified his dread. The heat of the quarrel died away, and
the _Concordat_ was substantially forgotten. The Inquisition secured
full control of the censorship. The Press of Venice came under the
influence of the _Index_ and the _Rules_. Its losses were greater than
those of the other Presses that the Council of Trent had undertaken to
regulate, for the reason that it had so much more to lose. From the
beginning of the seventeenth century, the Venetian Printing-Press,
although not destroyed, ceases to hold preëminence in Europe.

In 1601, the Senate took serious alarm at the emigration of the
publishers and the printers. The latter took with them even the
materials of their trade, their type, presses, and ink. A drastic law
was at once passed making it illegal for any printer to leave Venice
without the written authority of the Government, and prescribing severe
penalties for any who undertook to sell for export the materials and
instruments used in printing. This measure, severe as it was, appears
not to have proved effective in checking the decline of printing, and,
in 1603, the Senate undertook a general reform of the art. The new
regulations included the following provisions:

None but official proof-readers were to be employed by the printers.
These proof-readers were to be appointed by the _Rifformatori_. The
manuscript copy and proofs were to be preserved as evidence that no
alterations had been made after the examination for the _imprimatur_.
A fine of twenty-five ducats was to be imposed upon every printer who
should place the name _Venetia_ on books not printed in Venice.

Terms of copyright were fixed as follows:

In the case of first editions for which the necessary _testamur_ and
_imprimatur_ had been secured, the publisher or printer securing the
first registry was to have a copyright for twenty years.

For books printed in Italy but not in Venice, the publisher who should
secure a Venetian registry with the Guild was to have a copyright for
ten years. A similar copyright was given for the reissue of books that
had not been printed in Venice during the preceding twenty years. For
new editions of books which had not been printed in Venice during the
preceding ten years, a copyright of five years was to be conceded.
All terms of copyright depended upon the condition that the printing
was begun at once and was continued at the rate of not less than half
a folio a day. There was a long list of regulations concerning the
standard and quality of the paper, ink, and type. Books which were
found after publication to be badly printed or full of typographical
errors were to forfeit their copyright.

The measure was a comprehensive one, and ought to have proved of
service in restoring the quality of Venetian editions if its provisions
could have been enforced. There appears, however, to have been a lack
of adequate machinery for such enforcement.

It was evidently intended that the Guild should become a sort of
Stationers’ Hall for the registration of copyrights. No such register
is now in existence, and there is some doubt as to its ever having
actually been created.

In 1614, a new office was created in addition to the number already
charged with the supervision of the Press. The incumbent was called
the Superintendent of the Press, and his special duty appears to have
been the passing upon the printers’ “copy” before this was put into
the hands of the typesetters. In 1653, a fresh attempt was made to
strengthen the Guild of Printers, for the purpose as well of improving
the quality of Venetian printing, as of checking the increasing
importations of foreign books. The tax on imported books was raised to
eight ducats ($18) per hundred pounds.

In 1671, there were increasing complaints concerning the bad
workmanship and inaccurate typography of Venetian editions, and also
as to the non-delivery of the copyright copies for the libraries of
S. Mark and of Padua. The failure to secure obedience to the various
provisions of the press-law is not to be wondered at when we remember
how complex these provisions were, and that there was practically no
police machinery to utilise for their enforcement.

At the close of the seventeenth century, the following processes had
to be gone through with before a book could be published: _testamur_
from the Inquisitor; _testamur_ from the ducal secretary; certificate
from the _Rifformatori_ of the University of Padua; _imprimatur_ from
the Chiefs of the Ten; revision by the Superintendent of the Press;
revision by the public proof-reader; collation of the original text
with the text as printed by the secretary to the _Rifformatori_;
certificate from the librarian of S. Mark that a copy had been
deposited in the library; examination by experts appointed by the
_Proveditori_ to establish the market price of the book.

In connection with the majority of these operations a fee was
required. The failure to secure any one of the several _testamurs_
or _imprimaturs_ delayed or indefinitely blocked the publication of
the book. This stopping of the publication might be made necessary
only after a considerable outlay had been incurred by the publisher
in addition to the expenditure of labour and time on the part of the
author. It is not to be wondered at that with such heavy burdens
and annoying obstacles literary production should have lessened,
and publishing enterprise and investment have been checked. It is
only surprising that under such a complex machinery of supervision
publishing should have continued possible at all. It is certain that
the possibility of securing from the business remunerative returns had,
by the close of the seventeenth century, very much diminished, and
that there must have been a corresponding reduction in the earnings
of literary labour. By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the
centre of literary production and of publishing activity had been
transferred from Italy to Germany, from Venice and Rome to Zurich,
Frankfort, and Leipzig.

=The Printers’ Guild and Press Legislation.=--The Venetian Guild of
Printers and Booksellers, while nominally given a very general control
over the printing and publishing operations in the Republic, was never
in a position to exercise so direct an effective influence over this
business as had been secured by the similar English Guild chartered in
1556, under the name of “Stationers’ Hall.” It would appear that the
printing and publishing trade had never given the same hearty support
to their organisation as had been given to the early printers of
London. It is certain that the Guild was not well governed by its own
officers, as from year to year we find in the records long declarations
of abuses which had arisen.

Even the yearly election of officers fell into neglect, and it
sometimes happened that the same officials remained in office, without
the formality of re-election, for six or seven years running. It was
only a very strong and thoroughly supported trade body that could have
secured for itself the right to take an active part in coöperation
with, or in antagonism to, the representatives of the Church on the
one hand or of the State on the other, in framing the long series of
regulations concerning copyright, literary property, press supervision,
and typographical standards.

The Guild of Venice did not have the continued sturdiness and
self-assertion requisite for maintaining such influence. Its principal
attention was given to shaping new taxes and new hindrances upon the
importation of books from abroad, and to attempts, often fruitless, to
prevent the migration from Venice of the more enterprising members of
its own body. A very much larger influence was exercised upon the Press
legislation of its time by the associated printers and publishers of
Frankfort and Leipzig, and by the well organised Printer-publishers
of Paris. The interference of the Church in the German publishing
centres was never very serious; while in Paris the supervision of the
ecclesiastics was, from the outset, overshadowed by the controlling
influence (often fussy and bothersome) of the Parliament of Paris.

In spite of feeble and ineffective management, however, the Guild of
Venice accumulated property; and in 1638, it was rich enough to plan
for the purchase of a Guild Hall, which was finally opened in 1642. The
hall formed part of the cloisters attached to the Monastery of S. John
and S. Paul, and was leased in perpetuity.

It was apparently in keeping with the general attitude of the Press
of Italy towards the Church, that its first headquarters should have
been under an ecclesiastical roof. The Guild of Venice was the only
book-trade association in Europe the home of which was not entirely
under secular control. Unfortunately for Venice, the lease of these
convent premises had been made in perpetuity, and perpetual also was
the obligation assumed with the premises to perform in them each
year a specific number of masses. The expense account of the Guild
increased from year to year, and this increasing outlay made requisite
an increase in the membership list. The number of members who belonged
during the first year of organisation appears to have been about
eighty. The average membership during the succeeding years until 1732
was from three hundred to four hundred. In this year, the Guild took
into its ranks, in addition to the master-printers and booksellers,
master-binders.

In 1667, the Guild printed the examination paper prepared for those
seeking matriculation as booksellers. This paper probably covered
in substance the same range of subjects and the same standard of
proficiency as had been in vogue for a number of years previous to
its publication. The following are the principal questions for which
answers were required:

    1st. Name the principal bibles (doubtless the principal editions of
    the Bible).

    2d. Name the principal Saints and Fathers, both Greek and Latin.

    3d. Name the principal expositors of Holy Writ.

    4th. Name the principal theologians, controversialists, and
    polemical writers.

    5th. Name the principal writers in ecclesiastical history.

    6th. Name the ancient writers on philosophy and history; also
    the principal poets, tragic as well as comic, in Greek and Latin
    literature.

    7th. Name the principal writers on the law of nature, the law of
    nations, on civil and canon law, on philosophy, metaphysics, and
    ethics.

    8th. Name the principal geographers, Greek, Latin, Italian, and
    French (the geographical science of Germany, which had already
    produced some of the most trustworthy maps in existence, was
    apparently not appreciated).

    9th. Name the principal historians, ancient and modern,
    letter-writers, antiquarians, numismatists, mathematicians,
    physicians, surgeons, anatomists, and jurists.

    10th. Name the principal writers on the fine arts, painting,
    sculpture, and architecture, civil and military.

    11th. Name the principal writers on natural history and botany.

Further, all candidates must be able to read and write Italian
fluently, and must have a thorough knowledge of Latin and a working
knowledge of French. Greek was not required, but was commended as a
useful accomplishment. (In the retail shop attached to the office
of Aldus, one or more salesmen had been required who could talk
intelligently to Greek scholars about their editions of the Greek
classics; but this was two hundred and thirty years earlier.) In
addition to the above series of questions on scholarship, the examiners
were instructed to make test of the candidates’ practical knowledge of
the methods of booksellers’ business.

If these examinations were carried out with any degree of thoroughness,
the booksellers of Venice must assuredly have been entitled to rank
with the scholars of the world. We find no such high standards enforced
in Paris, Leipzig, or in London, although in the two former publishing
centres at least, the standard of scholarly attainment and of general
knowledge of literature in the book-trade has always been high.

It is hardly necessary to remark that the application of any such
severe test to the booksellers of to-day would empty the bookshops of
nearly all of the trade centres of the world, leaving a dozen or more
exceptions among the older traders in the University towns of North
Germany.

The examinations for master-printers were also, if we may trust the
records, both comprehensive and thorough. We have already seen,
however, that notwithstanding examinations and regulations, the Guild
had not succeeded in keeping Venetian printing of the seventeenth
century up to the standard established by Aldus and his associates at
the beginning of the sixteenth. In the year 1767, the _Rifformatori_
turned their attention to the over-crowding and overproduction in the
book-trade, declaring it to be their intention to regulate the supply
through the demand. The first clause of the law of July 29th forbids
the articling of new apprentices for the ensuing fifteen years. Sons
and heirs are prohibited from entering the Guild during the lifetime
of their fathers or those whom they will succeed. No one may open a
shop or establish a press without first satisfying the magistracy that
there is room or need for such shop or press. Booksellers or printers
of the mainland who wish to enter the Guild in Venice, must close their
mainland shop or press before they can be admitted. The copyright in
new books, which, by the law of 1603, had been fixed at twenty years’
duration is now extended to thirty years, and for reissues it is
extended from ten to thirteen years. Venetian printers must reach the
market through Venetian book-sellers, and are forbidden to sell to
foreign booksellers or to dealers in Venice not members of the Guild.

Notwithstanding all this elaborate provision, the influence of the
Guild steadily declined, and the book-trade of Venice failed to regain
its old-time prosperity. In 1780, the _Rifformatori_ had before them
for consideration the treatment to be accorded to the bankrupt members
of the Guild. Insolvent members, while relieved from their Guild taxes,
were excluded from all active share in its management. In 1782, the
cashier of the Guild is empowered to advance money to poor members who
need funds to develop their plant and to put their presses in order. In
the same year, the Government fixed a standard of quality below which
no paper used by the printer must fall, under penalty of confiscation
of the edition in which the inferior paper was used.

The Guild survived the fall of the Republic in 1796, and in March,
1799, the Provisional Government undertook the direct control of the
Press, re-affirming its ancient provisions and regulations in the
matter of licensing books, of internal police, and of supervision.
Brown says that it is not clear whether the Guild was suppressed or
whether it died a natural death. The last document in the minute book
is dated 1806, and after that date our knowledge ceases. It was in
March, 1806, that Venice was formally annexed to the Kingdom of Italy,
as organised by Napoleon. It is probable that any independence of
action on the part of the organisation of Printers and Publishers was
found incompatible with the Napoleonic system of the control of the
Press.

In summing up the history of the operations of the book-trade of
Venice, Brown remarks upon the constant lamentation on the part of the
Government that the art of printing was decaying. He is inclined to
doubt, however, whether such dread was well founded. Unquestionably
it was the case that Venice no longer held a place of prominence for
the finest class of printing, and there were no adequate successors
to Jenson, John of Speyer, and Aldus Manutius, whose work would be
accepted by the book-lovers of Europe as a model of typography. There
was, however, a continued activity in printing as a trade, although
there might be less interest in printing as an art, and the demand for
cheap books, as well among Venetians as among the customers of Venice,
had very largely increased between the beginning of the seventeenth and
the end of the eighteenth century.

We find references from time to time to the rush of competitors to
republish a book the copyright of which had expired. The long series of
restrictions imposed by the ecclesiastics upon the printing of certain
classes of books, are in themselves evidence of the extent of the
dread felt by the Church concerning the influence to be exercised by
these books upon the general public, and we must infer that the public
demand for cheap books was steadily increasing, and that an effective
book-selling and distributing machinery had been organised. The Church
assuredly did all that was practicable to hamper the development of the
new art, and succeeded, at least to the extent of transferring from
Italy to Switzerland and to Germany the centre of literary production
and of publishing activity.

It is to be noted that throughout the entire series of Venetian laws
on copyright, there is no explicit statement that the property in a
work belongs to its author. Such a conclusion is fairly to be inferred
from the sense of many of the regulations, but it would appear that
it had been arrived at rather by implication or had been accepted as
something not necessary to define but in the nature of a truism or a
self-evident fact. If this view of the purport of Venetian law be
sound, it follows that, in Italy at least, literary property cannot be
considered to have been the creation of law. It is safe here to use the
term Italy, although the reference has been only to the law of Venice,
for the reason that, as far as the regulation of literary property
was concerned, Venetian legislation was much more comprehensive and
specific than that of any other Italian State.

An act of the Venetian Senate passed on the 11th of March, 1780,
presents sufficient evidence that the Government understood the
ownership of a literary production to be vested in its author. This act
declares _il privilegio prima d’essere perpetuo per suo posseditore,
l’era per l’autore dell’ opera, qualunque egli fosse, come si è sempre
praticato_. In September, 1781, the Rifformatori of the University of
Padua, in the case of Pezzani, pronounced that _il privilegio accordato
alla stampa diventa dovuto premio all’ autore_.

A phrase in the decree of the _Rifformatori_ of 1780 might, if
taken alone, be construed as constituting or conferring a perpetual
copyright. This would, however, not be the practical working of the
decree, as the requirement for a _nuova licenza colle solite forme_
necessitated an application for renewal every five years, and unless
the licence could be renewed, the ownership in the literary property as
such would naturally lapse. In 1789, the question was more definitely
settled by one of the laws framed under the Provisional Government
(which succeeded the Republic), which re-enacted the provision of the
Act of 1603, whereby all books whose privileges (or copyrights) had
expired became public property.

A distinctive feature in all periods of the Press legislation of
Venice, was the apparent inefficiency of the law, in spite of its
constant interference and its many excellent provisions, to correct the
abuses at which it aimed. The difficulty was partly due to the lack
of adequate public opinion, and partly to the absence of any police
machinery. It was also the case that the legislation was probably too
paternal and unduly officious, so that the industry became checked
by a multiplicity of laws relating to every conceivable phase of its
existence. When, in addition to the legislation which was intended to
further the business of printing and publishing, was added the complex
series of ecclesiastical censorship restrictions, it is only surprising
that any wholesome vitality for the book-trade was possible at all.

=The Last Contest with Rome.=--In 1765, the Senate was again concerned
with the old subject of the deterioration of the Venetian Press. A
report was presented by the _Rifformatori_ of the University from which
it appears that the number of presses had fallen from seventy-seven in
1752 to fifty in 1765, and in which it was contended that the quality
of the printing done had suffered as much as the quantity. In former
years, said the report, the books called for by the Italian market
were printed in Venice, and the booksellers in other cities devoted
themselves principally to keeping depots for the sale of Venetian
editions. Now, however, Leghorn, Lucca, Parma, Modena, and Bologna
print their own books, and even refuse to accept Venetian editions in
exchange, but demand payment in money. Venice no longer fills the place
of mistress of the trade of book-production, but has become simply a
retailer.

The _Rifformatori_ concluded that the evil was partly due to the lack
of a sufficiently high standard of workmanship among the printers,
but that its chief cause was the lack of desirable new literature
with which to keep the presses occupied. The demand for reissues of
the classics had been in great part supplied, while the production
of original works had been seriously hampered and discouraged by the
continuous interference of the Church and the serious obstacles and
burdens imposed through the _Indexes_, the _Rules_, and the cumbersome
machinery of the ecclesiastical censorship.

The _Rifformatori_ recommended, among other measures, that the
_Concordat_ and the _Index_ of 1595 should again be published, if only
to prove that all works subsequently placed upon the _Index_ without
the consent of the Government were not prohibited in Venice but could
be freely printed, bought, and sold; that the name of Venice should be
printed on the title-pages of all Venetian productions; that printers
and publishers should be forbidden to seek the _testamur_ of the
Inquisitor for the reissue in Venice of books first printed abroad, but
that these works should be licensed directly by the Government after
an examination of them by certain faithful and learned persons. It was
evidently the object of the _Rifformatori_ to secure for the Venetian
Press the large business of supplying the markets of Italy with
editions of works by foreign authors, the literary activity of Italy
being at that time evidently insufficient to keep the printers occupied.

The recommendation of the _Rifformatori_ that the censorship privilege
heretofore exercised by the ecclesiastical Inquisitor should be brought
to an end was certain, if adopted, to bring the Republic into renewed
conflict with the Church.

This recommendation, however, together with all the others in the
report, were passed upon with approval by the local advisers of the
Senate. In August, 1765, the Senate issued a decree instructing the
_Rifformatori_ to publish and to circulate the _Index_ of Clement
and the _Concordat_, and also providing that the Rifformatori should
appoint an ecclesiastic, a subject of Venice, as an equal associate
with the Inquisitor, whose _testamur_ as to matters of faith and
doctrine should have equal weight with that of the Inquisitor. The
publication of this decree caused no little excitement in Rome,--and
a decree was at once issued by the Papal Court prohibiting the sale
or circulation of all books licensed by the newly-appointed Venetian
officers. Any such books found on the frontier of the Papal States were
to be seized and consigned to that part of the convent libraries known
as the “prison and hell of heretics.” In July, 1766, the Papal Nuncio
made a formal protest to the Government of the Republic and demanded
the withdrawal of the decree of 1765.

The issue between the Republic and the Papacy was not whether heretical
publications should be repressed, for Venice declared itself as much
opposed as Rome to books destructive of sound doctrine. The contest
turned upon the selection of the authority that should decide what
was heretical or dangerous. The Republic had from the outset claimed
that all authority for censorship and for licensing must proceed from
the Church, and while it was prepared to make use of ecclesiastical
censors, these must be appointed by the civil government. The present
decree expressed, it was contended, merely a reaffirming of the
original policy. The Papacy, on the other hand, maintained that the
authority of the Holy Writ, of the Fathers, and of the Councils proved
that the duty of keeping the flock from poisonous food was entrusted to
the Church.

The Senate referred the demand of the Papacy to Pietro Francheschi for
counsel, and he prepared a report in which the case of the State was
forcibly stated. The position of Venice had, it was contended, not
changed at all from the time when, with the introduction of printing,
some system of Press supervision had been found to be necessary. She
still claims to be the faithful child of the Church, while maintaining
her right also to be _Principe libero in casa sua_.

The issue had thus been fairly presented on the part of the two
parties but no conclusion was reached, and it is probable that with
such different points of view, and with a lack of accord even upon
such primary terms as “dogma,” “heresy,” and “orthodoxy,” no agreement
that was both logical and equitable could have been reached, even if
more time had been available for the discussion. The decree of August,
1765, was never withdrawn, and the place of Inquisitor as censor of
books upon matters of faith was taken by persons appointed by the
_Rifformatori_ of the University. In the year 1794, the Commissioners
of Heresy (_Savii sopra l’Eresia_) requested an opinion from these
University censors upon the _Institutiones Theologicæ_ of De Montazet,
Archbishop of Lyons, which had been censured at Rome in 1792. As a
result of their report, the Government refused to sanction the decree
of the Congregation of the _Index_.

Such an instance can be accepted as evidence that the Press of
Venice had at last secured freedom from the censorship of Rome. The
revolutionary spirit which was agitating all Europe, and which in
France had for the time completely overthrown both Church and monarchy,
must have seriously weakened the control of the Papacy over the Italian
States, and doubtless exercised no little influence in this final
contest between the ecclesiastical censorship and the printing-press.

Venice did not long enjoy this freedom. In 1797, the Republic fell,
and with the establishment of French rule, the history of Venetian
legislation concerning literary property comes to an end.

This record of the Venetian Printing-Press, including its relations
with the Government, the Church, and the public, covers, as we have
seen, a period of about three centuries, from 1490 to 1797. It is,
as said, based upon, and in part abstracted from, the erudite and
comprehensive history of Brown. I have thought best to confine the
narrative to Venice on several grounds. Venice was the first city in
Italy, and practically the first in Europe, in which the printing
and publishing business became of importance. For the first century
of the period above referred to, it was the chief publishing centre
of the world. In Venice, came together skilled printers from Germany
and learned scholars from the ruins of the Eastern Empire, and the
development of the Venetian Press was encouraged and in part made
possible by the support of certain cultivated members of the Italian
nobility, a nobility which, during the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, probably possessed a greater measure of intellectual
refinement and scholarly taste than could be shown at the time by the
noble classes of any other country of Europe.

The comparatively secluded position of Venice preserved it from many
of the interruptions of foreign invasions and interstate strifes to
which nearly all the other cities of Italy were subject. All classes
of business were of necessity seriously interfered with, and often for
the time entirely destroyed by the desolating influence of war in the
form either of defensive campaigns against Germany, France, or Spain,
or of the many little contests of the cities with each other; while for
literary activity and for the production and distribution of books,
conditions of warfare were nearly fatal. It is surprising that during
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it should have proved possible
to have carried on as much book business as was done in such cities as
Lucca, Florence, and Pisa.

During these centuries, however, Venice, protected by her lagoons,
never felt the foot of an invader, and while her trade through Italy
had to take its share of the interruptions caused by the many wars, her
traffic by sea was rarely interfered with. It was doubtless in part
also this position of independence which enabled Venice to withstand
the encroachments of the Papacy, and alone among Italian cities to
preserve in its own hands even a partial control of its Press. This
Press was, of course, very far from being free, the censorship on
the part of the State, and the ecclesiastical censorship exercised
either by authority of or in spite of the authority of the State,
being often severe, and always cumbersome, irritating, and expensive,
and interfering enormously with the value of literary production
as property. The Venetian Press possessed, however, a far greater
measure of freedom than had been secured by the printer-publishers of
any other Italian city, and this was probably the chief cause of its
long-continued preëminence.

The general course of the legislation in Venice for the supervision of
the Press and for the encouragement and protection of literary workers
and of publishers, was similar in character to that of the other
Italian cities in which attention was given to printing. The literary
legislation of Venice was, however, more comprehensive in its character
and more consistent in its purposes than that of other Italian States,
while the records of it are also among the most complete, and, thanks
to the scholarly diligence of Mr. Brown, are now accessible to the
unscholarly reader.

This abstract of the history of the Venetian Printing-Press has,
therefore, been given as presenting a sketch of the history of literary
property in Italy for the three centuries covering the period from the
introduction of printing to the destruction of the Venetian Republic.

The enactments in Italy relating to literary property are not again of
any very distinctive importance until after the establishing, in 1859,
of the Italian Kingdom.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER II.

PRIVILEGES AND REGULATIONS IN GERMANY.

1450-1698.


FROM the time of the invention of printing, about 1450, to the end of
the fifteenth century, the works of living authors played practically
no part in the German book-trade, and the question of commercial
results for their writers did not call for consideration. The printers
and publishers of this period busied themselves almost exclusively
in putting into print the manuscripts of the earlier ages. In this
class of undertakings the principal task was to secure through the
collation of different manuscripts an authoritative and trustworthy
text, and the literary service required was not that of an author but
of an editor. It is the contention of Schurmann and of other German
historians that in the folio and quarto reprints of the fifteenth
century German printers took the lead, and that their preëminence was
hardly contested by the other printers of Europe until the time of the
Reformation. This view, however, fails to do justice to the importance
of the scholarly labours of Aldus of Venice, who was unquestionably
the leading publisher of the fifteenth and early sixteenth century. As
previously pointed out, Luther was probably the first German author to
draw attention to the iniquity of literary piracy, and to prophesy the
evils that must result to the development of German literature unless
legislation could be secured that would make a substantial recognition
of the property rights of literary producers. He took the ground
that such recognition could not be adequately given by the system of
privileges, the tendency of which was to narrow instead of to widen
the conception of literary property. He emphasised also the right of
the author to come into direct relations with his reader, and by means
of his personal control of all the editions circulated of his works to
preserve his text from corruption (_Text-Verfälschung_) and to have the
assurance that the words that came to the reader were the words that
had originally been written by the author.

Luther’s interest in this question of the correctness of the text was,
in fact, much keener than in regard to the remuneration of the author,
and he was even ready to give his aid to unauthorised issues of his
own writings by correcting the proofs of the same. The accuracy of
the text was, of course, of special importance in connection with the
vital subjects which Luther was presenting to the attention of his
readers, and was also the more difficult of attainment on account of
the material differences at that time existing between the dialects of
North and South Germany.

He writes in 1524: “_Des falschen Druckens und Bücherverderbens
fleissingen sich jetzt viele_.”[154] (There are many now busying
themselves with the spoiling of books through misprinting them.)

Literary piracy in Germany may be said to have begun almost at once
with the invention of printing. Before manuscript copies had been
replaced by printed books, the possession of a manuscript was held to
carry with it the right to make copies of the same _ad libitum_. As a
very natural, though hardly warranted consequence of this practice,
the possession of a printed copy of a work was for a considerable
time also believed to carry with it the right to make and to dispose
of further printed copies, and the first upholders of an author’s
copyright found themselves obliged to contend against the claim of
“ancient precedent.”

Early in the history of the German book-trade, there arose a practice
among leading publishers of respecting each other’s undertakings,
irrespective of any privileges or other legal protection given to the
works in question. To this practice there were, of course, numerous
exceptions, but it exercised nevertheless, during the period previous
to the existence of national copyright systems, an important influence
in educating trade opinion and public opinion to a recognition of
and a respect for literary property. The many important publications
of Anthoni Koberger of Nuremberg, whose business activity dated from
1473, were issued entirely without privilege, and appear, with a few
exceptions, not to have been interfered with by rival publishers. He
took pains to protect himself by giving to those publishers whose
competition was most likely to be serious, shares in his more important
ventures. In 1495, for instance, he entered into a compact with
Nicholas Kessler, of Basel, under which each agreed not to interfere or
to compete in any way with works undertaken by the other.

The works of Albert Dürer, both in art and in literature, afford early
examples of the attempts of local governments to secure protection
for copyrights. In 1512, complaint was made to the Magistracy of
Nuremberg that a certain man was offering for sale some prints or
drawings which pretended to be the work of Dürer and which bore
Dürer’s signature, but that both the designs and the signatures were
counterfeits. Thausing[155] is of opinion that it was only the forgery
of the signatures that was complained of, but Schurmann appears to
believe that there had been an attempt also to imitate Dürer’s work.
The decision of the magistrates was that the sale of these prints must
be stopped, and that the copies remaining which bore the fraudulent
signature must be confiscated. In 1532, some time after the death
of Dürer, a certain Hans Guldemund re-engraved the _Triomph-wagen_,
and began to sell impressions from this unauthorised plate. The
magistrates, upon being appealed to by Dürer’s widow, promptly forbade
Guldemund to make any further sales. The latter evidently delayed
giving obedience to the order, and this was accordingly re-affirmed two
weeks later.

Dürer’s _Instruction in Perspective_, first published in 1525,
appeared in Paris in a Latin translation in 1532, and copies of this
Paris edition shortly found their way into sale in Nuremberg and in
other German cities. Dürer’s widow, who had, in 1528, secured an
imperial privilege for her husband’s writings, made complaint of these
unauthorised sales, and, in October, 1532, the magistrates of Nuremberg
summoned all the booksellers of the town and cautioned them against
keeping in stock or selling any copies of the unauthorised editions.
On the same day, copies of this Nuremberg order were sent to the
magistrates of Strasburg, Frankfort, Leipzig, and Antwerp, with the
request that similar orders should be issued in those cities for the
protection of Dürer’s works. It does not appear for how long a term the
widow succeeded in protecting these copyrights either in Nuremberg or
elsewhere.

The last case in which the infringement of Dürer’s works came into
question presents an instance of a larger claim for the protection
of an author’s idea than would be accepted under modern copyright
law. Dürer’s treatise on _Proportion_ was being put into print in
Nuremberg by Hieronymus Andreä. It became known, however, that
Andreä, in conjunction with a painter named Beham, himself had in
preparation a work on the subject of _Proportion_, and in July, 1528,
the magistrates of Nuremberg issued an edict forbidding these two
authors from proceeding with the publication of their volume (which
must, he saw fit to assume, have been based upon the labours of Dürer)
until the publication of the authentic work (_das rechte Werk_) had
been completed. Beham protested that his volume was entirely original
and quite distinct in its plan from that of Dürer. The magistrates,
however, took the ground that the idea or plan of a treatise on
this subject had originated with Dürer, and that Dürer’s heirs were
entitled to be protected against any attempt to diminish (by means of
such advance competition) the commercial value of such plan. Beham
was obliged to content himself by publishing at this time that part
of his work only which had to do with the subject of _Proportion
in Horses_. His chapters on _Proportion in the Human Figure_ were
held in manuscript until 1546, when they were printed in book form
in Frankfort. The completion of his publication showed that he had
been entirely correct in his contention that he had not borrowed in
any way from the material left by Dürer. The magistrates themselves
do not appear to have adhered to their original charge that Andreä
and Beham were pirating Dürer’s work, or they would, instead of
simply prohibiting their publication until the Dürer book was in the
market, have enjoined its publication altogether as a plagiarism or
infringement. They seem simply to have convinced themselves that
Dürer’s wife and other heirs were entitled to the first fruits of any
profits that could be secured from the subject of _Proportion_, on
the ground that Dürer was the first author to give attention to this
subject.

In certain special instances, such as the above, local pride in an
author of fame, and personal interest on the part of the magistrates,
served to bring about a special protection for literary productions.
It appears, however, that German authors could not, as a rule, depend
upon securing even a local protection for their works simply on the
ground of prior publication, as it is from this time, namely the first
third of the sixteenth century, that special privileges begin to make
their appearance.

Under an order of the _Rath_ of the city of Basel, issued in October,
1531, printers of books in that city were enjoined from reprinting
or pirating the books of each other, for a term of three years after
the first publication of such books, under a penalty of one hundred
guldens. Schurmann understands that this and similar local ordinances
had no reference to the protection of new works by contemporary
writers, but were designed simply to prevent unprofitable competition
in connection with new editions of standard or classical works. If a
printer or publisher issued an edition of a book belonging to this
class, he was to be protected for a term of three years, within the
territory of the municipality, against the competition of other
editions (whether better or poorer, dearer or cheaper) of the same book.

As far as new and original works were concerned, it appears as if the
possession of a copy, or at least of a copy in manuscript form, was
held to carry with it the right to reproduce. This right there were
in any case, until the middle of the eighteenth century, practical
difficulties in the way of gainsaying for rival reproductions which
were not put into print within the same municipality. It was only with
the organisation of the book-trade in the middle of the eighteenth
century and the establishment in Frankfort and Leipzig of the
Book-Fairs with their systems of book-exchanges, that there began to be
any systematic efforts to protect literary and publishing undertakings
over the territory covered by the book-trade of the empire.

Until nearly the end of the eighteenth century, the protection of
literary property in Germany depended upon the system of privileges,
imperial or local; but these privileges were, for the most part,
concerned simply with the property interests of the publishers and
printers, only a small proportion of them having to do with modern
books or with the rights of living authors. Such privileges covered,
at the outset, three classes of literary undertakings: first, official
publications, a term including in the earlier times the service books
of the Church and school text-books as well as the authorised text
of government edicts, laws, and announcements; secondly, editions of
works taken from the body of the world’s literature (_literärisches
Gemeingut_), _i.e._, the first printing (_Vordrück_) of the same;
and third, new works presenting a first consideration of a specific
subject, more particularly of a subject of a scientific, technical, or
practical nature. For this last class of undertakings, the recipient of
the privilege claimed a control not only of the specific book which he
had produced or of which he was the owner, but a monopoly for the time
being, within the district covered by the privilege, of the subject
considered in such book.

The writer who had, for instance, produced a book on the _Use of
Herbs_, or the publisher who had employed a writer to prepare such
a book (the subject not having been treated before, or at least not
recently) would consider himself aggrieved and would contend that his
rights had been infringed, if the publication within the same territory
of another book on herbs should be permitted. If the privilege covered
an edition of a Latin author, the holder believed himself authorised to
prevent the publication within the territory covered by his privilege
of any other edition of the same author, even although such competing
edition might, in respect to the revision of the text and to the
editorial work in the notes and commentaries, be entirely distinct from
his own.

Local privileges of this kind, which undertook to give to the
possessor an exclusive control for a certain term of a specific classic
text, were, of course, practically identical with the trade monopolies,
also characteristic of the age, which were conceded for the sale,
within certain territories, of articles of assured commercial value,
such as salt or wool. Such privileges can hardly be classed with
copyrights.

Local privileges came, before long, to be divided into two classes,
the one entitled privileges “for works” or “for books,” and the
other “for writers” or “for authors.” The Frankfort ordinance of
1660 distinguishes between _Bücher_ and _Autores_. The _Tractatus
de typographis_, _bibliopolis_, etc., of Fitsch, published in 1675,
speaks of privileges for _libros et scriptores_, and again for
_autores et libros_. The earliest German privilege of which there is
trustworthy record was issued in 1501 by the Imperial Council, not to
an individual, but to an association entitled the _Sodalitas Rhenana
Celtica_ (Rhenish Celtic Society) for the publication of an edition of
the dramas of Hroswitha of Gandersheim, which had been prepared for
the Press by Conrad Celtes. These dramas had been written about 985.
This Hroswitha privilege, while later than the early Venice privileges,
antedates by two years the first instance in France, and by seventeen
years, the first in England. After 1501, there is a long series of
imperial privileges issued directly by the Imperial Chancellor in the
name of the Emperor. One of the earlier of these was given for _Lectura
aurea semper Domini Abbatis antiqui super quinque libris decretalium_,
in 1510, a work printed by Johann Schott. In 1512, an imperial
privilege was issued to the historiographer, John Stadius, for all
that he should print, the first European privilege which was made to
cover more than a single work or which undertook to protect books not
yet published. I find no record in Germany of any privileges similar
to those cited in Venice, for a whole class of works, or for an entire
language.

An imperial patent of 1685 uses the terms (as if in antithesis to each
other) “A privileged book,” and “A book purchased from its author”
(_vom Authore mit Kösten erhandelten Buch_). Later, we find references
to “privileged” and “non-privileged” books, under the latter being
understood original works by contemporary writers. Pütter (who may
be called the father of the modern theory of property in literary
productions), writing in 1764, uses for the unprivileged books the
term _eigenthumlich_ (individual), and for the privileged the term
_nicht-eigenthumlich_ (non-individual).

It is to be inferred from such examples that it was customary to secure
privileges only for reissues of old books (which reissues might, of
course, and usually did, constitute the first publication for Germany),
or for a monopoly of some special subject. For original works by living
writers (except in connection with a claim to control the subject)
privileges were apparently not, as a rule, thought to be necessary
or to add materially to the protection of the author’s rights. The
practice in different States and in different cities, however,
evidently varied very considerably, and there must have been no little
uncertainty and confusion from the conflicting claims of authors,
publishers, and printers undertaking to control in several States the
sales of books for which privileges had been secured in but one.

Pütter is of opinion[156] that the purpose of authors in securing
privileges was at this time not so much to protect themselves from
piracy as to prevent or impede competition. In no other way, as he
contends, can well be explained the short terms (six, three, and even
two years) for which these privileges to authors were issued, as it is
evident that they could not have expected to sacrifice their authors’
rights or, as we should now say, their copyrights, at the expiration of
such terms.

