Chapter IX: The Master Printer (1)

The question of the exact spot upon which England’s first printing press was established has already been discussed. The well-known advertisement of Caxton, which states that pies of Salisbury use were on sale at the “Red-pale,” in the almonry, at Westminster, not only indicates the position of his house, but also the sign by which it was known. The precise appearance of the almonry in the fifteenth century must be to some extent imaginary, but we know that almshouses were there, and probably two or three structures besides that occupied by Caxton.

We will now ask the reader to imagine fourteen years passed since Caxton first began working at his new art. It is not difficult to picture the wooden building in the almonry occupied by his sedate but busy workmen. We can look in at yonder window, and see the venerable master printer himself “sittyng in his studye where lay many and dyuerse paunflettis and bookys.” The great towers of Westminster Abbey cast their shadow across the room, for he is an early riser and already at work upon his translation of the new French romance, called “Eneydos.” The “fayre and ornate termes” of his author give him “grete plasyr,” and he labours, almost without intermission, till the low sun, blazing from the western windows, warns him of the day’s decline. Again, we watch him pass with observant eye through the rooms where his servants are at work; we see the movements of the compositors, who ply their rapid fingers close to the narrow windows; we hear the thud-thud of the wooden presses as the workmen “pull to” and “send home” the “bar,” discussing meanwhile the latest news; and we sympathise with the binder, who, hammering away at the volume between his knees, looks in despair at the ever-increasing progeny of his master’s art. Piles of books and printed “quayers” rise on all sides, and many a wise head is ominously shaken at the folly of supposing that purchasers can be found for so many books. Nevertheless Caxton pursues his busy course, ever at work with mind and body, preparing copy for the press, and guiding and instructing his workmen in the art which he had learned in Bruges at “grete charge and dispense,” and the practices of which are to be explained in the following chapter.

Of all the workmen employed at the “Red-pale,” the names of three only have descended to us.

WYNKEN DE WORDE, who was probably a native of the town of Worth in Belgium, appears to have been the chief man. When he entered Caxton’s service is unknown; it was probably at an early age, as he was still living in the year 1535. In 1491 he succeeded to the stock in trade of his deceased master, but he did not append his own name to his books until 1493. He used many varieties of Caxton’s “mark.”

RICHARD PYNSON speaks respectfully of Caxton as “my worshipful master.” He at first set up a press just outside Temple Bar, and used Caxton’s device in his books.

WILLIAM COPLAND remained for some time after Caxton’s death in the service of Wynken de Worde. He, too, in his prologue to “Kynge Apolyne of Thyre,” mentions “my master Caxton.” Doubtless there were many others, and some have supposed that Machlinia, Lettou, and Treveris were among the number; but there is no evidence that these printers were ever reckoned among Caxton’s workmen.

We come now to the mechanical means by which, during fourteen years, Caxton carried on his business. Was the process of book-making the same as it is at the present time? What sorts of types, and how many founts were used? How were the types made, and what were their sizes? Did the compositors use upper and lower case, sticks, chases, brass rule, reglets, furniture, and the various appliances of a modern composing-room? What were the presses like, and the practices of the pressmen? And lastly, In what form were Caxton’s books issued to the public? To most of these questions it would, at first sight, seem as though no definite answer could be given; but when attention is directed to the books themselves, undesigned, and therefore most trustworthy, evidence will be found in them as to many technical customs and peculiarities of the early printers.

Before the invention of printing, the art of book-making, mechanically considered, was divided into three departments: the manufacture of the material upon which to write, almost entirely parchment or vellum; the ink making and the writing, the scribe being his own ink maker; and the binding. Illuminators there were, of course, but their work was merely ornamental, and by no means necessary to the idea of a book. In monasteries famous for the diffusion of learning all these branches were carried on together. So has it been with printers, who, from the infancy of their art to the present time, have occasionally included everything necessary to a perfect book in one establishment. If all the trades which, either directly or indirectly, are called into operation by printers were to be enumerated, few indeed would be omitted; nevertheless, the absolute necessaries for the production of a book are--the material upon which to print, the types and presses with which to print, and the workmen to handle them. We will, therefore, consider Caxton’s books under the following heads:--

The paper.
The types.
The compositor.
The press, the pressman, and the ink.
The bookbinder.

