Index:De Vinne, Invention of Printing (1876).djvu
 | Formatting guidelines specific to this work may have already been established. Please check this Index's discussion page and follow any such conventions. |
CONTENTS. (not listed in original)
(not listed in original)
ILLUSTRATIONS.
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND CORRECTIONS.
Page 24. In the second line of foot-note, change two-thirds to four-ninths. 27. The exact date of the complete invention of copper-plate printing is unfixed. Vasari says that Finiguerra's discovery was made in 1450, but that the Italian practice of making plate prints began about 1460. It is obvious that the alleged discovery in 1450 of the feet that the blacking placed in incised lines could be transferred to paper by pressure was not the complete invention of copper-plate printing. Much more had to be done. The earliest dated Italian print by this method is of the year 1465. The earliest authentic German print is dated 1446. There are others attributed to the years 1422, 1430, 1440, but they are not accepted as genuine by Passavant. See Peintre-Graveur, vol. i, pp. 192-197. Senefelder's first suggestion of lithography was entertained in 1796, but his vague notions about printing from stone did not assume a practical shape before 1798. He did not receive, and perhaps was not entitled to, his patent before 1800. 34. The exact size of the Assyrian cylinder illustrated on this page is seven inches high and three inches wide at each end. 64. On page 447, the date of the erection of this stone by Wittig is put down at 1508, which is the date given by Bernard and by many others. But Wetter, from whose book this statement was taken, knowing that Wittig was dead in 1507, altered the date to 1507. Helbig does not accept either date. He thinks that it should be 1504. Notes et dissertations, pp. 10, 11. 65. In foot-note, change exculptis to exsculptis. 77. I have followed De la Borde's translation of this indulgence, which makes the time seventeen thousand years, but Holtrop's translation is fourteen thousand years. The popes supposed to be associated with Gregory in the promulgation of this indulgence were the Anti-pope Benedict xiii at Avignon, and Pope John xxiii. Holtrop does not regard this as a print of 1418; he places it between 1455 and 1470. 82. It is possible that engraving on wood was done in England in the first half of the fifteenth century. Ottley, in his Inquiry concerning the Invention of Printing, page 198, describes an English print of the crucifixion, with legend in English, which he says may be as old as the St. Christopher. This is the legend: "Seynt Gregor. with oyer [other] popes & bysshoppes yn seer, Haue graunted of pardon xxvi. mill yeer. To yeym yat befor yis fygur on yeir knees Devoutly say .v. pater noster .&.v. Auees." Weigel has given other fac-similes of early English engraving. 95. Chatto says that Gringonneur was paid 56 sols about 1393. Passavant says 50 sols. Lacroix says 1392, and estimates the value of 56 sols in modern money at 180 francs. 98. In third line of second paragraph, change fifteenth to fourteenth. 104. In third line of foot-note, change printers to painters. 111, In foot-note, last line of small type, change chap. i to chap. ii. 130. Change John i, 3, to John iii, 1. 150. Lacroix gives the date of 1292 for the employment of the seventeen book-binders at the University of Paris. 177. In sixth line of note, change 1435 to 1430, and the word double to thrice. 180. In eleventh line, change 1385 to 1381. 218. The date of the termination of the Great Schism is usually put at 1447, but it was not fully ended until Pope Felix v abdicated the papal chair in 1449, and ordered the church to submit to Nicholas v. 250. Passavant (vol. i, p. 50) says that there is in the library at Heidelberg a copy of a xylographic edition of the Lord's Prayer, a block-book of ten leaves, which may be attributed to the fifteenth century. 299. In last line but two of note, change 380 to 280. 319. Holtrop says that Bellaert's name is first mentioned in 1485, as it appears in the fac-simile. 378. A document has been recently discovered at Strasburg which proves that Frielo Gensfleisch, the elder brother of John Gutenberg, was in Strasburg in 1429. This document is the signature of Frielo to a receipt for 26 florins due him on an annuity. See Book Worm for January, 1868. 