CHAP. I. An Enquiry into the Riſe of Printing.

MY deſign is to give an hiſtorical account of the authors, diſcovery, improvement and progreſs of the Art of Printing; an Art ſo highly beneficial to mankind, by preſerving and tranſmitting to poſterity the trea⯑ſures of antient and modern learning, that its origi⯑nal has been eſteem'd divine. I ſhall begin with a previous enquiry into the cauſes and concurrent circumſtances, which excited the inventors of it to a diſcovery, that might anſwer this end, with more expedition and ex⯑actneſs, than Tranſcribing, the only method known before.

[2] THE world at this time began to recover from a ſtate of ignorance, under which it had labour'd many centuries; learning reviv'd, and was patroniz'd in almoſt every country of Europe; its votaries exerted a lau⯑dable zeal in ſearching the libraries for thoſe valuable books, which had lain buried in obſcurity, and were become extremely ſcarce, great num⯑bers being loſt in the times of ignorance. Manuſcripts were procur'd and multiplied; but the price of them was ſuch, that none but men of for⯑tune could purchaſe them: 120 crowns for a Livy, and 80 crowns for three volumes of Plutarch's Lives ^*, was then a moderate price: a few manuſcripts were thought a portion worthy a nobleman's daughter; and one or two intitled the donor and his poſterity to the perpetual prayers of a monaſtery: nay kings themſelves diſdain'd not the office of procuring them for their learned friends, as appears from a letter of Antoninus Boca⯑tellus, ſirnam'd Panormus, to Alphonſus king of Naples and Sicily ^†; and an old manuſcript hebrew bible was a preſent from the Emperor Frederick III. to Reuchlin, who was ſent embaſſador to him. Paulus Jovius relates a plea⯑ſant ſtory of one Jaſon Mainus, a ſtudent of Pavia, whoſe extravagance having brought him to a goal was oblig'd to depoſit a manuſcript Codex Juris on parchment, into the hands of an uſurer, in order to procure his enlargement: Petrarch's rhetoric maſter likewiſe, by pledging two vo⯑lumes of Cicero's works, ſav'd himſelf from a priſon.

As this exceſſive price tempted ſome to purchaſe eſtates by the ſale of their books, and exchange learning for money; ſo the learned at that time freely parted with their wealth to procure thoſe invaluable remains of antiquity, out of a generous deſign to communicate them to the world.

THE Tranſcribers now had a favourable opportunity of enriching them⯑ſelves, which they might have enjoy'd much longer, had not they (poſſeſs'd with the moſt mercenary views) done an incredible, and in ſome caſes ir⯑recoverable [3] damage to learning, by mutilating and corrupting the beſt authors: hence ariſe thoſe frequent complaints againſt their negligence and ignorance, which have coſt the learned an infinite deal of labour to remedy: to evince this the following inſtance will ſuffice.

JOHN ANDREAS, biſhop of Aleria, one of the greateſt criticks of that age, tells Pope Paul II. in his dedication prefix'd to Pliny's Natural Hiſtory ^*, printed at Rome in the houſe of the Maximis by Panaratz and Sweyn⯑heim, anno 1470, that tho' he had ſpent nine whole years in cor⯑recting that author; yet ninety more would not compleat a correct edi⯑tion. This demonſtrates what difficulties the republick of learning en⯑counter'd with at it's revival; namely, the ſcarcity and exceſſive price of books, and the ſordidneſs of the Tranſcribers, from whoſe hands they came ſo maim'd and incorrect, that the great Printer Stephens truly ſaid, they were a plague to the purchaſer. Theſe were motives ſufficient to ex⯑cite the Inventors of this Art to a diſcovery ſo beneficial to the world, and of ſuch honour and advantage to themſelves: who thoſe excellent perſons were, and where it was made, will come under our enquiry in its proper place. And here the reader will find juſt cauſe of wonder, that this Art, which has been ſtiled the nurſe and preſerver of arts and ſciences, ſhould (if I may uſe the expreſſion) be ſo forgetful of itſelf, as not to leave us the leaſt ſketch of its own hiſtory, the inventors being more ambitious of deſerving, than of purchaſing praiſe. Some light indeed we receive in this affair from a few inſcriptions uſed by Fauſt at the end of his firſt prin⯑ted books, to this purpoſe. This preſent work, with all its embelliſhments, &c. was done, not with pen and ink, &c. but by a new invented Art of caſt⯑ing Letters, Printing, &c. by me John Fauſt and my ſon-in-law Peter Schoeffer in the famous city of Mentz upon the Rhine, anno—: but re⯑courſe muſt be had to the writers of thoſe times for the hiſtory of this In⯑vention. Many cities have contended for the glory of it, and engaged the learned in defence of their claim; but thoſe on the ſide of Harlem have manag'd the controverſy with great warmth, and charged Fauſt the Inven⯑tor with robbing his ſuppoſed maſter Laurence John Coſter of many thou⯑ſand weight of his materials, on Chriſtmas-Eve, when the whole family and city were in prayer at church; with other ſuch ridiculous ſtories, in⯑vented meerly to deprive this Great Man of the honour, which he had ſo [4] long inconteſtably enjoy'd. Had this been publiſh'd in his life-time, when he might have defended himſelf, or preſently after his death, when his ſon-in-law or ſome of his friends might have done it for him, he had undoubtedly been clear'd; but ſuch an accuſation was not hinted till 125 years after, and then grounded only on ſuſpicion, as Dr. Junius owns ^*, who was the firſt that attempted to transfer this Diſcovery from Mentz to Harlem. However Fauſt's name died not with him, tho' ſome Dutch wri⯑ters made uſe of his art to aſperſe his memory: and others of ſeve⯑ral nations roſe immediately in his defence; in particular the learned Ma⯑lincrot, dean of Munſter, in his treatiſe De Ortu & Progreſſu Artis Typogra⯑phicae, has not only refuted what was advanc'd on the other ſide, but made ſuch reſearches after the old monuments of the Art, and collected ſo great a variety of teſtimonies, ſupported by undeniable facts, as ſeem at once to determine the controverſy. Boxhorn indeed attempted an anſwer; but whoever reads it over, cannot but be convinc'd, that an over-fondneſs for his country's honour has made him deaf to the moſt evident demonſtrati⯑ons of his antagoniſt. However as he and his followers, have given up the point as to ſeparate Metal Types in favour of John Fauſt, and lay claim only to the invention of Printing on Blocks of Wood, which they affirm to have been ſtoln from Coſter by Fauſt, whoſe next invention they would have to be only an improvement of the former; I ſhall give the reader an idea of both, and ſhew the difference between thoſe firſt eſſays of Printing, and that perfect one, which ſucceeded and continues to this day.

CHAP. II. An Account of the different Manners of Printing by Blocks of Wood, and ſeparate Metal Types.

TIS agreed by moſt writers on this ſubject, that about the year 1440, ſeveral attempts were made by ſome perſons, with vaſt expence and labour, which prov'd abortive; but that the diſcovery of ſeparate Metal Types was not brought to perfection till about the year 1450. We find that their firſt eſſays were by carving or cutting letters with a ſharp-pointed knife upon Blocks of Wood, each Block containing a page or one ſide of a leaf; that inſtead of the common [5] Ink, which is the ſort they firſt us'd, they invented a more glutinous one which ſucceeded better, being leſs apt to ſpread; that they paſted the two white ſides of each leaf together, to make them look like ſingle leaves: but of this I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak more particularly in ſome of the fol⯑lowing chapters. In the mean time I ſhall endeavour to demonſtrate that this invention has not that merit for ingenuity, uſefulneſs, or novelty, which the Dutch writers boaſt of.

WITH reſpect to the firſt, the only requiſites are a tolerable genius, ſharp tools, and a good copy: as to its uſefulneſs, the only advantage reſulting from it, is, that whatever the book be, the forms remain intire, ſo that as many editions as the author pleaſes may be printed without the expence of a new compoſition; but on the other hand, if we conſider that thoſe forms are of no uſe to any other work, and the time and expence in cutting them very great, with the great ſpace ſo many Pages of Wood muſt take up, we ſhall perceive the neceſſity of inventing moveable Me⯑tal Types: But farther, this method of Printing was far from being no⯑vel, it is even demonſtrable from authentick teſtimonies to have been pra⯑ctis'd in China and Japan, above four centuries before it was known in Europe: it is not eaſy, I grant, to prove that we receiv'd it from them, becauſe of their vaſt diſtance, and the little commerce between us before the year 1440: yet there is no impoſſibility, but that it might have been brought us by ſome merchant either by the way of Muſcovy or the Red-Sea, the Perſian Gulph or Arabia: of which opinion I could mention many authors. Gonzala de Mendoſa, in his hiſtory of the Marvels of China, written in Spaniſh, Book III. Chap. 16; and Martin Martini in his Atlas Sinenſis, tell us, that they could prove by good arguments, that the In⯑vention of Guns, of the Loadſtone and Printing was known to us by their means. What adds to the probability of my conjecture is, that the Chi⯑neſe to this day ſend with their goods, printed papers in the manner of our ſhop-keepers hand-bills, ſeveral of which I have ſeen; and 'tis not impoſſi⯑ble but the hint of Printing on Blocks of Wood might have been taken this way.

WHOEVER has a juſt idea of the genius of the Chineſe and Japoneſe, will own their capacity to have invented the method of Printing with ſeparate types, if their manner of writing had admitted it; but as they are known to write, not with letters, as other nations, but with characters, each of [6] which ſtands for a whole word; and that the number of thoſe characters a⯑mount at leaſt to 10,000, (tho' ſome authors reckon above 40,000); it would be impoſſible to have caſes large enough to contain 'em, beſides the inſuperable difficulty of diſtinguiſhing and retaining them in memo⯑ry. To return from this digreſſion, let us now take a ſhort view of the other new and more expeditious method.

IF we duely conſider it in all its branches, it will evidently appear the reſult of no ſmall ſtudy, time and coſt. The cutting the counter-punches and punches and ſinking them into the matrices, the adjuſting them to the mould, that curious piece of mechaniſm, for caſting ſingle letters; the difficulty of the whole manual operation of Letter-founding: in the Prin⯑ting, the diſpoſition of the caſes, the curious contrivance of the ſeveral parts of the work between the compoſitors, correctors and preſs-men, &c. add to all this the fine invention of the Printing-preſs, ſo admirable for its mechanical fabrick, together with the curious apparatus neceſſary for a Printing-houſe, for an explication of whoſe terms we muſt refer to the ſecond volume of this work: theſe are things which require a genius vaſt⯑ly ſuperior to deviſe, better hands to execute, greater forecaſt to obviate, and readineſs to remedy all unexpected defects, more time and patience to go thro' all its various parts, more reſolution to overcome all difficulties, and laſtly the expences neceſſary to this invention vaſtly larger than thoſe of the former; and conſequently we ſhall be far from thinking an interval of ten years too long, but rather admire that ſuch a prodigious deſign could be contriv'd and perfected in ſo ſhort a time.

WHAT has been ſaid on this head, will ſufficiently demonſtrate the diſ⯑parity between theſe two methods, and convince the reader how much the former is inferior in every reſpect to the latter; nay, if we dare rely on the judgment of the learned, we ſhould ſcarce think it worthy the name of Printing, ſince it has nothing common with it except the ink; and even a rowler, cover'd with cloath, would ſupply the place of a preſs to print their Pages of Wood.

NOW whether it be Fauſt or Coſter, who practis'd this method on wood firſt, whether Mentz, Harlem, or any other city, gave it firſt encourage⯑ment; whether the afore-nam'd perſons had the hint from China, or hap⯑pen'd on it accidentally, (tho' if we admit of the latter ſuppoſition, Fauſt and Mentz have the better title); this muſt be granted from what has [7] been ſaid, that by Printing we do not underſtand the method of Printing on Blocks of Wood claim'd by Harlem, but the preſent Art of Printing by ſeparate Metal Types, which is ſo juſtly admir'd for its expeditious and correct way of preſerving and propagating knowledge; and to which we owe the improvements made in moſt arts and ſciences for near three cen⯑turies paſt.

HENCE it appears how little reaſon the Dutch writers have to value them⯑ſelves upon an imaginary victory, which, were it granted in its fulleſt ex⯑tent, would be deſpicable in compariſon of the other. Yet Boxhorn in his Theatrum Hollandiae, page 142. places his hero Coſter in a kind of tri⯑umphal chariot, dragging his vanquiſh'd enemies the Germans and French after him, with a pompous inſcription, which I think worthy the cu⯑rious readers notice ^*. He exults as if every ſentence in that book was demonſtration, and impoſes an eternal ſilence on all thoſe nations, which have appear'd in defence of Mentz, in a ſtanza of ſhort verſes after the manner of Claudian, which for its ſingularity is likewiſe here quoted ^†. However, I perſwade my ſelf that two or three of the following chap⯑ters will convince us of the vanity of theſe triumphs, unleſs this piece of divinity and poetry compos'd by Scriverius ſhall alter our ſentiments; it contains four verſes, to be plac'd under Coſter's ſtatue, and cited in the Theatrum Holland. abovementioned p. 156 ^*. I ſhall only inform the Engliſh reader, that the author of them pronounces it as rank atheiſm to deny Coſter the glory of this invention, as to deny God that of the creation. I ſhall now leave Harlem and the Dutch writers, and paſs over to the city [8] of Mentz, to examine the teſtimonies brought in favour of her, after having return'd Boxhorn four lines from a learned Italian poet, who may be ſuppos'd a more impartial witneſs in this controverſy ^*.

CHAP. III. Teſtimonies of writers from the middle of the 15th century in favour of John Fauſt.

MALINCROT hath collected the teſtimonies of writers on either ſide of the controverſy, from the promulgation of the art to the time in which he wrote. viz. ann. 1640. and rang'd them in the begin⯑ning of his book in the following order.

BY this liſt 'tis manifeſt where the advantage lies as to numbers, but leſt ſo many teſtimonies ſhould be thought tedious, it will not we hope be improper to ſelect the moſt conſiderable, eſpecially from thoſe au⯑thors, who wrote ſoon after the diſcovery, and were better acquainted with this matter, than thoſe who liv'd any time after it, and may be juſt⯑ly ſuppos'd to have follow'd their predeceſſors. But I would therefore avoid, as much as poſſible, clogging or interrupting the thread of this hiſtory. I ſhall only extract the moſt material authorities out of them, and in ſuch a manner as ſhall be conſiſtent with it, by inſerting the paſſages themſelves in the notes, that the reader may uſe his plea⯑ſure either in reading or omitting them.

[9] BUT before I proceed any farther, it will be neceſſary to obviate an ob⯑jection, that will infallibly occur to the reader's mind; which is, that in mentioning the firſt inventors of printing in the two preceding chapters, I have not ſo much as nam'd John Guttenbergh: whereas the greateſt part of the authors, whom we are about to quote, place him in the firſt rank, and mention only the other two as co-adjutors to him. In anſwer to this it will be ſufficient for the preſent to ſay, that the ſequel of this Hiſtory will ſhew that Guttenbergh had no other ſhare in this invention, than by fur⯑niſhing the other two with neceſſary ſupplies to defray the great charges of it; and that the authors of the Mentz and Cologn Chronicle, whom the reſt ſeem to have follow'd in this, as alſo the learned antiquary Tri⯑themius, have certainly confounded Guttenbergh with Fauſt, that is, mi⯑ſtook the one for the other, as will hereafter appear in its proper place.

OF all the authors, to whom the world is indebted for a particular ac⯑count of this Diſcovery, Abbot Trithemius juſtly claims the pre-eminence, both upon the account of his living neareſt the time of this diſcovery, which he tells us happen'd in his younger years ¹, as well as for his care to derive his intelligence from its origin. We have two noble teſtimo⯑nies out of his Chronicle; the one from the firſt part, intitled Chronicon Spanheimenſe, where ² ſpeaking of the year 1450 he ſays; ‘"That about this time the Art of Printing and Caſting Single Types was found out a-new in the city of Mentz by one John Guttenberg, who having ſpent his whole eſtate in this difficult diſcovery, by the aſſiſtance and advice of ſome honeſt men, John Fauſt and others, brought his undertaking at length to perfection: that the firſt Improver of this Art, after the In⯑ventor, was Peter Schoeffer (in Latin Opilio) de Gernſheim, who after⯑wards printed a great many volumes: that the ſaid Guttenberg liv'd at Mentz in a houſe call'd then Zum-junghen, but afterward known by the name of the Printing Houſe."’ But leſt the reader ſhould be [10] ſtartled at the word a-new (de novo) it will be requiſite to acquaint him that Trithemius was in all probability of the ſame opinion with ſome other writers, who from a paſſage of St. Cyprian miſunderſtood, wherein the invention of Printing (by which is meant no more than that of ſtamping of Letters and Hieroglyphicks upon Medals, Coins, &c.) is attributed to Saturn, took occaſion to reckon it among the artes perditae, and conſe⯑quently eſteem'd this rather a revival of the art than a new diſcovery; but he ſufficiently retracts that error in the next paſſage we ſhall quote from him, which was not wrote till many years after, and that from a more diligent enquiry into the diſcovery and merit of this new, and till then unheard of, Art; for this will appear from his words as you will ſee immediately.

THIS next paſſage, which is fuller, and for its ſingularity and deciſive⯑neſs deſerves to be ſet down at length, is taken out of the ſecond part of Trithemius's Chronicle, intitled Chronicon Hirſaugienſe. This book was un⯑known to the learned till the year 1690. when the Benedictins of the monaſt⯑ery of St. Gall in Switzerland beg'd leave to publiſh it from the original manuſcript, which had lain hid all that time. The Abbot wrote this to⯑wards the cloſe of his life, after he had been inform'd of many particu⯑lars, relating to this invention, from the mouth of Peter Schoeffer (in En⯑gliſh, Shepherd) ſirnam'd de Gernſheim, to whom Fauſt, for the many helps he had receiv'd from him, namely, in deviſing Punches, Matrices, and Moulds for caſting their Metal Types (in which the main perfection of the Art conſiſted) gave his only daughter Chriſtina in marriage, and from a ſervant took him into partnerſhip with him, as appears by the inſcriptions to the firſt books publiſh'd by them, of which we have given a sketch already. The paſſage is as follows ¹. ‘"About this time (ann. [11] 1450.) in the city of Mentz in Germany upon the Rhine, and not in Italy, as ſome writers falſly affirm'd, the wonderful and till then un⯑known Art of Printing Books by Metal Types [characterizandi] was in⯑vented and devis'd by John Guttenberg, citizen of Mentz; who having almoſt exhauſted his whole eſtate in contriving of this new Method, and labouring under ſuch inſuperable difficulties, in one reſpect or other, that he began to deſpair of, and to throw up the whole deſign; was at length aſſiſted with the advice and purſe of John Fauſt, another ci⯑tizen of Mentz, and happily brought it to perfection. Having there⯑fore begun with cutting characters of the letters upon wooden planks, in their right order, and compleated their forms, they printed the vo⯑cabulary intitled Catholicon; but could make no farther uſe of thoſe forms, becauſe there was no poſſibility of ſeparating the letters, which were engraven on the planks, as we hinted before. To this ſucceeded a more ingenious invention; for they found out a way of ſtamping the ſhapes of every letter of the Latin Alphabet, in what they call Matri⯑ces, from which they afterwards caſt their letters, either in copper or tin, hard enough to be printed upon, which they firſt cut with their own hands. It is certain this art met with no ſmall difficulties from the beginning of its invention, as I heard 30 years ago from the mouth of Peter Schoeffer de Gernſheim, citizen of Mentz, and Son-in-law to the firſt Inventor of the Art. For when they went about printing the Bible, before they had work'd off the third quire, it had coſt them already above 4000 florins. But the afore-mention'd Peter Schoeffer, then ſer⯑vant and afterwards Son-in-law to the firſt Inventor John Fauſt, as we hinted before, being a perſon of great ingenuity, diſcover'd an eaſier method of caſting letters, and perfected the art as we now have it. Theſe three kept this manner of printing very ſecret for ſome time, [12] until it was divulg'd by their ſervants, without whoſe help it was im⯑poſſible to manage the buſineſs, who carry'd it firſt to Strasburg, and by degrees all over Europe.—Thus much will ſuffice concerning the diſcovery of this wonderful art, the firſt inventors of which were citizens of Mentz.—Theſe three firſt diſcoverers of printing, viz. John Guttenberg, John Fauſt and Peter Schoeffer his Son-in-law, liv'd at Mentz, in a houſe then call'd Zum-junghen, but ever ſince known by the name of the Printing-houſe."’

FROM this authentick teſtimony, I ſhall beg leave to make the follow⯑ing obſervations, viz. 1. That when the author concluded his Chronicle, ann. 1514. two years before his death, and above 64 years after the diſco⯑very, this invention was indiſputably aſcrib'd to Mentz; he ſays indeed that ſome writers had attributed it to Italy, but without any foundation; and therefore he rejects this notion as abſolutely falſe. Yet Junius, as has been already hinted, firſt ſtarted a diſpute in favour of Harlem, almoſt 130 years after the art became known; and after him Dr. Mentel began another in favour of Strasburgh, ann. 1650, both which ſhall be anſwer'd in their places.

THE next obſervation is, that tho' the paſſage quoted out of his firſt Chronicle ſeems to be taken, if not copy'd out of that of Mentz, which is likewiſe a very antient and authentick monument, yet our author ſeems not to have been ſatisfy'd with it, till he had it confirm'd by ſurer hands. Other authors indeed have written concerning the origin of this art, ac⯑cording to the beſt memoirs they could procure, whether true or falſe; but our author alone has been at the pains to fetch his information from the fountain head, and deliver'd the particulars of it, as he receiv'd 'em from the principal agent in the invention, in the quotation from his ſecond Chronicle: ſo that his teſtimony, were it the only one we could pro⯑duce for Mentz, ought ſtill to be eſteem'd unqueſtionable and de⯑ciſive.

ANOTHER particular worth our obſervation is, that tho' he mentions two books as printed immediately upon the diſcovery, viz. the Catholicon and the Bible, yet he ſufficiently ſhews the difference between the methods of their impreſſion; the former being done upon wooden planks, cut with a knife after the Chineſe manner, as our wooden cutts are done now; whereas the Bible was printed with ſeparate types, which, as we ſhew'd in [13] the preceding chapter, is the only way that merits the name of Printing. This ſeems plainly intimated by the words in the citation before-mentioned, When they came to print the Bible; and by the vaſt expence they had been at before they finiſh'd the third quire of it: from which it is evident, that this ſacred book was the firſt work of conſequence which the authors of this art made choice of to ſignalize the firſt-fruits of their invention.

THE laſt thing I would obſerve is, that tho' Trithemius gives the prece⯑dency of this diſcovery to John Guttenbergh, in the beginning of this paſ⯑ſage, yet within a few lines after, he twice gives the title of The firſt inven⯑tor of Printing to John Fauſt; which contradiction cannot be well recon⯑cil'd otherwiſe, than by ſuppoſing that he, thro' inadvertency, wrote the name of John Guttenberg inſtead of John Fauſt and this is far from being improbable, ſince their chriſtian names are the ſame: and tho' he again puts Guttenbergh firſt, when he ſpeaks of the houſe in which they liv'd, yet this might be done only out of reſpect to him, either as being a knight (according to the writers of that time), or becauſe he was the moſt opulent of the three, and had contributed moſt to the charges of the in⯑vention.

THIS muſt be allow'd, unleſs we could ſuppoſe that the editor having compar'd the two paſſages together, namely, that out of the firſt, and this out of the ſecond Chronicle, had corrected, as he imagin'd, the lat⯑ter by the former, upon a ſuſpicion, that the author writing the laſt al⯑moſt 30 years after he had receiv'd the account from Schoeffer, might have miſtaken one name for the other; but to be certain of this, it would be ne⯑ceſſary to conſult the original. However, what confirms me in my conje⯑cture is, that the author or his editor have committed a miſtake, and that Guttenberg had no other intereſt in the diſcovery than by aſſiſting them with money to promote the deſign, is, the law-ſuit which he commenc'd againſt Fauſt at Mentz about the money expended, and the judgment of the court thereupon; of which the learned Salmuth has given the follow⯑ing account in his appendix to Pancirol's commentaries ¹; and this may [14] be eſteem'd another pregnant teſtimony for Fauſt, ſince 'tis extracted from an original record of the law-ſuit. The narrative as related by our author is as follows.

‘"ABOUT this time there liv'd at Mentz one John Guttenbergh, born of honeſt parents, who dwelt next door to John Fauſt: he obſerving this famous art of Printing was not only cry'd up every where, but alſo very gainful, contracted a friendſhip with Fauſt; and being ex⯑ceeding rich, offer'd to ſupply him with money to defray the charges of it, which was gladly accepted by Fauſt, who began to find the ex⯑pence grow too faſt upon him, and wanted vellum to print a work then in hand. Upon this he agrees and covenants with Guttenbergh, that whatever ſums were laid out in the work, ſhould turn to their common profit or loſs. But becauſe Fauſt had diſpos'd of more money then Guttenbergh imagin'd the buſineſs would require, he refuſed to pay his moiety; upon which a diſſenſion aroſe between them, and they ſummon'd each other before the judges at Mentz. The parties being heard, it was decreed, that if Fauſt would make oath, that all the money which he had borrow'd, had been expended in carrying on the common buſi⯑neſs, and that he had converted no part thereof to his own private uſes; Guttenbergh ſhould be oblig'd to pay him. Fauſt ſubmitted to this de⯑cree; as may evidently be prov'd from an original inſtrument ſtill extant, which was drawn Nov. 6. ann. 1455. by Uldric Helmoſperger, [15] a notary publick, purſuant to the ſaid ſentence. Hence it manifeſtly follows that Guttenbergh was in no wiſe the inventor or firſt author of Printing; but that he had been admitted by Fauſt into partnerſhip with him ſome few years after the diſcovery of the art, and had lent him money to proſecute the deſign.—Guttenbergh being caſt, and oblig'd to pay coſt and charges, and new quarrels ariſing daily be⯑tween Fauſt and him, and he having ſeen and learn'd the buſineſs, as it was impoſſible that among ſo many hands requiſite to the carrying on of the art, it ſhould continue longer a ſecret, which probably God would not ſuffer it to be, he [Guttenbergh] went off to Strasburg, taking ſome of the workmen along with him. After this breach, o⯑thers having learn'd the art from Fauſt, left him, and ſettled ſome at Frankfort, and others elſewhere; eſpecially when the city of Mentz, was taken ¹ ann. 1462. and depriv'd of all its former liberties, where⯑by this excellent art became more publick and univerſally known."’ Thus far Salmuth, whoſe account is confirm'd by the author of the En⯑comium Chalcographiae ². J. Arnold Bergellanus (who wrote an elegy upon the diſſenſion between thoſe two perſons, in which he ſeems to favour Guttenbergh more than Fauſt, and to have follow'd Wimpheling; who out of love to his fellow-citizen, for he repreſents Guttenbergh as born at Strasburgh, and not to have remov'd to Mentz, till he had almoſt per⯑fected the art) makes him the chief perſon in this diſcovery; yet menti⯑ons both the law-ſuit and the decree, as well as the deed before men⯑tion'd; but differs from Salmuth in affirming that the law-ſuit was not yet ended when he wrote his book, which might ariſe from Guttenbergh's hanging it upon the hooks, and eſcaping to Strasburgh, as Salmuth ob⯑ſerves, or to Harlem, as others believe. However, this is evident, and a⯑greed on by all hands, that there was an end at once to all their part⯑nerſhip, into which he was only admitted for the ſake of his purſe, which was abſolutely neceſſary to Fauſt.

FROM all theſe teſtimonies, which are not only quoted, but ſtrongly aſſented to by the judicious Malincrot ³, I ſhall make one or two remarks in favour of Mentz and Fauſt, which are; 1. that among all the learn⯑ed [16] I have convers'd with, whoſe curioſity hath lead them to ſearch into the riſe and progreſs of Printing, and all the writers upon this ſubject I could ever meet with, not one has pretended to have ſeen any book printed in John Guttenbergh's name, even in the oldeſt monuments re⯑maining of the infancy of this art, whether printed upon wood, or by ſeparate metal types: 2. That on the contrary, where there is any men⯑tion made of either printer or place, it is ſtill in Fauſt's and Schoeffer's name.

THEREFORE until there is ſome better proof of Guttenbergh's name, ei⯑ther jointly with the other two, or ſeparately, or ſome book produc'd with it, it ſeems evident beyond contradiction, that the glory of this in⯑vention is wholly due to John Fauſt, and the improving and perfecting it to his ſon-in-law Peter Schoeffer, excluſive of John Guttenbergh: this I hope, will ſuffice to juſtify my conjecture, that either Trithemius miſtook the names, or the editor of his ſecond chronicle chang'd them, to make it agree with his firſt, and to ſa [...]sfy the reader, that I had good rea⯑ſons and authority to forbear mentioning Guttenbergh among the firſt in⯑ventors: I ſhall only add with reſpect to the learned Salmuth that he prefaces this account with a ſuccinct relation of the improvements which the ingenious Peter Schoeffer made to the art, as the invention of Punch⯑es, Matrices, &c. as likewiſe of the difficulties which they met afreſh, by reaſon of the ſoftneſs of the metal in which they had caſt their firſt types, and of his finding out a new mixture which fully anſwer'd the de⯑ſign: laſtly that Fauſt was ſo pleas'd with his ſervants ingenuity, that he made him his ſon-in-law. This paſſage which I have here ſubjoin'd ¹ is ſo exactly like that out of Trithemius's ſecond Chronicle that one might eaſily be induc'd to think he had copy'd it from him, were it not that this letter was neither printed or indeed known, till almoſt a whole cen⯑tury [17] after Salmuth wrote, as appears by Camerarius's letter prefix'd to his book, and dated from Nuremberg ann. 1596.

THE learned Wimpheling claims the next rank, as being contempora⯑ry with Trithemius, and a no leſs diligent ſearcher after the memorable things of his own country. He wrote his book ann. 1502 or 1504, wherein is the following account, viz. ‘"That in the year 1440, when Ferdinand was Emperor of the Romans, that great and almoſt divine gift, the diſcovery of a new way of writing, was beſtow'd upon man⯑kind by John Guttenbergh; who having firſt invented the art of Print⯑ing, went afterwards to Mentz, where he perfected it."’—The reſt of the paſſage, which relates chiefly to the promulgation of the art, and the Printers who enrich'd and ſignaliz'd themſelves by it, we ſhall refer to the ſecond book, to which it properly belongs.

I have already remark'd ſomething of Wimpheling's partiality to his own city Strasburg: and indeed 'tis what the reader may obſerve in all authors, whoſe country laid the leaſt claim to this invention; Fauſt for having carry'd on the buſineſs with all poſſible ſecreſy, and ſcarce be⯑ing known out of his own city till the diſperſion of his workmen; they, wherever they ſettled, challeng'd to themſelves the honour of this diſco⯑very, or at leaſt of being co-adjutors to the inventor, as we ſhall ſhew in its proper place. However the reader will ſee with pleaſure how our author retracts his too great liberality to his fellow-citizen, in another work, viz. his catalogue of the Biſhops of Strasburg, wherein he ex⯑preſſes himſelf thus: ‘"Under that Biſhop Robert of Bavaria was the no⯑ble art of Printing found out by a certain Strasburgher, tho' in an imperfect manner; but upon his going to Mentz unto other practiti⯑oners of that art, by the directions of one John Gensfleich, an old gen⯑tleman blind with age, the art was perfected, in the houſe call'd Gut⯑tenbergh in [Engliſh Good-hill] where the College of Lawyers now ſtands, to the eternal honour of the German nation."’

THERE is no need to obſerve to the reader, the difference between this paſſage and the former; nor to inquire whether it was out of re⯑morſe, or upon better information, that the author gave this latter ac⯑count; but it will be proper to remark, that Gensfleich is another name given by ſeveral writers to Fauſt, or perhaps a nick-name which he was known by, it ſignifying gooſe-fleſh: ſo that our author has attributed to [18] him at leaſt the glory of having practis'd the art at Mentz before Gutten⯑bergh came, and to have directed him in perfecting what he had in vain attempted at Strasburg. The reader may likewiſe obſerve that Gutten⯑bergh ſeems to have been thus denominated from the houſe ſo call'd, in which Fauſt and he carried on the buſineſs, till their mutual diſcords parted them.

JOHN NAUCLERUS author of the univerſal hiſtory, which is divided into generations, ¹ tells us, that this art of Printing with metal types was diſcover'd at Mentz under the Emperor Ferdinand III. ann. 1440; and extols the genius of Germany, as for other glorious inventions, ſuch as Guns, &c. ſo more particularly for this of Printing, which he makes a large encomium upon. He liv'd near the times of this invention, viz. ann. 1450, and tho' he mentions not the authors of it, yet ſince he ſays it was diſcover'd at Mentz ann. 1440, it is plain he could mean none but Fauſt, ſeeing no books were printed there for many years after, but by him and his ſon-in-law.

NEITHER have the poets of thoſe times been wanting in celebrating this invention, from which alone they and their works could expect that immortality, which they confer upon the Great and Good. We have quoted ſome of them in the preceding chapter, as Laurentius Valla an Italian, and Sebaſtian Brand a German; tho' this laſt being a native of Strasburgh, and afterwards Mayor of that city, we will not pretend to de⯑termine whether what he ſings of the Rheniſh nation and the German ge⯑nius be meant of Mentz or his own city: however 'tis evident that he ne⯑ver dreamt of Holland or Harlem. But let us now hear Conrad Celt, the firſt German Poet-Laureat, who ſpeaking of the river Rhine has the follow⯑ing Tetraſtich upon the city of Mentz ²;

IN another elegy he expreſſes his deſire of viſiting that famous city, which had taught the Germans this excellent method of writing without ¹⁹ [19] pen, &c. I hope to be excus'd the pains of a larger collection of this nature; the reader may find plenty of ſuch poetical encomiums upon this art in Malinkrot's hiſtory, chap. 2. and elſewhere. But I cannot omit in⯑ſerting a ſhort paſſage out of the famous Swediſh poet Nicodemus Friſchlin, who in his Julius Redivivus, a comedy in praiſe of Germany and the Art of Printing, has theſe lines,

ſoon after which he gives an elegant deſcription of the wonderful change produc'd by this art: which render'd the Germans, (before a rude and il⯑literate people) able to teach the moſt polite nations of Europe, by its ad⯑mirable quickneſs in multiplying of books, which is elegantly expreſs'd by Campanus biſhop of Aleria in this verſe,

To return to the hiſtorians of later date; Peter Apian, who for his in⯑comparable skill in mathematicks had the honour to be tutor to the Em⯑peror Charles V. aſſures us ¹ that Mentz, a frontier town between high and low Germany, was the place where Printing was diſcover'd by John Fauſt, ann. 1453. Sebaſtian Munſter, another Coſmographer, gives a larger account of this invention ², tho' he ſeems to follow Trithemius and thoſe who place Guttenbergh at the head of the triumvirate: his words are theſe, ‘"From the year 1440 to the year 1450 the noble Art of Printing was diſcover'd at Mentz; thence it was carry'd to Cologn, then to Stras⯑burgh, Baſil, and at laſt to Venice. Its firſt author and inventor was John Guttenbergh, otherwiſe call'd Zumjungen, who had two other citizens for aſſiſtants, viz. John Fauſt and John Medimbach, who kept this art very ſecret, having ſworn their ſervants not to divulge it."’ [20] Mutius, who wrote his German Chronicle ann. 1539 attributes the in⯑vention of Guns, and ſoon after that of Printing, to Mentz. But the moſt illuſtrious teſtimony in favour of Fauſt, is that of the great collector of German antiquities John Aventine, to this purpoſe: ¹ ‘"In the year 1450 John Fauſt, citizen of Mentz in Germany, confer'd on man⯑kind a great and truly divine gift, viz. a new method of writing, undoubtedly reveal'd to him from heaven, commonly call'd Chalco⯑graphy or Printing, which he invented and perfected within the ſpace of two years. This gentleman, like an indulgent father, ſtudy'd how to preſerve learning and excellent Books to poſterity, which muſt o⯑therwiſe have periſh'd, thro' the careleſsneſs and indolence of theſe times; had not this art (by which one man can print as many pages in a day, as ſeveral hands can write in a year,) quoted before, given new vigour to men's genius, made learning flouriſh, render'd books ſo cheap as to be a purchaſe for ſtudents of the loweſt fortunes, and excited men to the ſtudy of arts and ſciences by the plenty of learned works which it hath afforded us. This divine invention was kept pri⯑vate by John Fauſt and Peter Schoeffer de Gernſheim, to whom he had given his only daughter Chriſtina in marriage; and all their workmen were bound by an oath not to diſcloſe it. Ten years after this, John Guttenbergh of Strasburgh, one of Fauſt's ſervants, divulg'd it in Ger⯑many. Ulric Han a fellow-citizen of his, and Xyxtus Reſius brought it to Rome and Italy; where, within my memory, Aldus Manutius, a perſon deſign'd for the reſtoration of learning, ſignaliz'd himſelf, &c."’ [21] The remainder of this paſſage chiefly relates to the diſperſion and pro⯑mulgation of the art; and therefore is unneceſſary to be ſet down here. There is but one thing in this quotation that can puzzle the reader; which is, that the author makes Guttenbergh to have been one of Fauſt's ſervants, inſtead of his partner and uſurer as has been ſhewed already; in the reſt he exactly agrees with the writers quoted before. With reſpect to the diſagreement among authors concerning the names of the firſt inventors, if we remember that Guttenbergh, to evade the ſentence pro⯑nounc'd againſt him at Mentz, departed with ſome of Fauſt's workmen to Strasburgh, it will not appear improbable that ſome, who wrote at a diſtance, might confound him with thoſe ſervants, eſpecially conſidering that his name was never in any Book printed at Mentz. However 'tis plain that a place of one writer miſtaken by another, has been the occaſi⯑on of leading many more, who have follow'd him implicitely, into the ſame error. An inſtance of this, which will be no digreſſion from our hiſtory, is as follows.

