Part 38

No feature of early printing is more unworkmanlike than that of composition. Imitating the style of the manuscript copy, the compositor huddled together words and paragraphs in solid columns of dismal blackness, and sent his forms to press without title, running-titles, chapter-heads and paging-figures. The space for the ornamental borders and letters of the illuminator seems extravagant when contrasted with the pinched spaces between lines and words. The printer trusted to the bright colors of the illuminator to give relief to the blackness of the types, not knowing that a purer relief and greater perspicuity would have been secured by a wider spacing of the words and lines. The obscurity produced by huddled and over-black types was increased by the neglect of simple orthographical rules. Proper names were printed with or without capitals, apparently to suit the whim of the compositor. The comma, colon and period, the only points of punctuation in general use, were employed capriciously and illogically. Crooked and unevenly spaced lines and errors of arrangement or making-up were common. Madden has pointed out several gross blunders, caused by the transposition of lines and pages and an erroneous calculation of the space that should be occupied by print. Words were mangled in division, and in the display of lines in capital letters, in a manner that seems inexcusable. But no usage of the early compositor is more annoying than his lawless use of abbreviations. Imitating the example of Procrustes, he made the words fit, chopping them off on any letter or in any position, indifferent to the wants of the reader or to the proprieties of language.[391] Whatever opinion may be entertained concerning [p526] the deterioration of printing in other branches, it is, beyond all cavil, certain that in the art of arranging types so that the meaning of the author shall be made lucid, the modern compositor is much the more intelligent mechanic.

Improvements were made slowly. The method of spacing out lines so as to produce a regular outline at the right side of every page had been practised before, but it was not in general use even as late as 1478. Arabic figures, instead of Roman numerals, were first used by Ter Hoorne of Cologne, and by Helye of Munster in 1470. Signatures to guide the binder in putting together in order the different sheets of a book were first used in printed books by Zarot of Milan in 1470. As the alphabetical letters of these signatures often had to be doubled, and sometimes quadrupled in thick books, it became necessary to print a full list of the signatures at the end of every book as an additional guide to the binder. This list, _registrum chartarum_, seems to have been first used by Colonna at Venice in 1475. The clumsiness of doubled alphabetical letters should have led to the use of Arabic figures for signatures, and should have suggested paging, but these reforms were not adopted for many years afterward.[392] A table of errata, two pages folio, was exhibited by Gabriel Peter of Venice in 1478. The first full title, if a few lines in compact capital letters can be so called, was made by Ratdolt of Venice in 1477, but his example was not rapidly followed by rival printers. Running-titles and open chapter-headings are innovations of the next century. The printers of the fifteenth century who wished to free themselves from dependence on the illuminator filled up the white spaces about chapter-headings with bits of engraving on wood or metal. [p527]

Galleys, or trays of wood to keep in place the composed types, were not known; the types were placed line after line, perhaps letter by letter, in the mortised block of wood which served for the chase. Nice justification was impossible. If two pages were put in one mortise, one of these pages would often be out of square—an irregularity which has led some bibliographers to think that each page was separately printed from a separate form. The locking-up or tightening of the types, which was roughly done, often made the types crooked, springing them off their feet and making the spaces work up.[393]

The neglect of the early printers to praise their presses is remarkable when contrasted with their frequent praises of the marvelous art of type-making. It is inferential evidence that the press was then regarded as an old contrivance, and not worthy of notice, but this conclusion cannot be unreservedly accepted. The principle of pressure was old, and for that reason, was undervalued by printers, but the mechanism of the press was new. That the printing press was an invention of merit will be perceived at a glance when it is compared with the screw press which is supposed to have served as the basis of construction.[394] That a proper method of doing presswork was devised in the infancy of the art may be inferred, not only from the permanency of the primitive form of press, all the important features of which are still preserved in the modern hand-press, but from the meritorious presswork of the first books. The _Bibles_ of Gutenberg were certainly printed on a press which quickly gave and quickly released its pressure, and which had the attachments of a movable bed, tympan and frisket, and contrivances for neatly inking the types and for keeping the paper in position.

Two upright beams, or cheeks, supporting a thick cross-piece, or cap, made the frame-work. The cap held in place the screw and spindle which gave the impression, and the descent of the spindle was steadied by the large square collar, or till, which was supported by the cheeks. The point of the spindle pressed against the impressing surface, or platen, which was held in place by iron rods connecting it with the collar. The bed of the press and the form of types are concealed by the tympan drawer, which, with tympan and frisket, have been folded down and run under the platen. See illustration on page 307, and explanation on page 280, for the uses of these parts. The bed was of stone, but every other large piece was of wood. Iron was used only for the spindle, the core of the bar-handle, for nuts and bolts, and the minor pieces for which no other material would serve.]

