IIICOLOPHONS AT VENICE

Presens spalmorum [sicfor psalmorum] codex venustate capitalium decoratus Rubricationibusque sufficienter distinctus, Adinuentione artificiosa imprimendi ac caracterizandi absque calami vlla exaracione sic effigiatus, Et ad eusebiam dei industrie est consummatus, Per Johannem fust ciuem maguntinum, Et Petrum Schoffer de Gernszheim Anno domini Millesimo.cccc.lvij In vigilia Assumpcionis.The present copy of the Psalms, adorned with beauty of capital letters, and sufficiently marked out with rubrics, has been thus fashioned by an ingenious invention of printing and stamping without any driving of the pen, And to the worship of God has been diligently brought to completion by Johann Fust, a citizen of Mainz, and Peter Schöffer of Gernsheim, in the year of the Lord 1457, on the vigil of the Feast of the Assumption.

The present copy of the Psalms, adorned with beauty of capital letters, and sufficiently marked out with rubrics, has been thus fashioned by an ingenious invention of printing and stamping without any driving of the pen, And to the worship of God has been diligently brought to completion by Johann Fust, a citizen of Mainz, and Peter Schöffer of Gernsheim, in the year of the Lord 1457, on the vigil of the Feast of the Assumption.

A few notes on some of the words in this colophon may be offered. “Codex,” which has been paraphrased “copy,” meant originally a collection of tablets waxed over for writing on, and so any book in which the leaves are placed one on another instead of being formed into a roll. “Capital letters” must be understood of large initials, not merely, as the phrase is often used to mean, majuscules, or “upper-case” letters. “Adinventio” appears to mean simply invention, and not, as with our knowledge of stories of “prefigurements” of printing in Holland afterward completed in Germany we might be inclined to think, the perfecting of an invention. The epithet “artificiosa” probably only means skilful, without emphasizing the contrast between the artificial methods of printing as compared with the natural use of the hand. About “caracterizandi” it is not easy to feel quite sure. Does it complete “imprimendi” by adding to theidea of pressing the further idea of the letter (χαρακτήρ) impressed, or is “imprimendi” already fully equivalent to printing, while “caracterizandi” refers to engraving the letters on the punches? Lastly, it may be noted that incalamus, “reed,” andexaratione, “plowing up,” which properly refers to the action of the “stilus” of bone or metal on the waxed surface of a tablet, we have reference to two different methods of writing, one or other of which must necessarily be slurred. Not all colophons present so many small linguistic difficulties as this, but few are wholly without them, and many of the renderings which will be offered in ensuing chapters must be accepted merely as the best paraphrases which could be attained.

This first colophon was repeated by Fust and Schoeffer with very slight alterations in the Psalter of 1459 (in which were added the words “et honorem sancti iacobi,” “and to the honour of S. James,” the patron of the Benedictine monastery at Mainz, for whose use the edition was printed), in the “Durandus” of the same year, the Clementine Constitutions published in 1460, and the Bible of 1462.

Meanwhile, in 1460, there had been published at Mainz an edition of the “Catholicon,” a Latin dictionary compiled by Joannes Balbus of Genoa, a Dominican of the thirteenth century. The colophon to this book, instinct with religious feeling and patriotism, and interesting for its pride in the new art and use of some technical terms, yet lacks the one important piece of information which we demand from it—the name of the printer.

Altissimi presidio cuius nutu infantium lingue fiunt diserte, Quique numerosepe paruulis reuelat quod sapientibus celat, Hic liber egregius, catholicon, dominice incarnacionis annis Mcccclx Alma in urbe maguntina nacionis inclite germanice,Quam dei clemencia tam alto ingenij lumine, donoque gratuito, ceteris terrarum nacionibus preferre, illustrareque dignatus est, Non calami, stili, aut penne suffragio, sed mira patronarum formarumque concordia proporcione et modulo, impressus atque confectus est.Hinc tibi sancte pater nato cum flamine sacroLaus et honor domino trino tribuatur et unoEcclesie laude libro hoc catholice plaudeQui laudare piam semper non linque mariam.Deo Gracias.Balbus. Catholicon. Mainz: [J. Gutenberg,] 1460.By the help of the Most High, at Whose will the tongues of infants become eloquent, and Who ofttimes reveals to the lowly that which He hides from the wise, this noble book, Catholicon, in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1460, in the bounteous city of Mainz of the renowned German nation, which the clemency of God has deigned with so lofty a light of genius and free gift to prefer and render illustrious above all other nations of the earth, without help of reed, stilus, or pen, but by the wondrous agreement, proportion, and harmony of punches and types, has been printed and finished.Hence to Thee, Holy Father, and to the Son, with the Sacred Spirit,Praise and glory be rendered, the threefold Lord and One;For the praise of the Church, O Catholic, applaud this book,Who never ceasest to praise the devout Mary.Thanks be to God.

Hinc tibi sancte pater nato cum flamine sacroLaus et honor domino trino tribuatur et unoEcclesie laude libro hoc catholice plaudeQui laudare piam semper non linque mariam.Deo Gracias.

Hinc tibi sancte pater nato cum flamine sacro

Laus et honor domino trino tribuatur et uno

Ecclesie laude libro hoc catholice plaude

Qui laudare piam semper non linque mariam.

Deo Gracias.

Balbus. Catholicon. Mainz: [J. Gutenberg,] 1460.

By the help of the Most High, at Whose will the tongues of infants become eloquent, and Who ofttimes reveals to the lowly that which He hides from the wise, this noble book, Catholicon, in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1460, in the bounteous city of Mainz of the renowned German nation, which the clemency of God has deigned with so lofty a light of genius and free gift to prefer and render illustrious above all other nations of the earth, without help of reed, stilus, or pen, but by the wondrous agreement, proportion, and harmony of punches and types, has been printed and finished.

Hence to Thee, Holy Father, and to the Son, with the Sacred Spirit,Praise and glory be rendered, the threefold Lord and One;For the praise of the Church, O Catholic, applaud this book,Who never ceasest to praise the devout Mary.Thanks be to God.