397. It is not probable that this tool of four pieces was the press. Ottley, who thinks that Gutenberg's secret was not that of printing (Inquiry concerning Invention, p. 41), says, "there can be no doubt that presses of different kinds were known long before the invention of typography" (p. 37), and that "five of the witnesses, none of whom were partners, knew all about the press" (p. 40). It may also be added that the repetition by different witnesses of the order to separate the four pieces and put them in a disjointed form in the press or on or under the press, is evidence that the four pieces did not constitute the press nor any part of it. Nor can it be supposed that Gutenberg had sent to his home a bulky press to have, as has "been asserted, its "joinings renewed." This work should have been done by Sahspach, the joiner who built it Although I believe that Gutenberg afterward invented the printing press, I think that the press here mentioned was nothing more than the screw press of the carpenter—the wooden vise or press of a workman who needed it when using a file. A printing press would not be needed until the types were made, which it appears were not even then ready. The fact that Gutenberg, Dritzehen, Dünne, and Sahspach worked apart is proof that the proposed printing office was not furnished—that the men were making tools, and the tools were probably moulds and matrices. I have accepted Van der Linde's translation of zurlossen as melting, for it is warranted by many evidences that the tool of four pieces and the formen were of metal. Ottley's translation, making zurlossen mean a loosening or unjointing, or breaking-up, with a view to renewal or reconstruction, could also be accepted. 405. Bernard questions the accuracy of the date of the Donatus of 1451, but it is the belief of Fischer and of many others that it was printed in 1451. 412. In the last line of text, insert the word not before always. 413. Compare the spacing in the Bibles of Gutenberg with that of the Psalter of 1451, as shown in pages 453 and 455. In Gutenberg's Bibles, there are some evidences of attempts to keep the lines even; in the Psalter, the nicety of full lines or of even spacing was disregarded. 451. Madden admits that Schœffer was a copyist at Paris, but doubts the inference that he was a student of the University. His doubt seems to be based on the faulty Latin of the colophon. 455. I am not entirely satisfied with the fac-simile of types on this page. It is a copy of the fee-simile made by Falkenstein, the only one accessible to me of the edition of 1457. It is, no doubt, a correct representation of form and of general appearance, but the outlines of the letters are suspiciously sharp. They do not accord in this feature with the types shown on page 453. In Falkenstein's fac-simile, the ornamental work about the letter P is a dull bluish purple, so made by printing deep blue over lines previously printed in dull red. I have not attempted to imitate this dull purple color (of which I find no notice save in the book of Papillon), for I believe that this use of purple was exceptional. It was probably caused by an imperfect cleansing of the red block, the after application of the blue and the mixing on the block of both colors, forming a dull purple. 465. Madden doubts the genuineness of the record of the proposed mission of Jenson to Mentz. 467. I have accepted the statement of Bernard that leads were first used in 1465 in the Offices of Cicero, but a re-examination of the fac-simile in Sotheby's Typography (No. 90) of the Treatise on Reason and Conscience convinces me that the types of this work were leaded. As Gutenberg abandoned printing in 1465, it is probable that the Treatise is really older than the Offices. If so, Gutenberg was the first to use leads. 498. Many bibliographers regard Martens as the predecessor of John of Westphalia, and as a graduate of one of the typographical schools at Cologne. Holtrop thinks that Martens was the pupil of John of Westphalia, his corrector and associate, but not his partner or predecessor. 506. La Caille and Santander say that Gering died in 1510; Van der Meersch says 1520. 529. The weakness of the early press is abundantly proved by the smallness of the forms and the absence of large and black wood-cuts in all books printed before 1800. The inability of the hand-press (even when made of iron, as it was in 1824) is set forth by Johnson in his Typographia, vol. ii, p. 548. It is there stated that an engraver who had been at work for three years on a wood-cut 11½ by 15 inches, was dismayed by the discovery, after a fair trial, that his block was too large to be properly printed on any variety of English press then in common use. The Clymer press, just introduced, was then tested. By lengthening the bar, and getting two men to pull, a few fair impressions were obtained, but the block soon broke under pressure. This wood-cut was only about half the size of the two-page cuts which are now regularly and easily printed for the popular illustrated papers on machines at the rate of 1,000 an hour. 530. The most admirable feature of the best early printing is its simplicity. The types were uncouth, but they were made with single purpose, to be easily read, not to show the skill of the punch-cutter. This object would have been fully accomplished if the compositor had refrained from abbreviations and had spaced his words with intelligence. The pressman did his part of the work fairly, and honestly impressed the types on the paper with unexceptionable firmness and solidity. The readable method of doing presswork is, unfortunately, out of fashion. A perverted taste requires the modern printer to use thin types, dry glossy paper, as little ink and as weak an impression as is consistent with passable legibility. This general fondness for delicacy is not at all favorable to the production of readable books. |