Jodocus Badius of Paris was the first printer who published engravings of the printing press. It cannot be asserted [p528] that they are minutely accurate representations of the press then in use, but they will serve to show its general construction. Two features provoke hostile comment. Contrary to modern usage, the piles of white paper and printed paper are unhandily placed on the off-side of the press, and the stalwart pressman pulls home the bar with both arms. The platen [p529] seems altogether too small when contrasted with the great screw, the heavy frame, and the two-handed pull of the pressman. The smallness of this platen was not an error of the designer. Moxon, who has minutely described the press of his time, says that the platen of an ordinary press should be of the size 9 by 14 inches, and that the coffin, or trough in which the bed was placed, should be 28 inches long and 22 inches wide. In other words, the platen was purposely made so that it could impress less than half the surface of the bed; it could print only one-half of one side of the sheet.[395] Small as this platen may seem, it was large enough for the frame-work of wood. It gave great resistance under pull, and severely taxed the strength of the pressman. A platen of double size would have defied the pressman; it would have sprung under pressure and have broken the bed of stone.

The types were inked by balls, an appliance which is not more than fifty years out of fashion. These balls were made of untanned sheepskin, stuffed hard with wool, and mounted with handles. The gluey ink was evenly distributed by forcibly rocking their curved surfaces against each other. This done, the balls were then beaten upon the types in the form.

When we learn that the early presses were made almost entirely of wood, and put together by ordinary joiners, we may infer that many were unscientifically built,[396] and shackly. [p530] All the materials for presswork were imperfect. The types, cut to length by a saw, were of uneven height; the paper was usually of very rough surface and of irregular thickness; the platen of wood, rarely ever truly flat, must have given unequal pressure at different corners. It was necessary that some substance should be put between the platen and the white sheet which would compensate for these irregularities. This substance was a woolen blanket, in two or more thicknesses, which spread or diffused the impression. The wetting of the paper, which made it soft and pliable, materially aided the pressman, but his great reliance seems to have been on strong impression. All the old cuts of presses represent the pressman tugging at the bar with a force which seems out of all proportion to the size of the form.

The early press was rude, and the method of printing was unscientific, but in many offices the pressman was superior to his press and his method. By doing his work slowly and carefully he often did it admirably. It was always done slowly, with a waste of time which, if allowed in the modern practice of printing, would make books of excessive price. Some notion of this waste may be had after an examination of the letters of the _Psalter of 1457_, in which exact work was produced by painting, not by printing proper. That the performance of the press even on ordinary black work was slow, is indicated by the great number of presses used by the early printers, and is proved by the plain statement of Philip de Lignamine, [p531] who said that the printers of Mentz printed three hundred sheets a day. This seems a small performance.[397]

The accurate register of the first books was produced by placing the white sheet on four fixed points which perforated the four corners of the leaf when the first side was printed. In printing the back of the page, the half-printed sheet was hung on the same points, from the same point-holes, and was impressed in the same position. Blades notices the four point-holes in some of Caxton’s books, and it is probable that the mysterious pin-holes in other books are the marks of points. It was soon discovered that register could be had with two points, which were placed in the centre of the sheet where the marks would be hidden by the binder.[398] [p532]

The printing ink of the fifteenth century, as we now see it, is of unequal merit. In the books of Jenson it appears as an intense, velvety, glossy black; in the _Bibles_ of Gutenberg it is a strong, permanent black, without gloss; in the _Psalter of 1457_ it appears in some places as a glossy black, and in others as a faded color which had to be retouched with the pen; in the works of the unknown printer it is a dingy and smearing black; in the book of some printers it is a paste color which can be rubbed off with a sponge; in nearly all, it is uneven, over-black on one page and gray on another.[399]

The general impression that early printing ink is blacker and brighter than modern ink is not always correct. Early ink seems blacker, because it is shown in greater quantity, for the early types were larger, of broader face, without hair lines, and could be over-colored without disadvantage.[400] The same ink applied to the small thin Roman types of our time, [p533] would seem dull and gray. The microscopic examination of any early ink will show that the black is not fine and not thoroughly mixed with proper drying oil. But this imperfection is comparatively unimportant. It is a graver fault in some early inks that they are not firmly fixed to the paper.[401]

There is no trustworthy account of the invention of printing ink, but the types and the inks were undoubtedly invented together. One was the proper complement of the other. It may be supposed that Gutenberg acquired the knowledge of the newly found properties of boiled linseed oil[402] from German painters. It is certain that he used oil as the basis of his ink, and that it was also used by his pupils and successors. And it has been in use ever since, for there is no substitute.

INGREDIENTS OF PRINTING INK USED BY THE RIPOLI PRESS.