Hence to Thee, Holy Father, and to the Son, with the Sacred Spirit,

Praise and glory be rendered, the threefold Lord and One;

For the praise of the Church, O Catholic, applaud this book,

Who never ceasest to praise the devout Mary.

Thanks be to God.

In addition to the “Catholicon,” the British Museum possesses three books in the same type, which are, therefore, ascribed to the same press—a “Tractatus racionis et conscientiae” of Matthew of Cracow, and two editions of the “Summa de articulis fidei” of S. Thomas Aquinas; but these, perhaps because they are only little books, have no printer’s colophon. On November 4, 1467, a Latin-German vocabulary known as the “Vocabularius Ex Quo” was finished at Eltville, near Mainz, by Nicolaus Bechtermünze and Wigandus Spiess of Ortenberg, having been begun by Heinrich Bechtermünze, brother of Nicolaus. It is printed in the same type as the “Catholicon,” reinforced by some slight additions, and it is noteworthy (as illustrating what we may call the hereditary or genealogical feature which runs through many colophons) that in taking over the type used in the “Catholicon,” part of the wording of its colophon was taken over also, though a few words appear to be borrowed from Fust and Schoeffer. To show this we may quote the colophon to the 1467 “Vocabularius” as transcribed by Mr. Hessels (“Gutenberg: was he the inventor of printing?” p. 141):

Presens hoc opusculum non stili aut penne suffragio sed noua artificiosaque invencione quadam ad eusebiam dei industrie per henricum bechtermuncze pie memorie in altauilla est inchoatum et demum sub anno domini M.cccc.l.xvij ipso die leonardi confessoris, qui fuit quarta die mensis nouembris, per nycolaum bechtermuncze fratrem dicti henrici et wygandum spyesz de orthenberg est consummatum.Hinc tibi sancte pater nato cum flamine sacroLaus et honor domino trino tribuatur et uno:Qui laudare piam semper non linque mariam.This present little work, not by the help of stilus or pen, but by a certain new and skilful invention to the worship of God, was diligently begun at Eltville by Heinrich Bechtermünze of pious memory, and at last, in the year of the Lord 1467, on the day of Leonard the Confessor, which was on the fourth day of the month of November, by Nicolaus Bechtermünze, brother of the said Heinrich, and Wigandus Spiess of Orthenberg, was brought to completion.Hence to Thee, Holy Father, and to the Son, with the Sacred Spirit,Praise and glory be rendered, the threefold Lord and One.O thou who never ceasest to praise the devout Mary.

Hinc tibi sancte pater nato cum flamine sacroLaus et honor domino trino tribuatur et uno:Qui laudare piam semper non linque mariam.

Hinc tibi sancte pater nato cum flamine sacro

Laus et honor domino trino tribuatur et uno:

Qui laudare piam semper non linque mariam.

This present little work, not by the help of stilus or pen, but by a certain new and skilful invention to the worship of God, was diligently begun at Eltville by Heinrich Bechtermünze of pious memory, and at last, in the year of the Lord 1467, on the day of Leonard the Confessor, which was on the fourth day of the month of November, by Nicolaus Bechtermünze, brother of the said Heinrich, and Wigandus Spiess of Orthenberg, was brought to completion.

Hence to Thee, Holy Father, and to the Son, with the Sacred Spirit,Praise and glory be rendered, the threefold Lord and One.O thou who never ceasest to praise the devout Mary.

Hence to Thee, Holy Father, and to the Son, with the Sacred Spirit,

Praise and glory be rendered, the threefold Lord and One.

O thou who never ceasest to praise the devout Mary.

The omission of the third line of the “Catholicon” quatrain, obviously because the word “Catholice” no longer had especial import, makes the construction even more mysterious than in the original, nor is this the only instance we shall find of such mauling.

While the Eltville colophon thus mainly takes its phrasing from that of the “Catholicon,” with a few words from Fust and Schoeffer’s thrown in, the latter firm were themselves not above borrowing a happy phrase, since in the “Liber Sextus Decretalium Bonifacii VIII” not only do we find an antithesis introduced to the “artificiosa adinuentio,” but in some copies, if Maittaire is to be trusted, the praise of Mainz is bodily taken over, so that the full colophon now reads:

Presens huius Sexti Decretalium preclarum opus alma in urbe Maguntina inclyte nacionis germanice, quam dei clemencia tam alti ingenii lumine donoque gratuito ceteris terrarum nacionibus preferre illustrareque dignatus est, non atramento plumali cannaneque aerea, sed artificiosa quadam adinuentione imprimendi seu caracterizandi sic effigiatum et ad eusebiam dei industrie est consummatum per Iohannem Fust ciuem et Petrum Schoiffher de Gernsheim. Anno domini M.cccclxv. die uero xvii mensis Decembris.The present splendid edition of this sixth book of Decretals, in the bounteous city of Mainz of the renowned German nation, which the clemency of God has deigned with so lofty a light of genius and free gift to prefer and render illustrious above all other nations of the earth, has been thus fashioned not by ink for the pen nor by a reed of brass, but by a certain ingenious invention of printing or stamping, and to the worship of God diligently brought to completion by Johann Fust, a citizen of Mainz, and Peter Schoiffher of Gernsheim, in the year of the Lord 1465, and on the 17th day of December.

The present splendid edition of this sixth book of Decretals, in the bounteous city of Mainz of the renowned German nation, which the clemency of God has deigned with so lofty a light of genius and free gift to prefer and render illustrious above all other nations of the earth, has been thus fashioned not by ink for the pen nor by a reed of brass, but by a certain ingenious invention of printing or stamping, and to the worship of God diligently brought to completion by Johann Fust, a citizen of Mainz, and Peter Schoiffher of Gernsheim, in the year of the Lord 1465, and on the 17th day of December.