To these may be added, although not as necessary assistants:

The rubricator, illuminator, and wood-engraver.

THE PAPER.

Fortunately, there is no need to enter here upon the obscure origin of the manufacture of paper. The only question which concerns us is--What kind of paper did Caxton use, and whence did he obtain it? He certainly had several sizes; the largest, which was probably found too unwieldy, was used only for the first two editions of the “Golden Legend,” an uncut copy of which, in the University Library at Cambridge, gives 22 × 15¾ inches for the full measurement of a whole sheet. The large size of this book was, doubtless, suited to its intended use--in the public services of the church. He likewise used several smaller sizes, which varied according to the moulds in which the sheets were made, from 18½ × 13 inches to 16 × 11 inches.

The quality of the paper varied considerably, though not to the extent apparent in the books as they now exist--chemical “doctoring” and washing, which have in many instances been resorted to for cleansing purposes, having weakened and rotted much of the paper so treated, whilst the untouched specimens remain strong and fibrous. We observe in books still in the original bindings, and apparently untouched, that the paper was rough--sometimes very rough--on the surface, with long hairs frequently imbedded in it, and marks where many more had been removed; of a strong fibrous texture, unbleached, and of a clear mellow whiteness, indicating an absence of colouring matter in the pulp.

The accompanying woodcut shows a paper-mill of this period. A water-wheel was arranged to turn a wooden shaft upon which were rows of cogs which continually lifted up to the height of a few inches a number of wooden pestles, and then let them fall upon the material, which was always in shallow water. The whole of the fibre was thus retained with its length and strength uninjured. When the pulp was ready it was taken up, in small quantities, into the hand-mould, and formed into a sheet. There would be no difficulty whatever in making paper nowadays in a similar manner, only no one in the trade would spare the time and labour, and no one out of the trade would pay for the cost and trouble of its production.

The unevenness in thickness and colour to which the manufacture was liable at this early period, appears to have necessitated a sorting of the sheets after they came from the mill; those nearest to each other in colour and weight being put together. This system of selection was adopted occasionally for single copies, economy being doubtless the inducement. When two or three examples of a book can be compared together this fact is often very evident, as in the two copies of “The Knight of the Tower” which are in the British Museum, where the variation in quality is too great to be accounted for except by this practice of selection. Several other instances show that Caxton, when preparing to print a new volume, told off the paper separately for certain copies. This custom also accounts for the astonishing variety of water-marks frequently found in one volume.

Some possessors of uncut specimens of Caxton’s press have imagined them to be “large-paper copies,” but we have no evidence that Caxton designedly printed special copies, except, perhaps, in the instances of the vellum “Doctrinal” and “Directorium,” hereafter to be noticed, but of these the appearance is by no means that of _livres de luxe_.

_Watermarks_ are of much less value in bibliography than some writers have imagined. In but very few instances can a limit of time be fixed for their use; and as the marks might be repeated, or the paper itself kept for any length of time, and imported to any place, they cannot be used as evidence either of the date when, or the place where, a book passed through the press. The arms of France--three _fleurs-de-lis_ on a shield, surmounted by a crown--which appear as a watermark in “Le Recueil des Histoires de Troyes,” have been adduced by M. Bernard as evidence of the French origin of the printed work. He was doubtless unaware that the same watermark appears in “The Recuyell,” “Canterbury Tales,” 1st edition, “Mirrour,” 1st edition, “Jason,” “Chronicles,” “Polycronicon,” “Speculum Vitæ Christi,” “Dictes,” 2nd edition, and many others, embracing the whole of Caxton’s typographical career. When, however, paper bears the arms of a nation or a city, we may, in such a case, fairly conjecture, although not with certainty, the seat of its manufacture. It appears likely that all Caxton’s paper was imported from the Low Countries, and it was in all probability purchased from some old connection in the great mart of Bruges. But wherever obtained, there was a great intermixture of qualities, including the make of several mills. We have never yet seen one of Caxton’s books in which the same watermark runs through the whole volume, and in many cases the variety is astonishing. Thus, in a copy of the first edition of the “Canterbury Tales,” now in the library of Mr. Huth, there appear no less than fifteen distinct watermarks.