_Ingredients._ _Tuscan _American Currency._ Currency._ Linseed Oil, bbl. lir. 3 10 0 $3.17 Turpentine, lb. 4 0 .18 Pitch, Greek 4 0 .18 Pitch, Black 1 8 7-1/2 Marcassite 3 0 .13-1/2 Vermilion 5 0 .22-3/4 Rosin 3 0 .13-1/2 Varnish, hard 8 0 .36 Varnish, liquid 12 0 .54 Nutgalls 4 0 .18 Vitriol 4 0 .18 Shellac 3 0 .13-1/2

We have not been told how the ink was compounded. Our nearest approach to this knowledge is through the Cost Book of the Ripoli Press for 1481, which specifies and prices the materials. As no [p534] mention is made of smoke-black, we have to infer that pitch was burnt to make this black. Linseed oil, as the most bulky ingredient, very properly occupies the first place. The real value of nutgalls and vitriol is not so apparent: they were important ingredients in writing ink, and the Italian printer may have thought them indispensable in printing ink. Shellac and liquid varnish were used to give a glossy surface.

Printers soon discovered that printing was an art of too many details, and that the manufacture of printing ink was its most objectionable duty. There was risk of fire in the boiling of linseed oil; there was discomfort and dirt connected with the manipulation of the ingredients; and in inexpert hands there was waste and often entire failure. In all large cities, ink-making was set apart and practised as a distinct trade. As a necessary consequence, the quality deteriorated through the competition that followed. Moxon’s criticism of ink made in England in 1683 could be applied without any injustice to much of the ink of the fifteenth century.[403] [p535]

Gutenberg, Schœffer, Zell, Mentel and many early printers of France and Italy neglected engraving on wood.[404] It may be that this neglect originated in the difficulties of printing types and wood-cuts together,[405] or in a despisal of the rude productions of the block-printers,[406] and in the intention of the [p536] typographers to make emphatic the superiority of their branch. Wood-cuts were freely used by typographers in the heart of Germany and in the Netherlands, the districts where we find the earliest notices of block-printing, but they are generally of a low order. Many of them are barbarous, as faulty in cutting as in drawing, and pleasing only to uncultivated tastes. It is probable that, about this time, many of the more skillful engravers and designers[407] abandoned the practice of xylography, attracted, no doubt, by the superior advantages offered by the newly invented art of copper-plate printing. The art of engraving on wood, although it afterward enlisted the services of artists like Durer and Holbein, could not compete with this formidable rival. It suffered a long eclipse, from which it did not emerge until the days of Bewick.

The quality of the paper in early books is as unequal as the printing. In the _Bible of 36 lines_, the paper is thick and strong, of coarse fibre, yellowish, apparently made from sun-bleached flax; in the books of Schœffer, and of the later German printers, the paper is thinner, but dingy and harsh; in the books of the Venetian printers, it is often very thin, usually of smooth surface and a creamy white tint that seems to have been unchanged by time. Different qualities are often noticeable in the same book. There were many paper-mills from which the printers drew their supplies, and every mill made different qualities. Blades says that it was the practice to sort the paper before printing, separating the rough from the smooth, and the thin from the thick, and to print and bind together sheets of similar quality. The sizes required by printers were small. The books first made were printed on sheets about 16 by 21 inches, one leaf of which was as large as could be printed by one pull of the press. The sizes 15 by 20, 14 by 18 and 12 by 15 inches were common, and [p537] in request for quartos and octavos. The largest size seems to have been royal, about 20 by 25 inches. The Cost Book of the Ripoli Press gives names and prices to nine distinct qualities or sizes of paper, but it does not define the weights and measurements. The smallest size and cheapest quality, possibly a pot foolscap, was put down at the price of 2 lire 8 soldi (about $2.18) per ream; the largest and best, probably royal, at 6 lire 8 soldi (about $5.80) per ream.[408]

The paper made for the _Bibles_ of Gutenberg and for the earlier books was the ordinary writing paper of the period. Made from linen rags that had not been weakened by caustic alkalies or by steam-boiling and gas-bleaching processes, and strongly sized by the dipping of each sheet in a tub [p538] containing a thin solution of glue, it was strong and of hard surface. But the qualities which commended the paper to the copyist were objectionable to the printer. The hard surface caused harsh impression, and strong sizing made the damp sheets stick together. It was soon discovered that unsized paper, which, according to Madden, was about half the price of the sized, was easier to print. It would take a clearer impression, and more thoroughly imbibe the oily ink. These advantages could not be overlooked, and, consequently, hard-sized papers went out of fashion. By far the largest part of the books printed during the last quarter of the fifteenth century were of unsized or half-sized paper.