Schurmann concludes that the system of privileges had, in fact, little
connection with the recognition or the protection of the rights of
authors as producers (such rights as English authors were about this
time beginning to claim under the common law). The advantage secured by
an author under a privilege was, on the one hand, a certain monopoly
(usually, of course, for a limited territory as well as for a limited
term), and on the other, a simpler and more effective method of
controlling or protecting his books than that afforded by the system of
proceedings under the law.

The possessor of an imperial privilege was, at least nominally, in a
position to enforce penalties against an unauthorised reprinter in any
portion of the empire, and without reference to the local authorities,
the principal limitation on such action being the difficulties not
infrequently placed in his way by local officials who happened not
to be well disposed towards the imperial authority. At the Frankfort
Fair, however, which soon came to be recognised as the central and
controlling organisation and exchange not only of the German but of the
European book-trade, an imperial privilege was usually accepted as of
valid and adequate authority.

Notwithstanding such recognition of imperial authority, the records of
German publishing during the last half of the seventeenth century and
the first portion of the eighteenth are full of complaints of piracies
and of contentions concerning the control of literary property.

The purpose and the effect of the imperial privilege system would not
be rightly estimated if we failed to remember that they were intended
to secure an imperial supervision of literary production no less than
an assured foundation for the business of publishing books. No works
could secure an imperial privilege that had not first received the
approval of the censors in charge of the district in which the book was
printed. In case the work concerned itself with political affairs,
the censorship was usually referred directly to certain imperial
councillors in Vienna (_Reichshofrath_). Sometimes the imperial censors
found it necessary to override the authority of the local examiners and
to revoke their authorisations. In 1777, the Berlin publisher Nicolai
secured a privilege for the publication of _The Life and Opinions of
Johann Burkels_. The year following, the privilege was cancelled from
Vienna, on the ground that it had been obtained surreptitiously and
with the connivance of certain Prussian censors who were in sympathy
with “the gross errors of the Arians and Socinians.” The circulation of
the work within the Holy Roman Empire was at the same time prohibited.

The grounds upon which the imperial authority claimed the right to
supervise the literary productions of the realm are not quite clear.
In an official document of 1780, occurs the phrase, “The regulation of
books (_das Bücher-regal_) which has for many years been within the
control of the Emperor.” In a memoir addressed to the Emperor, in 1762,
by the imperial _Hofrath_, the former is referred to as the tribunal in
which from the beginning of the sixteenth century have been vested the
control and supervision of the literature produced within the realm.

Schurmann is of opinion that the authority for the regulation of books
(_Bücher-regal_) was derived from or connected with the rights reserved
to the imperial authority under the Golden Bull. To these rights
belonged the control of the final judicial appeal, and the issue and
supervision of all claim of privileges. A century after the issue of
the Golden Bull, at the time of the invention of printing, the reserved
powers (_Reserva-rechte_) of the empire had become materially weakened,
and were being in large part exercised by local authorities, and the
attempt of the Emperor to enforce control over literary production and
distribution, now becoming of such extended importance, was from the
outset met by no little antagonism and protest on the part of princes
and municipal magistracies.

The contention of these latter that the control of this new department
of industry and production rested properly with them, was strengthened
by the fact that the business of book-publishing was of necessity
dependent upon the printing-presses, and the right to license and to
protect the presses had never been included in the imperial powers,
but had from the outset been exercised by the princes or magistrates.
An evidence of this local control of the presses is afforded by the
form (in use from the earliest times) of the oath which had to be
taken by all printers working under such local licenses. This oath,
while making due recognition of the local authority under which the
licence was issued, bound the printers also to an observance of the
imperial enactments. The requirement of the local licences was,
however, evidently not universal, for we hear of certain “corner
printing-offices” (_Winkel-drückereien_) which appear to have worked
outside of any local control.

The attempts of the imperial authority to secure an imperial
supervision over the literary output of the realm, were to some extent
confused and interfered with by the contention of the Church that
such supervision properly belonged to her. The Archbishop of Mayence,
who was also the Chancellor of the Empire, was especially active
in enforcing an ecclesiastical censorship over all the presses and
publishing concerns within his diocese, which happened to include the
most important of the earlier centres of publishing enterprise. His
example was followed by other bishops throughout the empire, and the
records show that such ecclesiastical censorship was exercised from the
several diocesan capitals and also from such Universities as those of
Cologne, Trèves (Trier), and Leipzig.[157]

The emperors were not likely to accept with patience this clerical
interference with a domain regarded as their own, and, in 1455,
Frederick III. appointed Doctor Jacob Össler to the post of imperial
supervisor of literature and superintendent of printing, an appointment
which was confirmed by Frederick’s successor, Maximilian I. Össler
was a jurist, but his censorship included the control of theological
literature, as if it were the intention of the Emperor to emphasise the
authority of the lay power as against the pretensions of the Church.
The headquarters of the imperial superintendent of literature were
placed in Strasburg, which was at the time the most important town in
the empire for printing and for bookselling.

In 1512, a so-called “privilege,” one of the earliest, was issued by
the Emperor Maximilian I. to Johann Stab in Lintz, “historiographer
and cartographer.” It covered “all works” which he “might cause to
be printed.” It is the understanding of Kapp, however, that this
authorisation is to be understood not as a privilege but as an
appointment to the office of “supervisor of books.” The records contain
the titles of a number of books, engravings, and charts as having
been issued under the authority and with the name (imprint?) of the
historiographer, with permissions or licences protecting them against
competition for the term of ten years. It appears, further, that he
had the power to shorten this term of protection, and to declare the
works open to reprinting within a shorter period than ten years. The
privileges thus controlled by Stab were for “books,” not for “authors,”
and can probably, therefore, be understood as having to do only with
material which was not the production of contemporary writers. There
is nothing to show what range of territory was covered by Stab’s
supervisorship, or whether this may be considered as having possessed
equal authority with that of Össler, or as having been subordinated to
this.

Dr. Jacob Spiegel, secretary to the Emperor, appears also to have
exercised, between the dates of 1515-1520, the functions of a
supervisor or censor of literature, and the stamp of his official
approval is found on several books of the time. On the _Germania_ of
Æneas Sylvius (afterwards Pius II.), originally issued in Italy in
1464, and printed for the first time in Germany in 1515, by R. Beck of
Strasburg, the form of approval or privilege is worded as follows: _Per
Cesarem. Ad Mandatum Cesaris Majest. proprium Jacob Spiegel._

The question has been raised as to why the decrees of the imperial
Diet contain no references to the imperial control of book-publishing.
Schurmann explains this omission on the ground that such control was
exercised as a personal right of the Emperor. In 1495, a time when
under the leadership of Berthold, Elector of Mayence, a concerted
effort was made on the part of the electors and princes to limit in
various respects the authority and privileges of the imperial Crown,
the contention saw made (quite in the spirit of the eighteenth century)
that the princes and those deputed by them for the task, were much
better able than the Emperor could be, to judge for their several
domains what books should be permitted and what should be forbidden.

Reference has already been made to the privilege issued in 1501, for an
edition of the dramas of the nun Hroswitha. Hroswitha, or Helena von
Rossow, was a nun of the Benedictine convent of Gandersheim, who had
died nearly six hundred years before. Her literary work is referred
to in an earlier chapter. The privilege to Celtes was, therefore, in
the nature of a monopoly for material which, in the absence of such
privilege, would have remained common property. This privilege is of
interest as indicating that at the time it was issued the imperial
authority over literary property was recognised by the States and
municipalities of Germany as extending only over the imperial
cities (_Reichsstädte_). Even to this control there was a noteworthy
exception, as Frankfort, which in connection with its Book-Fair
was becoming each year of greater importance as a centre of the
book-trade, was apparently not included in the territory covered by an
imperial privilege, and its magistracy had retained the right to issue
privileges on its own account. We find, therefore, that Celtes, in this
same year, 1501, secured a privilege for his book from the Magistracy
of Frankfort.

Schurmann draws a distinction between the imperial privileges which
emanated directly from Vienna, and those issued in Nuremberg and
elsewhere under the authority of the _Reichsregiment_, or imperial
Diet, and says that well authenticated instances of the former class
begin only with the year 1510, and that for the succeeding half century
the number issued was but inconsiderable.

It was only after 1569, when the imperial commission was appointed
to supervise the operations of the Book-Fair at Frankfort, that the
imperial privileges became numerous and important. The small part
taken by the imperial authority during this half century in the
supervision of literature appears to have been due to the fact that in
the particular districts where book-publishing was most active there
was the greater unwillingness to recognise that its control properly
belonged within the functions of the Emperor. Under the imperial
decrees of Nuremberg, in 1524, of Speyer, in 1529, and of Augsburg, in
1530, the contention of the Emperor to control as a personal function
of the Crown the whole business of printing and publishing, was
replaced by an arrangement under which the immediate supervision of
the printing-presses was left to the local or state governments, while
the imperial authority provided (through magistrates appointed for the
purpose) a final court of appeal.

After the battle of Mühlberg, in 1547, the claims of the Emperor to
the full control of nearly all divisions of government were asserted
with fresh vigour and persistency, and, in 1548, an imperial edict
was issued placing the presses of the empire under strict police
supervision, especially with reference to any publications which had to
do with ecclesiastical matters. There continued, however, to be more
or less confusion in connection with the exact bearing of the imperial
enactments concerning literary property, and these enactments were
very far from securing any general obedience. There was also no little
counterfeiting and falsification of the imperial privileges.

On this ground, Maximilian II., in 1569, called upon the Magistracy
of Frankfort to establish or to enforce better police regulations for
the protection of privileged books, and for the prevention of the
publication of books that had not been inspected and licensed. The
magistracy endeavoured to free the city from the responsibility of such
a task, and requested the Emperor to send to Frankfort some scholarly
commissioners to take charge of the proposed supervision. This request
was fulfilled, in 1579, by Rudolph II., who directed the clerk of the
imperial Court and the Dean of the Frankfort Convent to serve as the
first members of such commission.

This imperial commission, working in Frankfort, exercised an influence
over all the book-trade of which Frankfort was the centre. Its
operations were very largely controlled by the interests, real or
imaginary, of the Catholic Church, and the oppressive supervision
and arbitrary censorship which resulted had not a little to do with
the discouraging of literary undertakings in Frankfort and with
the transfer of publishing enterprise and of the business of book
distribution to Protestant Leipzig.

With the growth of Leipzig as a book-producing and book-selling
centre, the privileges issued in the Electorate of Saxony assume an
increasing importance, and from 1598 we find that these electoral
privileges are being largely secured by publishers throughout Germany.
A commission was appointed by the Elector to take the supervision of
the Book-Fair, and the literary responsibilities of this electoral
commission very soon largely exceeded those of the imperial commission
sitting in Frankfort, the more particularly as, after 1627, an imperial
privilege, unless confirmed by the Leipzig commission, was very
frequently disregarded altogether by the Leipzig book-dealers. While
the imperial and the Saxon privileges are, in connection of course
with their influence upon the book-trade of Frankfort and of Leipzig,
the best known and the most frequently referred to in the history of
literary production in Germany, the encouragement given to the trade of
printing and publishing by certain so-called “particular” privileges
must not be lost sight of. An early example of this class was the
“Letter of aid and protection” (_Schirm und Versprech-brief_) which the
Elector Frederic I., as Landgrave of Alsace, in 1466, gave to master
Heinrich Eckstein, “for the purpose of furthering his good trade of
printing,” ecclesiastical and lay protection by water and by land. A
more comprehensive and more “particular” privilege was that previously
referred to which had been issued, in 1469, by the Senate of Venice
to the German printer, Johann von Speyer (Johann de Spira), under
which was given, for the term of ten years, the exclusive right to do
printing within the Venetian dominions.

Throughout the German realm, this form of the protection or
encouragement of book-production appears to have been exercised chiefly
by the imperial cities. There was evidently among the earlier German
publishers a good deal of dependence upon what would now be called the
courtesy of the trade, an understanding under which the publishers or
printers in any one State, or at least in any one town, would refrain
from interference with each other’s undertakings. This understanding
or arrangement was, however, assisted by the short-term privileges, a
protection already referred to issued by the municipalities, or their
magistrates, and forbidding interference for periods ranging from six
months to five years.

In Brandenburg, the development of the system of privileges was of
necessity retarded by the slow progress made within the electorate by
the business of book-publishing or book-selling. Between the years
1544 and 1575, the present capital of the German Empire contained not
a single printing-press (several attempts made previous to 1544 to
establish a printing business having failed), and what little printing
work it required it was obliged to have done in Wittenberg or Frankfort
on the Oder. In 1567, Johann Eichhorn, of Frankfort on the Oder,
received a privilege to carry on a printing business, which privilege
provided that within the entire Mark no competing printing-office
should be authorised or permitted.

The first book-dealer in Berlin was Hans Werner, who, in 1594,
established his printing-office and shop on the Cologne side of the
Spree. He secured from the Elector John George, “for the furtherance of
public interests,” a privilege authorising the publication of certain
works (in the main, text-books and books for Church worship) which had
passed the censorship of the Faculty of the University of Frankfort
on the Oder. Any parties reprinting these books were to be fined two
hundred thalers, half of the fine going to Werner. He also received an
authorisation to establish a bindery, in the event of the work done
for him by the existing bindery proving unsatisfactory. He was further
exempted from municipal taxes on the condition that he should not
overcharge the citizens of Berlin for his books. It is not stated by
what authority the question of overcharging was to be determined.

For twenty years, Werner’s establishment remained the only book concern
in Berlin. In 1613, he fell into disfavour with the Elector, John
Sigismund (who had become a convert to Calvinism), by refusing to
publish the writings of the Reformed Church. His privilege was not
withdrawn, but a new privilege was issued to the Brothers Hans, with
whom was associated Samuel Kalle, for the publication of religious
and theological works. The new firm received, either from the Elector
or from the municipality, a gift of sufficient lumber with which to
build its shop. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the number
of privileged book-dealers in Berlin had risen to four, but at that
date but one, Michael Rudiger, was a publisher on his own account.
In 1702, The Orphanage Publishing Concern of Halle (_das Hallische
Waisenhaus_), a firm still in existence, was authorised to open a
book-shop in Berlin. With the exception of the productions of this
Orphanage Press in Halle, the publications of Brandenburg-Prussia,
during the reign of the first two kings, were in the main restricted to
Bibles, Hymnals, calendars, and text-books. The privileges in the new
Prussian kingdom, while in form merely authorisations for the printing
of books, covered, in fact, considerably more than such authorisations.
They included protection against reprinting or piracy, guarantees
against local competition, freedom from taxes and imposts, and not
infrequently assurances of material aid in establishing a book-business
and in carrying it through its first and most difficult period. The
earlier Prussian monarchs were evidently fully appreciative of the
importance to the higher welfare of the state of this new business of
publishing, and were ready to do whatever might be within the power of
the Government to encourage its development.

With the increase of book-production in Prussia and in North Germany
generally, we find a change in business methods, and a tendency to
separate the work of publishing from that of printing. With this change
comes a different arrangement of privileges, and a closer distinction
between authorisations or protections issued for literary productions
and concessions granted for the purpose of furthering certain trade
undertakings. The former class came to be known as “general” and the
latter as “special” privileges; they were also spoken of respectively
as publishing privileges and printing privileges (_Verlags und Drück
Privilegien_). Under the latter classification came calendars and
periodicals. Roughly speaking, the former class of privileges had for
their purpose what we should now term the protection of copyrights, and
the latter the prevention or limitation of competition. The imperial
“general” privileges continued to be substantially limited in their
range to the imperial cities, at least in so far as they carried with
them monopoly rights.

The Saxon “general” privileges were found to confuse or interfere
with the working of the Leipzig Book-Fair privileges, and with the
beginning of the seventeenth century they ceased to be issued. The
Fair privileges did not undertake to confer any “monopoly” rights for
a literary undertaking, but simply to secure for a work the right to
be offered to the book-trade of Germany, in so far at least as this
trade now concentrated itself in Leipzig. The fees for this Book-Fair
privilege went into the treasury of the Fair.

The privileges issued by the Book-Fairs or Book-Trade Associations of
Frankfort and Leipzig are peculiar in the respect that they make no
distinction between publishing and printing authorisations (_Verlags
und Drück Privilegien_). Through this lack of recognition of a
distinction which had always heretofore obtained, and also by reason
of the similar form given to the special privileges whose short terms
called from time to time for renewal, not a little confusion arose
in the work of regulating the relations of the book-trade. It is, in
fact, only surprising that the confusion and the difficulty were not
greater,--considering that general and special privileges, not only
imperial and Saxon and Prussian, but emanating also from various of
the principalities of the empire, together with the trade privileges
of the Frankfort and Leipzig Associations, were all more or less in
force for any one assortment of books that could be offered for sale
at the two Fairs. It was not until the eighteenth century that the
confusing and inadequate system of imperial and local privileges was
replaced by interstate copyright conventions which secured a uniformity
of protection for literary property throughout the States of the German
Empire.

The historian Luden says:

“The printing-press is important, not so much on the ground of its
reproduction or multiplication of copies of a written work, but because
of the assurance that these copies will be distributed. It is hardly
to be denied that in the thought of trafficking in ideas there is
something repelling from which it is difficult to free one’s mind.”[158]

When Luden was writing, the “war of liberation” had just been brought
to a close, and, for the first time since the battle of Jena, the
territory of North Germany was free from the presence of the invader.
It was less than a decade since the publisher Palm had been shot,
under the instructions of Napoleon, for printing a pamphlet in defence
of the liberty of Germany. The Weimar historian and the other German
writers of his time might well have been interested in the question of
the right of authors to secure an untrammelled circulation for their
productions. At this time, however, nearly a century after the death of
Palm, a martyr to the cause of the freedom of the Press, the imperial
Government of Germany is not yet prepared to concede such freedom to
its political critics. The Palm of to-day would indeed not be shot, but
he might be imprisoned and his Press would certainly be stopped.

It was speedily realised that while the production of books could
be developed almost indefinitely, the practicability of securing a
remunerative distribution of books would be very closely limited
unless the inadequacy of the ordinary trading regulations could be
supplemented by a special system of legislation planned to meet the
special requirements of this new object of trade.

In the beginning of the book-making industry, the printer was known
simply as printer, as it was understood without further specification
that he must also be the publisher of the works printed by him. Soon,
however, we find associated with his undertakings the names of partners
who had nothing directly to do with the book-manufacturing, but who
contributed their aid either for the sake of literary development or
for some other motives apart from the thought of business profit,
and in the lists of such associates occur the names of nobles, of
ecclesiastics, and of wealthy scholars. Later, we find record of
printing-houses of larger resources who did not need and did not
accept coöperation from outsiders; while, as a still later development
come the publishing firms who have separated themselves altogether
from the technical work of book-manufacturing and who employ only
the presses and the binderies of other concerns. With the beginning
of the sixteenth century, begins a transformation of book-printers
into simple book-dealers or publishers. This change was, of course,
however, far from being universal, but limited itself in the main to
the book-concerns of the two Fair-centres, Frankfort and Leipzig.

A little later is to be noted an increase in the number of the
publications, the risk and outlay for which were greater than could
safely be assumed by a single publisher, and in the production of which
several publishers were associated, unless the individual publisher had
secured the necessary aid from some princely friend, or occasionally
even from a corporation (like the Town Council of Nuremberg).

Erasmus, writing in the year 1523, concerning the publishing House
of Johann Froben of Basel, speaks of the three methods under which
Froben’s books were placed in the market. The smaller works, for which
the risk was not too considerable, he would publish as ventures of his
own; while for the more important undertakings, he would often secure
the aid of some outside capitalist, for whom Froben would act simply
as a commission agent. The third method was to give shares in the
venture to fellow publishers like Lachner, also of Basel, Koberger of
Nuremberg, and Birckmann of Cologne.

Even with such arrangements, however, for the division of editions
between firms having each its own special channels of distribution,
the facilities for placing books in the hands of buyers, and probably
also the actual demand on the part of any possible buyers, remained
very inadequate in proportion to the means of production and to the
pressure for production. Books which were very much wanted by a
certain number of readers, were not wanted by enough people to ensure
a remunerative sale, and hence resulted not a few disappointments,
losses, and misfortunes to printers and to publishers. Luther, in his
_Table-Talk_, makes reference to these troubles of the printers, but
believes the cause of the same to be simply the commercial greed and
lack of intellectual interest on the part of the public.

The period 1650-1764 witnessed the growth of the system of
book-exchange, under which, publishers in disposing of their
productions were obliged to accept in payment the stock of other
publishers, and the net market value of books came to be measured
in other books. This method, if it did not add very promptly to the
receipts of the dealers, had at least the advantage of facilitating
the distribution of books, and of furthering the organisation of the
book-trade. In concentrating into the hands of a single individual
the business of publishing, distributing, and retailing books, it
necessitated the giving of exclusive attention to the work of handling
books.

In the “printers’ period,” the men who interested themselves in the
management of printing ventures were very apt to interest themselves
also in other business undertakings. Döring, for instance, was in the
first place a goldsmith, and only secondly a printer. Lotter, who did
some of the first printing for Luther, kept a wine-shop and an inn, in
which he not infrequently had Luther as his guest. Cranach, in addition
to being a painter and an apothecary, carried on a shop for the sale
of books and printing-paper, and finally, in 1524, established a
printing-office, and, associating with himself Döring, entered upon the
production of a complete set of the writings of Luther.[159]

The necessity of securing for the work of a printing-office the
services of scholarly assistants for the proof-reading was speedily
recognised. Not many printers were competent to take the responsibility
assumed by the Venetian Aldus, of revising and even of annotating
the texts as printed, and many were the complaints concerning
the grievous errors contained in the earlier volumes printed in
Germany, and the unfavourable comparisons made between the work of
the German compositors and that which came from the earlier Italian
or Paris printers. Authors contended, with Luther, that the first
and chief right of an author was to have his message correctly
presented to his readers, while scholarly readers were outspoken
in their protests against the marring through the vagaries and
blunders of the typesetters of the beauty of classical texts or the
purport of theologic instruction. The better printing-houses finally
associated with their work scholarly editors who took charge, not
merely of the proof-reading but of the general supervision of the
manuscripts or texts as these passed through the press; and the work
of a “press-corrector” came to be considered as professional in its
requirements and importance.[160]

There was, nevertheless, in certain scholarly circles, a prejudice
against the receipt of money for literary work, or, as Erasmus put
it, against being paid by one’s printer. The objection of Luther to
gaining pecuniary advantage from his writings rested, however, upon the
different ground that his literary work was carried on for the cause of
the Lord and that “Christ had already rewarded him a thousandfold.”

Erasmus made it a ground for criticism upon Ulrich von Hutten that the
latter had permitted himself to accept money from his printer.[161]
Brunsel, the defender of Hutten, denied that he had ever been paid for
his writings, but contended further that if such payment had been made,
it was no reason for reproach. A workman had a right to be paid for his
work. In any case, said Brunsel, such a criticism came with a bad grace
from Erasmus, who had been under pay with Aldus Manutius of Venice and
with Froben of Basel. From the latter he was said to have received a
yearly honorarium of two hundred guldens, in payment apparently of
editorial service. There is record of a payment by Aldus, in 1508, of
twenty pieces of gold for some work done by Erasmus in revising and
preparing for the Press the text of the poems of Plautus.[162] Thomas
Murner received, in 1514, for his _Geuchmatt_ four guldens,[163]--a
sum which, as Schurmann points out, was not so inconsiderable, when we
remember that the scholar Pellican had been able to support himself
for a year on sixteen guldens.

The jurist, Ulrich Zasius, received, in 1526, from his publisher in
Basel for his _Intellectus Juris Singulares_, fifty guldens. Conrad
Gesner, writing from Lausanne in 1539, complains that he has not been
able to put as thorough work into his books as they deserved, because,
he says, “I am, like others of my class, under the necessity of writing
for daily bread.”[164] A remark of Gesner, in 1558, that the publishers
wanted big books, and were unwilling to accept small volumes even as a
gift, is of interest as indicating that, even at that early period, the
book-trade of the Continent had behind it an experience by the lessons
of which it could profit.

The relatively large prices paid as compensation for the literary
undertakings referred to in the earlier records, are evidence that
for these undertakings the initiative had been on the part of the
publishers. In the cases in which the literary suggestion came from the
authors, the compensation was usually materially smaller, or, in case
the venture did not prove remunerative, often disappeared altogether.
The question of the proper rate or extent of the compensation to
authors, was of necessity further complicated by the growth of the
exchange system, before referred to. When the publisher, out of an
edition of a thousand copies had disposed of five or six hundred, and
had received pay for the same in miscellaneous stock, a large portion
of which might remain in his warehouse for years, it was certainly not
easy to determine what portion of the edition ought properly to be
considered as having been sold, and to be so accounted for.

The custom soon arose of putting the author’s compensation into the
shape of books. Sometimes he would receive a certain number of copies
of his own work only, and sometimes, in addition, a selection of the
books against which his own had been exchanged. In the smaller number
of cases only was the author able to arrange for a portion at least of
his pay in money.[165]

The free copies of his book which came to the author were, however,
not infrequently utilised as a means of securing cash receipts. These
were the copies reserved for the patron who had “graciously accepted”
the dedication of the book. The dedications were too often not simple
expressions of personal friendship or of scholarly appreciation, but
fulsome laudations and exaggerated flatteries, which were meant to be
paid for in hard cash.

Kapp, in decrying this business of selling dedications or of printing
dedications, associates it directly with the demoralising practice
of accepting honorariums from publishers.[166] He fails, however, to
draw the inference, which appears to be a natural one, that after two
centuries of publishing (of printed books) the labours of the writers
of the books were so inadequately remunerated that they were driven
to emulate Martial and his associates of the later Augustan age and
to look to patrons (bribed with dedications) for a payment for their
productions.

The real difficulty, as Schurmann points out, lay in the necessitous
and uncertain position of the scholarly classes, who were driven to put
more labour into the writing of books than the community of the time
was prepared to compensate.

Erasmus treated with indifference the charge of von Hutten that he made
his dedications a subject of trade, and he probably had sufficient
warrant for his indifference. In the case of not a few of the works of
Erasmus, as with many other books of the time, it seems evident that in
exchange for the dedication, the “patron” of literature had provided
in exchange for the compliment the funds requisite for the printing
of the book, or sometimes even for the support of the author while
it was being written. It occasionally happened (though probably never
with any books of Erasmus) that the “patron” failed to receive the
full consideration for his services, as there are instances of books
in which the author’s dedication appears only in the author’s “free
copies,” or even only in the portion of the author’s supply which was
to be delivered to the patron. For other copies of his supply the
author might arrange with some other patron for a dedication, while in
the copies left in the hands of the publisher, still a third dedication
might be used, the earnings of which last had, under the agreement,
been reserved by the publisher.[167]

According to Kirchhoff[168] and Kapp[169] this business of selling
dedications had by the beginning of the seventeenth century reached
very large proportions. The Magistracy of the city of Leipzig made
announcement, in 1594, that they would authorise no more dedications,
having been altogether overburdened with them. In 1606, when the
philologist Goldast asked permission of the Burgomaster of Memmingen to
dedicate to him a new Commentary, he was cautioned that he would have
to content himself with an honorarium of a ducat, as the magistrates of
that place were receiving each day similar applications.

As late as 1798, the Senate of Hamburg gave notice that future
dedications of literary productions would no longer receive
acknowledgment unless written authorisations for the same had been
previously secured. An instance occurred in 1887, in which this
regulation concerning a written authorisation was relied upon with some
literalness of interpretation. A musical composition had been dedicated
to the “Shade” of the composer Hummel, on the fiftieth anniversary of
his death. A notice was issued by the poet Castelli, on behalf of the
Hummel family, that this dedication must be withdrawn unless a written
authorisation could be shown from the “Shade” of the departed composer.

According to Kapp, the practice of authors undertaking the publication
of their works at their own risk and expense (_selbst-verlag_)
developed during the same period as the dedication system, and together
with the latter, came in great part to a close towards the end of the
eighteenth century. Trade difficulties arose in connection with the
handling by the authors of the editions of their own books, as it
became necessary for them to follow the general trade practice of the
time and to accept their payment or a portion of their payment in the
stock of the dealers to whom they made sales. Feeling, however, in no
way bound by the regulations of the book-trade, they were ready to
sell this exchange stock at prices often considerably below those of
the regular book-market, a practice which naturally produced confusion
and dissatisfaction among the dealers. In this practice the authors of
Germany enjoyed a much greater freedom of action than was possessed at
the time by their brethren in France, where the organised book-dealers
had succeeded in limiting to members of their own body the right to
sell books.

How far the protests of the book-trade may have succeeded in checking
this practice on the part of the authors of entering into bookselling
business without being willing to submit themselves to bookselling
regulations, it is not easy to determine from the records available.
It is probable, however, that the most effective check was the
disappointing results secured by the authors themselves from by far the
larger portion of their publishing and bookselling ventures.

Towards the end of the eighteenth century the method of subscription
publishing, which apparently had originated in England, began to be
followed, particularly in the case of books issued directly by their
authors. Under this method, subscriptions and advance payments were
secured from subscribers interested in the undertaking and willing to
purchase one or more copies, and the moneys so advanced were expected
to be utilised in the production of the book, and were as a rule so
applied. Even publishers found this subscription method a convenience
and an advantage in diminishing the risk of the speculation in an
undertaking of importance. In the case, however, of books issued by
publishers on the subscription plan, it was not usual to receive any
money from the subscribers until the books were delivered.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER III.

REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL AND THE CENSORSHIP OF THE PRINTING-PRESS IN
FRANCE.

1500-1700.


=Conflicting Authorities.=--The invention of printing came into
the world at a period when men’s minds were agitated by one of the
fiercest contests about ideas that history had known. This new art
gave voice and wings to thought at the very time when thought stood
for war and when opinions, under the name of creeds, were bringing men
into fierce combat with each other. Those whose beliefs were wrong
(that is to say, those who at any particular time or place happened
to be the weaker party) were burned by those whose beliefs were right
(that is, by the stronger), and questions of religion were powerful
enough to bring nations into battle against each other. To permit
the peaceable production and distribution of literature advocating
doctrines sufficiently pernicious to be themselves cause for war, would
have been not only illogical but practically impossible. It would have
constituted, in effect, failure to keep the faith, and treason to the
State.

The general constitution of society was no more compatible than
were the religious passions of the time with an unrestricted and
unsupervised production and distribution of literature. Monopoly
was, or was believed to be, an industrial necessity. Each branch or
division of industry, trade, or commerce was closely organised and
strictly limited in its range. These guild organisations, with their
accompanying prohibition of the exercise of individual and unorganised
industry, served to maintain order and to protect artisans against all
kinds of exactions, and in various other ways worked for the benefit
of the artisans and trades as associated. The guilds also rendered an
important service to the community in protecting the general public
against frauds and misdealings, for, as well from self-interest as
from public spirit, they took upon themselves the supervision of
the integrity and morality of their members. The associated trades
of printing, publishing, and bookselling came under conditions and
restrictions similar in the main to those regulating the business
of the other commercial guilds, and like these, they undertook to
establish a monopoly of the rights and privileges connected with the
manufacture and sale of their productions.

The contests and quarrels of the “regular” or guild dealers, whether
with authors, who wanted to retain the right to sell their own books,
or with religious communities, which (in continuation of their old
literary practices) claimed the privilege of using printing-presses of
their own, or with the drapers and fancy goods dealers, who wanted to
sell not only almanacs and primers (_abécédaires_) but also general
literature, or against the pedlars and street vendors, who attempted to
exercise the full privileges of booksellers, were endless; but while
differing in many details, these contests were similar in principle to
those carried on by other industrial guilds against outsiders trying to
invade their monopolies.

The official censorship of publications began with the reign of Francis
I., although there are instances in the previous reign of the issue
of certain “permits” or approvals. These earlier permits were not
connected with any conditions or restrictions imposed on the authors
or publishers. They were for the most part secured at the instance of
those interested in the publication, sometimes as a matter of prudence
or from dread of future interference, but more frequently in order to
give credit or standing to the undertaking.

According to Peignot,[170] the earliest printed book which contains
record of such official approval was printed in Esslingen in 1475. It
was a reissue of the _Tractatus Petri Nigri contra perfidos judæos_,
and bore a certificate of having been corrected and approved by the
Bishop of Ratisbon. This instance antedates the publication of the
_Phœnix_ of Peter of Ravenna (referred to by Pütter and others as the
first book printed under a privilege), which was issued in Venice in
1491.[171]

In 1515, a Bull of Leo X. (previously referred to in the chapter on
Venice) ordered that no licence should be given for the printing
of a book until it had been examined and approved by an authorised
representative of the Church. The authority of the Church to take into
its own hands the supervision of literature was, as we have seen, from
the outset contested in Venice, and was never accepted in Germany.
In France, on the other hand, the necessity for such ecclesiastical
supervision was at once admitted, with the condition that the
censorship should always be exercised under the authority and direction
of the Crown. The jurisdiction over printers and publishers, originally
conferred upon the University, continued to be exercised with more
or less effectiveness during two centuries after the invention of
printing, and traces of it existed even as late as 1789. The University
gave approval, issued privileges, and fixed penalties. An approval had
to do with the contents or character of the work, and was evidence
that it had been examined and had been accepted as containing nothing
unsound in doctrine, detrimental to the morals of the community, or
dangerous to the safety of the State.

In the earlier periods of publishing in France, the ecclesiastical
censorship as to matters of doctrine was exercised through the
Theological Faculty of the University. A privilege gave to its holder
a right (usually exclusive) to control the sales of the work specified
and sometimes of the entire subject to which the work was devoted,
for a given territory and a certain term of years. In 1498, certain
publishers printed a description of the funeral procession of Charles
VIII., in which procession the Faculty of the University had occupied
a position of honour. The printed account was inaccurate, _Super
modo incedendi_. The publishers were brought before the deputies
of the University, and after they had been heard in their defence,
their editions of the inaccurate book were condemned to be burned _in
processionibus universitatis_.

In 1518, the University issued, by means of placards posted about the
city, an edict prohibiting all publishers, under pain of forfeiture
of their University privileges and franchise, from printing the
_Concordat_ between Francis I. and Leo X. The King, indignant at such
an exercise of authority on the part of the University, wrote to the
Parliament of Paris demanding that the mandate of the University be
declared null and void, and that the Rector, Dean, and professors
who had issued the same be punished. He further directed that the
_Concordat_ should at once be delivered to good and trustworthy
printers, with instructions to lose no time in printing supplies of
the same. The Parliament decided that the University must not concern
itself with matters of state or with the affairs of the King, under
penalty of loss of its own privileges, and the printing and publication
of the _Concordat_ appear to have proceeded in due course. It must be
borne in mind that the Parliament of Paris was not a legislative body,
as might be inferred from the later use of the name, but a high court
of justice, exercising the functions of a Court of Appeals.

Several such “Parliaments” were established at different periods in the
great cities of the kingdom, but that of Paris was the most ancient
and important. Its foundation is ascribed to Louis XI., about 1150.
The Paris Parliament was originally used as a kind of circuit court,
accompanying the King wherever he went. It was, however, finally fixed
at Paris, in 1302, by Philip the Fair. Its members were at first
appointed by the Crown, but Francis initiated the practice of selling
the seats. The most important function of the Parliament appears
to have been the registration of the laws, edicts, and ordinances
promulgated by the King. The Parliament gradually assumed a certain
degree of political power, and frequently refused to register laws of
which it did not approve, and from these refusals spirited contests
arose with the Crown. The Parliament of Paris (together with all the
Parliaments of France) was finally suppressed in 1790, by a decree of
the constituent assembly. It appears from the history of this case of
the _Concordat_ that no question was raised concerning the right of the
University to control the printers of Paris, excepting as to matters
belonging to the King; while the higher authority of the Parliament was
not contested.

The first formal institution in France of supervision of publications
or literary censorship dates from the ordinance of 1521. _Lectum est
quoddam regis mandatum prohibitorium ne librarii aut typographii
venderent aut ederent aliquid, nisi auctoritate universitalis et
Facultatis Theologiæ, et Visitatione facta._[172] (Printers and
publishers are forbidden to print or to sell any work which has not
first been examined by the University authorities and received the
authorisation of the University and of the Faculty of Theology.) The
special authority given to the latter shows that it was still the risk
of heresy and schism which excited the greatest dread among those
supervising the literature of the community. The edict of Charles V.,
also issued in 1521, prescribed similar regulations for the several
countries of his dominions and made offenders against these regulations
liable to the penalties for treason (_lèse-majesté_).