By this time even a patient reader may well be weary with this ringing of the changes on the two colophons first printed, respectively, in 1457 and 1460. But, without pushing the suggestion too far, we may at least hazard a guess as to how they came thus to be amalgamated in December, 1465. For it was in this year that Gutenberg, who, when all is said, is the most probable printer for the “Catholicon” and the other books which go with it, became a pensioner of Adolph II, Archbishop of Mainz, and presumably gave up printing. The two small books in the “Catholicon” type (i.e.the “Tractatus racionis et conscientiae” and the “De articulis fidei”) appear in Schoeffer’s catalogue of 1469-70. Whether he bought the stock of them as early as 1465 cannot be proved, but it would seem reasonable to connect his taking over the “Catholicon” colophon in that year with the disappearance of Gutenberg from any kind of rivalry. As between printers in different cities, there was certainly no copyright in colophons any more than therewas in books. We shall see presently how, when books of Schoeffer’s were reprinted at Nuremberg and Basel, his colophons, with slight alterations, were taken over with them. But in Germany at this time, between citizens of the same town, trade rights, I fancy, were much more respected than at Venice, for instance, or at Paris, where the editions of Caesaris and Stoll were impudently pirated by two other firms in the very same street. At all events, it is worth noticing that the “Catholicon” printer’s colophon seems to have been taken over by Schoeffer, who bought some of his stock, and by the brothers Bechtermünze, who had the use of his types.

Passing now to other of Schoeffer’s colophons, we find in the edition of the “Officia et Paradoxa” of Cicero of this same year, 1465, a more personal form of the colophon, which gives us an explicit statement that Fust, the capitalist of the business, probably owing to failing health, now left the actual superintendence of the printing to his son-in-law Schoeffer, the quondam scribe. It runs:

Cicero. De Officiis. Mainz: Fust and Schoeffer, 1465.

“Presens Marci tulii clarissimum opus Iohannes Fust Moguntinus ciuis, non atramento plumali, canna neque aerea, sed arte quadam perpulcra, Petri manu pueri mei feliciter effeci finitum, Anno 1465.” This statement, that“I, Johann Fust, citizen of Mainz, completed the book by the labor or instrumentality (manu) of my son Peter,” was repeated in the reprint of February 4, 1466, and thenceforth the name of Fust disappears from the annals of printing.

In 1467 we find the colophon attributed by Maittaire to some copies of the “Sextus Decretalium” repeated (with the omission of Fust’s name) in the “Secunda Secundae” of S. Thomas Aquinas and the second edition of the Clementine Constitutions, and this became for some time Schoeffer’s normal colophon. In 1470, however, he varied it in his edition of S. Jerome’s Epistles in order to introduce a compliment paid by the saint to the city of Mainz, which made it peculiarly appropriate that his work should be popularized by a Mainz printer. This colophon runs:

[I]gitur Sophronii Eusebii Ieronimi orthodoxi, Ecclesie Christi propugnatoris clarissimi, Liber Ieronimianus, aut si mauis, quod et ipse velim, Liber Epistolaris explicit, ut dignitas nominis Ieronimiani egregio viro Johanni Andree permaneat, qui hoc ipsum zelo deuotionis erga virum sanctum affectus tempore prisco vulgauit in orbem. Est autem presens opus arte impressoria feliciter consummatum per Petrum schoiffer de Gernsshem in ciuitate nobili Moguntina. Cuius nobilitati vir beatus Ieronimus scribens ad Agerutiam de monogamia testimonium perhibet sempiternum multis milibus incolarum eiusdem in ecclesia pro fide catholica sanguine proprio laureatis.Huic laudatori reddit moguntia vicem,Tot sua scripta parans usibus ecclesie.Anno domini M.cccc.lxx. Die septima mensis septembris que fuit vigilia natiuitatis Marie. Da gloriam Deo.S. Jerome’s Epistles. Mainz: P. Schoeffer, 1470.Thus of Sophronius Eusebius Hieronimus [i.e., S. Jerome], the Orthodox, the most renowned champion of the Church of Christ, there comes to an end the book called after him Hieronominian, or if you prefer it the Book of his Epistles, the title I myself should wish to give it in order that the honor of the title Hieronimian may be reserved for the illustrious Johannes Andreae, who in olden time published to the world this very work from the zeal of his devotion to the holy man. Now the present work by the printing art has been happily brought to completion by Peter Schoiffer of Gernsheim in the noble city of Mainz, as to whose nobility the blessed man Jerome, writing to Agerutia concerning monogamy, bears eternal witness to the many thousands of its inhabitants who with their own blood have won crowns of laurel in the church for the catholic faith.Printing the words of him who gave this praise,Mainz helps the church the while her debt she pays.In the year of the Lord 1470, on the seventh day of September, which was the vigil of the Nativity of Mary. Give glory to God.

Huic laudatori reddit moguntia vicem,Tot sua scripta parans usibus ecclesie.

Huic laudatori reddit moguntia vicem,

Tot sua scripta parans usibus ecclesie.

Anno domini M.cccc.lxx. Die septima mensis septembris que fuit vigilia natiuitatis Marie. Da gloriam Deo.

S. Jerome’s Epistles. Mainz: P. Schoeffer, 1470.

Thus of Sophronius Eusebius Hieronimus [i.e., S. Jerome], the Orthodox, the most renowned champion of the Church of Christ, there comes to an end the book called after him Hieronominian, or if you prefer it the Book of his Epistles, the title I myself should wish to give it in order that the honor of the title Hieronimian may be reserved for the illustrious Johannes Andreae, who in olden time published to the world this very work from the zeal of his devotion to the holy man. Now the present work by the printing art has been happily brought to completion by Peter Schoiffer of Gernsheim in the noble city of Mainz, as to whose nobility the blessed man Jerome, writing to Agerutia concerning monogamy, bears eternal witness to the many thousands of its inhabitants who with their own blood have won crowns of laurel in the church for the catholic faith.

Printing the words of him who gave this praise,Mainz helps the church the while her debt she pays.

Printing the words of him who gave this praise,

Mainz helps the church the while her debt she pays.

In the year of the Lord 1470, on the seventh day of September, which was the vigil of the Nativity of Mary. Give glory to God.

In 1472, in the “Decretum Gratiani cum glossis,” we get another variant and an addition of some importance:

Anno incarnationis dominice 1472 idibus Augustiis, sanctissimo in Christo patre ac domino domino Sixto papa quarto pontifice maximo illustrissimo, nobilissime domus austrie Friderico, Romanorum rege gloriosissimo, rerum dominis, Nobili nec non generoso Adolpho de Nassau archiepiscopatum gerente maguntinensem, in nobili urbe Moguntia que nostros apud maiores Aurea dicta, quam diuina etiam clementia dono gratuito pre ceteris terrarum nationibus arte impressoria dignata est illustrare, hoc presens Gratiani decretum suis cum rubricis, non atramentali penna cannaue, sed arte quadam ingeniosa imprimendi, cunctipotente adspiranti deo, Petrus Schoiffer de Gernsheym suis consignando scutis feliciter consummauit.