THE authors who have follow'd Peter Ramus, from Sabellicus, Zurin⯑ger, &c. down to Paul Pater, author of the treatiſe De Germaniae Mira⯑culo [the Art of Printing] publiſh'd ann. 1709 have aſcrib'd this inven⯑tion to J. Regiomontanus, and thought they did the Art no ſmall honour, in making ſo great a Mathematician its author. What ſeem'd to con⯑firm their opinion was, that Fauſt, Guttenbergh and he were contempo⯑raries, and 'tis probable, liv'd near each other; tho' he afterwards re⯑mov'd to Nurembergh. What made this ſtill more probable was, that Regiomontanus perfectly underſtood Mechanicks, ſo that, as it is ſaid, he made an iron Flyſpring from under his hand; fly round the room with a humming noiſe, and return back under his hand; he is likewiſe report⯑ed to have made a wooden Eagle, which flew from Nurembergh to meet the Emperor, hover'd over his head in a tonick motion, and went back the ſame way with him. It would be dangerous now to aſſert the truth of theſe ſtories, ſince ſuch flights of ingenuity have been ſo long diſcou⯑rag'd, to make way for more uſeful inventions; yet Jul. Scaliger was ſo far from doubting of them, that he pretends to have found out the Art, and bragg'd that he could perform the like with a wet finger. Howe⯑ver this was ſufficient to perſuade our authors that Regiomontanus, repu⯑ted ſo univerſal an artiſt, was moſt probably the perſon who invented [22] the method of Printing, and communicated it to Fauſt and Guttenbergh; in conſequence of which they have plac'd him at the head of the other two. Nevertheleſs this notion ſeems to take its riſe from a paſſage in Purbach's tables, wherein 'tis ſaid that the diſcovery of Printing is to be refer'd to the times of Regiomontanus, as Malinkrot has fully prov'd. This ſtory, I hope, will both convince the reader of the danger of fol⯑lowing an author too implicitely, and juſtify my differin from the ge⯑nerality of thoſe who attribute the diſcovery to John Guttenbergh, whoſe opinion I apprehend to be ſufficiently confuted. Setting aſide this miſ⯑take of P. Ramus with reſpect to Regiomontanus, he agrees with the reſt of our other teſtimonies in favour of Fauſt; and I conceive it to be not in the leaſt improbable, that the inventors might, in ſuch a variety of tools, implements, and other things neceſſary to the perfecting this Art, have recourſe to him or ſome other ingenious perſon, for advice and aſſiſtance.

HOWEVER it is certain that Regiomontanus was a very early printer, tho' not taken notice of as ſuch by any writer I have met with. I did indeed believe him to have been an aſſiſtant in perfecting of the Art, but never could meet with any ſufficient authority to fix the honour up⯑on him, till I was admitted into the Library of the Right Hon. the Earl of Pembroke, whom I beg leave to take this firſt opportunity of mention⯑ing with honour and gratitude, not only for his great condeſcenſion in allowing me a free acceſs to his noble Collections of antient Editions, but likewiſe for ſeveral very curious hints upon this ſubject, which ſhall be mention'd in their proper places; here it was that his Lordſhip was pleas'd to ſhew me the following great curioſity, viz. Manilius in 4to. with theſe words at the end.

THE antiquity of this curious Edition ſhews it ſelf at firſt ſight, tho' there be no date to it, a circumſtance much to be lamented, tho' too common to many of thoſe antient monuments in the infancy of the Art. I muſt therefore be oblig'd to rank it with the reſt of theſe dateleſs works, of which I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak in the ſequel of this hiſtory: it is evident this is an older edition than that mention'd by Fabricius of 1474, [23] which 'tis reaſonable to ſuppoſe, not only by his being contemporary with, but aſſiſtant to, Fauſt in perfecting this art: however as Regiomontanus was a man of ſuch profound ſkill in aſtronomy, mechanicks, and ſeveral other branches of learning, I am willing to hope time will bring forth ſome further teſtimonies concerning him.

BUT what convinces me that he had no ſhare in the firſt diſcovery of the Art, is that in his long dedication prefix'd to his Aſtronomical Tables, the firſt piece he ever publiſh'd, which I have ſeen, and which is de⯑dicated to the Primate of Hungary, he doth not make the leaſt men⯑tion of his having been concern'd in ſuch a noble diſcovery, which it is reaſonable to ſuppoſe he would have done, could he have claim'd ſuch a ſingular piece of merit to have recommended him to ſo great a patron; eſpecially when he expatiates ſo much upon the difficulties that attended the work he dedicates to him: but to return.

I apprehend a probable objection againſt the teſtimonies before quoted (which are ſcarce a fourth part of thoſe collected by Malinkrot,) that they are taken from Germans, who may be reaſonably ſuppos'd too par⯑tial to their country, and conſequently leſs to be relied on than fo⯑reign writers, whoſe authority would be of far greater weight in this caſe. This I ſhall obviate by ſhewing, that learned authors of other nations are conſiſtent with the Germans in this particular. I have alrea⯑dy cited two poets, the one an Italian, the other a Swede; the former of whom aſcribes this diſcovery to Germany, and the latter to John Fauſt of Mentz. My next deſign is to produce ſome of thoſe, who are emi⯑nent for their enquiries into the antiquities of their own and other coun⯑tries. At the head of theſe ſtands Polydore Vergil, an Italian, who in his Book de Rerum Inventoribus, after an elegant encomium upon the Art, and a deſcription of its important benefits to mankind, proceeds thus ‘"Wherefore that the author of ſuch a diſcovery may not be depriv'd of his due praiſe, and that poſterity may know to whom we are in⯑debted ²³ [24] for this divine gift; it was John Guttenbergh, by nation a Ger⯑man, and a Knight, who firſt devis'd this Art of Printing Books in the city of Mentz, and began to practiſe it there, as we have been inform'd by the citizens themſelves; he is reported likewiſe to have made another diſcovery, viz. of a new kind of Ink, us'd now by all printers. Sixteen years after this, ann. 1457, one Conrad a Ger⯑man, brought it firſt to Rome, &c."’—Our author makes no men⯑tion of any but Guttenbergh; yet as he ſays the Art was firſt practis'd at Mentz, 'tis plain from what has been ſaid before, that he deſerv'd not the firſt name in this invention. The citizens who gave this account, were certainly thoſe that diſpers'd themſelves from Fauſt; who, though they learn'd the Art of him, yet might eſteem Guttenbergh the firſt au⯑thor, becauſe he was moſt conſiderable; and not unlikely lorded it over the reſt, who he knew, could not carry on the buſineſs without his purſe; whilſt Fauſt, whoſe chief care was to conceal the Art, till he had reim⯑burs'd himſelf ſo far as to be able to carry it on without his help, might let him enjoy the honour of the diſcovery in the mean time. What confirms my conjecture is, that if Conrad arriv'd at Rome in the year 1457 he muſt have left Mentz before Fauſt and Schoeffer had printed a⯑ny Books with their names. However in this caſe Fauſt would not be the only man, whoſe indigence and honeſty have been inducements to part with the credit of a beneficial diſcovery to a perſon of leſs merit, rather than to let it die with him, for want of means to carry it on.

THE following author Jacobus Philippus Bergomenſis, ²⁴ who is doubtful concerning the genuine inventor, may eaſily be ſet right, from what has been already ſaid. He tells us, ‘"that the Art of Printing was firſt brought to light in Germany, about the year 1457; that the diſ⯑covery was by ſome attributed to Guttenbergh of Strasburgh, by others to one Fauſt, and by a third ſort to Nicholas Genſon or Jenſon, that the authors of it got immenſe riches, &c."’ With relation to this Jen⯑ſon, it will appear by the ſequel of this hiſtory, that he was only one of thoſe who firſt carry'd the Art into Italy, where he diſtinguiſh'd himſelf [25] by his fine impreſſions, &c. but never made the leaſt pretences to the in⯑vention. There is no neceſſity of repeating what has ſo often been ſaid concerning Guttenbergh, whom Palmerius of Piſa aſſerts to have been the author of this diſcovery about the year 1440; his words are as follow: ‘"¹ What obligations the learned world hath to the German nation, can⯑not be ſufficiently expreſs'd; for the Art of Printing, which had been invented by John Guttenbergh Zum-jungen, a knight of Mentz upon the Rhine, about the year 1440, is at this time (viz. ann. 1457) di⯑vulg'd almoſt throughout the world; by which the works of the antients may be purchas'd at a ſmall price, and be read in an infinite number of volumes ſince printed."’ There are a prodigious many more authors, who, tho' they do not mention either the names of the inventors, or the place of the diſcovery, yet unanimouſly give the honour of it to Germa⯑ny; and even Paulus Jovius, who aſcribes the invention of wooden planks to the Chineſe, from whom it was brought into Europe, by the way of Scythia and Muſcovy, when he ſpeaks of the other method of Printing, ſays, it is no wonder that ſeveral arts and ſciences owe their birth to the Germans, ſince the noble diſcovery, of metal types, as well as that of braſs cannons, was found out by them ².

MY next teſtimony is that of the celebrated politician John Ruterus, who not only in his hiſtorical relations attributes the invention of Guns and Printing to the German nation, but confirms it more fully in his book de fortuna illuſtrium virorum, &c. where he ſays, ‘"That he will not contend about the author of Printing; but gratefully acknow⯑ledge the ſingular gift of God in it, ſeeing one man can print as much in one day, as the beſt hand can write in a whole year; for there is ſcarce (continues he) a Preſs, eſpecially in the German Printing ²⁷ [26] houſes, which doth not print off 3600 ſheets per diem, nay ſome 4000, and others exceed even that number."’

I ſhall conclude this chapter with a paſſage out of the great Monſieur Thevet, coſmographer to the king of France, not only becauſe his autho⯑rity will eaſily out-balance that of all the Dutch writers, but likewiſe be⯑cauſe there are ſome particulars in it which will be acceptable to the rea⯑der. As it is ſomething prolix, I ſhall only extract the moſt remarkable part, as follows: ¹ ‘"This art [of Printing] is believ'd to have been firſt invented at Mentz in Germany, about the year 1442. by John Gutten⯑bergh, a German knight; who began his firſt eſſays of it there, and found out a new ſort of ink, now us'd by the Printers: but there are ſome writers of opinion that this honour rather belong'd to John Fauſt and Ives [in latin Ivo] Schoeffer two years before that time, and affirm that Guttenbergh, John Mentel and others [whoſe names our author quotes out of Pantaleon] all Germans, improv'd afterwards the art, and divulg'd it in ſeveral parts of Germany; and at length carry'd it to fo⯑reign nations. Others write that this art came originally from China and Cathai; but this aſſertion is without any foundation, ſeeing the Eaſt-Indies were not diſcover'd by the Portugeſe till about 65 years ago; whereas Printing has been invented and practis'd ever ſince 1442. Paul the Venetian-indeed gave the firſt deſcription of that country about 400 years ago, but made not the leaſt mention of Printing being us'd there. A confirmation of my opinion is, that the Greeks, Mingrelians, Abyſſines, Turks, Perſians, Moors, Arabs and Tartars write all their books by hand, this method was ordain'd in Turky by an edict of Ba⯑jazet II. who prohibited the uſe of printed books under pain of death ann. 1483; which edict was confirm'd by Selim I. Bajazet's ſon ann▪ 1515. Beſides this, whilſt I was in Egypt, I ſaw ſeveral books ſo neat⯑ly written on the bark of palm-trees, that they might be taken for printed ones. The merchants, which bring their wares from India through the Red-ſea, make uſe of the ſame ſort of written books, ſome of which are now to be ſeen at the library of the Queen dowager at St. German's in the fields near Paris. Others pretend that this art of Printing has been carry'd as far as Mexico, which kingdom is directly [27] oppoſite to Cathai, the one being in Aſia towards the ſouth, and the other in America towards the north-pole. However it muſt be own'd that the Americans write with characters, repreſenting ſeveral kinds of beaſts, fiſh, fowl, the different parts of human bodies, and the like; by which they expreſs their mind, as the Egyptians did formerly.—I have two of thoſe books by me, with an interpretation of their hiero⯑glyphicks. The goddeſs Minerva is ſaid to have been the inventreſs of learning and war; and the Germans have imitated her in both theſe reſpects, by the invention of bombs and printing, which were certain⯑ly diſcover'd by them. One fault however that nation labours under, which ſomewhat eclipſes their glory, which is, that they know not how, or at leaſt neglect to improve thoſe inventions, that were ſo eaſily found out by them."’—The author proceeds in an encomium up⯑on the art and thoſe who rais'd it to greater perfection; but that belongs to another chapter.

I hope that the teſtimonies produc'd hitherto will be more than ſuffici⯑ent to fix the palm upon Fauſt and the city of Mentz; and that the reader will follow me with pleaſure to the next chapter, where they will be con⯑firm'd by inconteſtable matters of fact.

CHAP. IV. Authentick Facts in favour of Fauſt and Mentz.

IF the teſtimonies alledg'd in the preceding chapter are inſufficient to convince any perſon that this invention is due to Fauſt; what follows in this will, I conceive, put it quite out of doubt, unleſs he be more in⯑credulous in this caſe than a Dutchman: for the great Eraſmus has not on⯑ly own'd himſelf convinc'd of this truth by one ſingle fact, but even tranſmitted it to poſterity. I ſhall therefore begin with that noble teſti⯑mony, which is a privilege granted by the Emperor Maximilian to John Schoeffer, grand-ſon of John Fauſt, not only for the ſole printing the works of T. Livy (at the end of which, the privilege is annex'd, printed by the ſaid John Schoeffer at Mentz, ann. 1499), but likewiſe prohibiting all perſons to reprint either the ſaid book, or any other which ſhould be af⯑terwards [28] printed by him, in conſideration of his being grand-ſon to the firſt Inventor of the art of Printing: concerning whom Eraſmus, who firſt publiſh'd that work, ſpeaks in his preface to it as follows: ‘"If thoſe, who furniſh'd Origen and St. Jerom with writers and parchments, have merited the higheſt commendation; what praiſe is due to Printers and Bookſellers, who ſupply us with whole volumes for a ſmall price? If Ptolemy Philadelphus acquir'd ſuch reputation, for collecting ſo great a library; what recompence can be made to thoſe, who furniſh us daily with books in all languages? But amongſt all theſe, to whom we are ſo much oblig'd, we muſt gratefully remember the firſt inven⯑tor of this divine ſecret; John Fauſt grand father to John Schoeffer."’ Thus far Eraſmus, without the leaſt mention of his countryman Coſter. With reſpect to the Emperor's priviledge, it could not be ſuſpected of any partiality to Fauſt rather than to Guttenbergh, or to Mentz rather than Strasburg, &c. ſince they were equally under his dominion.

THE next fact to be related, is that of the tools, old types, &c. of the inventors, preſerv'd in Mentz, above 130 years at leaſt after the ſack⯑ing of that city ann. 1462, and view'd before that time by ſome eminent perſons, as curious relicks of the art: among others, John Arnold Ben⯑gellanus ¹ aſſures us, that he had ſeen them there; and Nic. Serrarius ² ſays, they were then kept at Mentz in a houſe in the ſtreet call'd Keyſer's garden, and ſhewn to him by one Albinus a Printer. We need not bring a greater number of authors to atteſt this, ſeeing it may likely be eſteem'd but a weak proof by ſome of our readers; but if they will conſider what noiſe Junius and Scriverius have made about ſome trifles (compar'd to theſe) preſerv'd at Harlem in memory of Coſter, according to a tradi⯑tion of two or three old gentlemen; they will not wonder that I lay ſome ſtreſs upon this, and chooſe ſometimes to make uſe of their own wea⯑pons againſt them. I ſhall therefore ſubjoin another fact, which is the inſcription ſet up at Mentz by Ives of Witigen or Venza, doctor of laws, and profeſſor in that univerſity, in the inner court of the college of law⯑yers. [29] Johanni Guttenbergenſi Moguntino, qui primus omnium literas [...]re imprimendas invenit, hac arte de toto orbe bene merenti, Ivo Witigenſis hoc ſaxum pro monumento poſuit, anno 1508. This inſcription tho' it favours Guttenbergh more than Fauſt, is more authentick than any of thoſe three brought by Junius for Coſter, the laſt of which as Malinkrot obſerves, is either written or at leaſt publiſh'd by him; the ſecond is but a few years older, and the firſt not plac'd over Coſter's door 'till after Junius had publiſh'd his deſcription of Holland.

A proof ſtill ſtronger is the inſcriptions found in the oldeſt books prin⯑ted at Mentz, wherein that city is ſtyl'd the mother and inventreſs of printing. If Harlem or any other city could have ſhewn a juſter title to this honour, it is ſurprizing that this place ſhould have enjoy'd it for above 125 years without the leaſt contradiction, and that no Dutch wri⯑ter did ſo much as attempt, in all that long interval, to confute thoſe known and remarkable colophons or inſcriptions, which Fauſt began to print at the end of his books, when he could no longer conceal his diſcovery; and in which he gives an account of the inventors and manner in which the books were done, firſt negatively, viz. not with pen and ink or any other writing inſtruments, and then affirmatively, but by a new art of caſting types and printing; to which he adds the city of Mentz as the place where they were printed; and concludes with the date of the month and year when they were finiſh'd. We ſhall only ſubjoin ſome of the oldeſt and moſt remarkable of them for the preſent.

I begin with that which is at the end of the Codex Pſalmorum, printed an. 1457, and conſequently the oldeſt book known to be printed with a date or inſcription. It is in the Emperor's library at Vienna; and Peter Lam⯑bec who was library keeper, gives this account of it ¹; that he met with one of them there printed on vellum, at the end of which was this re⯑markable account of the origin of printing, viz. This preſent Book of Pſalms, embelliſh'd with beautiful capitals, and illuminated with all neceſſary [30] rubricks, was thus form'd by an ingenious invention of printing by ſeparate Types, without pen or wrinting, and finiſh'd with great care, for the ſervice of God, by John Fauſt, citizen of Mentz, and Peter Schoeffer de Gernſheim, in the year of our Lord One Thouſand CCCCL VII, on the eve of the aſſump⯑tion, i. e. Aug. 14.

THE next impreſſion is the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum of William Durand, printed at Mentz an. 1459. in fol. Malinkrot has it, and tells us that it had been formerly bequeath'd to the monaſtery of Galilea near Zutphen (a place afterwards deſtroy'd in the civil wars,) to be kept chain'd in the library; and for which the donors were to be pray'd for, together with their whole generation. The inſcription at the end of it being ex⯑actly the ſame with that of the Book of Pſalms, needs not be repeated here. It is likewiſe mention'd by Hoffman in the ſecond volume of his Lexicon Univerſale printed at Baſil ann. 1677, who ſays he ſaw it in the library of that univerſity, bearing date 1459, he calls it Officiale Duran⯑di, p. 508, and gives this inſcription at the end, praeſens hoc, &c. as before.

THE next in date is the Catholicon, a latin vocabulary, the ſame which is affirm'd by Trithemius to have been printed in wood ſome time before 1450, and which was reprinted at Mentz ann. 1460. I have ſeen two of theſe books, one in the Earl of Pembroke's library, and the other in the learned Dr. Mead's, with this very remarkable colophon at the end; ¹ ‘"By the aſſiſtance of the moſt high God, at whoſe nod the tongues of infants become eloquent, and who often reveals that to babes which he conceals from the wiſe, this excellent book, the Catholicon was finiſh'd in the year of our Lord's incarnation 1460, in the city of Mentz belonging to the noble German nation (which God of his goodneſs has vouchſaf'd to prefer to other nations, and of his free gift to make conſpicious by this glorious invention) this work was done, not by the help of quil, pencil or any writing inſtrument, but [31] by the agreement, ſymmetry, and proportion of the printing-preſs."’ then follows a doxology in four latin verſes to this purpoſe;

THIS book, tho' it mentions not the printers, yet is eaſily known to have been done by Fauſt and Schoeffer from the likeneſs of the types, and becauſe at that time there were no other printers at Mentz, or any where elſe.

TWO years after this came out the great Latin Bible in ſolio, which I alſo ſaw in Dr. Mead's library, which according to Trithemius and the Cologn chronicle muſt be the ſecond edition of it, the firſt having been printed ſoon after the year 1450, tho' without any colophon, whereas this has the following; ¹ ‘"This preſent work was finiſh'd and compleated, deſignedly for the ſervice of God, in the city of Mentz, by John Fauſt citizen of it, and Peter Schoeffer de Gernſheim clerk of the ſaid dioceſs in the year of our Lord's incarnation 1462, on the vigil of the aſ⯑ſumption of the glorious virgin Mary."’

IT is unneceſſary to remark that the word Clerk [Clericus] doth not here ſignify a clergyman, for 'tis plain that Schoeffer was not ſo by his mar⯑rying Fauſt's daughter, and leaving a ſon to ſucceed him; but it was uſual then to give that title to men of moderate literature. Father le Long in his Bibliotheca ſacra gives us the colophon of this Bible ſomething different from ours, tho' of the ſame date, the reader may ſee it at full length in the ingenious Mr. Mattair's Annals page 60, not. 6.

CONCERNING this bible ſome writers give us the following account, which is not a little in favour of Fauſt; that it was ſo like hand-writing, and the titles and capitals ſo finely painted on vellum, that Fauſt ſold ſome of them at Paris for a prodigious price: but the buyers finding a greater number upon him, than it was poſſible for ſeveral men to tran⯑ſcribe [32] in their whole life, and the pages of each copy ſo exactly alike, that he was ſeiz'd, try'd and condemn'd for Magick and Sorcery, and was accordingly drag'd to the ſtake to be burnt; but upon diſcovering his Art, the parliament of Paris made an act to diſcharge him from all proſecu⯑tion, in conſideration of his admirable invention. However 'tis not a miſs to inform the reader, that his Black Art, for which he was ſo roughly treated, was printing his Bible on the Black Letter. I ſhall in its proper place give my reaſons for my opinion, that the bible, which Fauſt ſold for MS. was the firſt printed by him; in the mean time this proceſs againſt him, and his diſcharge from it by order of that Parliament, be⯑ing matter of fact, it was not foreign to our purpoſe to mention it here.

THE laſt book which we ſhall ſpeak of, is, Tully's Offices printed ann. 1465, at the end of which are theſe words ¹,, John Fauſt, citizen of Mentz, happily perfected this famous Work of Marcus Tullius, not with pen and ink, &c. but by a new beautiful Art, by the aſſiſtance of my Boy Peter de Gernſheim, Feb. 4. ann. 1465, the edition at Oxford is dated 1466, tho' generally thought to be the ſame. This inſcription I ſaw in the book which that great Lover of the antiquities of the Art of Printing, and Promoter of learning, the Right Honourable the Earl of Oxford, ſhew'd me the firſt time I had the honour to wait on his Lordſhip, and to whoſe kind reception and information I ſtand greatly indebted.

THE next inſcriptions I ſhall mention, are thoſe in Peter Schoeffer's name alone, in which there is a conſtant and remarkable ſtrain of gra⯑titude and reſpect for the city of Mentz, from which, beſides other am⯑ple encouragements, he had receiv'd his freedom as a reward for his im⯑provements in the art. As every one of them has an encomium upon that city, I ſhall content my ſelf with abridging ſome of the firſt, and giving the laſt, which has ſomething ſingular in it, at full length; and conclude this head with a remarkable one us'd by his ſon John Schoeffer at the end of ſome of his books.

IN the book call'd the deciſions of the Rota printed ann. 1477, and ſaid to be ſtill extant in the library of Franckfort, he ſtyles the city of Mentz the inventreſs and protectreſs of printing; in ſome other books, [33] viz. Juſtinian's Inſtitutions, printed ann. 1468 and 1477, &c. he calls her the noble city which God has prefer'd to all others, and ſignaliz'd with ſuch ſuperior gifts, &c. the like is alſo to be ſeen at the end of Harpia⯑nus's Speculum decem praeceptorum, printed, ann. 1474.

THE laſt is at the end of St. Jerom's Epiſtles in Latin, printed in folio upon vellum ann. 1470, one of which is in the library of St. Victor, and another at the College of Sorbon at Paris, ¹ and runs in Engliſh thus;

‘"THIS book therefore of Sophronius Euſebius Jerom and [worthy its author] a moſt eminent defender of the orthodox church of Chriſt; or, if you rather chooſe to call it with me, the book of his epiſtles is fi⯑niſh'd, that the honour of Jerom's name may be preſerv'd, which is owing to the excellent John Andreas, who mov'd with a devout zeal towards that holy man, formerly publiſh'd this work to the world. This book was happily finiſh'd by the art of Printing by Peter Schoef⯑fer de Gernſheim in the city of Mentz, to the honour of which city the [34] bleſſed St. Jerom, writing to Ageruntia concerning monogamy (or mar⯑rying but once,) has given this laſting teſtimony, that many thou⯑ſands of its inhabitants are honour'd in the church, for having ſuffer'd martyrdom in defence of the catholick faith."’

THIS is an inſtance how ready Schoeffer was to take all opportunities of expreſſing his love and gratitude to that city, and rendering her praiſe as laſting as his own works.

THE laſt inſcription which gives a ſuccinct account of the diſcovery, is at the end of Trithemius's breviary of hiſtory, and is as follows ¹ ‘"This preſent chronological work was printed and finiſh'd an. 1515, on the eve of St. Margaret Virgin, in the noble and famous city of Mentz, firſt inventreſs of this art of Printing, by John Schoeffer grand-ſon of the worthy John Fuſt citizen of Mentz, the firſt author of this art, who found it out at length by his own ingenuity, and began to practiſe it anno 1450, in the time of the thirteenth indiction, Frederic III be⯑ing then Emperor, and the moſt reverend father in God Theodorick Pincerna de Erbach being Prince-Elector and Arch biſhop of Mentz: [35] anno 1452. he perfected this art under God, and began to put it in practice, with the aſſiſtance of Peter Schoeffer de Gernſheim, firſt a ſervant, and then his ſon-in-law; who having made many neceſſary in⯑ventions in it, had his Daughter Chriſtina Fuſt in marriage, as a juſt recompence for his labour, and uſeful diſcoveries. Theſe two above-nam'd, viz. John Fuſt and Peter Schoeffer kept this art ſecret, having taken an oath of all their workmen and ſervants not to divulge it in any manner whatſoever: but afterwards it was divulg'd by thoſe very workmen anno 1462, and ſpread it ſelf over ſeveral provinces of Europe, &c."’

THE like inſcription is at the end of the Breviarum Mindenſe, printed anno 1516, by the ſame perſon: In both which the reader will be pleas'd to obſerve, that there is not a word mention'd of John Guttenbergh.

UPON the whole 'tis my opinion, that were there no other evidence but theſe inſcriptions, they would be ſufficient to determine this contro⯑verſy, ſeeing neither Harlem, Strasburgh, nor any other place can pro⯑duce any thing equivalent. Had Harlem, for inſtance, any ſuch authen⯑tick impreſſions in favour of Coſter, all other teſtimonies of the beſt wri⯑ters for Mentz would have been rejected as inconſiderable: or if Dr. Men⯑tel could have produc'd any ſingle book printed by his progenitor, of older or even equal date with the oldeſt of theſe, he would infallibly have triumph'd over all his antagoniſts. 'Tis certain that there is no book known to be printed at Harlem or any other place, of equal date with the laſt which were done by Fauſt, tho' it has been prov'd, that he con⯑tinu'd printing near ten years before he put his name to his impreſſions: whence it follows, that he was not only the firſt Printer with fuſile me⯑tal types, but likewiſe the firſt inventor of them, according to the teſti⯑monies quoted in the preceding chapter.

I doubt not but the reader is now willing to hear what methods the competitors with Fauſt take, in order to evade ſuch a cloud of authentick teſtimonies; and what arguments they can allege in defence of their claim: in ſhort, what grounds they have of triumphing in ſuch an extra⯑ordinary manner. But I muſt here acquaint him, that if he expects evi⯑dence anſwerable to thoſe clamours, he will be extremely diſappointed in the two next chapters. However, ſince a controverſy cannot be fairly [36] decided, unleſs both parties be heard in their turn; I ſhall not deſire the reader to believe me implicitly, but propoſe their pretenſions in as juſt a light, and brief a manner as poſſible, together with the anſwers of Malinkrot and others to them; to which I ſhall take the liberty to add my own thoughts and obſervations, whether they chance to illuſtrate and confirm, or to contradict the concurrent teſtimony of the early, and the eſtabliſh'd notion, of the modern writers, upon the ſubject, and leave it to him to judge of the merit of the cauſe.

I hope what I ſaid laſt will not be look'd upon as either a piece of pre⯑ſumption or oſtentation in me: no man can be more ready, than I am, to own the great helps I have receiv'd from theſe great men, eſpecially from Malinkrot, Chevalier, Mattaire, Orlandi and ſome others of leſs note, or my own inſufficiency for ſuch a work as this, without ſuch an aſſiſtance; but tho' they are all great and learned men in their way, yet for want of a ſufficient acquaintance with the buſineſs of Printing, it was impoſſible for them not to overlook ſome things of moment, which a printer would eaſily diſcover at firſt ſight, viz. Whether a book be MS. or printed; whether printed from pages of wood or with ſeparate types, in both which reſpects, many of them have been either puzled or miſta⯑ken: I ſhall add but one inſtance more, not foreign to our purpoſe; the famous Monſ. Naudé directed his readers how to know the books printed by Fauſt by the mark in the paper, which he calls the Heifer's Horns; Mr. Mattaire, who has been as curious and diligent as any one, tells us he could never obſerve that mark or any thing like it, whereas the very firſt book the Earl of Pembroke ſhew'd me of Fauſt's printing, by holding a leaf againſt the light, the mark appear'd very plain; I ſhall beg leave to add, that the hints and helps I have had from the curious and lear⯑ned, and my acceſs to ſeveral noble libraries, have moreover enabled me to make many more curious obſervations, on this ſubject, than I could otherwiſe have done. Let this be ſaid once for all.

CHAP. V. The Pretenſions of Harlem examin'd and con⯑futed.

I Have more than once hinted, that this controverſy in favour of Harlem was not ſtarted till above 125 years after the diſcovery of the art, when Hadrian Junius, M. D. began the diſpute. During that long interval, the invention was univerſally aſcribed to the city of Mentz, tho' the names of the inventors were ſometimes confounded; and what ought to ſurpriſe us moſt of all is, that not one Dutch writer, during that time, ever offer'd to contradict the received opinion concerning Fauſt and Mentz; tho' many of them were men of great learning, and ſome either natives of Harlem, or had been educated in that univerſity. 'Tis really wonderful, that neither regard to truth, or their country's honour, nor the common ambition of being the author of a new diſ⯑covery, ſhould have inſpir'd ſome of them to undeceive the world in this point, if they had the leaſt grounds of ſuſpicion. But whatever be the reaſon of this unpardonable ſupineneſs in them, Dr. Junius, rather than fall under ſuch a charge, undertook a task, as difficult as that Egyptian one, of making brick without ſtraw. For from a collection of old traditions, wooden types, and two or three books, printed on wood, without name, date, or any other mark (by which it might be gueſs'd when, where, and by whom they were done), with ſome other tranſ⯑muted relicks of the firſt eſſays of the art, he has form'd a ſtory, which he thinks will baffle all the teſtimonies urg'd on the other ſide, and turn the panegyricks, beſtow'd by the learned on the noble inventor, into the vileſt calumnies. As his ſtory is very prolix, and unneceſſary to be ſet down at length, the following abſtract may ſuffice.

[40] HERE is all that our author could collect in defence of his cauſe, which he had made the beſt of after his way: it were indeed to be wiſh'd, the Doctor had rather imitated the modeſty of Carneades, than wiſh'd for his eloquence; ſince that great philoſopher (however he ſeems to forget it) never was known to affirm any thing. Convinc'd as he was of the weakneſs of human underſtanding, and of the power of prejudice; he al⯑ways contented himſelf with confuting the opinions of others, without ever ſhewing that he held any of his own: but ſuch an excellent talent would have ſpoil'd his deſign, and condemn'd both his book and his old men's fables to obſcurity and oblivion, and ſaved ſome other authors the trouble of writing in the vindication of either; but tho' he has been follow'd by about a dozen of his country-men, yet no additional teſtimo⯑nies are to be expected from any of them: for even Boxhorn, who wrote with the greateſt vehemence and ſpleen againſt Malinkrot, has been ob⯑lig'd to content himſelf with palliating the account of Junius, and en⯑deavouring to ſhew, that it is not quite ſo improbable as his antagoniſt hath repreſented it. However it muſt be owned, that except the two laſt nam'd authors, and one or two more, viz. Berchius and Scriverius, the firſt of whom has been confuted by Nicholas Serrarius a Jeſuit in his book de rebus Moguntinis, lib. 1. Cap. 36, 37, 38, and 39; and the later by the learned Monſ. Naudé, George Draude and others; I ſay except theſe, all the reſt write more moderately, without invectives or ill lan⯑guage, and ſome of them even with doubt; whilſt others modeſtly con⯑tend only for the invention of printing on wooden-planks, leaving that of metal types to Fauſt: but even this is inconſiſtent with the ſtory of Junius, who aſſerts Coſter to be the inventor of them both, and Fauſt the thief. It would be ſuperfluous to multiply quotations out of the writers on the ſide of Harlem, ſince they follow Junius upon his bare teſtimony; and a confutation of him will eaſily diſpatch all the reſt. I ſhall there⯑fore examine the probability of his account, and ſee how far it outweighs, the teſtimonies and authorities alleg'd on the other ſide: in the execu⯑tion of this, the beſt method will be to follow the ſteps of the learned Malinkrot, who has ſufficiently expos'd the numerous abſurdities, which this ſtory is attended with. Setting aſide therefore the oddneſs of Co⯑ſter's fancy, in chuſing to make his firſt letters of the bark of beech, [41] which will bend whilſt green, and break when dry; whilſt the wood it⯑ſelf would have been much more proper to bear the weight of the preſs; and the improbability of his changing them into metal ones, which is barely aſſerted by Junius, and contradicted by Berkius, Boxhorn, and other Dutch writers, as we hinted before: nothing can be more ridiculous than the converting thoſe types into drinking cups to perpetuate the memory of their diſcovery; they had certainly been more authentick in their for⯑mer ſtate; at leaſt, if ſome notable work or inſcription had been prin⯑ted with them: or would it not have been a better method to celebrate the name of the inventor, to have diſtributed annually a portion of wine out of them, in order to inſpire their poets with ſongs in his honour and Fauſt's ſhame; or to have hang'd them up, as trophies, in the town-hall or great church, &c. with reſpect to the ſtolen types, (which were turn'd to a better purpoſe by the thief, who the next year printed with them Alexandri doctrinale, and the works of Petrus Hiſpanus, if Junius may be credited, who was the firſt that ſaid or thought of this;) well might Ser⯑rarius ſay after the Emperor Julian, Who will be found innocent, if one ac⯑cuſation makes a man guilty? One would naturally think that this ſtory was devis'd in the woods and walks about Harlem; for ſeveral of the writers before mention'd, and particularly the Colognian Chronicle alleg'd by Box⯑horn, agree that the Latin bible was the firſt book printed by Fauſt at Mon [...]. 'Tis ſurprizing that theſe gentlemen of Harlem ſhould pretend to tell us what was done with their types in the very heart of Germany, and yet be entirely ignorant of what was done in their own city: beſides at that time it is certain, as we have already ſhewn, that ſeparate types of any ſort of metal were unknown—But to proceed; this treache⯑rous ſervant, it ſeems, went off at 12 a-clock at night, when the whole family was at church.—It is highly improbable, that a Dutchman ſhould leave his ſhop ſo open and expos'd at that time of night, when it was fill'd with all the tools and apparatus of an invention ſo important, and known only to himſelf and his man: for it is downright abſurdity to think, that he might depend on the oath, with which he had engaged the lat⯑ter to ſecrecy. Such a night as that, wherein the inhabitants of the ci⯑ty were going to or coming from maſs, was by no means proper for ſuch a deſign; and ſuppoſing he might have paſs'd undiſturb'd with his ſtollen [42] treaſure, yet he could not with the ſame facility paſs thro' the gates, or leap over the walls, with at leaſt a thouſand weight of letters on his back: or if his booty was thoſe wooden planks, with which the two large books mention'd before were printed, as ſome of the Dutch writers ſeem to hint againſt Junius, it was ſufficient to load two or three carts: that he ſhould go with them to Amſterdam, then to Cologn, and at laſt to Mentz, without being taken notice of, is no leſs aſtoniſhing. I ſhall not inſiſt upon his raſhneſs in chuſing to go thro' ſuch publick roads and noted ci⯑ties, and thereby running the danger of being ſeized; the conſequence of which would have been capital puniſhment: nor upon the unaccoun⯑table ſupineneſs of his maſter in not purſuing nor cauſing him to be ap⯑prehended, when he open'd ſhop at Mentz, where he could eaſily have reach'd him: nor yet upon the probability, that the publick muſt have been obliged, by this daring attempt of robbing the country of ſuch a glorious diſcovery, to proſecute the robber with the utmoſt ſeverity where ever he could be found.