Parliament exercised authority not only for the condemnation of
books (a jurisdiction which it had always claimed, even prior to the
invention of printing) but also to extend general prohibitions, with or
without conditions. As an example, an edict of February, 1525, which
was ordered to be published by heralds at the sound of the trumpet,
directed (among a number of other measures planned to stamp out the
heresies which were spreading through the realm) all persons having
in their possession copies of the Old or the New Testament, or any
portions of the same, to deliver such books to the court notaries,
and forbade all printers to print and all dealers to sell any copies
of said books under penalty of confiscation of their goods and
banishment from the kingdom. This prohibition was renewed in 1527.
In 1542, Parliament forbade the printing or selling, without special
authorisation, of the royal ordinances and edicts.

=Parliament, the University, and the Book-Trade.=--The Parliament
reserved to itself the final authority in the supervision of the
book-trade, but it occasionally thought proper to secure, in
connection with some literary undertaking of importance, the counsel
of the University. In 1523, C. Resch, a licensed publisher, having
asked for a permit for the publication of the paraphrases made by
Erasmus of the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke, Parliament referred
the application to the Rector, Dean, and Theological Faculty of the
University for examination and report. The report being adverse, the
application was denied. In 1523, Parliament had seized the books of a
bookseller named Louis de Berquin. They were submitted to the Faculty
of Theology and having been adjudged heretical, were duly burned.
In 1529, on similar grounds, the same fate was awarded to Berquin
himself. In 1521, two decrees were issued by Parliament forbidding,
under penalty of banishment and the payment of five hundred livres
(francs), the printing, either in French or in Latin, of any work on
Christian doctrine, or on the interpretations of Scripture, that had
not first been approved by the Theological Faculty or its deputies. A
decree of 1535 forbade the printing of any work of medical science,
which had not received the approval of three “good and notable”
doctors of the Faculty of Medicine of the University. A decree of the
same year forbade the publication of any fortune-telling books or
almanacs, under penalty of imprisonment and a fine of ten marks. A
decree of 1542 forbids the offering for sale of any book not bearing
a certificate showing that it had been examined and approved by the
clerks or deputies of the Faculty of the University having charge of
the subject to which the book was devoted. In the cities where there
was no university, these examinations, in all classes of subjects, were
entrusted to the vicars or representatives of the Bishop or to doctors
of theology.

The tendency became more marked from decade to decade to place in the
control of the Church the supervision of the entire literary production
of the kingdom. Conflicts of authority arose from time to time between
the University and Parliament, conflicts in which the advantage usually
rested with the latter body, which claimed the final jurisdiction, and
which had behind it the authority requisite to enforce its decisions.

In 1526, the University had authorised the printing of certain
dissertations against Fabri and Erasmus, written by Dr. Noel Beda.
King Francis wrote to the Parliament directing it to cause the sale of
these books to be prohibited. He added further general instructions
that Parliament must enforce the previous regulations under which
no books were to be printed or sold, either in Paris or elsewhere,
which had not first been examined and approved by the members of the
court deliberating together. The prohibition includes even such books
as might have been written by members of the University. The task
of a censorship of this kind, imposed not upon a select, scholarly
committee, but upon a comparatively large body of consultation, must
have been, as the literary production increased, one of no little
difficulty.

It would appear, also, from such record as has reached us of the
complaints of the publishers who had literary undertakings in train,
and of the scholars, instructors, and students who were waiting for the
books, that many serious and costly delays must have been caused by
the physical impossibility of securing from the Court of Parliament a
prompt decision upon the various literary schemes submitted.

It appears from the letter of King Francis, first, that the King had
sufficient sympathy with the Reformers to be unwilling to have Erasmus
attacked; and, secondly, that, even in matters of theological doctrine,
the final decision was entrusted not to the Faculty of Theology, but
to the Court of Parliament. Bayle, writing some time later, and having
a cordial distrust for the Catholic Faculty of the University of his
generation, regretted that these wise regulations could not have
continued indefinitely.[173] Chevillier, on the other hand, thinks that
the King’s confidence had been abused, and that his “_grand douceur
de caractère_” had caused him to be too gentle to those accused of
heresy. Chevillier goes on to say that the King in the end recognised
the justice of the position taken by the Theological Faculty of the
University in defence of the Church against its enemies. He got rid of
his prepossessions in favour of Erasmus, and, in 1531, he gave a direct
royal authorisation to the publisher Badius for the printing of Albert
Pio’s big treatise (in twenty-four books) against Erasmus.

In February, 1534, the King sent to the Court of Parliament letters
patent, under which the Court was instructed to select twenty-four
persons qualified and trustworthy, from among whom the King would
select twelve. To these twelve should be given, until further
instructions, the exclusive privilege of printing books. Said books
were to be printed in the city of Paris and nowhere else, and were to
comprise only those which had been already approved as required for
the public welfare. No new compositions whatever were to be licensed.
The penalty for infraction of this ordinance was death by hanging.
Legislation of this sort might be considered as somewhat discouraging
to literary production, and as evidence of increasing dread on the part
of the authorities of the intellectual activities and fermentation
which characterised the period of the Reformation.

The prohibition against the publication of any new works gives the
impression that the activity of literary or controversial production
was on the side of the Reformers, and that it was thought to be of
the first importance to restrain the publication and distribution of
the writings of the Reformers, even at the inconvenience of hindering
at the same time the publication of sound Catholic doctrine. What
the King wanted to bring about was evidently the cessation of all
religious, or rather of all theological controversy, and it was, in
part at least, due to his policy in that matter that the mass of
controversial literature produced during the Reformation was so much
smaller in France than in Germany or in Switzerland. It is to be borne
in mind that for the theological literature, and, in fact, for all the
scholarly literature of the sixteenth century, the political boundaries
did not imply, as they do to-day, barriers of language. The literary
language of Europe was Latin, and the scholars of Europe, coming,
through this common language, into direct relations with each other,
were in a better position to carry on international controversies
than would be the case to-day. There was nothing but the poverty of
buyers or the prohibitory edicts of the rulers to prevent the general
circulation among all scholarly readers of any work of importance
on the all-absorbing issues of the time. The letters patent, above
referred to, were, says Renouard, never registered by Parliament,
and it does not appear that they were ever effectively carried into
execution.

=The Beginning of Legislation for the Encouragement of
Literature.=--The restricting edicts continued through the first half
of the sixteenth century, but towards 1550, they began to include
provisions referring to the development and encouragement of good
literature.

The ordinance of March 7, 1537, provides:

1st. (in reiteration of previous acts) that no work shall be printed
in the kingdom in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldee, Italian,
Spanish, German, French, or other tongues, which had not first
secured the King’s approval (given through the royal librarian). The
list of languages through which it was supposed that evil might be
instilled into the minds of good Frenchmen, was certainly sufficiently
comprehensive. It is difficult to imagine any very serious risk of the
dissemination of false doctrine or of the corrupting of the public
morals through the circulation of works in Chaldee.

2d. That a copy of each book when printed be deposited in the library
of the royal château of Blois, being delivered for the purpose to the
King’s trusty councillor and treasurer, the Abbé Réclus Mellin de
Saint-Gelais, librarian of said château, or to one of the deputies to
be appointed by him for the purpose in each of the universities and
important cities of the kingdom, a certificate being given as evidence
of the delivery of the book.

3d. That a copy of each book printed abroad, and which it was desired
to offer for sale in France, should, in like manner, be submitted for
inspection, and that its sale in France could be authorised only if
said book should be found worthy of being placed in the Royal Library,
this inspection being necessary for the purpose of avoiding the risk
of introducing into the kingdom works containing wicked errors such as
have heretofore been found in books imported from abroad.

If copies of these imported works were certified as fit for sale in
France and as worthy of acceptance for the Royal Library, the librarian
was to make payment for them at the same price as that charged to
others. The ground given for the collection in the Royal Library of
copies of all works issued in France or imported into the kingdom, was
the importance of preserving for future generations valuable literature
which might otherwise have disappeared altogether from the memory of
man, or which might in later issues have been altered from the original
and accurate text. This edict of 1537 may therefore be considered as
the first step towards the formation of a library for the preservation
of the national literature. It was also the earliest example in France
of the securing an authorisation for the publication of a book (a
concession that was not yet a copyright and was not always even a
privilege) in consideration of a tax imposed for the benefit of the
nation, said tax comprising a single copy of the work authorised.

On March 20, 1537, appeared a second ordinance giving further details
of the new measures. The preamble is worth quoting, because it sets
forth clearly the main purpose which was kept in view in all these
earlier regulations of literary production, namely, the restriction of
the circulation of error and the assuring of the defence of the holy
faith against the assaults of heretics:

_François, etc. Comme, par tous les moyens que possible a été, nous
avons obvié et empêché que les erreurs et infidèles interprétations
déviant de notre sainte foi et religion chrétienne ne aient été reçues
en notre royaume._... An ordinance of 1538 appoints Conrad Néobar
printer for the King in Greek, under the following conditions:

1st. Religious works must secure the approval of the Faculty of
Theology, and profane works that of the Faculty of Belles-Lettres.

2d. A copy of each work printed must be given to the Royal Library,
_afin que, si quelque calamité publique vient à affliger les lettres,
la postérité puisse trouver là une ressource qui permette de réparer en
partie une perte des livres_.

3d. That each book issued by Néobar shall contain the announcement that
he is “printer to the King” and that his Greek printing-office has
been instituted under the royal protection, _afin que non seulement ce
siècle, mais aussi la postérité, comprenne avec quel zèle et quelle
bienveillance nous avons traité la litérature, et que la postérité,
avertie pas notre example, croie devoir faire de même, pour constituer
et encourager les études_.

In order to guarantee Néobar against the risk of loss, as the demand
for books in Greek was hardly likely to prove remunerative, the King
agreed to pay him per year the sum of one hundred gold crowns, equal
in currency to about two hundred dollars, but representing, of course,
at that time, a much larger purchasing power. Néobar’s business was
also to be free of taxes, and to enjoy the other privileges previously
accorded to the publishers of the University. Other printers and
publishers were forbidden to print or to import editions of the works
issued by Néobar, he being granted an exclusive monopoly or copyright
of five years for books which were first published by him, whether
these were the productions of modern scholars or were taken from old
manuscripts, and of two years for books which had been reprinted by him
in revised and more complete form from earlier editions.

The fury of civil war and the bitterness of religious dissension,
continued to give a special character to the laws affecting printing
and publishing and to the enforcement of these. There were also
instances in which the severities of the courts preceded those of the
legislators. In 1545, the records of the _Chambre syndicale de la
librairie_, the sub-court charged with the control of publishing, show
that a certain Étienne Polliot was sentenced for importing and selling
heretical books. He was compelled to carry a bundle of his publications
to the market-place, where he and his books were burned together. In
1546, the publisher Étienne Dolet, himself the author of a number of
books, published in both Latin and French, was burned in the Place
Maubert, for his obstinate persistence in the heresy of Calvin. Dolet
is credited with having uttered at the stake the following line: _Non
dolet ipse Dolet, sed pia turba dolet._ [It is not Dolet who grieves,
but a pious crowd (of witnesses).]

The ordinances of 1557 and 1560 punished with death, as guilty of
treason, the authors, printers, publishers, and sellers or distributors
of books which had been condemned as pernicious or libellous. The
declaration of July 17, 1561, sentenced to the penalty of the lash
for the first offence and to that of death for the second, all
printers, sellers, and distributors of inflammatory or libellous
publications. Letters patent of 1563 fixed the penalty of hanging
or strangling for the offence of printing a book without the royal
authorisation. The often quoted ordinance of Moulins, of 1566, renews
the same prohibitions, which were further confirmed in 1570, 1571,
1586, and later. It is not easy to understand why such reiteration of
prohibitions and of penalties was required, or why the provisions of
any particular ordinance, or letters patent, should not have remained
in force until repealed, or at least until the close of the reign.

This ordinance of Moulins, issued by Charles IX., brings together under
one heading _privileges_ and _permits_. It is often referred to as
forming the beginning of the copyright system of France: _Défendons
aussi à toutes personnes que ce soit d’imprimer ou faire imprimer aucun
livre ou traité sans notre congé et permission et lettres de privilège
expédiées sous notre grand scel, auquel cas aussi enjoignons à
l’imprimeur d’y mettre et insérer son nom et le lieu de sa demeurance,
ensemble ledit congé et privilège, et ce sur peine de perdition de
biens et punition corporelle._

Monsieur Vitet[174] is of opinion that the wars of the League had
some influence in securing a certain freedom for publishing. The
government of the League did not undertake to free from restrictions
the printing-presses of Paris. It prohibited them, however, only from
such undertakings as seemed likely to prove of service to the enemies
of the League. On the other hand, there was at Tours a government which
was hostile only to such writings as were not royalist, and at Geneva
another government, the censures of which affected only that literature
which was not Protestant. Through these three limited censures came
into existence three fragments of publishing freedom. The power of the
printing-press in influencing public opinion may, as far as France is
concerned, be said to date from this period. Without question, during
the previous twenty years, the larger portion of the publications of a
religious, theological, and controversial character had come from the
side of the Protestants. Their mission was to preach and convince as
well as to fight, and the printing-press was as necessary to them as
were their muskets. The controversial writings were, however, largely
left unanswered, and their authors were reduced to the publishing of
monologues and, finally, for a time at least, to the abandonment of the
Press as an active agent in the contest.

On the other hand, when the Catholics, associated together in the
organisation of the League, had established themselves as a military
power, they undertook not only to extirpate Protestantism, but to
speak to the world more energetically and more authoritatively than
the Protestants had done. Nothing is more contagious than speech,
especially if such speech take upon itself a controversial form. As
soon, therefore, as the presses of the League became active, those of
the Protestants renewed their own activities, so that the civil and
religious wars had the double effect of freeing the printing-presses
from a large proportion of their previous restrictions, and of
increasing enormously the amount of the literary production of these
presses. It is to be noted, however, that production was for the time
limited almost exclusively to works in the department of theology,
while the publication of Greek, Roman, and Italian classics, no longer
encouraged by University supervision or by royal bounty, was naturally
checked. The grand campaign of the pamphlets was most active during the
years 1588-1589, after which the ardour of the pugnacious pens appears
to have slackened, until, in 1594, the victors terminated the contest
with the final pamphlet of the series, a Menippean satire, which is
said to have been no less useful to Henry IV. than the battles of
Arques and of Ivry.

The Edict of Nantes, which bears date 1598, contained a special
provision concerning the circulation of publications favouring the
so-called “reformed religion”: _Ne pourront les livres concernant
la dite religion, prétendue réformée, être réimprimés et rendus
publiquement qu’ès villes et lieux où l’exercice public de la dite
religion est permis; et, pour les autres livres qui seront imprimés
en autres villes, seront vus et visités tant par nos ordonnances.
Défendons très expressément l’impression, publication et vente de tous
livres, libelles et écrits diffamatoires, sous les peines contenues en
nos ordonnances, enjoignant à tous nos juges et officiers d’y tenir la
main._[175]

The essential point of this provision appears to be the restriction
of the sale of Protestant books to certain cities and districts (the
list of which is given elsewhere in the Edict), in which the public
exercise of said religion was authorised. It is worth noting, however,
also, that these Protestant books are practically classified as
libels and inflammatory writings. The difficulties in the way of the
authors and publishers of such books must have, at the time, been very
considerable. It does not appear that any provision was made for the
circulation of such publications between the cities in which they were
permitted to be issued, as such circulation must, of course, have taken
them across the “good Catholic” territory, within the boundaries of
which these Protestant books were incendiary libels. There could in
but few cases have been any possibility of securing within the limits
of any single Protestant city, such, for instance, as Rochelle, a
sufficient sale for a book to render its sale remunerative, or even to
return the outlay required; while there were no university funds or
royal bounties within the reach of Protestants with which to facilitate
the publication of unprofitable works. There is little probability,
therefore, that for the Protestant works published in France during
this period the authors were able to secure any compensation whatever,
while for the majority of such books the authors or others interested
must themselves have provided the investment required.

An enactment of 1618 codified the various separate regulations for the
supervision and control (_la police et la discipline_) of the business
of printing and of publishing. Among the previous regulations which
were repeated in detail in this enactment were those dating May, 1571,
the substance of which is as follows:

“The master printers now doing business in the city of Paris,
shall choose each year two from among their number with two of the
twenty-four master publishers certified (_jurés_) for the same year,
the functions of whom shall be to prevent the printing of any work
of a libellous or incendiary or heretical character; and to insure
the correctness and satisfactory quality of the editions which may
be printed in each city of the realm.” This last responsibility was
understood to cover not only an approval of the quality of the paper
and the presswork, but also a careful supervision of the correctness
of the type-setting and of the quality of the type, which must not be
worn (_trop usée_), and if these supervisors find errors calling for
reprimand, they are to make report of the same before either a civil or
a criminal judge according to the nature of the fault.

The said publishers are limited in the prices they are permitted to
charge for their publications, the price per sheet for works in Latin
(not including notes in Greek) not to exceed ten deniers, for works in
Greek not to exceed six deniers. There is a further clause providing
for a proportionate reduction in the schedule of prices specified,
whenever in the judgment of the Rector, deans, masters, and twenty-four
certified publishers of the University, a lessening of the cost of
production or of handling may justify such reduction.

In 1587, an order in council confirmed the exemption of the
book-business from all subsidies and from customs duties and municipal
tolls and taxes. In 1617, the Syndic and directors of the Guild of
publishers, printers, and binders submitted a request to the Provost
of Paris to be authorised to select for a special commission to take
into consideration the condition of the book-business, six certified
publishers, six non-certified publishers (practically book-dealers),
and six printers. To this commission were joined the Syndic of the
Guild and four of its board of directors, and under its recommendations
and as a result of investigations extending into the following year,
were drafted the regulations embodied in the letters patent of 1618.

The preamble says:

_Et d’autant que, parmi le bruit et l’insolence des armes, ceux qui
font profession des bonnes lettres ont été les plus oppressés et comme
réduits à néant, nous avons, en ensuivant les anciens vestiges de nos
prédécesseurs, apporté tout le soin à nous possible de les rétablir en
leur première splendeur, principalement en ce qui regarde notre fille
âinée, l’université de notre bonne ville de Paris_, etc.

It is to be noted that the profession of letters is made practically
synonymous with the University of Paris. The statutes contain
thirty-eight articles. The first confirms the franchises and immunities
of the Guild of publishers, printers, and binders.

Articles 2, 5, and 11 give consideration to the subjects of
apprenticeship, the admission of associates and of masters, the
obligation (for each master) of keeping not less than two presses in
running order, the rights of widows, etc.

The twelfth article prescribes that all printers and publishers must
print their books in handsome, legible type, carefully corrected, and
on good paper, and that each volume must bear at its beginning or
end the name and trade-mark of its publisher, and the record of the
privilege and permit under which it is issued; and in case the book has
been printed without permit, the entire edition is to be confiscated,
in addition to further penalties.

Article 13 provides that printers or publishers who issue books of
a libellous or defamatory character, shall be deprived of their
privileges and immunities, and shall, thereafter, be enjoined from
exercising the trade of printing or book-selling.

This article, however, was not intended to trench upon the sphere
of penal legislation. In this same year, 1618, a poet named Durand,
convicted of having written a libel against Louis XIII., was condemned
to be broken on the wheel and afterwards burned. Two brothers,
Italians, were executed with him, for having translated the book into
Italian.

Article 15 specifies that two copies of each book published were to
be deposited in the Royal Library (an increase of one copy over the
requirements of the enactment of 1571), one copy was to be given to the
Syndic, apparently for use in the Guild library, and four copies could
be retained for the printers and their associates.

Article 16 provides that for the future not more than one publisher,
one printer, and one binder should be admitted each year to the Guild,
the purpose being to reduce the membership of this.

Article 17 provides for the election each year of the Syndic and of two
of the deputies.

Article 18 gives consideration to the examination of books by the
syndics, to the restrictions to be placed upon the trade in France of
foreign book-dealers, to colporteurs, book-sales, etc.

Article 19 provides for the seizure of unauthorised foreign reprints of
French books.

Article 30 forbids any single individual or firm from having more than
one shop or printing-office, which must (doubtless for the greater
convenience of official supervision) be within the precincts of the
University.

Article 31 forbids the sale of books in book-stalls and book-carts.

These last two prohibitions were considered of sufficient importance to
be repeated in a separate act issued in 1630. They were directed more
particularly against the practice which was increasing among certain
persons of quality of keeping printing-presses in their houses.

Article 32 forbids, under penalty of confiscation of goods and 3000
francs fine, the printing outside of the kingdom of any work to be
issued with a French imprint, or the disguising or concealing of either
the publishing imprint or the record of the place of manufacture.

Article 38 provides that each publisher, printer, and binder must be
sworn before the Provost of Paris, or his deputy, in the presence of
the _procureur_ of the King.

The noteworthy changes brought about by the enactment were: the
reduction in the number of authorised publishers and printers, a
reduction to be brought about by the limitation of the new members to
one of each class per year, the transfer to the Provost of Paris of a
function heretofore exercised by the University, and the restriction
of the printing-presses in such a manner as to facilitate the police
supervision of the authorities.

=The Relations of the Crown to Literary Production and the Attempt of
the Church to Secure a Portion of the Control.=--The tendency of all
the enactments during the previous thirty years had been, as we have
seen, to concentrate in the hands of the Crown, acting directly through
its own subordinates, the control of literary production.

From time to time, however, the Court of Parliament reasserted its
claim to the exercise of a joint control with the King, and the
declaration of 1612 appears to have been issued in order to put an end
to any such claims.

_Défendant très expressément a nos âmes et nos feaux conseillers,
maîtres des requêtes, et gardes des sceaux de nos chancelleries, et de
nos cours de parlement, donner aucune permission d’imprimer livres ou
écrits, sur mêmes peines que dessus contre les imprimeurs ou librairies
qui auraient obtenu telles permissions._

Authorisation to publish was from this time on dependent on the
securing of permits sealed with the royal seal.

In 1624, four royal censors were instituted by letters patent. Two of
them were to have each six hundred livres a year, and the others, four
hundred livres. The first four censors, André Duval, Pierre Quedarne,
Jacques Messier, and François de Saint Père, were all doctors of the
Theological Faculty of Paris. The privilege of filling such vacancies
as might occur in the board was in the first place given to the College
of the Sorbonne. Notwithstanding this selection of the board from the
members of its own Faculty, the University, or at least the theological
division of the University, was seriously dissatisfied with losing its
ancient privileges of controlling directly the examination of religious
literature. In 1629, fresh regulations were issued by the Crown in
connection with the censorship, under which, works submitted for
publication, instead of being examined by a board appointed in advance,
were passed upon by censors particularly designated for each work by
the Chancellor or the Privy Seal. In 1658, the Chancellor Séguier
had designated three readers or examiners who again appear to have
constituted a permanent board.

Notwithstanding the edict of 1629, the Theological Faculty of the
University continued to claim the right to pass upon all publications
of a religious character. This right was also recognised in ordinances
of a later date, and the examinations of the Faculty were held
concurrently with those of the royal censors or of the deputies
designated by these. Under the ordinance of 1629, the publisher or
author seeking a permit to print was obliged to submit for examination
two complete copies of his manuscript, a requirement which could be
modified only under the authority of the Chancellor or Privy Seal.

The general result of the ordinance of 1629 was not in the direction
of freedom for the printing-press, but there were certain advantages
secured by the writers and makers of books in having consolidated into
one code restrictions and regulations which had heretofore existed
in isolated letters, ordinances, and edicts. The creation of royal
censors, an act harmonising with the centralising tendencies of the
times, may be understood also as a recognition on the part of the Crown
of the increasing influence of literature, and of the importance of
bringing literature into direct dependence upon the authority of the
monarch.

The founding, in 1635, of the French Academy, had an important
influence as well upon the organisation of authors as upon the
relations of these with the Crown. It was the general scheme of
Richelieu, continued later by Louis XIV., in the first place to put
literature exclusively under the authority of the Crown, and secondly,
through privileges and favours, to secure its support for the interests
of royalty. It is evident that the King, or at least the King of this
date, neither created nor extended the supervision of literature, for
the idea had as yet occurred to none that the printing-press could be
left free. There was also, probably, no deliberate purpose to bribe
or corrupt the authors of the time. It was, however, no new idea for
men of letters to be dependent upon the favour of princes, and there
was, it is fair to remember, a certain direct advantage for literature
as well as for the Crown in adding to the social position and general
welfare of writers. While the edict establishing the Academy bore the
date of 1635, its incorporation was completed only by the _lettres
de cachet_, of July 10, 1637. In these letters appears the following
curious restriction:

“Provided, namely, that the members of said Assembly and Academy
shall concern themselves only with the history, embellishment, and
development of the French language,” a restriction which was evidently
acted upon, later, with considerable breadth of interpretation.

In 1686, a further enactment for the supervision of publishing and
printing was recorded in the Parliament of Paris. In this were
repeated the several provisions in the enactment of 1629, with the
following modifications: Three complete copies, instead of two, of
each book printed, should be deposited, and no additional printer
should be admitted into the Guild until the number of master-printers
had been reduced to thirty-six. There was also a provision forbidding
publishers from carrying on a printing business under their licence
as publishers. The board of control of the Guild is given special
authority for the examination of works imported from abroad, with the
purpose of preventing the circulation in France of _Livres ou Libelles
diffamatoires contre l’honneur de Dieu, le bien et répos de notre
état, ou imprimés sans nom d’auteur, ou du libraire, ou des livres
contrefaits sur ceux qui auront été imprimés avec privilége_, etc.

In the same year appeared an enactment, under which the bookbinders
and gilders were separated from the Guild of publishers and printers.
As in 1618 and in 1649, the University found ground for complaint
that these regulations had been framed without its participation. It
secured the appointment of a commission of State councillors to examine
into its complaint, but the report of the commission was adverse to
the contention of the University. Of its old responsibilities and
privileges for the supervision and control of literary undertakings,
there rested now with the University only certain inconsiderable forms,
and the restriction upon printers and publishers to carry on their
business in the University quarter.

The issue of permits and the charges to be paid for the same, were
regulated by letters patent of 1701, the provisions for pamphlets being
made different from those for books. The authorisation for the printing
and publishing of books was, as heretofore, to be granted under the
great seal. The authorisation for the printing of pamphlets was to
be given by the local magistrates, and after an examination of the
material by inspectors appointed by the magistrates for the purpose. A
pamphlet was defined to be a work containing not more than two sheets.
When the permit given under the great seal included a general privilege
securing for the publisher the exclusive control for the kingdom of
the work issued, the sum paid for the same was to be determined by the
general tariff of the great seal.

When the permit gives control over a limited district only, the
charge is made but one third of that for a general privilege. If the
authorisation includes no privilege, either general or limited, the sum
paid for the same shall be five livres.

When the works are published in series, the different parts of
which are issued at different times, each part must be examined and
authorised for itself; and each examination must in any case include
the prefaces, dedications, and supplements.

The “general privileges” associated with permits, referred to in
these letters, are not to be confounded with another class of general
privileges which were from time to time conceded directly by the Crown
either to individuals or to associations or companies as well for works
already composed as for those still to be written. This latter class
of royal privilege was abolished, and those in force at the time were
revoked, by orders in council of 1659 and 1686. An exception, however,
was made as late as 1714, in the case of certain general privileges
accorded by the Crown to the Academy of Letters, and to the Academy of
Painting and Sculpture.

A contest arose, in 1702, between the Chancellor de Pontchartrain and
the higher clergy on the question of certain general privileges which
the bishops claimed to be still in force. The bishops, possessing
already an unquestioned right to print, without special permits,
their episcopal charges and letters, and also the catechisms used for
the instruction of the young people of the diocese, thought they
could take advantage of the ardour of the King against Jansenism and
Quietism, gradually to extend their privileges so as to make these
include all works of a devotional character.

The Chancellor refused to give consideration to any such claims and the
resulting disputes continued over some years. The bishops contended
that, being themselves the final judges of the doctrines of the
Church, utterances made by them, or utterances or writings accepted by
them, could not with propriety be passed upon by others who were not
authorities upon points of doctrine.

The Chancellor simply maintained the binding force of the old
regulations, and took the ground that, while the Government would
always require the counsel of the bishops on literature involving
points of doctrine, the final decision as to the advisability of the
publication of any particular work must, as heretofore, rest with the
Crown. He undertook further to take all necessary measures to prevent
the publication of any works which might appear to be inimical to the
liberties of the Church of France.

Madame de Maintenon gave the weight of her influence in favour of the
bishops, the question having come up in tangible shape in connection
with certain works that the Bishops of Meaux and of Chartres had
written in controversy with a certain prolific writer named Simon, and
which were now in readiness for the press.

The King dreaded exciting the ire of the Jesuits and dreaded also,
says the chronicle, the risk of putting Madame de Maintenon into a bad
temper. He avoided, therefore, making a decision, and contented himself
with expressing the wish that the parties would arrange some adjustment
of the difficulty. An adjustment was finally arrived at, under which
the bishops withdrew their pretensions concerning the general oversight
of doctrinal literature, but reaffirmed their right (which had never
been disputed) to have their counsel taken before permits were issued
for any works of this class. The privilege was accorded to them (this
concession being practically the sole result of the issue) of printing
and publishing, without official permit, works written by themselves.
The control of documents concerning ritual and of catechisms was also
left in their hands.

Disputes subsequently arose concerning the interpretation of the
authority for the publication of works written by the bishops. They
themselves and their Jesuit allies, with the powerful aid of Madame
de Maintenon, contended that this authorisation covered all doctrinal
literature. The Chancellor, on the other hand, maintained that it was
limited to missals, rituals, books of the liturgy, and other official
volumes connected with the service of the Church. A formal decision
does not appear to have been arrived at, but in the subsequent practice
the view of the Chancellor was in the main adhered to.

Bossuet wrote to the King, to Cardinal de Noailles, and to Madame
de Maintenon several indignant protests concerning the attempt of
the Chancellor to control the utterances of the Church. It is not to
be thought of, says Bossuet, that the Holy Church of Christ shall
be compelled to submit, for the examination of magistrates, its
decrees, catechisms, and spiritual teachings upon matters which would
be confined strictly to the instructors of their flock. The Church
must be left free to print, sell, and distribute its prayers and its
instructions to its children and its ministers. The responsibility
that has been placed in the hands of the rulers of the Church for the
preservation of the faith and for the instruction of the people in
this faith, comes to them from Christ himself, and any attempt to take
away or diminish this responsibility is an attack upon the faith and
an intention to humiliate the Church.[176] The King, influenced by the
pleading of Bossuet, finally brought himself to a decision, which,
while not covering all the questions involved, gave to the bishops
whose works were at the moment under consideration the satisfaction
claimed. To the Bishop of Chartres was accorded, in 1703, a general
privilege for the term of ten years covering all breviaries, missals,
diurnals, antiphonals, graduals, processionals, episcopal letters,
psalters, hours, catechisms, ordinances, statutes, and pastoral
instructions which were required under the general usage of the
diocese.[177]

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER IV.

THE BEGINNINGS OF LITERARY PROPERTY IN ENGLAND.

1474-1709.


IN the preceding studies of the varying relations to the Government and
to the community of literary productions and of the gradual development
under the extension of the system of local privileges of the policy of
protecting and encouraging literary production, but little reference
has been made to the publishing methods and the conditions of literary
production in England. It was in fact the case that during the first
two centuries after printing, the conditions in England had very little
influence upon the development of any European system for controlling
or protecting literary production. The work of the earlier English
printers was, as we have seen, addressed much more to the tastes of
the local public than to the requirements of the scholars of Europe,
and while a certain proportion of books were, in England as on the
Continent, printed in Latin, this proportion was much smaller than with
the undertakings of the contemporary publishers of Holland, Germany,
and France.

While increasingly large importations were made from year to year,
more particularly from Paris, Amsterdam, Basel, and Cologne, of books
needed for use in Oxford, Cambridge, and London, the export during
these two centuries for Continental sale, of books printed in England,
was but inconsiderable. In the matter of legislative enactments, or
of the policy of the State towards literary production, we have seen
Paris following to some extent the precedents set in Venice. Upon this
same general system of privileges for short terms and for limited
territory, privileges gradually extended to longer terms and to cover
additional States. The earlier practice in Germany had on the whole
also been based upon the Italian precedents. Holland was the first of
the European States to issue privileges without conditions depending
upon censorship, but apart from this very essential distinction, the
Dutch privileges were, in form, very similar to those of Venice and
Milan. In no one of these countries does any particular attention
appear to have been given to the methods and practices of England, and
the English system for the regulation of literary property, a system
which grew up in connection with the practical monopoly given to the
Stationers’ Company, appears to have taken shape (English fashion)
with very little, if any, reference to Continental precedents. The
Stationers’ Company received its charter, by royal decree, in 1556
(two years after the marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain). It
constituted an organisation of the printing and publishing trade of
London which assumed to represent the publishing interests of the
country. The Company differed from the book-trade association of
Paris in that it had no direct connection with either of the two
Universities, and held its authority directly from the Crown. The
_libraires jurés_ of Paris were, it is to be remembered, members of
the University, and the regulations governing their operations formed
part of the law of the University. The members of the British Company,
on the other hand, were manufacturers and traders who had received
directly from the Crown a monopoly of the business of printing books,
and the regulations formed for them and by them required only the
approval of the royal authorities or representatives of the Crown,
and when this had been given, these regulations became the law
for the control of the book-trade, and for the control also of the
literary property (the property in “copy”) that was, from year to
year, coming into existence and increasing in importance. The basis
of the authority of the Stationers’ Company was the theory that all
printing was the prerogative of the King. While this theory was never
pushed to its logical conclusion, it secured a certain foundation in
the direct ownership and monopoly asserted and enforced by the Crown
in the printing of certain classes of literature which formed the
most considerable and remunerative of the earlier productions of the
English Press, such as prayer-books and other works of service of the
State Church, of which Church the King was the head, the editions
of the Bible, the cost of translating which had been borne by the
Crown, almanacs (on the ground that they were abstracted from the
prayer-book), year-books, Acts of State, etc. The assigns of the royal
copyright in almanacs were not always, however, able to support their
claim to an exclusive control. Scrutton cites one case (among several)
in which this claim was overruled.[178]

The printers did not attempt any opposition (which would in any case
have been futile) to these contentions of the Crown. They purchased
patents or privileges for the production of the King’s books or
publications owned by the Crown, and they found it to their advantage,
at a time when the Crown was all-powerful, to strengthen their position
with the community at large by securing the royal sanction and a royal
grant for the undertakings to the originating of which the Crown could
make no claim. Such property-right as could be said to exist in these
last was also derived from the royal grant. The distinctive feature
in the development of literary property in England may be said to be
the all-important part claimed and exercised by the Crown in its
creation and protection. I do not find in any other State of Europe a
parallel to the relation of the Crown to the beginnings of copyright.
Even in France, where the supervision of the Press passed eventually
into the direct control of the King, the royal edicts and privileges
give the impression rather of defining and of limiting than of creating
property in the “copy.” I do not overlook the contentions that came to
be argued out at a later date concerning the existence of copyright as
a property at Common Law, an existence apart from and independent of
a royal edict or of a legislative statute. I am merely pointing out
the actual form given to these preliminary undertakings of the English
printer-publishers, under which form they secured directly from royal
authority the right to hold and to defend their “copy.”

I will recall for the purposes of this summary, that the first
privilege in England bears date 1518, and was issued to Richard Pynson,
King’s Printer, the successor, second in line, to Caxton. In 1504, we
find the first record of the office of “Printer to the King,” when
William Faques placed on the title-pages of his books the term _Regius
Impressor_. The office apparently continued in existence, with rather
varying functions, until the revolution of 1688. The successor of
Faques was Richard Pynson, and he was the first English printer to use
the term _cum privilegio_, which appears on the title-page of one of
his books in 1518. The full wording of this privilege is worth quoting:

_Cum privilegio impressa a rege indulto, ne quis hanc orationem intra
biennium in regno Angliæ imprimat aut alibi impressam et importatam in
eodem regno Angliæ vendat._ This privilege gives a monopoly, for the
term of two years, for a certain _Orationem_. The date is fifteen years
later than that of the first privilege issued in France. The shortness
of the term is to be noted, the majority of French and Italian
privileges of this period being for from five to ten years. Pynson
prints on his title-pages simply _cum privilegio a rege indulto_,
without any reference to limit of term. In 1530, a privilege of seven
years is granted to an author in consideration of the value of his
work, and this appears to be the first record of an English copyright
being granted to an author.[179]

The first dispute about English copyright of which we have record,
arose about 1530, when a printer named Trevers reprinted, without
authorisation, a work the privilege for which had been issued to Wynkyn
de Worde. The preface to Worde’s second edition, issued in 1533,
contains a vigorous complaint at this piratical interference with his
rights, but does not inform us what steps, if any, had been taken to
defend these rights. Scrutton does not mention the name of the book,
but it was probably _The Mirroure of God for the Sinfull Soule_.