A similar colophon was used in the “Nova compilatio Decretalium Gregorii IX” of 1473, and the phrase “suis consignando scutis” occurs again in Schoeffer’s edition of S. Bernard’s Sermons (1475) and in several books of the three following years. In 1479, in an edition of the “Decretals of Gregory IX,” the phrase is varied to “cuius armis signantur,” after which Panzer records it no more. This first mention of the shields has for us far more interest than the pompous recital of how Sixtus IV was pope, and Frederick of Austria king of the Romans, and Adolph of Nassau archbishop of Mainz when this “Decretal of Gratian” was printed “in the noble city of Mainz, which our ancestors used to call the golden city, and which has been so highly favored by its preëminence in printing.” Needless discussions have been raised as to what was the use and import of printers’ devices, and it has even been attempted to connect them with literary copyright, with which they had nothing whatever to do, literary copyright in this decade depending solely on the precarious courtesy of rival firms, or possibly on the rules of their trade-guilds. But here, on the authority of the printer who first used one, we have a clear indication of the reason which made him put his mark in a book—the simple reason that he was proud of his craftsmanship and wished it to be recognized as his. “By signing it with his shields Peter Schoiffer has brought the book to a happy completion.” When Wenssler of Basel copied Schoeffer’s books, he copied him also in affixing their marks and in drawing attention to them in the same way. Wenssler, too, was a good printer, and though he was certainly not claiming copyright in books which he was simply reprinting, he was equally anxious to have his handiwork recognized.

If yet further evidence be wanted, we can find it in the colophon to Schoeffer’s 1477 edition of the “TituliDecisionum antiquarum et nouarum,” which reads as follows:

Anno domini M.cccc.lxxvij. pridie nonis Ianuariis graui labore maximisque impensis Romanam post impressionem opus iterum emendatum: antiquarum nouarumque decisionum suis cum additionibus dominorum de Rota: In ciuitate Maguntina impressorie artis inuentrice elimatriceque prima Petrus Schoyffer de Gernssheym suis consignando scutis arte magistra; feliciter finit.

Some other features which occur in the wording of this will be noted later on. For our present purpose it is of interest to find the mark of the shields attached to a book which is distinctly stated to have been printed “Romanam post impressionem,” “after the edition printed at Rome,” and for which, therefore, no literary copyright is conceivable.

In the 1473 reprint of the “Sextus Decretalium” we note that Schoeffer now considered himself venerable, or perhaps it would be fairer to say “worshipful” (“per venerandum virum Petrum schoiffer de Gernshem feliciter est consummatum”), but in his edition of S. Augustine’s “De Ciuitate Dei,” of the same year, we find a more important variant. This reads:

Igitur Aurelii Augustini ciuitatis orthodoxe sideris prefulgidi de ciuitate Dei opus preclarissimum, binis sacre pagine professoribus eximiis id commentantibus rubricis tabulaque discretum precelsa in urbe moguntina partium Alemanie, non calami per frasim, caracterum autem apicibus artificiose elementatum, ad laudem Trinitatis indiuidue, ciuitatis dei presidis, operose est consummatum per Petrum schoiffer de gernsheim. Anno domini M.cccc.lxxiij. die v. mensis septembris. Presidibus ecclesie catholice Sixto tercio pontifice summo Sedi autem moguntine Adolfo secundo presule magnifico. Tenente autem ac gubernante Christianismi monarchiam Imperatore serenissimo Frederico tercio Cesare semper augusto.Thus the most renowned work of Aurelius Augustinus, a shining star of the city of orthodoxy, the De Ciuitate Dei, with the notes of two distinguished professors of Biblical Theology, set out with rubrics and index, in the exalted city of Mainz of the parts of Germany, not by the inditing of a reed, but skilfully put together from the tips of characters, to the praise of the undivided Trinity, ruler of the City of God, has been toilfully brought to completion by Peter Schoiffer of Gernsheim, in the year of the Lord 1473, on the fifth day of the month of September, the catholic church being under the rule of Sixtus III as supreme pontiff, and the see of Mainz under that of the magnificent patron Adolf II, while the most serene Emperor Frederick III, Caesar Augustus, held and guided the monarchy of Christendom.

Thus the most renowned work of Aurelius Augustinus, a shining star of the city of orthodoxy, the De Ciuitate Dei, with the notes of two distinguished professors of Biblical Theology, set out with rubrics and index, in the exalted city of Mainz of the parts of Germany, not by the inditing of a reed, but skilfully put together from the tips of characters, to the praise of the undivided Trinity, ruler of the City of God, has been toilfully brought to completion by Peter Schoiffer of Gernsheim, in the year of the Lord 1473, on the fifth day of the month of September, the catholic church being under the rule of Sixtus III as supreme pontiff, and the see of Mainz under that of the magnificent patron Adolf II, while the most serene Emperor Frederick III, Caesar Augustus, held and guided the monarchy of Christendom.

The struggles of the fifteenth-century Latinists to express the technicalities of printing are always interesting, and the phrase “caracterum apicibus elementatum” is really gallant. Following the Greek στοιχεῖα, the Romans used the word “elementa” originally for the component sounds of speech and then, by transference, for the letters of the alphabet. “Elementatum,” therefore, is strictly appropriate, and might be rendered “with the letters built up or put together,” while “caracterum apicibus” of course refers to the engraving in relief which forms the face of the type.