IN the next place ſhould we grant that Fauſt, or ſome other ſervants had ſtollen the types; does it neceſſarily follow that he carry'd away the art with them? Could neither Coſter, nor his ſon-in-law and aſſiſtant Tho. Peter, nor any of his grand-children, recover a new preſs, caſt new types, and publiſh ſomething that might expoſe the thief, and ſhew to whom the world was indebted for this invention? Beſides, it appears from Junius that ſome of the types were left behind, which were after⯑wards transformed into drinking-veſſels: if theſe were not ſufficient to ſet them to work again, the interval of ten years, viz. from the pretended robbery anno 1441, to the divulging of the art anno 1452, was more than enough to have compleated a new ſet; ſeeing the firſt inventors de⯑vis'd, try'd, and perfected this method in leſs time. But 'tis urg'd that Coſter dy'd either of grief or otherwiſe before he had brought the art to any perfection; ſo that Harlem was anticipated by Mentz. This is affir⯑med by Majolus and Quadi, tho' without grounds; for Junius tells us, that he invented the ſeparate metal types, as well as wooden-blocks; and met with ſuch encouragement that people came far and near to purchaſe his books, tho' at very dear rates: now if he was alive, as he and Berki⯑us relate, anno 1447, ſix years after this pretended flight; during that in⯑terval [43] he might have renew'd his works, there being no want of buyers, and inſcrib'd his books after this or ſome ſuch manner; This work was done at Harlem by L. J. Coſter, the inventor of this art of printing, &c. and not by that notorious pretender John Fauſt, who ſtole my art and inſtruments, and is ſet up at Mentz, &c. But nothing of this nature was ever done by Coſter or his po⯑ſterity; which is a plain indication that this whole ſtory is, what Salmuth and other learned writers affirm it to be, a mere old wife's fable without foun⯑dation or even probability. How the deviſers and publiſhers of it can maintain it with ſo much poſitiveneſs and vehemence, with ſuch calum⯑nies, invectives and ill language, againſt perſons of incomparable learn⯑ing, who could not give into ſuch an abſurd and legendary account, is not my buſineſs to enquire. I ſhall only obſerve, that their charge up⯑on a man of ſuch conſpicuous merit as John Fauſt recoils with double force and ſhame upon themſelves; for it proves them guilty of a crime more flagrant than what they accuſe him of, in endeavouring to deprive him not only of the glory of that invention, in order to fix it upon an imaginary country-man of theirs; but even of what is moſt valuable in the world, his reputation, upon the bare teſtimony and tradition of three old citizens, whoſe memory is as juſtly queſtionable, as their and Juni⯑us's impartiality, in a caſe wherein the honour of their city and fellow-ci⯑tizens is concern'd; and what is ſtill a greater aggravation of their unjuſt calumny, to make uſe of Fauſt's noble diſcovery to publiſh and perpetu⯑ate his ſhame, whoſe honour and memory ought rather to have been ce⯑lebrated by it: little did that good man think, that his art would ever be put to ſo vile a uſe againſt himſelf.

IN the mean time, I muſt not omit to remark, that of all the writers, whom we have quoted for Mentz, and of many more collected by the di⯑ligent Malinkrot in his Hiſtory of Printing, there is not one native of that city. Munſter indeed was born near it, but educated at a greater di⯑ſtance; and Serrarius, tho' he liv'd ſometime there, was born in Lorain; yet if ſuch an objection had been juſt againſt ten or twelve of 'em, there remains enough to fix the laurel on Fauſt's head. But with reſpect to the old evidences of Harlem, we only know what Junius is pleas'd to tell us of them, that they were perſons who ſerv'd ſeveral conſiderable offices in the city. However Malinkrot makes a very ſhrewd remark upon one of: [44] them, viz. Cornelius the Printer, who in a ſally of paſſion wiſh'd Fauſt had been then alive, that he might have executed him with his own hands; and was at that time, as Junius relates, above eighty years old: now as this theft is pretended to have been committed anno 1441, and it appears from an edition of Tully's offices that Fauſt was living anno 1466; it is plain that in this ſpace of 25 years Cornelius might have had an oppor⯑tunity of gratifying his revenge upon him if he had thought fit. This circumſtance therefore, which was contriv'd to add weight to the ſtory, ſerves only to burleſque and overthrow it.

I fear the reader is more weary of this argument than I could wiſh; ſince there are two or three new allegations out of thoſe who followed Junius, which tho' of ſmall weight, I would willingly examine before I diſmiſs this chapter; tho' it were only to ſhew what ſhifts they are driven to, who undertake to ſupport the credit of Junius's legend; and to let the world judge whether ſuch arguments are not more likely to over⯑throw than maintain this cauſe. I ſhall here propoſe 'em with the ut⯑moſt brevity.

BOXHORN, in his Theatrum Hollandiae, triumphs upon the evidence of two eminent writers, whom he has violently wreſted to ſpeak in defence of his claim. One is the author of the Cologn Chronicle; the other Marian⯑gelus Accurſius, a learned man, who flouriſh'd in Italy about the beginning of the ſixteenth century. The former writes to this purpoſe ¹, that ‘"altho' the Art of Printing had been found out at Mentz, in the man⯑ner we now have it, yet the firſt hints or pattern was taken from the Donatus of Holland, which had been printed there; that the aforeſaid art took its origin from them, tho' the latter invention is much ſu⯑perior in contrivance and ingenuity."’ 'Tis to be obſerv'd by the bye, that this author wrote in the year 1499, almoſt 50 years after the diſcove⯑ry, and had theſe particulars from Ulric Zel an old bookſeller then living at Cologn. The next teſtimony is a paſſage written by Accurſius upon the [45] firſt leaf of a Donatus printed at Mentz by John Fauſt, as follows ¹. ‘"John Fauſt citizen of Mentz, grand-father by mother's ſide of John Shepherd, was the firſt that devis'd this Art of Printing with braſs types, which he afterwards chang'd for leaden ones: his ſon Peter Schoeffer added many other improvements to the art: this Donatus and the Confeſſionalia were firſt printed in the year 1450. He certainly took the hint from the Donatus printed before in Holland upon wooden planks."’ What this Donatus and other books of that ſort were, and whether really done in wood or otherwiſe, with ſome other particula⯑rities relating to them, ſhall be conſider'd in a diſtinct chapter: our pre⯑ſent enquiry is how far they make for the cauſe of the Dutch writers.

We will ſuppoſe that Ulric Zel was a man of as good a memory as thoſe mention'd by Junius; and that the ſecond paſſage quoted was actually written by Accurſius, which is far from being certain: let us now exa⯑mine what both theſe writers do, and what they do not, affirm. They affirm, 1. that this method of printing by fuſile types was found out at Mentz by John Fauſt, and improv'd by his ſon-in-law Peter Schoeffer: 2. that they printed ſome books in the year 1450: 3. that there was a Do⯑natus printed before that time upon wooden planks in Holland: and 4. that from the hint, or, as the chronicler terms it, the model or pattern [vorbildung] of thoſe wooden planks, Fauſt began the new way of printing by fuſile types; tho' this laſt article ſeems only a conjecture of theirs.

THEY do not affirm, 1. that the old method of printing on wood was the foundation of the new one: 2. that this Donatus was printed at Harlem rather than at any other place, or by Coſter than any other per⯑ſon: tho' if they had aſſerted this, it ought to be examin'd how they got that intelligence; ſeeing it was not known in Holland ann. 1575. in which year Junius dy'd, that any ſuch book had been printed there; for that author, who was indefatigable in collecting whatever favour'd his cauſe, would never have fail'd to mention it; and Joſ. Scaliger, tho' he ſince de⯑clar'd [46] himſelf for Harlem, formerly attributed this rude invention to the city of Dort: 3. they don't affirm that this Donatus was printed before the Catholicon of Mentz, wherein lies the main point; for tho' they ſay it was done before Fauſt had perfected his invention, yet it does not fol⯑low that it was before he had begun to print with wooden planks. No⯑thing therefore can be gather'd from theſe authors, even with reſpect to this invention in wood, that favours Coſter or Harlem more than Fauſt or Mentz.

I have already obſerv'd that ſome of the Dutch writers are for divi⯑ding the glory between thoſe two corrivals, and particularly Peter Ber⯑chius: in this he is follow'd by no leſs an author than Boxhorn, ſo often mention'd for his zeal in this diſpute. He finding the impoſſibility of defending all the aſſertions of Junius, is willing to come to a compoſi⯑tion. His words are theſe: ¹ ‘"It will be no difficulty to reconcile this great and weighty controverſy, which has exercis'd the greateſt wits of the age, if we will, as indeed we ought, yield the honour of the old wooden invention to Coſter of Harlem, and that of metal types to John Fauſt citizen of Mentz."’ But this accommodation is attended with this diſadvantage, that it will ſet the Dutch writers at variance not only with one another, but alſo with themſelves; whereas 'tis much better in my opinion, to continue in war with the whole world, than to bring a domeſtick one into their own bowels. A conſequence ſtill worſe is inevi⯑table; for what will become of the pompous ſtory of Fauſt's robbery? And of thoſe creditable evidences mention'd by Junius? Would not they with the utmoſt vehemence proteſt againſt ſuch a partition treaty? And old Cornelius the falſe accuſer, deſerve the moſt ſanguinary treatment to be retaliated on him from ſome angry Moguntine? Will not the drinking cups, thoſe noble relicks of Coſter's metal types, run the riſque of being turn'd into veſſels of diſhonour? And all the inſcriptions in his praiſe, his ſtatues, and even his houſe at Harlem, be liable to ſome ſuch diſmal fate.—If we ſhould yield them this invention of wooden planks, ſo [47] eagerly contended for; or agree with the more moderate of their writers that Fauſt and Coſter, tho' at ſo great a diſtance, happen'd upon it toge⯑ther; or grant to Boxhorn, that Harlem was the mother, and Mentz the nurſe of theſe two diſcoveries; and that the one is but an improvement of the other: yet Coſter would not have deſerv'd half of the incenſe be⯑ſtow'd on him; nor Fauſt the leaſt part of the calumnies which he has ſuffer'd. In vain were ſuch ſhifts and forgeries uſed to deprive him of ſo ſmall and inconſiderable ſhare of his glory; whilſt the far greateſt part of it, which could not be touch'd, was more than ſufficient to make him outſhine and even eclipſe his rival, for whoſe ſake he was ſo ungrateful⯑ly treated. Had not he been bleſs'd with a genius vaſtly ſuperior to that of his ſuppos'd competitor, or contented himſelf without aiming at a more uſeful and expeditious method than the firſt; the common wealth of letters had receiv'd as little advantage from his diſcovery, as his own name and memory from thoſe Dutch writers, were they the only perſons to tranſmit them to poſterity. However if their partiality, and adhe⯑rence to Junius, have influenc'd them ſo far as to make ſuch returns for thoſe improvements, which they are oblig'd to acknowledge that he made; common juſtice will oblige me to acquaint the reader, that other writers of that country, of equal learning, and a more generous nature, have been ſo far from joyning with them, that they have aſcrib'd the invention to Fauſt alone. I have before quoted an encomium of the great Eraſmus upon him and his art, and ſhall cloſe this chapter with another out of the learned Opmer of Amſterdam, who dy'd about the year 1595, i. e. 20 years after Junius, and has left us the following teſtimony in his poſthu⯑mous book of Chronography: ¹—‘"This year 1440 the art of printing [48] began to be exercis'd at Mentz by John Fauſt, who was the grandfa⯑ther of John Schoeffer (a printer of this age,) and worthy the higheſt encomiums."’ In another place (in the beginning of the 4th book) there is the following elegant panegyrick upon the art and inventor:—‘"that at the decline of the world, when the laſt day ſeem'd to approach, ſo many men of accompliſh'd learning and ſingular piety ſhould break forth, like bright ſtars, with unuſual luſtre thro' the tempeſtuous clouds of deadly diſcord; ſo that you would have thought the world had been recover'd from a long diſeaſe, and gradually reaſſumed its loſt ſtrength, the arts and ſciences: this was effected by the aſſiſtance of that art, which from metal characters of letters ingeniouſly caſt, diſpos'd in the order in which we write, ſpread over with a convenient quantity of ink, and put under the preſs, has uſher'd into the world, books in all languages, and multiplied their copies like a numerous off-ſpring, and has obtain'd the name of Typography. This art of Printing was moſt certainly invented and brought to light by John Fauſt in the year 1440. It is amazing that the author of ſo important a diſcovery, and ſo generous a promoter of divine and human learning, ſhould be un⯑worthily traduc'd by a writer of the German affairs: ſurely ſuch a per⯑ſon deſerves eternal remembrance, and a place amongſt men of the brighteſt genius."’—Who this German writer was our author no where tells us; but it ſeems as if his unnatural uſage of his own country⯑man had taken off Opmer's wonder at the like treatment from the Dutch writers. If it ſhould be asked what converts theſe laſt have made among other nations, I can only anſwer, that I know of none.

THE generality of writers have eſteem'd Junius's ſtory unworthy of either credit or confutation; and if any of the moderns ſeem neuter or doubtful in this caſe, it is more owing to a peculiar affectation of mo⯑deſty, than either to any deſign of complimenting the Dutch, or fear of being miſtaken in ſo evident a matter.

CHAP. VI. An Enquiry into the firſt Books printed on Blocks of Wood, viz. the Donatus, Speculum, &c.

AS the reader may reaſonably think, there is ſomething exceilent in theſe Books, either for beauty of impreſſion, learning, correct⯑neſs, &c. from the great noiſe which they have made among the writers of this controverſy; I muſt begin with acquainting him that their whole merit conſiſts only in their being look'd upon by them as the very firſt eſſays of the art of printing, even before the invention of fuſile types. This is ſo far from admitting of any controverſy, however ſome of them may have been miſled into a contrary opinion, that their being print⯑ed only on one ſide of the paper, and afterwards glew'd together, on the blank ſide, from which they were call'd paginae conglutinatae, is a very pregnant proof of their being done after the firſt method, viz. upon wood⯑en blocks; tho'we ſhall not only corroborate the fact by many other un⯑deniable arguments in the ſequel of this chapter, but even lead the rea⯑der into ſo plain a method of judging of thoſe works, from thoſe printed by fuſile types, that he will not have the leaſt room left to doubt of it.

As for the Donatus, ſo ſtrenuouſly inſiſted upon, by Bertius and others, in favour of Harlem, it is a queſtion whether there be one copy of it ex⯑tant, ſeeing 'tis not to be met with in any of thoſe curious libraries I have either ſeen or heard of, nor could ever be procured by any of our ſearch⯑ers into theſe antient monuments, tho' they have ſpar'd neither pains nor coſt to have it ſought for far and near: to which let me add, that no au⯑thor I am acquainted with, has pretended to have ſeen it, if we except Angel Rocha, who in his Bibliotheca Vaticana, printed at Rome in the year 1591, 4to. pag. 411, tells us, that Aldus Manutius, jun^r. ſhew'd him a grammar of Donatus printed on vellum, upon one of the firſt white leaves of which Mariangelus Accurſius, a learned author living in Italy about the year 1500 had wrote, as he ſuppos'd, with his own hand, the following words in latin, ‘"that this Donatus, and another book entitled Conſeſſio⯑nalia [50] were the firſt printed books, and that John Fauſt citizen of Mentz, and firſt inventor of the Art of Printing, had printed them ann. 1450,"’ as has been ſaid in the laſt chapter.

FROM this account of Accurſius it is plain: firſt, that this Donatus bore neither date nor name of place or printer, otherwiſe he need not to have been at the trouble of gueſſing at them. Secondly, That Donatus is the name of the author, not of the book; and that it was only a grammar for boys, for ſo Rocha calls it in the place before quoted; to which we may add, that in the laſt liſt which the firſt Printers at Rome gave of their works to the Pope, they call it Donatus pro pueris; ſo that it could not be ſuch a trifling thing as ſome authors have thought it, who only call it a Primer. The third thing I would obſerve from this paſſage is, that John Fauſt, who is here call'd the firſt inventor of printing, is affirm'd to have printed it at Mentz: but what has puzled the world is, what the ſame author adds at the end of the paſſage, viz. that Fauſt did certainly take the hint from the Donatus in Holland, firſt printed on Blocks of wood; which for that very reaſon, thoſe authors who have follow'd him, have thought fit to make 10 years older, and have ſuppos'd them printed about the year 1440. I might indeed have omitted this paſſage, ſeeing Accurſius ſeems to hint that this book of his was printed by fuſile types; but as it was the only one that has been ſeen by any author, and confirms ſome of our former aſſertions, I thought it would not be amiſs to inſert it, eſ⯑pecially conſidering that it was not impoſſible for Accurſius to be miſtaken in his judgment, of its being printed after the new method of ſeparate types, as many other learned men have been in the like caſe. The merit of this quotation has been examin'd in the laſt chapter, and it is plain that all the authors that have mention'd the date of this book, ſuch as Beughen, Boxhorn, Bertius, and others have taken it upon truſt, as well as what they affirm of its being done upon wooden blocks, ſince none of them pre⯑tend either to have ſeen it, or to have taken it from any author that had: and if we ſhould admit what Accurſius affirms, that thoſe ſuppos'd dutch ones were older than this he wrote upon, it will make it ſtill plainer that they had neither date, printer, nor place's name; ſince this, which is ſup⯑pos'd ten years younger, is without any of them. The ſame may be ſaid of the other books I am now going to give an account of, viz. the [51] Speculum, Ars moriendi, &c. which are in the Earl of Pembroke's curious collection, none of which, tho' they ſeem to be improvements of one another, has the leaſt mention of time, place, or printer.

However, as to their being engraven upon wooden blocks, and con⯑ſequently being the firſt eſſays, or as ſome antiquaries call them, the firſt Maculatures of the art, I am fully convinc'd, both by the ink with which they are printed, viz. the common writing ink, and by ſome undoubted trials I have made of them. I ſhall therefore lay down the following rules to diſtinguiſh between books printed on blocks of wood and ſepa⯑rate metal types.

Firſt, Let an m, w, or any other remarkable letter, be curiouſly ex⯑amin'd both as to its length, breadth and ſhape, and compare it with the ſame letter in another word, if they vary either in ſimilitude or ſize, you may be aſſur'd they are not metal types, ſince the moſt curious let⯑ter-cutter, writing-maſter, or engraver, cannot make any two letters ſo alike, but a nice obſerver will diſtinguiſh one from the other: on the contrary, in ſeparate metal types each letter being caſt in the ſame ma⯑trice, it is impoſſible there ſhould be the leaſt difference either in ſhape or ſize.

Secondly, Another way is by chooſing any word, the longer the bet⯑ter, take the length of it with the points of the compaſs, and compare it with the ſame word in another place, and if you find them both of the ſame length, you may depend upon their being printed with ſeparate metal types; for as each letter is caſt in the ſame mould, it is impoſſible that their length ſhould vary: but in writing and engraving there will be a viſible difference in the ſame word in various places.

Thirdly, Meaſure the length of a page; tell the number of lines in a full one, and take the white ſpaces between each line, and by compa⯑ring them to any other full page in the book, if they are printed with metal types there can be no variation in any of theſe reſpects: whereas, if they were done in wood it would be as impoſſible for them to agree in any one inſtance, as it would be to engrave or write any two pages wherein there ſhould be no viſible variation in ſome one or more of the foremention'd particulars. It was by theſe methods that I diſtinguiſh'd, in the ſive books in the Earl of Pembroke's Library, what was done on wood, and what by ſeparate metal types.

[52] MELCHIOR ADAMUS, and after him the learned Malinkrot and ſome others, tell us of ſeparate wooden types cut with a knife, which were us'd by the firſt Printers, before the diſcovery of caſting them into metal; but beſides that this ſeems inconſiſtent with the moſt authentick teſtimonies we have quoted hitherto concerning this invention: whoever conſiders the vaſt time and trouble it would require to cut ſuch a quantity of them as is neceſſary to print any moderate work, the great difficulty of making them ſtand exactly upright and even in line and body, how liable they would be to ſplit, break, warp, ſhrink and ſwell with continual wet⯑ting and the weight of the preſs, with many more ſuch like inconvenien⯑ces and difficulties, will eaſily judge, not only of the abſurdity of this no⯑tion, but alſo of the impoſſibility of any of thoſe old books being prin⯑ted by any ſuch types; ſince it is obvious to every eye, that no one ſin⯑gle work could have come perfect out of their hands for the reaſons above-mention'd.

BEFORE I diſmiſs this point, I muſt not omit acquainting the Reader with a miſtake into which Chevillier has been unwarily drawn, even when he took the ſureſt method of coming at the truth, concerning one of theſe books in queſtion, viz. the Speculum Salutis, he tells us, pag. 281 and 282 of his Origin of Printing, that having one of them in his own poſſeſſi⯑on, and having met with another in the library of the Celeſtin Monks at Paris, he had the curioſity to have them examined by a Printer, a Foun⯑der, and an Engraver, who judg'd them to be printed with ſeparate⯑metal-types; ſo that thoſe who have read his book, have thought it a ſufficient ground to alter their opinion of their being done on wooden blocks. But this miſtake of Chevillier's proceeded from his not examining the whole book, becauſe as I ſhall ſhew anon, there were many leaves ſupply'd afterwards by ſeparate metal types, one of which he had the misfortune to light upon, otherwiſe they muſt have manifeſtly ſeen the difference

I come now to give the reader an account of the other five books, viz. Ars Moriendi, the Hiſtory of the Apocalypſe, the Hiſtory of the Bible, the Speculum Salutis, and the Spiegel or Speculum tranſlated into Low Dutch. That theſe however are not all that was done upon wooden planks, is plain, becauſe Trithemius tells us of the Catholicon, firſt printed upon wood, [53] Scaliger ſpeaks of a Pſalter of the ſame ſtamp, which his grand-mother had, and other antiquaries mention ſeveral others not worth inſerting here, all which are either periſh'd, or are as yet undiſcover'd: however I cannot omit the Speculum, and ſome others ſeen by Saubert in the Nu⯑remberg library, of which he was keeper; and mention'd by him in the catalogue of that library, call'd in latin Bibliotheca Norica, which books were printed in High Dutch, and may juſtly be ſuppos'd ſome of Fauſtus's firſt Tentamina or eſſays from ann. 1440 to 1450: but as that author has only given us the names, without any further account of them; I ſhall paſs them by, and return to the five abovementioned; which are no where to be met with together, but in that noble Collection of the Right Hon. the Earl of Pembroke: and as no one beſides my ſelf has deſcrib'd them all, I hope the reader will not be diſpleas'd, if I give him a more parti⯑cular account of them, than any but a Printer could poſſibly have done: They are all five printed on a very ſmall Folio.

I. ARS MORIENDI; or, SPECULUM MORIENTIUM. IT is a moral treatiſe upon the ſubject of dying well, with wooden cuts ſuited to the taſte of the Romiſh church; a ſick man is figur'd lying in his bed with angels and devils attending him, the one to tempt, the other to ſtrengthen him; to which end the deſigner has made labels from their mouths, to expreſs the intention of each: the deſigns of this firſt book are ſomewhat better drawn than thoſe of the reſt; for in that age, as well as ours, there were good and bad painters or deſigners, but the preſs-work is the worſt of the five: this induces me to think this piece to be the oldeſt, and its wanting the ſeveral improvements which we find in the others, does not a little confirm me in my conjecture: for firſt, it is printed with common writing ink without any gum, which is plain from its ſpreading it ſelf, and ſoaking into the paper, ſo that in many places it is ſcarce legible; and the ink is grown withall ſo pale by length of time, that it doth but juſt ſhow it ſelf at the beſt: ſecondly, it ſeems to have received ſeveral degrees of improvement as the work went on, and is better printed, and with better ink, the nearer it draws to the end: the third circumſtance that proves its priority to the reſt, is, that it hath [54] neither the capitals A, B, C, &c. (which are now call'd Signatures) at the bottom of the firſt pages of each ſheet, nor any direction word at the end of each page; which is a guide to the book-binder how to place the ſheets, this improvement we find in the two next books.

II. The HISTORY of the APOCALYPSE. THIS book, which I venture to give the ſecond rank to, hath the advantage of being printed with better ink than the former, which makes it much more legible; it appears to have ſome gum diſſolv'd with the ink, which was one of the firſt improvements that was made to the com⯑mon ſort of ink; it has likewiſe the ſignatures at the top of each page of the ſheet: This piece contains the hiſtory of St. John the Evan⯑geliſt in forty ſix pages, each having ſome figures ill cut, repreſenting ſome part of that ſaint's life; the cuts are interſpers'd with ſhort ſen⯑tences, arguments and explications, in Monkiſh latin proſe; likewiſe cut in wood after an indifferent manner; the paper has the mark of the heif⯑fer's LABEL and horns, which is allowed to be the mark in the paper Fauſt uſed.

III. The HISTORY of the BIBLE. THIS contains only hiſtories out of the Old and New Teſtament, promiſ⯑cuouſly blended together with wooden cutts better perform'd, tho' worſe drawn, than any of the two foregoing; it has likewiſe the arguments and explanations of each cut, and the paper ſeems to be the ſame with that of the Apocalypſe; it has alſo the improvements of ink and ſignatures ¹.

IV. The SPECULUM HUMANAE SALVATIONIS. IT is commonly called Speculum Salutis; or, the Mirrour of our Salvati⯑on; and is a comparative hiſtory of the old and new teſtament it is writ⯑ten [55] in Monkiſh latin verſe rhim'd. This is by far the moſt perfect of the two I have ſeen, that which Dr. Mead ſhew'd me wanted many leaves, but this only two: it conſiſts of fifty ſix pages, and each page has two columns of verſes, which are ſo well cut, that were it not for ſome differences in the magnitude and ſhape of the ſame letters, one might eaſi⯑ly be induc'd to think them printed with metal types; and I believe this is the reaſon, that made ſome authors ſuppoſe them to be done with ſe⯑parate wooden types. I have already taken notice of the improbability of that notion.

V. De SPIEGHEL. THIS is only a tranſlation of the Speculum Salutis into Flemiſh: it was upon this book that Dr. Junius and the other dutch writers, who have fol⯑lowed him, lay ſo great a ſtreſs; and upon whoſe antiquity, preferable to all others, they ground their claim to the invention of printing in favour of Coſter. However it is very plain that the Latin one is prior to this, and that this is only a tranſlation of that, becauſe the wooden cuts are the ſame in both, the latin explanations at the bottom are left untranſlated, and the cuts are printed with the ſame pale gum'd writing ink as in the Latin one, rather brown than black; whereas the body of this work is com⯑pos'd with ſeparate metal types, and printed with an ink as remarkable for its blackneſs as any ſort ſince made uſe of: it has alſo in ſeveral places the ſame mark in the paper, viz. the heiffer's LABEL and horns, ac⯑knowledg'd by Monſ. Naudé to be the mark in Fauſt's paper. In the La⯑tin Speculum a great many pages are ſupply'd with the ſame ſeparate me⯑tal types, preſs-work and ink as the body of this whole Flemiſh one; and has all the appearances ſufficient to convince any one, of its being done at the ſame time, and by the ſame hand; one of which ſupply'd pages of the latin Speculum, Chevillier happen'd to pitch upon, when he ſhew'd it to the Printer, Founder and Engraver before mention'd. There is one circumſtance worth noting, which is, that the Speculum ſalutis, tho' cut on wood, each page conſiſts of two diſtinct pieces, the LABEL piece is the draught or repreſentation of the hiſtory, the lower piece is the hiſto⯑ry itſelf in two columns, and if I may venture to account for this motled [56] work, it muſt be by ſuppoſing, that after they had cut the deſign, they might print ſeveral proof ſheets, as is uſual now, to ſee if it needed any amendment; which proof ſheets of the draughts only, together with a compleat book of the latin Speculum, might afterwards fall into the hands of ſome dutch Printer, who got it tranſlated into low dutch and prin⯑ted it with ſeparte metal types upon the ſame proof ſheets under the deſigns which were before printed at the LABEL of the page; and this will evident⯑ly appear from the manifeſt difference of the ink, as before mention'd.

THERE remain ſtill two points to be examin'd with relation to the Donatus; 1. whether it be the firſt book printed with wooden planks; 2. whether it was done by L. Coſter at Harlem. To the firſt there is on⯑ly the teſtimonies of Ulric Zel citizen of Cologn, who relates what was done almoſt fifty years ago, and of Mar. Accurſius, who wrote in Italy what he heard was done at, a ſtill, greater diſtance from him. To theſe, who could not poſſibly be acquainted with every circumſtance of this diſco⯑very, we may reaſonably oppoſe the authority of Trithemius; for he learn'd what he tells us, not from report and uncertain tradition, but from the mouth of Peter Schoeffer, who related nothing but what he was an eye⯑witneſs of, or rather particularly intereſted in. Now Trithemius aſcribes the invention of wooden blocks to J. Fauſt; and aſſerts that the Catho⯑licon was the firſt book (of any conſequence) printed in that manner; and that his next ſtep was the more ingenious invention of ſeparate me⯑tal types.

LET the world judge whether his teſtimony be not far preferable to that of the two former. Scriverius indeed, and after him Mr. Beughen, affirm the Donatus to have been printed anno 1440; but give no reaſon for their fixing on that year rather than any other; and it is manifeſt from what they ſay before, that they only proceed upon a ſuppoſition, that this method being diſcovered about that time; this book (which is perhaps the leaſt conſiderable of thoſe which were printed then) might be one of the firſt eſſays of it. However let the Catholicon, the Donatus or any other, be the firſt book printed in Europe with wooden planks, yet there is no ground of boaſting it to be the firſt in the world; ſince the Chineſe practis'd that way of Printing at leaſt 300 years before either Fauſt or Coſter were born.

[57] THE next conſideration is, where and by whom it was printed. The Dutch attempt two ways of proving it was done by Coſter at Harlem: the firſt is that of Junius, who pretends that it was one of the firſt tryals of Coſter's metal types; but this has been ſo fully confuted, that they have been oblig'd to recur to another ſhift; which is, that Coſter invented the engraven planks, and with theſe printed the Donatus and Speculum Salu⯑tis; and that from this Fauſt took the hint of inventing metal types, an improvement of the former method ¹: As the latter part of this aſſertion has receiv'd a ſufficient anſwer in the ſecond chapter and elſewhere, ſo I need not inſiſt long upon a confutation of the former part, i. e. the books themſelves; ſince they carry no evident characteriſtick, nor are affirm'd with certainty by any author to have been done in Holland. No doubt the Latin Speculum is the original, and the Dutch only a tranſlation; ſince as I obſerv'd before, the latin arguments under the figures are left un⯑tranſlated. The learned Saubert likewiſe tells us in his Hiſtory of the No⯑rimbergh library, that he hath ſeen ſeveral books there printed in high dutch after this manner, one of which is the Speculum ². Who can there⯑fore determine which is the moſt antient, or where they were printed? If the Dutch one could be done no where but in Holland, becauſe it is in low dutch; by parity of reaſon the high dutch muſt have been printed in Germany; and as to the Latin, it will remain ſtill undetermin'd, whether it was done in the one or the other, and nothing will be certain concer⯑ning it, except that it muſt have been printed before the tranſlations. From the whole of what has been ſaid, it is apparent, that all the proofs which the Dutch bring either from facts or authentick writers, confute, rather than ſupport, their pretenſions: and I hope by this time the repu⯑tation of Fauſt is ſufficiently clear'd from the two fold wrong done it by thoſe, who endeavour to deprive him of his due honour, and aſperſe him with the vileſt accuſations of treachery and theft: and that the rea⯑der [58] not only eſteems him acquitted of both, but is ſatisfy'd that neither Coſter nor Harlem have the leaſt ſhare in this diſcovery.

BEFORE I conclude this chapter, I cannot omit a conjecture of the in⯑genious Mr. Mattaire, which will be a conſiderable confirmation of what has been ſaid before. He tells us ¹, that he is inclin'd to think the books beforemention'd were printed at Harlem, rather than at Mentz or Straſ⯑burgh, becauſe tho' Guttenbergh remov'd at firſt to the latter, ſoon after the ſentence pronounc'd againſt him by the judges of Mentz; yet it appears from ſeveral authors even of our own nation, that he either ſuſpecting his ſafety there, and a farther proſecution from Fauſt for the money ad⯑judg'd to him by the decree and deed mention'd in a former chapter, or upon ſome other reaſon, came afterwards to Harlem: in this city he is ſuppos'd by our author to have taught the art to Coſter, and practis'd it with him about the year 1459. If this be admitted, which has all the air of probability to recommend it, Coſter will be left entirely deſtitute of his former glory. The reader will find Mr. Mattaire's proofs for what he advanceth concerning Guttenbergh's printing at Harlem, in his book before quoted ²; which I refer to, rather than to thoſe old and ſcarce authors, from whom he has extracted them. I ſhall cloſe this contro⯑verſy of Harlem with the words of Malinkrot: ³ ‘"'Tis not the ſpacious [59] woods of Harlem, nor the fine walks of Holland, nor the ſupineneſs of its inhabitants that could produce an art ſo difficult and laborious; but 'tis to the ſtrenuous endeavours of the city of Mentz, and the aſſidu⯑ous and indefatigable induſtry of the Rheniſh nation for many years together, that we are indebted for it."’

CHAP. VII. The Pretenſions of Strasburgh confuted.

IN the two former chapters, the falſity of the charge againſt John Fauſt has been ſo fully demonſtrated, that one would have reaſona⯑bly expected the ill ſucceſs of this accuſation, and the many learned ad⯑vocates that appear'd in his defence, might have been ſufficient to deter the moſt ſanguine of mortals from a ſecond attempt upon ſo great a man. Nevertheleſs the reader muſt have patience to hear him arraigned at another bar for the like crimes, committed about the ſame time, tho' upon another perſon, and at another place diſtant ſeveral hundred miles from the former.

FOUR years after the publication of Boxhorn's Diſſertatio de Typogra⯑phiae inventione & inventoribus, printed at Leyden 1640; there ſtarted up another, who in a ſmall treatiſe intitled, Brevis de loco, tempore & autho⯑re Typographiae excurſus, pretended to prove that Fauſt ſtole the art of Printing from John Mentel at Strasburgh. 'Tis true, this author was aſham'd to ſet his name to it; but neither that, nor the meanneſs of his performance hinder'd the diligent Malinkrot, who was then writing his treatiſe de ortu & progreſſu artis Typographicae againſt Junius and his fol⯑lowers, from confuting it. Hereupon James Mentel doctor of phyſick at Paris, a man of learning, and great grand-ſon of Mentel, the firſt Straſ⯑burg Printer of that name, publiſh'd a book call'd Paraeneſis de vera Ty⯑pographiae [...]igine at Paris anno 1650; wherein he undertook to make good the charge, which the anonymous author had laid againſt Fauſt, and chal⯑leng'd the glory of the invention in favour of his anceſtor. Tho' no par⯑ticular anſwer to this book has been publiſh'd, yet there is not one writer [60] upon this ſubject, that I know of, that has not taken occaſion to con⯑fute, or at leaſt to ſay ſomething to diſcountenance it. I ſhould therefore eſteem my ſelf, wanting to this art and its inventor, ſhould I omit giving a ſhort account of this controverſy, and expoſe the vanity of ſuch an at⯑tempt; eſpecially becauſe it may be thought, that Dr. Mentel would not have troubled the world with it ſo ſoon after the other, unleſs he had had ſomething more weighty to alledge in favour of Strasburgh, than the Dutch had for Harlem.

I hope to propoſe the arguments on both ſides ſo fairly, that the reader will eaſily judge of the pretenſions and merit of this new competitor; and with ſuch brevity, that he will not be tired with it, by referring ſtill to the quotations in the margin without interruption to the ſtory.

THE firſt evidence alledg'd by Dr. Mentel, is an old Strasburgh chro⯑nicle, of equal authority with the Harlem tradition, to this purpoſe ¹: ‘"that anno 1440 Nich. Schantlitt being conſul, &c. the excellent and tru⯑ly uſeful art of Printing was invented at Strasburgh by the incompara⯑ble John Mentel, who dwelt in the Fronhoff market, and at the houſe commonly called Viergarten (brothel-houſe;) which divine invention he communicated to a ſervant of his of great ingenuity and dexterity, by name John Gensfleich, a native of Mentz, that he might be aſſiſting to him in the buſineſs. But this treacherous fellow had no ſooner learn'd the myſtery, but he ſerv'd his maſter a baſe trick, by aſſociating him⯑ſelf with his counrryman J. Guttenberg, a wealthy ſilver-ſmith, who began to ſmell out ſomething of the art (having been employed by Mentel to make ſome neceſſary tools;) and diſcovering to him the ſe⯑cret, [61] which he had been intruſted with by his maſter. Theſe two ho⯑ping to make themſelves famous by this art, but being fearful of di⯑vulging it at Strasburgh where the inventor liv'd, reſolv'd to remove thence, and ſettle at Mentz."’

WITH reſpect to this chronicle and the writer of it, we only know what our author tells us in his tranſlation inſerted at the bottom of the page, for the chronicle is written in high dutch. As it wants therefore ſome better authority for its ſupport, Dr. Mentel brings, as a confirmati⯑on of it, the teſtimonies of the writers quoted in our third chapter, who make mention of Guttenberg's carrying the art from Strasburgh to Mentz, where he perfected it by the aſſiſtance of John Fauſt alias Gensfleich; whoſe words are not therefore neceſſary to be repeated here. In the next place he alledges an inſcription, which with Mentel's coat of arms was put at the beginning of Otho Brunsfield's Onomaſticon printed at Strasburgh by John Schott anno 1543, importing ¹, that theſe arms of Schott's family had been given to John Mentelin, firſt inventor of the art of Printing, and to his poſterity by the Emperor Frederic III. anno 1466. After this he gives us a latin epigram written by Erhard Windsberg and inſcrib'd to the three famous Germans, who ſet up the firſt Printing-preſs at Paris. In the firſt verſe of this he has thought fit to change the word Alemannia (Germany) for theſe of tu Argentina (thou Strasburgh) as more proper for his purpoſe.

THE book, at the end of which are theſe verſes, is the Epiſtles of Cra⯑tes the Cynick, printed by Martin Crantz and his two partners beforemen⯑tion'd anno 1470, not at Strasburgh, as our author would fain inſinuate to his readers, but at Paris; where it is ſtill extant in the library of the Sor⯑bon, and was ſeen among others by Chevillier, who has occaſionally con⯑futed Mentel's ſuppoſition, and expos'd his unfair quotation of the epi⯑gram, pag. 31. of his Hiſtory of Printing; as we ſhall ſhew in its proper place.

THIS is all that I can find in Mentel's book, which has the appear⯑ance of argument: the reſt conſiſts chiefly in digreſſions, and quotations in praiſe of the art, and of the German nation; which are entirely foreign [62] to this controverſy. In ſhort our author ſhews himſelf more deſirous of appearing zealous for his anceſtor's honour, than ſolicitous what credit his work will merit among the learned: I ſhall give an inſtance or two of this, and proceed to the confutation of his main arguments.