A few of the marks found in Caxton’s books are here given. As already remarked, they indicate the Low Countries as the land of their origin, and most of them are found also in the block-books, the works of Colard Mansion, Gerard Leeu, and other early printers.

No. 1. The Bull’s Head, which appears in the earliest specimens of
paper known, and was a favourite symbol with paper makers of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The varieties of it are
very numerous.

No. 2. The Arms of John the Fearless, son of Philip the Hardy. As
eldest son the field is charged with a label: the superimposed
cross referring to his crusade in 1395.

This and the six succeeding marks have a direct connection
with the riding dynasty in Flanders and the Low Countries.

No. 3. The letter ~p~ is very common in Caxton’s books, and is
perhaps the initial of Philip the Good; although paper bearing
a ~p~ had also been made in the reign of Philip the Hardy. Its
varieties are very numerous.

No. 4. The letter ~y~ is thought by Sotheby to be the initial of
Ysabel, third wife of Philip the Good.

Mr. Sotheby, in his list of Caxton’s watermarks, mentions the
~p~ and ~y~ combined, as occurring in the British Museum copy
of “Jason.” During a careful search, however, in the same
copy, I was unable to detect any such mark.

No. 5. The Unicorn--a symbol of power adopted by Philip the Good,
who chose two unicorns as supporters of his coat-of-arms. The
same figure was used extensively as an ornament in his palace
and furniture.

No. 6. The Arms of France. These were frequently used by
paper-makers of the Low Countries, probably in reference to
the direct descent of the House of Burgundy from the Kings of
France.

No. 7. The Arms of Champagne. This province was ceded to the Duke
of Burgundy in 1430 by the King of France.

No. 8. The Hand, over which is a single _fleur-de-lis_, the
peculiar badge of the House of Burgundy.

In Caxton’s books the ~p~ is the most common among the watermarks, the order of frequency among the others being as follows:--The Hand or Glove; the Arms of Champagne; the Bull’s Head; the Arms of France; the Greyhound; the Arms of John the Fearless; Shears; a Pot; an Anchor; an Unicorn; a Bull; a Cross; Grapes; a Pelican, &c.

The reader curious on this point may see numerous other watermarks figured by Mr. Sotheby in the third volume of his “Principia Typographica.” Many of these are merely variations of the mark, the paper being made in the same mould. An accidental injury, or even the wear and tear of the mould by constant use, often caused a contortion of the wires. In rare instances the watermark occurs uninjured in shape, but quite at the edge of the paper. This has been accounted for by supposing the fine wires which held the watermark in its place on the mould to have become loosened by decay, or some accident, and so allowed the mark to slide along the face of the mould, but it is more probably caused by the use of large sheets of paper cut down to a smaller size.

Of the value of paper in Caxton’s time we may form some idea from the prices paid by the directors of the Ripoli press, at Florence, between 1474 and 1483. An original “Cost book” of this establishment is still extant in the Magliabechian library at Florence. It is one of the most interesting documents connected with early typography, and has been edited and published by the Padre Vincenzio Fineschi. From this it appears that the following nine sizes or qualities of paper were then in use, the English prices given being about the present equivalent, reckoning the lira at 3_s_ 9_d_.