In 1475, perhaps as an echo of some verses in the “Noua compilatio Decretalium Gregorii IX” of 1473, we find a new phrase tacked on to the “arte impressoria” in an edition of Justinian, noting the fact that though Providence did not consider antiquity worthy of the art, it had been granted to our times (“qua quidem etsi antiquitas diuino non digna est visa indicio, nostra nichilominus tempestate indulta”). In 1476 again Schoeffer advertises that his edition of Justinian’s Institutes was printed “in the noble city of Mainz am Rhein, the inventress and first perfectress of the printing art” (“In nobiliurbe Maguncia Rheni, impressorie artis inuentrice elimatriceque prima”), while in the Clementine Constitutions of the same year he substitutes “alumnaque” for “elimatriceque,” presumably in the sense of pupil or practiser, reverting subsequently to “elimatrice.” In 1478 he once more varies the praises of Mainz by calling her “domicilium Minerve firmissimum,” “the most stable home of Minerva.” With this year 1478, which closes the period of Schoeffer’s chief activity, we may bring our survey of his colophons to an end. Thereafter he printed more intermittently, and, if the absence of colophons may be trusted, as I think it may, with less interest in his work. But during these twenty-two years from 1457 to 1478, inclusive, he had made his books bear continual testimony to one great fact, that the art of printing had been invented and brought to perfection in Germany, in the city of Mainz; and in any weighing of the comparative claims that have been advanced on behalf of Germany and Holland, I think that the evidence of Schoeffer’s colophons alone would suffice to give the priority to Germany and Mainz.

Of the clearness and energy of the claim made in these Mainz colophons, we have already given abundant illustration, nor can there be any doubt that it obtained wide publicity. Schoeffer printed at least one advertisement of his books, and he had an agency for their sale in Paris. Besides this, his editions were copied by other printers. So far as publicity could be insured in the fifteenth century, it was insured by Schoeffer, aided by the printer of the “Catholicon,” for the statement that printing was invented at Mainz; and despite the rivalry between city and city, and between country and country, during all the years that this assertion was being repeated in one colophon after another, no printer in any other book ventured to challenge it. No doubt there are factson the side of Holland which have to be explained as best we may, but in the face of these Mainz colophons the explanation must be of such a kind as to leave undisputed the fact that it was at Mainz that printing with movable types—“mira patronarum formarumque concordia proporcione et modulo”—first became a practicable art. On the other hand, as to the individual inventor of this art the fifteenth-century colophons are absolutely silent. There is nothing in any Mainz colophon answering to the boast of John of Speier at Venice, “primus in Adriaca formis impressit aenis,” by which he asserted his individual priority over any other firm. The only statement of the kind is in the extraordinarily crabbed verses added by the corrector Magister Franciscus, after the colophon, to the “Institutiones Justiniani” of 1468, and reprinted in that of 1472, and in the Decretals of 1473, but omitted in 1476. This states that two Johns, both of whom the town of Mainz produced (genuit), were the renowned first stampers of books (librorum insignes protocaragmaticos), and that with them was associated a Peter; and the natural interpretation of these allusions identifies the “protocaragmatici” (though the “proto” may refer to preëminence quite as well as to priority) with Johann Gutenberg, Johann Fust, and Peter Schoeffer.

So far as they are intelligible, therefore, these verses in the Institutes of Justinian confirm and extend the evidence of the colophons, and may be cheerfully accepted. Our last colophon in this chapter is not quite in the same case. This famous and ingeniously arranged addendum to the edition of the “Compendium de Origine regum et gentis Francorum” of Johann Tritheim, printed by Johann Schoeffer at Mainz in 1515, is shown as one of our illustrations, but may nevertheless be transcribed here for the sake of expanding its contractions:

Tritheim. Chronicarum opus. Mainz: Joh. Schoeffer, 1515. (Reduced.)Impressum et completum est presens chronicarum opus, anno domini MDXV. in uigilia Margaretae uirginis. In nobili famosaque urbe Moguntina, huius artis impressorie inuentrice prima. Per Ioannem Schöffer, nepotem quondam honesti uiri Ioannis Fusth, ciuis Moguntini, memorate artis primarii auctoris. Qui tandem imprimendi artem proprio ingenio excogitare specularique coepit anno dominice natiuitatis M.CCCC.L. indictione XIII. Regnante illustrissimo Romanorum imperatore Frederico III, praesidente sanctae Moguntinae sedi Reuerendissimo in Christo patre domino Theoderico pincerna de Erpach, principe electore. Anno autem M.CCCC.LII. perfecit deduxitque eam (diuina fauente gratia) in opus imprimendi, opera tamen ac multis necessariis adinuentionibus Petri Schöffer de Gernsheim ministri suique filii adoptiui, cui etiam filiam suam Christinam Fusthinn, pro digna laborum multarumque adinuentionum remuneratione nuptui dedit. Retinuerunt autem hii duo iam praenominati, Ioannes Fusth et Petrus Schöffer, hanc artem in secreto (omnibus ministris ac familiaribus eorum, ne illam quoquo modo manifestarent, iureiurando astrictis) Quo tandem de anno domini M.CCCCLXII per eosdem familiares in diuersas terrarum prouincias diuulgata haud parum sumpsit incrementum.Cum gratia et priuilegio Caesaree Maiestatis iussu et impensis honesti Ioannis Haselperg ex Aia maiore Constantiensis dioecesis.

Tritheim. Chronicarum opus. Mainz: Joh. Schoeffer, 1515. (Reduced.)

Impressum et completum est presens chronicarum opus, anno domini MDXV. in uigilia Margaretae uirginis. In nobili famosaque urbe Moguntina, huius artis impressorie inuentrice prima. Per Ioannem Schöffer, nepotem quondam honesti uiri Ioannis Fusth, ciuis Moguntini, memorate artis primarii auctoris. Qui tandem imprimendi artem proprio ingenio excogitare specularique coepit anno dominice natiuitatis M.CCCC.L. indictione XIII. Regnante illustrissimo Romanorum imperatore Frederico III, praesidente sanctae Moguntinae sedi Reuerendissimo in Christo patre domino Theoderico pincerna de Erpach, principe electore. Anno autem M.CCCC.LII. perfecit deduxitque eam (diuina fauente gratia) in opus imprimendi, opera tamen ac multis necessariis adinuentionibus Petri Schöffer de Gernsheim ministri suique filii adoptiui, cui etiam filiam suam Christinam Fusthinn, pro digna laborum multarumque adinuentionum remuneratione nuptui dedit. Retinuerunt autem hii duo iam praenominati, Ioannes Fusth et Petrus Schöffer, hanc artem in secreto (omnibus ministris ac familiaribus eorum, ne illam quoquo modo manifestarent, iureiurando astrictis) Quo tandem de anno domini M.CCCCLXII per eosdem familiares in diuersas terrarum prouincias diuulgata haud parum sumpsit incrementum.