IN page 31, he gives us a piece of a comedy written by the famous Swe⯑diſh poet Nicodemus Friſchlin; but is pleas'd to overlook the lines quoted by us before at p. 19, in which he affirms, John Fauſt citizen of Mentz to have been the inventor of the art; tho' they are at a very ſmall diſtance from the paſſage quoted by him; what is ſtill more remarkable is, that Mentel affirms that our Swediſh poet dedicated this dramatic piece to the ſenate of Strasburgh; which he would ſcarce have done, had he dreamt any thing of that city's claiming the glory of this invention againſt his Hero John Fauſt, or heard any thing of the charge of theft alledg'd againſt him by the Strasburgers. The other inſtance of his unfairneſs is no leſs conſiderable at p. 67; where having ſuppos'd that the Rationale Durandi was not printed 'till after the falling out of Fauſt and Guttenbergh, viz. ann. 1461, to evade the force of the real date 1459, he ſays with a very ſerious air, that he had credible information from men of great learning, both Printers and others, that it was wrong printed, and that the figure I, which is put before, ſhould have been after the X, that in⯑ſtead of MCCCCLIX, it ſhould have been MCCCCLXI: whereas Mr. Mattaire aſſures us ¹, that the year is not printed with numeral letters, but in words at length, one thouſand four hundred fifty nine; I can hardly ſuppoſe Dr. Mentel could be miſtaken for want of an opportunity of con⯑ſulting the book itſelf, ſeeing it is to be ſo eaſily met with in ſeveral [...]ibraries of Paris, which ſtand always open to the learned and curious; and I don't find he has been wanting in ranſacking them to find out any thing to his purpoſe: tho' ſhould even this ſuppoſition about the date be allow'd, it would not therefore follow, that no books were printed before the year 1460 with Fauſt's and Schoeffer's names, excluſive of Guttenbergh's, as Dr. Mentel attempts to perſuade his readers; for the Pſalmorum codex printed ann. 1457 mentions only the names of the two former; and the [63] latter was never printed in any book that could yet be produc'd. What is ſaid will ſuffice, I hope, to give an idea of this author's ſincerity, whoſe three principal authorities I ſhall now examine.

FIRST, as to the Strasburgh chronicle, we may reaſonably be excus'd for not laying the ſame ſtreſs upon it, that our author doth; ſince the obſcu⯑rity of the writer, a ſuſpicion of his partiality for his country's honour⯑and a difficulty of believing a perſon in his own cauſe in oppoſition to a great number of more credible witneſſes, are obſtacles almoſt invin⯑cible. I am therefore inclin'd to think, that the bare oppoſing of the chronicle of Cologne and Trithemius, who aſſert that the art was firſt brought from Mentz to Strasburgh, will be a ſufficient confutation of it, tho' there were no other authorities for the one, nor arguments againſt the other. However we have an unexceptionable witneſs to produce againſt this chronicle, viz. the learned Wimpheling, who was not only an eminent ci⯑tizen of Strasburgh, and almoſt contemporary with the diſcovery of the art, but is likewiſe quoted by Dr. Mentel, tho' his teſtimony be diametri⯑cally oppoſite to his purpoſe: the firſt part of the paſſage is ſet down at length in pag. 15, wherein he attributes the whole invention to John Gut⯑tenbergh; and tells us that he did not perfect it 'till he had been ſometime at Mentz; whilſt John Mentel undertaking the ſame buſineſs, printed a great many volumes very neat and correct, and grew exceeding rich in a ſhort time ¹. This is all that Wimpheling ſays of Mentel; nor has any author, except that of this Strasburg chronicle, mention'd or ſuppos'd him to be the inventor, but only one of the firſt that practis'd that art at Stras⯑burgh: and if the reader will recollect what moſt of the writers, quoted in the third chapter of this book, have ſaid concerning Guttenbergh's leav⯑ing Mentz and returning to Strasburg, where ſome of them affirm him to have taught Mentel the art; we ſhall not wonder that Wimpheling makes him the firſt inventor of it, ſeeing he practis'd it there ſometime before it was known that Fauſt had done the like at Mentz; and was conſequently the firſt Printer, that Wimpheling might know of: nor is it reaſonable to ſuppoſe that Guttenbergh could have been weak enough to ſay any thing [64] of what had paſs'd at Mentz between Fauſt and himſelf, it being ſo little to his credit.

MENTEL's next authority is taken from the coat of arms given to the family by the Emperor Frederick III; for which there is no other teſti⯑mony but the firſt leaf of the Onomaſticon. However ſuppoſing it to be authentick, may we not with the greateſt reaſon oppoſe to it the patent or privilege granted by the Emperor Maximilian to John Schoeffer, in con⯑ſideration of his being the grand-ſon of John Fauſt the firſt inventor of the art of Printing? this privilege being of much later date than the other, may be reaſonably enough ſuppos'd a retract [...]tion of the former, which might have been ſurreptitiouſly obtain'd; eſpecially conſidering that Fauſt has the concurrent teſtimonies of writers and inconteſtable facts, but Mentel only brings an old chronicle and the moſt precarious grounds to ſupport his pretenſions. However the authentickneſs of this grant is not only much queſtion'd by the generality of writers, but has one ma⯑terial objection againſt it, which is, that the perſon to whom it was gi⯑ven, never made any mention or ſhew of it in all the books printed by him at Strasburgh, which, according to Wimpheling's account, were very numerous. It ſeems to me ſurprizing, that if he had really obtain'd ſuch a noble teſtimony of his being the firſt inventor of Printing, and had been ſo treacherouſly robb'd both of the ſecret and the glory of it by a faith⯑leſs ſervant, he had not made uſe of his Imperial Majeſty's authority (whoſe ſubject he was as well as Fauſt,) to confirm the honour of the invention upon himſelf, and the ſhame of the theft upon the other. But on the contrary, there is not one book to be met with, (tho' we may reaſonably think Dr. Mentel was not negligent in ſuch a ſearch,) that was printed by John Mentel before the year 1473, and even this was without any mention of the place where it was printed; as appears from the Speculum morale of Vincentius in folio, which is the oldeſt book known to bear his name: whereas Fauſt and his ſon-in-law put their names to their impreſſions almoſt ſixteen years before that time, as is plain from the Pſalmorum Codex printed ann. 1457. What is ſtill more wonderful, is, that John Mentel never plac'd this coat of arms in any of his books as we can find; for the oldeſt edition that hath it, is the Geographical work of Ptolemy printed by his nieces ſon MDXX, that is, 70 years after the in⯑vention, [65] 64 years after the grant, and 63 after Fauſt had begun to print in his own name, even by Mentel's own confeſſion.

I come now to conſider the epigram, and Dr. Mentel's wild inferen⯑ces from it, (which he grounds upon a ſuppoſition, that the epiſtles, at the end of which it is printed, were done at Strasburgh,) from which he would conclude, that from this city, not only the three firſt Printers of Paris, to whom they are inſcrib'd, but alſo the moſt celebrated ones of Europe came. His words are theſe ¹: ‘"So truly may it be affirm'd, that this art at firſt flow'd from Strasburgh, as from its fountain-head, whence it diſpers'd it ſelf abroad: to that city therefore, and to the greateſt part of her firſt Printers mention'd by Wimpheling, is that epigram of Erhard Windsbergh directed, which is at the end of Crates's Epiſtles; whereſoever theſe are printed, (for there is no place nam'd, tho' I ſhou'd rather think at Strasburgh,) they being done with ſome of the firſt types, whoſe rudeneſs plainly ſhews the infancy of the art."’ All this is ſaid without any foundation, and would ſcarce have deſerv'd to be inſerted here, but that it afforded me an opportunity of ſhewing the reverſe from the teſtimony of Chevillier, who examin'd and compar'd the the edition of Crates's Epiſtles with the firſt impreſſions of theſe three Printers of Paris, which are given under the firſt liſt, and found them exactly alike: they are all done upon the ſame paper, with the ſame types, ink, &c. and demonſtrate the infancy of the art. He adds far⯑ther, that there is a greater probability that theſe three partners came from Mentz than from Strasburgh, tho' there is no record left of the par⯑ticular place, but of Germany in general; becauſe he finds a great con⯑formity between their characters and impreſſions, and thoſe of Peter Schoeffer; thus he tells us p. 51 of his Hiſtory of Printing, that the Specu⯑lum of Zamora printed by them at Paris ann. 1475, bears a very great likeneſs with St. Jerom's Epiſtles printed at Mentz 1470; their Rationa⯑le Durandi of 1475 with Scheoffer's Speculum Harpianum X Praeceptorum; [66] their edition of Utinus's lenten Sermons of 1477, with the Scrutinium Scrip⯑turarum Pauli Burgenſis printed at Mentz 1478; from which the author reaſonably concludes, that it is more likely they came from the city of Mentz than from that of Strasburgh. I ſhall now ſubjoin at the bottom of the page the epigram, both as it is printed in the genuine edition of the Epiſtles, and as Mentel has alter'd it ¹: I need not, I believe, point out to the reader the material difference between Alemannia and tu Ar⯑gentina; the latter of which, were it authentick, would undoubtedly de⯑termine the diſpute on the ſide of Strasburgh: but as the former is exact⯑ly according to the edition preſerv'd in the Sorbon library, ever ſince it was printed; 'tis plain that author of the epigram, who was probably a country-man and intimate acquaintance of the three Printers, and cor⯑rected their editions, adding ſometimes a copy of verſes in their praiſe, did not deſign to particulariſe any city, but to give the honour of the art to the German nation in general. It is likewiſe probable enough, that they might not come all three from one and the ſame city, but perhaps each of them from a diſtinct one; in which caſe the poet muſt have been forc'd, either to name them all, or diſobliged one or two of them, or ſpoil a good epigram; and therefore rather choſe to compliment them under the name of Germans without regard to the place of their birth.

THO' I have now done with Dr. Mentel, yet before I cloſe this con⯑troverſy it will not be improper to obſerve that there are two cities more of Germany, which have laid claim to this invention, viz. Ausburgh and Ruſſenburgh in Alſace. The firſt of theſe owes its original to a paſ⯑ſage miſunderſtood in the ſupplement to Polydore Vergil De rerum inventori⯑bus, attributed by Irenicus to Gilbert Cognatus, and printed ann. 1604 in 16^o, it runs thus: ‘"The art of Printing is reported to have been diſco⯑ver'd by the induſtry of Peter Schoeffer of Ausburgh, or invented by ſome of his relations, and cultivated by him."’ 'Tis plain here, that [67] the author doth not ſay that the art was invented at Ausburgh, but that the inventor was a native of the place; in which he was certainly miſtaken, ſeeing Schoeffer, who beſt knew the place of his own birth, declares him⯑ſelf in all his inſcriptions a native of Gernſheim, a ſmall town upon the Rhine, a little below Worms. Beſides we have no books extant, which are printed before the year 1471 at Ausburgh, when John Schuſter gave an edition of Paul Oroſius's Chronography in folio. The other town, viz. Ruſſenburgh is likewiſe ſaid by the ſame Irenicus to have been eſteem'd by ſome writers, the inventreſs of the art of Printing; and that it receiv'd its name from the noiſe of the many Printing-preſſes at work in it: but this name ſeems to be more antient than that art; and no book printed there has been ever produc'd, nor any author of antiquity mention'd it; ſo that this was only a miſtake in Cognatus, if he was the writer of the book beforemention'd. I hope, that by this time enough has been ſaid, to ſatisfy the reader, that all which hath been urg'd in favour of Har⯑lem, Strasburgh, or theſe two laſt cities, is unworthy to come into com⯑petition with theſe noble teſtimonies and facts we have alleg'd on the ſide of Mentz. I ſhall therefore with the greateſt pleaſure diſmiſs this rough and tedious path of controverſy, and reſume the thread of our hiſtory.

CHAP. VIII. The Time of the Diſcovery of Printing.

THE difficulty of fixing the exact time of the diſcovery ariſes from theſe two reaſons: 1. Becau⯑s;e the inventors made many fruitleſs tryals, and a great number of maculatures, before they could bring the art to any tolerable degree of perfection: 2. Becauſe the vaſt expences of ſuch a diſcovery oblig'd them to keep it ſecret as long as poſſible, or at leaſt 'till they had reimburs'd themſelves in ſome meaſure, by finiſhing the latin bible, which tho' a great and expenſive work, was moſt likely to compenſate their pains and coſt when finiſh'd. This is the foundation of the diſagreement between writers upon the ſubject; which may how⯑ever [68] be eaſily reconcil'd by attending to the different epocha's, from which they date the diſcovery. Some of them, as Wimpheling, Palmerus, Althamerus, &c. date it from the infancy of the invention of wooden blocks, and aſſign the year 1440. Others, as the author of the chronicle of Cologn, Trithemius, Aventine, and many more, from the invention of fuſile types anno. 1450. Andrew Thevet, Angel Rocha, &c. fix the diſco⯑very of the former method in 1442; whilſt others place the time of the ſecond invention in 1453 or 1454, among whom are Apianus and P. Lan⯑gius. Laſtly, Philip Bergomenſis and Peter Ramus aſſign the year 1458 for the perfection of it. To accommodate this diſcrepancy among all theſe authors, it will be ſufficient to ſay with relation to the firſt, that they take their date from the time in which the invention of wooden blocks was perfected, rather than from its infancy: with reſpect to the laſt, that they thought a ten years interval much too ſhort for the tranſition from the infancy of the former to the perfection of the latter method, and therefore allow'd a few years more than their predeceſſors had done. As for thoſe who fix the latter invention in 1458, they were ſuch as eſteem'd the firſt printed book to have been the Catholicon printed ann. 1460, or perhaps the ſecond impreſſion of the bible ann. 1462, or Tully's offices an. 1466, as Zwinger and others ſuppos'd; and allow'd ſome years more for the invention and perfection of the art. Now 'tis plain that before the Pſalmorum Codex, as we have hinted, there is not any book known to have been printed with an imprimatur at the end; and it is equally certain, that the learned knew nothing of this laſt book 'till the year 1669, in which Peter Lambeck publiſh'd the ſecond part of his catalogue of the imperial library, where this noble monument is preſerv'd; which is the reaſon that it is omitted in all the liſts of the firſt printed books. 'Tis not ſtrange therefore that theſe writers, for want of dates and facts, ſhould be oblig'd to gueſs, as well as they could, at the time of the diſcovery. However we find that the chronicler of Cologn, Serrarius, Sebaſt. Munſter, and others after them, well enough reconcile this diverſity of opinions, by aſſign⯑ing the year 1440 for the former invention, and 1450 for the latter. To theſe if we add the authority of Trithemius, who certainly had the beſt information in this matter, from Peter Schoeffer a principal perſon in the invention, it will be evident, that about the year 1440 they began to ap⯑ply [69] themſelves to cutting or engraving upon wooden blocks, after the Chineſe manner, and printed ſome books with them; but that after the year 1450 they found out a more excellent way, for theſe are Trithemi⯑us's words in the famous paſſage quoted in chap. 3 ¹, viz. of caſting ſe⯑parate metal types: this method they might have been deviſing and try⯑ing before that time, i. e. during ſome part of the firſt ten years; tho' they continued ſtill printing after the old way, 'till they had quite perfe⯑cted the new one; either to bring in a continual ſupply of money ne⯑ceſſary, or perhaps to keep the world from prying into the new diſco⯑very wherein they were engag'd.

I have ſaid nothing hitherto of the dutch writers, who to make the time of this invention agree with Junius's ſtory of Fauſt's pretended theft, have put it back, ſome above ten, others twenty years: how little credit they merit in this particular is already ſhewn; and the reader will be ſtill more convinc'd of it, when he ſees what ſhifts they are reduc'd to, for want of authorities to oppoſe to the vaſt number of writers quoted on Fauſt's ſide, not one of whom ever thought of fixing this remarka⯑ble epocha beyond the year 1440.

THEIR firſt authority is the inſcription ſet over Laurence Coſter's door by one of the citizens of Harlem, which is mention'd by all the dutch writers, and ſays that he found out this art ann. 1430: but this is of too recent a date to be of any weight.

SCRIVERIUS in his apology againſt Naudé makes the diſcovery two years older, and gives us a Chronographic verſe ², whoſe numerical let⯑ters make up the date of MCCCCXXVIII, Boxhorn carries it ſtill farther back, viz. to the year 1420.

BUT as the two former dates were affirm'd without any foundation, this author has endeavour'd to confirm his own with ſomething, that might bear the appearance of authority; and to reconcile it with the other two, by affirming that Coſter began to lay the foundation of this art ann. 1420, tho' he did not perfect it 'till ten years after. The author, upon whoſe teſtimony he would have us believe it, is one Joſeph Karro, a Jewiſh [70] Rabbi, who in a book intitled Shulkan Aruch or Menſa inſtructa, extra⯑cted by him out of another Jewiſh book call'd Arbugh Thurim, i. e. qua⯑tuor ordines, tells us of an old chronicle printed at Venice A. M. 5188, which anſwers to our year MCCCCXXVIII. This book of Rabbi Joſeph he owns that he could never meet with; yet he infers from what is ſaid there, that there could be no printing at Venice at that time, unleſs Har⯑lem had it ſome years before. I ſhall content my ſelf with giving Box⯑horn's words in the margin ¹; eſpecially ſince neither his Rabbi nor himſelf have gain'd any credit in this particular; as it would indeed be wonder⯑ful, if a Jew ſhould be believ'd before the concurrent teſtimonies of all the learned men in Europe. If he wrote what Boxhorn quotes out of him, he either was prodigiouſly miſtaken, or affirm'd it (as is too common with his nation) contrary to his knowledge: tho' if we ſhould deny that he ever wrote thus, I can't ſee with what reaſon Boxhorn could reſent it; ſince he neither ſaw the book himſelf, nor gives the author's name from whom he took it. However leaving him and the reſt of the Dutch writers to ſearch for more authentick proofs than what they have hitherto alleg'd, let us return to our own, which if we dare rely upon, as we have the greateſt reaſon to do, it will be plain, that this art was firſt attempted about the year 1440, and about ten years after happily perfected by John Fauſt and Peter Schoeffer in the city of Mentz; that tho' the former im⯑perfect method was known in China ſome hundred years before we had it, yet this latter, the only one which deſerves the name of printing, was neither known nor practis'd 'till thoſe two perſons had communicated it to ſome of their ſervants, by whom it was divulg'd and diſpers'd over Europe and even beyond it. This will appear more evident in the next and ſubſequent chapters.

CHAP. IX. Of the firſt books printed by Fauſt and Schoeffer.

THERE has been frequent occaſion of mentioning the Catholicon, as the firſt tryal of the art of Printing, according to Trithemius's te⯑ſtimony; but as it is our deſign to ſpeak of thoſe only, which are done with ſeparate metal types, and bear ſome certain date or mark of the Printer; I ſhall ſuſpend the account of it, 'till I come to treat of its ſe⯑cond impreſſion by the ſame Fauſt and Schoeffer ann. 1460.

'T is certain that if only that book, which bears the oldeſt date, is to be eſteem'd the firſt printed; the book of pſalms ſo often mention'd will bid the faireſt for the firſt rank. Nevertheleſs I can ſee no reaſon to de⯑part ſo far from the teſtimonies of Trithemius and the Chronicle of Cologn, as not to allow the preference to the Latin Bible, which, as they tell us, was the firſt book, to which the pious authors of this art thought fit to conſecrate their labours. In this opinion they have been follow'd by ma⯑ny learned and judicious writers both antient and modern; particularly Malincrot, Chevillier, de la Caille, Paul Pater and Watſon. I ſhall there⯑fore ſelect the ſtrongeſt of their reaſons, add a few remarks of my own upon them, and leave the deciſion to the reader.

FIRST with reſpect to Trithemius's teſtimony; which, I think, is un⯑exceptionable, ſeeing he affirms nothing but what he had from Peter Scho⯑effer's mouth: He plainly enough intimates, that the Bible was their firſt work, when he ſays that the art was found out by degrees: that after they had finiſh'd the diſcovery in ſpeculation, and came to put it in pra⯑ctice, they were involv'd in many difficulties: that ¹ ſoon after or from the beginning of this invention, when they went about printing the Bible, before they had finiſh'd the third quaternion (or quire of four ſheets,) the char⯑ges amounted already to four thouſand florins, a prodigious ſum in thoſe days. If we duly conſider theſe words, we cannot but conclude the Bi⯑ble [72] to have been the firſt book they engaged in. Our author indeed men⯑tions not the year in which it was printed; but this might proceed from forgetfulneſs or want of information. However ſince ſuch a work could not be finiſh'd in a ſhort time, when the art was in its infancy, the hands but few and unacquainted with the ſeveral branches of compoſition, im⯑poſition, correction, diſtribution, &c. we may ſuppoſe the invention to have been perfected in ſpeculation about the year 1450, and yet to have required ſome time before it could be put in practice, by reaſon of the difficulties ariſing in it; ſo that it will be reaſonable to allow a year or two more, before the impreſſion of the bible could be compleated. This may in all probability be the reaſon why Trithemius, who is always ve⯑ry exact in his chronicles, and mentions the year of any fact, when he is ſure of it, rather chooſes to make uſe of a more general expreſſion in this caſe, viz. his temporibus about this time, when he ſpeaks of the year 1450: if we recollect that he expreſſes himſelf in the ſame words in his firſt Chro⯑nicle, we ſhall be oblig'd either to allow a larger ſcope to them; or elſe ſuppoſe that the Catholicon, which was done in wood, and the Bible printed with metal types, were finiſh'd at the ſame time, which would be abſurd.

THE Manuſcript Cologn Chronicle tells us, that it was printed in the Ju⯑bile year 1450, in a large character, ſuch as is us'd in the impreſſions of Miſſals or Maſs books, which anſwers to our Double Pica. This Chro⯑nicle was written in high dutch ann. 1499; the author of which acquaints us, that he had the particulars of this invention from Ulric Zel, an old bookſeller then living at Cologn. As the original is not ſo well underſtood here, I ſhall ſubjoin at the bottom of the page, the whole paſſage in la⯑tin, as I find it tranſlated by Malinkrot ¹: the words are to this purpoſe, ‘"that the art of Printing was found out at Mentz—ann. 1440: that from that time to 1450 they were employ'd in perfecting it: that they were [73] began to print books in the Jubile year: and that the firſt that was printed was the Latin Bible, in a large character, &c."’ Here Ulric Zel's words are to be taken in a lax ſenſe; for he is far from ſaying that any thing in this kind, much leſs the bible, was finiſh'd in the year 1450; but only that they began then to ſet about printing it: how long it was before they compleated it, or what date it bore, is what he neither doth, nor perhaps could ſo well inform us of. However, tho' we cannot be certain either from him, or Trithemius, when this noble work was perfe⯑cted; yet it is manifeſt from their reſtimony, that, except ſome macula⯑tures and ſmall tryals, the Bible was the firſt conſiderable piece printed by Fauſt.

I am not ignorant that Mr. Mattaire in his Annals has declar'd himſelf of the contrary opinion; but as he has not confuted any of the above-mention'd teſtimonies, tho' he muſt have read them in the authors before quoted, nor given any reaſon for his departing from them; I have gi⯑ven preference to the judgment of ſo many learned writers confirm'd by two ſuch conſiderable teſtimonies, to his ſingle opinion. I apprehend but two tolerable objections againſt this; the firſt is, that not one of theſe bibles is known to be extant: The ſecond is, that Fauſt cannot pro⯑bably be ſuppos'd to have begun with ſo large and expenſive a volume, when a ſmaller would have been more proper for an eſſay, and brought him a more ſpeedy gain. To the firſt I anſwer, 1. That this bible be⯑ing ſo full of abbreviations, &c. in imitation of the old way of writing, and difficult to be read, might undergo the ſame fate with many other books both MS. and others, to be thrown by and deſtroy'd, when the fairer and more legible impreſſions came in vogue: 2. The learned Sau⯑bert in his Oration de Bibliotheca Reipublicae Noribergenſis tells us, that he had ſeen no leſs than eight copies of them in the Norican library, without date, colophon, or any other mark of their being printed by Fauſt. As I have not been able to procure Saubert's book, I muſt content my ſelf with giving the reader the paſſage out of Paul Pater, in which this is mention'd: it is as follows, ¹ ‘"The Latin Bible, commonly ſuppos'd to [74] have been tranſlated by St. Jerom, printed at Mentz upon vellum about 1450 or the following year, a copy of which Fauſtus ſold at Paris for 750 crowns, as we related out of Trithemius, is juſtly reckon'd among the firſt beginnings of this art by Corn. Beughen (in his Incunab. Ty⯑pograph. Amſterd. ann. 1688.) Henry Salmuth likewiſe mentions ano⯑ther Bible publiſh'd ann. 1459, at the end of which are theſe words; This preſent Rationale, &c. was finiſh'd at Mentz by John Fauſt, &c. but Salmuth is doubtleſs miſtaken in taking this book for the Bible, of which it was only a ſhort explanation. A copy of this Bern. Malin⯑krot tells us that he had by him. I would not however be too po⯑ſitive that there was not a Latin Bible printed in the ſame year, ſee⯑ing John Saubert owns that he had ſeen eight copies of it in the Nori⯑can library, without Fauſtus's colophon, undoubtedly for the reaſon beforemention'd, (viz. in order to ſell 'em for Manuſcripts.)"’ From this paſſage it appears, that there are eight bibles without Fauſt's mark preſerv'd in that library, and ſeen by Saubert; tho' both he and P. Pa⯑ter took them for the ſecond impreſſion, in which they are certainly mi⯑ſtaken: 1. Becauſe this was printed ann. 1462, and not ann. 1459: 2. Be⯑cauſe it is ſo far from having been printed without a colophon, that it has one of the fulleſt and plaineſt that Fauſt ever us'd at the end of any of his books: the reader will ſee it, when we come to the edition itſelf. But 3. 'tis not impoſſible but that there may be ſtill more of theſe copies in ſome other libraries, as yet undiſcover'd. The only intelligence which we had concerning theſe eight, is owing to Saubert; neither would theſe gentlemen have believ'd that there had been a Pſalmorum Codex printed at Mentz ann. 1457, tho' aſſur'd of it by Trithemius and Zel, had not Pe⯑ter Lambeck the Emperor's library-keeper 28 years ago told us, that he [75] met with it in that famous library. I have been likewiſe aſſur'd from the mouth of a gentleman of credit, that a friend of his had ſeen one abroad with the date of 1457, and farther that 'twas his opinion 'twould be brought to England. How many authors have had a notion that Tully's Offices was the firſt printed book? yet time has produc'd no leſs than four printed before it, excluſive of the bible now in queſtion; and may yet diſcover more concerning this.

I come now to the ſecond objection ſo much inſiſted upon by ſome; viz. that 'tis improbable Fauſt would begin his firſt eſſays with a volume ſo large and expenſive, when a ſmaller would have anſwer'd his purpoſe much better, and brought an immediate gain. My reply is, 1. That the great expence at firſt conſiſted in purchaſing ſuch a quantity of materials as the buſineſs requir'd, and not in printing of the firſt book, which was inconſiderable compar'd with that; conſequently a ſmaller volume would have been too ſlender a reimburſement for ſuch great ſums expended: Beſides we have ſhewn that they took up money of Guttenbergh for buy⯑ing of parchment, &c. and were not ſo ſtraitned as before. 2. As Fauſt deſign'd to ſell as many of his firſt printed books as he could for manu⯑ſcripts, in order to make up the coſt which he had been at; 'tis obvi⯑ous that he muſt pitch upon ſome conſiderable and valuable book, before his art was diſcover'd, and where could he fix upon one more adapted to his purpoſe than this? I will not inſiſt upon the piety of the perſons ſo conſpicuous in all their inſcriptions, (tho' our age may call it ſuper⯑ſtition,) which might have a great ſhare in determining their choice. I ſhall only add, that as it was by no means adviſeable for him to ſell any of his firſt eſſays, left they ſhould betray his invention; ſo it was moſt prudent to make them upon the firſt leaves of the Bible, which if they ſucceeded, would in time make him ample amends; and if they did not, the loſs was no greater than if they had been try'd upon a Donatus or a Primer. Beſides none of our authors have affirm'd that he began to print the bible before he had perfected the art both in theory and practice; and made a ſufficient number of maculatures and other tryals, which it was the moſt prudent way to burn as ſoon as printed off. I ſhall leave this diſcourſe of the firſt bible to the reader's choice, either to cloſe in with, or diſſent from us in allowing it the firſt rank; and proceed now to the [76] remainder of our propos'd liſt. It will be neceſſary however to acquaint him, altho' we have given the preference to that ſacred book upon the teſtimonies of ſo many antient and modern writers, tho' it bears no date, yet in the following liſt I am about to give him of theſe firſt impreſ⯑ſions of Fauſt, we chiefly inquire after ſuch as carry either date or ſome other certain mark of the year in which they were printed: for as to thoſe that do not, I ſhall ſpeak of them afterwards, and ſhew that thoſe authors who thought to have found out their date, have prov'd to have been in an error; which will be a ſufficient reaſon for us not to depend upon any others of the like nature.

NEXT to the Bible we find five ſeveral impreſſions, which have certainly been made between the years 1457 and 1466. The firſt of theſe, which as we hinted, is omitted in all the liſts of the firſt books that have been printed before Lambeck's catalogue of the Vienna library, is the Pſalmo⯑rum Codex printed at Mentz upon Vellum anno 1457; concerning this, what has been ſaid already will ſuffice, the colophon of it is in the fourth chapter, p. 29.

THE ſecond is the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, written by William Durand, printed at Mentz upon Vellum two Years after the Pſalter, viz. anno 1459 by John Fauſt and Peter de Gernſheim or Schoeffer; Malinkrot, who knew nothing of the Pſalter, reckons it the firſt printed Book next to the Bible; and tells us that he purchas'd one of them, which had for⯑merly belong'd to a Monaſtery of Franciſcan Monks, deſtroy'd by the civil Wars, the inſcription of which is very near the ſame with that of the Pſalter. This Rationale is likewiſe in the Earl of Pembroke's Library, where I ſaw it; it is beautifully printed in Folio, upon Vellum, and is a ſingular Beauty as to Preſs-work.

THE Suppoſition of Malinkrot and others that this was the firſt print⯑ed Book, was the reaſon that Father L'Abbé a learned Jeſuit began his Liſt of printed Books from the Years of its date, viz. 1459 to 1500. and the author of the Supplement to Bellarmin's Eccleſiaſtical Writers makes this remark upon it, That Anno 1459, John Fauſtus having diſ⯑covered the art of Printing, firſt printed the Book of Guill. Durand de Officiis Eccleſiaſticis in the city of Mentz. Theſe authors were certainly [77] in the right, ſeeing no book was then known of an older date: but ſince the ſecond part of Trithemius's Chronicle, and the ſecond volume of the Imperial-library have been publiſh'd, we muſt look ſome years back for the firſt impreſſion, and give that rank to a more noble work.

THE Third is the Catholicon, a Latin vocabulary, printed at Mentz anno 1460. the ſecond time; for the firſt impreſſion was done upon wood. This Book is likewiſe in the Earl of Pembroke's library, where I ſaw it, it is in a large folio, and beautifully printed. We have given the in⯑ſcription of it in the fourth chap. p. 30, in which tho' the printer's name is not expreſs'd, yet it was done by Fauſt and Schoeffer, both from the ſimilitude of its character, paper, &c. with that of their other works, and becauſe there were at that time no other printers either at Mentz or any where elſe. This Catholicon is a kind of Grammar, compil'd by John of Genoa a Dominican Fryar anno 1286. It is divided into four parts, the laſt of which contains a dictionary of Latin words digeſted alphabetically. There have been ſeveral editions of it in folio, as Che⯑villier tells us, who ſaw two of them; one, very old and without date; the other printed at Paris anno 1506. by Jodocus Badius. Another im⯑preſſion of it is done at Lyons by Antony Du Ry anno 1520, and aug⯑mented by Peter Gille. Furetiere therefore was led into a palpable er⯑ror, when he affirm'd after Dr. Mentel and Father Jacob a Carmelite, that the firſt printed books known in Europe were Durandus de Ritibus Ec⯑cleſiae printed anno 1461, a bible printed anno 1462, St. Auſtin de Civi⯑tate Dei, and Tully's Offices; ſeeing here are no leſs than four printed books before the oldeſt of them; beſides this book de Ritibus Eccleſiae was not written by William Durand, but by John Stephen Durant, who was firſt preſident of the parliament of Tholouſe, and is therefore a dif⯑ferent book from the Durand's Rationale we are now ſpeaking of, and of a much later date.

THE fourth is the ſecond edition of the Latin Bible printed anno 1462. in folio with the following inſcription at the end ¹. ‘"This pre⯑ſent [78] work was finiſh'd and perfected for the ſervice of God in the city of Mentz by John Fuſt citizen, and Peter Schoeffer de Gernſheim clerk of the ſame dioceſs, it was compleated in the year of our Lord's in⯑carnation MCCCCLXII on the eve of the aſſumption of the glorious virgin Mary."’ I have ſeen one in the library of Dr. Mead, and ano⯑ther at the late Mr. Wooodman's bookſeller, in Vellum, and Chevillier ſaw two more at Paris in two volumes. Of this bible Walchius ¹ relates a ſtory, which ought to be mention'd here, as far as reſpects the common opinion. Fauſt went to Paris with ſome copies of it finely illuminated, where he ſold one of them for 750 crowns, and another for 500; till at length he reduc'd his price to 50 and 40 crowns. The great quan⯑tity which he ſold, and the exact likeneſs of every copy, made it ſuſ⯑picious that they were done by a more eaſy and expeditious way than that of writing; whereupon the buyers thinking themſelves impos'd upon, began a proſecution which oblig'd him to fly the country, and return to Mentz. Thus far Walchius, who ſays nothing of Fauſt's being accus'd of magick, as ſome others affirm. What relates to the perſon of Fauſt will be beſt conſider'd in the next chapter. As to the bible itſelf, 'tis my opinion, that the reaſon why the generality of authors have thought this ſecond edition to have been that which he ſold for MS. is, that they ſcarce knew of any other book printed before it ²: but for my own part I cannot ſuppoſe that Fauſt would offer a book to ſale for a written one, which had ſuch an inſcription, as muſt infallibly diſcover the cheat. 'Tis urg'd, that he might print a certain number of them without this, and after the diſcovery, reprint the laſt ſheet with this colophon at the [79] end: but this is improbable upon two accounts; firſt, he had already printed three books with inſcriptions, viz. the Pſalter, the Rationale, and the Catholicon; all which import particularly that they were not done with pen and ink or any writing tool, but by a fine new invented art of caſting Letters, and printing with them. Now ſince ſome of theſe muſt of neceſſi⯑ty have been known in France long before this year; it was impoſſible to have deceiv'd them by any but the firſt impreſſion, unleſs we did ſup⯑poſe that he kept the three former unſold and unſeen; which would be moſt abſurd to imagine. But ſecondly 'tis plain that his deſign in ſel⯑ling them for MSS. was to reimburſe himſelf for the vaſt charges which he had been at in deviſing this invention, preparing all the neceſſary materials, making eſſays, &c. Such expences muſt have reduc'd him a⯑bove twelve years before this to the neceſſity of a recruit, ſeeing he had perfected the new invention, and began to print with it on or ſoon after the year 1450. as has been fully prov'd; nor can we in any probability ſuppoſe that he ſhould work on for twelve whole years ſucceſſively and print three editions, two of which were very large, without vending them; eſpecially ſince he is reported by moſt authors to have enrich'd himſelf exceedingly by this time, and conſequently wanted no ſuch ſtra⯑tegem? If I could have obtain'd with all my endeavours any certain in⯑formation of the year in which he went to Paris, it would have deter⯑mined the diſpute. However, if I may be allow'd a conjecture, ſince we find by the unanimous conſent of writers that the art was perfected in the year 1450, and no books printed in his name till anno 1457 as yet known: Fauſt might moſt probably ſpend theſe ſeven years in Printing, illuminating and ſelling his firſt Bible; after which, his new art being diſcover'd, he thought it in vain to keep it ſecret longer; and therefore in his next book gave the world an account of his method, as we find in the Pſalmorum Codex and thoſe that follow'd it. What confirms my conjecture is, that Guttenburgh, who was proſecuted by Fauſt for the moiety of the money expended, and gave a deed bearing date 1455 for the pay⯑ment, purſuant to the judge's determination, inſtead of complying with it, eſcap'd to Strasburgh, and left his partner in the lurch, this we may reaſonably ſuppoſe, reduc'd Fauſt to ſuch ſtreights, as oblig'd him to go to Paris with what books he had, in order to ſell them to the beſt ad⯑vantage. [80] Theſe reaſons induce me to think that it was the firſt, and not the ſecond bible, which Fauſt ſold at ſuch extraordinary rates: The reader is at his liberty to judge as he pleaſes in this matter.