Royal privileges continued to be issued during the sixteenth century,
while after 1556, the entries in the registers of the Stationers’
Company are made evidence of the exclusive rights to the persons named
for printing the book specified. Finally the privileges issued by the
King came to an end, being superseded by the registers of the Company.
The King’s privileges had been for specific, and usually for quite
brief, terms. The entries of “copies” on the Stationers’ registers made
no specification of terms, and such property rights as were indicated
or initiated by these entries were, therefore, for an indefinite term
and could be claimed to be in perpetuity. These Stationers’ Hall
entries were in certain respects similar to the records in the Land
Office of a western Territory or in the County Clerk’s office of a
State, records which serve as final evidence of the title or ownership
of the lands specified. The copyright registers served as do the land
records, for the transfers of ownership as well as for the original
certificate of ownership, and with the “copies” as with the parcels of
land, the ownership was understood to be based on the Common Law, and
to be in perpetuity. The King’s patents or grants for the “copies,”
the ownership of which, as previously specified, was claimed by the
Crown, continued to be given for specified terms, to certain favoured
individuals selected as “Printers to the King.” Apart from these books,
the specification of a limited term for the control of any particular
book ceases with the close of the royal privileges.

As before stated, the Stationers’ Company, in giving title to property
in a “copy” or literary production, acted as the representative of the
authority of the Crown, an authority which had, it was claimed, been
bestowed upon it by the royal charter. Under this royal authority,
the Stationers’ Company possessed for a long series of years the
monopoly of printing throughout the United Kingdom. Printing could
be done only by the members of the Company, and the by-laws adopted
by the Company for the regulation of printing, in so far as they did
not conflict with the statutes of the kingdom, became part of the
law of the land.[180] The purpose of the earlier English ordinances
concerning printing, and of the ordinances establishing the Stationers’
Company itself, was specified in substance as follows: “The order and
regulation of printing and of printing-presses in the interests of
Church and State.”[181] The operations of an association of printers,
an association which owed to the Crown its existence, its authority,
and the property rights in its valuable monopoly, could be supervised
and controlled to an extent that would not have been practicable with
the undertakings of printers acting independently. With reference to
the maintenance of the royal authority, it was certainly wise policy
for the Crown thus to secure and to maintain an effective control over
the work of the printing-press, this new instrument for influencing
public opinion. The later effect of this royal absolutism was,
curiously enough, to secure an earlier and more definite recognition in
England than was reached in any other country, for property in literary
production, and for the right of literary producers to control and to
enjoy the results of their labours. The fact that there was a property,
without limit or term, in the “copy” of a literary production, that
is, in its copyright, was understood to have been established by the
evidence of the Stationers’ registers, and by the assured practice,
extending over a series of years, of authors, printers, and publishers.
The control of the work of the Stationers was, in 1637, placed in the
hands of the Star Chamber, and the decree issued in that year by the
Chamber had for its immediate purpose the regulation and restraining
of the printing of “libellous, seditious, and mutinous books.” As an
essential detail of this regulation, it was again ordered that “every
book should be licensed and entered into the Register’s book of the
Company of Stationers.” The replacing, in 1640, of the absolutism
of the Star Chamber by the absolutism of the Long Parliament (an
absolutism no less arbitrary, though based upon a very different source
of authority) made no change in the completeness of the authority left
with the Stationers’ Company. The Parliamentary Ordinances of 1641, in
prohibiting printing or importing without the consent of the owner of
the copies of said books, constituted a clear statutory recognition of
property in “copy,” a recognition evidently resting, says Scrutton,
upon an understanding of its existence under the Common Law.[182] The
Act of 1643 for “redressing disorders in printing,” and the licensing
Act of 1662, while also having for their main purpose the control of
literature of political influence, continued to affirm or to imply
the existence of property in the “copy” of books. A reference in the
latter Act indicates that the owners of “copies” were at this time
not necessarily members of the Stationers’ Company. The inference is
that an author, in arranging to print his book through a licensed
stationer, did not always dispose of his copyright. The licensing Act
gave a statutory protection for copyright, a protection the provisions
of which were of necessity limited to the term of the Act itself and
of its several renewals, the last of which expired in 1694. While the
recovery of statutory penalties was thus limited, the expressions used
in the Act, as was the case with the preceding Acts, made continued
recognition, by expression or by implication, of the existence of
copyright property independent of the statute, the protection of which
could be maintained under the Common Law. The English authorities on
the subject, Maugham, Coppinger, Scrutton, and others, and the American
Drone, are at one in the opinion that, at the period in question, the
close of the seventeenth century, it was the general understanding that
authors possessed in their productions a perpetual right of property,
and that this right could be assigned. Such an understanding, an
understanding upon which were based Parliamentary Acts for regulation
and for licence, and in accord with which were carried on important and
continued business undertakings, marked a development in the conception
of literary property which had as yet been reached in no other
country. Scrutton admits that the records of the courts do not supply
the evidence that might be looked for in support of this contention.
There are, namely, no entries of prosecutions in the advisory courts
for printing without a licence.[183] He points out, however, that the
Stationers’ Company had under its charter summary rights of search,
seizure, and imprisonment, and that similar powers were confirmed
or renewed by the Licensing Acts. In case of infringement, therefore,
no recourse to the ordinary courts was needed, and no records of
proceedings would exist.

The Act of April, 1710,[184] known as the Act of Queen Anne, under
which a statutory protection for a term of fourteen years was given
to the author of a literary production, had the result of bringing to
a close for Great Britain the period of Common Law copyright. This
result was probably not intended by the legislators who framed the Act,
and was certainly not anticipated by the publishers at whose instance
the matter had been taken up, and who were simply applying for a more
specific and more effective protection (during such term as Parliament
saw fit to grant) for the property in their “copies,” of the existence
of which property there had as yet been no question. It was, in fact,
not until 1769 that any serious contention was raised against the
continued validity of copyright at Common Law. In that year the Common
Law right was maintained in the decision rendered in the famous case of
Millar _vs._ Taylor, a decision rendered the more noteworthy because
it was concurred in by Lord Mansfield, the greatest authority on the
subject of copyright whom Europe had thus far known.

In 1774, in the case of Donaldson _vs._ Becket, the issue was raised
for the second time, the property involved being the same in each suit,
the “copyright” of Thomson’s _Seasons_. In this case, the House of
Lords reversed its previous decision. Its conclusion was in substance:
first, that an author had a Common Law right to his production before
publication (ten judges in the affirmative and one dissenting); second,
that after the publication such Common Law right still rested in the
author (eight judges in the affirmative and three in the negative);
third, that under the statute of 1710, the author had lost his right
of action at Common Law and retained protection for his copyright
only during the term prescribed by the statute (six judges in the
affirmative and five in the negative); fourth, that the right at Common
Law possessed by the author and his assigns prior to 1710 had been
a right in perpetuity (seven judges in the affirmative, four in the
negative). In each of these votes, including that on the vital issue
of the effect upon the Common Law right of the statute of 1710, Lord
Mansfield was recorded in favour of the continued right of the author
at Common Law, and of the perpetuity of copyright, irrespective of the
effect of this statute.

The result of this decision in Donaldson _vs._ Becket was, as said, to
bring to a close what may be called the Common Law period of copyright
in England, and to replace this by a copyright protection limited to
terms of the successive statutes. This whole matter is in its date
beyond the period considered in the present narrative. For this reason,
notwithstanding the continued pertinence and importance of the issues
raised in these two noteworthy suits and the distinctive interest of
the arguments presented by the famous advocates on either side of the
question, it has not seemed to me in order to undertake to give here
any detailed analysis either of the arguments or of the two decisions
arrived at. It is proper, however, to make this brief reference to the
results of these two cases as well because the Act of 1710 marked,
as explained, a definite epoch in the history of literary property
in England, as because this Act, the discussions which gave rise to
it, and the much more important discussions which resulted from it
sixty years later, marked a development in England of a conception of
literary property and of an education of public opinion concerning it
which had not as yet been reached in any State in Europe. We find in
France no such discussions and no legislation based upon a recognition
of the principles underlying literary property, until the Convention
of 1793. It required a revolution to bring about in France a result
that in England was arrived at in regular course in the ordinary
development of law.

This brief reference to the development in England of the recognition
of the rights of literary producers may be fitly concluded with a
quotation from the eloquent plea of John Milton in behalf of the
liberty of the printing-press.

In 1644, an order for the regulation of printing was under
consideration in Parliament (the Long Parliament) which provided that
“No Book, Pamphlet, or Paper, shall be henceforth printed unless
the same be first approved and licensed by such as shall be thereto
appointed.” Milton had been a persistent opponent of the policy of
censorship and licensing, and in defiance of the ordinance of 1643 (an
ordinance in which the decrees of the Star Chamber abolished in 1640
had been in substance renewed) he had published in that year, without
licence and without printer’s name, his treatise on _Divorce_. The
Stationers’ Company, recognising the danger to their authority of a
defiance by an author like Milton, had the matter brought up in the
Commons. It was referred to the committee on printing and the order
above cited was the result. The famous _Areopagitica_, an oration
in the form of a pamphlet, was then written by Milton to protest
against the whole theory of the exercise by Government licensers of a
supervision and control of literature, or of the delegation of such
control to a commercial company which was the creation of Government.
The author of _Paradise Lost_ speaks as follows:

“For that part which preserves justly every man’s copy to himselfe,
or provides for the Poor, I touch not, only wish they be not made
pretenses to abuse and persecute honest and painfull men, who offend
not in either of these particulars. But that other clause of Licensing
Books, which we thought had dy’d with his brother Quadragesimal and
Matrimonial when the Prelats expir’d, I shall now attend with such a
Homily as shall lay before ye, first, the inventors of it to bee those
whom ye will be loath to own; next, what is to be thought in generall
of reading, whatever sort the Books be, and that this Order avails
nothing to the suppressing of scandalous, seditious, and libellous
Books, which were mainly intended to be suppresst; last, that it will
be primely to the discouragement of all Learning and the stop of Truth,
not only by disexercising and blunting our abilities in what we know
already, but by hindering and cropping the discovery that might bee yet
further made both in religious and civill Wisdome.

I deny not, but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and
Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how Bookes demeane themselves
as well as Men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharper
justice on them as Malefactors. For Books are not absolutely dead
things, but doe contain a potencie of Life in them to be as active as
that Soule with whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a
violl the purest afficacie and extraction of that living intellect that
bred them. I know they are as lively, and as vigorously productive, as
those fabulous Dragons’ teeth, and being sown up and down, may chance
to spring up armed men. And yet, on the other hand, unlesse wariness be
us’d, as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man
kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but hee who destroys a goode
Booke, kills Reason itselfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the
eye. Many a Man lives a burden to the Earth; but a goode Booke is the
pretious life-blood of a master spirit, inbalm’d and treasur’d up on
purpose to a Life beyond Life. ’T is true, no age can restore a Life,
whereof perhaps there is no great losse; and revolutions of ages doe
oft recover the losse of a rejected Truth, for the want of which whole
Nations fare the worse. We should be wary therefore what persecution
we raise against the living labours of publick men, how we spill that
season’d Life of Man preserved and stor’d up in Books; since we see a
kinde of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdome; and
if it extend to the whole impression, a kinde of massacre, whereof the
execution ends not in the slaying of an elementall Life, but strikes at
that ethereall and first essence, the breath of Reason itselfe, slaies
an Immortality rather than a Life.”[185]

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

CHAPTER V.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF LITERARY PROPERTY.


I HAVE endeavoured in the foregoing pages to describe the varying
conditions under which was carried on, during the ten centuries
succeeding the fall of the Roman Empire, the production and
distribution of literature. The term “books” is, of course, not
strictly applicable to a large portion of the material produced by the
scribes during the manuscript period. As a matter of convenience, I
have used the phrase “production of literature” to cover what should,
speaking more precisely, properly be described as the reproduction or
multiplication of literature. The labour of the scribes during the
manuscript period was given, as has been noted, almost exclusively to
the production of copies of the more or less fragmentary texts that
had been preserved from the classic period, or from the writings of
the Church Fathers. The case was the same with the earlier printers,
whose undertakings were in like manner devoted to old-time literature
and with whom the production of a work by a contemporary writer was
a comparatively rare exception. During these ten centuries, not a
few writers did noteworthy work, and some of the great books of the
world’s literature belong to this manuscript period. Even, however,
with books recognised later as famous, the fame came but slowly, so
that the requirement for the multiplication of those for which demand
arose became the task of scribes of the generations succeeding that of
the author, rather than of those of his own time. An author like Pope
Gregory I. with the vast machinery of the Church at his disposal, was
in a position to secure for his writings an immediate distribution and
during his own lifetime, to trace the influence of their teachings.
Except, however, in such special cases, writers were obliged to content
themselves with such present measure of appreciation as might be given
by sympathetic readers or hearers in their own monasteries, leaving
such of their productions as possessed any abiding vitality to gain
repute with future generations of monkish readers, as copies slowly
made their way from _scriptorium_ to _scriptorium_.

During this long period in which the chief difficulty lay in the
distribution of books, and in which an author who had anything to say
to the world was only too happy if, during his own lifetime, it might
prove practicable to reach with his books any number of men outside
of his own immediate circle, there could, of course, be no question
of property or copyright control in the literary production. Such
property as might be said to exist in literature pertained solely to
the material form, the manuscript produced, which represented a certain
value for parchment and for labour.

After the time of Charlemagne, when there came to be, in a few Court
circles and in the homes of the more active-minded noblemen following
the fashion set by the Court, an interest in the preservation
of literature, we find record of compensation paid to literary
producers. Such compensation came first, naturally, to the scribes,
who possessed sufficient learning and technical skill to place before
the communities in which they themselves lived, the learning of the
past. Later, with the beginning of original writing in the form of
chronicles, there are instances of rewards or honours conferred upon
the monkish chroniclers by the kings or princes whose ancestors were
glorified, or whose personal deeds were commemorated. The rewards
for literary labour, rewards given, as said, almost exclusively to
clerics, most frequently took the form of ecclesiastical preferment.
A prebend or a bishopric cost little or nothing to the King, while
it meant for the author a very substantial compensation. It is the
clerical character of the author and the ecclesiastical nature of his
compensation which constitute the principal distinction between the
beginnings of compensation for literary labour in the Middle Ages and
the arrangements under which were rewarded the poet-chroniclers of the
later classic times. The authors of the earliest literature-producing
periods sang, as it will be remembered, under the incentive not of
princely gifts, but of popular appreciation.

The records of the Benedictine monasteries give evidence of the
production and accumulation of certain property in the form of
literature, property which increased in available value as methods
were developed for exchanges between the different monasteries of
the surplus copies of their texts, and which assumed still more
importance when, with a gradually developing interest in literature,
wealthy laymen were occasionally prepared to give in exchange for the
precious manuscripts, lands, cattle, moneys, or desirable privileges.
With the development in the respect for learning and letters which
in certain portions of Europe followed the establishment, under the
general direction of Alcuin, of the imperial schools of Charlemagne,
the influence and fame of the monasteries came to be measured very
largely by their respective literary activity, the importance of
the ancient codices preserved in the _scriptoria_, and the beauty
and accuracy of these texts. A monastery, the collections and the
_scriptorium_ of which had in this manner become famous, would be
visited by monastic scholars from distant parts who sought opportunity
to examine, and possibly to copy, the precious texts, and it was this
class of institutions that would be resorted to by the higher class of
recluses, who, retiring from the world, enriched with their fortunes
the Benedictine foundations. The schools of the literary monasteries
would also be selected for the training of the young princes and
noblemen, from whom in later years protection and endowments for their
_almæ matres_ could often be depended upon. When learning and literary
activity served in these several ways to bring to a monastery fame
and fortune, it was natural for the monks, whose service as scholars,
instructors, and scribes had proved most effective in the _scriptorium_
and in the schools, to be selected for honour and preferment, and
that the learned _armarius_ or _librarius_ should frequently become
the abbot, and should, later, find himself bishop or archbishop, or
even pope. The elevation to the papacy, in 999, of Sylvester II.,
previously known as Gerbert, Abbot of Bobbio, and as Bishop Gerbert, is
an example of such a progress from the _scriptorium_ to the leadership
of the Church. I do not, of course, undertake to say that either in
Gerbert’s time or during any century of the period in question, there
was throughout the monasteries and the ecclesiastical communities as a
whole, any universal respect for learning and for literary industry,
and that honours and preferment always followed in proportion to the
value of the scholarly service rendered. I only point out, as has been
stated in the chapters on the monasteries, that even in the so-called
“Dark Ages” of Europe, the ages of which the year 1000 may perhaps
have been the centre, this was very much more largely the case than
is always remembered by historians of a later period writing from a
Protestant point of view, some of whom, like D’Aubigné, have appeared
to contend that learning and literature had been buried during the
thousand years of Catholic rule, and had only been rediscovered by
Luther and Calvin. The groundlessness of this kind of contention has, I
think, been made clear in the brilliant dissertation on the Dark Ages
by the Protestant Maitland, while a mass of testimony in support of
Maitland’s views has been collected by Montalembert, evidence the value
of which may be weakened but cannot be nullified by the wordy eloquence
with which it is presented.

I have spoken of certain monasteries becoming the resort of literary
pilgrims on account of their ownership of some treasured manuscript
handed down from an earlier generation. When, as was frequently
the case, the production of copies of such a text was prohibited
altogether, or was permitted only to members of the monastery itself,
we have an example of a copyright control of the earlier kind,
a control resting upon the ownership not of the text but of the
parchment upon which the text had been placed. If, for instance, a
well authenticated copy of Augustine’s _City of God_ was held in the
_scriptorium_ of Fulda, and another copy, perhaps equally famous,
belonged to that of St. Gall, each monastery could prohibit the
copying of its own parchment, and could in this manner control the
“copyright” of its own particular text. It is to be borne in mind that
no two manuscripts could be in exact accord and that a particular
character or authority frequently attached to the text or version
presented in a particular parchment. Neither monastery could, in the
case imagined, assume any right to control what the later English law
termed the “copy” of S. Augustine’s treatise, but each exercised what
was in substance a copyright at Common Law over the text inscribed on
its own particular parchment. In the chapter on S. Columba, reference
was made to the famous copyright contention between Columba and the
Abbot Finnian, a case the date of which is given as 567, and which
was probably, therefore, the earliest copyright issue decided in
Europe. While the story itself is in all probability merely one of the
long series of legends which grew up about the brilliant Irish saint,
it may well have had some historic foundation. The more important
consideration, is, however, in the fact that whether the story were
true or not as applied to S. Columba, it represented an impression in
the mind of the chronicler Adamnan, writing not half a century after
the death of the saint, concerning the conception of property in a form
of ideas or of instruction, a property which, as made clear in the
story, was entirely apart from that inhering in the parchment itself.
The possibility of such a conception coming into the mind of a writer
of the seventh century, is certainly noteworthy.

Such a copyright control, beginning usually in the form of a
prohibition, was developed, later, to some extent into a property
right and a source of income. When the _armarii_ or _librarii_ came
to realise, first, that other copies of their precious texts were in
existence, so that no one monastery was in a position to monopolise
this piece of the literature or learning of a past generation; and
when, further, they came to understand that gain could be secured for
their monastery chest by conceding for pay the privilege of making one
or more copies of their codex, the practice of selling such privilege
became more and more frequent. It was, in fact, in this manner that
the earlier manuscript-dealers who succeeded in establishing a system
for the production and distribution of books in manuscript, secured
the larger proportion of the texts with which their own collections
would begin, the texts which formed what might be called the “copy” for
their workshops. Occasionally we read of an Aurispa or a Vespasiano
purchasing at a high price some famous and well authenticated so-called
original codex; that is to say, a parchment the date of the production
of which went back some centuries. More frequently, however, it is a
copying privilege which is paid for by the dealer, whose copyist is
permitted, under the strictest supervision, to visit the _scriptorium_
and to transcribe the parchment sheets, which are taken from the
carefully guarded _armarium_ and are closely watched or even sometimes
held by the jealous monks while the process of transcribing goes on.
Vespasiano sometimes secures from the _librarius_ of the monastery
a signed certificate to the effect that the “copy” produced for him
is a complete and accurate transcript. More frequently, however, at
this later time, during the century which preceded printing, the
_scriptoria_ of the monasteries had been so largely neglected that in
many institutions in which were to be found valuable manuscripts highly
cherished by their owners, there was no one in the fraternity who
was competent to give any judgment upon the accuracy of the scribe’s
transcript because there was no one who was able to understand the
purport of the manuscript itself.

This demoralised condition of the monastery collections and the apathy
and ignorance on the part of the monks controlling those collections,
was in many of the monastic centres still more marked during the half
century following the invention of printing, when the earlier printers
were largely dependent for their “copy” for both the classics and the
works of the Fathers, upon such parchments as might still have been
preserved in the monastic foundations. In a number of instances, these
first printers were obliged, as had been the later manuscript-dealers,
to pay for the privilege of examining, collating, and copying. They
were, however, frequently able to purchase from monks who no longer
valued a parchment even as a fetish, the so-called “original.” For
the printer, who had of necessity a larger responsibility for the
correctness of his text than rested upon the old manuscript-dealer,
the task of securing the “copy” for his compositors was not completed
when he had secured control of one manuscript. With not only a risk but
a certainty of errors in each parchment, it was necessary to collate
a number of parchments before the scholarly printer could feel any
assurance that the more pernicious errors at least had been detected
and eliminated. Henry Estienne the first speaks, for instance, of using
as the basis for one printed text no less than twelve manuscripts. The
first copyright known to Europe of the Middle Ages may therefore be
considered as that which inhered in the Common Law control of property
in the manuscript. It was a copyright which had, of course, nothing
whatever to do with the rights of an original producer in the literary
production.

Another form of literary property which did not represent literary
creation, came into existence when some enterprising _armarius_, not
having in his own collection some much-wanted manuscript, would make
the long journey to Rome or to Florence from Fulda, from St. Gall,
from Fleury, or even from far-off Glastonbury, and would there secure
the needed authority himself to prepare a transcript of some valued
codex. His manuscript, brought back to his own monastery, might remain
for years the only well authenticated copy of the text in question
existing in a large region. Such a manuscript represented, of course,
a considerable expenditure of skilled labour, of fatiguing travel,
and, occasionally, also of money, an expenditure or an investment
which entitled the parchment to be considered as in some sense a
property creation, the result of labour. While, as a matter of
scholarly fellowship or of Christian brotherhood, the privilege of
reading and the far greater privilege of copying such a manuscript,
might frequently be extended to fellow Benedictines, the practice of
securing some consideration for its use, and particularly for the
privilege of making a transcript, obtained not infrequently, and
was, under the circumstances, fully warranted. The control of such a
manuscript constituted a “copyright” of a somewhat different nature
from that previously referred to, which was maintained in the case
of some old-time codex that had been inherited or purchased in its
original form, and that did not represent any labour on the part of the
individual or the community claiming the ownership.

When the first printers began their work, they were of necessity
confronted with practically the same conditions and difficulties
in connection with the securing of “copy,” as those with which
the large manuscript-dealers had had to contend. Their task was,
in fact, as already indicated, a more difficult one than that of
the manuscript-dealers, because the standard for completeness and
correctness of text had become more exacting. The parchments required
for their work were, with hardly an exception, the property of
monasteries, and whether for purchase, for comparison, or for “copy,”
the printers were usually obliged to make substantial compensation for
right to copy. This right to copy might be described as a copyright
under limitations. The monastery which had received compensation from a
printer from Venice for the use of a particular parchment, felt itself
under no obligation to decline a similar application from the rival
printer of Lyons, or of Basel. The printers were thus estopped from
securing any control over the works of the particular author which
they proposed to present to the readers of their generation. They were
even unable to secure any exclusive right to the use of any particular
text of such author, unless, indeed, they had found means to purchase
the manuscript outright. A property control of some kind was essential
in order to justify the expenditure and the labour required to bring
the manuscript into print, and this was finally arrived at, although
inadequately enough, under the system of privileges.

While the first printing of books was done in Germany, and while the
number of books produced in Germany during the half century after
Gutenberg was much greater than in any other country, the beginning
of copyright protection for printed books is to be credited to
Italy. Gutenberg, Fust, and their immediate successors in Frankfort,
Nuremberg, Basel, and Cologne, entered upon their first publishing
undertakings without the aid of any government protection or
recognition, municipal, state, or imperial. In the chapter on the
early printers of Venice, I have described with some detail the system
of privileges, a system which, originating in Venice, was adopted in
the other Italian States, and which was followed in substance by the
other States of Europe. The privileges of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries were the precursor and the foundation of the later system of
copyright.

The privileges granted by the Venetian Government were, as we have
seen, of four kinds. The first was in the shape of a sweeping monopoly,
under which the beneficiary was granted for a term of years the
exclusive right to carry on the business of printing in Venice. Of
this class there is but one example, dating from 1469, the details of
which are given in the chapter on Italy. The second kind, a little less
sweeping, gave to the beneficiary a monopoly for the production of all
books of a given class, or in a particular language. The first example
of this was the privilege granted, in 1495, to Aldus for the exclusive
printing of books in Greek. Under the same division may be classed the
privilege given a year or two later, also to Aldus, for the exclusive
use of the italic type, a form which was the invention of Aldus. These
two divisions of privileges have, of course, no logical connection with
copyright. The last named is rather of the character of a patent, while
the first two may properly be classed with commercial monopolies. There
is this distinction, however, that while commercial monopolies have,
as a rule, been granted for the purpose of enriching some favourite of
the Crown, or have in some manner represented jobbery at the expense of
the people, the legislators who granted the first printing privileges
had unquestionably honestly convinced themselves that in no other
way could the new art, the importance of which they were prepared to
appreciate, be effectively encouraged and established. It was doubtless
the case also that Aldus, in incurring expenditure in making Greek type
and in printing Greek books, was assuming very serious and speculative
risks, and was fairly entitled to all the encouragement which the State
could give to him.

The third class of privilege was that securing for an editor or
publisher a monopoly for the production of the works of some author of
a past generation, usually, in fact, for an author of classic times.
This is the form of privilege which, for two centuries succeeding
printing, is most frequently met with, and which constituted the
foundation on which the publishers of those two centuries carried on
their business. The general purpose is the same as that of the general
privileges previously specified, namely, to give to a printer-publisher
an encouragement or inducement to enter upon an expensive and
speculative undertaking which, without such special aid, might, from
a commercial point of view, have appeared impracticable. When Aldus
desired to undertake the production of the first printed edition of the
works of _Aristotle_, the difficult and venturesome undertaking was
made a little less venturesome by the action of the Senate of Venice in
prohibiting for a term of ten years the printing of any other editions
of _Aristotle_. It is to be borne in mind that such a privilege, while
sweeping in character, was very limited as to territory. There was
nothing in law to prevent the printing in Milan of the rival edition
of the _Aristotle_ which was prohibited in Venice, nor even the use
for such rival work of text and the editorial material appropriated
from the volumes of Aldus. The protection given (still within narrow
territorial limits) to such collated texts and original notes and
introductions, belongs in essence under the fourth class of privilege,
the class in which we find the first recognition of the principle of
copyright in a literary production for the sake of the producer or
of his assigns. The earliest European example of the third class of
privilege, which may be described as a publisher’s copyright, bears
date 1492, and was issued by the Venetian Senate to Bernardino de
Benaliis.

The fourth class of privilege was that securing to an author the
copyright of his own production. Such a privilege differed from modern
copyright only in being usually conditional upon or being the result of
the action of censors by whom it had to be “approved and privileged,”
and on the ground of the narrow limits of term and of territory. It
constituted or recognised a property right, but an extremely restricted
right, and a very small property. It is certainly curious that (with
the exception of the printing monopoly of 1469, which was a privilege
only in name) the earliest privilege of which there is record in Italy
or in Europe, was one issued to an author for his own production, and
which constituted, therefore, a copyright in the modern sense of the
term. This privilege was issued as early as 1486, by the Senate of
Venice, to Antonio Sabellico, for his _Decades Rerum Venetiarum_. No
term was specified, and the copyright might, therefore, be considered
as indefinite or perpetual. The second Venetian privilege, also without
term, was that issued in 1492, to Peter of Ravenna, for his _Phœnix_.
This has been referred to by Pütter and by other good authorities, as
the first copyright privilege issued in Europe. The discovery of the
earlier privilege of Sabellico, is due to Horatio Brown. The third
privilege, dating from 1493, and also issued in Venice, constituted a
very definite recognition of the existence of literary property, in
that it gave to a certain Daniele Barbaro, who had inherited from his
deceased brother, Hermolao Barbaro, the manuscript of the work, the
control for a term of ten years in the _Castigationes Plinii_. After
this time, the instances of privileges to authors are very few and far
between. It is the rule to find them issued to printer-publishers, and
except in so far as they covered original editorial labour put into the
work by the publishers, these privileges should be described rather as
trade monopolies (for very restricted territories), than as copyrights.

While the more enterprising of the printers of Venice, Milan, Rome,
and other cities, were, as described, occasionally able to secure
privileges also in other Italian States, these privileges did not give
any safe assurance of a proportionately extended market. In time of
war, all such interstate arrangements lapsed, while even in the times
of peace, it was very difficult and often impracticable to secure in
any “foreign” territory the enforcement of the protection granted,
or the collection of penalties prescribed. Such foreign privileges
could, as a rule, be considered rather as a permit or licence to sell
the original edition than as an undertaking on the part of a foreign
government to prevent the sale of an unauthorised edition. The range
of these privileges was, as noted, restricted in territory as well as
limited in effectiveness. During the century succeeding printing, it
was very seldom indeed that the attempt was made to secure a privilege
for an Italian publication for any territory outside of Italy, or for
a French publication outside of France, or for a German work outside
of Germany. An exception to this limitation was, however, afforded
by what were known as papal privileges which, in form at least,
conceded to the printers to whom they were issued exclusive control
not only within the States of the Church but for all the States of
the world that acknowledged the authority of the Church. There was,
however, practically no machinery for enforcing the authority of
the papal privileges. They gave to the book and to its publisher a
certain precedence and advantage with the faithful followers of the
Church over editions of the same work which had not the sanction of
the papal privilege. I can, however, find record of no instances in
which a publisher, whose papal privilege had been infringed, had
found it possible to enjoin the publication of a rival edition also
offered for sale in Catholic States. The material advantage of a papal
privilege was that it carried with it the assurance of the approval
of the Church concerning the character of the book. It constituted,
namely, evidence that the book had secured the approval of the Church
bureau of censorship, and (with an occasional exception) it preserved
it from interference on the part of local ecclesiastical censors,
whose prejudices were usually more bitter and whose ignorant dread of
heretical scholarship was greater, than was the case with the censors
associated directly with S. Peter’s.

It was the case with the local as well as with the papal privileges
that the protection and encouragement of the author was only a part,
and not infrequently the smaller part, of their purpose. It was
considered essential by the State no less than by the Church to retain
an effective supervision and control over the productions of the Press.
Before the privilege could be secured, the work must be submitted to
the censors and a favourable report must have been given. The privilege
was, therefore, in itself evidence that the work protected by it
contained no material considered dangerous by the political or the
ecclesiastical authorities of the State. To secure the benefit of even
such small measure of property protection as that given under the local
privilege for five or ten years, it was, as a rule, necessary that the
work should be practically non-committal in character, at least as far
as political or theological opinions were concerned.

The history of the Italian publishers shows what a serious burden
was from the outset placed upon the production of literature in the
peninsula, and how disastrous the effect was upon publishing enterprise
and publishing development, by the establishment of machinery for
political and ecclesiastical censorship, and by the necessity of
awaiting the approval of these censors before carrying to completion
publishing undertakings. In Italy, the trouble was in the main with
the Church, and, as a rule, with the authorities at Rome rather
than with the local ecclesiastics. In many of the cities, the local
representatives of the Church to whom was confided the first censorship
responsibility, were interested in and sympathised with the spirit
of local independence, while they also were in a position to realise
somewhat the difficulties caused to the new business of printing and
publishing by too strenuous an exercise of censorship authority. This
state of things was particularly true in Venice, where, as we have
seen, the municipal feeling was very strong, and where educated monks
like Paolo Sarpi were ready themselves to act as leaders in the contest
to defend against the aggression of the Church what was, practically,
the existence of the Press.

In France, where the operations of the Press were, during the first
half century of printing, much less important than in Italy, the first
privilege was issued in 1503. The official censorship of publications
began in 1515, with the accession of Francis I. There are instances
during the reign of Louis XII. of certain “permits” or “approvals”
being placed upon books, but these were not the result of examination
by official censors, and do not appear to have been connected with
any restrictions imposed upon the publishers. The Theological Faculty
of the Sorbonne succeeded, as has been noted in the record of the
Estiennes, in keeping up an active and fairly continuous supervision
of, and interference with, the publication of Bibles and of other books
claimed to belong to the department of theology. The University claimed
the right to supervise and control printing, on the ground that the
printers and publishers were the successors of the old-time University
scribes, the _stationarii_ and _librarii_, and were members of the
University, and that the printing-press was to be considered as part of
the machinery of higher education. There was certainly good foundation
for this claim, but, as it proved, the University was not sufficiently
strong to maintain its contention.

The importance of this new machinery for influencing public opinion was
speedily recognised by the Crown, and as the power of the monarch was
increased through the consolidation of the kingdom, the kings succeeded
in securing the practical control over the business of printing and
selling books. While it was the case, as has been noted in the history
of Robert Estienne, that the influence of Francis I. was, on the
whole, exercised to defend the Press against the oppression of the
theologians, the authority of Henry II. and of his successors was, as a
rule, exercised against the more liberal policy of the University and
in favour of a very close and frequently unduly burdensome supervision
of publishing undertakings. After the accession of Henry II. the
regulations concerning the Press, or at least that portion of the
Press regulations which were of essential importance, emanate from the
Crown. It is the royal chancellor, or his representative, who decides
what books shall receive the official permit, and what the term of
privilege is to be. This term, beginning in the reign of Francis with
five years, was gradually extended until, with the routine renewal, the
average length by the reign of Henry IV. was twenty years. The main
feature in the history of the Press in France is the authority and
the interference of the Crown, as in Italy it had been the exacting
censorship of the Church.

In Germany, the earlier printer-publishers found themselves, at
least up to the time of the Reformation, comparatively free from the
interference of the Church. For the sixty-eight years between the
date of Gutenberg’s printing-press and that of the Diet of Augsburg,
the printer-publishers were left free to print Bibles, editions of
the Fathers with new notes and commentaries, and such contemporary
writings as were found available (the list of these last being in
any case but inconsiderable), without interference from censors of
the Church and without any attempt at supervision or control on the
part of municipal, state, or imperial authorities. The immediate
and active use of the printing-press made by the Lutherans brought
about some change in this situation; a system of censorship was at
once established by the Church, and its authority was confirmed by
the Emperor. A sweeping prohibition was issued not only against all
Lutheran writings, but against all books, theological or other,
emanating from Protestants. In some of the cities which were most
faithful to the Catholic cause, these imperial-ecclesiastical edicts
were confirmed by the municipalities and attempts were made to enforce
their provisions upon the printing-presses and the bookshops within the
municipal territories. A few years later, as in North Germany the cause
of the Protestants organised and strengthened itself, the rulers of
certain Protestant States undertook, at the instance of Luther and his
associates, to establish censorship from a Protestant, or rather from a
Lutheran standpoint. The printing and the sale of Romanist books on the
one hand, and of Anabaptist and Zwinglian heresies on the other, were
prohibited, and the printing of any books was permitted only after the
approval of the official censors had been given.

Notwithstanding, however, this long series of prohibitions,
censorships, and supervisory edicts, imperial, state, and municipal,
the work of the German printer-publishers was interfered with to a
comparatively small extent. The issuing of edicts, regulations, and
proclamations, satisfied the official conscience and met the immediate
requirements of the authorities of Rome on the one hand, and of the
militant Protestants on the other.