Cum gratia et priuilegio Caesaree Maiestatis iussu et impensis honesti Ioannis Haselperg ex Aia maiore Constantiensis dioecesis.

This may be rendered:

The present historical work has been printed and completed in the year of the Lord 1515, on the vigil of Margaret, virgin, in the noble and famous city of Mainz, first inventress of this printing art, by John Schöffer, grandson of a late worthy man, John Fust, citizen of Mainz, foremost author of the said art, who in due course by his own genius began to think out and investigate the art of printing in the year of the Lord’s nativity 1450, in the thirteenth indiction, in the reign of the most illustrious Emperor of the Romans Frederick III, and when the most reverend father in Christ, Theoderic the cup-bearer, ofErbach, prince-elector, was presiding over the sacred see of Mainz, And in the year 1452 perfected and by the favor of divine grace brought it to the work of printing, by the help, however, and with many necessary inventions[2]of Peter Schöffer of Gernsheim, his workman and adoptive son, to whom also he gave his daughter Christina Fust in marriage as a worthy reward of his labors and many inventions.[2]And these two already named, Ioannes Fust and Peter Schöffer, kept this art secret, all their workmen and servants being bound by an oath not in any way to reveal it; but at last, from the year of the Lord 1462, through these same servants being spread abroad into divers parts of the world, it received no small increase.With the favor and privilege of the Imperial Majesty and at the command and expense of the worthy John Haselperg of Reichenau of the diocese of Constance.

With the favor and privilege of the Imperial Majesty and at the command and expense of the worthy John Haselperg of Reichenau of the diocese of Constance.

It would be too much to call this colophon untruthful, inasmuch as the term “primarius auctor,” like “protocaragmaticus,” does not necessarily claim primacy in point of time; nevertheless, it certainly suggests this primacy and generally assigns to Fust a more decisive part than we can easily believe that he played. We need not censure too hardly John Schoeffer’s family feeling, even though it led him to ignore Gutenberg in a way which earlier testimony forbids us to believe to be just; but it seems evident that family feeling was so much to the fore as to place this long historical colophon on quite a different footing from that of the earlier ones written by Schoeffer himself.

Decorative header image

While to Mainz belongs the supreme credit of having brought printing to the position of a practical art, the city in which it attained its highest perfection and popularity in the fifteenth century was undoubtedly Venice. The output from the Venetian presses represented some forty per cent. of the entire book production of Italy, and its quality was at least as remarkable as its quantity. It is natural, therefore, to turn from Mainz to Venice in our quest for interesting colophons, as wherever printers did good work and took pride in it we may expect to find correspondingly good colophons. Certainly at Venice we have no ground for disappointment in this respect. The Venetian colophons are plentiful and full of information, though chiefly about the publisher’s side of printing. What makes them a littlealarming to the pedestrian editor is that so many of the earliest and most interesting specimens are in verse. The books most favored by the first Venetian printers were editions of the Latin classics and Latin translations of the Greek ones. To see these through the press each printer had to retain the services of a corrector, who filled a position half-way between the modern proof-reader’s and editor’s. The printers, not being able to write Latin themselves with any fluency, naturally left their colophons in the hands of their correctors, and these gentlemen preferred to express themselves in verse. The verse, even allowing for the fact that it is generally intended to be scanned by accent rather than quantity, is often of a kind which would get an English school-boy into considerable trouble; and it would be a nice question as to whether Omnibonus Leonicenus and Raphael Zovenzonius, who wrote it for John and Wendelin of Speier; Antonius Cornazanus, who was in the pay of Jenson; or Valdarfer’s corrector, Lodovicus Carbo, should be held the most successful. Just, however, because its poetic ornaments are commonplace, to render this verse into prose seems more than usually unsportsmanlike. Good poetry can stand the test of prose, and the poetaster meddles with it at his peril, as witness the uniform inferiority of metrical renderings of the Psalms to the prose of the Great Bible or Prayer-Book version. But mediocre poetry when turned into prose becomes simply ridiculous, and so the present translator, without reckoning himself as even a “minimus poeta,” has wrestled manfully with these various verse colophons and “reduced” them, as best he could, into English rhymes, since these, poor as they are, misrepresent the originals less than any attempt he could make in prose. Here, then, without more apology, are the colophons from the earliest Venetian books, which fall into an interesting sequence.

The first printer at Venice, it will be remembered, was John of Speier, who obtained a special privilege for his work which would have cramped the whole craft at Venice had not his death removed the difficulty. In his first book, an edition of Cicero’s “Epistolae ad Familiares,” printed in 1469, the colophon is cast into these verses:

Cicero. Epistolae ad Familiares. Venice: John of Speier, 1469.Primus in Adriaca formis impressit aenisVrbe Libros Spira genitus de stirpe Iohannes.In reliquis sit quanta uides spes, lector, habenda,Quom labor hic primus calami superauerit artem.M.CCCC.LXVIIII.In Adria’s town, one John, a son of Speier,First printed books by means of forms of brass.And for the future shall not hope rise higherWhen the first fruits the penman’s art surpass?1469.

Cicero. Epistolae ad Familiares. Venice: John of Speier, 1469.

Primus in Adriaca formis impressit aenisVrbe Libros Spira genitus de stirpe Iohannes.In reliquis sit quanta uides spes, lector, habenda,Quom labor hic primus calami superauerit artem.M.CCCC.LXVIIII.

Primus in Adriaca formis impressit aenisVrbe Libros Spira genitus de stirpe Iohannes.In reliquis sit quanta uides spes, lector, habenda,Quom labor hic primus calami superauerit artem.

Primus in Adriaca formis impressit aenis

Vrbe Libros Spira genitus de stirpe Iohannes.

In reliquis sit quanta uides spes, lector, habenda,

Quom labor hic primus calami superauerit artem.