THE fifth is the Tully's Offices printed at Mentz ann. 1465; tho' ſome editions have a later date by one, and others by two years, all of which are printed at Mentz, with the ſame inſcription in every reſpect, as we ſhall ſhew immediately. The Right Honourable the Earl of Oxford ſhew'd me this book; 'tis a ſmall 4to, and very beautifully printed, and well preſerv'd. Sir Thomas Bodley had this in his library, which he preſented to the univerſity of Oxford, where it is ſtill kept. Dr. James publiſh'd a catalogue of all Sir Thomas's books intitled Catalogus Bibliothecae Bodleia⯑nae in 4to anno 1605, in the 197 page of which book we find this Tully's Offices with the following inſcription, Ejuſdem liber de Officiis, &c. an. 1465. About 70 years after this, Dr. Thomas Hyde publiſh'd his catalogue of all the books in the univerſity library, printed at Oxford in fol. ann. 1674, in which he gives the date of the book pag. 162; which is the ſame with the former, and confirm'd by Antony Wood's hiſtory of that univerſity, printed likewiſe ann. 1674, pag. 228 ¹. Mr. Beughen mentions the ſame date in his liſt of the firſt editions ², and tells us, that it was reprinted at Mentz two years after, viz. ann. 1467, and at Rome 1468. Father 1'Ab⯑bé ³ ſpeaks of one which he ſaw in the French king's library dated 1466, and Chevillier ſaw another in the library of the Mazarin-college, with theſe words in red letters ⁴ This preſent noble work Tully's Offices was done by John Fuſt citizen of Mentz not with pen and ink, &c. but by a new art, &c. by the hands of my boy Peter de Gernſheim ann. MCCCCLXVI on the fourth of February. Several eminent writers, as I have already hinted, have eſteem'd this the firſt printed book; among whom is Peter Ramus or de la Ramee, Royal profeſſor of Mathematicks in the univerſity of Paris, who had this edition in his library, and affirm'd it to be the firſt work [81] produc'd by the art of Printing ¹ in this he has been follow'd by our country-man Anth. Wood in the book before quoted; by Paſquier in his Recherches de la France, lib. 4. ch. 4; and by ſeveral others. 'Tis very probable that the edition of 1465 and 1466 may be the ſame, the laſt ſheet only reprinted; which may be eaſily known by comparing them together; and it were to be wiſh'd, that ſome of the Curioſo's of Oxford would take that trouble, ſince they are both there, as appears from Ant. Wood's liſt.

AFTER the finiſhing of this book, Fauſt is ſuppos'd to have died, or loſt his ſight (as ſome report,) or at leaſt to have grown ſo rich, that he left the buſineſs wholly to his ſon-in-law Peter Schoeffer, who then inſtru⯑cted his ſon John in that art. We find no more books printed in Fauſt's name, all the reſt being in Peter Schoeffer's, ſome of whoſe inſcriptions are given in the fourth chapter.

I have dwelt ſomewhat longer upon theſe noble relicks of our firſt printers, becauſe I am ſenſible of the great value, which the curious and learned have for them.

I come now to thoſe of other, but fictitious dates, which it will not be improper to ſay ſomething of, in order to prevent the reader from be⯑ing deceiv'd or puzzled by them.

AMONG all the apocryphal editions that are to be met within any li⯑brary, excluſive of thoſe which are ſuppos'd to have been printed with wooden blocks, and diſcours'd of already in a diſtinct chapter, that which bears the oldeſt date is the Book of Sermons de Sanctis by Leonard de Utino. John Godfrey Olearius, Lutheran miniſter of St. Mary's church at Hall in Saxony, ſays it is ſtill preſerv'd in the library of that church, and dated 1446, tho' there be no mention of the place where it was printed: the reader will find his account of it quoted in the margin ², in his book de Scriptoribus Eccleſiaſticis, publiſh'd under the title of Abacus Patrologi⯑cus [82] in 8vo at Jena 1673, in which he quotes the teſtimony of his father Godfrey Olearius, who wrote the hiſtory of Hall, printed at Leipſick in 4to. ann. 1667. Chevillier obſerves very juſtly, that Olearius hath mention'd neither the ſize nor printer of this ancient book; and that all who have ſince ſpoken of it, rely upon his teſtimony: he thinks therefore that it ought to have been more nicely enquired into, ſince if the date be true, it entirely overturns the receiv'd opinion that this art was not perfected 'till the year 1450: the reaſons of his ſuſpecting it is, becauſe Utinus liv'd in Italy ann. 1445, according to Poſſevinus, and can hardly be ſuppos'd to have had ſuch credit in Germany, as that his ſermons ſhould be printed after a new method ſcarce known to above five or ſix perſons: he is there⯑fore of opinion, that the book is a manuſcript, or that Olearius has gueſs'd at the date, or which is moſt likely, that this is the date of the compiling, not of the printing of it.

MR. Mattaire has taken the pains to ſolve the greateſt part of theſe doubts, and given the following account of it ¹; ‘"That a very curious and learned gentleman of his acquaintance met with a copy of it at Aix la Chapelle in a monaſtery of regular monks, out of which he tran⯑ſcrib'd the following colophon printed at the end of it, in Engliſh thus; ‘Thus end the golden ſermons upon the Saints throughout the whole year, compil'd by Maſter Leonard de Utino, doctor of divinity, of the order of the fryars [83] Preachers, at the inſtance and intreaty of the magnificent city of Utino, and the noble citizens thereof MCCCCXL VI, on the eve of our bleſſed father Dominick confeſſor, to the praiſe and glory of almighty God, and of the whole triumphant court.’"’ Mr. Mattaire adds, that the characters of it are very rude and ill ſhap'd and ſo full of abbreviations, that they are as difficult to read, as thoſe printed at Mentz ann. 1459 and 1460.

THIS makes it abundantly plain, that tho' the book carries the above-mention'd date, yet it bears teſtimony that the compiling and not the printing of it, is there intended; ſo that not only the difficulty diſap⯑pears, but Chevillier's conjecture is manifeſtly ſupported: And Mr. Mat⯑taire ſeems entirely of this opinion, and beſides inſtances in a book or two which he hath, whoſe dates as he aſſures us, were thoſe of their being com⯑pil'd; tho' the obſcurity of their inſcription, might poſſibly lead an unwary reader to take it for that of its impreſſion: and indeed it is an unreaſonable ſuppoſition, that Printing could have been brought to ſuch a degree of per⯑fection at that time, againſt the general teſtimony of writers: beſides nei⯑ther the abbreviations, nor the rudeneſs of the character, can be a ſuffici⯑ent index of their antiquity, ſeeing, as he obſerves, they continued in uſe among ſome eminent Printers even beyond the year 1500. In the next place I ſhall mention ſome editions, whoſe dates are certainly prov'd to be wrong. The firſt is the Regula Paſtoris of Pope Gregory; a copy of which is in the French king's library, with this inſcription ſuppos'd to be written at the end; Tentamentum Fauſti, an eſſay of John Fauſt ann. 1459: now it is plain from what has been ſaid before that Fauſt was ſo far from making any eſſays at that time, that he had already printed ſeve⯑ral perfect editions, Mr. Mattaire gives us this account of it p. 22. that he met with a book in 4to in the king's library at Paris, without the name of either place or Printer, only with this title, Liber Regulae paſto⯑ralis Gregorii papae ad Johannem epiſcopum Ravenenſem: at the begin⯑ning of which Gabriel Naudé had written two verſes to the reader with his own hand, intimating that book to have been certainly printed by Fauſt at Mentz, becauſe the mark of the paper which is the head and horns of [84] an heifer, is an infallible criterium of Fauſt's books. And an advertiſe⯑ment in which he confirms his aſſertion, from the rudeneſs of the types, the want of diphthongs, and ſome other circumſtances that favour the infancy of the art; and concludes, that Fauſt would not put his name, &c. to it, 'till his frequent eſſays had embolden'd him to make himſelf publick, as he did afterwards in the Durand's Rationale of 1459, Catho⯑licon, &c.

MR. Mattaire doth indeed prove plainly enough, that the rudeneſs of the types, and want of dates, names, &c. continued ſome conſiderable time after the diſcovery of the art, and conſequently that that could be no certain mark of its being one of Fauſt's firſt eſſays: however as no⯑thing certain can be affirm'd concerning this book, we ſhall dwell no lon⯑ger upon it. I have ſeen Aeneas Sylvius's letters printed by Koelhoff of Lubeck, which is certainly antedated, for this reaſon, ſeveral dates in the letters being ten years older than the date of the book itſelf. There is another of his books in fol. in the library of the Sorbon, with a falſe date at the end of theſe words, Flores de diverſis ſermonibus & epiſtolis B. Bernardi per me Joan. Koelhoff de Lubeck colonienſem civem impreſſi an. MCCCC, feliciter finiunt: for 'tis plain the art was not ſo much as thought of at that time, nor perfected 'till 50 years after: but what demonſtrates the falſeneſs of the date is, that this John Koelhoff was ſcarce born then, ſince he printed the works of N. Gerſon in 4 vol. in fol. at Cologn ann. 1483, which are of the ſame make and character as the Flores abovemention'd, as Chevillier p. 10 and 11 obſerves, who therefore thinks that the following numbers LXXXII were omitted at the end of MCCCC. The ſame author mentions two or three editions more of the ſame nature, the laſt of which is the Manipulus Cu⯑ratorum of Guy Mout Rocher with the following uncommon date at the end ¹ Printed at Paris in the year one thouſand CCCC and twenty three, amen: 'tis plain that the art was not brought to Paris 'till the year 1470, as ſhall be ſhown in its place; ſo that the laſt C muſt have been taken up by the balls, or loſt ſome other way. Upon the whole it may be eſteem'd a general rule that all dates before the year 1450 are falſe; and this is corroborated with the ſuffrage of all learned writers upon this [85] ſubject. In the mean time as it is not reaſonable to imagine, that Fauſt and Schoeffer could be altogether idle from the year 1452, in which they are ſuppos'd to have finiſh'd their firſt Bible, to 1457, in which they pub⯑liſh'd the Pſalter, (unleſs we can ſuppoſe that Fauſt's law-ſuit with Gutten⯑bergh, and his journey and ſtay in France, could take him up five whole years, and that his ingenious ſon did not venture upon any work by him⯑ſelf;) if time and induſtry ſhould, as we may reaſonably hope it may, diſcover any more of thoſe old and valuable monuments of the infancy of the art; provided ſuch impreſſions bear either a certain date or mark of their being done at Mentz, and by our Protodaedali before the diſperſi⯑on of their ſervants, or even after that time; I doubt not but the learn⯑ed will allow them a proper rank in the liſts, which ſhall be publiſh'd hereafter.

CHAP. X. Remarkable Occurrences between the year 1450, and the Divulgation of the Art.

THO' I propos'd to avoid all unneceſſary repetitions, yet this chap⯑ter being deſign'd as a ſhort recapitulation of the hiſtory of the firſt twelve years, the thread of which has been unavoidably interrupted by controverſy; and to introduce ſome material occurrences, which could not properly be inſerted in any other chapter, or ſuch as may have eſcap'd the readers memory; I find the impoſſibility of joyning theſe notable events together, without interſperſing them with moſt of thoſe already touched upon: and this has render'd an apology before hand highly ne⯑ceſſary.

I begin with the year 1450, in which 'tis agreed by moſt authors, that the art was perfected in theory and practice, the inventors having prepar'd their tools and materials, and made a great number of eſſays; thinking they might with ſafety attempt ſome conſiderable volume: Their next care was to carry on the buſineſs without danger of being diſcover'd: to this end they admitted as few ſervants as poſſible into any part of the ſe⯑cret, [86] and ſuch only upon whoſe ſidelity they might depend, engaging them to the greateſt ſecrecy by an oath. This being done they allotted to them their ſeveral provinces; but conceal'd every branch of Letter⯑founding and compoſing. If my authority be required, ſince all our accounts relating to theſe beginnings are ſo obſcure and imperfect; I anſwer, that this may reaſonably be infer'd from a remarkable paſſage out of the learned Hen. Pantaleon, a phyſician of Baſil, part of which I have already quoted in a former chapter, as far as it related to Fauſt and Schoeffer's being the authors of this art; the remainder of it is as fol⯑lows ¹: ‘"This art was at the firſt kept very ſecret and communicated to but very few; for they (Fauſt and Schoeffer) tyed up the types in bags, which they brought into the work-room, and took away when they went out, 'till at length in proceſs of time the buſineſs increaſing caus'd the Art to be divulg'd."’ All the authors quoted by us agree with Pantaleon about their keeping the Art with all imaginable ſecrecy, but ſcarce any have inform'd us of this circumſtance, of their carrying their types with them to and out of the work-room; which would have been a vain precaution, had they intruſted any but themſelves in the compoſi⯑tor's part. However it is evident that the whole ſecret did not conſiſt therein; the cutting the Punches, ſinking them into the Matrices, ma⯑king the Moulds and caſting the Letters, might be ſtill a ſecret to any one that had been intruſted ſo far as to go through all the branches of the buſineſs of Printing; and he muſt have been a perſon of a ſurprizing ge⯑nius who could have found out the myſtery of Letter-founding by bare⯑ly ſeeing the letters, therefore the keeping that part to themſelves was making it a greater ſecret than all the oaths they could bind them with.

THE next remarkable occurrence is that of their admitting John Gut⯑tenbergh a wealthy goldſmith into partnerſhip with them, as it is related by the laſt nam'd author, by Salmuth, and others quoted in the third chap⯑ter. This gentleman finding his neighbour Fauſt engag'd in a new and advantagious invention, which he wanted money to carry on, and attra⯑cted [87] by a proſpect of gain, offer'd his purſe and aſſiſtance upon good terms to Fauſt; who gladly accepted the propoſal. But Guttenbergh pur⯑ſuing his own private rather than the common intereſt, and having at⯑tain'd ſome inſight into the art, began to object that Fauſt had conver⯑ted ſome of the money to his own uſes, and refus'd the payment of his dividend of the charges; 'till Fauſt had obtain'd a decree, which oblig'd him to pay his moiety of what the plaintiff ſhould ſwear had been expen⯑ded upon the common fund: this he evaded by giving a bond payable ſome time after, and eſcaping to Strasburgh his native city, before it was due. But he firſt took care to learn as much of the art, as he could, to furniſh himſelf with Printing-tools, and to draw off ſome of Fauſt's ſer⯑vants with him. At Strasburgh he communicated to John Mentel or Men⯑telin the ſecret, and his deſign of ſetting up a Printing-houſe there: how⯑ever neither he nor his workmen were ſo throughly inſtructed in the bu⯑ſineſs, but they were oblig'd to demur a conſiderable time before they could perfect every thing for the work, and to make many tryals in order to attain the right method; which is evident from this, that there is no book extant with Mentel's name 'till the year 1473, and not at all with Guttenbergh's; for it is ſcarce probable, that if they had printed any con⯑ſiderable volumes before that time, they ſhould all have periſh'd without being ſo much as taken notice of by any author, and eſpecially by their learned townſman Wimpheling: whilſt there remain ſo many of Fauſt's in the writings and in the hands of the learned and curious. During this time Fauſt finding himſelf impos'd upon by Guttenbergh, and diſappointed of the money expected, and wanting either will o [...] power to ſue him in that city where he fled, form'd a ſtrategem to raiſe himſelf a freſh ſupply, which ſucceeded according to his wiſh; for he went to Paris with ſome of his fineſt vellum bibles; one of which was ſold to the king for 750 crowns, and is ſtill to be ſeen in the royal library at Paris, a maſter-piece in that kind: another was bought by the Archbiſhop of Paris for 300 crowns: but as people were unwilling to give ſo exorbitant a price, he offer'd ſome of the laſt for 50 crowns and leſs, in hopes to have diſpos'd of them all before he was diſcover'd. It is not indeed to be ſuppos'd, that they were all equal in the ornamental part; yet the beauty of the work, [88] the elegancy of the flower-pieces, initial letters, &c. the variety of the fineſt colours intermix'd with gold and ſilver, with which they were ex⯑quiſitely variegated, made the purchaſers fond of ſhewing them to their acquaintance; as every one thought the whole world could not produce ſuch another. 'Tis reported that the Archbiſhop thinking his bible worth his majeſty's ſeeing, carried it to him; who view'd it with ſurprize, and in return ſhew'd his own: upon a ſtricter examination and comparing 'em together, they found that the ornaments were not exactly the ſame; but as to the other part ſuppos'd to be written, they obſerv'd ſuch a confor⯑mity in the number of pages, lines, words, and even the letters, as ſoon convinc'd them that they were done by ſome other method than tranſcri⯑bing: beſides two ſuch bibles were the work of a man's life-time to tran⯑ſcribe; and upon enquiry he was found to have ſold a much greater num⯑ber. Hereupon orders was given to apprehend Fauſtus, and proſecute him as a Conjurer: I ſhould have been apt to think this charge too abſurd to gain belief, except among the vulgar; and that it was only conniv'd at, in hopes it would terrify him to a diſcovery of his art, were it not for a paſſage which I have met with in Mr. Maichel's hiſtory of the Paris libraries, where⯑in he mentions a ſtrange problem publiſh'd by Father Bouhours, a learned Jeſuit—Whether it be poſſible that [...] German ſhould be a wit? Mr. Maichel juſtly takes the part of his country-men, and proves them much wiſer for the invention of Printing, than thoſe ſtupid Paris doctors, who ra⯑ther believ'd it an effect of Magick, than of human wit or invention. De la Caille relates that he fled to Mentz, and ſuſpecting his ſafety there, de⯑parted to Strasburgh, where he taught John Mentel or Mentelin his Art: but there is not the leaſt probability for this aſſertion, ſince he could not be ſafer at one place than at another; and with reſpect to Mentel, it is much more probable tha [...] he learn'd the invention from Guttenbergh, than from Fauſt who perhaps was never at Strasburgh, unleſs he paſs'd thro' it in his journey to and from France.

HOWEVER, the parliament of Paris thought fit to make an arreſt in favour of him, and to diſcharge him from all further proſecution, in con⯑ſideration of his noble invention; and as I am credibly inform'd, a ſala⯑ry was paid by that crown to Fauſt's deſcendants for many years after, as a reward for his ſufferings and merit: this was the end and ſucceſs of that [89] expedition, and prov'd at length very advantagious to him; and made ſome amends for the melancholy hours of his confinement, and the ter⯑rors of an approaching death.

FAUST diſcharg'd thus with honour and a large ſupply of money, re⯑turn'd to Mentz, where being inform'd that his quondam partner Gutten⯑bergh was endeavouring, with the aſſiſtance of Mentel, to ſet up a prin⯑ting-houſe at Strasburgh, and to challenge to himſelf the whole glory of the invention; he began to conſider, that it was not only in vain, but even dangerous to conceal himſelf and his art any longer from the world; and 'tis probable, reſolv'd at laſt to make both as publick as poſſibly he could in all the editions, which came from his preſs, 'till at leaſt, ann. 1466 or 1467, in which he is ſuppos'd to have reprinted the laſt leaf of Tully's Offices, the laſt book known to be printed by him. During the interval between 1457, and the taking of Mentz ann. 1462, Fauſt meet⯑ing with prodigious encouragement, was oblig'd to increaſe the num⯑ber of his workmen, and open more of the art to them, than he had done 'till then. Some of theſe having attain'd a ſufficient inſight into the my⯑ſtery, were induc'd to go ſomewhere elſe, and ſet up for themſelves; to which they were encourag'd, both by the example of thoſe who went away with Guttenbergh, and probably by invitations from other places, which were deſirous of having the Art brought to them. Pantaleon tells us, that ſome of thoſe who ſignaliz'd themſelves the firſt in Italy, were of that number; and indeed if we conſider how ſoon they began to print in that kingdom, eſpecially Rome, Venice, &c. and make a juſt allowance for preparing the great apparatus of a Printing-houſe, with their firſt eſ⯑ſays, before they came to work off thoſe volumes, which are of the oldeſt date, ſome of them pretty large; we cannot but think that they left Mentz long before it was taken. Fauſt however had a ſufficient number of ſer⯑vants left to finiſh his laſt editions, which are mention'd before; after this we hear no more of him 'till the year 1471, wherein Peter Schoeffer and one Henlif a bookſeller gave a book to a monaſtery, in order to ob⯑tain the prayers of it for Fauſt's ſoul: by which it was apparent he was dead before that time, or perhaps before 1470, becauſe Schoeffer in that year printed St. Jerom's Epiſtles in his own name, without any mention of his maſter Fauſt.

[90] HERE therefore I am oblig'd to conclude the hiſtory of that illuſtrious man, tho' I ſhould have been vaſtly more ſatisfy'd in communicating other particulars of his life and death, could I have found 'em in the wri⯑ters of thoſe times. But Germany is not the only ungrateful country that has neglected ſuch as have beſt deſerv'd of her; for the following books will furniſh us with inſtances of this in other parts of the world. I ſhall only obſerve, that as it is the property of falſe deſert to be ſolicitous for panegyricks and monumental records, whilſt true and intrinſick me⯑rit is ſilent, and equally contemns both; ſo whilſt the Dutch beſtow the higheſt encomiums upon a ſuppoſitious and imaginary inventor: the Germans have been ſo regardleſs of a true and real one, as to leave it entirely to his own works to tranſmit his praiſes to poſterity. If Fauſt had died be⯑fore the ſacking of Mentz, we might have had grounds to ſuppoſe, that ſome monument had been erected to his memory by his fellow-citizens, and deſtroy'd by the conqueror; but as he ſurviv'd thoſe times at leaſt ſix or ſeven years, and carry'd on and improv'd the Art during that in⯑terval, 'tis impoſſible to entertain ſo favourable an opinion of the Mogun⯑tines. However his books and the art which he left us, will more effe⯑ctually and univerſally proclaim and perpetuate his name and memory, than any monumental inſcriptions, &c. and endear both to the learned and curious, as long as the Art or the world itſelf ſhall endure.

THERE is one occurrence worthy to be mention'd, which I omitted in this chapter, not ſo much out of forgetfulneſs or neglect, ſince it is an inſtance of Fauſt's gratitude and generoſity, as becauſe it is not eaſy to fix the time of it, nor ſo likely to have happen'd within the compaſs of theſe ten years, as of ſome of the former, viz. between 1440 and 1450. That is, his giving his only daughter in marriage to his ſervant Peter Schoeffer, admitting him into partnerſhip, and procuring him the free⯑dom of the city of Mentz, as a reward for his ſervices, and the improve⯑ments which he made to the Art; ſuch as the invention of punches, ma⯑trices, metal-types; and, as ſome report, Printer's ink: if theſe diſco⯑veries are owing to him, Fauſt made him as ample amends as he could poſſibly. I wiſh Schoeffer had been ſo grateful to his generous maſter, as to have tranſmitted to us a fuller account of his life and character, than what we enjoy; or if he perform'd this, that time had not depriv'd us [91] of ſo valuable a monument; the want of which obliges me, much againſt my will, to bring this chapter and hiſtory to a concluſion, and reſt ſa⯑tisfy'd with what we have.

CHAP. XI. The Concluſion with an Account of the antient Me⯑thod of Printing.

I AM now come to the cloſe of the firſt book of this hiſtory, which I have endeavour'd to inrich with collections from dead and living authors, and every thing valuable that I could procure upon this ſub⯑ject, from many of the moſt curious libraries. The next book will open a large and pleaſant ſcene. In the mean time I cannot conclude this bet⯑ter, than by giving a ſhort ſummary of the whole, and digeſting it into diſtinct periods, that the reader may, as it were at one view, ſee the whole progreſs of the Art, and fix it more eaſily in his memory; and by cloſing it with an account of the old way of printing us'd during the time of Fauſt, his ſon-in-law, &c.

1. THIS Art was devis'd a conſiderable time before any thing done that way appear'd.

2. 'TIS not improbable that the firſt hints of engraving upon wooden⯑blocks might come from the Chineſes, who practis'd it above 300 years before it was thought of in Europe.

3. THE attempts to imitate it began about the year 1440, and not before.

4. THE new and more perfect method of Printing with fuſile-types did not ſucceed it 'till 10 years after, viz. 1450.

[92] 5. THIS new invention was diſcover'd by John Fauſt in the city of Mentz; in the perfecting of which Peter Schoeffer aſſiſted him very much, and was amply rewarded by his maſter.

JOHN GUTTENBERGH had no other ſhare or merit in this diſcovery, than by promoting it with ſupplies of money from time to time, and that not from a principle of a publick ſpirit, but for his own intereſt, which made him drop both the Art and Artiſt when he found it leſs gainful than he expected.

6. THIS invention was kept with all imaginable ſecrecy by theſe three parties, 'till Guttenbergh, upon a difference between them, took ſome of their ſervants with him to Strasburgh, where he began to practiſe it, and to teach it to John Mentel: The perſon in whoſe favour the Strasburgh pretenſions were afterwards ſtarted.

7. THIS contention not happening 'till the year 1455, they had already printed the latin bible, and perhaps privately diſpos'd of ſome number of the copies, ſeeing their diſpute was about ſtating their accounts, and balancing the charges and profits of the buſineſs.

8. WHETHER their firſt ſeparate types were of wood, or lead, or any other metal; they ventur'd to print their firſt eſſays but on one ſide of the page, 'till they had found out a better ink than the common ſort which they then us'd.

9. IT is probable from this circumſtance, that their firſt improvement upon common ink, to prevent its ſpreading, was only by charging it with a proportionable quantity of ſome watery gum; ſuch as gum ara⯑bick, maſtick, &c. which tho' it remedied that defect, would not ſuffer the paper to be printed but upon one ſide: but either Schoeffer or his ma⯑ſter having found out the way of making it with oyl, they then printed on both ſides.

10. THEY did not begin to put their names and inſcriptions at the end of their books, as we can yet find, 'till the year 1457: this they conti⯑nued to do 'till Fauſt either dyed or left off the buſineſs.

[93] 11. GUTTENBERGH's name was never joyn'd with theirs, nor put to of the books which he printed after he abandon'd Fauſt.

12. SOME others of Fauſt's ſervants forſook him before the taking of Mentz, and ſettled ſome at Cologn, others in Italy.

13. THE greateſt diſperſion of them was, when that noble city was taken and plunder'd by Archbiſhop Adolph, ann. 1462; ſo that the Art became univerſally known throughout Europe.

THERE remains now only to give the reader an idea of the firſt way of Printing, and of what is moſt peculiar to it; which, tho' a ſubject well known by the curious, may not be unacceptable to ſeveral perſons, to whoſe hands this work may chance to fall.

1. WITH reſpect to their forms, they were generally either large or ſmall folio's, or at leaſt quarto's: the leſſer ſizes were not in uſe.

2. THE leaves were without running-title, direction-word, number of pages, or diviſions into paragraphs.

3. THE character itſelf was a rude old Gothic mix'd with Secretary, caſt on purpoſe to imitate the hand-writing of thoſe times; the words were printed ſo cloſe to one another, that it was difficult and tedious even to thoſe who were us'd to MSS. and to this method; and often lead the in⯑attentive reader into miſtakes.

4. THEIR orthography was various and often arbitrary; and as for the diphthongs ae and oe, they were not at all careful about them.

5. THEY had very frequent abbreviations, which in time grew ſo nu⯑merous and difficult to be underſtood, that there was a neceſſity of writing a book to teach the manner of reading them.

6. THEIR periods were diſtinguiſh'd by no other points than the double and ſingle one, i. e. the colon and full ſtop; juſt after the ſame man⯑ner [94] as the reading pſalms, in our Common prayer-books are pointed; all other punctuations being of much later invention.

7. THEY us'd no great letters to begin a ſentence or proper name of men or places.

8. THEY left blanks for the places of titles, initial letters, and other ornaments, in order to have them ſupply'd by the illuminators, whoſe in⯑genious art, tho' in vogue before and at that time, yet did not long ſur⯑vive the maſterly improvements made by the printers in this branch of their Art. Thoſe ornaments were exquiſitely fine, and curiouſly variega⯑ted with the moſt beautiful colours, and even with gold and ſilver; the margins likewiſe were frequently charged with variety of figures of ſaints, birds, beaſts, monſters, flowers &c. which had ſometimes relation to the contents of the page, tho' moſtly none at all: theſe embelliſhments were very coſtly; but for thoſe that could not afford a round price, there were others done after a more ordinary manner and at much cheaper rates.

9. THE names of the printer, place, &c. were either wholly neglected or put at the end of the book, not without ſome pious ejaculation or doxology.

10. THE date was likewiſe omitted or involv'd in ſome crampt cir⯑cumſtantial period, or elſe printed either at full length, or by numerical letters, and ſometimes partly one and partly the other, thus; one thouſand CCCC and ſixty, &c. but all of them at the end of the book.

11. THERE was no variety of characters, no intermixture of Roman and Italick; which were of later invention; but their pages were conti⯑nued in a Gothick letter of the ſame ſize throughout.

12. THEIR Rubricks which were very frequent and added no ſmall beauty to the pages, were ſometimes done by the ſame hands as the initial letters.

[95] 13. WHENEVER they met with any Greek, they either left a blank for it, to be afterwards fill'd up by writing if the paſſage was long; or if ſhort, conſiſting only of three or four words, they got it cut on wood, tho' after ſuch a rude and ill-ſhap'd manner, that it required ſome pauſe to be read.

14. THE quotations of the places out of which they were taken, were very often neglected both in Manuſcripts and printed books, which caus'd the curious no ſmall trouble to find them out.

15. THEY had ſeldom dedicatory or prefatory epiſtles; and when they began afterwards to retail them in their impreſſions, they generally plac'd 'em at the end of the work; a piece of juſtice as much neglected, as want⯑ing in our age.

16. THEY collected no table of contents, no index nor ſummary, (which are indubitably a great help to the reader,) nor any errata's at the end; for what faults were in their editions were rather owing to the manuſcripts which they printed after, than to the careleſneſs of the Printer.

17. THEY printed but few copies at once, for 200 or 300 were then eſteem'd a large impreſſion; tho' upon the encouragements receiv'd from the learned, they increas'd their numbers in proportion.

18. LASTLY, If I may be allow'd this article, they were not ſolicitous to obtain privileges and patents for the ſole printing of any particular volume, tho' towards the later end of Fauſt's time ſeveral of his ſervants ſet up Printing-houſes, and were ambitious to excel their maſter: How ſoon after thoſe privileges began, appears from that granted by the Em⯑peror to John Schoeffer, Fauſt's grandſon ann. 1519, for the ſole printing T. Livius, and to prohibit any other to reprint thoſe books which had come from his preſs: and as this had been granted upon the account of his being the grandſon of the firſt inventor of the Art; ſo ſeveral Popes and Princes gave like patents to their firſt Printers as a mark of their favour.

[96] I ſhall here mention ſomething concerning their way of Book-binding, an account of which we find in Scaliger ¹, who tells us, that his grandmo⯑ther had a printed Pſalter, the cover of which was two inches thick; in the inſide was a kind of cupboard, wherein was a ſmall ſilver crucifix, and behind it the name of Berenica Codronia de la Scala. This book ſeems to have been printed with wood, but probably bound like the reſt.

AS to the prices of their books, I cannot find any thing particular ex⯑cept what I have before quoted out of Campanus's dedication to the Pope; from which it may be infer'd, that in his time at Rome they were ſold for about one fifth part of what the MSS. had done. To this I ſhall add an inſtance of the gift bequeath'd by P. Schoeffer, and Conrad Henlif of the ſame profeſſion, to a library of monks, which will enable us to gueſs at the great rate they ſtill were ſold for. La Caille relates it out of the annals of the abby of St. Victor at Paris, and it is as follows ²; ‘"The anniverſary (office for the ſouls), of the honourable Peter Schoeffer, Conr. Henlif and John Fauſt citizens and Printers in the city of Mentz, as alſo for the ſouls of their wives, parents, children, friends and bene⯑factors; which ſaid P. Schoeffer and C. Henlif have given us the book of St. Jerom's Epiſtles printed upon vellum (in two vol. fol. ann. 1470,) excepting nevertheleſs the ſum of twelve golden crowns, which the aforeſaid Printers receiv'd from our Lord John Abbot of this church Oct. 29, 1471."’

HENCE 'tis plain that the twelve crowns (which in thoſe days were more than equivalent to as many pounds now) were but part of the price or value of the ſaid book; and that the other part, whatever proportion it bore to this, was remitted to them in conſideration of this anniverſary office, to which there us'd to be no price fix'd, tho' the leaſt for it was generally five or ſix crowns.

I conclude this chapter with an obſervation of Monſ. de la Monoye con⯑cerning the phraſe of Libri editi, which I hope the curious will be pleas'd with: he tells us, that this phraſe was us'd before the invention of Prin⯑ting, [97] and ſignified only books publiſh'd and diſpers'd abroad in ſome conſiderable number, in oppoſition to thoſe that were writ fair to be ſet up in libraries, which were call'd Libri ſcripti. This obſervation he proves from a paſſage out of Philelphus, who ſpeaking of his ten books of latin odes, expreſſes himſelf as follows; Carminum libri editi quinque, verſuum quinque millibus; nam alteri quinque qui tantundem verſus complectentur, partim ſcripti ſunt non editi, partim ne ſcripti quidem, i. e. five books of the la⯑tin odes are already publiſh'd, containing 5000 verſes; the other five, which will contain the ſame number, are partly written not publiſh'd, and partly ſtill unwritten: he obſerves further, that the firſt five books of odes were not ſent to the preſs 'till the year 1497, when they were printed in 4to. at Breſ⯑cia: beſides the ſame Philelphus tells his reader in one of his epiſtles writ⯑ten ann. 1453, that he deſign'd to publiſh all the ten books in that year, Libros decem hoc anno edere inſtitui, which could not be underſtood of Printing, ſeeing tho' the art was perfected about this time, yet it was ſtill kept ſecret 'till four years after, when Fauſt put his firſt colophon to the Pſalter. Whether this obſervation be as certain as it is curious, I ſhall leave to the judgment of my readers.

CHAP. XI. An Account of the firſt printed Bibles before the year 1501.

AS thoſe authors who have wrote any thing fully upon the ſubject of P [...]inting, have given their readers an account of the firſt Bi⯑ [...]es, [...] have been printed, from the diſcovery of the Art to the year 15 [...] or even beyond: I thought our Engliſh readers would not be diſ⯑pleas'd to have a ſhort abſtract given them of thoſe antient and valua⯑ble monuments of the art; and I can't but think it will be more accep⯑table to have them all in one view, than diſpers'd, as they would be, were I to give them under their reſpective Printers, who liv'd at a vaſt di⯑ſtance of time and place from one another; eſpecially conſidering that ſome famous cities, and even univerſities, as that of Louvain, have not printed ſo much as one ſingle Bible in all the interval between the year [98] 1450 and 1500, and even beyond; whereas others, for inſtance, that of Nurembergh has produc'd at leaſt 13 in that time: I ſhall place them ac⯑cording to the years in which they were printed, and add ſuch farther par⯑ticulars concerning them, as I have been able to meet with in thoſe au⯑thors, who have given us an account of them; and ſuch as my own ob⯑ſervations have enabled me to collect from thoſe noble libraries I have formerly mention'd.

BY this the reader will be ſufficiently appris'd, that I intend to ſpeak only of thoſe which bear any certain date; but as for thoſe, which are either printed without date, or with a diſputed one, I ſhall juſt ſay ſo much of them, as will let him ſee how little they are to be rely'd on, and what reaſons I have to paſs them by: I have, I think, already ventur'd to give the reader a rule how to judge of ſuch works, viz. if their dates are before the year 1450, they muſt be ſuppos'd to have been wrong prin⯑ted, either deſignedly, or by miſtake: the reader will find proofs ſuffici⯑ent of the former in our next book, and the later is too well known to require any: however in this later reſpect I ſhall give him an inſtance or two of it, becauſe it will be a kind of a key to rectify any other that may hereafter fall in his way.

WE meet with an account of a German Bible, ſtill kept in the library of the city of Ausburgh, affirm'd by Hottinger, who ſaw it there, to have been printed with fuſile types ann. 1448, but with this caveat however, ni fallor, if I am not miſtaken, as writing at ſome diſtance of time and place: other authors have given it that of 1449, but as either of them preceded the time of the invention, Malinkrot tells us, that Martin Zeiler thought it 'twas only a manuſcript verſion made ann. 1449: but Mr. Beug⯑ben doth not ſcruple to tell us in the preliminary diſcourſe to his Incunabu⯑la Typographiae, that they only miſplac'd the two laſt figures of the date, and printed 1449 inſtead of 1494. Chevillier mentions two more out of Lipenius, whoſe dates are demonſtrably falſe, the one is a Bible printed at Paris ann. 1443, and the other at Lyons ann. 1446: whereas it is cer⯑tain, that Printing was not brought to Paris 'till twenty ſeven years af⯑ter the date of the firſt, viz. ann. 1470, nor to Lyons 'till ſix or ſeven years after that: the ſame may be ſaid of another printed at Baſil, and affirm'd, by two bookſellers of Geneva in the catalogue of their books, to bear date [99] 1459, ſince 'tis plain that that city did not receive the Art 'till about 1475: if the reader therefore will take this rule with him, to examine the time in which the Art was brought to any place, which he will find in the following Book, he will eaſily rectify any wrong date that may come in his way, and as for thoſe, which do not mention the place or Prin⯑ter's name, he may ſafely rank them amongſt the apocryphal ones, and them which have no date at all, but as the former have been taken no⯑tice of by all our annaliſts, I ſhall be obliged ſo far as I am able to aſcer⯑tain their reſpective dates, as we go along.

1. BEFORE I come to ſpeak of thoſe, which bear a certain and indiſputa⯑ble date, I muſt not omit the firſt printed by Fauſt and Schoeffer about 1450 or ſoon after, and mention'd by Trithemius, the Colognian Chroni⯑cle, and ſome other authors, as the firſt conſiderable work printed with fuſile types by thoſe two Protodaedali. I have already given the reaſons of its being printed without date or colophon, which would have betray⯑ed the diſcovery of their new Art, and prevented Fauſt's ſelling it for MS: but this however ought by no means to hinder us from giving it the firſt rank, ſeeing the fact is ſo undeniably atteſted. It is pity they have been long ago, either deſtroy'd, or buried in ſome private libra⯑ries, where the moſt diligent ſearches have not as yet been able to find them out: perhaps its being printed ſo like MS, may be one reaſon why they are ſtill lookt upon as ſuch by the owners, if any ſuch there be; for which reaſon I am ſtill willing to hope, that time may diſcover and bring ſome of them to light, and that what has been ſaid in this hiſto⯑ry, and by authors of a much higher character, will ſpur up ſome curi⯑ous perſons to make a more diligent ſearch after ſo valuable a monu⯑ment; 'till when, no farther account can be expected of it than what we have already given.