They amounted, however, as far as the restriction of the Press was
concerned, to very little more than waste paper. The machinery for
their enforcement was never adequate, and the continued personal
interest in carrying out regulations and in enforcing penalties which
interfered with so important a German industry as that of printing,
appears never to have been keen. The political supervision or
censorship was no more effective or consistent than the ecclesiastical.
From time to time some book would be prohibited because it contained
material disrespectful or antagonistic to emperor, prince, or duke; but
the book prohibited in Augsburg could easily be printed in Nuremberg,
and the work interfered with in Leipzig found prompt distribution
from Wittenberg. Germany was too manifold, and the centres of
intellectual activity and of publishing enterprise were too numerous,
to make it practicable to carry out for the whole realm any general
censorship supervision or restriction. The attempt might be compared
to the experiment of blocking up in a volcanic region one or two of
the more active vents, with the certainty that the exploding forces
would immediately find new outlets. Individual undertakings might be
interfered with, but it was impossible to block the operations of the
printing-presses of Germany. In this respect the printer-publishers of
Germany had a material advantage over those of Paris, whose operations
were subjected to the supervision and to the authority (or rather, to
the conflicting authorities) of the University (and particularly of
the Theological Faculty of the Sorbonne), of the Parliament of Paris,
and of the Crown.

The division of their territory and the lack of central authority
placed the Germans, however, under serious disadvantages in other
ways. While, in France, a royal privilege covered the territory
of the entire kingdom,[186] the German privilege was issued for a
principality, an electorate, a duchy, or a city. The book protected
for Electoral Saxony, was open to appropriation in Prussia or the
Palatinate, or, indeed, in the adjoining Duchy of Saxony. It was
also the case that the German publishers were powerless to protect
themselves against the piratical competition of Basel and Geneva on the
one hand, and of Antwerp and Amsterdam on the other. I do not forget
that, in addition to the local privileges, imperial privileges were
from time to time secured from the Chancellor at Vienna, which, in
form at least, protected a book throughout the entire realm of “the
Holy Roman Empire,” but authorities like Pütter and Kapp are at one in
the conclusion that these privileges were entirely disregarded by the
reprinters and gave practically no property protection for literary
productions. An exception to this should be made for the imperial
cities (_Reichsstädte_), in which an imperial privilege did carry with
it some authority.[187]

In fact, it occasionally happened that the reprinters who planned
to invade with an unauthorised edition the markets of Frankfort or
Nuremberg, were able to secure an imperial privilege, and by means of
this to give some legal colour to their undertaking. The difficulty was
not that the imperial Chancellor desired to interfere with legitimate
publishing undertakings, but that it was considered desirable to
emphasise the control of the imperial authority over the work of the
printing-press, and the contention was not infrequently maintained
in Vienna that no books should be placed in the market without the
approval and the permit of the Emperor. It was further the case that
no trustworthy registry appears to have been preserved in Vienna
during the first century of printing, so that it was quite possible
for duplicate privileges to be issued to competing printers for the
same book and for the same term. No attempt was made to keep a record
in Vienna of the privileges issued in the different German States,
and as a result there was, of course, nothing to prevent conflicting
claims of ownership concerning a literary production, and conflicts
between the imperial and local authorities as to their respective
powers in the business. The lack of any system for the interchange of
copyright entries, and the incompleteness and lack of accuracy of the
registers of any one State was also the cause of frequent conflicts and
difficulties between the publishers of different cities, difficulties
which usually came to a head when the competing editions, each duly
privileged by some authority, came to be offered for sale at the
semi-annual Fair.

With this utter confusion as to the law of copyright (if such a term as
law can properly be applied to this medley of conflicting regulations),
and with no central authority to apply to from which any adequate help
could be secured, the printer-publishers of Germany were obliged to
take the matter into their own hands. No agreements or regulations
that they might frame could serve to protect their books against the
unauthorised competition of Lyons, Basel, Antwerp, or Amsterdam.
They were even not in a position to enforce enactments against the
piratically inclined members of the trade within the territory of
Germany. They could, however, frame such a compact as should guide
the business policy and practice of the leading members of their own
fraternity, while it also proved possible, through the influence
of the business pressure that these leading publishers were in a
position to bring to bear, to compel the majority of the printers and
traders to respect and conform to the regulations decided upon by the
organisation of the whole trade. The fact that the German book-trade
was the first in Europe to bring about an effective organisation of
its own business, an organisation which, with the modifications and
developments called for by the changing conditions of trade, is in 1896
still more complete, comprehensive, and effective than it was in 1503,
was doubtless largely due to the peculiar disadvantages under which
the work of the German printer-publishers had been begun. If there was
to be in Germany any property in literary production, if there was to
be any assured return for literary labour and for publishing risk and
outlay, it was necessary that some authority should be constituted
which should act for the entire German realm and which should make up
for the absence in that realm of any uniform or consistent system of
law. This authority was constituted, and this requirement was met by
the organisation of the German book-trade. This organisation was by
no means strong enough altogether to prevent unauthorised reprinting.
Such reprinting went on in various parts of Germany until the close
of the eighteenth century, and caused no little friction, irritation,
and contention between the different book-making centres; and to the
extent to which it prevailed, it lessened also, of necessity, the
prospect of profitable returns from publishing ventures, and lessened
also the amount of the remuneration that it was possible to secure for
authors and for editors for their contribution to such undertakings.
When, however, the leading publishers throughout the empire had arrived
at an agreement to respect each other’s publishing undertakings,
the seriousness of unauthorised competition and the risk of the
appropriation by reprinters of texts the cost of the reproduction
of which had been borne by others, were very much lessened. It
proved also practicable through the machinery of the Guild, which
originated with the Frankfort Fair and which was brought to its final
organisation in Leipzig, to bring pressure to bear upon such of the
publishers, printers, and booksellers as had in the first place not
been disposed to accept the regulations of the Guild. When it was made
impracticable to sell at the book-fairs or through the central channels
of distribution in Frankfort or in Leipzig, editions which had been
classed as “unauthorised” or “piratical,” the possibility of securing
profit in the production of such editions was very much diminished, so
that their number decreased from year to year.

This satisfactory result, to be sure, belongs to a later period than
that considered in the present study. No such final organisation of the
book-trade had been completed or perfected before the beginning of the
eighteenth century, but in the institution of the Fair at Frankfort
and in regulations and arrangements arrived at between the leading
printer-publishers who twice a year came together at this Fair, the
later organisation was foreshadowed and the preliminary steps towards
it were taken.

The immediate effect of the Thirty Years’ War was, of necessity, to
undermine and almost put a stop to literary production and publishing
undertakings in Germany. Cities like Magdeburg, Wittenberg, Leipzig,
Münster, and others where the production of books by the Protestant
leaders had been active, found themselves the centres of the campaigns
between the Swedes and the Imperialists. Frankfort, which, in certain
respects, suffered much less directly from the operations of war,
was, during considerable portions of the time, so far isolated by the
contesting armies, that its connection with the usual channels of book
distribution could not be kept open. When the means of transportation
were still available and the publishers were able to reach Frankfort
with their samples, the booksellers were so far discouraged as to the
prospect of making sales in their home towns that many of them did not
think the journey to Frankfort worth the risk and the outlay. During
the whole thirty years of the war, the Fair was continued, at least in
form, but in not a few of those years it was merely a form.

As one result, therefore, of the deplorable condition of Germany,
the printer-publishers of Holland secured a much larger proportion
of the book-trade of Europe. Amsterdam, Leyden, and Utrecht were
all outside of the campaigning operations and were also favourably
situated for reaching the markets of Europe. In addition to these
favourable political and physical conditions, the Dutch printers had
made very noteworthy advances in the art of typography, and the Dutch
and Belgian illustrators had from the beginning done much better work
than was as yet known in Germany. The high standard of the scholarship
of the Universities of Leyden and of Amsterdam, the fact that Holland
was, during the first half of the seventeenth century, outside of the
contests that were absorbing many of the European States, and the
further fact that the Protestant Republic had freed itself altogether
from the trammels of the censorship of Rome and had refused to replace
these with the equally burdensome censorship of Geneva, had the effect
of attracting to Holland scholarly thinkers and writers from various
parts of Europe.

With scholarly writers and material thus provided, with the most fully
developed typographical facilities that Europe had as yet known, and
with the widest possible commercial connections, the printer-publishers
of Holland had at their command during the larger portion of this
century, all the factors requisite for the building up of great
publishing interests. They utilised these facilities to good purpose,
and by the close of the Thirty Years’ War they had definitely taken
from Italy, France, and Germany the leadership in the enterprise,
importance, and high standard of their publishing undertakings.

The chapter on the Elzevirs, who can be accepted as types of the
publishers of Holland during this period of the supremacy of Dutch
publishing, will have shown that the Republic did not during this
period make any important contributions to, or precedents for, any
system for the protection of literary property. The territory of the
Republic was limited and the number of cities in which important books
were produced were but few. While there does not seem to have been
any formal compact, the leading publishers had, however, evidently
arrived at some understanding between themselves to respect each
other’s undertakings. Privileges were secured from the governments of
the individual States, or sometimes from the central authority of the
Republic, but there was evidently no uniformity of system in regard to
these and they do not appear to have been depended upon to any material
extent for the protection of the books. The purpose in securing them
seems to have been rather to give evidence that the undertaking had
received the sanction or approval of the representatives selected by
the States for the purpose, representatives who were usually scholars
from the universities.

I have not been able to examine in detail the records of the Dutch
publishers of the period; but I have not found in the history of the
Elzevirs, whose undertakings were more considerable for a time than
those of all their contemporaries together, any reference to the
enforcement of a Dutch privilege against a Dutch reprinter charged
with the infringement of the same. The records of the Elzevirs give,
however, very considerable evidence concerning the extent to which the
Dutch publishers appropriated, according to their own convenience,
the undertakings of their competitors in Germany, Italy, and France.
Of these appropriators, the Elzevirs were, as pointed out, the chief
offenders, and they were, during the larger portion of the period in
question, the only Dutch publishers who were in a position through
their widespread connections to reach with their unauthorised reprints
the markets of the world. To the extent to which they made sales
outside of Holland, the value of the property rights of the original
publishers of Nuremberg, Basel, Venice, or Paris, was diminished.

While the Elzevirs had, therefore, to an extent previously unknown in
the history of publishing, made of piracy a fine art and a pursuit
of world-wide commercial importance, it seems probable, as before
suggested, that, in giving tangible evidence that literary distribution
could not be limited by political boundaries, and that literary
producers were addressing themselves to the readers, not of their
own State, smaller or greater, but of the civilised world, they were
preparing the way for a European recognition of the nature of literary
production and of the equity and necessity of protecting literary
producers. The Elzevirs were able in this manner to render an important
service in preparing Europe for the system of European copyright which
was to take the place of limited local privileges and state enactments.

One circumstance in connection with literary work and book-production
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries furthered very largely
the facility for unauthorised competition and the work of piratical
reprinters. This was the fact that, as far as literature and learning
were concerned, there was but one language for Europe. In the
Universities, in the workroom of the scholar, in the composing-room of
the printing-office, we find that, for nineteen-twentieths of the books
that were being put into shape, the text was Latin. The universality
of the language in which literature was preserved and learning was
maintained, a universality that was the essential characteristic of
the manuscript period and of the work of the earlier universities
during the same period, was in large part maintained during the
first two centuries of printing. In the department of theology, to
which belong probably the larger proportion of the books of the
earlier publishers, all the works were in Latin. The division next in
importance, and possibly even greater in extent, comprised the series
of reproductions of the texts of the authors of classic times. For
these authors, both Latin and Greek, the notes and the commentaries
were, as a rule, given in Latin. The works in jurisprudence, works
which were in the main expositions of the old Roman law, were, with
hardly an exception, printed in Latin text, and the same was the case
with works of medicine and natural science.

The fact that in all the great universities of Europe, during these
same two centuries, the larger proportion of the lectures in these
several departments were given in Latin, served, of course, to maintain
and to extend this universality of learning, of literature, and of
science, and to build up a body of scholars who belonged not to any
one State, least of all possibly to the “country of origin,” but to
Europe as a whole, to the world of literature and of learning. The
detail of smallest importance that occurs in thinking of the career
of a Casaubon, a Scaliger, or an Erasmus, is the place of his birth.
Even the places selected by such a scholar for a sojourn of greater
or less length, are of much smaller moment in fixing his place or
his influence in the history of his generation or of the world, than
the particular school of thought with which he associated himself,
or the special undertakings to which he gave his coöperation. It
is interesting to note, particularly in connection with the many
difficulties in the way of transportation, how largely the scholars of
that day lived in their correspondence. Men like Scaliger and Erasmus,
sojourning at times in isolated towns and with but a small immediate
circle, impressed themselves on the thought of Europe through their
letters to their friends. The chapter on Erasmus emphasises the fact
that, apart even from the chief divisions of university work under
which the publications of the times were classified, a writer of the
sixteenth century who had a work of literature, and even of light
literature, to present to the world, was able through the use of Latin
to reach at once all the cultivated communities. Such books as the
_Praise of Folly_ and the _Colloquies_ of Erasmus, or the _Ship of
Fools_ of Brandt, became, within a wonderfully short time after their
publication, the talk of society in all circles and in all cities of
Europe. I do not overlook the fact that during the latter part of the
period now in question, there came to be an increasing proportion of
printing in the vernacular. From the beginning of printing in the Low
Countries, popular romances and legends had been issued in French,
and the same practice was followed by the printers of Lyons, who
gave special attention to what we should call popular publishing.
Various translations appeared shortly after the publication of the
Latin originals of the _Praise of Folly_ and of _The Ship of Fools_.
Works like those of Luther, while issued originally, or at least
simultaneously, in Latin, for the purpose of influencing the opinion
of the scholars of Europe and of his own monastic associates, were put
almost at once into German, because their special purpose was to make
clear to Luther’s own community, and to the less educated portion of
such community, the truths that seemed to him essential, concerning the
relations of man to his Creator and concerning the usurpation of the
Roman Church, which had undertaken to control those relations. These
exceptions do not, however, militate against the substantial accuracy
of the general statement that Latin as the language of literature was
the language of the printing-office and of publishing undertakings as a
whole.

It seems to me probable that if the practice had continued of retaining
one literary language for Europe, the possibility of securing one
system for controlling and protecting literary production throughout
Europe would have been very much furthered, and the date of interstate
European copyright might have been advanced by a century or more.
There seemed at one time to be a possibility that with the decline of
the general use of Latin, the language of France would be accepted by
the writers of Europe as a convenient form for literature which was
international in its character and which was addressed to the whole
civilised world. Such general or international use of French proved,
however, but a passing phase or episode in literary history, a phase
which probably saw its culmination during the reign of Frederic the
Great. The revival of the feeling of nationality which accompanied or
resulted from the completion of the organisation of the great States
of Europe, brought with it a revival of patriotic interest in the
maintenance of the national language for the literature of the nation.
As a result, we find a revival, or rather a development, of German; the
writers of Italy bringing their books before the world no longer in
Latin but in Italian, those of England accepting for their medium their
home language, and those of France finding the use of the literary
language which they had hoped to see adopted by Europe as a whole,
restricted to French territory and to one or two adjoining States.
It is only in countries like Belgium and Switzerland which possess
no national tongue, or like Holland, the home language of which has
too limited a circle of readers, or like Russia, whose language lies
outside of literary civilisation, that we find any continuity in the
practice of bringing books into print in French, or occasionally in
Latin.

With this development of national literature, written in the tongue of
the country of origin, and the direct availability of which is in the
main limited to the readers of such country, there comes, for a time at
least, a retrogression in the tendency which had been gaining strength,
to consider Europe, as far as its literature was concerned, as one
community. The domestic laws for the protection of literary property
begin to take shape, and to secure for such property within the limits
of the State in which it originated a better assured and a more lasting
protection. At the same time, however, that these domestic copyright
laws are being enacted, we find an increase in the impression that the
authors outside of the State have no rights calling for consideration
and that the interests of the home publishers and of the home readers
call for and justify the largest measure of appropriation that seems
convenient of the productions of these foreign authors in the form of
translations.

The development of public opinion to such condition of enlightenment
as assured the recognition of literary production as property,
irrespective of political boundaries and irrespective also of the
particular form of language in which it might appear in print, came but
slowly. This education and development on the part of the community
on the one hand, and on that of authors and their publishers on the
other, belong, of course, to a later period than that here under
consideration. It was not, in fact, until the time of the discussions
in England which resulted from the famous statute of 1710 (discussions
which began in 1769 in connection with the suit of Millar _vs._ Taylor)
that we find any intelligent consideration given to the principles
involved and to the interests at stake in the definition and the
protection of literary property. The first general discussion in France
concerning the rights of literary producers and their relations to the
community, was due to the Convention of 1793.

In Germany, as before indicated, the feebleness of the imperial
authority and the lack of any real unity or harmony of imperial
action, had the result of throwing the consideration of such a matter
as copyright back upon the local legislatures of the State. As a
consequence, the framing of any consistent legislation, giving such
recognition to literary property as had been secured under the monarchy
in England and the revolutionary republic in France, was delayed in
Germany until 1837, when the Act was passed in Prussia which formed
the model for the similar Acts passed shortly thereafter by the
legislatures of a number of the other States of the empire.

If Germany was, in connection with the special difficulties attending
the delay in its reorganisation as a nation, somewhat slow in the
recognition given to the principles of copyright, this delay has, as
far as the interest of literary producers and of copyright owners
are concerned, been more than offset by the admirable service
rendered through the organisation, already referred to, of the German
book-trade. To Germany also belongs the credit of inaugurating the
system of interstate copyright that gave the precedents for the
international copyright conventions, and that served as the suggestion
and the precursor of the European system of recognition and protection
of literary property instituted in 1887 by the Convention of Berne.

It was France, however, that took the initiative in calling this
Convention, and it was the members of the Association of French Authors
and Artists who had the larger share of the responsibility for planning
the policy and shaping the work of the Convention. The result of
these public-spirited labours has been to secure, for the first time
in history, an assured recognition and protection for literary and
artistic property.

It is evident from this brief summary that, by the close of the
seventeenth century, the term fixed for the completion of the present
study, the conception of literary property had not reached any very
advanced stage of development.

The diverse theories which came into discussion in the latter part of
the eighteenth century, in England in 1769 and 1774, in France in 1793,
and in Germany somewhat later, may be briefly summarised as follows:

1st. Property in an intellectual conception or creation is fully
analogous to property in a material creation, and implies as
comprehensive and unlimited a control for the production of the labour
of the mind as that conceded by the community to the production of the
labour of the hand.

2d. Intellectual property depends upon an individual agreement or
convention to which each person enjoying the use of a copy of a
literary (or artistic) production makes himself a party.

3d. Property in an intellectual production depends upon the natural or
personal rights of the author, who through unauthorised appropriations,
would be caused an injury or tort.

4th. Property in an intellectual production is the creation of statute,
and is subject to limitations depending not upon any natural rights of
the producer, but upon the convenience or advantage of the community.

Of these several theories or conceptions, it is the fourth which
represents in substance the survival of the discussions of two
centuries, and which has formed the basis of the copyright legislation
of both Europe and America.

It is probably not yet practicable to determine whether such survival
represents the survival of the fittest. I am inclined to think that
the actual status of an intellectual production and the relation of
its producer to the community would be more accurately expressed by a
combination of the first and fourth of these theories. We may assume
in the first place that the right of the producer to the complete and
unrestricted control of an intellectual production has been accepted as
no less binding upon the community than the rights of the producers of
material property.

Secondly, we may admit that an intellectual production is from its
special character much more exposed to appropriation or invasion
than is material property, and that an adequate protection of the
property-rights of a literary producer can be secured only by means of
a very considerable measure of special legislation, and that even this
legislation would often prove inadequate for the purpose unless it were
seconded or supported by public opinion and by the good will of the
community.

Thirdly, we may assume that as a consideration for this service of
exceptional legislation and for this special coöperation of the
community in aiding in the protection of his very “difficult” property,
the creator of an intellectual production is willing to sacrifice in
favour of the community a portion of his unrestricted ownership.

An application of such an hypothesis of a practical adjustment of the
rights and requirements of the author on the one hand and the interests
of the community on the other, is afforded by the record of copyright
legislation in France. The long series of discussions, which, beginning
in 1793, were continued until 1867, resulted in the conclusion that the
claim of the author to a copyright in perpetuity could in theory not be
refuted. The legislation with which these discussions were terminated,
did not, however, carry this conclusion to its logical result. The
term of copyright was fixed not for perpetuity but for the life of the
author and fifty years thereafter. The author’s property-right in his
creations was, namely, protected for himself, for his children, and for
his grandchildren, but after these natural family interests had been
provided for, consideration was given to the interests of the community
at large, and the literary production was taken into the public domain.

There has been, I contend, in this copyright arrangement arrived at in
France, something in the nature of a compact between the author and the
State, although I do not find such a view presented in the discussions
of the time. It seems to me that such a compact is not only equitable
but logical,--and that it secures a satisfactory solution for the vexed
question concerning copyright in perpetuity. The author asks for a
larger measure of protective service from the State than that required
by the owner of property like a house (or, for that matter, of any
other class of property), and he is willing in return for such special
service, if the results of his labours may, by adequate legislation, be
assured for his immediate descendants, to surrender to the community
the property-right in perpetuity which under his inherent right and at
common law was as fully vested in him as is the title of a house in the
man who has produced it.

The consideration of these several theories or conceptions does
not properly belong to the history of literary production prior to
the beginning of the eighteenth century. I make reference to them
here simply because they represent the conclusions toward which
were gradually developed the more limited conceptions arrived at in
the earlier centuries, the centuries whose literary activities and
conditions I have attempted in these volumes to describe.

[Illustration]




[Illustration]

INDEX


  A

  Abbon, Saint, i, 56

  Abelard, the philosophy of, i, 198; the lectures of, i, 198; the
    influence of, upon the theological school of Paris, i, 198;
    considered as the actual founder of the University of Paris, i,
    197, 198

  Academies, literary, of Italy, i, 322 _ff._, 344

  Academy, of Venice, the, literary undertakings of, i, 423 _ff._

  ---- of France, founding of the, ii, 458

  _Adagia_, the, of Erasmus, the first edition of, ii, 194; the Aldine
    edition of, ii, 199

  Adamnanus, life of S. Columba, cited, i, 50

  Adolph of Nassau, captures Mayence, i, 371

  Adrian VI, ii, 29

  Aedh, King, presides over the parliament of Drumceitt, i, 49

  Aelfric, _Homilies_ of, i, 101; the canons of, i, 101

  Agapetus, Pope, i, 22

  Agnien, _libraire_ in Paris in the 13th century, i, 271

  Agricola, librarian of Heidelberg in 1485, orders books for the
    library, i, 297

  Aimoin of Fleury, i, 56

  Albert, Abbot of Gembloux, makes collection of manuscripts, i, 231

  ---- of Brandenburg, ii, 229

  Alcuin, training of, by Egbert, i, 107; the library of, at York, i,
    62; correspondence of, with Charlemagne, i, 62, 109; the methods
    in his _scriptorium_, i, 66; institutes the imperial schools in
    Aachen, Tours, and Milan, i, 109; poem of, on the library of York
    Cathedral, i, 108; his imperial pupils, i, 109; treatise of, on
    orthography, i, 111; his injunction to pious scribes, i, 113; list
    of the writings of, i, 114; death of, at Tours, i, 115; describes
    the journeys of Aelbert, i, 228; the educational work of, ii, 479
    _ff._

  Aldersbach, monastery of, i, 40.

  Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborn, visits Berthwold in Canterbury, i, 97;
    imports books from France, i, 97.

  _Aldi Filii_, the name adopted by the son and grandson of the founder
    of the firm, i, 438

  Aldine classics, the, models for the Elzevirs, ii, 301

  ---- Press, close of the work of, i, 438; operations of the, in Rome,
    i, 441 _ff._

  Aldus Manutius, work of, in the printing of Greek texts, i, 243;
    relations of, to the book trade of Italy and of Europe, i, 415;
    earlier life of, i, 417 _ff._; letter of, stating his aims, i,
    418; first publications of, i, 420; literary undertakings of,
    i, 419; marriage of, i, 420; Greek classics issued by, i, 420;
    institutes the Academy of Venice, i, 423; correspondence of, with
    France and with Germany, i, 424 _ff._; reputation of, in Germany,
    i, 430; letter of, to Taberio, i, 430; summary of publications of,
    i, 432; financial difficulties of, competition of, with piratical
    reprinters, i, 432; secures papal privileges, i, 432; initiates
    new forms of type, i, 434; attempts to defend his office against
    literary loafers, i, 437; death of, i, 438; summary of the career
    of, i, 439; ii, 12, 22, 23, 102, 151, 194; privilege given to, for
    Greek text, ii, 346; privilege given to, for italic text, ii, 347;
    publishes the _Letters of Phalaris_, ii, 351; ii, 487

  Aldus Manutius the second, i, 438; business experience of, i, 441;
    gives up business as a printer, i, 445

  Aleander, Hieronymus, Greek scholar and theologian, i, 422, ii, 12
    _ff._

  Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, the library of, i, 147

  Alfano, the poem of, on monastery life, i, 127

  Alfonso, King of Aragon and Sicily, offers rewards for literary
    productions, i, 330

  Alfred, King, attends school in Oxford, i, 119; service of, to the
    literary interests of England, i, 98; makes English version of
    Gregory’s _Pastoral Care_, i, 99; complains of the ignorance of
    Englishmen, i, 99; prepares English translations of certain famous
    books, orders transcripts of the national chronicles, i, 100

  Al-hakem, Kahlif, library of, in Cordova, i, 254; pays large sums for
    the writing of books, i, 254

  Alphonso, King of Naples, the literary circle of, i, 252

  Amalasuentha, Queen of the Goths, i, 20

  Amandus, Abbot of Salem, i, 85

  Ambrose, Saint, _Legenda Aurea_ of, cited, i, 37

  Amerbach, Basilius, ii, 238

  ---- Boniface, ii, 173

  ---- Johann, editor, printer and publisher of Basel, i, 393, ii, 151;
    purchases paper stock with an edition of S. Augustine, i, 348;
    relations of, with Koberger, i, 393; relations of, with Froben, i,
    393

  Andreä, Hieronymus, ii, 410

  Andreas, Abbot of Bergen, i, 86

  Andrews, Bishop, ii, 97, 99

  Angus the Culdee, the _Festilogium_ of, i, 46

  Anjou, the Countess of, pays, in 1460, a great price for a copy of
    _Homilies_, i, 299

  Anna Gray, the monastery of, founded, i, 47

  _Annales Ecclesiastici_, ii, 97

  Anne, Queen, the Act of, ii, 472

  Anselm, Saint, the Peripatetic, cited, i, 39, 197; recommends to his
    pupils the study of an expurgated Virgil, i, 62

  Anshelm, Thomas, publisher of Tübingen, ii, 165, 172, 231

  _Antidotarium_, the, i, 196

  Antwerp as a publishing centre, ii, 255 _ff._; losses of, through the
    revolt of the Netherlands, ii, 274

  _Apologia pro Herodoto_, ii, 72 _ff._

  Aquinas, Thomas, the _de Censuris_ of, ii, 386

  Arabian writers, bring to Europe the literature of Greece, i, 181;
    medical works of, used as text-books, i, 195

  _Areopagitica_ of Milton, the, ii, 474 _ff._

  Arethas, the scribes of, i, 42

  Aretinus, Johannes, _librarius_, i, 234, 246

  Ariosto, the _Orlando_ of, ii, 370

  Arminius, the doctrines of, ii, 291

  Arnest, Archbishop of Prague, i, 44

  Arnold, Abbot of Villers, i, 75

  Arts and Industries, bureau of, in Venice, ii, 361

  Arundel, Archbishop, ii, 130

  ---- Earl of, ii, 118, 123

  Ascensius, _see_ Badius.

  Ascham, Roger, ii, 145

  Asser, Bishop, organizes education in the kingdom of Alfred, i, 99

  Athalaric, King of the Goths, i, 20

  Atkyns, Richard, on the introduction of printing into England, ii, 134

  Atticus, relations of, to the book-trade of Italy, i, 416

  _Auctores Frobeniani_, ii, 185

  Augsburg, the early printers of, i, 396

  Augustine, Saint, writings of, i, 3; literary work of, i, 32, 33; on
    the value of ignorance, i, 121; the library of, i, 147

  Augustinians, the regulations of, for the care of books, i, 148

  Aungerville, Richard (de Bury), i, 308 _ff._

  Aura, Saint, and scholar, i, 51

  Aurelian, Saint, the _Rule_ of, i, 123

  Aurispa, Johannes, dealer in manuscripts, i, 242; brings to Florence
    his collection of manuscripts, i, 251; correspondence of, with
    Filelfo, i, 251; publishing undertakings of, i, 251; fate of the
    manuscripts of, i, 253

  Austria, censorship in, ii, 249

  Author, rights of, in literary production, under the laws of Venice,
    ii, 399 _ff._

  Authors, payments to, by Plantin, ii, 276 _ff._; acting as their own
    publishers in Germany, ii, 435; in France, ii, 435

  Averrhoes, i, 181; the philosophy of, i, 196

  Avicenna, i, 181; the medical treatises of, i, 196

  Avitus, the Emperor, i, 8

  Azo, i, 183


  B

  Bacon, Roger, seeks scribes for the manifolding of his treatises,
    i, 84; makes complaint concerning the ignorance of the scribes of
    Paris, i, 218

  Badius, Jodocus, (Ascensius), ii, 10, 12, 23, 31; commends the work
    of Koberger, ii, 155

  Balzac, Jean L. G., Sieur de, ii, 310, 333 _ff._

  Barbaro, Daniele, ii, 345

  ---- Hermolao, ii, 345

  Barcelona, early manuscript-dealers in, i, 313

  Bards, orders of, i, 48

  ---- Celtic, arraigned before the Parliament of Drumceitt, i, 48;
    existence of, preserved by Columba, i, 48,

  Barnet, battle of, ii, 128

  Baronius, ii, 97

  Barrois, ii, 105

  Barstch, _Im. anz. d. Germ. Mus._ cited, i, 40 _ff._

  Basel, the Council of, i, 85; as a publishing centre, i, 391; ii,
    204; the University of, i, 391; ii, 178; the relations of the
    magistracy of, to the printing business, i, 392; world-wide
    reputation of the printers of, i, 395; University of, in its
    relations with the printers, i, 395; regulations of the magistracy
    of, concerning literary piracies, ii, 412

  Bassa, Domenico, secures an exceptional copyright or monopoly, ii,
    379 _ff._

  Baudius, ii, 289

  Baudoke, Ralph de, Dean of S. Paul’s, i, 105

  Bautzen, school regulations of, i, 283

  Bayle, the _Dictionary_ of, ii, 444

  Beaupré, the manuscripts of, i, 131

  Beauvais, Jean de, _librarius_ of Paris in the 14th century, record
    of his sales, i, 273

  Beccadelli, the _Hermaphroditus_ of, i, 331

  Beda, Noel, describes the purchase of books in Rome, i, 227; ii, 262,
    444 _ff._

  Bede, the venerable, _Chronicles_ of, i, 56; a pupil of Biscop,
    writes in Jarrow the _Chronicles_, i, 95

  Bedier, Chancellor, ii, 210

  Behem, Franz, printer of Mayence, i, 381

  ---- Martin, ii, 175

  Belisarius, captures Ravenna, i, 20

  Benaliis, Bernardino de, ii, 348

  Benedict, Saint, i, 9, 10; the Order of, instituted, i, 12; the
    _Rule_ of, i, 12, 28; the literary interests of, i, 13; his
    _scriptorium_, i, 12; relations with Cassiodorus, i, 12; life of,
    written by Pope Gregory I., i, 28

  Benedictine monasteries in their relations to literature, ii, 480
    _ff._

  Benedictines, the records by Mabillon and Ziegelbauer of the literary
    work of, i, 122

  Beowulf, an early text of, i, 92

  Berlin, the earlier book-trade of, ii, 424 _ff._; the book-dealers
    of, ii, 425

  Bernard, Saint, pious fraud upon, i, 76

  Berne, the convention of, ii, 339, 506

  Berneggerus, Matthew, ii, 309

  Berners, Juliana, ii, 138

  Berquin, bookseller of Paris, ii, 443

  Berri, Duke of, ii, 116

  Berthold, Elector of Mayence, ii, 420

  Berthold von Henneberg on the _Divine Art of Printing_, i, 368

  Berthwold, Archbishop of Canterbury, i, 96

  Bertile, the nun, gives lectures at Chelles, i, 51

  Bessarion, Cardinal, literary activities of, i, 330, 365

  Beza, ii, 54

  Bible, terms used for, in middle ages, i, 44; books of, circulated
    separately, i, 44; great cost of certain manuscript copies of,
    in the national library at Paris, i, 299; first work printed by
    Gutenberg, i, 373; the first edition of, sold in Paris, i, 374;
    editions of, in various languages, printed in Zurich, i, 396;
    printing of the first edition in Hebrew, i, 459; version of, by
    Coverdale, ii, 141; version of, by Hollybush, ii, 142; German
    versions of, published by Koberger, ii, 158; the Lutheran version
    of, i, 223 _ff._; the version of, known as Matthews’s, ii, 141;
    Tyndale’s version of, ii, 140; Wyclif’s translation of, ii, 130;
    first printed in England, ii, 140

  _Bible Polyglotte_, printed by Plantin, ii, 260 _ff._

  Bibles, the printing of, in England, ii, 128 _ff._

  _Biblia Pauperum_, i, 350 _ff._

  _Bibliotheca_, used to denote the Scriptures, i, 44

  _Bidelli_ or _Bedelli_, derivation of the term, i, 187; functions of,
    i, 187

  Biot, J. B., characterises the philosophical work of the
    universities, i, 222

  Birckmann, Franz, publisher of Cologne and of London, i, 388;
    difficulties of, with the censors of Antwerp, i, 390

  Biscop, Benedict, founds monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow, i,
    95; makes journeys to Rome, collects books and pictures, i, 95;
    far-reaching influence of his educational work, i, 107; purchases
    books in Rome, i, 227

  Blades, William, ii, 102 _ff._

  Blaubeuern, the monastery of, manuscript work in, i, 86;
    printing-presses established in, i, 86

  _Blickling Homilies, the_, i, 101

  Block-books, i, 350 _ff._; block-printing, i, 350

  Blois, library of the Château of, ii, 446

  Bobbio, the monastery of, founded, i, 47

  Boccaccio, translates the Iliad and the Odyssey into Latin, i, 323,
    324; influence of, upon the study of Greek, i, 325; the _Decameron_
    of, i, 325; script of, used as a model for italic type, ii, 347

  Bohic, Heinrich, manuscript of, i, 40; the commentary of, i, 230

  Boleyn, Anne, ii, 140

  Bologna, the academies of, i, 345; the earlier scribes in, i, 245;
    statutes of the city of, i, 192; University of, i, 181, 183 _ff._

  Bolomyer, Henry, ii, 119

  Bomberg, printer of Venice, ii, 371

  Bonaccorsi, paper maker and publisher, i, 238

  Bonhomme, Jean, bookseller to the University, 1486-1490, i, 276

  Boniface, Saint, i, 53

  Bonus, Abbot of St. Michael in Pisa, i, 138

  _Book of Kells_, manuscript, ascribed to Columba, i, 47

  Books, the making of, in the monasteries, i, 16 _ff._; the making
    of, in the early universities, i, 178 _ff._; the prices of, during
    the Middle Ages, i, 135, 297 _ff._; the rental of, in the Italian
    Universities, i, 189, 191; secured by chains, i, 141; pledged with
    the pawnbrokers of Oxford, i, 310; prices of those first printed,
    i, 375 _ff._

  Books in manuscript, sold by pedlars, i, 261; sales of, in Paris
    in the 14th century under formal contracts, i, 272; sold at the
    English fairs, i, 306; prices of, in Venice, in the 15th century,
    i, 413-415; importation of, to England, ii, 133; printed in Germany
    during the Reformation period, ii, 240; prices of, in Antwerp, in
    1576, ii, 279; transportation of, between Holland and Italy, ii, 301