PER REAM.
1. Large paper of Bologna in common folio, about £1 4 2
2. Middling ditto ditto 0 13 2½
3. Small ditto ditto 0 11 3
4. Paper of Fabriano, with a _crossbow_ for
watermark 0 12 4½
5. Ditto, with a _cross_ for watermark 0 8 7½
6. Paper of Colle 0 8 7½
7. Paper of Prato 0 9 4½
8. Paper of Pescia, with _spectacles_ for watermark 0 10 10½
9. The same, with a _glove_ for watermark 0 9 0

Zanetti quotes a document, dated 1483, which states the price of paper in Florence to have been, at that period, for “Carta reale, quaderni 10 ... 3 lir. 6 sol. 8d;” and for “Carta da scrivere il quaderno ... 18 sol.;” that is, royal paper about 12s 5d per ten quires, and writing paper 3s 4½d per quire.

The first paper maker in England was John Tate. He manufactured specially for Caxton’s successor, Wynken de Worde, who thus announces the fact in his edition of “Bartholomæus de Proprietatibus,” printed about the year 1498:--

“And John Tate the younger,
Joye mote he broke,
Whiche late hath in Englond doo
Made this paper thynne,
That now in our englisshe
This boke is prynted Inne.”

Tate, who died in 1514, and whose will is preserved in the principal registry of the Court of Probate, left considerable property, several of his legacies being in paper.

It is somewhat remarkable that Caxton should have made so sparing a use of vellum for his books, and should have been so indifferent about the quality of the skins which he did employ. The only examples known are a copy of the “Doctrinal of Sapience,” at Windsor Castle, for a long time thought to be unique, and a “Speculum vitæ Christi,” now in the British Museum, to which may be added a few slips on which Indulgences are printed.

THE TYPES.

The question of the invention of moveable types, like that of the origin of paper, is one into which we have no need here to enter. The majority of writers on this subject having been unacquainted with the characteristics of type, have strayed far and wide in the discussion. M. Bernard, however, writing as a practical printer, has done much to dispel numerous misapprehensions, and especially that common error of supposing that the first moveable types were cut in wood.

We now proceed to lay before the reader the earliest notices of typefounders, and such evidence as may explain the mechanics of typefounding in the fifteenth century, especially with reference to the types of Caxton.

Perhaps no part of the Typographic Art is hidden in more utter darkness than the early manufacture of the types. Considerable secrecy no doubt accompanied all the operations of the first printers, and was maintained down to a comparatively late period. Moreover, it was but natural that the results of the new art should hold a more prominent place in men’s minds than the processes by which those results were produced; and thus, although printers and printing were often mentioned, we find nothing concerning the mechanical part of typefounding anterior to that curious little book of trades, with illustrations by Jost Amman, which was issued at Frankfort in 1568. The author, in the few lines which accompany the illustration, omits all reference to the process, but, from the woodcut of the “Schrifftgiesser” and his tools, we shall draw some practical inferences concerning early typefounding.

Whether Caxton, whose account of his first typographical venture is contained in the prologue to the Third Book of “The Recuyell,” made himself acquainted with the manufacture as well as with the use of his types there is no evidence to prove. He simply remarks, “Therefore I have practysed and lerned at my grete charge and dispense to ordeyne this said book in prynte.” If he only procured types and presses, and acquired the requisite knowledge to control their use, it no doubt cost him a large sum. The probability is that his first two founts were cast at Bruges according to his instructions, and that he brought the second over with him to Westminster. But, when once settled in his native country, we may well consider whether he would not, for convenience sake, have become his own typefounder. No stray hint or remark can be found to incline us to the one opinion or the other. Several generations of printers passed away before we find in any work the slightest allusion to English typefounders. The earliest appears in Archbishop Parker’s preface to Asser’s Chronicle of King Alfred, where, in speaking of the Saxon types with which the book was printed, the editor states that as far as he knew, Day, the printer, was the first to cut them:--“Iam verò cum Dayus typographus primus (& omnium certè quod sciam solus) has formulas æri inciderit: facilè quæ Saxonicis literis perscripta sunt, iisdem typis diuulgabuntur.” This leads us to suppose that John Day was only one typefounder among others, and that therefore the art was at that time by no means a new one in England. Seventy years later we find typefounding a distinct trade in London, and under rigid Government protection, as we learn from the following decree:--

“Decreed by the Court of Starre-Chamber, 11th July, 1637:--

“That there shall be Four Founders of letters for printing and no
more.