2. THE next is that, which I have ventur'd, after other authors, to call the ſecond impreſſion of the Bible, printed at Mentz by the ſame worthy in⯑ventors ann. 1462, and which is conſequently the moſt antient we know ex⯑tant in any library; we have already given ſome account of it in a for⯑mer chapter p. 31, and of the colophon printed at the end of it, which we need not therefore repeat here: as there are ſeveral copies of it here in London where I have ſeen them, and elſewhere in England, we need not [100] go to any foreign authors for an account of it: it is printed in fol. as in⯑deed all their other works were. For tho' I have follow'd Peter Lambeck's notion of the Pſalters being printed in 4to, becauſe its ſize may be very much like that of a quarto, yet if I may here venture to give my judgment of a book I have not ſeen, I think I have ſufficient grounds to believe that the firſt Printers had their paper made of all ſizes; and that the five books printed on Blocks of Wood, already mention'd to be in the Earl of Pembroke's library, would appear to any one like quarto's, were it not that the ſignatures ſhew the contrary.

THE next impreſſion we meet with, is one which Mr. Mattaire gives us upon the authority of a learned friend of his, who deſires to have his name conceal'd, and the want of whoſe date is ſupply'd by a colophon of three latin verſes importing, that it was printed in the third year of Lewis XI. reign, i. e. ann. 1464 by the three German partners, who brought the Art to Paris, tho' there be no mention made of the place where it was printed, vid. Annal. Typogr. p. 41, and 60. I am perſuaded that Mr. Mat⯑taire's friend was miſtaken in the firſt verſe, and I ſhould not have given it a rank here, nor even mention'd it, were it not to prevent the reader's being puzzled with this account of it under the year 1464; or his ſuppo⯑ſing me guilty of an omiſſion: but as Chevillier gives us the ſame colo⯑phon printed at the end of the firſt Paris Bible by the ſame three part⯑ners, with this variation however from the former; that in the firſt verſe, inſtead of Semi luſtrum, it has tribus luſtris, that is inſtead of the third, it imports the thirteenth year of that king's reign: we may eaſily ſuppoſe, that it was the firſt Paris Bible of 1475, and that this unknown gentleman might poſſibly be miſtaken: however the book being in Queen's-college library, in Cambridge it may be eaſily conſulted.

3. The next impreſſion therefore to that of Mentz 1462, is that of Auſ⯑burgh, [in latin Auguſta Vindelicorum] printed by John Bemler ann. 1466 in latin fol. It is mention'd by Martin Cruſius, Melchior Adamus, and after them by Malinkrot; Chevillier ſeems indeed to think their teſtimony in⯑ſufficient to aſcertain ſo old a date, but I cannot ſee any reaſon for it, ſeeing it is four years more recent than the taking of the city of Mentz, and the diſperſion of Fauſt's ſervants; beſides the city of Ausburgh was ſo near Mentz, and ſo conſiderable withal, that it is no way improbable, [101] but ſome one of them might go and ſettle there even ſooner than the year 1466.

4. The latin Bible fol. printed at Reutlingen [Reutlingae] a ſmall town in Germany in the dutchy of Wirtembergh ann. 1469, mention'd by Hallevor⯑dius, Father le Long, De la Caille, Chevillier and others; but more parti⯑cularly by John Saubert in his catalogue of the Norican or Nurembergh li⯑brary, where he ſaw it: the Printer of it was John de Averbach, we have nothing elſe extant of him at leaſt with his name.

5. The latin Bible fol. printed about 1471 Mar. 15. at Rome by Conrard Sweynbeym and Arnold Pannariz [or Pararaiz as I have ſeen it printed in one of their books] who were the firſt Printers that ſettled in that city: it has a preface, and at the end four latin diſtichs in praiſe of thoſe two Germans, and a ſmall work or hiſtory of Ariſteas, and is tranſlated by Matthias Palmerius: the Printers tell Pope Sextus IV, in the liſts which they gave him of their works, that they had printed 575 copies of it: concer⯑ning this Bible Spondaeus gives us the following account, we have, ſays he, the Bible printed at Rome in two very large volumes [ingentibus volumi⯑nibus] ann. 1471 in the houſe of the Maximis by two Germans named Con⯑rard Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz.

6. The Italian Bible tranſlated by Nicholaus Malherbis (in Italian Ma⯑lermi) a Venetian abbot of the order of the Calmaldules, printed at Venice ann. 1471 Calend. Aug. in fol. by Vindelin de Spire, who with his brother John, was the firſt who brought the Art of Printing unto that city. Che⯑villier tells us, he has ſeen it in the library of the Mazarine-college at Paris in two volumes, and that tho' the imprimatur doth not mention the Prin⯑ter, yet it is eaſy to gueſs at him by the Italian verſes, which Squazafica has put to that edition.

7. Mr. Mattaire mentions another fol. Italian Bible printed in the ſame year 1571, of Malhermi's tranſlation, without Printer or places name. Fa⯑ther le Long is the author he has taken it from.

8. The latin Bible reprinted at Mentz by Peter Schoeffer ann. 1472, on the eve of St. Matthias the apoſtle fol. the learned Walton (editor of our Engliſh edition of the Polyglot) thought this the firſt impreſſion of the Bible, and ſeem'd doubtful of what ſome authors had affirm'd, that they had ſeen ſome more antient editions that that; how much he was miſtaken [102] the reader may judge by the foregoing ones: this Bible has a colophon at the end, not unlike thoſe us'd by his maſter and himſelf, in the former edi⯑tion and ſome other of their works.

9. Mr. Mattaire (after Father le Long,) mentions a latin impreſſion ann. 1473 without Printer or places name. Annal. Typogr. p. 100.

10. The latin Bible fol. printed at Paris by Ulric Gering, Martin Crantz, and Michael Friburger, the firſt who ſet up a preſs in that city. This Bi⯑ble, which Chevillier has ſeen in the library of the Celeſtin monks, and has given us the colophon of; importing its being printed in the 13th year of Lewis XI. reign, i. e. ann. 1475, is the ſame which we ſuppoſe Mr. Mattaire's friend did inform him to have been printed in the 3d year of that monarch, i. e. ann. 1464: we need not therefore repeat here, what we ſaid juſt before under that head; Mr. Mattaire however places this under the year 1476.

11. The latin Bible printed at Nuremberg in the ſame year 1475 in fol. by Anthony Koburger or Coburger firſt Printer of that city; in which libra⯑ry J. Saubert tells us, they have a copy ſtill extant, we have another in the publick library at Oxford.

12. Another latin Bible without Printer or places name, printed alſo ann. 1475. fol. Mattaire p. 110.

13. The Bible in Italian printed by James de Rubeis, alias des Rouges, at Pignerol in Piedmont, ann. 1475, fol. idem.

14.—in latin quarto, printed at Placentia by John de Ferratis Cremoneſe ann. 1475.

15.—in low dutch, fol. at Cologn ann. 1475, without Printer's name, idem.

16.—in latin printed in fol. ann. 1476 at Venice, by Nicholas Jenſon in Gothick character, a copy of which is ſtill to be ſeen in the library of the Celeſtin monks at Paris.

17.—printed at Venice by Francis Hailbrun and Nicholas de Frankford partners, ann. 1476 fol. Chevillier ſeems doubtful, whether this and the laſt are not the ſame edition under different partners names; but Mr. Mat⯑taire and father Orlandi give them as two different editions.

[103] 18. The Bible in latin with canons and concordances fol. printed at Nu⯑rembergh by Anthony Koburger ann. 1476. Orlandi is the firſt author that has mention'd it: but doth not tell us where he ſaw it or how he came by the knowledge of it.

19.—ead. printed at Naples, ann. 1476, fol. by Matthias Mo⯑ravus de Olomuntz; the colophon of which has ſome lines in commendation of the Printer.

20.—ead. printed at Nurembergh by Anthony Koburger ann. 1477, fol. it has the arguments and references like that printed by the ſame Printer ann. 1476.

21.—ead. fol. printed by Bernard Richel citizen of Baſil, ann. 1477, without places name.

22.—in Italian by Malhermi fol. printed at Venice by Anthony de Bononia, ann. 1477.

23.—ead. printed at Venice by Gabriel de Piero, a native of Treviſo, ann. 1477, fol.

24.—in high dutch, fol. by Anthony Sorgius at Ausburgh, 1477.

25.—ead. 1477, without Printers name.

26.—in low dutch, fol. at Delph 1477.

27.—ead. in quarto, 1477.

28.—in latin with Gothick character, fol. at Venice by Leonard Wild for Francis de Hailbrun and Nicholas de Franck⯑ford, 1478.

29.—ead. in Gothick, fol. by Theodoric de Reynsberg and Reynald de Novimagio, fol. 1478.

30.—ead. with the arguments and references of Menardus Mo⯑nachus, fol. printed at Nurembergh by Anthony Coburger, 1478.

31.—ead. in Gothic fol. at Venice by Nic. Jenſon, 1479.

32.—ead. with arguments and concordance fol. by Anthony Coburger at Nurembergh, 1479.

33.—ead. fol. at Lyons by Perrin de Lathomi de Lotharingis, 1479.

34.—ead. fol. without Printer's name at Cologn 1479.

35.—in low dutch, fol. at Goude in Holland by Gerard Leeu, 1479.

[104] 36. The Bible in latin with the apoſtils of Nic. de Lyra, fol. by John de Cologn and John Manthen, 1480; the place is not mention'd, but theſe two printed at Venice from 1471 to 1481, if not beyond. Orland.

37.—ead. quarto at Venice for Octavian Scot, 1480. by Fran⯑cis Halibrun.

38.—in High Dutch at Ausburgh, 2 vol. fol. by Ant. Sergius ci⯑tizen of it, 1480.

39.—in Latin fol. by Anthony Coburger, at Nuremberg 1480.

40.—ead. with ſummaries and references fol. by John Zeiner of Reutlingen at Ulms, 1480.

41.—ead. with apoſtils of N. de Lyra 7 vol. fol. Cologn, 1480 without printers name.

42.—ead. with Gothic character, by Leonard Wild of Ratis⯑bon, fol. at Venice 1481.

43.—ead. with poſtills of N. de Lyra by John de Cologn, Nic. Jenſon, and partners fol. 1481; no place nam'd, but they printed at Venice.

44.—ead. in fol. by Conrard Lentorius at Nurembergh, 1481.

45.—in Italian, by Malermi fol. printed at Venice for Octavian Scot, 1481.

46.—in latin quarto at Venice by Francis Renner de Hailbrun, 1482.

47.—ead. by Reynhard of Strasburg, and Nichol. Philipi de Gernſheym fol. at Strasburg [Argentoratum] 1482.

48.—by Ant. Coburger at Nuremberg, 1483.

49.—in quarto by Francis Renner de Hailbrun at Venice, 1483.

50.—in fol. by John, ſirnam'd the Great, Herbort, German at Venice, 1483.

51.—in high dutch by Ant. Coburger at Nuremberg, 1483.

52.—ead. in fol. at Ausburg 1483 without printers name.

53.—in latin fol. by John Zainer de Reutlingen. Ausburg 1484.

54.—ead. by Ant. Coburger fol. at Nuremberg, 1484.

55.—ead. in quarto by John, ſirnam'd the Great, Herboxt of Selgenſtat at Venice, 1484.

[105] 56. The Bible in Latin fol. at Nuremberg without Printer's name 1484.

57.—in Italian fol. at Venice by Andrea de Pattaſichis de Ca⯑tharo, 1484.

58.—in high Dutch at Lubeck by Stephen Arnold, 1484.

59.—ead. at Stratzburg no printers name, 1485.

60.—in Latin at Antwerp fol. by Nicholas Keſter, 1487.

61.—ead. in quarto Venice 1487, without Printer's name.

62.—ead. in fol. Baſil, 1487, id.

63.—ead. in fol. with Lyra's apoſtils, 5 vol. fol. no Printer's name but known to be printed by Ant. Coburger, Nu⯑remberg, 1487.

64.—in French fol. by Antony Verard, Paris, 1487.

65.—in high Dutch fol. Ausburg 1487. no Printer's name.

66.—in Hebrew with points, fol. by Abraham Ben Rabb. Hhajim at Soncino, 1488.

67.—in Latin, fol. at Venice for Octavian Scot, 1489.

68.—ead. in Gothic character, fol. revis'd by Stephen Pariſetti and printed by James Malieti, no place's name, 1490.

69.—in high Dutch, 4to, Ausburgh, 1490, no Printer's name.

70.—ead. 4to, at Nurembergh, 1490; no Printer's name, but ſuppos'd to be printed by A. Coburger.

71.—in Latin, fol. at Venice by Simon de Gara, 1491.

72.—ead. at Baſil, 4to, 1491; no Printer's name.

73.—ead. at Venice, 4to, 1491, id.

74.—ead. at Baſil by John Froben, 8vo, in a ſmall letter, 1491.

75.—ead. with Lyra's apoſtils, 4 vol. fol. Stratzburg, 1492.

76.—ead. cum gloſſa ordinaria vol. 6. fol. Nurembergh by An⯑thony Coburger, 1493.

77.—in high Dutch by Stephen Arndes, fol. at Lubeck, 1493.

78.—ead. Gothic character, 4to, at Venice, by Fr. Renner de Hailbrun, 1494.

79.—in Italian, folio, by John Roſſo, 1494; Venice.

80.—in Latin 4to, at Venice by Simon Bevilaqua citizen of Pa⯑via, 1494.

81.—in Hebrew, 8vo, by Gerſon Ben Moſes of Soncino at Brix⯑ia, 1494

[106] 82. The Bible in Hebrew, 4to and 8vo, at Piſauro, 1494; without Prin⯑ter's name.

83.—in Latin by Matthew Hus German, fol. 1494; no place's name, but we find him printing at Lyons three years before this.

84.—in high Dutch 4to, at Ausburg, 1494; no Printer's name.

85.—in Latin with Ord. Gloſſ. and Lyra's apoſtils, fol. by Pa⯑ganino de Paganinis, 1495.

86.—ead. Gothic character, by John Froben de Hamelburgh, 8vo Baſil 1495.

87.—ead. 4to, by Jacob and Angelus Brittans at Breſcia, 1496.

88.—ead. with Ord. Gloſſ. and de Lyra's apoſtils, 6 vol. fol. at Nuremberg, 1496; by Ant. Coburger.

89.—ead. corrected by Angelus de Monte Ulmi 8vo, printed by Jerom de Paganinis at Venice, 1497.

90.—ead. in Gothic character with ſummaries, &c. by Franc. Fradin and John Pivard 4to, 1497; no place's name.

91.—ead. fol. at Cologn 1497; without Printer's name.

92.—ead. at Strasburgh, ditto.

93.—ead. with Lyra's apoſtils 6 vol. fol. Baſil 1498; no Prin⯑ter's name.

94.—ead. by Simon Bevilaqua 4to, Venice 1498.

95.—ead. 4to, by John Pivard 1500; no places name.

96.—ead. by Simon Voſtre, fol. Paris 1500.

97.—ead. fol. at Nuremberg 1500; no Printer's name.

98.—ead. by John Froben, Baſil 1500.

99.—ead. 8vo, Lyons 1500.

I have purpoſedly omitted ſome leſs conſiderable ones, which are either without Printer or places name, or both; becauſe ſuch were only the wretched performances of a few, who made it their buſineſs to reprint the editions of ſome of the moſt famous Printers of Europe, whether of the Bible, or of any other conſiderable work; and to vend them under⯑hand for the right ones: this was an abuſe which began very early to be complain'd of; for no ſooner had a Froben, Badius, Aldus or any other [107] great Printer publiſh'd a work, which had coſt him infinite pains to cor⯑rect, as well as great ſums of money to purchaſe the beſt manuſcripts, but they pyrated them in ſuch a ſhameful and incorrect manner, that they could afford to ſell them for leſs than half the price. And as there wanted not ſordid perſons to encourage this vile practice, and to prefer thoſe maim'd performances to the more correct ones, if they could but ſave money by them; it often prov'd that the ſale of a valuable edition was hinder'd, to the great loſs and diſcouragement of the Printer, whilſt the bad ones went off with eaſe: this occaſion'd them to complain of the abuſe, in their prefaces to their works, and to appeal to the learned againſt ſuch practices; ſome of whom (in particular Eraſmus) did not fail to write very ſharply againſt thoſe enemies to learning, who were at length come up to ſuch a degree of impudence, as to counterfeit the names, marks and rebus's of the famous Printers, of which we ſhall have occaſion to give an account hereafter. In the mean time, all their complaints and efforts proving ineffectual towards the ſuppreſſing ſuch pyracies; they were forc'd to have recourſe to the higher powers, and to employ the aſſiſtance of their learned patrons, to obtain them patents and privileges for the ſole printing of thoſe works, upon which they had beſtow'd ſo much pains and coſt: but this more properly belongs to the next book to which I am now haſtening.

CHAP. I. The City of Mentz, Monaſtery of Subiaco, and the City of Ausburgh.

CHAP. II. 1. The firſt Printers at Rome; their Patrons and Correctors; Books printed by them, &c. their Pe⯑tition to the Pope. 2. The City of Tours, 1467. 3. The Town of Reutlingen, 1469.

SOON after Ausburgh had receiv'd the Art of Printing, it was brought to Rome by two Germans, Conrard Sweynheim and Arnold Pannarts; who ſet up a printing-houſe there anno 1466, the ſecond year [123] of the pontificate of Paul II. under the patronage of John Andreas Bi⯑ſhop of Aleria, who was the Popes library-keeper, juſtly fam'd for his learning and generoſity. Theſe printers aſſiſted with that prelates purſe, did immediately prepare an elegant, round, Roman character, and a ſuffi⯑cient quantity of the fineſt paper; they invented likewiſe ſuch variety of ſpaces, as kept a beautiful diſtance between the words, and made their impreſſions appear with the greateſt neatneſs and exactneſs. Their mar⯑gins were broad, and not only added a grace to the pages, but render⯑ed them likewiſe convenient for the writing of notes, &c. and their ink was ſo excellent, that it ſtill looks as freſh as if newly printed. In ſhort, they were perſons who valu'd their credit, and the honour of pleaſing their patron more than riches; and ſpar'd neither coſt nor labour, in order to make their impreſſions as beautiful and correct, as poſſible; which any one that has ſeen them, will own with pleaſure.

I doubt not but the great acquaintance amongſt the learned, which their noble patron's friendſhip procur'd them, might be a great means of their improving the art to ſuch a degree; ſeeing ſuch perſons were beſt able to diſcover the faults and inconveniences of the firſt printed books, which theſe Germans might more eaſily rectify when they became ac⯑quainted with them. Theſe two partners ſettled themſelves in the houſe of Peter and Francis de Maximis, brothers and Roman knights; where the Biſhop of Aleria not only furniſh'd them with the moſt valuable manuſcripts, out of the Vatican and other libraties, but alſo prepar'd them himſelf, corrected their proofs, and prefix'd prefaces and de⯑dications to their works, in order to recommend them the more to the learned world. This laborious taſk was follow'd by him with ſuch application, that he ſcarce allow'd himſelf time to ſleep. What a value this great Biſhop had both for the art and theſe two great maſters of it, appears from his dedication to Pope Paul II. prefix'd to the edition of St. Jerom's Epiſtles, which I ſhall now give the Engliſh reader a tranſlati⯑on of. ‘"It was, ſays he, in your days, that among many other divine favours this bleſſing was beſtow'd on the Chriſtian world, that every poor ſcholar can purchaſe for himſelf a library for a ſmall ſum,—that thoſe volumes, which heretofore could ſcarce be bought for an hundred crowns, may now be procur'd for leſs than twenty, very well [124] printed, and free from thoſe faults with which manuſcripts us'd to abound.—for ſuch is the art of our printers and letter-makers, that no antient or modern diſcovery is comparable to it. Surely the German nation deſerves our higheſt eſteem, for the invention of the moſt uſeful arts. The wiſh of the noble and divine Cardinal Cuſa, is now—in your time accompliſh'd, who earneſtly deſir'd that this ſacred art, which then ſeem'd riſing in Germany, might be brought to Rome. Your Pontificate, (glorious in every reſpect,) will be as immortal as learning it ſelf. In which this art was brought and laid at your Holi⯑neſs's feet.—It is my chief aim in this epiſtle to let poſterity know, that the art of printing and type-making was brought to Rome under Paul II. This bleſſing was certainly confer'd on us by our heavenly Shepherd, that a book is now purchas'd for leſs than a binding for⯑merly. Receive then, great, generous and glorious Pontif, the firſt volume of St. Jerom, graciouſly,—and take the excellent maſters of this art, Conrard Sweynheym and Arnold Pannarts, Germans, under your protection, &c."’

THUS were theſe two printers careſs'd and encourag'd by moſt of the men of letters and fortune at Rome, and even by the Pope himſelf, who frequently viſited their Printing-houſe, and examin'd with admiration every branch of this new art; which ſeem'd deſign'd to recover learn⯑ing, and reſtore that city to its antient luſtre. This excited them to approve themſelves worthy of all that eſteem, which was ſhew'd them, by publiſhing a vaſt number of elegant impreſſions, ſome of which were ſo large that they could not be done without great labor and charges, as will be evident from the liſt of their works, which they preſented to the Pope, of which we ſhall give an account in its proper place.

WHAT their firſt impreſſion was, whether Cicero's Familiar Epiſtles, or St. Auſtin's book de Civitate Dei, is what authors can by no means agree about; that the former was printed at Rome ann. 1467, with a latin epi⯑gram, at the end of which their names are at full length; and on the fol⯑lowing year, a new edition of St. Auſtin's book ¹ is plain beyond contra⯑diction: [125] the diſpute therefore ſeems to be about an edition of it, older by a year; in which the Printer, without either naming himſelf, or the place in which it was done, contents himſelf with this colophon in latin, MCCCCLXVII, in the third year of Pope Paul II, &c. from which laſt words, and the likeneſs of the character with the Lactantius printed at Su⯑biaco, and their firſt impreſſions at Rome; they venture to affirm it to have been printed by them, without deciding whether at Rome or any where elſe. Orlandi, the laſt writer upon the ſubject, ſpeaks of it as follows, p. 67 ¹. ‘"It is certain that the firſt work, that came out of their preſs has been univerſally believ'd by authors to be St. Auſtin's book de civitate Dei; and tho' it mentions neither the name of the place or of the Printer, yet being printed in a round Roman character, and in the third year of Paul II. ann. 1467, as may be ſeen at the end of the ſaid book;"’ it cannot but have been done by them; but I think I have two material objections againſt it: the firſt is, that if they had printed it at Rome, they would not have omitted it in their liſt to the Pope; and if at Subiaco or any where elſe, I cannot ſee how they could print the Ci⯑cero at Rome in the ſame year. Secondly, tho' the likeneſs of the character ſeems to carry ſome proof, and inclin'd him to believe the edition of Su⯑biaco to have been alſo done by them; yet it is evident by what we hin⯑ted in the introduction, that they were ſo far from being furniſh'd with a Greek alphabet, that their firſt works have all the greek done upon wood in a very inelegant manner; and that whenever the quotation was above three or four words, they left a blank ſpace to be fill'd afterwards with the pen; whereas this of Lactantius has all the greek quotations printed in a beautiful caſt letter: and therefore tho' we may allow this edition and that diſputed one of St. Auſtin's, to have been done by the ſame hand, yet it is plain it could not be done by thoſe two Germans. If we can believe them, they'll tell us, that they began their firſt tryal with a leſs conſide⯑rable work, viz. Donatus's grammar, of which they printed only 300 co⯑pies: this is plain, both by their putting it at the head of their liſt, and [126] by their prefacing it with the words—unde imprimendi initium ſumpſimus, after which they went on with ¹ Cicero's Epiſtles, and the reſt of their works without mentioning any edition of St. Auſtin's before the year 1468: the epigram which we mention'd before, to be at the end of both theſe editi⯑ons is as follows,

I have already hinted their method of managing the Greek quotations, which they follow'd in the firſt volumes they printed, that is 'till the middle of the year 1469: perhaps were they forc'd to it for want of work⯑men to cut the Greek alphabet; but at length, notwithſtanding the neg⯑lect of that tongue might have excus'd them from the labour and expence of procuring ſetts of punches and matrices for Printing in that language, and the difficulty of finding workmen fit for ſuch a task, they ſurmoun⯑ted every obſtacle of this nature, and form'd a compleat Greek alphabet, which they us'd in the edition of Aulus Gellius. Concerning this edition the Biſhop of Aleria ſpeaks thus; ‘"However, this prov'd a very ardu⯑ous taſk at firſt;—for a great part of the Latin was corrupted thro' the negligence of the tranſcribers; and a much greater part of the Greek deprav'd, maim'd, and mutilated. Even that, which remain'd entire, was ſcarce underſtood by Latin ſcholars, by reaſon of their ig⯑norance in Greek. Some attempts have been made by perſons ſkill'd in both tongues, to reſtore this jewell to its former luſtre; but they, either diſcourag'd by the difficulty, or diverted by other affairs, de⯑ſiſted from the undertaking."’ Thus writes that learned prelate, who by the aſſiſtance of Theodore Gaza, a man of great abilities and univerſal learning, perform'd this admirable work, rectify'd the Latin text, and render'd the Greek intelligible. This edition was printed ann. 1469 in a fine character, with the arguments to each book done in red by the illu⯑minators. [127] The quotations, which are long and more frequent, than in any other author, are printed in a fair Greek character, conſidering this kind of printing was but in its infancy; and what is extremely remarka⯑ble, they were ſo correctly printed, that, as we are aſſur'd by Mr. Mat⯑taire, in two whole pages, which contain'd ſeventy ſix lines of a conſide⯑rable length, there were but fourteen faults of impreſſion. The place, mention'd by that author, may be ſeen in pag. 46 of his Annales Typogr▪ where he has ſet down thoſe places, which were wrong printed, in order to convince the world, by the ſmallneſs of their number, of the accu⯑racy and diligence of thoſe two Printers.

HE tells us likewiſe that their Greek character was ſomewhat large, round and even, without accents, ligatures, abbreviations, or any thing that might perplex the reader, except only that ſometimes two or more words were join'd together without any ſpace between them; and that the periods had either no full ſtop, or one in the wrong place; ſo that a perſon, not us'd to MSS. was doubtful where the ſenſe ended. To this edition was prefix'd a dedicatory Epiſtle of the Biſhop of Aleria to the Pope, wherein he acknowledges the kindneſs of his Holineſs and the Car⯑dinal of Oſtia, in ſupplying him with money in his greateſt exigencies; and promiſes to proceed with the utmoſt induſtry in furniſhing the learn⯑ed world with new productions from the preſs. At the end of the book is a copy of verſes, ſuppos'd to be written by the ſame prelate, in praiſe of that edition, which are elegant for thoſe times, the reader may find them at length in Mr. Mattaire's Annals p. 47. I ſhall only give a latin octaſtich, which was printed at the end of ſeveral of their impreſſions, in commendation of the printers; wherein the poet apologizes for the harſhneſs of their German names, offenſive without doubt to an Italian ear. They are inſerted particularly in the firſt edition of St. Jerom's Epiſtles, and the great work of Nich. de Lyra entitled Gloſſa ordinaria in univerſam Bibliam, 5 vol. fol. and in ſeveral others. The reader will find them in the margin ⁸⁵. Thus they continued printing without inter⯑miſſion [128] miſſion for ſeven years, whilſt their patron procur'd 'em all poſſible aſſiſ⯑tance, and overlook'd their impreſſions. This is manifeſt from the edi⯑tions of Tully, St. Jerom, Livy, Lucan, the works of St. Leo, Ovid, Ni⯑cholas de Lyra, and eſpecially of Pliny, with many more; in which the Biſhop acquaints the world with the pains, taken by himſelf and his con⯑ſtant aſſiſtant Theod. Gaza, in correcting the originals, and preſiding over the editions ¹. For this reaſon Dr. Mentel, mention'd in our firſt book, affirms him to have been corrector of Sweynheim's preſs, and Campanus Biſhop of Teramo, who was Ulric Han's patron, to have per⯑form'd the ſame office in his ². This is likewiſe aſſerted by Naudé in his ſupplement to the hiſtory of Lewis XI ³, and divers other writers. But it is queſtionable whether thoſe excellent perſons can properly be call'd correctors, or rather do not deſerve the title of authors or editors.

HOWEVER, there is an eminent paſſage in this Epiſtle of the Biſhop's before Pliny's works, which as it demonſtrates his care and diligence in his province, ought not to be omitted. ‘"It was, ſays he ⁴, the earneſt requeſt of Ireneus Bp. of Lyons; and of Juſtin, who of a philoſopher became a martyr, and likewiſe of St. Jerom and Euſebius of Ceſarea, to the lateſt poſterity, that thoſe, who were to tranſcribe their works, would diligently compare the copies of them, and carefully correct them: the ſame requeſt I make now, both with reſpect to other books, and in particular to Pliny, leſt that work, which coſt ſo much labour and ſtudy, (for he ſpent above nine whole years in it) ſhould again ſink into its former errors and inextricable darkneſs."’

[129] HITHER TO we have ſeen the flouriſhing ſtate of this preſs, which in the ſpace of ſix or ſeven years at moſt, viz. from ann. 1467 to 1472, oblig'd the world with no leſs than twelve thouſand four hundred and ſe⯑venty five volumes, in eight and twenty editions, ſome of them very large, and all beautiful and correct; ſo that if their vaſt labours and coſt had met with ſuitable ſucceſs, they muſt have rais'd a prodigious eſtate. But, whatever be the cauſe, 'tis certain that the greateſt part of this li⯑brary remain'd ſtill in their hands for want of buyers; which reduc'd them to the moſt neceſſitous circumſtances. Father Orlandi endeavours to account for this ill-ſucceſs, by ſuppoſing that their impreſſions, being in Roman character, were diſlik'd in thoſe days, becauſe the learned had been ſo accuſtom'd to the old Gothick, as not to approve of this new, tho' preferable one. This conjecture ſeems the more probable upon two accounts; 1. Becauſe ſeveral eminent printers were oblig'd to com⯑ply with the taſt of the age, and uſe the old character, reſembling that of MSS. 2. Moſt of the firſt Printers of Paris, Venice, Rome, &c. who began with the Roman, were forc'd by degrees to reſume the old Go⯑thick, which continu'd till almoſt the middle of the next century, and prov'd the ruin of many valuable impreſſions in divers parts of Europe. However that be, our two Germans under theſe preſſing exigencies had recourſe to their great patron, who immediately drew up a petition in their names and behalf to Pope Xyſtus IV, ſubjoin'd to the fifth volume of Nich. de Lyra's Gloſſ. and preſented on the 20th of March 1472. In this he repreſents their great merit and miſery in the moſt pathetick terms imaginable; gives a catalogue of all the volumes printed by them, the greateſt part of which was ſtill unſold; prays his Holineſs to conſider their deplorable caſe; and declares their readineſs to deliver up the un⯑ſold books either to him, or to whomſoever he ſhould command, for their preſent ſubſiſtance. The Biſhop, to ſhew that he was ſenſibly touch'd with their misfortune, prefaceth the petition in his own name, and requeſts the Pope to hear the juſt complaint of his worthy and in⯑duſtrious Printers; and afterwards expoſes their circumſtances in their own words. As this curious piece has never yet, that I know of, been tranſlated into Engliſh; I preſume the reader will be pleas'd to ſee it, with the promis'd liſt of their works, both which they printed with the [130] works N. de Lyra; Chevillier tells us he ſaw it at the beginning of Tome 5. of that great work. It is as follows,

THE liſt of thoſe books conſiſting entirely of Latin, I have put them with the original of the petition in the margin, and have added the date of the year wherein each was printed, as far as it could be procur'd, there being none in the catalogue. The order of time is not obſerv'd, but only the number of copies of each. We may likewiſe infer what book were then moſt eſteem'd, not upon the account of their authors, but of their uſefulneſs, by the proportionate number printed of them. The petition thus proceeds.

‘"THE total of theſe volumes amounts to twelve thouſand four hun⯑dred ſeventy five, a prodigious heap, and intolerable to us, your Holi⯑neſs's printers, by reaſon of thoſe unſold.—We are no longer able to bear the great expence of houſe-keeping for want of buyers; of which there cannot be a more flagrant proof, than that our houſe, otherwiſe ſpatious enough, is full of Quire-books, but void of every neceſſary of life:—we are ready, if your goodneſs ſhall judge it ⁹⁰ [132] meet, to deliver up as much of our wares, i. e. print [...]d ſheets, as you pleaſe, to your ſelf, or to whom you ſhall order.—We therefore be⯑ſeech your great Clemency to beſtow ſome place upon us, whereby we may be enabled to maintain our ſelves and families. The im⯑preſſion of Nicol. de Lyra's works hath prov'd ſo chargeable, that we have nothing left to live upon. Could we ſell our books, we ſhould be ſo far from deſiring any thing at your hands, that on the contrary we ſhould willingly contribute of our own to you, whoſe exigencies at this juncture we are well acquainted with; and this ſhall readily be perform'd, whenever fortune, by your aſſiſtance, ſhall ſmile upon us. In the mean time, let your Holineſs pity and help us, whoſe neceſſity is ſo exceeding great.—March xx, ann. MCCCCLXXII, and in the firſt year of your moſt gracious pontificate."’

THUS were theſe indigent perſons oblig'd to expoſe their miſery to the world; with what ſucceſs, I cannot learn: tho' it is evident from their printing a conſiderable time after, as ſhall be ſhewn, that ſome method muſt have been taken to extricate them from thoſe wretched cir⯑cumſtances. Sweynheim indeed publiſh'd nothing after the year 1473, and for that reaſon is ſuppos'd by ſome to have dy'd about that time; yet his partner Pannartz continu'd printing till ann. 1476, in a ſmaller character than what was us'd by him in company with the former. It will not perhaps be amiſs to remark that the word quinternio in the peti⯑tion, tranſlated by us Quire-books, ſignifies a quire of five ſheets ſo im⯑pos'd, that they are put into one another by the book-binder, and the firſt ſheet contains the firſt and laſt of the 10 leaves, the ſecond the 2d and 9th, &c. this method oblig'd 'em to compoſe twenty whole pages of mat⯑ter, before they work'd it off at preſs; and requir'd a prodigious quan⯑tity of letter to every Font. All the editions of theſe two partners as yet known, from their firſt ſettlement at Rome, ann. 1467 to 1473 in which Sweynheim is thought to have dy'd, are 40 in number, all folio's and in latin; ſome of them pretty conſiderable, ſuch were their Bible of 1471 mention'd in the former book in two large volumes, and Nicol. de Lyra in five larger ones; the works of Pope Leo ſirnam'd the Great, &c. As for thoſe which Pannartz printed afterwards by himſelf, we have not been able to diſcover above ſix, all latin folio's, but none ſo conſiderable as the three [133] laſt named: he began to uſe the Regiſtrum Chartarum (which is the ſigna⯑tures plac'd at the end of the book thus, A B C D, &c. and ſo on for as many ſheets as the book contains) in his edition of Herodotus tranſlated by Laurent. Valla, and printed ann. 1475; his latter works are done in a very elegant character; the laſt of which is the Quaeſtiones de Veritate of Thom-Aquinas. It muſt be obſerv'd that many of theſe editions are printed with⯑out date, and ſometimes without their names, but moſt of them have one or the other of the Epigrams mention'd before viz. Hoc Conradus opus &c. or Aſpicis illuſtres, &c. but oftener the latter.

THESE are all the particulars I could meet with concerning theſe two Printers. The next in rank is,

ULDRIC HAN ann. MCCCCLXVIII.

ULDRIC HAN is commonly call'd in Latin, Gallus, in Italian Gallo, and in French Coq, which ſignifies a Cock; for every writer upon this ſubject, has thought fit to tranſlate his name into that language in which he wrote. This Printer came and ſet up a Printing-preſs at Rome within a very ſhort ſpace after Sweynheim and Pannartz. He was a perſon ſo accom⯑pliſh'd in his art, that ſeveral nations have claim'd him, and in particu⯑lar the Germans and French. Theſe latter grounded their pretences up⯑on the following authority. Anthony Campanus biſhop of Terumo, the moſt diſtinguiſh'd poet and orator of his time, perform'd the ſame office to him, which the biſhop of Aleria did to the two Germans, viz. of pre⯑paring and correcting his copies, reviſing his editions, and writing epi⯑ſtles and commendatory verſes upon them. He obſerving that Han had latiniz'd his name, and ſubſcrib'd one or two of his impreſſions Uldaricus Gallus, particularly the edition of the univerſal hiſtory of Rodoricus San⯑tius a Spaniard, whom Pope Paul II made governour of the caſtle of St Angelo and biſhop of Palentino, took occaſion to miſtake his name will⯑fully, (for he could not poſſibly be ignorant of his being a German,) and to repreſent him as a Frenchman, not ſo much out of reſpect to that na⯑tion above the Germans, as for the ſake of a pun in his epigram, which you will find in the margin ¹. The witticiſm conſiſts chiefly in this, [134] that the Gauls or French being diſcover'd by the noiſe of the geeſe one night in their attempt to ſurprize the Roman Capitol, a countryman of theirs had found out a way to be reveng'd of them, by teaching the world an art of writing without the help of their quills. Theſe verſes are annex'd to an edition of T. Livy by U. Han without date, and quo⯑ted by ſeveral authors.

MICH. FERNUS in his life of that Biſhop tells us, that he learn'd this epigram of a Turk, whom he met with in a journey to the Pope's territories; and who gave him account of his converſion to the chriſtian religion, and his early love of eloquence, which induc'd him to leave Turky and come to Rome, to ſee the famous Paul II. and Campanus, whoſe works he had carefully collected; and amongſt other things recited this epigram. However, 'tis evident that he was a German by his adding the name of his country to that of Gallus in ſeveral of his editions. Thus, in that of Cicero de Oratore, ann. 1468. he calls himſelf Ulricum Gallum de Wienâ; in St Auſtin de civitate Dei ann. 1474, Ulricum Gallum Almanum; in ſome others Ulricum Gallum de Bienna & de Ingolſtat. Wimpheling un⯑dertook to prove him a German againſt Fernus, who in his life of Campa⯑nus chang'd Gallus into Gallicus to make him an abſolute Frenchman, and aſcrib'd this miſtake to his having tranſlated his name into latin; which, as Hermolaus Barbarus aſſerts, ought never to be done. But in this he did no more than what was frequent among the Germans and others, who to ſoften the harſhneſs of their ſirnames, either alter'd or latiniz'd them; ſo Fuſt chang'd his into Fauſtus, Schoeffer into Opilio, Leichtenſtein into Le⯑vi lapis, des Rouges into de Rubeis, and the learned Stephens into Stephanus; which cuſtom ſtill prevails in foreign parts: and the famous Monſ. le Clerc of Amſterdam, ſtiles himſelf Joan. Clericus in all his latin works. To return to Ulric IIan.