  Book-dealers of Paris exempted from taxes, i, 203; terms describing
    the, i, 205; regulations for the examination of, i, 206; classed as
    members of a profession, i, 213 _ff._; locality occupied by, i, 217

  Book-manufacturing, cost of, with the earlier Venetian publishers, i,
    413

  Book-production in Europe, stages in the history of, i, 10, 11, 12

  Bookseller of Venice, the daybook of a, i, 414

  Booksellers, location in Paris of early, i, 262; in Venice,
    matriculation requirements for, ii, 309

  Bookselling in the monasteries, i, 134

  Book-trade, the, in Italy during the manuscript period, i, 225;
    survival of, after the fall of the Western Empire, i, 225; of
    Paris, under the control of the University authorities, i, 199
    _ff._; earlier regulations regarding the, i, 201 _ff._; of the
    University of Paris, regulations of, for the sale of books, i,
    208 _ff._; membership of the, in the 14th and 15th centuries,
    i, 210 _ff._; of Paris in the 13th century, i, 257 _ff._; of
    Germany, relations of, to the Reformation, ii, 218; in the early
    universities, i, 178 _ff._; between Venice and England, i, 242

  Bosco, instructor in Paris, i, 221

  Bossuet, relations of, to ecclesiastical censorship, ii, 462 _ff._

  Bosworth Field, the battle of, ii, 123, 129

  Bourchier, Thomas, ii, 135

  Boville, Charles, ii, 19

  Braccio, ii, 351

  Bracciolino, Poggio, i, 333 _ff._

  Bracton, Henry of, i, 308

  Brandenburg, censorship in, ii, 244; privileges in, ii, 424

  Brandis, publisher of Leipzig, i, 400

  Brazizza, orator and author, i, 355

  Breda, the peace of, ii, 317

  Brehons, an order of Celtic bards, i, 48

  Bremen, and the writings of Luther, ii, 246

  _Brœders van de Penne_, i, 89

  Brice, Hugh, ii, 116, 123

  Brome, Prior of Gorlestone, initiates the making of indexes, i, 141

  Brothers of Common Life, the, i, 88 _ff._; manuscripts produced by,
    i, 88, 89; printing-offices established by, i, 90; the work of,
    in the production and distribution of manuscripts, i, 282; early
    interest of, in printing, i, 282; the manuscript trade of the, i,
    291 _ff._; distribute cheap books among the people, i, 368; the
    first printing done by the, i, 369; the printing and publishing
    undertakings of the, i, 399, ii, 109

  Brown, Horatio F., ii, 344

  Bruges, ii, 102 _ff._

  ---- Louis de, i, 105 _ff._

  Bruin, Leonardo, on the book-trade of Florence, i, 234

  Brute, _Chronicle_ of, ii, 116, 139

  Buchanan, George, ii, 65 _ff._

  Budæus, scholar and diplomat, ii, 13 _ff._; influence of, with
    Francis I., ii, 14 _ff._, 39; work of, printed by Vascosanus, ii, 25

  Bulæus, _History of the University of Paris_, by, i, 256

  Bull, of Benedict VIII., 1022, i, 44; of Leo X., 1520, ii, 225;
    papal, concerning the productions of the printing-press, ii, 359

  Burer, Mathias, i, 40

  Burgo, Antonio de’, i, 449

  Burgundy, the dukes of, patrons of producers of books, i, 268, 294

  ---- Duke of, ii, 102

  Bury, Richard de, i, 44; buys books in Paris, i, 218; buys books
    in Rome; i, 228; describes his relations with the booksellers of
    Europe, i, 233; makes reference to the wide extent of the business
    of the manuscript-dealers, i, 296

  Busby, Doctor, ii, 81

  Busch, ii, 167

  Busleiden, ii, 41

  Bussi, Bishop of Aleria, an early patron of printing, i, 405

  Bydell, John, ii, 142


  C

  Cædmon, the songs of, i, 93; paraphrases of the Scriptures, i, 93;
    composes _The Revolt of Satan_, i, 93

  Caen, printing in, ii, 257

  Cæsaris and Stoll, establish the second press in Paris, ii, 7

  Cæsarius of Arles, convent of, i, 51; the _Chronicles_ of, i, 225

  Calcar, Abbot Heinrich von, i, 85

  Calcedonio, ii, 350

  Calvin, ii, 51, 52 _ff._; the _Institutes_ of, ii, 55

  Calvinists, held responsible for the destruction of many monasteries,
    i, 132

  Camaldulensers, of St. Michael, carry on a trade in manuscripts, i,
    234

  Camaldulensis, Ambrosius, writes to Aretinus, i, 246

  Cambrai, the League of, i, 420; ii, 357

  Cambridge, the University of, i, 181; ii, 60; first printing in, ii,
    138

  Campanus, Bishop of Teramo, patron and press-corrector, i, 406

  Campeggi, Cardinal, ii, 246

  Campensis, (Morrhius), ii, 24

  Canonical Law, works in, published by the Kobergers, ii, 160

  _Canterbury Tales_, Caxton’s Text for, ii, 114

  Capella, Martianus, _The Satyricon_, i, 116

  Carpi, the Princess of, loans funds to Aldus, i, 419

  Carthusians, literary work in the monasteries of, i, 70; the
    regulations of, for the care of books, i, 148

  Cartolajo, Francesco, i, 238

  Cartularii or Chartularii, i, 44

  Casaubon, Arnold, ii, 88

  ---- Isaac, ii, 27, 67 _ff._, 85 _ff._; 315; ii,; death of, ii, 100

  Cassian, the _Institutes_ of, ii, 167

  Cassiodorus, i, 10; birth of, i, 14, 17; summary of career, i, 14;
    Abbot of Vivaria i, 15; offices held by, i, 17, 18; the _Letters_
    of, i, 18; _Variæ_ of, cited, i, 18 _ff._; _Chronicon_ of, i, 19;
    _History of the Goths_, of, i, 19; secures a policy of toleration
    for the Gothic Kingdom, i, 18; retires to Bruttii, i, 20; character
    of, as a minister, i, 20; founds monastery of Mons Castellius, i,
    21; writes _De Anima_, i, 22; plans school of Christian literature,
    i, 22; describes the work of his _scriptorium_, i, 26; lamps
    invented by, i, 26; transcribes Jerome’s version of the Scriptures,
    i, 26; writings of, i, 26, 27; death of, i, 27; character of, i,
    27; work of, compared with that of Alcuin, i, 110-115; 182

  Castellazzo, ii, 370

  Castiglione, ii, 376

  Castro, Leon de, ii, 262

  Catalogue of books published in England, 1666-1680, ii, 148

  _Cathac_, or “the Fighter,” name applied to the Psalter of Columba,
    i, 47

  Catharine, Saint, the monastery of, i, 146

  Catharine of Medici, ii, 70

  Caxton, Maude, ii, 123

  ---- William, relations of, with Cologne, i, 388; ii, 101 _ff._, 178,
    467

  Ceaddæ, Saint, an early manuscript of, i, 231

  Cecilia, daughter of William the Conqueror, organises the school in
    her convent at Kucaen, i, 52

  Cell, John de, Abbot of St. Albans, i, 103

  Celtes, Conrad, secures the earliest German privilege, i, 426;
    relations of, with Aldus, i, 426, 435; ii, 175, 414, 421

  Cennino, goldsmith and printer, i, 457

  Censorship, exercised by the theologians of the universities over
    the book-trade of Paris, i, 214 _ff._; ecclesiastical, i, 343; ii,
    27; in France, ii, 437 _ff._; formal institution of, in France,
    ii, 441_ff._; in Germany, ii, 242 _ff._; in Austria, ii, 249; in
    Holland, ii, 296 _ff._, 337; literary, establishment of, in Venice,
    II., 352 _ff._; 356, 403; in the Low Countries, ii, 266

  Censorship, and privileges in Italy, ii, 343 _ff._

  Chabanais, of St. Cybar, i, 56

  Chantor, the, has charge of the library of the monastery, i, 101

  Charlemagne, i, 36; enquires concerning Monastic Orders, i, 31;
    listens to reading, i, 69; policy of, in regard to education,
    i, 106; entrusts the imperial schools to Alcuin, i, 107; the
    _capitular_ of, i, 112; interested in the school of Salerno, i,
    182; orders the translation of Greek medical treatises, i, 182;
    alleged connection of, with the University of Bologna, i, 183;
    name of, associated with a group of the older schools, i, 197;
    instructions of, concerning the disposition of his books, i, 230;
    relations of, to education and literature, ii, 478 _ff._

  Charles II. and printing in England, ii, 135

  ---- IV., i, 184

  ---- of Austria, ii, 201

  ---- V., Emperor, ii, 39, 140, 242; edict of 1521, ii, 266; edict of,
    for the regulation of the Press, ii, 442

  ---- V., of France, letters-patent of, i, 206

  ---- VI., Emperor, secures the library of S. Giovanni, i, 147;
    exempts book-dealers from certain war taxes, i, 207

  ---- VII., plans to introduce printing into France, ii, 4 _ff._

  ---- VIII., ii, 357; funeral procession of, ii, 440

  ---- IX., ii, 70; issues the ordinance of Moulins, ii, 450

  _Chartularii_, definition of the term, i, 235

  Chaucer, the _Troilus and Cressida_ of, i, 302; _Canterbury Tales_,
    i, 305; ii, 114, 126; described by Caxton, ii, 132

  Chevillier, on the early book-trade of Paris, i, 200; schedule
    prepared by, of manuscripts of the 13th century, i, 259; ii, 60; on
    the relations of Francis I. with the reformers, ii, 444

  Choir books, produced as manuscripts after the invention of printing,
    i, 87

  Christina, Queen, ii, 305 _ff._

  Christine (or Cristyne), de Pisa, ii, 115, 120

  Chrodegang, Archbishop, initiates a reform of the monasteries, i, 128

  Chrysoloras, the first professor of Greek in Florence, i, 325; ii, 23

  Church and State in Germany, conflicts of, concerning the control of
    literature in Germany, ii, 418 _ff._

  Church of Rome, the, influence of, on education in the universities,
    i, 178

  Churches of North Germany, book-trade carried on in the, i, 283

  Cicero, _Letters_ of, for sale by all the earlier dealers in
    manuscripts, i, 250; early editions of, in Paris, ii, 21 _ff._

  Cistercians, regulations of the, for the care of books, i, 148

  Clarendon Press of Oxford, ii, 297

  Clark, J. W., _Libraries in the Mediæval Period_, cited, i, 29 _ff._;
    on the library methods of the Benedictines, i, 148

  Classics, Latin, preserved in the monasteries, i, 61

  Clement VII., ii, 29

  ---- VIII. grants an exceptional copyright or monopoly, ii, 379 _ff._

  Clemente, printer and illuminator of Lucca, i, 455

  _Clementine Index_, the (of Clement VIII.), ii, 377

  Clerics, as scribes, i, 36; as officials, i, 36

  Clictou, Josse, ii, 19

  Clugni, catalogue of the library in the Abbey of, i, 131

  _Clugni, the Customs of_, cited, i, 63, 70

  Cluniacs, library regulations of, i, 30, 147

  Cochläus, ii, 227

  Codeca, Matteo de, ii, 349

  _Codex Argenteus_, the, ii, 306

  Coelfried, Abbot of Jarrow, and later of Wearmouth, sells books to
    King Alfred, i, 96

  Colet, John, ii, 194

  Colines, Simon de, printer of Paris, ii, 21, 26; marries widow of
    Henry Estienne (the elder), ii, 21 _ff._, 26, 30

  _Colloquies_, the, of Erasmus, ii, 208 _ff._

  Cologne, theological interests of the University of, i, 280; as a
    commercial centre, i, 386; the library of, i, 387; the University
    of, i, 387; the earlier printers of, i, 387; piratical operations
    of the early printers of, i, 390

  Colonto, prints the first Hebrew Bible, i, 459

  Columba, Saint, chief events of his life, i, 45-50

  Comester, Peter, the _Historica Scholastica_ of, i, 104

  Commelin, ii, 90

  Common-law copyright in manuscripts, ii, 484

  Compayré, opinions of, concerning the Benedictine schools, i, 197

  Compensation of authors in Italy, i, 334

  _Concordat_ between Rome and Venice in 1597, ii, 380 _ff._; between
    Leo X. and Francis I., ii, 440

  Conrad, Abbot, ii, 168

  Constantine, a scribe of Erfurt, i, 40

  ---- the African, comes from Carthage to Monte Cassino, i, 134;
    develops the school of Salerno, i, 182

  Constantinople, Acts of the Council of, i, 226; Greek scholars of,
    migrate to Italy, i, 255

  Contract, dated 1346, for the sale of books in Bruges, i, 290

  Convention of 1793 in Paris, ii, 505

  Cooper’s _Thesaurus Linguæ Romanæ_, ii, 63

  Copeland, ii, 126

  Copenhagen, relations of the Elzevirs with, ii, 304 _ff._

  Copyists of Genoa, petition the Senate for the expulsion of the
    printers, i, 413

  Copyright, case of, in 567 A.D., the first in Europe, i, 46

  Copyright control of manuscripts, ii, 481 _ff._

  Copyright, diverse theories concerning, ii, 507 _ff._

  Copyrights in Venice, ii, 369 _ff._

  Cordova, described as the Athens of the West, i, 254; literary
    activity in, i, 254; manuscript-trade of, i, 254; library of,
    destroyed by the Berbers, i, 255; the _Index_ of, ii, 270

  Correctors and Revisers employed by Plantin, ii, 277

  Corvinus, Matthias, collects books in Florence, i, 240

  Coster, _see_ Koster

  Council at Basel, pamphlets concerning the work of, prohibited, i, 296

  Council of Ten in Venice, ii, 351; establishes a censorship for the
    literature of the Humanities, ii, 356

  Coverdale Bible, the, ii, 141

  Cranach, Lucas, ii, 168, 233; printer, painter, and apothecary, ii,
    430

  Cranmer, Archbishop, ii, 142

  Crasso, Leonardo, ii, 350

  Cratander, ii, 173

  Crévier, traces the University of Paris to Alcuin, i, 197

  Croatian versions of Luther’s writings, ii, 230

  Cromwell, Thomas, ii, 142

  Cuspinian, ii, 174

  Cuthbert, Saint, i, 94

  Cyclops, Doctor, ii, 229

  Cynewulf, the Northumbrian poet, i, 93

  Cynthio, Alvise, ii, 357


  D

  Damian, S. Peter, recommends to the monks the study of pagan writers,
    i, 62

  Danes and Normans, ravages of, in the Benedictine monasteries, i, 132

  Danesius, Petrus, ii, 66

  Dante, _The Divine Comedy_ of, i, 318

  Darmarius, ii, 88

  Daubeney, William, ii, 123

  D’Aubigné, the history of, ii, 241

  Day, John, ii, 143

  Decembrio, author of 127 books, i, 335

  _Decor Puellarum_, the first book printed in Venice, i, 407

  _Decretals_, the Isidoric, exposed by the critics of the fourteenth
    century, i, 83

  _Decretals_, published by the Kobergers, ii, 160

  Dedications, the sale of, in Germany, ii, 434

  De Honate, Brothers, i, 448

  Delalain, on the requirements of a skilled scribe, i, 200

  Delisle, reference of, to the lending of books by the monasteries, i,
    138

  Delprat, history of the Brothers of Common Life, cited, i, 88

  Denis, on the Council of Basel, i, 285

  Denk, _Gesch. des Gallo. Frank. Unterrichts_, etc., cited, i, 32 _ff._

  Denmark, relations of the Elzevirs with, ii, 305

  Denys, Saint, the _Chronicles_ of, i, 57

  De Rancé, treatise of, on the monastic life, i, 119

  Derry, monastery of, i, 45

  Descartes, ii, 316 _ff._

  Desmarets, the Bible of, ii, 317

  Deventer, the Brotherhood House at, a place of book-production, i, 88

  De Vic, ii, 94 _ff._

  De Wailly, monetary tables of, cited, i, 208

  De Worde, Wynken, ii, 138

  Diarmid, King of Tara, decides a copyright case, i, 46

  _Dictare_, use of term, i, 44

  Didier, Abbot of Monte Cassino, i, 62, 134

  Didot, Firmin, ii, 329

  Diemude, or Diemudis, nun of Wessobrunn, works written by, i, 54;
    list of works transcribed by, i, 80, 81

  Dietrich, Abbot of St. Evroul, his story of the sinful scribe, i, 64

  Dietz, Ludwig, publisher for Luther, ii, 231

  Dio, Giovanni di, ii, 353

  Ditmar, Bishop of Mersebourg, i, 58

  Dolet, Étienne, ii, 46, 449

  Dominic, Saint, monks of the Brotherhood of, establish a
    printing-office, i, 458

  _Donaldson vs. Becket_, ii, 472 _ff._

  _Donation_, of Constantine, the, ii, 227

  Döring, ii, 233 _ff._

  Dorpius, on Froben, ii, 189

  Dritzehn, the brothers, associates of Gutenberg, i, 357 _ff._

  Drumceitt, Parliament of, i, 48

  Drummond on _The Praise of Folly_, ii, 193

  Dryden, John, makes agreement for his _Virgil_, ii, 148

  Du Chastel, ii, 44, 46, 49

  Ducret, scribe for Duke of Burgundy, i, 41

  Dunstan, Saint, Archbishop of Canterbury, i, 101; institutes
    monastery schools, i, 101; orders transcripts to be made in the
    vernacular, i, 101

  Dürer, Albert, ii, 149 _ff._, 168; _Instruction in Perspective_,
    contention concerning the copyright of, ii, 410 _ff._; literary and
    art productions of, ii, 409 _ff._

  Dutch Republic, establishment of the, ii, 273 _ff._


  E

  Ebert, on the division of manuscripts, cited, i, 65

  Ecclesiastical Censorship, i, 343

  Ecclesiastical schools, i, 36

  Eckstein, Heinrich, ii, 423

  Eddas, collections of, preserved by the Benedictines, i, 61

  Edward IV., King, accounts of, for the binding of books, i, 313; ii,
    103, 122

  ---- VI., ii, 67

  Egbert of York, i, 107

  Eggestein, Heinrich, i, 381 _ff._

  Eichstadt, Abbess of, compiles the _Heldenbuch_, i, 52

  Ekkhard, Abbot of Aurach, i, 58

  Eligius, Saint, the biography of, i, 128

  Ellis, George, _Introduction to Early English Poetry_ of, cited, i,
    302

  Elton, Charles, ii, 306

  Eltville, i, 363

  Elzevirs, the, of Leyden and Amsterdam, ii, 18, 286 _ff._; House of,
    in Amsterdam, ii, 299 _ff._; publications of the, ii, 319 _ff._;
    close of the publishing operations of, ii, 329 _ff._; “piracies”
    of, ii, 332; relations of, with authors, ii, 332 _ff._; religious
    faith of, ii, 338; relations of, to the book trade of Europe, ii,
    500 _ff._

  Elzevir, Abraham, ii, 292 _ff._

  ---- Bonaventure, ii, 290 _ff._

  ---- Daniel, ii, 293 _ff._; the death of, ii, 329; the widow of, ii,
    329

  ---- Isaac, ii, 292 _ff._; 295 _ff._

  ---- John, ii, 293 _ff._

  ---- Louis (the first), ii, 280 _ff._; 286 _ff._; the six sons of,
    ii, 289 _ff._

  ---- Louis (the second), ii, 299 _ff._

  ---- Matthew, ii, 290 _ff._

  Elzevir Classics, the, ii, 292 _ff._; ii, 309 _ff._; 331

  Emo, Abbot of Wittewierum, i, 70

  Emperor, the Holy Roman, claims the control of the printing-press,
    ii, 420 _ff._

  England, the literary monks of, i, 90; the Abbey schools in, i, 118;
    beginnings of literary property in, ii, 464 _ff._

  English Crown, relations of the, to literary property, ii, 465 _ff._

  Engraving, relation of, to the work of the early printers, ii, 164

  _Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum_, the, i, 223

  Erasmus, deprecates the adverse influence of Lutheranism on
    literature, i, 224; reference of, to Birckmann, i, 389; relations
    of, with Froben, i, 394 _ff._; relations of, with Aldus, i, 423
    _ff._; makes his first sojourn in Italy, i, 427; does editorial
    work for Aldus, i, 427; publishes the Venetian edition of his
    _Adagia_, i, 427; early editions of _The Praise of Folly_, of,
    i, 428; complaints of, concerning careless typesetting, i, 428;
    friendship of, with Aleander, ii, 12; the _Colloquies_ of, ii,
    22, 23; feeling against, in the Sorbonne, ii, 24; criticised by
    Lutherans, Calvinists, and Romanists, ii, 25, 39, 41, 176, 179
    _ff._; editions of the writings of, ii, 183 _ff._; on the death of
    Froben, ii, 189, 210 _ff._; writings of, ii, 192; on Aldus, ii,
    198; Spanish editions of the writings of, ii, 210; latest writings
    of, ii, 212 _ff._; income of, ii, 214 _ff._, 226; concerning
    publishing methods, ii, 429

  Erfurt, bookselling in the churches of, i, 283

  Erlangen, collection of manuscripts in the University library of, i,
    280

  Ernest, Elector of Saxony, ii, 233

  Ernst, Archbishop, ii, 229

  Erpenius, ii, 292, 296

  Estaples, d’, ii, 19

  Estiennes, the, history of, ii, 15 _ff._

  Estienne, House of, ii, 87

  ---- Antoine, ii, 87

  ---- Charles, ii, 63 _ff._

  ---- Florence, ii, 88

  Estienne, Francis, ii, 62 _ff._

  ---- Henry (the elder), begins work as a printer, ii, 18 _ff._

  ---- Henry (the first), ii, 26

  ---- Henry (the second), ii, 37, 66 _ff._, 94; rhymed complaint of,
    on the difficulties of scholarly work, ii, 78

  ---- Paul, ii, 87, 95

  ---- Robert (the first), ii, 25 _ff._; first publications of, ii,
    30; motto of, ii, 30; appointed printer in Greek to the King, ii,
    33, 42; takes refuge at Court, ii, 34; divides the New Testament
    into verses, ii, 48; removes from Paris to Geneva, ii, 50; Geneva
    publications of, ii, 53, 54, 55; death of, ii, 55; eulogies on, ii,
    56, 254

  ---- Robert (second), ii, 64 _ff._

  Esslingen, early printing in, ii, 439

  Eusebius, praises the work of nuns as scribes, i, 53; reference of,
    to the chaining of books, i, 141

  Evelyn, John, ii, 298

  _Exemplatores_, functions of, i, 188

  _Exercitationes_ of Casaubon, ii, 98 _ff._


  F

  Faber, Johann, ii, 245

  Fabri, Felix, the _Historia Suevorum_, of, i, 369

  Fairs, in England, utilized by the dealers in manuscripts, i, 306; in
    Germany, manuscript-trade in the, i, 287

  Falstoffe, Sir John, ii, 116, 123

  Faques, William, printer to the King, ii, 467

  Fathers of the Church, Dutch editions of the writings of, ii, 331

  Felice, Fra, of Prato, ii, 355

  Fell, Bishop, memoir by, on the state of printing in Oxford, i, 310

  Ferdinand, Emperor, ii, 242 _ff._, 249

  Ferreol, Saint, the _Rule_ of, i, 63, 123

  Fichet, Wilhelm, letter of, concerning the invention of printing, i,
    359; ii, 5; the Rhetoric of, ii, 7

  Ficino, the writings of, i, 338 _ff._

  Field, Richard, ii, 146

  Fileas, the, an order of Celtic Bards, i, 48

  Filelfo, Francesco, i, 189; recovers in a book-shop a stolen volume,
    i, 234; reference of, to Melchior, i, 249; i, 335 _ff._

  Finnian, contention of, with Columba, i, 46

  Flach, Martin, i, 383

  Flamel, Nicholas, _librarius_ and speculator in real estate, i, 275

  Flanders, in its relations to the Protestants, ii, 258

  Fleury, describes the Abbey of Gembloux, i, 97; the Abbey schools of,
    i, 118

  Florence, the University of, i, 183 _ff._; gives special attention to
    belles-lettres, i, 184; the Humanists of, i, 184; takes the lead in
    the trade in manuscripts, i, 239; the earlier book-dealers of, i,
    246; the literary activities of, i, 318; the literary society of,
    i, 327 _ff._; the academies of, i, 344; early printers of, i, 457

  _Flugschriften_, the, of the Reformation, ii, 162, 241 _ff._

  Foligno, early printers of, i, 456

  Fontaine, the monastery of, founded, i, 47

  Fontainebleau, Royal Library of, ii, 14

  Fosbroke, classifies monastic catalogues, i, 142

  Foscari, Doge of Venice, ii, 373

  Fox, John, _Book of Martyrs_ of, ii, 143

  France, the Abbey schools in, i, 118; the manuscript-trade in, i,
    255 _ff._; early printers of, ii, 3 _ff._; regulations for the
    printing-press in, ii, 437; legislation in, for the encouragement
    of literature, ii, 446 _ff._; summary of the privileges in, ii, 491
    _ff._; takes the initiative in regard to the Convention of Berne,
    ii, 506; summary of copyright legislation in, ii, 508

  Francheschi, Pietro, ii, 403

  Francis I., relations of the literature and the clergy, ii, 6, 7;
    founds Royal Library at Fontainebleau, ii, 14; at issue with the
    Doctors of the Sorbonne, ii, 19 _ff._; protects Robert Estienne
    against the royal censors, ii, 34; 38, 42, 43, 45, 57, 70, 324;
    relations of, with the reformers, ii, 444; edict of, in regard to
    privileges, ii, 447 _ff._

  Franco, Bishop of Treviso, ii, 372 _ff._

  Frankfort, first sale of printed books in the fair of, i, 288;
    magistracy of, protects the publishing contracts of Schöffer, i,
    377; the book-fair of, ii, 247, 265, 302 _ff._ 365, 416; relations
    of the Elzevirs with, ii, 302 _ff._; ordinance of the city of
    concerning privileges, ii, 414

  ---- and the Thirty Years’ War, ii, 498

  Frankland, the demoralisation of, before the time of Charlemagne, i,
    110

  Franz, biographer of Cassiodorus, cited, i, 24

  Fredegar, The _Chronicle_ of, i, 128

  Frederic, Elector of Saxony, i, 432; orders books for Wittenberg, i,
    432

  Frederick I., Landgrave of Alsace, ii, 423

  ---- II., The Emperor, i, 183

  ---- III. of Germany, institutes the office of imperial supervisor of
    literature, ii, 419

  Free-thinkers and the Church of Rome, i, 333

  _Free Will_, treatise on, by Erasmus, ii, 209

  Fregeno, secures in Sweden, Roman manuscripts, i, 229

  Freising, Otto von, cited, i, 43

  French, as a literary language for Europe, ii, 504

  Friese, Ulrich, a bookseller at the Nordlingen fair, i, 283

  Frilo, father of Gutenberg, i, 357

  Froben, Jerome, son of Johann, ii, 213

  ---- Johann, i, 393; scholarly attainments of, i, 393; relations with
    Erasmus, i, 393 _ff._; ii, 39, 102, 178 _ff._, 244 _ff._, 429;
    letter of, to Zwingli, ii, 187; the literary friends of, ii, 188
    _ff._; gives up the publishing of the writings of Luther, ii, 221;
    the death of, ii, 210

  Frodoard, i, 56

  Froissart, ii, 117

  Fromund of Tegernsee, i, 68

  Froschauer, Printer for Zwingli, i, 396; ii, 141

  Froude, on the patronage system, ii, 197

  Frowin, manuscript of, i, 43

  Fryth, John, ii, 140

  Fugger, The House of, i, 431; bankers and forwarders, i, 431

  ----, Huldric, ii, 68 _ff._

  ----, Joannes Jacobus, ii, 69

  Furnivall’s _Captain Cox_, ii, 145

  Fust, Johann, first relations of, with Gutenberg, i, 360, 372;
    lawsuit of, i, 360 _ff._; relations of, with Schöffer, i, 372;
    first journey of, to Paris, i, 373; the earliest pirate of printed
    books, i, 375; death of, in 1467, i, 375; sells his Bibles in
    Paris, ii, 5

  Fust and Schöffer, earliest publications of, i, 373


  G

  Gaddesden, John of, i, 308

  Gaillard, ii, 40

  Galeotti, J., importer of manuscripts, i, 242

  Galileo, ii, 309

  Garland, Jean de, compiles a directory of the industries of Paris, i,
    256

  Gasparino, the _Letters_ of, ii, 7

  Gaul, literature in, during fifth century, i, 7

  Gaza, Theodore, Greek editor for the Aldine Press, i, 420, ii, 23

  Geneva, ii, 38, 50; University of, ii, 51; literary interests of, ii,
    51; censorship regulations of, ii, 51; pirates of, ii, 51; great
    siege of, ii, 88; theology of, ii, 91; literature of, ii, 91 _ff._;
    publishing activities of, ii, 93

  Gengenbach, dramatist and printer, i, 395

  Genoa, contests in, between the copyists and the printers, i, 413;
    early printers of, i, 458; the scribes of, protest against the
    introduction of printing, i, 459

  Gensfleisch, the family of (Gutenberg), i, 356 _ff._

  Geoffrey of St. Barbe, letter of, i, 133

  George, Duke of Saxony, puts the Protestant printers of Leipzig under
    restrictions, i, 401; ii, 232, 250

  George, Elector of Saxony, ii, 424

  Gerbert, Abbot of Bobbio, cited, i, 38; orders books from a distance,
    i, 139, 140; collects books for his libraries, i, 231; ii, 480

  Gering, printer of Paris, ii, 5

  German, book-trade, organization of the, ii, 497; universities in the
    15th century, standard of scholarship in, i, 277

  Germany, the monastic schools in, i, 118; manuscript dealers in, i,
    276 _ff._; privileges and regulations in, ii, 407 _ff._; summary
    of privileges in, ii, 493 _ff._; in its relations to literary
    property, ii, 505

  Gerson, Johann, Chancellor of University of Paris, i, 54; describes
    the literary wealth of Paris, i, 261; ii, 150

  Gertrude, Abbess of Nivelle, a buyer of books, i, 51, 53

  Gerwold, Abbot of S. Wandrille, i, 67

  Gesner, ii, 56, 432

  _Gesta Romanorum_, said to have originated in England, i, 304;
    edition of the, printed by A. Koberger, ii, 161

  Ghent, the Pacification of, ii, 273

  Ghisebrecht, ii, 277

  Gibbon criticises Caxton, ii, 127, 128

  Giesebrecht, treatise of _De litterarum Studiis_, i, 226

  Gildas, _Chronicles_ of, i, 55

  Giovanni, Saint, the library of, in Naples, i, 146

  Giraud, C., cited, i, 55

  Gita, a scribe of Schwarzenthau, i, 54

  Giunta, the family of, i, 248

  ----, Phillippo, i, 238

  Glaber, Raoul, i, 56

  Glanville, i, 308

  Glastonbury, Chapel of, i, 106

  Godo, purchases books in Rome, i, 227

  _Golden Legend, The_, ii, 118

  Gosselin, ii, 95

  Goths, rule of, in Italy, i, 9

  Gourmont, Giles, printer of Paris, ii, 10 _ff._; publications of, ii,
    23

  Gower, John, ii, 117, 126

  Graevius, on the death of Louis Elzevir (the second), ii, 318

  Grafton, printer, ii, 141

  Greek, the knowledge of, in the tenth century, i, 127; books,
    printing of, limited to a few publishers, i, 244; immigrants, as
    instructors in Italy, i, 236; fonts of the _Imprimerie Royale_, ii,
    58 _ff._; lecturers in University of Paris, ii, 23; literature,
    brought to Europe through Arabian writers, i, 181; literature,
    introduction of, into Italy, i, 236; literature, in Paris, ii, 10
    _ff._; manuscripts brought from Constantinople to Italy, i, 235

  Greek Press in Paris, history of the, ii, 10 _ff._

  Greek scholars, relations of, with Venice and with Florence, i,
    237; secure compensation in Italy for editorial work, i, 411; as
    assistants to publishers, i, 416; in Paris, ii, 23

  Greek texts, brought to Venice from the East, i, 411 _ff._; in the
    University of Paris, ii, 22

  Gregoriis, Gregorius de, ii, 354

  Gregoropoulos, Greek proof-reader for Aldus, i, 421

  Gregory I., Pope, writings of, i, 34, 35; charges against, i, 34;
    opinion of, concerning the Scriptures and grammar, i, 121; as an
    author, ii, 478

  ---- VII., utilises the work of monastic scribes, i, 81-82

  ---- XIII., ii, 262

  ---- of Tours, i, 56

  Grein, _Anglo-Saxon Library_, by, i, 92

  Grimani, the breviary of, i, 294

  Grimlaïcus, the _Rule_ of, i, 123

  Grimm, Siegmund, publisher for Hutten, ii, 229

  Grolier de Servier, ii, 43

  Groote, Gerhard, founds in Deventer a Brotherhood House, i, 88

  Grotius, ii, 65, 304; the _Mare Liberum_ of, ii, 308

  Grunenberg, Johann, publisher for Luther, ii, 222

  Grüninger, Hans, of Strasburg, ii, 151, 165

  Gruthuyse, of Bruges, a collector of manuscripts, i, 289; ii, 105

  Guignes, de, ii, 60

  Guild, of printers and publishers, in Milan, i, 450 _ff._; of S.
    John in Bruges, ii, 106; of publishers and printers in Paris,
    regulations of, ii, 453 _ff._; of printers and book-sellers in
    Venice, ii, 364 _ff._; of the Venetian book-trade, organisation of,
    ii, 395 _ff._; of the Venetian book-trade, close of the history of,
    ii, 398; Hall, for the Venetian book-trade, ii, 395

  Guiscard, Robert, i, 182

  Guldemund, Hans, ii, 410

  Gutenberg, i, 9, 349 _ff._; earlier operations of, i, 358; first
    partnerships of, i, 358; lawsuits of, i, 358 _ff._; conditions of
    the business of, i, 364; financial difficulties of, i, 364 _ff._;
    fonts of type manufactured by, i, 365; early testimony concerning
    the invention of, i, 380; ii, 17, 178


  H

  Hagen, quotes a rhyming record from a Hagenau manuscript, i, 285

  Hagenau, early manuscript-trade of, i, 284; printing introduced into,
    i, 284; relations of, with Heidelberg, i, 284 _ff._

  Hahn, printer of Ingolstadt and of Rome, i, 406

  Hallam, on Saumaise, ii, 315

  Hamburg, manuscript-dealers of, i, 283; caution of the Senate of,
    concerning dedications, ii, 434

  Hans, the brothers, ii, 425

  Hardy, Thomas Duffus, on the literary work of the British
    monasteries, i, 102

  Harlinde, Abbess, skilled as a scribe, i, 53

  Harper, the House of, ii, 335

  Harsy, Antoine de, ii, 94

  Hatzlern, Clara, scribe of Augsburg, i, 41

  Hauslik, history of the University of Prague, i, 278

  Hedwig, Duchess of Suabia, teaches Greek to Abbot Burckhart, i, 126

  Hegel, _Philosophy of History_ of, quoted, i, 367

  Heidelberg, the library of, i, 85; books bought for the library of,
    i, 232; book-trade in the University of, i, 279

  Heilsbrunn, manuscripts from the monastery of, i, 280

  Heinsius, Nicholas, ii, 298, 310, 313 _ff._, 317

  Helgaud, i, 56

  Hellenic Brothers, the, of St. Gall, i, 126

  Henry II. of France, ii, 48, 56, 70; letters-patent of, i, 203

  ---- III., ii, 82 _ff._

  ---- IV., ii, 95 _ff._

  ---- VI. of England, death of, ii, 129; interest of, in printing in
    England, ii, 135

  ---- VII., ii, 123

  ---- VIII., ii, 45, 141

  Heresbach, ii, 41

  Heresy, the Venetian Commissioners of, ii, 404

  Herluca, corresponds with Diemude, i, 54

  Hermonymus, a designer of type in Paris, ii, 10, 23

  Herneis, publisher of Paris in the thirteenth century, i, 271

  Herodotus, History of, ii, 73

  Herrad of Landsberg, writings of, i, 52

  Herrgott, Johann, ii, 249

  Heynlin, ii, 5, 111

  Higden, Ralph, the _Polychronicon_ of, i, 56, 307

  Hilary, works of, edited by Erasmus, ii, 209

  Hilda, Abbess of Whitby, i, 93

  Hildesheim, the Brothers of, producers of books, i, 90

  Hiltebrand, Johann, ii, 231

  Hippocrates and Galen, described as the “Aristotles of Medicine,” i,
    195; writings of, used as text-books, i, 195