“That the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, with
Six other High Commissioners, shall supply the places of those
four as they shall become void.

“That no master Founder shall keep above two Apprentices at one time.”

Despite this restrictive care, however, the typefounders of Holland and Flanders supplied English Printers with better types than native art could produce, until the establishment of a foundry by the first Caslon.

The only English author before the rise of encyclopædias, who described the process of type manufacture was Joseph Moxon. This ingenious author, writing in 1683, gives an account of the whole Art of Printing, as practised in an improved style by himself, and devotes several chapters to the various methods of punch cutting, matrix sinking, and type founding. The process then adopted was very similar to that still in use, and differed greatly from that of Caxton, or Caxton’s typefounder. The practice of Moxon, like that of modern typefounders, was to cut each letter in relief on a piece of steel to form the _punch_--to strike this punch into a small piece of copper, which made the _matrix_--and then to fit this matrix to the bottom of an iron _mould_ into which the liquid metal was poured. The mould, which formed the shank of the type, was capable of a sliding adjustment, width wise, to the width of the various letters (from an _i_ to an _Æ_); the depth or size of the _body_ always remaining the same throughout the fount. Thus, by using each matrix successively in the same mould, exactness in size of body was insured.

The want of this exactness, indicated by the uneven appearance of the lines, and other considerations, lead to the conclusion that the fifteenth-century printers did not practise this method, but it is very difficult even to speculate upon the process which they did employ. The examination of many specimens has led me to conclude that at first two distinct schools of typography existed together. The ruder consisted of those printers who practised their art in Holland and the Low Countries, and who, by degrees only, adopted the better and more perfect methods of the school founded in Germany by the celebrated trio--Fust, Gutenberg, and Schœffer. None of these divulged the secrets of their art. One fact, however, we know with certainty, and that is, that the German school employed the very best artists that Europe could produce to cut the patterns, or rather punches, for their types. In an interesting tract from the pen of Sir Anthony Panizzi it is proved that the celebrated Bolognese goldsmith, medallist, and painter, Francia, was the artist who cut all the Aldine types, the elegance of which will for ever associate the name of Aldus with the perfection of printing. From the “Cost Book” of the Ripoli press, at Florence, we find also that steel, iron, and tin were used in the manufacture of types about 1480. But the English printers, whose practice seems to have been derived from the Flemish school, were far behind their contemporaries in the art. Their types show that a very rude process of founding was practised, and the use, as will be described presently, of old types as punches for new, evinces more of commercial expediency than of artistic ambition.

That Caxton’s types were really cast is evident from identity in the face of the same letter, where even a flaw may be noticed as recurring continuously; but the material of which the matrices were formed must be to a great extent conjectural. M. Bernard has given an interesting account of some successful efforts to cast letters in sand, but his specimen has not a single overhanging letter in it, and, from its size, was certainly much easier to produce than would have been the small types of Caxton; yet in one respect, the “bad lining,” or irregular heights of the letter, it has an interesting similitude to Caxton’s types. In the office of Messrs. Caslon there are still in existence some large Roman capital letters (about 3-line pica), which an old workman assured me he had himself used in by-gone years to form sand-moulds for type, a practice then by no means uncommon.