THE time of his firſt coming to Rome is not eaſily determin'd. Some affirm that he was ſettled there before Sweynheim and Pannartz, as Wimpheling, Monſ. Naude, and Dr. Mentel; but this ſeems improbable upon two accounts. 1. Becauſe we have no edition of his ſo ancient as thoſe of the two laſt nam'd; 2. Becauſe the Bp. of Aleria, who was the editor of all the firſt impreſſions of theſe, determines in their favour; and his teſtimony is of much greater weight in this caſe, than that of [135] thoſe writers. He attributes the honour to Sweynheim, &c. of having founded the firſt Printing-houſe at Rome, and brought the Art from Germany, in the preceding Popes reign, and by their example encourag'd others to do the like; as he ſpeaks in the petition to Xyſtus IV, above quoted. Now Xyſtus's predeceſſor was Paul II, who was advanc'd to that dignity in Auguſt 1464; and in his days they came to Rome. If Campanus, the pa⯑tron of Ulric, had known of his ſettling there before them, he would certainly have contradicted the Bp. of Aleria, and maintain'd the prio⯑rity to the man, who, under his protection, prov'd ſo indefatigable in his buſineſs, that himſelf was engag'd night and day in reviſing his works ¹. The merit of this Printer appears from his fine impreſſions, and the choice that his patron made of him to publiſh thoſe works, which he had procur'd and corrected with the utmoſt application, as well as from the praiſes, which he gives him in his prefatory epiſtles and verſes. We find by the liſt of his books, that he frequently neglected the date of the impreſſion and his own name. The former defect is ſupplied, as far as poſſible, from ſome material circumſtances, either in the epiſtles affix'd to them, or elſewhere in the book; and the latter by a diligent compar⯑ing of one edition with another; for there is ſome peculiar difference between the characters of the firſt Printers, by which a nice obſerver may judge of the author.

THUS Mr. Mattaire remarks that the types of Con. Sweynheim and Arn. Pannartz, were eaſily known by their having a long ſ at the end of words, the i without a point, and no diphthongs: thoſe of Nic. Jenſon were much more round and neat, with the diphthongs, ae and oe; whereas Jo. Spires made uſe of e for ae, and Ulric Han uſes a ſingle e inſtead of a diphthong.

ABOUT 1473, Han took Simon Nicolai de Luca into partnerſhip with him till the end of the year 1474, after which he printed by himſelf till 1476. There was alſo a brother of his, call'd Lupus Han, whoſe name ſtands alone in ſome of thoſe impreſſions, which are nevertheleſs allow'd to be Ulric's [136] by reaſon of the likeneſs of the character &c. and added to the liſt of his works by the two lateſt annaliſts, Mr. Maittaire and Father Orlandi. He affected to put at the end of ſome of his editions, the colophon of John Fauſt and Peter Schoeffer. Non atramento, plumali calamo, &c. i. e. that it was not done with pen, ink, or any other writing inſtrument, &c.

ANN. 1473 he began to print a regiſter in two columns at the end of his Virgil: all his other editions, as yet known, are 21 in number, the firſt of which is Cicero de Oratore in 3 books ann. 1468, the laſt Til [...] Livy in Italian 1476: this laſt is in three volumes fol. the 2d of which has an error in its date, where they have printed 1460 inſtead of 1476. This work has not indeed his name, but thoſe who have ſeen it make no doubt but it was printed by him.

THE two Germans had reaſon to tell the Pope in their petition, that their example had encourag'd many more Printers to come and ſettle at Rome, ſeeing we find no leſs than thirteen, who practis'd the ſame Art there between 1470 and 1490, beſides the brother of Uldric Han, and his partner Simon de Luca; and eight or nine of whom were actually ſettled there with⯑in a few years after the two former; but as we have nothing left particu⯑larly concerning them, except their names and their works, we ſhall juſt mention them as they came in courſe of time.

4. GEORGE LAVFR de Herbipoli 1470 alias Wortsburg, he wrought in the Monaſtery of St. Euſebius at Rome, as we find by an epigram of eight verſes in latin rhyme written, as is ſuppos'd, by his corrector Celeſtine Pulverinus; and printed at the end of his edition of Tractatus de Inſtituti⯑one ſimplicium Confeſſorum, ann. 1472; he had a partner ſome ſpace of the time, viz. Leonard Pelugi; we have but five editions of his; the firſt is that of St. Chryſoſtom's homilies, tranſlated into latin by Fr. Aretine, ſol. ann. 1470; the laſt is Durandi Speculum, ann. 1479; he had another cor⯑rector nam'd Pomponius.

5. ADAM ROT 1471, he us'd likewiſe Fauſt's colophon, and in the firſt of the two editions we have of him, ſtyles himſelf Clericus Metenſ. Dioceſ. his laſt edi [...]ion is dated 1474.

[137] 6. JOHN PHILIP de Lignamine 1472, he was a native of Meſſina and a Sicilian knight, and intimate with Pope Sixtus IV, to whom he in⯑ſcrib'd a book of his writing, De unoquoque Cibo & Potu utili homini & nocivo, & eorum primis qualitalibus. Malinkrot mentions him pag. 84 upon the authority of Simler, which laſt affirms him to have printed the following works at Rome, viz. Quintilian, Suetonius, the works of St. Leo, Lactantius, St. Ambroſe, Tully's Offices, Laur. Valla's Elegantiae, and Horatii opuſcula: but we find none of theſe editions in the liſt of his works, but only four leſs conſiderable ones, the three firſt in Italian, and the laſt, Euſebius's hiſtory tranſlated into Latin by Rufinus, and printed ann. 1476.

7. STEPHEN PLANCK of Padua 1472, we have eight editions of his, the laſt of which is dated 1497.

8. GEORGE SACHEL de Reichenhalt, 1474; his laſt edition of three is dated 1477.

9. JOHN REYNARD de Eningen, 1475; we have but one edition of his printed at Rome, ann. 1475, 14 years after which, we find him printing at Strasburgh.

10. JOHN de Nicolao Haneymar de Openheim, 1475,

11. JOHN SCHUSENER de Bopardia,1475,

we have but two editions of theirs, both dated 1475.

12. JOHN TIBULL de Amidanis Cremoneſe, 1475; the two editions we have of his bear the ſame date.

13. EUCHARIUS SILBER OF WIRTZBURGH, 1475.

THIS Silber, alias Franck, a German and native of Wirtzburgh, ſigna⯑liz'd himſelf at Rome by the fineneſs of his letter, which were of the Venetian ſort. He ſet up his Printing-houſe in Campo di Fiore; and not only tranſlated his name Silber [Silver] into latin, but likewiſe into greek; ſo that ſome of his editions are ſubſcrib'd Achirion and Argyrion, others Argenteus, added to that of Franck. The works we have of his are twenty one in number, from ann. 1475 to 1500: however he continued printing there many years after, but either the greateſt part of theſe laſt have been loſt, or elſe he printed but little, ſince we meet only with two editions of his from 1500 to 1509, in Mr. Mattaire's annals.

[138] HIS correctors were Michael Fern ſirnam'd Archipoeta, Bartholomeus Salicetus, and Ludovicus Regii; the firſt of whom collected with prodigious induſtry all biſhop Campanus's works, which he caus'd to be printed in two different places within ſix months of each other, viz. at Venice and Rome, in the order in which he had digeſted them. Theſe impreſſions were prin⯑ted ſo incorrectly, that he was oblig'd to inſert an Errata in Silber's edi⯑tion; wherein he expreſſes a vaſt deal of indignation, that a work, in which he had labour'd ſo much, ſhould yet be publiſh'd ſo full of faults; and gives it the following title, Vis ex ſtulto demens, idemque ex demente in⯑ſanus fieri? Libros Romae primus imprime, Corruptorum recognitio. After this he proceeds to the Errata, with an acknowledgement of his own er⯑rors, and endeavours to clear the Printers of others. He ſhows the care which he had taken to render the edition correct; but that his efforts were fruſtrated by the careleſſneſs of the Printers, who, being tir'd with a days labour, correct their proofs imperfectly, and frequently neglect or omit the author's corrections.

IN the ſequel of this hiſtory we ſhall have occaſion to mention ſome Errata's of a much greater length than the foregoing, which Fern com⯑plains ſo loudly of, tho' this contain'd four large pages in fol. The two laſt Printers in this city before 1500 are:

14. SIMON de Nicolo of Luca 1478, who had been ſometime partner to the fam'd Uldric Han, and of whom we have but one edition. And,

15. PETER de Turre, ann. 1490, in which year he printed Ptolemy's Coſ⯑mography in a large folio with maps and cutts, and in a beautiful character, [Orland. p. 79.] which is all that we have of his. We find about twenty more editions without Printer's names; however the reader will eaſily ſee by this liſt of Printers, and the ſcarcity of their works, that the Art began to dwindle very much before the cloſe of the century; and if he conſults Mr. Mattaire upon the next, he will find it ſtill much thinner of both; but whether for want of encouragement, or what other cauſe, is not my buſineſs to enquire.

CHAP. III. The City of Venice, 1469; the Names, Character, &c. of the Printers who flouriſh'd in this City from ann. 1469, to Aldus Manutius's Time, 1494

AS the city of Venice has excelled all others, not only in the num⯑ber of workmen and editions, but likewiſe in the goodneſs and excellency of them, I ſhall be forc'd to divide it into two chapters; in the firſt of which I ſhall ſpeak of thoſe Printers who flouriſh'd from its firſt ſettlement there by John and Vindelin de Spira, to the time of the great Aldus Manutius, whoſe merit alone will very well deſerve to be ſpoken of in a chapter by it ſelf, tho' there were no others to bear him company in it.

WITH reſpect to thoſe firſt Printers, 'twill be ſuperfluous to repeat here what I have ſaid, in the introduction of this book, concerning [141] Nich. Jenſon, and the reaſons for ſuſpending my judgment concerning his edition of 1461, and allowing the priority to the foregoing cities be⯑fore that of Venice. There will be further occaſion of ſpeaking of that Printer, when we ſhall come to thoſeother works of his, printed between the years 1470 and 1480. In the mean time I beg leave to remind the reader of the remark upon this head, which we juſt hinted in the intro⯑duction, viz. that the verſes at the end of the firſt impreſſion by John and Windelin of Spire ann. 1469, evidently prove them to have been the firſt who brought the Art to that city. The reader will find them in the margin ¹. Mr. Mattaire who hath a particular regard for his coun⯑tryman Jenſon, and firſt diſcover'd to the world the edition in diſpute, very juſtly intimates, that there was ſuch an emulation among the firſt Printers, that they made no ſcruple of claiming the priority from each other, right or wrong; either by falſe dates, as we hinted before, or by pompous verſes annex'd to their works; from which he infers a proba⯑bility that theſe two brothers might do ſo: whereas Jenſon, in his opini⯑on was too modeſt, to have been guilty of ſuch a piece of arrogance. For my part I can't ſee any neceſſity of accuſing either ſide of ſuch a fault, ſeeing they never charg'd each other with it; beſides Jenſon in all probabi⯑lity printed his book ſomewhere elſe, and therefore might indeed be too modeſt when he came to Venice, to challenge the priority from them as to that place in particular. However, as to the point of modeſty, I own I am at a loſs to what ſide to give it, ſeeing all the firſt impreſſions, both of Jenſon and of the two brothers, are back'd with epigrams equally mag⯑nificent, and I don't ſee where there would have been the leaſt immodeſty in either to have aſcertain'd a juſt claim, againſt an unjuſt aſſuming ri⯑val. Let me add, that (if there was any wilfull miſtake on either ſide, which I think there was not) it is more probable Jenſon ſhould have com⯑mitted it, than the two brothers; becauſe he might eaſily, if there was occaſion, excuſe it by making his date paſs for an error of impreſſion; whereas the two Germans publiſh'd themſelves, in words at length and [142] in the plaineſt terms, the firſt Printers at Venice, and ſo left no room for evaſion. I ſhall therefore begin with them, who were not inferior to Jenſon himſelf.

JOHN and VINDELINE of SPIRE, 1469. THEY were natives of Germany, but whether of the city of Spire, whoſe name they bear, or whether that was only their ſirname, I can⯑not determine; for tho' ſome of the epigrams annex'd to their books ſeem to imply the former, yet it is difficult to affirm certainly that it was not a poetical licence, which, in this caſe, might have been more excuſable than that of Campanus upon Ulric Han, mention'd in the pre⯑ceding chapter. However, 'tis plain that many of the German Printers had no other ſirnames than thoſe of the places wherein they were born.

THESE two brothers ſoon ſurpaſs'd all their predeceſſors in the beauty and neatneſs of their characters, and the elegance of their impreſſions, which to this time render them admir'd and eſteem'd by the curious, a⯑bove all other ancient editions. Venice by this gain'd ſo much reputation for the fineneſs of her types, that ſome eminent Printers at Rome and elſewhere either furniſh'd themſelves with ſetts of them, or endeavour'd to imitate them, acquainting their readers in their next impreſſions, that they were printed characteribus Venetianis, with Venetian types. Chevilli⯑er indeed thinks this to have been an impoſition upon the world; nor can it be denied but that ſome of them pretended this, in order to re⯑commend their own wretched performances. But this demonſtrates the ſuperior merit of that city, and the laudable emulation of her Printers, not only to excell thoſe of other places, but even one another. And in⯑deed theſe two brothers with John de Cologn and N. Jenſon, ſeem to have brought the Art to its utmoſt perfection, becauſe none of the moſt fa⯑mous Printers which ſucceeded till our time, ſuch as Vaſcoſan, the Ste⯑phens's, &c. have ſurpaſs'd them in this reſpect; as well as becauſe this, like other arts, ſeem'd obnoxious to a certain fatality and decline, when carried to a particular height, as it happen'd in the ſpace of ſix or ſeven years after their firſt ſettlement at Venice. What I mean is, that they ſhould ſo unaccountably ſuffer themſelves to be carry'd away by the degenerate [143] taſte of that age, and change their beautiful Roman character, for the old, obſolete and diſagreeable Gothick, which they began to print with about the year 1477.

THE Spires had the two following learned men for their correctors, viz. Chriſtopher Berardus of Piſauro, and George Alexandrinus; John, the elder brother, is reported to be the firſt who put the direction-word at the end of the page, and that upon good grounds, ſince no book, to our knowledge, before his Tacitus, hath it; the ſingular uſe of which is too obvious to want explanation. He liv'd no longer than to the year 1470, and was ſucceeded in the whole buſineſs by Windelin, who manag'd it with great applauſe by himſelf 'till 1472, in which year he took John de Cologn into partnerſhip with him. We find but one book, viz. Plautus, printed by them joyntly; ſo that it is probable each of them return'd ſoon after to his ſeparate preſs. This Windelin was ſo highly eſteem'd as a Printer even by his own countrymen, (a thing very uncommon!) that he was twice invited into Germany by ſome eminent counſellors at law of that nation, to print there the following conſiderable volumes, viz. 1. Bar⯑tholi commentarium juridicum, which he perform'd ann. 1471, without the name of the place, adding only two verſes inſerted in the margin ¹; and 2. The commentaries upon the five books of Decretals of Nic. Tudeſchi of Sicily, ſirnam'd Abbas Panormitanus, ann. 1474 ²; he printed likewiſe in Germany, about the ſame time, the firſt edition of the Tractatus Tracta⯑tuum ſive Oceanus Juris 15 vol. fol. But as he had engag'd himſelf, pre⯑ſently after his brother's death, not to leave Venice, (as appears by the verſes at the end of St. Auſtin de civitate Dei, ann. 1470 ³ begun, but not finiſh'd by his brother,) he return'd thither, and continued printing with prodigious honour till the year 1477, wherein he began to fall in with the Gothick character beforemention'd. In this he was followed by all the reſt, and even by the celebrated Nic. Jenſon, tho' this laſt ſtill pre⯑ſerv'd the beauty and neatneſs of his forms, which the others very much [144] degenerated from. About this time Windelin probably dy'd, becauſe we meet with no impreſſion of his that bears a date later than 1477. Such was the eſteem the learned had of this excellent Printer, that of twenty eight impreſſions we have extant of his, above twenty of them have a latin epigram at the end in praiſe of him; ſome of which are of a con⯑ſiderable length, and moſt of them by different hands. The firſt edition is that of Cicero's Epiſtolae familiares, ann. 1469; the laſt we know of with a date, is Dante's Poems, ann. 1477; ſome of his editions are without date.

3. NICHOLAS JENSON, JANSON or GENSON, 1470. NICH. JENSON is allow'd by the generality of writers to have been a Frenchman; and as he was one of the firſt of that nation, who was emi⯑nent in this Art, all his countrymen have been more than ordinarily la⯑viſh of their praiſes on him; ſo that whoever reads ſome of their encomi⯑ums, would be apt to think him the only Printer of merit in that age, and that there had never been any edition worth their conſideration, 'till it came out of his preſs; and this they did, even before they ſo much as dreamt of that early maſter-piece of his, the Decor Puellarum: we need not therefore wonder at Mr. Mattaire, if we find him ſo highly pleas'd at the diſcovery of this ſingular work; for it muſt be own'd, that unleſs we will diſpute the date of it, the higheſt encomiums muſt fall ſhort of his merit; ſince it will plainly follow, that he was not only the earlieſt by ſome years, who improv'd the Art, but likewiſe who brought it to its greateſt perfection, with reſpect to the fineneſs of his Roman characters, and elegancy of compoſition. Whereas were the ſuppoſition of thoſe, who think it antedated by ten years, to be allow'd, it will be manifeſt that there had already been ſeveral eminent Printers at Rome, Venice, and elſewhere before him, who introduc'd that noble and elegant character; and that tho' his ſhould be allow'd to be ſomewhat finer than thoſe of his predeceſſors, yet would his merit be inferior to theirs, and his improve⯑ment upon them be but ſmall in compariſon of that, which they made upon the old Moguntine types. However that be, I acknowledge with the greateſt freedom and ſincerity, that he was an excellent maſter of the Art, and his impreſſions as beautiful, and, for the laſt ten years ſpace, [145] wherein he follow'd the buſineſs, as numerous as any of his contempo⯑raries. Polydore Vergil highly commends him for having ſo wonderfully improv'd the Art of Printing, and Sabellicus owns, that he and his partner John de Cologn, excell'd all the Printers of their time, in the richneſs and elegancy of their impreſſions ¹. The learned Omnibonus Leonicenus, who prepar'd copies for him, and corrected ſome of his editions, hath, in an epiſtle to the biſhop of Belluno, left us an excellent character of him, prefix'd to his Quintilian anno 1471 ². wherein he extols his types, and mentions him as a ſecond Daedalus, and as one to whom the greateſt ſhare of this invention was due.

THE learned therefore are very juſtly ſurpriz'd, that ſo excellent a maſter and ſo great an ornament to the Art of Printing ſhould be the firſt who brought the Gothic character to Venice, in which he printed his bibles, divinity, and law-books. This method was follow'd by all his brethren, both in that city, and in ſeveral others of Europe; tho' it muſt be own'd that he far ſurpaſs'd the reſt even in that reſpect, and ſhow'd a more exact taſte and judgment; for his Gothic types had all the beauty and elegancy, which they were capable of, and may be ſtill read with pleaſure and admiration.

I don't find that he had any other corrector beſides Omnibon. Leonice⯑nus above-mention'd, if we except Franciſcus Colutia Verzinenſis, who in his dedication prefix'd to the work of Palladius de Agricultura, of which he was the editor, tells Jenſon to whom he dedicates it, that it was at his deſire that he had undertaken to correct that work. By this it ſeems as if Jenſon was the firſt printer who had any of his impreſſions dedica⯑ted to himſelf. Moſt of his works, like thoſe of the two German bro⯑thers, have a latin epigram at the end in praiſe of him; but, what is re⯑markable, not one of them ſpeaks of him as the firſt Venetian Printer, [146] which circumſtance alone would be ſufficient to juſtify us for poſtponing him to them. We meet with four of his editions printed in one year, viz. 1470, which ſhews him to have been a very diligent work-man. And in the ſpace of ten years, we have thirty-nine of them, ſtill extant; excluſive of the Decor Puellarum, beſides thoſe which may have been loſt, or are ſtill undiſcover'd. The firſt edition printed by him in Gothic cha⯑racter, is St Auſtin's book de Civitate Dei, anno 1475. the two laſt of his works are dated 1481.

4. CHRISTOPHER WALDARFER of RATISBON, 1470. CONCERNING this Printer we know little, except that we have four of his editions ſtill extant corrected by Ludovicus Carbo or Carbone: the third of which viz. Servius Comment. on Virgil fol. anno 1471, has an epigram of four latin diſtichs in his praiſe, by which we may gueſs that he printed a great many more works than theſe four, eſpecially Claſſicks. The laſt of them, viz. Pliny's Epiſtles, hath neither the name of the Printer nor place; but by a dedication prefix'd to it by the ſaid Carbo to Borſo duke of Modena, one may conclude it to have been done by Waldarfer. He remov'd from Venice ſoon after, and ſet up a Printing-houſe at Milan, where we ſhall find him, when we come to that place.

5, 6. JOHN de COLOGN, & JOHN MANTHEN de GERETZEN. 1471. THESE two Germans came and ſettled at Venice, ſoon after the two Spires, and were equal to any of their contemporaries, in the beauty of their Roman types, the fineneſs of their paper, and elegance and cor⯑rectneſs of their works. But they likewiſe gave into the Gothic way of printing; and it is obſervable that Venice and Lyons have produc'd more of thoſe impreſſions, than almoſt all Italy and France together. Whether theſe Printers were more modeſt than their brethren, is uncer⯑tain; but, however, in the liſt of their editions, we meet with none of thoſe pompous epigrams and panegyricks upon themſelves, ſo frequently us'd at that time. They took Nic. Jenſon into partnerſhip with them, towards the later part of their printing. John de Cologn is affirm'd by [147] ſome to have invented the Regiſtrum Chartarum about anno 1475; but it is obvious to the reader, from the catalogue of Uldric Han's works at Rome, that the latter us'd it at leaſt two years before him.

THERE is one thing remarkable in one of their colophons, at the end of their editions of Valerius Maximus, fol. anno. 1474; and which, for that reaſon, I have ſubjoyn'd in the margin ¹: that they were rather book-ſel⯑lers than Printers: becauſe they acquaint the readers in it, that they had given this work to be printed by men hir'd for that purpoſe. We ſhall meet with many more in the ſequel of this hiſtory, who follow'd their example.

HOWEVER it muſt be own'd, that all the works that came out of their preſs, or were printed for them, are an honour to them: the laſt liſt of their editions according to father Orlandi amounts to 28, from ann. 1471 to 1481.

As we know little or nothing concerning the following ones, beſides their names and their works; we ſhall juſt mention them in their rank, according to the date of the works we have of them.

7. ANTONY BOLOGNESE, or Antonio de Bartolomeo, de Bolonia, 1472. we have five editions of his from 1472, to 1486.

8. LEONARD ACHATES of Baſil, 1472. 1 edition.

9. GABRIEL de Pietro of Treviſo, 1473. 6 edit. to 1478.

10. FRANCIS de Hailbrun 1473. 3 edit. to 1475.

11. NICOL. de Francford 1473. 3 edit. to 1475.

12. BARTOLOMEW CREMONESE, 1473. 3 edit. to 1475.

13. JAMES des Rouges 1474.

THIS was his true name, he being a Frenchman, tho' in his latin editions he writes himſelf Jacobus Rubeus or de Rubeis; and in his Italian ones di Roſſi and Roſſi: He was juſtly eſteem'd one of the beſt Printers in his time. 'Tis affirm'd by ſome that he aſſiſted Nic. Jenſon in improving his Ro⯑man characters; but this is improbable, becauſe it doth not appear, that he came to Venice 'till two or three years, at leaſt, after the other had pub⯑liſh'd ſome of his fine editions. However, the beauty of his letter, and the fineneſs of his impreſſions are incomparable; particularly the two [148] hiſtories of Florence in Italian, one written by Leonard de Arezo, and the other by Poggius, are accounted maſter-pieces in that kind. At length he left Venice, and ſettled at Pignerol in Piedmont, where he printed an Ita⯑lian Bible, the ſatyrs of Juvenal, and ſome other work, which we ſhall ſpeak of in its proper place. There is one thing more to enhance his me⯑rit, which is, that he comply'd not with the degenerate taſte of thoſe times, in introducing the Gothic characters into his Printing-houſe; his impreſ⯑ſions from anno 1474 to 1476, are ten in number.

14. CHRISTOPHER ARNOLD: we have but two editions of his from 1474 to 1478.

15. ANDREAS JACOBI of Cathara; 5 editions from 1476 to 1482.

16. MARC. de Conti and 1 edit. 1476.

17. GERARD ALEXANDER 1 edit. 1476.

18. BERNARD PICTOR 5 edit. from 1476 to 1477.

19. ERHARD RALDOLT of Ausburg, 5 edit. from 1476 to 1477.

20. GERARD de Flandria, 1 edit. 1477.

21. JAMES LUNES E de Fivizano, 2 edit. 1477.

22. PHILIP PETRI or de Petro, Venetian, 13 edit. from 1477 to 1482.

23. GUERIN the young, 1 edit. 1477.

24. ANDREAS de Pataſichis 8 edit. from 1478 to 1488.

25. BONINO de Boninis8 edit. from 1478 to 1488.

26. MARTIN SARACEN, 3 edit. from 1478 to 1488.

27. LEONARD WILD de Ratisbon, 3 edit. from 1478 to 1481.

28. FRANC. RENNER de Hailbrun, 5 edit. from 1478 to 1494.

29. THEODORIC de Reynsberg 2 edit. 1478,

30. REYNALD de Novimagio2 edit. 1478,

31. GEORGE WALCH German, 1 edit. 1479.

32. NICHOLAS GERARDENGO, 2 edit. from 1479 to 1480.

REYNALD de Novimagio by himſelf, 7 edit. from 1479 to 1494.

ERHARD RALDOLT by himſelf, 13 edit. from 1480 to 1485, after this he went to his own city Ausburgh, and ſet up his preſs there, as we have ſaid under that head.

33. PETER PIASII 11 edit. from 1480 to 1495.

34. BARTHOL. BLAVII 11 edit. from 1480 to 1495.

35. ANDREA TORRESANI de Azola 11 edit. from 1480 to 1495.

[149] 36. JOHN LUCILIUS SANTRITER 3 edit. 1480 to 1489

37. FRANCIS THEODORE3 edit. 1480 to 1489

38. OCTAVIAN SCOT was a nobleman of the city of Mons, who ſet up ſome preſſes at Venice at his own charge, and printed a great num⯑ber of curious editions, all which are marked with O. S. M. his chief corrector was Maurice de Hibernia, or of Ireland, a Franciſcan monk, who was afterwards made biſhop of Triamo: all the editions we have of Octavian Scot are 39, from ann. 1480 to 1498.

THE chief workmen he employ'd to print for him are the three following.

39. CHRISTOPHER PENSI,

40. BENNET LOCATELLUS,

41. BARTHOLOMEW ZANI.

THE laſt of theſe did likewiſe print for himſelf, and we have 15 editi⯑ons of his printed with his own name, from 1487 to 1500.

42. JOHN de Forlivio and theſe two printed 26 edit. from 1481 to 1500.

43. GREGORY de Gregoriis 26 edit. from 1481 to 1500.

44. LUCAS de Dominico, Venetian, 5. edit. from 1481 to 1482.

45. BAPTISTA de Tortis, 18 edit. from 1481 to 1498.

46. THOMAS of Alexandria and partners, 6 edit. from 1481 to 1486.

47. ANTONY dalla Strada Cremoneſe, 10 edit. from 1481 to 1488.

48. MATHEW CAPCASA of Parma, 10 edit. from 1481 to 1495.

49. ANTONY PAP 1 edit. 1482.

50. BERNARDIN MORENI de Lecho 1 edit. 1482.

51. PETER LOSLEIN German, he was both partner and corrector to Bernard Pictor and Erhard Raldolt at Venice, we have two editions prin⯑ted with his name both 1483.

52. BERNARDIN BENATIO, or de Benateis, 12 edit. from 1483 to 1498.

53. PETER MAUFER a Frenchman 1 edit. 1483.

54. NICHOL. de Contengo of Ferrara1 edit. 1483.

MAUFER was a very good Printer, but mov'd often from place to place; he began firſt to work at Padua, then went to Verona, and after⯑wards came to Venice: where we find but one ſingle edition done by him.

55. HERMAN LITCHENSTEIN in latin Levilapis; this was another unſettled workman, he wrought at Vincenza, Treviſo, and now at Venice; where we have 5 edit. of his, from 1483 to 1494.

[150] 56. ANDREA BONETTI de Pavia, 3 edit. from 1484 to 1486.

57. PEREGRIN PASQUALI 12 edit. from 1484 to 1494

58. DIONIS BERTOCH, or de Bertochis of Bolonin 12 edit. from 1484 to 1494

59. PAGANINUS de Paganinis, 7 edit. from 1485 to 1498.

60. BERNARD STAGNINO de Trino, 5 edit. from 1485 to 1498.

61. ANTONY RACTIBOVIUS, 1 edit. 1485.

62. ALEXANDER CRETENSIS, he was a native of Crete, the only work we have of him, is a Greek Pſalter 4to ann. 1486, with a latin co⯑lophon, in which he ſtyles himſelf, Filius ſapientiſſimi & celeberrimi Domini Georgii Preſbyteri.

63. WILLIAM de Trino ſirnam'd Anima mia, 5 edit. from 1486 to 1491.

64. BERNARD RIZZI de Novara, 10 edit. from 1486 to 1492, it is to be obſerv'd, that his five firſt, i. e. from 1486 to 1489, are ſubſcrib'd only Bernard de Novara, and the five laſt Bern. Rizzi de Novara, which has made ſome authors queſtion whether they were not two different Prin⯑ters: his corrector was Dominic Canali.

65. LEONICUS CRETENSIS, of him we have only Homer's Batra⯑chomuomachia, or battle of the frogs and mice in greek, cum graecis ſcholiis 4to, ann. 1486.

66. PETER CREMONESE ſirnam'd Veroneſe, 2 edit. from 1486 to 1490.

67. JOHN ROUGES alias Rubeus, Roſſi, 9 edit. from 1486 to 1499.

68. JOHN HAMMAN de Landoja 4 edit. from 1487 to 1500.

69. JOHN EMERICH de Udenhem4 edit. from 1487 to 1500.

70. HANIBAL de Parma, 1 edit. 1487.

71. THEODOR. RAGAZONI alias de Ragazonibus, 6 edit. from 1488 to 1500.

72. BERNARDINE de Choris Cremoneſe, 9 edit. from 1488 to 1492.

73. GEORGE ARRIVABENUS of Mantua, 4 edit. from 1488 to 1492.

74. CHRISTOPHER de Penſis de Mandello, 11 edit. from 1489 to 1500.

75. BERNARDINE de Renatis, 1 edit. 1490.

76. JAMES PAGANINI of Breſcia, 1 edit. 1490.

77. PHILIP PINCIUS de Caneto, this was a very diligent as well as ex⯑cellent Printer: he continu'd printing 'till after the year 1510 with great [151] applauſe: his corrector was the learned Bennet Brugnoli, a man very well verſed in the greek and latin tongues; his works from 1490 to 1500 are 24 in number.

78. THOMAS de Blancis of Alexandria, 1 edit. 1491.

79. SIMON de Gara, only a latin bible, 1491.

80. LAZARUS de Siviliano, 2 edit. from 1491 to 1492.

81. MANFRED. de Montferrat, 2 edit. from 1491 to 1492.

82. MAXIMUS de Butricis of Pavia, 1 edit. 1491.

83. FRANCIS GERARDENGO of Pavia, 1 edit. 1492.

84. JOHN de Cereto de Tridino ſirnam'd Tacuino, 23 edit. from 1492 to 1500.

85. BARTHOL. VENETUS de Ragazzonibus, 1 edit. 1492.

86. SIMÓN BEVILAQUA citizen of Pavia, 21 edit. from 1492 to 1500; he wrought alſo at Pavia, as we ſhall ſee when we come to that city.

87. JOHN PETER de Querengis, 5 edit. from 1492 to 1498.

88. DAMIAN de Milan, 2 edit. from 1493 to 1494.

89. MARTIN de Rovado de Lazaronibus, 1 edit. 1493.

90. JEROM de Paganinis, 2 edit. 1493 to 1497.

91. JOHN RAGAZZO 1 edit. 1494.

92. JOHN MARIA 1 edit. 1494.

93. PERRIN LATHOMI, 1 edit. 1494, beſides a Bible he printed at Lyons, 1479.

94. BERNARDINE VITATIS of Venice, 14 edit. from 1494 to 1500.

CHAP. IV. Aldus Pius Manutius Romanus a Venetian Printer, and the Inventor of Italick Letters; his Life, Character and Greek Editions, with an Ac⯑count of the other Printers at Venice, till the Year 1500.

ALDUS MANUTIUS, the moſt eminent Printer of the fifteenth century, was born anno 1445, when Printing was yet in its in⯑tancy; who as he grew up, became ſuch an admirer of this new Art, [152] that tho' his education, learning and genius might have juſtly excited him to greater employments, yet he choſe to devote his whole time and ſtudy to the cultivating and improving all the branches of it. This de⯑ſign he perform'd with ſuch indefatigable application and vaſt cha [...]ges, that his whole ambition ſeem'd to be confin'd to this province and the advancement of learning ¹. After he had receiv'd the rudiments of Grammar, under Gaſpar of Verona, he apply'd himſelf to the Greek and Latin tongues under the great Baptiſta Guarini of Verona; and in a ſhort time made ſuch a progreſs in theſe languages, as not only to ſurpaſs his fellow ſtudents, but even to rival his maſter himſelf. Thus he conti⯑nued furniſhing his mind with every part of literature, in order to fit himſelf for that buſineſs, of which he was afterwards to become the or⯑nament. The war breaking out in Italy, and the city of Ferrara being beſieged, he removed from thence to Mirandula, where he became ac⯑quainted with the great Picus of that name, a prince of the brighteſt genius that age had produc'd, and one of the greateſt l [...]vers of learning, and of learned men, who not only receiv'd him with open arms, but procur'd him the acquaintance of many learned men, by whoſe conver⯑ſation and correſpondence, Aldus receiv'd no ſmall advantage toward the acquiring that great knowledge of the Greek and Latin Tongues, which he became afterwards ſo famous for. In the 45th year of his age, anno 1490, he began to prepare the neceſſary apparatus of a Printing⯑houſe, wherein he ſpent four years, and conſequently did not begin Printing till about anno 1494. During this interval he obſerv'd with regret to what degree the abbreviations, us'd by all the former Printers every where, were multiply'd; ſo that they became unintelligible, with⯑out ſome key to direct the reader, an inſtance of which is given in the margin ². Upon this, he conſider'd a method to remedy this inconve⯑nience, [153] and ſet them quite aſide in his editions. But becauſe the print⯑ing the words at length would enlarge the volumes a fourth part, (for there was ſcarce one word in five that was not abridg'd) and encreaſe the price; he reſolv'd likewiſe to remedy that. To which end he invented the Italick character, call'd from him Aldine, or Curſivus and Cancella⯑rius, from its reſemblance to hand-writing; which by-its figure and cloſeneſs, gain'd as much upon the round Roman, as the abbreviations did, and reduc'd the volume to near an exact bulk, thereby rendering them abſolutely uſeleſs. This is the main, tho' not the ſole advantage, which he propos'd by this new character; for the world has ſince found its extraordinary uſefulneſs in many other reſpects; which being obvious to every perſon, I ſhall not particulariſe here, but mention only the agree⯑ableneſs of a mixture of Roman and Italick. However, it muſt be own'd, that Aldus made too great uſe of the latter, in printing whole volumes in that character, which is known to tire the eyes much more than the Ro⯑man. Upon this account ſeveral emineat Printers afterwards rejected it in their quotations, when they were of any conſiderable length, and ſubſtituted Double comma's or Guillemets at one end of the lines, to di⯑ſtinguiſh the citations from the body of the book: which Guillemets were ſo call'd from their Inventor, a French Printer of that name.

To return to Aldus; [...]s ſoon as he had perſected this new character, which muſt neceſſarily coſt him prodigious ſumms of money, he obtain'd a privilege from three ſeveral Popes, for the ſole uſe of them during the ſ [...]e of fifteen years; and theſe pontifs give him great encomiums upon the account of this invention. The firſt of theſe was granted him by Alexander VI, and is dated Sept. 17 1502, with the following preface ¹. ‘"For as much as our beloved ſon Aldus Manucius Romanus hath, for the common benefit of the learned, invented a new ſett of characters, and been at vaſt pains and charges in correcting and printing of books,—and is afraid leſt ſome thro' envy or emulation ſhould get patterns [154] of his characters and print with them, thereby reaping the benefit of another man's invention; he hath therefore humbly beſought us, &c."’

HE obtain'd the like privilege from Pope Julius II, within four months after the firſt, viz. Jan. 27 1503, which begins thus; ‘"For as much as thou—haſt been at the pains to print with ſuch diligence and ele⯑gancy, within theſe few years, and for the common benefit of all the learned, many greek and latin volumes, corrected and revis'd with the utmoſt care and diligence, in thoſe new characters, which are vulgar⯑ly known by the name of Curſivi and Cancellarii, and are ſo beauti⯑ful as to ſeem written by hand, &c."’ ¹

HIS ſucceſſor Leo X, likewiſe granted him a brief to the ſame purpoſe within ten months after, expreſly prohibiting any perſon to print in or imitate that character during the ſpace of fifteen years ².