  Hochstraten, ii, 202

  Hodgkin, Thomas, _Italy and her Invaders_, cited, i, 3 _ff._;
    summarises the services of Cassiodorus, i, 23, 24

  Hoeck, Adolph von, Prior of Scheda, i, 86

  Holbein, Hans, ii, 10, 180, 181, 200

  Holland, the increasing trade of, ii, 290 _ff._; book-trade of,
    during the Thirty Years’ War, ii, 498

  Hollybushe, John, ii, 142

  Honoratus, Saint, founds Monastery of Lerin, i, 32

  Honorius, opinion of, concerning the philosophers, i, 129

  Hopyll, Wolffgang, printer of Paris, ii, 18

  Horn, Conrad, _stadtschreiber_, sells books by contract, i, 288

  Hroswitha, daughter of Duke of Saxony, i, 52

  ---- of Gandersheim, i, 37, 52; the _Chronicon Urspergense_ of, i,
    87, 360; the dramas of, ii, 414, 420

  Hubmayer, Balthasar, ii, 243

  Hugh, Abbot of Flavigny, i, 57

  Hugo of Trimberg, schoolmaster and book collector, i, 287

  ----, Cardinal, ii, 157

  ---- Bible, the, ii, 154, 157 _ff._, 167

  Humanistic Movement, influence of the, on the production of printed
    literature, i, 370 _ff._; the leaders of the, ii, 226

  Humanists, the influence of the, in the German universities, i, 223;
    ii, 172

  Humery, Doctor Conrad, of Mayence, i, 292; co-operates with
    Gutenberg, i, 361 _ff._

  Hummelsburger, letter of, concerning Aldine editions, i, 436

  Hungarians, destroy monasteries in the tenth century, i, 132

  Hunt, Thomas, ii, 137

  Huntington, Henry of, _Chronicles_, i, 56, 307

  Huszner, George, i, 383

  Hutten, Ulrich von, ii, 176, 182, 227, 239

  ---- and Luther, ii, 251


  I

  Ibo, Bishop of Chartres, treatise of, _De Rebus Ecclesiasticis_, i,
    117

  Idung, the _Dialogues_ of, i, 54

  Illuminators, of manuscripts, i, 241

  Illustrated publications, early editions of, issued in Nuremberg, i,
    398

  Imperial cities, special privileges of, concerning book production,
    ii, 422 _ff._

  Imperial Commission for the regulation of literature, ii, 421

  Ina, King, i, 106

  _Index Expurgatorius_ of Louvain, ii, 44

  _Index_, the, of 1564, ii, 243

  _Index_, the, and the book-trade, ii, 372 _ff._

  _Index_, the, issued by the Council of Trent, ii, 375 _ff._

  _Indexes_, the, of 1546, 1550, 1551, 1554, 1559, ii, 268 _ff._, 275

  Ingolstadt, regulations of the University of, concerning text-books,
    i, 281

  Ingulphus, _Chronicles_ of, i, 56; record of, concerning the Abbey of
    Peterborough, i, 132

  Innocent IV., Pope, i, 183

  Inquisition, the, and censorship, ii, 267; relations of, with the
    printing-press, ii, 371

  Iona, the monastery of, founded, i, 47, 90

  Irnerius, jurist of Bologna, i, 183

  Isidore, Bishop of Seville, writings of, i, 35; treatise of, on
    elocution, i, 117

  Italian literature, influence of, on Elizabethan authors, ii, 144

  Italy, the monastic schools in, i, 118; monasteries in, destroyed
    by the Saracens, i, 132; the printer-publishers of, i, 403 _ff._;
    privileges and censorship in, ii, 343 _ff._; enactments concerning
    literary property in, ii, 406


  J

  Jacob of Breslau, volumes written by, i, 86

  Jacob, Saint, monastery of, in Liége, i, 114

  James I., ii, 96 _ff._

  Jehan, Jacques, grocer and book-seller, i, 274

  Jenson, Nicholas, first printer in Venice, i, 407; operations of,
    in Paris and in Mayence, i, 408; settles in Venice, i, 409; sells
    printing plant to Torresano, i, 411; sent to Mayence by Charles
    VII., ii, 3; 344

  Jerome, Saint, writings of, i, 3, 23, 32; ii, 189; befriends S. Paula
    and her daughter, i, 51; injunction of, concerning reading, i, 124;
    complains of the untrustworthiness of the work of scribes, i, 229

  Jews, forbidden to buy or sell manuscripts in the Italian
    universities, i, 194; lend moneys to monasteries on pledges of
    books, i, 231

  Jewell, John, ii, 53

  John, Bishop of Aleria, cites prices of early printed books, i, 375

  ----, King of France, buys stationery in England, i, 312

  ---- of Speyer, printer of Venice, i, 407 _ff._; secures a monopoly
    for printing in Venice, i, 408

  Jordæus, treatise on the Goths, i, 19

  Junius, Hadrian, historian of Koster, i, 352

  Jusserand, J. J., on the early literature of the Anglo-Saxons, i, 91;
    _English Wayfaring Life_, by, cited, i, 302 _ff._


  K

  Kalle, Samuel, ii, 425

  Kapp, on the selling of dedications, ii, 433

  Karoch, instructor in Erfurt, i, 220

  Kefer, Heinrich, ii, 150

  Kennett, White, ii, 63

  Kessler, Nicholas, of Basel, relations of, with Koberger, ii, 409

  Kirchhoff, on the selling of dedications, ii, 434

  Knight, Charles, _The Old Printer_ of, cited, i, 302 _ff._

  Knittel, concerning the work of the _scriptorium_, cited, i, 65

  Kobergers, the, of Nuremberg, ii, 149 _ff._; business of, interfered
    with by the Reformation, ii, 163

  Koberger, Anthoni, i, 384; the publications of, i, 397 _ff._; ii,
    76, 149 _ff._; principal publications of, ii, 152, 154; commended
    by Badius, Wimpfeling, Leontorius, and the Emperor Maximilian, ii,
    155, 156; friendship of, with Amerbach, ii, 156; relations of, with
    Celtes, Dürer, and Pirckheimer, ii, 156; editions of the Bible
    printed by, ii, 157, 158; conservatism of, ii, 204; relations of,
    to the system of privileges in Germany, ii, 409

  ----, Johannes, ii, 159

  ----, Melchior, relations of, with Luther, ii, 159

  Koelhoff, Johann, printer of Cologne, i, 388

  Koepke, _Otton. Studien_, cited, i, 36 _ff._

  König, Conrad, agent for Luther’s books, ii, 231

  Köpflin, ii, 245

  Köster, Laurens, of Harlem, i, 349 _ff._; the statue of, ii, 298

  Krantz, printer of Paris, ii, 5, 111

  Kyrfoth, Carolus, ii, 137


  L

  LaCasa, Papal Nuncio, ii, 373

  Lachner, ii, 179, 232

  Landino, the writings of, i, 340

  Lanfranc, i, 197

  Langendorf of Basel prints piracy editions of Luther’s writings, i,
    395

  Large, Robert, ii, 102

  Laskaris, Greek grammarian, i, 365; ii, 23

  Latin, the language of literature for Europe, i, 318; ii, 503

  LaTrappe, the Order of, i, 120

  Lauber, Diebold, scribe and manuscript dealer in Hagenau, i, 284
    _ff._; noteworthy manuscripts of, i, 289; rhyming advertisements
    of, i, 289

  Laurentium, the monastery of, in Liége, i, 87

  Laurie, summarises the Christian conception of education, i, 120

  Lavagna, printer of Milan, i, 408, 447

  Law, Roman and canonical, the study of, in Bologna, i, 190

  ---- text-books required in Bologna and Montpellier, i, 194

  Lay-clerics, functions of, i, 38

  League, influence of the wars of the, on the supervision of the
    Press, ii, 450

  _Lectores_, the work of, i, 116

  Leew, Gerard, ii, 134

  LeFevre, (d’Estaples), ii, 19

  LeGrand, Jaques, ii, 119

  Leipzig, the earlier printers of, i, 399; ii, 29, 202; as a centre
    for the distribution of printed books, i, 401; the book fair of,
    ii, 303, 426; as a centre of book production, ii, 422 _ff._;
    the literary commission of, ii, 423; caution of magistracy of,
    concerning dedications, ii, 434

  Leland, catalogue prepared by, of the abbatial libraries of England,
    i, 102

  Leo, Bishop of Ostia, i, 57

  Leo X., Pope, sends emissaries to collect manuscripts, i, 301; the
    literary interests of, i, 322; relations of, with the earlier
    printers, i, 368; excommunicates Luther, ii, 225; Bull of, in
    regard to the licencing of books, ii, 439

  LeRoys, printer of Lyons, ii, 10

  Lerin, monastery of, founded by Honoratus, i, 32

  Leukardis, a scribe of Mallesdorf, i, 54

  Lewis, a scribe of Wessobrunn, i, 75

  Leyden, the University of, ii, 280 _ff._; as a publishing centre, ii,
    286; the Press of University of, ii, 297; the University in its
    relations with publishing, ii, 336

  Liaupold, Brother, i, 39, 54

  _Libraires jurés_, regulations concerning the, i, 207 _ff._; of
    Paris, ii, 365

  _Librairie_, origin of the term, i, 189

  _Librariers Gild_ of Ghent and of Brussels, i, 290

  Libraries of the monasteries, the, and their arrangements for the
    exchange of books, i, 133 _ff._; of the manuscript period, i, 146
    _ff._

  _Librarii_, i, 10; of Paris, regulations concerning, i, 260 _ff._; of
    Paris in the 15th century, i, 269 _ff._

  Ligugé, monastery of, founded, i, 32

  Linacre, Sir Thomas, ii, 194

  Lincoln, manuscript-dealers of, i, 312

  Lioba, Saint, a pupil of S. Boniface, organises schools in North
    Germany, i, 51

  Lipsius, ii, 281, 284

  Listrius, Gerard, ii, 200

  _Litera Romana_, i, 67

  Literary property, in England, beginnings of, ii, 464 _ff._;
    development of the conception of, ii, 477 _ff._; diverse theories
    concerning, ii, 507 _ff._; in Italy, enactments concerning, ii, 406

  Literature, beginnings of property in, ii, 343 _ff._

  Locke, on the death of Daniel Elzevir, ii, 319

  Longarard, the unintelligible writings of, i, 45

  Longinus, Vincenzo, relations of, with Aldus, i, 435

  Lotter, printer of Leipzig, i, 400 _ff._ Melchior, first printer of
    Wittenberg, i, 401; ii, 230 _ff._; 430

  Louis the Débonnaire, i, 97

  ---- IX., pays for transcribing an Encyclopædia, i, 230

  ---- XI., borrows books from the University of Paris, i, 136; lays
    claim to the estate of a publisher, i, 270; in 1474, pledges silver
    for the loan of a manuscript, i, 299; a collector of books, ii, 4;
    recognises the library of the Louvre, ii, 4; intervenes for the
    protection of Schöffer, ii, 8; institutes the Parliament of Paris,
    ii, 441

  ---- XII., edict of, in behalf of booksellers, ii, 6; interest of, in
    printing, ii, 6; toleration of, for heretical literature, ii, 6

  ---- XIV., ii, 318; relations of, to literature, ii, 458 _ff._

  Louvain, _Index Expurgatorius_ of, ii, 44; the University of, ii,
    258; theologians of, ii, 261; the _Indexes_ of, ii, 268 _ff._; the
    University of, in its relations to censorship, ii, 373

  Lowell, on Socinians, ii, 53

  Lübeck, book sales in the churches of, i, 283

  Lucca, early printers of, i, 455

  Luden, concerning the printing-press of Germany, ii, 427

  Lufft, Hans, claims copyright in Luther’s Bible, ii, 235

  Lupus, Abbot, orders transcripts prepared in York, i, 229

  Luther, complaints of, concerning the piracy editions of his works,
    i, 402; ii, 408; heresies of, condemned at the Council of Sens, ii,
    22, 26, 45; relations of, with the Kobergers, ii, 159; Froben’s
    edition of the writings of, ii, 190 _ff._; as an author, ii, 216
    _ff._; the published writings of, ii, 219 _ff._; completes his
    version of the New Testament, ii, 225; Catechism of, printed in
    Slovenic, ii, 230; compensation paid to, for his literary work, ii,
    232; letter of, to Lang, ii, 245; and the war of the peasants, ii,
    250; and von Hutten, ii, 251; the _Table-talk_ of, ii, 429; on the
    compensation of authors, ii, 431

  Lutheran tracts printed in out-of-the-way places, ii, 248

  Luxeuil, the monastery of, founded, i, 47

  Lydgate, John, ii, 116 _ff._

  Lyons, early printers of, ii, 8 _ff._; a publishing centre for light
    literature, ii, 9 _ff._; printers of, “appropriate” the productions
    of Paris and other cities, ii, 9, 495; publishing activities of,
    ii, 93


  M

  Mabillon, Jean, treatise of, on monastic studies, i, 120; work of, in
    behalf of the Benedictines, i, 122, 123; literary journeys of, i,
    123; on the prices of books during the Middle Ages, i, 135

  Machiavelli, _The Prince_ of, ii, 202

  Madan’s _Early Oxford Press_, ii, 134

  Magdeburg, as a publishing centre, ii, 229, 248

  _Magdeburg Centuries_, ii, 97

  Maintenon, Madame de, relations of, to ecclesiastical censorship, ii,
    461

  Maitland, _The Dark Ages_, cited, i, 31 _ff._; opinion of, concerning
    palimpsests, i, 72; describes the arrangements of the _scriptoria_,
    i, 75; on the book production of the Middle Ages, i, 77, 78;
    calculation of, concerning the speed of the work of the scribes, i,
    98; criticises Robinson’s description of the Church in the Middle
    Ages, i, 117; points out the inaccuracies of Milner, i, 130; on the
    prices of books in the Middle Ages, i, 135; analyses the value of
    MSS., i, 137

  Maittaire, Bibliography of, ii, 22, 25 _ff._, 40

  Makkari, historian of the Mohammedan dynasties, i, 255

  Malmesbury, William of, The _Chronicles_ of, i, 56; writes life of
    Aldhelm, i, 97; his account of the chapel at Glastonbury, i, 106;
    collector of books, i, 307

  Malory, Sir Thomas, ii, 118, 126

  Manenti of Urbino, copyright secured by, ii, 348

  Mansfield, Lord, ii, 473

  Mansion, Colart, or Colard, _escripvain_ and printer, i, 289; ii, 102
    _ff._

  Manuscript, the earliest existing example of monastic scribe-work, i,
    34

  Manuscripts, trade in, in Bologna, i, 184; formalities connected
    with the sale of, in Paris, i, 212; the trade in, carried on by
    pedlars, grocers, and mercers, i, 232; production of, continued
    after the invention of printing, i, 243; Moorish trade in, i, 254;
    illuminated with the arms of noble families, i, 268; copyright in,
    ii, 481 _ff._

  Manuscript-dealers, the historians of the, i, 180; of Italy, i, 244
    _ff._; of Germany, i, 276 _ff._; of Paris, i, 256 _ff._

  Manuscript period in England, the i, 302 _ff._

  Manuscript-trade, of the Brothers of Common Life, i, 291 _ff._; of
    France, i, 255 _ff._; of Germany, i, 287, 291; of the Netherlands,
    i, 290 _ff._; of London, in the 14th century, i, 312 _ff._

  Manutius, Paul, inherits business of his father, i, 438; settles in
    Rome, i, 440; letters of, to his son Aldus, i, 441; journeys to
    Milan, i, 444; completes his commentaries on Cicero, i, 444; death
    of, i, 445; coöperation of, with Plantin, ii, 264

  Map, Walter, _De Nugis Curiatum_ of, i, 304

  Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, ii, 103, 122, 126

  Margounios, Maximus, ii, 377

  Marguerite de Valois, ii, 46

  _Mariegole_, or by-laws of the Venetian Guild, ii, 366 _ff._

  Marillac, ii, 40

  Marloratus, ii, 70

  Marmontier, monastery of, founded, i, 32

  Marquard, Abbot, pawns the library of his Abbey, i, 232

  Marsam, Jehan de, master of arts and dealer in manuscripts, i, 273

  Marsham, cited, i, 55

  Martene and Montfaucon, the literary journeys of, i, 131

  Martyr, Peter, ii, 53

  Mary, Saint, of Robert’s Bridge, inscription in a manuscript from, i,
    73

  Mary, Queen of Scots, ii, 66

  Mascon, Bishop of, ii, 44

  Maseyk, the nuns of, i, 53

  Massimi, the brothers, introduce printing into Rome, i, 405

  Massmann, _Die Goth. Urkunden von Neapel_, etc., cited, i, 43

  Mathesius, ii, 228

  Maximilian, the Emperor, befriends Reuchlin, ii, 203

  ---- II., relations of, to book privileges, ii, 422 _ff._

  Mayence, connection of, with the origin of printing, i, 358 _ff._;
    the sack of, by Adolph of Nassau, i, 362, 372; printers driven
    from, i, 372

  Medici, the, purchased books from scribes, i, 240

  ----, Cosimo de’, i, 322; institutes libraries, i, 328; founds the
    Platonic Academy, i, 328

  ----, Lorenzo de’, i, 338

  Meerman, reference of, to Koster, i, 354

  Melanchthon, Philip, ii, 231, 238 _ff._

  Melania, Saint, makes a living as a scribe, i, 33; founds convent at
    Tagaste, i, 33; beauty of transcripts of, i, 53

  Melchior, Abbot, founds printing-office in Augsburg, i, 87;
    manuscript-dealer, i, 249

  Mellin, Réclus, ii, 446

  Memmingen, caution of the burgomaster of, concerning dedications, ii,
    434

  Ménage, ii, 312

  Mendicant monks, work of, in copying and distributing books, i, 84;
    libraries of, i, 148

  Mensing, Doctor, ii, 229

  Mentel, Johann, printer of Strasburg, i, 375, 381 _ff._

  Mercers’ Company, the, of London, ii, 122

  Metal workers, relations of the, to early printers, ii, 164

  Metz, Cathedral of, as a resort for booksellers, i, 283

  Milan, the manuscript-trade of, i, 228, 241; literature at the
    Court of, i, 334; the printing, publishing, and bookselling Guild
    of, i, 450 _ff._; various activities of, i, 446 _ff._; the first
    printing in, i, 447; Publishing Association of, i, 448 _ff._; the
    regulations of Printers’ Guild of, i, 453

  _Millar vs. Taylor_, ii, 472, 505

  Milner, the historian, criticised by Maitland, i, 130

  Milton, John, _Paradise Lost_, possibly suggested by Cædmon’s _Revolt
    of Satan_, i, 93; agreement of, for publication of _Paradise Lost_,
    ii, 147; the _Defensio Populi Anglicani_ of, ii, 308; on the
    liberty of the printing-press, ii, 474 _ff._

  Minner, Johann, _scriptor_, i, 288

  Minorite Order, literary work of, i, 84

  Minutianus, professor and printer, i, 447

  Mirandola, Pico della, i, 339

  Mocenigo, Andrea, ii, 357

  Modena, Statutes of the High School of, concerning the book-trade, i,
    189

  Mohammedan states, literary activity in, i, 180

  Monasteries, Irish and Scotch, founded by S. Columba, i, 45-47

  Monastery cells, the severe temperature of, i, 64

  ---- schools, the earlier, i, 106

  Monk, Roger, ii, 117

  Monks, of England, literary work of the, i, 90

  Monkish chroniclers of England, i, 55-60, 307 _ff._

  Monmouth, Geoffrey of, _Chronicles_ of, i, 56, 307

  Monopolies conceded by Venice to earlier printers, i, 408

  Mons Castellius, monastery of, i, 21

  Montalembert, _The Monks of the West_, cited, i, 30 _ff._

  Montanus, Arius, ii, 260 _ff._

  Monte Cassino, monastery of, founded, i, 10, 182

  Montfaucon, cited, i, 42 _ff._; quoted by Robertson, i, 72; the
    literary journeys of Martene and, i, 130

  Montpellier, the book-dealers of the University of, i, 266 _ff._; the
    Press of, ii, 92

  Moors, destroy monasteries in Spain, i, 132

  More, Sir Thomas, ii, 130, 194, 200; prints books in Basel, i, 395

  Morel, Frederic, ii, 25

  Moretto, Antonio, ii, 351

  Moretus, John, ii, 283

  Morhart, Ulrich, ii, 230

  Morier, on the prices of MSS. in Persia, i, 136

  Morosini, Andrea, historian of Venice, ii, 387

  Morrhius (Campensis), ii, 24

  _Morte d’Arthur_, ii, 118

  Moulins, ordinance of, ii, 450

  Mount Athos, the monastery of, i, 146

  Mountjoy, Lord, ii, 215

  Mühlberg, battle of, ii, 421

  Mullinger, summarises the _Apostolic Constitutions_, i, 121

  Münster as a publishing centre, ii, 248 _ff._

  Muratori, the _Chronicles_ of, i, 57; reference of, to books
    presented to churches, i, 137; concerning the monastery collection
    of books, i, 138

  Murbach, the monastery of, i, 83

  Mure, Conrad de, i, 40

  Muretus, ii, 67

  Murner, Thomas, ii, 183, 431

  Murray, the House of, ii, 335

  Musurus, Marcus, appointed professor of Greek, i, 416; appointed
    censor by the Venetian Senate, i, 422; script of, utilised as a
    model for Greek type, ii, 347; censor of Greek books in Venice, ii,
    356

  Mutianus, the work of, at Erfurt, i, 223

  Myrop, C., ii, 305


  N

  Nantes, the edict of, ii, 451 _ff._

  Naples, the University of, i, 182; the Academy of, i, 344

  Napoleon and the freedom of the printing-press, ii, 427 _ff._

  Navagero, Andrea, appointed censor for the literature of the
    Humanities, ii, 356

  Néobar, (or Neobarius), Conrad, appointed royal printer in Greek, ii,
    33, 42, 448

  Neri, S. Philip, ii, 97

  Neudorffer, J., ii, 150

  Nevelo, works of penance in the _scriptorium_, i, 70

  _New Testament_, the paraphrase of, by Erasmus, ii, 207

  Niccoli, Niccolo de’, funeral oration upon, i, 240; bequeaths books
    to Florence, i, 240

  Niceron, ii, 46

  Nicholas, l’Anglois, bookseller and tavern-keeper in Paris, in the
    fourteenth century, i, 272

  ---- of Breslau, printer and engraver of Florence, i, 458

  ---- V., Pope, i, 329 _ff._

  Nicholson, John, ii, 142

  Niclaes, ii, 266

  Nicolai, publisher of Berlin, ii, 417

  Niedermünster, the nuns of, famed as scribes, i, 54

  Noailles, Cardinal de, ii, 462

  Nordlingen Fair, the book-trade of, i, 283; first sale of printed
    books in the, i, 287

  Normans, ravages of, in the Benedictine monasteries, i, 132; piracies
    of the, i, 231

  Notker, of St. Gall, writes to the Bishop of Sitten, i, 39, 229

  Novantula, monastery of, burned by the Hungarians, i, 132; the
    manuscripts of, i, 131

  Numeister, printer of Mayence and of Foligno, i, 456

  Nuns as scribes, i, 51-55

  Nuremberg, the printer-publishers of, i, 397 _ff._; and the writings
    of Luther, ii, 236; piracy editions issued in, ii, 236; edict of,
    ii, 242; censorship in, ii, 243


  O

  Obscene literature and the papal censorship, i, 333

  Odo, Abbot of Clugni, i, 129

  ----, Abbot of Tournai, i, 67, 77

  Œcolampadius, ii, 23

  Offa, King, gives a Bible to the church at Worcester, i, 97

  Olbert, Abbot of Gembloux, i, 97; transcribes the Old and the New
    Testaments, i, 98

  _Old Testament_, Luther’s version of the, ii, 233

  Olivier, _librarius_ of Paris, schedule of his book sales, i, 274

  Omons, work of, entitled _The Picture of the World_, i, 142

  Origen, Saint, literary work of, i, 32; the library of, in Cesarea,
    i, 147; requires the service of scribes, i, 228

  Orleans, literary interests of the dukes of, i, 268

  Orosius, a manuscript of, i, 43, 226

  Orphanage, publishing concern of Halle, ii, 425

  Össler, Jacob, appointed imperial supervisor of literature, ii, 419

  Othlo of Tegernsee, his work as a scribe, i, 64

  Othlonus, a scribe of S. Emmeram, i, 78, 79. (Same as Othlo.)

  Othmar, Sylvan, publisher for Luther, ii, 229

  Oxford, the University of, i, 181; early purchases of books for the
    libraries of, i, 306; early printing in, ii, 134 _ff._; first
    printers of, ii, 137

  Ozanam, _La Civilisation Chrétienne_ cited, i, 36 _ff._


  P

  Padua, the University of, i, 181, 421, ii, 348; regulations of
    the University of, concerning the book-trade, i, 188, 193;
    commissioners of the University of, appointed censors of Venetian
    publications, ii, 362 _ff._

  Paedts, Jean, ii, 294

  Palencia, the University of, i, 196

  Pallavicini, Cardinal, ii, 388

  Palm, publisher, shot by order of Napoleon, ii, 427

  Pannartz, Arnold, printer of Subiaco and of Rome, i, 405

  Panthoul, Macé, bookseller and paper-maker of Troyes, i, 276

  Panzer, ii, 12

  Papacy, claim of the, to the supervision of books in Venice, ii, 355
    _ff._

  Paper, first manufactured from rags, i, 409

  Paper-makers, relations of, with the early publishers, i, 237

  Paper-making in Italy, i, 409

  Paper manufacturers, the earlier work of, in France, i, 266;
    protected by University privileges, i, 266

  Papyrus, latest use of, i, 43, 44

  _Paradise Lost_, agreement for the publication of, ii, 147

  Paravisinus, printer of Milan, i, 447

  Parchment, the scarcity of, i, 70; used for palimpsests, i, 72;
    regulations for the sale of, in Paris, i, 204; costliness of, in
    the 14th and 15th centuries, i, 332

  Parchment-dealers in Paris, regulations concerning, i, 265

  Parentucelli, Tommaso, (Pope Nicholas V.), founds the Vatican
    Library, i, 329

  Paris, Matthew, _Chronicles_ of, i, 56, 69, 307; writes _Lives of the
    Two Offas_ and the _Chronicles_, i, 105

  ----, city of, in 1600, ii, 95; scribes of, i, 41; instructions
    of the Council of, concerning the lending of books, by the
    monasteries, i, 138; printed books first sold in, ii, 5; relations
    of the Elzevirs with, ii, 303 _ff._

  ----, the University of, i, 51, 181; foundation and constitution of
    the, i, 197 _ff._; regulations of, concerning the early book-trade,
    i, 201 _ff._; the earlier scribes in, i, 256; students of, 1524,
    ii, 28; censures the writings of Erasmus, ii, 210; publishes an
    _Index Expurgatorius_, ii, 373; relations of, to censorship of the
    Press, ii, 439 _ff._

  Parliament of Paris, relations of the, to the censorship of the
    Press, ii, 440 _ff._, 470 _ff._; contests of, with the Crown, ii,
    441; suppression of, ii, 441; relations of, with the book-trade,
    ii, 442

  Parrhasius, Janus, institutes the library of S. Giovanni, i, 146

  Paruta, contentions of, against the _Clementine Index_, ii, 377 _ff._

  Pasqualigo, ii, 370

  Passau, the library of, i, 228

  Patronage provides compensation for Italian writers, i, 334

  Pattison, Mark, ii, 27, 85 _ff._; analysis by, of the literary
    influence of Italy, France, Holland, and Germany, i, 346

  Paul, Abbot of St. Albans, i, 69

  ---- III., ii, 29

  ---- IV., issues an _Index_, ii, 374

  Paula, Saint, writes Hebrew and Greek, i, 51; assists S. Jerome in
    his writing, i, 51

  Paulsen, characterises the instruction in the mediæval universities,
    i, 223

  Pavia, the University of, i, 183

  Peasants, the war of the, ii, 250

  _Pecia_, definition of, i, 186

  _Peciarii_, functions of, i, 187

  Pedlars, regulations limiting the book-trade of, i, 213; as dealers
    in books, i, 232

  Pellican, Conrad, ii, 232

  Penalties for literary piracies in Venice, ii, 352

  _Pentateuch_, the, printed in Constantinople, ii, 260

  Penzi, Jacomo di, of Lecco, ii, 353

  Permit for publication, earliest record of, ii, 439

  Perugia, the early manuscript-dealers of, i, 249

  Peter of Blois, describes the manuscript collections of Paris, i, 256

  ---- of Celle, borrows books from S. Bernard, i, 143

  ---- the Venerable, Abbot of Clugni, i, 130; makes translation of the
    Koran, i, 145; correspondence of, i, 144, 145; orders books from
    Aquitaine, i, 144

  ---- of Bacharach, writes a _Schwabenspiegel_, i, 41

  ---- of Ravenna, ii, 439, 488

  Peterborough, the abbey of, burned by the Danes, i, 132

  Petrarch, appreciative reference of, to Aretinus, i, 246; the
    influence of, in behalf of the study of Greek, i, 323; as a
    collector of manuscripts, i, 324; script of, used as model for the
    type founders, i, 324

  Petri, Adam, of Basel, ii, 223, 225, 228

  ----, Heinrich, printer-publisher, of Basel, knighted by Charles V.,
    i, 395; sends books to Casaubon, ii, 90

  Pez, the _Chronicles_ of, cited, i, 39 _ff._

  _Phalaris_, the _Letters of_, ii, 351

  Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, a collector of books, i, 273;
    purchases manuscripts, shirts, hats, and more manuscripts, i, 274,
    275

  ---- the Fair of Burgundy, regulations of, concerning
    manuscript-dealers, i, 263; and the Parliament of Paris, ii, 441

  ---- the Good of Burgundy, ii, 105

  ---- II., of Spain, gives charter to the Milan printers’ guild, i,
    451; ii, 265, 284, 272; refuses to accept the _Tridentine Index_,
    ii, 382; and the Papal censorship, ii, 388

  ---- III. confirms the monopoly of the Milan printers’ guild, i, 454

  _Philobiblon_, of de Bury, cited, i, 308 _ff._

  Piacenza, the University of, i, 183

  Pio, Albert, Prince of Carpi, treatise of, against Erasmus, ii, 445

  Piracies, literary, regulations in Basel concerning, ii, 412

  Pirckheimer, translator of the _Geography_ of Ptolemy, i, 385 _ff._;
    ii, 151, 174, 165, 167

  Pius IV., Pope, calls Paul Manutius to Rome, i, 440

  ---- V., institutes the Congregation of the _Index_, ii, 377;
    relations of, with Paul Manutius, i, 442 _ff._

  Plantin, the House of, ii, 255 _ff._; publications of, ii, 259 _ff._

  ----, Christopher, ii, 255 _ff._; the Press of, ii, 76; relations of
    with Leyden, ii, 294; the _Bible_ of, ii, 334

  ---- Museum, the, ii, 283

  Plantinerus, purchasing agent for manuscripts, i, 242

  Plater, Thomas, ii, 238

  Poggio, funeral oration of, upon Niccoli, i, 240; translates the
    _Cyropaedia_, i, 329

  Poliziano, the writings of, i, 340

  Polliot, Etienne, ii, 449

  Pontchartrain, Chancellor of France, ii, 460 _ff._

  Porson, ii, 37

  Prague, the University of, i, 181; regulations for the copyists in
    the University of, i, 220; bookdealers in the University of, i, 278

  _Praise of Folly_, the first edition of, ii, 194

  Pratt, William, mercer and manuscript-dealer, i, 313; friend of
    Caxton, ii, 119, 123

  Prayer-book, first printed in England, ii, 142

  Premonstratensians, the regulations of, for the care of books, i, 148

  Press, the freedom of, in Venice, ii, 404

  Press-correctors, in the 16th century, ii, 165

  Preston, Thomas, the writings of, ii, 386

  Prices of Plantin’s publications, ii, 279

  Printers, early, in France, ii, 3 _ff._; of Paris, regulations for,
    in 1581, ii, 453 _ff._

  Printers’ Guild, of Venice, the, and Press legislation, ii, 394 _ff._

  Printing, the invention of, i, 348 _ff._; in France, ii, 3 _ff._; in
    Germany, begun for the benefit of the middle classes, i, 363; in
    Germany, initiated without the aid of princes, universities, or
    ecclesiastics, i, 378

  Printing undertakings, in Florence, Bologna, Milan, Rome, and Venice,
    up to 1500, i, 327

  Printing-press, service of the, for the Reformation, ii, 218; in
    France, regulations for the control of, ii, 437 _ff._

  Printing-presses, in Venice, at the close of the 16th century, ii,
    367; reduction in the number of, under the papal censorship, ii, 384

  Privileges, in England, ii, 465 _ff._, 468 _ff._; and regulations in
    Germany, ii, 407 _ff._; imperial, in Germany, ii, 416 _ff._; in
    Holland, ii, 332; and censorship in Italy, ii, 343 _ff._; the terms
    of, in Venice, ii, 350 _ff._; summary of, in Venice, ii, 486

  _Probi Vita_, cited, i, 9

  Procopius, history of the campaign of Belisarius, i, 20

  Property in literature, summary of the diverse theories concerning,
    ii, 507 _ff._

  Protestant tracts, distribution of, in Germany, ii, 249

  Proto-typographer, the, of the Netherlands, ii, 272 _ff._

  Prussia, book production in, ii, 425; earlier legislation of, in
    regard to copyright, ii, 506

  Publishers and printers in Paris, the guild of, ii, 453 _ff._

  Publishing, by subscription in England, ii, 436; methods in Germany,
    the earlier, i, 429 _ff._; in Venice, burdens upon, in the 17th
    century, ii, 393

  Puteanus, ii, 309

  Pütter, concerning privileges in Germany, ii, 415

  Pynson, Richard, King’s printer, ii, 133, 138, 467


  R

  Rabanus, M., treatise by, _De Instituto Clericorum_, i, 116

  Rabelais, a student in Montpellier, i, 196

  Radegonde, Saint, i, 51

  Radewijus, Florentius, i, 89

  Rahn, _Die Künste in der Schweiz_, cited, i, 43 _ff._

  Raphelengius, ii, 282 _ff._, 294

  Rapond, Dyne, banker and book-seller, i, 274 _ff._

  Ratdolt, printer-publisher of Augsburg, ii, 396

  Rauchler, Johann, first Rector of Tübingen High School, i, 369

  Ravenna, Peter of, ii, 345

  Reading aloud at meals, i, 69

  Reculfus, Bishop of Soissons, the _Constitutions_ of, i, 117

  Reformation, the, influence of, upon the literary activities of
    Germany, i, 224; literature of, sold under prohibitory regulations,
    i, 399; literature of, printed in Leipzig and in Wittenberg,
    i, 401; influence of, on the production of literature, ii, 26
    _ff._; the influence of, on publishing in Germany, ii, 152; an
    intellectual revolution, ii, 217

  Regino, Abbot of Prüm, i, 57

  Reinhart, Johann, an early printer of popular literature, i, 384 _ff._

  Renaissance, the, as the forerunner of the printing-press, i, 317
    _ff._

  Renilde, Abbess, skilled as a scribe, i, 53

  Reno, Guillaume de, i, 85

  Resbacense, catalogue of the library in monastery of, i, 128

  Resch, publisher of Paris, ii, 442

  Reuchlin, Johann, relations of with Aldus, i, 426 _ff._; founder
    of Greek studies in Germany, i, 429; appointed professor in
    Ingolstadt, i, 429; ii, 172, 202, 226, 237

  Rhaw, George, publisher for Luther, ii, 231

  Rhenanus, Beatus, writes introduction for the works of Erasmus,
    i, 435; as corrector for Henry Estienne (the elder), ii, 21; on
    Froben, ii, 188; writes to Erasmus, ii, 232; death of, ii, 45

  Rhenish-Celtic Society, ii, 414

  Richard II., ii, 117

  ---- de Bury, on the Mendicant Friars, i, 148

  ---- of Wedinghausen, the preservation of his writing hand, i, 65

  Richelieu, institutes the French Academy, ii, 458

  Richer, French chronicler, i, 56

  _Rifformatori_, the, of Venice, ii, 367; regulations of, in 1767,
    concerning the book-trade, ii, 397

  Riquier, Saint, books possessed by the monks of, i, 97

  Rivers, Earl, ii, 103, 122

  Rivington, the House of, ii, 335

  ---- Charles, ii, 335

  Robertson, quotes Montfaucon erroneously, i, 72; inaccurate
    statements of, concerning the prices of books in the Middle Ages,
    i, 135; misquotes Muratori concerning monastery collection of
    books, i, 138

  Rochelle, publishing operations in, ii, 452

  Rodolphus of Fulda, i, 57

  Roger of Wendover, historiographer of St. Albans, i, 104;
    _Chronicles_ of, i, 56, 104 _ff._, 307

  Rogers, J. E. Thorold, on early bookselling in England, i, 306

  Rolewinck, the _Outline History of the World_ by, i, 368

  _Romana Littera_, definition of, i, 227

  Romance writing in England in the 14th and 15th centuries, i, 303
    _ff._

  Romans, church of (in Dauphiny), destroyed six times, i, 133

  Rome, as a book market in the seventh century, i, 226

  Rood, Theodore, printer of Oxford, i, 242; ii, 137

  Rooses, Max, ii, 256

  Rouen, the manuscript-dealers of, i, 270

  Royal privileges in England, ii, 468 _ff._

  Royes, Joseph, ii, 140

  Rufus, Mutianus, letter of, concerning the interference of war with
    literature, i, 431

  Rühel and Sulfisch secure a privilege for Luther’s Bible, ii, 235

  _Rule_ of S. Benedict, the original MSS. destroyed in the monastery
    of Teano, i, 133

  Ruppel, Berthold, first printer of Basel, i, 392

  Rusch, Adolph, printer-publisher and paper-dealer, i, 384


  S

  Sabellico, Antonio, ii, 345, 488

  Sachs, Hans, ii, 243 _ff._

  _Sachsenspiegel_, early editions of the, i, 392

  St. Albans, literary work in the monastery of, i, 69; the abbey of,
    i, 102; the _scriptorium_ and library of, i, 102; the _Chronicles_
    of, i, 104; printing in, ii, 137; _The Book of_, ii, 138

  St. Gall, monastery of, i, 40; work of the nuns of, i, 55; curious
    inscription in a manuscript of, i, 73; the abbey of, i, 125;
    decadence in monastery of, during the 13th century, i, 84

  Salamanca, the monastery of, i, 196

  Salerno, the school of, i, 182

  Sallengre, M. de, ii, 72

  Salmasius (Saumaise).