The early printer tried to gratify luxurious tastes by printing copies on vellum, but its inordinate price, and the great difficulties then encountered in printing, obliged him to give it up as an impracticable material. When book-lovers found that able printers like Kerver and Pigouchet printed paper more neatly and evenly in color, vellum[409] went out of fashion.

We do not know what system or method was observed in early proof-reading. Madden has pointed out many curious errors in three distinct copies of a book printed at Weidenbach about 1464, which seem to show that the compositor of each copy read the proof of his own work, and read it badly. Possibly this was the method of many of the amateur printers of that century, whose books, according to Schelhorn, bristle with horrid and squalid errors. It could not have been the method of Gutenberg, whose _Bibles_, although not free from faults, were obviously read with care. Nor was it the method of careful printers, for there is evidence that many of them [p539] enlisted the services of eminent scholars as proof-readers or correctors of the press.[410] These correctors did a double duty; they corrected the errors of the compositors and those of the manuscript copy.[411] From the frequency and earnestness of the complaints then made concerning faulty manuscript texts, [p540] it seems that the copyists needed correction more than the compositors. But the correctors were not always equal to the task. Some of them were grossly incompetent, and still further corrupted the texts they undertook to improve.[412] Considering the difficulties the early printers encountered in getting correct copies and competent readers, it is surprising that their books are not more full of faults. The errors of early printed books have been frequently commented on, but the remarks of Prosper Marchand are, perhaps, the most emphatic:

It is a prejudice altogether too common, a prejudice which dealers in old books have kept alive and profited from, to think that the editions of the fifteenth century are more accurate because they were printed from manuscript copies. Many of these editions were printed from faulty texts, picked up by chance, or selected without judgment by printers who were unable to see their faults, and were still further corrupted by the ignorance and rashness of their editors and correctors. I know that this is a kind of literary blasphemy, but it is warranted by respectable authority. . . . They are deceived who think that books are accurate in proportion to their age. For the most part, the older they are, the more inaccurate they are.[413] [p541]

Inaccurate as early printed books may have been, they were more correct than those of the copyists. The errors of a faulty first edition were soon discovered and the faulty editions were supplanted by the perfect. It is not the least of the many benefits of printing that it has effectually prevented the accidental or intentional debasement of texts.

The inferiority of the tools of the early printing office could be plainly exhibited by contrasting them with those of our time—the early hand-press with the modern cylinder printing machine—the entire collection of types made in the fifteenth century with the specimen book of any reputable modern type-founder. But the pride of the young printer in improvements which have been most largely made by the men of this century should be modified by the reflection that there has been no change in the theory, and but few changes in the elementary processes of printing. The punch, matrix and mould, the tympan, frisket and points, the use of damp paper and oily ink, of curved surfaces for applying the ink, and of blankets for diffusing the impression, are still in fashion. Printing is done quicker, cheaper, with more neatness and accuracy, with more regard for the convenience of the reader, with many new features of artistic merit, and in varieties and quantities so vast that there can be no comparison between early and modern productions—but it is the same kind of work it was in the beginning. It has not been made obsolete by lithography or photography, nor by any other invention of our time. The method invented by Gutenberg still keeps its place at the head of the graphic arts.

[p543]

AUTHORITIES CONSULTED.

BECKMANN JOHN. A History of Inventions, Discoveries and Origins. Translated by William Johnston. 12mo. 2 vols. London, 1846.

BERJEAU J. PH. Biblia Pauperum. Reproduced in Fac-simile . . . . . . . with an Historical and Bibliographical Introduction. Folio. London, 1859.

—— —— Le Bibliophile Illustré for 1861. Imperial 8vo. London, 1862.

—— —— Book-worm for 1866. Imperial 8vo. London, 1866.

BERNARD AUG. De l’origine et des débuts de l’imprimerie en Europe. 8vo. 2 vols. Paris, 1853.

BIBLIOPHILE BELGE BULLETIN DU. 8vo. Vols. I to IX. Brussels, 1845–1852.

BLADES WILLIAM. The Life and Typography of William Caxton, England’s First Printer, etc. Royal 4to. 2 vols. London, 1861–1863.

BREITKOPF JOH. GOTTL. IMMAN. Versuch den Ursprung der Spielkarten, die Einführung des Leinenpapieres, und den Anfang der Holzschneidekunst in Europa. 4to. 2 vols. in one. Leipsic, 1784.

CAMPBELL M.-F.-A.-G. Annales de la typographie Néerlandaise au XVe siècle. 8vo. La Haye, 1874.

CAMUS. Notice d’un livre imprimé à Bamberg en 1462. 4to. Paris, an VII.

CRAPELET G.-A. Études pratiques et littéraires sur la typographie. 8vo. Paris, 1837.