'TIS apparent from the tenour of theſe briefs, that this Italick character was not the only particular, wherein Aldus ſignaliz'd himſelf; for the number and correctneſs of his editions, with the beauty of his characters, gain'd him the eſteem and admiration of the learned; nor need I tell the reader how highly all his works have been valued ever ſince, as well as thoſe of his ſon Paulus Manucius, of his ſon-in-law Andreas Azolanus, and his grandſon Aldus; which are of equal merit with his own, and of equal value. His ambition of being eſteem'd not only a man of letters, (as he really was,) but alſo the moſt correct Printer of the age, was ſuch, that he ſpar'd no coſt in procuring the beſt MSS, nor labour in reviſing them; and his care was ſo great, leſt any errors ſhould eſcape him either in the M S. or proofs, that, as we are aſſur'd by Angel. Roccha, keeper of the Vatican library, he would not allow himſelf to print above two ſheets in a week³. But this muſt be underſtood only of ſuch works, as re⯑quir'd [155] a more than ordinary diligence and application; otherwiſe it were difficult to reconcile this with what Aldus ſays in his preface to Euripides ann. 1503 ¹, that he publiſh'd ſome good author every month, of which he printed above a thouſand copies; or with what Eraſmus ſays of him in his proverbs ²; that he was erecting a library, whoſe limits would be thoſe of the world it ſelf. However that be, his accuracy and diligence is unqueſtionably atteſted by all the learned; and he tells Pope Leo X, in his petition beforemention'd, that the height of his ambition was to pre⯑ſent the world with authors, corrected with the utmoſt exactneſs; and that nothing was more mortifying to him, than to ſee any faults in his im⯑preſſions, every one of which he would gladly, if poſſible, have redeem'd at the price of a crown of gold ³. What aſſiſtance he had from the learned in correcting his books may be gather'd from his preface to the Greek edi⯑tion of Ariſtotle's Logick, where he aſſures us, that he had ſome of the ableſt criticks with him, to aſſiſt in the correction; and in the preface to the phy⯑ſicks of that philoſopher, he boaſts, that his impreſſions were more perfect and correct than the very originals from which they were printed ⁴.

BUT it muſt be own'd that the learned are far from granting him this laſt piece of merit, which he challenges; and ſome of them have obje⯑cted, that he either printed them not according to the beſt manuſcripts, or corrected them by his own conjectures, or follow'd ſometimes too ſcru⯑pulouſly thoſe which were faulty and imperfect. Upon this account Eraſ⯑mus, tho' a great friend of his, complains that Michael Bentius, who prin⯑ted his proverbs, had follow'd the corrupt editions of Aldus in the quotati⯑ons from Homer and Cicero ⁵. The ſame author tells John Betzemius, in a letter ſent with a catalogue of his works, that ſome of Plutarch's books were printed by Aldus after ſome very corrupt manuſcript ⁶. Yet he excu⯑ſes [156] him in another letter ¹, and lays the blame upon ſome Pedagogue, whom Aldus intruſted with the care of ſome of the editions of ancient authors. If this be fact, 'tis very much to be regretted, that ſo great a Printer, to whom the republick of learning is in all other reſpects ſo much oblig'd, ſhould be overſeen in a matter of ſuch importance. And this, in all probability, is the reaſon why he thus expreſſes his diſſatisfaction at his own editions, in the petition to the Pope beforemention'd; ² that he was ſo far from regarding the flatteries of ſome perſons, that he had not as yet pub⯑liſh'd one book, with which he could be ſatisfied ².

BESIDES this, he carries his complaints ſtill further, and inveighs loudly againſt two ſorts of men, who alone are capable of depriving the learned world of the benefit of printing, unleſs ſome ſpeedy ſtop be put to their wretched performances: the firſt are thoſe, who, notwithſtanding their notorious ignorance and incapacity, preſume to print any kind of books: the ſecond are the half learned editors, who not only venture upon pub⯑liſhing ancient authors, but likewiſe write notes and commentaries with their own corrections upon them. Thus was this great man concern'd to ſee the corruptions already crept into the Art, thro' the avarice of ſome, and ignorance of others; whilſt himſelf found by ſad experience, that all his care, as well as learning, was ſcarce ſufficient for ſuch a taſk. As no Printer ever ſurpaſs'd him in the latter, ſo none ever equall'd him in the former; for ſo indefatigable was he in that laborious province, that he ſcarce allow'd himſelf time to eat, ſleep, or attend his domeſtick affairs; and, which is ſtill more, was ſo regardleſs of his health, as to neglect thoſe pleaſures and recreations ſo neceſſary and conducive to the preſervation of it. The learned Zuinger, in his Theatrum vitae humanae p. 3713 of the Baſil edition 1604, tells us, that his mind was entirely enga⯑ged in the care of his Printing-houſe; that, as ſoon as he had order'd his other neceſſary affairs, he ſhut himſelf up in his ſtudy, where he employ'd himſelf in reviſing his greek and latin manuſcripts, reading the letters which he receiv'd from the learned out of all parts of the world, and writing [157] anſwers to them. To prevent interruption by impertinent viſits, he caus'd the following inſcription to be plac'd over his cloſet door ¹; Who⯑ever you are, Aldus earneſtly intreats you to diſpatch your buſineſs, as ſoon as poſſible, and then depart; unleſs you come hither, like another Hercules, to lend him ſome friendly aſſiſtance; for here will be work ſufficient to employ you, and as many as enter this place. Theſe words were afterwards borrow'd by the learned Oporinus, (who from a profeſſor of the greek tongue in the univerſity of Baſil, became one of the moſt eminent Printers, either of that city, or even of Europe;) and were ſet over his ſtudy door for the ſame intent.

ALDUS is affirm'd by many authors to have been the firſt who printed whole volumes in greek, particularly the learned Henry Stephens, aſſerts, both in the Complaint of the Art of Printing written by him, and in his epitaph upon Aldus, that he was the firſt Printer in that language ²; and Geſner tells Paul Manutius Aldus's ſon, in the 11th book of his Pandects, that if he is not miſtaken, there were no greek books printed before thoſe of his father, or at leaſt, not with equal beauty and correctneſs with his ³. Tho' this is not ſtrictly true, as we ſhall immediately ſhew, yet as he was the greateſt Printer in greek, and inventor of a beautiful character, theſe and ſeveral other authors might eaſily attribute to him the firſt rank in this province. The firſt greek book was publiſh'd by him, anno 1494, as appears by the liſts, which the annaliſts give us of his works, and from what Aldus himſelf ſays, in hi [...] preface to Stephanus de urbibus, anno 1502 ⁴, that he begun his firſt greek impreſſions in the year wherein the war in Italy commenc'd, viz. anno 1494, at the time of the expedition of Charles VIII king of France to ſeize upon the kingdom of Naples. Some writers, from a miſtaken paſſage in his preface to Ariſtotle, anno 1495, wherein he tells his patron Prince Carpi, that he preſents him with the prince of phi⯑loſophers, Plato excepted, now firſt printed and very correct, have thought [158] it to have been his firſt greek impreſſion; whereas he publiſh'd at leaſt three the year before. However 'tis plain he had printed no book in any language before anno 1494.

IT appears from what has been ſaid in a former chapter concerning the Lactantius printed in the monaſtery of Subiaco, anno 1465, the Gellius at Rome 1469, and others, that ſeveral conſiderable fragments were printed in greek with no ſmall elegancy and correctneſs. But beſides theſe there were ſeveral editions in that language printed in divers cities of Italy ſome years before; the principal of which we ſhall mention.

THE firſt, as yet known, is the greek grammar of Conſtantine Laſcaris 4to, revis'd by Demetrius Cretenſis, and printed by Dionyſius Palaviſinus at Milan, anno 1476, afterwards reprinted at Venice by Leonard of Baſil, anno 1488.

THE next is the greek pſalter printed at Venice, anno 1486 by Alexander of Crete 4to, and Homer's Batrachomuomachia, or battle between the frogs and mice 4to, at Venice by Leonic of Crete in the ſame year. But as theſe may be eſteem'd only preludes or eſſays in that language, we ſhall come to a more conſiderable edition, viz. that of Homer's works in greek, which B. Neril caus'd to be printed at Florence in a large folio, anno 1488 by Demetrius of Milan, a native of Crete. This excellent work I have ſeen in the curious library of the learned Dr. Mead, and I dare affirm that whoever examines the whiteneſs and ſtrength of the paper, the fineneſs of the character, the elegant diſpoſition of the matter, the exact diſtance between the lines, the large margin, and in ſhort, the whole performance with its various ornaments, will eaſily own it a maſter-piece in that kind. There was likewiſe a fine edition of Iſocrates printed at Milan in fol. by Henry German and Sebaſtian ex Pontremulo, anno 1493, a year before any of Aldus's impreſſions appear'd.

HOWEVER, tho' he was not the firſt greek Printer, yet no perſon ever ſignaliz'd himſelf more in that province than he, nor equall'd him in beauty, correctneſs and number of editions. Concerning the beauty of his greek characters, of which he is ſaid to be the inventor, Mr. Mattaire tells us pag. 237, Annal. Typogr. that thoſe, in which he printed the Pſalter, Aeſop, Ariſtotle, Ariſtophanes, &c. were ſomewhat larger, rounder, more beautiful and elegant, adorn'd with frequent ligatures, which added no ſmall [159] beauty to his greek editions, &c. Nor is this is the only particular, for which the learned world is ſo much oblig'd to him; ſince his deſigns reach'd ſtill farther, and were anſwer'd to his great ſatisfaction before his death, which happen'd anno 1515. He obſerv'd, with no ſmall regret, how much and how long the Greek tongue had been neglected; in order therefore to revive that noble language, and accuſtom the learned by de⯑grees to read nothing but the originals, he reſolv'd to publiſh moſt of his books in Greek only. This ſucceeded ſo well, that the oldeſt men be⯑gan to acquaint themſelves with it, and as many youths engaged in the ſtudy of that tongue, as of the Latin; which gave him ſuch ſenſible plea⯑ſure, that he mentions it in ſeveral of his prefaces, and particularly in that prefix'd to Ariſtotle's Logic, wherein he thus expreſſes himſelf: ¹ ‘"In our days we may ſee many old gentlemen, who follow Cato's example in learning the Greek tongue. For with reſpect to the youth, they equally apply themſelves to that, as to the Latin. Upon which account Greek books, of which there is now a prodigious ſcarcity, are come into very great requeſt, &c."’ In his preface to Stephanus de urbibus he obſerves with pleaſure, ² ‘"That Italy was not the only nation where in the Greek tongue was in vogue; but that in Germany, France, Hungary, Britain, Spain, and almoſt every place, where the Latin was known, not only the young, but even the old ſtudy'd Greek with the utmoſt eagerneſs and application."’

ALL his impreſſions were not of that nature; for in ſome of them, printed before and afterwards, as Muſaeus, Greek grammar, Proclus's Sphaera, the works of Philoſtratus, Euſebius contra Hieroclem, &c. he firſt gave the whole Greek text, and then the Latin tranſlation.

SOON after this, he invented a method, entirely new, of printing theſe Greek editions with their tranſlations, which I do not find practis'd by any Printer ſince.

[160] THEY were impos'd after ſuch a manner, that the purchaſer might have them bound either with the Greek and Latin ſeparate, or with a leaf of the one, and a leaf of the other alternately; for inſtance, the firſt leaf was Greek, then follow'd the firſt in Latin, then the ſecond Greek leaf, and the ſecond Latin, and ſo on to the end; but with this precaution, that the Greek of the firſt leaf was only printed upon the ſecond page of it, and the Latin verſion oppoſite to it; the Latin upon the ſecond page of the Latin leaf was the verſion of the Greek upon the firſt page of the third leaf, and all the Greek upon the ſecond page of this leaf, fell exactly over againſt the Latin of it in the firſt page of the fourth or ſecond Latin leaf. This order being obſerv'd throughout, every other leaf being Greek, and the reſt Latin, it was eaſy either to bind it in two volumes, the one Greek, and the other Latin; or into one, with the original firſt, and verſion af⯑terwards, oppoſite to each other.

BUT, as we remark'd before, this excellent method was never ob⯑ſerv'd, not even by thoſe, who reprinted ſuch of Aldus's editions, as had been done after this way; viz. Eſop's and Gabriel's fables, Laſcaris's gram⯑mar, &c. for they printed the Greek in one page, and the Latin upon the other; which is vaſtly more inconvenient than his method; the manner of printing both languages in two columns not being invented 'till after the year 1550, Vide Chevil. pag. 238. I conceive there is no neceſſity of giving a more particular deſcription of Aldus's Greek types, becauſe his works are ſo univerſally known to the curious; but whoever deſires to know further concerning them, and their ſuperior excellence to thoſe us'd before, may conſult Mr. Mattaire's Annals, pag. 237.

ALDUS has been likewiſe ſuppos'd the firſt, or, at leaſt, one of the firſt, who printed in Hebrew. But this is certainly a miſtake; for, tho' he had a font of Hebrew, yet he made but little uſe of it; and 'tis evi⯑dent, that the jews of Soncino in the duchy of Milan began to print books in that language about twelve or fourteen years before Aldus appear'd, as ſhall be ſhewn in its proper place. Chevillier p. 267 tells us, that he ſaw nothing of his in this tongue, but the Hebrew alphabet, which is ſtill preſerv'd in the Sorbon library. We find however, that he wrote and printed an introduction to the Hebrew tongue; as appears from [...] book printed by him, ann. 1501, intitled, Aldi Manutii Grammaticae Latinae [161] linguae rudimenta; de literis Graecis & Diphthongis, &c. ut & introductio ad Hebraeam linguam, 4to. Indeed Juſtin Decadius a Grecian and inhabitant of Venice, who caus'd the Greek pſalter to be printed by Aldus in 4to, flatters thoſe of his own nation, to whom he dedicates it, with a promiſe which that Printer made him, of printing an edition of the bible in He⯑brew, Greek and Latin; but it is not known, that he ever perform'd it, at leaſt, with relation to the Hebrew.

BEFORE we cloſe the character of this great man, it will be proper to acquaint the reader with the reaſon of his aſſuming the name Pius after the year 1503; becauſe even this is another teſtimony of his merit. He receiv'd it from his patron prince Albertus Pius de Carpi, whoſe tutor he had formerly been, and who, on account of his ſingular deſert, adopted him into his family, and contributed large ſums towards defraying the charges of procuring and correcting manuſcripts, preparing three fonts, of Italick, Greek and Hebrew, characters, entertaining ſo many learned correctors, and ſuch a number of workmen, beſide the other charges com⯑mon to every Printing-houſe. His chief correctors were Peter Alcyonius, Demetrius Chalcondylas, Marcus Muſurus, and Alexander Bondinus.

THE mark of his Printing-houſe, which ſhall be given, with the reſt of the marks or rebus's of the Printers of the 15th century, at the end of this book, was a dolphin twin'd about an anchor, and nibling at it; ſignifying his cloſe and indeſatigable application to buſineſs, which he went through with deliberation and judgment. Chevillier tells us, that he took it from the emperor Titus; and that Peter Bembus, who was afterwards made a cardinal, preſented him with a ſilver medal, which had that em⯑peror's head on one ſide, and on the reverſe, a dolphin twiſting himſelf round an a [...]hor. This was likewiſe, according to ſome authors, the device of Auguſtus the emperor ¹, the anchor being deſign'd to ſignify reſt, as lightning or the dolphin were to denote ſwiftneſs. Theſe Titus after⯑wards expreſs'd by the dolphin, ſignifying ſwiftneſs, and an anchor, de⯑ſign'd to ſtop the courſe of a ſhip, denoting ſlowneſs. Aldus himſelf ſeems to hint at this ſignification, when he tells prince Carpi, in his epiſtle dedicatory prefix'd to Proclus's Sphere, anno 1499 ², that he could teſtify [162] for himſelf with the greateſt ſincerity, that he had always thoſe two com⯑panions with him, which they ſay are ſo neceſſary, viz. the dolphin and anchor, and publiſh'd many things with deliberation, and yet without in⯑termiſſion. His ſon Paul, who was Printer to the Vatican, his ſon-in-law A. de Azola, and his grandſon Aldus us'd the ſame mark.

SOME vile Printers of Florence, finding the impoſſibility of equalling Aldus's editions, reſolv'd to counterfeit them as well as his rebus, and carry'd on the cheat for ſome time, 'till it was diſcover'd by means of a miſtake committed by the engraver, who revers'd the dolphin, ſo that his head was on the left ſide of the anchor, whereas in Aldus's mark it was on the right. Whether his ſon-in-law Andreas de Azola firſt perceiv'd this difference, I will not affirm; but he firſt gave publick notice of it, to prevent the world's being any longer impos'd upon. This paſſage in the preface to his Livy in 8vo anno 1518, is given at full length in the margin ¹. I am ſenſible that in this ſketch of the hiſtory of that Printer, I have exceeded in many caſes my propos'd limits; yet, I hope, the worth and character of the perſon will ſufficiently excuſe me for not keeping too ſcrupulouſly to our epocha.

THE works, which we have of him, from 1494 to 1500, are in num⯑ber, twenty four; fourteen of which are Greek, and the reſt Latin, or Latin and Greek.

THE reader may eaſily perceive, how ſhort this liſt comes of the num⯑ber, which we might have reaſonably expected from ſo induſtrious a Printer, within the ſpace of ſix or ſeven years; eſpecially conſidering, that as himſelf aſſures us, he publiſh'd an author every month, which amounts to almoſt four times our number. Whether the reſt are periſh'd, or are ſtill latent in ſome libraries, I ſhall not determine, but am willing to hope the latter, and that time will by degrees bring them to light.

HOWEVER he ſtill continued printing many years after the cloſe of the century, and took his father-in-law Andreas de Azola [in Latin Azola⯑nus [163] in partnerſhip with him. As to the time of his death, or any parti⯑culars of it, I have not been able to diſcover any thing certain; I ſhall therefore conclude his hiſtory with a remark or two concerning an edi⯑tion of his, which I hope will not be diſagreeable to the reader: it is that of Poliphili hypnerotomachia, written by Franciſcus Columna, to prove that all the world is but a dream; wherein he relates many things worth learning: it has been ſuppos'd to be printed at Treviſo, anno 1467, becauſe at the end are the following words; Tarviſii cum decoriſſimis Poliae a more lorulis diſtineretur miſellus Poliphilus, MCCCCLXVII kalendis Maii, i. e. when the unfortunate Poliphilus was in love with the charming Polia, 1467.

THIS they thought to have been the year, when the book was printed; whereas Mattaire and Orlandi obſerve, that the words plainly demonſtrate it to be the year, in which Colonna finiſh'd it. Beſides, it is evident from the character, the regiſters, direction-words, comma's, interrogatory points, and other particularities, as well from the laſt leaf, which contains the errata, and concludes thus, Venetiis menſe Decembri MID in aedibus Aldi Manutii accuratiſſimé, that this edition came out from Aldus's preſs. However, Orlandi tells us, that this leaf was deſignedly torn off, becauſe there is no date of the year, in which it was printed; but Mr. Mattaire gives us an account of theſe errata pag. 255, which bore this title, Gli er⯑rori del libro fatti ſtampando, liquali corrige coſi: then follows the errata containing fifty nine full lines, a greater number than Aldus ever put at the end of his works. After the errata are the Latin words abovementi⯑on'd, Venetiis, &c. 'Tis plain from this, that 1467 was the year, in which the author finiſh'd it at Treviſo, and the date of the edition, 1499. With reſpect to the author's name, Orlandi deduceth it from the initial letters of each chapter, which being joyn'd together form theſe words, Poliam frater Franciſcus Columna peramavit. Orland. pag. 57, 58.

THE remainder of the Venetian Printers to ann. 1500 are as follows.

96. ANTONY MORETUS of Breſcia 1 edit. 1495.

97. JEROM de Alexandria

98. ANTONY ZANCHI or de Zanchis, 1 edit. 1497.

99. OTINUS della Luna of Pavia, 3 edit. from 1497 to 1499.

100. JOHN ALVYSIUS de Vareſio Milaneſe, 1 edit. 1498.

[164] 101. BARTHOL. JUSTINOPOLITANUS,

102. GABRIEL de Briſighella,

103. JOHN BISSOLI

104. BENEDICT MANGI of Carpi,

WE have but two editions of theſe four partners, viz. Phalaris Epiſtles 4to 1498, and Aeſop's life and fables 4to 1500, both in Greek: the former of theſe editions has a privilege from the ſenate of Venice, for their ſole printing of it during the ſpace of ten years; and an epiſtle of Bartholo⯑mew Juſtinopolitan to Contarenus a ſenator of Venice, wherein he complains of the great abuſes, which were crept into the Art of Printing; and the diſadvantages thence ariſing to the common wealth of learning, thro' the ignorance and negligence of Printers, which encreas'd every day among them: he ſeems therefore rather to have been an editor than a Printer, and to have hir'd the other three to print in partnerſhip with him.

105. ANTONY de Guzzago of Breſcia, 1 edit. 1498.

106. SEBASTIAN MANILIUS a Roman and partners, 1 edit. 1499.

107. JOHN BAPT. SESSA of Milan, 2 edit. 1499.

108. ZACHARIAH CALIERGI of Crete; he was a very eminent Printer of Greek: we have two editions of his, both of 1499, viz. Simplicius Com⯑ment. upon Ariſtotle's Cathegorics fol. and Etymologicum magnum, fol. in Greek, the laſt of theſe printed at the deſire of a Conſtantinopolitan lady: he re⯑mov'd to Rome, and printed there till ann. 1523 if not beyond; and the Lexicon Varini was printed by him in that year.

109. LUCANTONIUS de Giunta or Zunta of Florence, 1500.

ALL the Printers of this name [de Giunta or Zunta] have been perſons of the moſt diſtinguiſh'd merit for their performances at Rome, Florence, Lyons and Venice; their common rebus or mark was the flower-de-luce, and ſometimes the eagle. The firſt of that name is this Lucantonius Giunta, a man of noble extract, who employ'd John de Spira to print for him at Venice.

WHETHER this Spira was a ſon or grandſon of one of the two bro⯑thers, who firſt brought the Art to this city, is uncertain. However, the Giunta's ſignaliz'd themſelves in that Art, 'till the middle of the ſix⯑teenth century. The following edition is the only one, we know of, printed by him before the cloſe of this century, viz. Regulae ſancti Bene⯑dicti, [165] ſancti Baſilii, ſanct. Auguſtini & Franciſci; collectae atque ordinatae per D. J. Franc. Brixianum monachum congregationis S. Juſtinae ordinis S. Benedicti de obſervantia, 4to, cura & impenſis nobilis viri Luc. Antonii de Giunta Florentini, arte & ſolerti ingenio magiſtri Johannis de Spira, idibus April. Venetiis. Some of the impreſſions of Matthew Capcaſa at Venice, 1482, are ſaid in the colophon to be printed at the deſire of Lucant. Zunta.

109, NICHOLAS BLASTI, one Greek edition dated 1500.

110. ALBERTINE VERCELLENSIS, 1 edit. dated 1500.

THESE are all the Printers hitherto known to have wrought at Venice, from the time of its receiving the Art, to the year 1500, but there were many more, who, as was hinted before, made a trade of reprinting ſome of the beſt editions in a ſlovenly incorrect manner, and to underſell the good ones; for which reaſon, they did not dare to ſet their names to them. Father Orlandi gives us a liſt of 90 of them done at Venice during that interval, the greateſt part of which, I am apt to ſuſpect, are of that ſorry kind.

CHAP. V. Of the three firſt Printers at Paris, and their Suc⯑ceſſors; the Encouragement which they met with; ſome Account of the Books printed by them; with other Particulars. A ſecond Printing-houſe ſet up in the Louvre by King Lewis XI. reſt of the Paris Printers.

WHOEVER deſires a compleat account of the firſt ſettlement, progreſs and improvement of the Art of Printing, in the city and univerſity of Paris, the metropolis of France, will find that ſubject copiouſly treated of by De la Caille in his Origine de l'imprimerie printed anno 1689, and more particularly by Chevillier in his Origine de l'Imprime⯑rie printed at Paris, anno 1694.

[166] THESE two authors have chiefly confin'd their hiſtory to that king⯑dom; and, as they had all poſſible opportunities of ſearching the records and libraries of that univerſity, have been enabled to acquaint the world with a vaſt many particularities relating as well to the Art, a [...] to the moſt emi⯑nent Printers there. But ſince an induction of them would ſwell this work to too great a bulk, I ſhall ſelect the moſt curious and material parts, and refer the reader for the reſt to the authors before mention'd. Suffi⯑cient reaſons, I hope, are already given, againſt the opinion of thoſe, who, contrary to all the moſt inconteſtable records, aſſert that Nich. Jen⯑ſon firſt brought printing to Paris. This particular is further confirm'd by the two laſt mention'd French hiſtorians, whoſe account of that matter is as follows.

SOME time before the year 1470, William Fichet and John Heynlim de Lapide or Lapidanus, two famous doctors of the univerſity of Paris, and of the college of Sorbon, obſerving the progreſs of printing in ſeveral cities of Europe, began to uſe their utmoſt efforts in order to introduce it not only into that city, but even into their college, where they might give it all neceſſary help and encouragement. They were both perſons of great reputation for their learning and publick ſpirit. The former was a Savoyard by birth, and a great reſtorer of the long neglected art of rhetorick, and all polite literature. The latter was a German, and had been rector of the univerſity, and prior of the college of Sorbon, to which laſt dignity, he was choſen again about this time. As there were then but few, if any, except Germans, eminent in printing, Lapidanus un⯑dertook to bring ſome of the moſt ſkilfull thither. This could not but ſeem eaſily attainable by him, who had ſuch a numerous acquaintance amongſt the learned in Germany, and is ſuppos'd, upon good grounds, to have been of the ſame dioceſs, if not the ſame city with Uldric Gering, a native of Conſtance. The latter being influenc'd by the kind invitations of a perſon of ſuch eſteem, who promis'd him the college of Sorbon for his abode, and his aſſiſtance in procuring and preparing manuſcripts, and reviſing his editions; and allur'd by the hopes of conſiderable gain in ſo rich a city, wherein the Art was yet unpractis'd, brought two other countrymen with him, viz. Martin Crantz and Michael Friburger or de Columbaria or Colmar in Alſace, to Paris; where he ſet up preſſes in the [167] hall of Sorbon, and in the year 1470 publiſh'd the firſt book, that ever was printed in any city of France, except that of Tours mention'd in a former chapter. Father Orlandi tells us, that Lewis XI gave Fitchet and Lapidanus orders to ſend for ſome of the beſt Printers to Paris, at his own charge; and that by this means the three German partners were in⯑duc'd to ſettle there. Chevillier takes no notice of this, but attributes the honour wholly to the Sorboniſts. However, it is certain that this king was a great encourager of learning; as appears by the magnificent library which he form'd at his palace in Paris; whither he brought not only all the books, which his predeceſſors, and in particular Charles V ſirnam'd the wiſe, and Charles VI had collected and ſet up at Fountainbleau, but likewiſe all that he could purchaſe at any rate, together with a great num⯑ber of editions printed at Mentz by Fauſt and Schoeffer; and what manu⯑ſcripts he could not purchaſe, he order'd to be curiouſly tranſcrib'd, and to be ſet up there. A remarkable inſtance of this, mention'd by the French writers, is as follows.

THE king underſtanding that the college of phyſicians at Paris had in their library the works of Rhaſis a phyſician, tranſlated out of Arabick into Latin, ſent to borrow it, in order to have it tranſcrib'd; but the college repreſenting it as againſt their conſtitutions to lend any of their books without a ſufficient pledge; his majeſty was contented to obtain the uſe of it, by depoſiting a large quantity of his own plate. Whether therefore the king or the two doctors brought the firſt Printers to Paris, 'tis beyond doubt, that he gave them ſufficient encouragement, and ac⯑ceſs to the library at the Louvre, with liberty to print from any of thoſe volumes, in the choice of which, it is probable, they were directed by their two patrons.

As the Art was then in its infancy at Paris, their firſt editions were in a large round Roman character but greatly inferior in beauty to that of their contemporaries in Italy; their paper was ſmooth and ſtrong, tho' leſs white; their impreſſions were maim'd and imperfect, with letters and words half printed, and finiſh'd with a pencil; the inſcription and title of ſome epiſtles, and the large initial letters of books and chapters were done with the hand, for which a blank was left in the page; they had no capitals, nor regular ſpaces, but were full of abbreviations; in ſhort, [168] there was nothing to recommend them except the newneſs, and the beauty of the ink. They us'd few rubricks, and thoſe only upon vel⯑lum; ſome of their books begin at the folio verſo, or even page; and all of them are without titles, number of pages, ſignatures or direction⯑words; they us'd no ſignatures 'till the year 1476, and then plac'd them not at the bottom, but at the top of the pages; they added neither date, nor names of Printer and place; all which are only to be gathered from the prefaces, or epigrams at the end, or ſome other circumſtances, as will appear from the liſt of their works, eſpecially of thoſe printed in the three firſt years 1470, 1471, and 1472. It is certainly very ſurpri⯑ſing, that neither Gering nor his two learned patrons, who muſt infallibly have ſeen ſome of the Italian editions, eſpecially thoſe of Rome and Ve⯑nice, which had all theſe neceſſary ornaments, ſhould not make them ſen⯑ſible of their deficiencies in all thoſe reſpects. However, ſo few were the elegant Printers in thoſe days, that the learned men of Paris, who eſteem'd the Art of more conſequence than theſe embelliſhments, fail'd not to acknowledge their obligation to the Sorbon doctors, for the ſervi⯑ces they had done to the univerſity in ſettling the Printers there, upon whom they were equally liberal of their encomiums. Enough of theſe may be ſeen in Chevillier pag. 41, & ſeq. I ſhall only cite in the margin an epigram printed at the end of Gaſpar Pergamenſis's epiſtles, which was their firſt impreſſion, and had prefix'd to it a letter of thanks to thoſe great men, upon their bringing the Art to that city.

THE epigram ¹ is addreſs'd to the city of Paris, and ſufficiently ſhews not only that this edition was the firſt fruits of the Art both in that city and kingdom, againſt thoſe who aſcribe that honour to Jenſon; but like⯑wiſe that the Pariſians congratulated themſelves for their ſucceſs in intro⯑ducing it thither, ſince it gave the univerſity an abſolute authority over [169] all Printers and bookſellers, in the ſeven following particulars, mention'd by Chevillier pag. 327, viz.

• 1. THAT all the Printers and bookſellers of Paris, after the firſt ſet⯑tlement of printing there, have ſtill continued in their former ſtate, that is, been eſteem'd as agents and ſervants to that univerſity.
• 2. THAT they are oblig'd to take the oaths to the rector of it.
• 3. THAT they are not allow'd to follow that buſineſs 'till the univer⯑ſity has judg'd them qualify'd for it.
• 4. THAT the univerſity exerciſes their juriſdiction over them by ſum⯑moning them to appear, &c. by fining, puniſhing and depoſing them for any miſdemeanor.
• 5. THAT the edicts and ordinances of the king impower that body to viſit and ſearch all Printing-houſes, ware-houſes for books, and book⯑ſellers ſhops, &c.
• 6. THAT the univerſity ſet a price upon their books, which was affix'd to their catalogues, and plac'd in ſome conſpicuous part of their ſhops, leſt any perſon might be impos'd on by them. This part of their pro⯑vince they exerted, long before the Art of Printing was diſcover'd, over all tranſcribers, illuminators, bookſellers, &c.
• 7. LASTLY, that the bookſellers, &c. ſhould ſell no books of religion, &c. 'till they had been examin'd and approv'd by the univerſity, or, at leaſt, by the faculty of doctors of divinity.

WE ſhall ſhew in the third book of this hiſtory, that the univerſity of Oxſord had the ſame authority over the Printers and bookſellers of that city.

TO return to our three Printers, they continued printing but three years at the houſe of the Sorbon; after which one of their patrons, Fichet being invited to Rome by Pope Sixtus IV, and the other intending ſoon after to return to Germany, they remov'd to St. James's-ſtreet, at the ſign [170] of the Golden Sun. Upon this they immediately rejected all their old punches, matrices and letters, and furniſh'd themſelves with ſome entirely new, and printed ſeveral conſiderable volumes 'till the year 1477; at which time Crantz and Friburger either return'd into Germany, or, at leaſt, left off printing, for there is no edition with their names after that year; but Gering printed in his own name many years longer, as ſhall be ſhewn in its place In the mean time, it will be proper to give the reader an account of this new ſet of characters, which they made uſe of in their new houſe.

'TIS to be obſerv'd, that they were of three or four ſorts, all different from each other, and from thoſe us'd at the houſe of the Sorbon, and caſt in new matrices. One ſort is vaſtly inferior to their former, and reſem⯑bles the hand-writing of that time, but ſuch as was done (ſtannea manu, as Aldus expreſſes it) with a heavy hand.

IT is not, however, altogether Gothic, but rather like that which Schoeffer us'd at Mentz. Another ſort was not unlike this in ſhape, but of a much larger face. The third was a Roman much more round and fine than the two former; but the fourth ſort, not us'd by Gering 'till after the year 1478, that is, after his partners had left him, is a very beautiful, large Roman, which (if we may believe Chevillier, who ſaw and compar'd them) is in no caſe inferior to that of the Spira's, Jen⯑ſon, or any other of the famous Venetian and French Printers, either before or ſince. Thus Gering attain'd to a degree of perfection equal with any of his brethren; but was at laſt oblig'd to comply with the cuſtom, and print ſeveral books in Gothic, ſuch as Virgil and ſome others, beſides thoſe for the uſe of churches. The editions printed at this houſe, and in theſe new characters, are ſtill defective with reſpect to their dates or Printers names, ſome wanting the one, ſome the other, and ſome both, as appears by the liſt of his works given us by the foremention'd author, anno 1480. Gering took into partnerſhip with him for ſome time, William Maynyal; and in the year 1483 remov'd from St. James's-ſtreet, and took a leaſe, during life, of a houſe belonging to the college of Sor⯑bon, where he ſet up his old ſign of the Golden-ſun. As he was now be⯑come very rich, and had contracted an intimate friendſhip with the Sor⯑bon collegians, he made them ſome conſiderable donatives both in books [171] and money; upon which account they choſe him fellow of that college, and aſſign'd him chambers and commons in it: and as he was not en⯑gag'd in matrimony, he took the more pleaſure in converſing with them, communicating his deſigns, and uſing their advice about the books which he was to print, and their aſſiſtance in correcting them; in return for which he preſented them with copies of all his editions. It was no ſmall advantage to that college (which was call'd at firſt by the founder Robert Sorbon, Societas pauperum magiſtrorum Pariſiis in theologica facultate ſtudentium) to have ſo generous a friend and benefactor admitted into it; who requited them for this honour with vaſt legacies, left by him in his will to this college, and that of Montague in the ſame city. For by his ſucceſs in printing 'till anno 1510, in which he died, he had amaſs'd a prodigious quantity of wealth, all which he bequeath'd to thoſe two colleges. What he endow'd the Sorbon in particular with, was ſuffici⯑ent to maintain eight fellows, to be added to thoſe on the old foundation, and two lectures every day, one in the morning for the Old, and ano⯑ther in the afternoon for the New Teſtament; beſides ſeveral other do⯑natives to thoſe of the houſe whom he had a particular eſteem for.

Now conſidering, that he was the firſt Printer of that city and king⯑dom; that he was invited thither by the college of Sorbon; that he had been ſo great a maſter of his art, and ſo liberal to that poor ſociety in his life-time, and after his death; the reader may perhaps expect to hear of ſome monument erected by them to his memory: but 'tis plain from what Chevillier, a fellow of that college, tells us, that they did not ſo much as ſet a grave-ſtone over him, to let the world know where that great man was bury'd; ſo that our laſt mention'd author, after a vaſt deal of pains, could not gain the leaſt certainty about it. However, to do them juſtice, they order'd an anniverſary-maſs to be ſaid on the 23d of Auguſt, on which he dy'd. Who his correctors were, is difficult to determine; but it is probable he made uſe of any of the collegians, whom he pleas'd. He had ſome other partners beſides Maynyal beforementi⯑on'd, and inſtructed ſeveral Printers, who ſignaliz'd themſelves both du⯑ring his life and after he dy'd. There were likewiſe divers other Print⯑ing-houſes ſet up at Paris ſoon after his, of which we ſhall ſpeak, when we have given ſome further account of his works; Chevillier in his liſt of [172] them divides them into three claſſes, viz. thoſe which he printed with his two partners in the college from 1470 to 1473; next thoſe printed at the Golden Sun in St. James's-ſtreet 'till anno 1483; and laſtly, thoſe which he printed from that time 'till his death, either by himſelf or with his other partners. Of the firſt claſs there are eleven editions ſtill extant all printed in the ſame character, ſome of the firſt of which have epiſtles affix'd and inſcrib'd by Fichet above-nam'd, to ſeveral princes and prelates, and are dated 1470 and 1471; one of which, to cardinal Beſſarion, has the fol⯑lowing, Aedibus Sorbonae ſcriptum, impreſſumque uno anno & ſeptuageſimo quadringenteſimo ſupra milleſimum: thoſe of the ſecond claſs are 23 in num⯑ber: and ſixteen of the third claſs, excluſive of thoſe, which he printed after the year 1500: all which the reader will find either in Chevillier or Mr. Mattaire. Gering's laſt work is dated 1508, which ſhews that he left off printing two years before he dyed: for his death did not happen 'till anno 1510, Aug. 23. The next Printing-houſe, to that of the three Ger⯑mans laſt ſpoken of, was ſet up by,

CHAP. V. The Settlement and Progreſs of Printing in the Cities of Cologn, Milan 1470, Strasburgh, Bo⯑lognia and Treviſo 1471, the Names, Dates, and other Particulars of their Printers.

CHAP. VII. Printing brought into the Cities of Naples, Flo⯑rence, and Ferrara, anno 1471, and to Nurem⯑bergh, Verona, Parma, Mantua, Derventer and Padua, anno 1472; a Liſt of the Printers, and their Works, with other particulars, till 1500.