  Sanuto, Marino, ii, 357

  Saracens, destroy monasteries in Italy, i, 132

  Sarpi, Fra Paolo, ii, 372 _ff._; and the interdict, ii, 384;
    formulates the scheme of a legitimate _Index_, ii, 389

  Saumaise (Salmasius), ii, 315 _ff._

  Saxony, censorship in, ii, 244

  Saxon literature, early, i, 91

  Scævola, ii, 56

  Scaliger, ii, 64 _ff._, 304

  Scapula, Joannes, plagiarist, ii, 81

  Schedd, the _Chronicle_ of, ii, 171

  Scheffel’s, _Der treue Ekkehart_, i, 127

  Schöffer, Peter, printer, admitted as a citizen in Frankfort, i,
    288, 359; employed by Gutenberg, i, 372; taken into partnership
    by Fust, i, 373; _Impressor Librorum_, i, 375; appointed agent
    for the University of Paris, i, 376; suit of, against Inkus, i,
    376; summary of the publishing undertakings of, i, 378 _ff._;
    establishes an agency in Paris, ii, 7, 178

  Schönsperger, publisher of Augsburg, ii, 225, 229

  Schools, the earlier monastery, i, 106

  Schoolbooks in manuscript, prices of, i, 284, 286; prices of, in
    North Germany, in the 15th century, i, 300

  Schott, Johann, imperial privilege secured by, ii, 414

  Schürer, printer of Strasburg, ii, 200

  Schurmann, opinion of, concerning the imperial control of literature,
    ii, 417

  Schweinheim, printer of Subiaco and of Rome, i, 405

  Scolar, Johannes, ii, 137

  Scott’s _Elizabethan Translations from the Italian_, cited, ii, 144

  Scotus, Erigena, appointed master of the palace school at Tours, i,
    116

  Scribes, of African and Eastern monasteries, i, 33; monastic
    privileges of, i, 69; licensed for German towns, i, 294 _ff._; of
    Germany, carry on their work in the porches of the churches and
    cathedrals, i, 295

  Scrimger, Henry, ii, 68

  _Scripta notaria_, i, 43

  _Scriptorium_, the consecration of the, i, 61; form of benediction
    for, i, 76

  Seanachies, an order of Celtic bards, i, 49

  Séguier, Chancellor of France, ii, 457

  Selden, the _Mare Clausum_ of, ii, 308

  Senate, the Venetian, takes action to protect the printing-press, ii,
    391

  Seneca, maxim of, i, 195

  Senis, Guidomarus de, _librarius_ and poet, i, 273

  Sens, Council of, ii, 22

  Sensenschmid of Eger, ii, 150

  Servetus, ii, 52, 54

  Sforza, Francesco, i, 337

  Shakespeare’s plays, sources of certain of the plots of, ii, 145

  Shakespeare, published works of, ii, 146

  Scheurl, writes to Campeggi, ii, 246

  _Ship of Fools_, the, first English edition of, ii, 139

  Sidney, Sir Philip, ii, 84

  Sidonius, Caius Sollius Apollinaris, i, 5, 6, 7

  Sigismund, John, ii, 425

  Silvius, Æneas, the _Europa_ of, i, 281

  ----, William, ii, 287, 294 _ff._

  Simler, Josias, ii, 376

  Simmons, Samuel, ii, 147

  Simon, Abbot of St. Albans, i, 103

  Sintram, noteworthy as a copyist, i, 126

  Sisebut, King, pupil of Isidore, i, 36

  Sithiu, the monks of, secure from Charlemagne hunting privileges, i,
    124

  Sixtus V., and the _Tridentine Index_, ii, 377

  Slovenic versions of the writings of the Reformers, ii, 230

  Soardi, publisher of Venice, ii, 354

  Socinus, Lelius, and Faustus, ii, 52, 53

  Solomon, Abbot of St. Gall, the vocabulary of, i, 126

  Somerset, Duchess of, ii, 127

  Soncino, the first Hebrew Bible printed in, i, 459

  Sorbonne, college of the, the foundation of, i, 216; the special
    functions of, i, 217; the Doctors of the, ii, 19 _ff._, 47 _ff._;
    Theological Faculty of, ii, 29 _ff._; relations of the, with Robert
    Estienne, ii, 49 _ff._

  Sorg, printer-publisher of Augsburg, i, 396

  Southampton, Earl of, ii, 146

  Spain, monasteries in, destroyed by the Moors, i, 132; the early
    universities of, i, 196; activity of the Moorish scholars in, i,
    253 _ff._; manuscript-dealers of, in the fifteenth century, i, 313

  Spalatin, librarian of the Elector of Saxony, i, 432

  Spalato, Archbishop of, ii, 388

  “Spanish Fury,” the, ii, 273

  _Speculum Humanæ Salvationis_, i, 352

  Spengler, Syndic of Nuremberg, ii, 237

  Speyer, John of, and the writings of Luther, ii, 246, 344

  Spiegel, Jacob, supervisor of literature, ii, 420

  Spottswood, ii, 96

  Stab, Johann, secures an imperial privilege, ii, 419

  Stadius, John, imperial privilege secured by, ii, 414

  _Stadtschreiber_, licensed for the cities of North Germany, i, 283

  Star-Chamber, the, relations of, to the supervision of the Press, ii,
    470

  Stathoen, Herman von, _librarius_ of Paris, i, 270

  _Stationarii_, i, 10; first use of the term, i, 184 _ff._; of the
    German universities, i, 220; of Paris, regulations concerning, i,
    260 _ff._; status of, in Oxford, i, 310 _ff._

  _Stationarii peciarum_, functions of, i, 191

  Stationers’ Company, organisation of the, in England, i, 219; charter
    granted to, i, 219, 311; ii, 365, 465 _ff._; regulations of, ii,
    469 _ff._

  Stationers’ Hall, the, of London, i, 311

  Stavelot, Johann of, work as a scribe, i, 87

  Stenzel, Thomas, historian, cited, i, 59

  Stephani (or Estiennes), ii, 15 _ff._

  Stephanus, Robertus, _see_ Estienne.

  Stereotyping, date of invention of, ii, 329

  Strasburg, library of the Cathedral of, i, 301; an early publishing
    centre, i, 381; and the writings of Luther, ii, 246

  Strozzi, Palla degli, i, 327 _ff._

  _Studia publica or generalia_, i, 181

  Subiaco, the monastery of, i, 12; the place of the first printing in
    Italy, i, 404

  Subscription method of publishing in England, ii, 435 _ff._

  Suger, Abbot, historian, i, 58

  Sully, ii, 96

  Sylvester II., ii, 480

  Symonds, J. A., _The Renaissance in Italy_, of, i, 319 _ff._


  T

  Tacitus, important manuscript of, secured in Corvey, i, 301

  Tegernsee, the monks of, i, 39; the monastery of, a place of book
    production, i, 86

  Terms used in scribe work, i, 42 _ff._

  Terracina, monopoly granted to, ii, 347

  _Testament_, the _New_, edition by Erasmus, ii, 205 _ff._; Lutheran
    version of, ii, 223 _ff._

  Text-books in manuscript, prices of, i, 286

  Thafar, Al-baghdádé, chief among Moorish scribes, i, 254

  Thausing, M., concerning the work of Dürer, ii, 409

  Theodadad, King of the Goths, i, 20

  Theodoric, King of the Goths and the Romans, i, 9, 18; his Arian
    faith, i, 18; his toleration of the Athanasians due to Cassiodorus,
    i, 18

  Theodosius II., as a scribe, i, 42

  Theology, importance of the study of, in the University of Paris, i,
    261

  Theses, the ninety-five, ii, 222

  Thirty Years’ War, the, ii, 290 _ff._; influence of, on literary
    production, ii, 498

  Thomaïtes, the Patriarch’s library in, i, 146

  Thomson’s _Seasons_, ii, 472

  Thurot, citation from, concerning methods of instruction in the
    Middle Ages, i, 216

  Tilly, ii, 248

  Tiphernas, ii, 23

  Tiraboschi, i, 183

  Tischendorf, Testament MSS. discovered by, i, 146

  Tissard, Francis, furthers the study of Greek in Paris, ii, 10

  Tonson, Jacob, ii, 148

  Torquemada, _see_ Turrecremata

  ----, Tomas, Inquisitor-General, i, 404

  Torresano, father-in-law of Aldus, buys printing plant from Jenson,
    i, 411; unites his printing concern with that of Aldus, i, 420;
    takes over the business of Aldus, i, 438

  Toulouse, Press of, ii, 92

  Tousé, Guillaume, publisher of Paris, sends out travellers, i, 218

  Towton, battle of, ii, 116

  Traversari, Ambrosio, makes reference to the book-shops of Florence,
    i, 235

  Trevers, printer of London, ii, 468

  _Tridentine Index_, the, ii, 375 _ff._

  Trithemius (Johann Trittenheim), Abbot of Sponheim, i, 21, 22;
    cited, i, 71; rebukes his monks, i, 73 _ff._; writes _De Laude
    Scriptorum_, i, 88, 359, 366

  Truber, Primus, ii, 229

  Trutwetter, ii, 238

  Tübingen, as a publishing centre, ii, 229 _ff._

  Turrecremata, Juan, Cardinal, introduces printing into Italy, i, 404;
    invites to Rome Hahn, printer, of Ingolstadt, i, 406

  Tyndale, William, ii, 140

  Type, fonts of, used by the earlier Italian printers, i, 412; style
    of, used by the Kobergers, ii, 164


  U

  Ulfilas, ii, 306

  Ulm, the magistracy of, protects the contracts of Schöffer, i, 377;
    the early printers of, i, 397

  Ulpian Library, in Rome, i, 8, 9

  Ulrich III., Abbot of Michelsberg, i, 85

  Ungnad, the Freiherr of, ii, 230

  University, definition of the term, i, 181; the term defined by
    Malden, i, 199

  ---- of Paris, controls the book-trade of the city, i, 214;
    regulations of, concerning book-dealers, i, 263 _ff._; publishes an
    _Index Expurgatorius_, ii, 373

  Universities, early, influence of the, upon the education of the
    monasteries, i, 85; the making of books in the, i, 178 _ff._; the
    historians of the, i, 180; of Europe, character of the membership
    of the earlier, i, 221; of France, members of, exempted from taxes,
    etc., i, 199; of Germany, the earlier text-books of, i, 220; of
    Spain, i, 196

  Unkel, Bartholomäus, prints in Low German, the _Sachsenspiegel_, i,
    388

  Urbanus orders books from Aldus, i, 425

  Urbino, the ducal library of, i, 366


  V

  Valdarfer, prints the first edition of the _Decameron_ in Florence,
    i, 325; printer of Milan, i, 447

  Valla, Laurentius (or Lorenzo), exposes the fraudulent character
    of the _Donation_ of Constantine, i, 83, 331; ii, 227; writings
    of, printed in Paris, ii, 10, 203; compensation paid to, i, 329;
    literary controversies of, i, 332 _ff._

  Valladolid, the _Index_ of, ii, 270

  Vandals, besiege Hippo, i, 4

  Van Dyck, Anthony, ii, 307

  ----, Christophe, ii, 307

  Van Praet, ii, 108

  Vascosanus, ii, 25

  Vatablus, ii, 36, 45

  Vavasseur, ii, 72

  Venice, relations of, to the manuscript-trade, i, 234, 242;
    development of the manuscript-trade of, i, 242, 243; the academy
    of, i, 345; takes the lead in the printing undertakings of Italy,
    i, 407 _ff._; the Senate of, prohibits the exportation of rags,
    i, 409; facilities of, as a centre of trade, and for publishing
    undertakings, i, 409 _ff._; the wars of, i, 420; Protectionist
    policy of, ii, 347; earliest legislation in, concerning literature,
    ii, 359 _ff._; relations of, with Germany, ii, 376; requirements
    for the matriculation of booksellers of, ii, 396

  Venetian book-trade, last contests of, with Rome, ii, 401 _ff._

  Vérard, Anthony, printer in Paris, ii, 8

  Vercelli, the University of, i, 183; early regulations in University
    of, concerning the book-trade, i, 188

  Vere, the Lady of, ii, 197

  Vergetius, ii, 42

  _Verlags- und Drück-Privilegien_, ii, 426

  Verona, the manuscript-trade of, i, 228; the manuscript-dealers of,
    i, 246

  Vespasiano, author, dealer in manuscripts, book collector and
    librarian, i, 235, 247 _ff._, 341 _ff._, 365

  Victorius, Petrus, ii, 67 _ff._

  Vidouvé, ii, 23

  Vienna, regulations for the copyists in the University of, i, 220;
    book-trade in the University of, i, 279; the Cathedral of S.
    Stephen in, a centre of the book-trade, i, 283

  Viliaric, a Gothic scribe, i, 43; an _antiquarius_, i, 245

  Virgil, an Italian conjurer, i, 143

  Visconti, Filippo Maria, i, 335

  ----, Galeazzo, i, 183

  Visigoths, code of laws of, i, 225

  Vitalis, Ordericus, _Chronicles_ of, i, 56, 60, 307

  Vitensis, Victor, cited, i, 3

  Vitet, concerning the Press in France in the sixteenth century, ii,
    450

  Vivaria, or Viviers, monastery of, founded, i, 10

  _Voyage Littéraire de Deux Religieux Benedictins_, i, 131

  Vüc, Joorquin de, bookseller to Duke Philip of Burgundy, i, 289

  Vycey, Thomas, earliest _stationarius_ recorded in London, i, 312


  W

  Waldorfer, _see_ Valdarfer

  Wandrille, Saint, _Chronicles_ of the monastery of, i, 227

  Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, ii, 215

  Warton, describes the library of the Abbey of Gembloux, i, 97

  Wattenbach, _Das Schriftwesen_, etc., cited, i, 38 _ff._

  Wearmouth, library collected for the monastery of, i, 95

  Weissenburger, Johann, publisher for Luther, ii, 221

  Wendover, Roger of, _see_ under Roger.

  Wenzel, King of Bohemia, buys books in Paris, i, 218, 261

  Westminster, Caxton’s printing-office at, ii, 113

  White, Andrew, ii, 147

  Wilfred, Saint, institutes the Benedictine monasteries, organises
    monastic schools, initiates instruction in music, i, 94

  Willems, Alphonse, ii, 286

  Willer, bookseller of Augsburg, prints the first classified catalogue
    known to the German book-trade, i, 397

  William, Abbot of Hirschau, i, 70, 71; defends the cause of the Pope
    against the Emperor, i, 82

  Wimpfeling, Jacob, on the intellectual supremacy of the Germans, ii,
    162, 168

  Windelin, secures a monopoly of printing in Venice, i, 408

  Windesheim, the nuns of, producers of books, i, 90

  Wipo, the _Tetralogus_ of, i, 225

  Witigis, defeated by Belisarius, i, 20

  Wittenberg as a publishing centre, ii, 233, 248

  Wittikind, of Corvey, i, 58

  Wittwer, Wilhelm, the catalogue of, i, 87

  Wohlrabe, prints in Leipzig piracy editions of Lutheran literature,
    i, 402

  Wolf, publisher of Basel, ii, 225

  Wolff von Prunow, _Bibliopola_ of Heidelberg, i, 289

  Women as book-dealers in Paris, i, 211

  Women medical students in Salerno, i, 182

  Worde, Wynken de, ii, 125, 133 _ff._, 468 _ff._

  Worms, the Diet of, ii, 266; Edict of, ii, 241

  Wright, Thomas, on the early English romances, i, 305

  Wulfstan, Bishop of York, sermons of, i, 101


  X

  Xylography, i, 350


  Y

  York Cathedral, the library of, i, 108

  York-Powell, and Vigfusson, _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, of, i, 92


  Z

  Zainer, printer of Augsburg, i, 396

  Zane, Archbishop of Spalato, ii, 354

  Zarotus, printer of Milan, i, 447

  Zasius, Ulrich, i, 173, 174; ii, 432

  Zell, Matthäus, ii, 246

  ----, Ulrich, the first printer of Cologne, i, 292, 359, 387; ii,
    109, 110, 136

  Zeno, _libraire_ of Paris in the fourteenth century, schedule of his
    books, i, 271

  Ziegelbauer, _Observationes Literariæ S. Benedicti_ of, i, 122;
    statistics of, concerning the monastery libraries, i, 135

  Zink, Burkard, scribe of Augsburg, i, 41

  Zosimus, Pope, the canons of, i, 116

  Zurich, early printers of, i, 396

  Zwingli, publishing arrangements of, i, 396; friend of Zasius, ii,
    174; letters of, to Rhenanus, ii, 185 _ff._, 253

  Wenzel, King of Bohemia, buys books in Paris, i, 218, 261

  Westminster, Caxton’s printing-office at, ii, 113

  White, Andrew, ii, 147

  Wilfred, Saint, institutes the Benedictine monasteries, organises
    monastic schools, initiates instruction in music, i, 94

  Willems, Alphonse, ii, 286

  Willer, bookseller of Augsburg, prints the first classified catalogue
    known to the German book-trade, i, 397

  William, Abbot of Hirschau, i, 70, 71; defends the cause of the Pope
    against the Emperor, i, 82

  Wimpfeling, Jacob, on the intellectual supremacy of the Germans, ii,
    162, 168

  Windelin, secures a monopoly of printing in Venice, i, 408

  Windesheim, the nuns of, producers of books, i, 90

  Wipo, the _Tetralogus_ of, i, 225

  Witigis, defeated by Belisarius, i, 20

  Wittenberg as a publishing centre, ii, 233, 248

  Wittikind, of Corvey, i, 58

  Wittwer, Wilhelm, the catalogue of, i, 87

  Wohlrabe, prints in Leipzig piracy editions of Lutheran literature,
    i, 402

  Wolf, publisher of Basel, ii, 225

  Wolff von Prunow, _Bibliopola_ of Heidelberg, i, 289

  Women as book-dealers in Paris, i, 211

  Women medical students in Salerno, i, 182

  Worde, Wynken de, ii, 125, 133 _ff._, 468 _ff._

  Worms, the Diet of, ii, 266; Edict of, ii, 241

  Wright, Thomas, on the early English romances, i, 305

  Wulfstan, Bishop of York, sermons of, i, 101


  X

  Xylography, i, 350


  Y

  York Cathedral, the library of, i, 108

  York-Powell, and Vigfusson, _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, of, i, 92


  Z

  Zainer, printer of Augsburg, i, 396

  Zane, Archbishop of Spalato, ii, 354

  Zarotus, printer of Milan, i, 447

  Zasius, Ulrich, i, 173, 174; ii, 432

  Zell, Matthäus, ii, 246

  ----, Ulrich, the first printer of Cologne, i, 292, 359, 387; ii,
    109, 110, 136

  Zeno, _libraire_ of Paris in the fourteenth century, schedule of his
    books, i, 271

  Ziegelbauer, _Observationes Literariæ S. Benedicti_ of, i, 122;
    statistics of, concerning the monastery libraries, i, 135

  Zink, Burkard, scribe of Augsburg, i, 41

  Zosimus, Pope, the canons of, i, 116

  Zurich, early printers of, i, 396

  Zwingli, publishing arrangements of, i, 396; friend of Zasius, ii,
    174; letters of, to Rhenanus, ii, 185 _ff._, 253

[Illustration]




WORKS IN LITERATURE


Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages

A Study of the Conditions of the Production and Distribution of
Literature from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Close of the
Seventeenth Century.

By GEO. HAVEN PUTNAM, Litt.D.

In two volumes 8vo, cloth extra (sold separately), each, net $2.50

  Vol. I. 476-1600      Vol. II. 1500-1709

“It is seldom that such wide learning, such historical grasp and
insight, have been employed in their service.”--_Atlantic Monthly._


Authors and Their Public in Ancient Times

A Sketch of Literary Conditions and of the Relations with the Public of
Literary Producers, from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Roman
Empire.

By GEO. HAVEN PUTNAM, Litt.D.

Author of “The Question of Copyright,” “Books and their Makers During
the Middle Ages,” etc.

Second Edition, Revised, 12mo, gilt top, net $1.50

“The work shows broad cultivation, careful scholarly research and
original thought. The style is simple and straightforward, and the
volume is both attractive and valuable.” _Richmond Times._


The Censorship of the Church of Rome and Its Influence upon the
Production and the Distribution of Literature

A Study of the History of the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes,
together with some Consideration of the Effects of Protestant
Censorship and of Censorship by the State.

By GEO. HAVEN PUTNAM, Litt.D.

Two volumes. 8vo. Uniform with “Books and Their Makers.”

Per volume, net, $2.50

“A work of remarkable erudition.... I find it characterized by rare
large-mindedness and historic impartiality.... The subject is one into
which few writers have had the courage to delve. The book should prove
of much interest to scholars.... The subject has been treated in a
masterly manner.”--_John Ireland, Archbishop of Minnesota._

_Send for descriptive circular_


  G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
  NEW YORK      LONDON




FOOTNOTES:

[1] Humphreys, 125.

[2] Renouard, i., 25.

[3] Greswell, i., 22.

[4] “In books flows the fountain of wisdom.”--_Hist. Typographorum
Parisiensium_, 29.

[5] _Life of Casaubon_, 322.

[6] Greswell, i., 172.

[7] Greswell, i., 190.

[8] _Ibid._, 191.

[9] p. 193, _et seq._

[10] Greswell, i., 209.

[11] Le Long, _Bib. S._, tom. i., p. 89.

[12] See also the reference to this verse in the chapter on Froben.

[13] Cited by Greswell, i., 339.

[14] Greswell, i., 219.

[15] Greswell, i., 225.

[16] Cited by Greswell, i., 283.

[17] Greswell, i., 311.

[18] _In Elogiis_, cited by Greswell, i., 350.

[19] Greswell, i., 376.

[20] Greswell, i., 384.

[21] De Guignes, _Historical Essay on the Oriental and Greek Characters
of Francis I._

[22] Greswell, i., 404.

[23] Maittaire, 247.

[24] _Life of William Somner_, Oxford, 1693.

[25] De Maumont, cited by Greswell, ii., 18.

[26] Greswell, ii., 169.

[27] Maittaire, 298.

[28] Cited by Maittaire.

[29] _Mémoire de Littérature_, Sallengre, i., 38, La Haye, 1715.

[30] Greswell, ii., 219.

[31] Vol. ii., 251.

[32] _Isaac Casaubon_, by Mark Pattison, second edition, Oxford, 1892,
p. 30.

[33] _Op._, 21, cited by Pattison, p. 31.

[34] Pattison, p. 35.

[35] Burney MS. 364, p. 250, cited by Pattison, p. 37.

[36] _Ibid._

[37] Pattison, 153.

[38] Pattison, 128.

[39] Pattison, 182.

[40] Frith, I., _Life of Bruno_, London and Boston, 1887, p. 71.

[41] Pattison, 323.

[42] Pattison, 324.

[43] Blades, 24.

[44] Blades, 32.

[45] Cited by Blades, p. 35.

[46] Blades, 50.

[47] Blades, 54.

[48] Cited by Kapp, p. 218.

[49] Blades, 62.

[50] Thomassy, _Les Écrits Politiques de Christine de Pisan_. Paris,
1838.

[51] Blades, 213.

[52] _Legend of Good Women_, line 425.

[53] Blades, 247.

[54] _Ibid._, 226.

[55] Blades, 280.

[56] Cited by Blades, 84.

[57] Cited by Knight, _The Old Printer_, p. 113.

[58] Cited by Blades, p. 90.

[59] Humphreys, 184.

[60] Madan, _The Early Oxford Press--A Bibliography of Printing and
Publishing at Oxford, 1468-1640_. Oxford, 1895, p. 247.

[61] Madan, 254.

[62] _Ibid._, 263.

[63] Humphreys, 195.

[64] Humphreys, 196.

[65] Humphreys, 204.

[66] _Elizabethan Translations from the Italian_, Baltimore, 1895.

[67] Jusserand, _The English Novel_, p. 80.

[68] _Ibid._, 81.

[69] _Captain Cox, His Ballads and Books_, 1575, ed. by Furnivall,
Ballad Society, 1871, p. 29.

[70] _The English Novel_, 87.

[71] Wilder, 59.

[72] Knight, 203.

[73] Kapp, 140.

[74] Hase, 26.

[75] Hase, 28.

[76] Köstlin, 265.

[77] Hase, 167.

[78] Hase, 160.

[79] Hase, 77.

[80] Hase, 108.

[81] Hase, 170.

[82] _Ulrich Zasius_, Stintzing, Basel, 1857, p. 257.

[83] Zasius, _Epistolæ_, p. 191.

[84] Luther, _Briefe_, iii., 389.

[85] Pirckheimer, _Opera_, 252.

[86] Hase, 420.

[87] Excepting an edition of the first writings of Luther.

[88] Kapp, 313.

[89] Zeltner, _Geschichte der Schriften Lutheri_, Nürnberg, 1727, p. 37.

[90] Kapp, 388.

[91] For the translations of these letters I am indebted to the
courtesy of Dr. S. M. Jackson and Prof. G. W. Gilmore.

[92] Kapp, 393.

[93] Herzog, J. J., _Das Leben Johann Oekolampads_, Basel, 1843, vol.
i., p. 85.

[94] _Erasmus, His Life and Character._ By Robert B. Drummond. 2 vols.,
London, 1873, i., 200.

[95] The _Complutensian Polyglot Bible_ of Cardinal Ximenes, completed
in 1514, was not published until 1522.

[96] Drummond, i., 276.

[97] _Ibid._, i., 277.

[98] Froude, _Erasmus_, 78.

[99] Drummond, i., 278.

[100] Erasmus, _Op._, ii., 397.

[101] Erasmus, _Op._, ii., 707.

[102] Drummond, i., 262.

[103] Froude, 51.

[104] Froude, 128.

[105] Erasm., _Op._, iii., 275.

[106] Froude, 138.

[107] Drummond, i., 261.

[108] _Ep._, xxi.

[109] Froude, 127.

[110] Drummond, i., 319.

[111] Drummond, i., 412.

[112] Drummond, ii., 179.

[113] Froude, 220.

[114] Eras., _Op._ iii., 1168.

[115] Bariqui, i., 516; cited by Drummond, ii., 180.

[116] Drummond, ii., 186.

[117] _Ep._, DCCCCXXII; Drummond, ii., 276.

[118] p. 326.

[119] Luther’s authorship of this tract is questioned. Its preface is
certainly his.

[120] Köstlin, 279.

[121] _Ibid._, 491.

[122] Kapp, 307.

[123] Kapp, 311.

[124] Kapp, 425.

[125] Kapp, 374.

[126] Plater, _Selbst-biog._, p. 23.

[127] Kapp, 408.

[128] Herzog, _Das Leben Johann Oekolampads_, Basel, 1843, i., 85.

[129] Kapp, 410.

[130] Kapp, 417.

[131] Kapp, 443.

[132] Rooses, 231, _et seq._

[133] This is the date of the “Charter of Privileges,” which gave to
the University of Oxford the control of the printing.

[134] Evelyn, _Memoirs_, ed. Bray., i., 30, 31.

[135] Burmanni, _Syllog._, v., 576.

[136] Letter of D. Elzevir to Heinsius, July 1, 1679. Library of
Utrecht.

[137] C. Myrop, _Bidrag._, p. 167.

[138] C. F. Menander, cited by Kirchoff, _Beiträge_, ii., 149.

[139] Charles Elton, in _Bibliotheca_, part i., 1894.

[140] In the dedicatory epistle to the _Discorsi e Dimostrazioni
Matemachi_, 1638.

[141] Willems, cxxii.

[142] _Introduction to the Literature of Europe._

[143] Unpublished letters, cited by Eng. and Em. Haag, in “La France
Protestante,” ix., 162, and by Willems, 186.

[144] _Cf._ Castellani, _I privilegii_ ... _im Venezia_, Venice, 1888,
quoted by Brown, p. 53.

[145] Brown, 54.

[146] Brown, 56.

[147] Brown, 57.

[148] Brown, 63.

[149] Brown, 65.

[150] Cicogna, _Iscriz. Ven._, v. 587.

[151] Brown, 78.

[152] Brown, 97.

[153] Mansi, _Supp. ad Concil. Luccae_, 1752, ii., 681.

[154] _Geschichte der Deutschen Bibel-übersetzung des Luthers_, 43.

[155] Thausing, M., _Dürer. Gescht. seines Lebens_, etc., 254.

[156] p. 97.

[157] Kirchhoff, _Gescht. des Deutsch. Buchhandels_, i., 42-45.

[158] Luden, _Vom freien Geistes-Verkehr_, Weimar, 1814, pp. 51-52.

[159] Kapp, 171.

[160] Götze, Ludwig, _Alt. Gesch. der Buchdrückerkunst in Magdeburg_,
5, 19, _et seq._

[161] Strauss, _Ulrich v. Hutten_, _4te Auflage_, Bonn, 1878, 481, _et
seq._

[162] Schuck, _Aldus Manutius u. seine Zeitgenossen in Italien u.
Deutschland_, Berlin, 1862, 82.

[163] Kapp, 313.

[164] Kapp, 314.

[165] F. H. Meyer, in _Archiv._, v., 181.

[166] Kapp, 315.

[167] Kapp, 317, _et seq._

[168] _Beiträge_, 112.

[169] p. 317.

[170] _Manuel du Bibliophile_, i., 42.

[171] _Beiträge zum Deutschen Staats- und Fürstenrecht._

[172] Renouard, i., 25.

[173] Bayle’s _Dictionary_, article _Beda_.

[174] _De la Presse au Seizième Siècle._

[175] Renouard, i., 50.

[176] _Œuvres_, Édition de 1828, xxvi., 389.

[177] Renouard, i., 79.

[178] Stationers’ Company _vs._ Carman, 2 W. Bl. 1002, Scrutton, 70.

[179] Hub. Ames, F. A., i., 186. Cited by Scrutton, 72.

[180] Scrutton, 76.

[181] _Ibid._

[182] p. 83.

[183] 4 Burr, 2313.

[184] The Act was passed in 1709, but went into effect April 10, 1710.

[185] Milton, _Areopagitica_, edited by White, London, 1819, pp. 15-18.

[186] The “piracies” of the Lyons publishers were troublesome for
the Paris Guild, but they do not affect the general accuracy of the
statement.

[187] Kapp, 495.




Corrections

The first line indicates the original, the second the correction:

p. 16

  with a few rare exception, of editions
  with a few rare exceptions, of editions

p. 33

  1533. “Virgillii Opera.” 8vo. (Again.)
  1533. “Virgilii Opera.” 8vo. (Again.)

p. 111

  La Farce de Pathelie
  La Farce de Pathelin

p. 118

  Jacobus de Veragine,
  Jacobus de Voragine,

p. 121

  for the reissue, while the the work of translating
  for the reissue, while the work of translating

p. 205

  in protecting the the work
  in protecting the work

p. 221

  One of the more important of the earlier pamplets
  One of the more important of the earlier pamphlets

p. 259

  La Livre de la Victoire contre toutes tribulations.
  Le Livre de la Victoire contre toutes tribulations.


p. 330

  for the Low Countries, for Scandivania
  for the Low Countries, for Scandinavia

p. 355

  the Council of Ten had practially resigned
  the Council of Ten had practically resigned

p. 418

  and also from such Unievrsities
  and also from such Universities

p. 449

  the records of the _Chambre syndicat de la librairie_
  the records of the _Chambre syndicale de la librairie_

p. 517

  —— VII., plans to introduce printing into France, ii, 2 _ff._
  —— VII., plans to introduce printing into France, ii, 4 _ff._

p. 520

France, the Abbey schools in, i, 118; the manuscript-trade in, i,
255 _ff._; early printers of, ii, 2 _ff._; regulations for the
printing-press in, ii, 437; legislation in, for the encouragement of
literature, ii, 446 _ff._; summary of the privileges in, ii, 491 _ff._;
takes the initiative in regard to the Convention of Berne, ii, 506;
summary of copyright legislation in, ii, 508

France, the Abbey schools in, i, 118; the manuscript-trade in, i,
255 _ff._; early printers of, ii, 3 _ff._; regulations for the
printing-press in, ii, 437; legislation in, for the encouragement of
literature, ii, 446 _ff._; summary of the privileges in, ii, 491 _ff._;
takes the initiative in regard to the Convention of Berne, ii, 506;
summary of copyright legislation in, ii, 508

p. 525

Jenson, Nicholas, first printer in Venice, i, 407; operations of, in
Paris and in Mayence, i, 408; settles in Venice, i, 409; sells printing
plant to Torresano, i, 411; sent to Mayence by Charles VII., ii, 2; 344


Jenson, Nicholas, first printer in Venice, i, 407; operations of, in
Paris and in Mayence, i, 408; settles in Venice, i, 409; sells printing
plant to Torresano, i, 411; sent to Mayence by Charles VII., ii, 3; 344

p. 532

  ---- III. confirms the monoply of the Milan printers’ guild, i, 454
  ---- III. confirms the monopoly of the Milan printers’ guild, i, 454

Footnote 154:

  _Geschischte der Deutschen Bibel-übersetzung des Luthers_, 43.
  _Geschichte der Deutschen Bibel-übersetzung des Luthers_, 43.


Erratum

On pp. 451-452, the excerpt from the Edict of Nantes should read:

_Ne pourront les livres concernant ladite religion prétendue réformée
être réimprimés et vendus publiquement qu’ès villes et lieux où
l’exercice public de ladite religion est permis; et, pour les autres
livres qui seront imprimés ès autres villes, seront vus et visités
tant par nos officiers que théologiens, ainsi qu’il est porté par nos
ordonnances. Défendons très expressément l’impression, publication et
vente de tous livres, libelles et écrits diffamatoires, sous les peines
contenues en nos ordonnances, enjoignant à tous nos juges et officiers
d’y tenir la main._