FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
149
The fact is strong, not only what in ordi- nal cases passes foi certain eyidence of the age of books ; but in this, there are such opposite testimonies to balance it, and such circum- stances to turn the scale, that, to speak freely, makes the date in question to have been ialsifieid originally by the printer, either by design or mi^ake,'and an x to have been dropt or omit- ted in the age of its impression.
This instance, with others equally certain that might be adduced, shews the conjecture to be wen founded ; with regard to the probability of it, the book itself affords sufficient proof; for, not to insist on what is of far less consequence, the neatness of the letter, uniformity of the page. Sec., above those of Caxton, it has one mark that puts the matter out of doubt, and m^es it even certain, viz. the use of signatures, or letters of the alphabet placed, at the bottom . of the page, to shew the sheets and leaves of each book — an improvement contrived for the direction of the bookbinders ; which yet was not practised or invented at the time when this book IS supposed to be printed ; for we find no signa- tures in the books of Faust or Schoeffer at Mentz, nor in the more improved and beautiful impressions of John de Spira, and Jenson, at Venice, until several years later. There is a book in the public library at Cambridge that seems to fix the very time of their invention, at least in Venice ; the place where the art itself received the greatest improvements : Baldi Ltetura mper Codic, ^c, printed by John de Colonia and John Manthen de Gherretzem, anno M.CCCC.LXXIIII. It is a large and fair volume in folio, without signatures, until about the middle of the book, in which they are first in- troduced, and so continued forward: which makes it probable, that the first thought of them was sogeested during the time of the impres- sion. Tney were used at Cologne, anno 1475 ; at Pazis, 1476 ; by Caxton, not before 1480 ;
jeetiml prooCi, nor can we expect any other to the pre- ■ent cmie. We find most points of •ooquitr involved in olMcmlty ; and, wluit is not a little •nrprizing, the ut of IHntlnK, which has given light to ntost other thlncs. hide* its own head In darlmen. — Bat our ingenious Disaeitator seems to think his proofii attended with more certainty. Let OS tlien examine what he says ; And first, the neat- ness of the letter, and the regularity of the page, prove, if any thing, the very revene of what the Doctor asserts. Hie art ctf Printing was almost in its in&ncy brooght to pcrfectian : bat afterwards debased by later printers, who cosHolted T&ther the cheapness, than the neatness of their ««k. Oar learned Oisseitator cannot be nnacqnainted with the laboara of FutI and Jtomt. He mtist know, that Ihoogfa other printers may have priated more correctly, yet scarce any excel them, either in the neatness of the iMtcr, or the regnlarity of the page. The same may be observed in onr Knglish printers. Carton and Rood were indlAerently good printers : De Worde and Pynton were worse; and those that follow them most abominable. This our anonfmoua Oxford printer excels them all ; and tn this very jeason I uonld Judge him to be the most ancient of aU."
Oxonldes la cerladnly too severe upon oar early prin- ters ; we agree with him that the art was soon brooght to a certain degree of perfection, bat we cannot admit that oor printers descended from bad to worse, and then to abominable! He hoe makes the unknown Oxford printer, (thoagh said to be only an under- workman^ to excel all thrproficients in the art ! We dUTer with him, in respect to the beauty of the Oxford book being a proof of its an- tiquity.— Je/bupn.
but if the discovery had been brought into England, and practised at Oxford twelve years before, it is not probable that he would have printed so long at Westminster without them.*
It has been asserted, that signatures are to be found in very ancient manuscripts, and which were very studiously imitated by the early prin- ters ; even Coster is said to have used them in his block books ; and some editions, we are in- formed, were printed at Paris with metal types, as in Gatp. Pergameruu EpittoUe, without date, but conjectured to have been printed in 1470. Meerman adduces Mammetrectus, printed br Helias de Lloufl'en, at Berne, in Switzerland, 1470 ; and in De Tandeli Vitione, at Antwerp, 1472; upon which authorities he pronounces that Venice was not the birth-place of signa- tures, although they were first introduced into Baldui when half of it was printed : Meerman imagines, that the printers oiBaldiu were igno- rant of their use till that period
Amid this contrariety of evidence, what course can we steer? or how shall we draw a just and satisfactory conclusion ? One gentleman ad- vances one date ; a second another; a Uiiid dif- fers with both : thus do the different opinions multiply ; till at length the whole is perplexed by an assertion, that signatures were used in ancient manuscripts, long prior to the origin of the art. Had this been the case, is it probable that the early printers could have been ignorant of it ? and would they have dispensed with an ar- ticle so useful and necessary? Admitting the first printers to have neglected them, can we believe, if they had been used in ancient manu- scripts, that the art was exercised for at least thirty years before their introduction ? is it not probable that some early works with signatures have been totally destroyed ?
What further confirms the opinion is, that from the time of the pretended date of this book, anno 1468, we have no other fruit or pro- duction from the press at Oxford for eleven years next following; and it cannot be ima- gined that a press, established with so much pains and expense, could be suffered to lie so long idle and useless : whereas, if a conjecture
- Oxonldes, again combating the doctor's opinions, thus
with confidence expresses himself: —
- Oar Disaertator lays great stress on the use of signa-
tores. Bat I am alTaid no certain conclnslon can be drawn either from the use or non-use of these lesser im. provrments of Printing. They have In dllftrent places come in nse at dUKerent times, and have not been con- tinued regularly even at the same places. If Anthony Zarot used them at Milan in 1470, it is certain later larin- ters there did not follow his example ; and the like might also happen in England. But, what is more loll to our purpose, we have in the Bodl^an library an jEsop*s Fables printed by Caxton. This is, I believe, the first book which has Me learn nmmiered. But yet this improvement, though more useful than that of the signatures, was dis- used both by Caxton himself and other later piinten in England. It is therefore not at all surprizing (U true) that the signatures, though invented by our Oxford Prin. ter, might not iminediately come into general use. And consequently, this partlcidar carries with it no such cer- tain or eSectual confutation as our Diasertator boasts of."
Oxonldes is the only person who has given the Oxfoid printer the merit of the Invention of signatures : an nnder- workman (according to Atkyns) was not likely to have improved the ut.—Johuon.
VjOOQ IC