We will now turn to the little book of engravings already mentioned as giving the earliest notice of the art. We there see somewhat of the practices of the Frankfort typefounders in 1568. The woodcut shows that even a century after the invention of the art there was an important difference from the modern plan, although probably the _principle_ of punch, matrix, and mould was the same. There is a small furnace, with the pan of metal sunk in the top; by the side are the bellows, basket of charcoal, and tongs. Close to the typefounder is the bowl into which he drops each type as it is cast; and the artist has correctly drawn these types with the “break” of the letter still attached. The workman holds the mould in his left hand, and is pouring in metal from a ladle. On the table at his back is what appears to be a nest of very shallow drawers, which hold the matrices in alphabetical arrangement, while upon the top of the drawers are three or four matrices for immediate use. On the wooden shelves opposite are three moulds, some sieves, and crucibles. The sieves were probably for sifting the sand in which might be cast the large types, and in which the small ingots for use in the melting pot would be run. The main interest of this woodcut lies in the type moulds, in which we notice a difference in shape from those now used; while the absence of the long wire spring which holds the matrix firm up to the mould indicates that, during its use, the matrix was a fixture in the mould. The foremost of the three moulds on the shelf shows in its side a hole which may possibly have been used for the insertion of a matrix.

As the early moulds were so dissimilar to those of modern use, let us look to the types themselves for evidence. Anticipating the result of the analysis of the various founts used by Caxton (which will follow in its proper place) we find the conclusion inevitable that hard-metal punches were not used, and that even types themselves were used either as punches, or in some analogous way for the production of new founts. The use of large types to form matrices in sand (as in the case of Messrs. Caslon’s foundry, above alluded to), was not uncommon in bygone years; and that letters of a much smaller size can also be effectively employed as punches is interestingly illustrated by the shifts to which Benjamin Franklin, America’s pioneer-printer, was put in the early days of the Transatlantic press. Franklin thus narrates his own practice: “Our printing-house often wanted sorts, and there was no letter-foundry in America; I had seen types cast at James’s in London, but without much attention to the manner; however, _I contrived a mould, and made use of the letters we had as puncheons, struck the matrices in lead_, and thus supplied, in a pretty tolerable way the deficiencies. _I also engraved several things_ on occasion.”

The metal of which Caxton’s types were cast can only be conjectured. The probability is that it was soft, and if even so soft as lead it would have been sufficiently durable to have performed the work for the small impression required of each book. In demonstration of this the author procured, by the kindness of Messrs. Figgins, a fount of their Caxton types in pure lead, and composed a page of Caxton’s “Chess Book,” working it in the usual way, at a common hand press, and numbering each impression as it came from the tympan in order to note its gradual wear. The paper was royal cartridge of the common rough quality, and was worked dry. After 500 pulls, perceiving no appreciable wear, the author stopped the experiment, being sufficiently satisfied.

Our conclusions then, in respect of the founding, are mainly negative. The moulds were _unlike_ those now in use, and the punches were _not_ of steel. The process, whatever it may have been, admitted of contrivances incompatible with our present mode; and we conjecture that the type-metal, if not of lead, was yet sufficiently soft to allow of it being easily trimmed up with a chisel. This trimming up, so often visible in type No. 2*, misled the late Mr. Vincent Figgins, who, when examining the second edition of the “Game and Play of the Chess,” came to the erroneous conclusion that the whole book was printed from types cut separately by hand, a conclusion which he would never have adopted had he extended his examination to other and earlier works of Caxton in the same types.

Let us now see what the founts of types really were that Caxton used.

When we look at the long list of English authors who have written upon early typography, and when we recognise among the names those of Moxon, Palmer, Smith, Bowyer, Nichols, Stower, Watson, Hansard, and Timperley, all of whom were, as printers, practically acquainted with the art which employed their pens, it is a matter of some surprise that nothing like a correct account of Caxton’s types appeared. Nor is it less remarkable that the only history of English typefounding is that by Rowe Mores, a well-known antiquarian, who was brought up for the Church, and who devoted many of the later years of his life to the collection of old moulds and matrices. He purchased all the whole stock of the last of the old race of letterfounders, Mr. James, of Bartholomew Close, whose extensive collection was said to date from the days of Wynken de Worde; and it is much to be regretted that, after the death of Mr. Mores, his collections were not preserved intact. His catalogues of matrices existing in his own day, or in his own possession, are probably exact enough; but his account of the types used by Caxton and Wynken de Worde is full of errors.