M.CCCC.LXVIIII.

In Adria’s town, one John, a son of Speier,First printed books by means of forms of brass.And for the future shall not hope rise higherWhen the first fruits the penman’s art surpass?1469.

In Adria’s town, one John, a son of Speier,First printed books by means of forms of brass.And for the future shall not hope rise higherWhen the first fruits the penman’s art surpass?

In Adria’s town, one John, a son of Speier,

First printed books by means of forms of brass.

And for the future shall not hope rise higher

When the first fruits the penman’s art surpass?

1469.

Of this first Venetian edition of Cicero’s letters we know from a subsequent colophon that only one hundred copies were printed, one twenty-fifth part of the whole edition now being preserved in the four copies at the BritishMuseum. It was obviously sold out very rapidly, and in some three or four months’ time the printer had got out a second edition, to which he added a new colophon.

Cicero. Epistolae ad Familiares. Second Edition. Venice: John of Speier, 1469.Hesperiae quondam Germanus quisque[3]libellosAbstulit: en plures ipse daturus adest.Namque uir ingenio mirandus et arte IoannesExscribi docuit clarius aere libros.Spira fauet Venetis: quarto nam mense peregitHoc tercentenum bis Ciceronis opus.M.CCCC.LXVIIII.From Italy once each German brought a book.A German now will give more than they took.For John, a man whom few in skill surpass,Has shown that books may best be writ with brass.Speier befriends Venice: twice in four months has hePrinted this Cicero, in hundreds three.1469.

Cicero. Epistolae ad Familiares. Second Edition. Venice: John of Speier, 1469.

Hesperiae quondam Germanus quisque[3]libellosAbstulit: en plures ipse daturus adest.Namque uir ingenio mirandus et arte IoannesExscribi docuit clarius aere libros.Spira fauet Venetis: quarto nam mense peregitHoc tercentenum bis Ciceronis opus.M.CCCC.LXVIIII.

Hesperiae quondam Germanus quisque[3]libellos

Abstulit: en plures ipse daturus adest.

Namque uir ingenio mirandus et arte Ioannes

Exscribi docuit clarius aere libros.

Spira fauet Venetis: quarto nam mense peregit

Hoc tercentenum bis Ciceronis opus.

M.CCCC.LXVIIII.

From Italy once each German brought a book.A German now will give more than they took.For John, a man whom few in skill surpass,Has shown that books may best be writ with brass.Speier befriends Venice: twice in four months has hePrinted this Cicero, in hundreds three.1469.

From Italy once each German brought a book.

A German now will give more than they took.

For John, a man whom few in skill surpass,

Has shown that books may best be writ with brass.

Speier befriends Venice: twice in four months has he

Printed this Cicero, in hundreds three.

1469.

The puzzle here is to determine how many copies there were of the second edition. Mr. Horatio Brown, in “The Venetian Printing Press” (p. 10), courageously asserts that “the second edition of theEpistulaeconsisted of six hundred copies, published in two issues of three hundred each; and that the whole six hundred took four months to print.” This is clearly inadmissible, as everything we know of fifteenth-century printing forbids us to suppose that John of Speier kept the whole book standing in type and printed off a second “issue” when he found there was a demand for it. The fourth month must be reckoned from the date of the first edition, and we have to choose, as to the number of copies in the second, between supposing that the three hundred, the “tercentenum opus,” refers to this alone, and that the poet did not intend to make any statement about the number of the first edition at all, or else that the second edition consisted of two hundred copies, and that these, with the hundred of the first, made up a total of three hundred. In either case his language is ambiguous, as the language of poets is apt to be when they try to put arithmetic into verse.

I have followed Mr. Proctor in making the second edition of Cicero’s letters precede the Pliny, but—as, in common with many other students of old books, I am made to feel daily—to be no longer able to go to him for information is a sore hindrance. I should have thought myself that the Pliny, a much larger book, was begun simultaneously with the first edition of Cicero, and that Wendelin’s colophon to the “De Civitate Dei” obliged us to link the Pliny with the first rather than the second edition. Perhaps, however, this arithmetic in verse is once more a little loose. Certainly the Pliny colophon, which is free from figures, is all the better poetry for that reason. It is the book here that speaks:

Plinius. Historia Naturalis. Venice: John of Speier, 1469.Quem modo tam rarum cupiens vix lector haberet,Quique etiam fractus pene legendus eram:Restituit Venetis me nuper Spira Ioannes:Exscripsitque libros aere notante meos.Fessa manus quondam moneo: calamusque quiescat,Namque labor studio cessit: et ingenio.M.CCCC.LXVIIII.I, erst so rare few bookmen could afford me,And erst so blurred that buyers’ eyes would fail—To Venice now ’twas John of Speier restored me,And made recording brass unfold my tale.Let rest the tired hand, let rest the reed:Mere toil to zealous wits the prize must cede.1469.

Plinius. Historia Naturalis. Venice: John of Speier, 1469.

Quem modo tam rarum cupiens vix lector haberet,Quique etiam fractus pene legendus eram:Restituit Venetis me nuper Spira Ioannes:Exscripsitque libros aere notante meos.Fessa manus quondam moneo: calamusque quiescat,Namque labor studio cessit: et ingenio.M.CCCC.LXVIIII.

Quem modo tam rarum cupiens vix lector haberet,

Quique etiam fractus pene legendus eram:

Restituit Venetis me nuper Spira Ioannes:

Exscripsitque libros aere notante meos.

Fessa manus quondam moneo: calamusque quiescat,

Namque labor studio cessit: et ingenio.

M.CCCC.LXVIIII.

I, erst so rare few bookmen could afford me,And erst so blurred that buyers’ eyes would fail—To Venice now ’twas John of Speier restored me,And made recording brass unfold my tale.Let rest the tired hand, let rest the reed:Mere toil to zealous wits the prize must cede.1469.

I, erst so rare few bookmen could afford me,

And erst so blurred that buyers’ eyes would fail—

To Venice now ’twas John of Speier restored me,

And made recording brass unfold my tale.

Let rest the tired hand, let rest the reed:

Mere toil to zealous wits the prize must cede.

1469.

The aspersion on the scribes was undeserved. If truth be told, either because they used too thin an ink, or else from too slight pressure, the early Venetian printers seldom did full justice to their beautiful types; and though their vellum copies are really fine, those on paper are no easier to read than the average fifteenth-century manuscripts which they imitated. We must, however, forgive Johnof Speier his little boastings, as this was the last colophon he was to print; and our next, which comes at the end of S. Augustine’s “De Civitate Dei,” contains his epitaph:

Qui docuit Venetos exscribi posse IoannesMense fere trino centena uolumina PliniEt totidem magni Ciceronis Spira libellos,Ceperat Aureli: subito sed morte peremptusNon potuit ceptum Venetis finire uolumen.Vindelinus adest, eiusdem frater et arteNon minor, Adriacaque morabitur urbe.M.CCCC.LXX.John, who taught Venice there might written beA hundred Plinys in months barely three,And of great Cicero as many a book,Began Augustine, but then death him took,Nor suffered that he should Venetians blessFinishing his task. Now Wendelin, no lessWith skill equipped, his brother, in his roomMeans to take Adria’s city for his home.1470.

Qui docuit Venetos exscribi posse Ioannes

Mense fere trino centena uolumina Plini

Et totidem magni Ciceronis Spira libellos,

Ceperat Aureli: subito sed morte peremptus

Non potuit ceptum Venetis finire uolumen.

Vindelinus adest, eiusdem frater et arte

Non minor, Adriacaque morabitur urbe.

M.CCCC.LXX.

John, who taught Venice there might written beA hundred Plinys in months barely three,And of great Cicero as many a book,Began Augustine, but then death him took,Nor suffered that he should Venetians blessFinishing his task. Now Wendelin, no lessWith skill equipped, his brother, in his roomMeans to take Adria’s city for his home.1470.

John, who taught Venice there might written be

A hundred Plinys in months barely three,

And of great Cicero as many a book,

Began Augustine, but then death him took,

Nor suffered that he should Venetians bless

Finishing his task. Now Wendelin, no less

With skill equipped, his brother, in his room

Means to take Adria’s city for his home.

1470.

The business which thus passed into his hands was certainly carried on by Wendelin vigorously, for during the next three years he turned out over a dozen folios or large quartos a year. He seems, indeed, to have outrun his resources, for as early as 1471 his colophons tell us that some of his books were financed for him by John of Cologne, and after the summer of 1473 his type passed into the possession of this John and his “very faithful partner, Johann Manthen.” As Wendelin’s name disappears from colophons for three years, it is probable that his services were taken over with his types; in 1470, however, he was his own master and the object of much praise from his colophon-writer. In his Sallust of this year we read:

Quadringenta dedit formata volumina CrispiNunc, lector, Venetis Spirea Vindelinus.Et calamo libros audes spectare notatosAere magis quando littera ducta nitet?To Venice Wendelin, who from Speier comes,Has given of Sallust twice two hundred tomes.And who dare glorify the pen-made book,When so much fairer brass-stamped letters look?

Quadringenta dedit formata volumina CrispiNunc, lector, Venetis Spirea Vindelinus.Et calamo libros audes spectare notatosAere magis quando littera ducta nitet?

Quadringenta dedit formata volumina Crispi

Nunc, lector, Venetis Spirea Vindelinus.

Et calamo libros audes spectare notatos

Aere magis quando littera ducta nitet?

To Venice Wendelin, who from Speier comes,Has given of Sallust twice two hundred tomes.And who dare glorify the pen-made book,When so much fairer brass-stamped letters look?

To Venice Wendelin, who from Speier comes,

Has given of Sallust twice two hundred tomes.

And who dare glorify the pen-made book,

When so much fairer brass-stamped letters look?

The Livy of the same year ends with a poem of forty-six lines, which praises Wendelin for bravely rescuing such of Livy’s Decads as remained, “saevis velut hostibus acri Bello oppugnatas,” and by multiplying copies saving them from the fate which had befallen the rest. A poem like this, however, must be reckoned rather with congratulatory verses than as a colophon, though the line in these Venetian books is not always easy to draw. Two more of Wendelin’s publications in 1470 may be pressed into our service—a Virgil and a Petrarch. Of these the Virgil ends:

Progenitus Spira formis monumenta MaronisHoc Vindelinus scripsit apud Venetos.Laudent ergo alii Polycletos ParrhasiosueEt quosuis alios id genus artifices:Ingenuas quisquis Musarum diligit artesIn primis ipsum laudibus afficiet:Nec vero tantum quia multa uolumina, quantumQuod perpulchra simul optimaque exhibeat.M.CCCC.LXX.Wendelin of Speier these records of the artOf Maro now to Venice doth impart.Let some of Polycletus praise the skill,Parrhasius, or what sculptor else you will;Who loves the stainless gifts the Muses giveWill pray that Wendelin’s renown may live;Not that his volumes make so long a row,But rather for the grace and skill they show.1470.

Progenitus Spira formis monumenta Maronis

Hoc Vindelinus scripsit apud Venetos.

Laudent ergo alii Polycletos Parrhasiosue

Et quosuis alios id genus artifices:

Ingenuas quisquis Musarum diligit artes

In primis ipsum laudibus afficiet:

Nec vero tantum quia multa uolumina, quantum

Quod perpulchra simul optimaque exhibeat.

M.CCCC.LXX.

Wendelin of Speier these records of the artOf Maro now to Venice doth impart.Let some of Polycletus praise the skill,Parrhasius, or what sculptor else you will;Who loves the stainless gifts the Muses giveWill pray that Wendelin’s renown may live;Not that his volumes make so long a row,But rather for the grace and skill they show.1470.

Wendelin of Speier these records of the art

Of Maro now to Venice doth impart.

Let some of Polycletus praise the skill,

Parrhasius, or what sculptor else you will;

Who loves the stainless gifts the Muses give

Will pray that Wendelin’s renown may live;

Not that his volumes make so long a row,

But rather for the grace and skill they show.

1470.

The colophon to the Petrarch claims credit for the restoration of a true text, a point on which the scholars of the Renaissance were as keen, up to their lights, as those of our own day, and which is often emphasized in their laudatory verses as the one supreme merit:

Back to Index Next