During Caxton’s career as a printer, viz., from about 1476 to 1491-2, or a period of seventeen years, he used eight separate founts or castings of letters. These eight founts we have called, according to their chronological appearance, No. 1, No. 2, No. 2*, No. 3, No. 4, No. 4*, No. 5, and No. 6.

If we divide them into _character_ of letter we find three classes:--

1st. Type No. 1 is distinct in character, and unlike any other known
type. On comparison with a manuscript in the holograph of Colard
Mansion, of Bruges, M. Bernard came to the conclusion that it was
formed upon the handwriting of that celebrated caligrapher.

2nd. Types 2, 2*, 4, 4*, and 6, are of the same character as the early
type of Colard Mansion, known as “gros bâtarde.”

3rd. Types 3 and 5 were designed, like the characters of the Bible and
Psalter of the early Mentz printers, upon the Church Text of the
scribes, and approach nearer than any other of Caxton’s types to
what modern printers call “black letter.”

If, however, we divide the eight founts into distinct cuttings, we find five:--

1st. Type No. 1.

2nd. Type No. 2, modified first into No. 2*, and again into No. 6.

3rd. Type No. 3.

4th. Type No. 4, modified into No. 4*.

5th. Type No. 5.

TYPE NO. 1.

Although we believe that Caxton had less to do with this than with any of the later types, yet, as it is the first with which his name is associated--as it is that by using which he obtained a knowledge of the art of printing--and as it is the type of the first English-printed book,--it is clothed with an interest peculiarly its own.

The only books printed with this fount are five:--

The Recuyell of the Histories of Troy 1472-74
The Game and Play of the Chess, 1st edition 1475-76
Le Recueil des Histoires de Troyes 1475-76
Les Fais du Chevalier Jason _after_ 1476
Les sept Pseaulmes penitenciaulx _after_ 1476

From the rarity of “Les Fais du Jason,” only one copy being in England, and that inconvenient for prolonged examination, its peculiar features, if any, are not noticed in the following remarks.

The first thing we observe in type No. 1 is, that its general appearance is more free and manuscript-like than would be thought the case from the square-set figure of each individual letter. This is, to a considerable extent, caused by the great variety of letters, there being only five for which there were not more than one matrix, either as single letters or in combination: for, although the differences between the various matrices of the same letter may be but very slight, we have here the fundamental principle of freedom, namely, a recurrence of modified sameness. The execution of the type is good, sharp, and decided, with sufficient difference between the repetitions of the same letter to indicate independence of tracing or mechanical contrivance; hence probably the work of one accustomed to cut letters. The body of the type, which is identical throughout the five books, is the same as the recognised Great Primer of modern printers.

The complete fount embraced at least 163 sorts, of which we remark upon the following:--

~ā~ is not used in the English books, but often occurs in the French
books.

~ē~ is not used in “The Recuyell” or the “Chess Book,” but often
occurs in “Le Recueil” and “Les sept Pseaulmes.”

~K~ is often used for an ~R~ in the French books, but always correctly
in the English books.

~Ω~.--This incongruous and badly-cut letter appears about twelve
times, in various grades of bad casting, before the recto of folio
36 of “The Recuyell,” after which it is not found.

~R~ is only found in the English books, where it is sometimes used for
a ~K~.

Arabic numerals do not occur in this fount.

There are only three marks of punctuation, which may be called--the
comma, or oblique stroke (/), the colon (:), and the full point
(.). They are used arbitrarily as to power, and in numerous
varieties of combination, such as,

From the foregoing remarks it will be seen that there are certain letters peculiar to the English and others peculiar to the French books printed in this type; and as these are not in any way attributable to the fashion of the language, the fact strongly corroborates the opinion that, although from the same printer, the compositor, and perhaps the cases, were changed.

TYPE NO. 2.

This was the first fount used in England when Caxton set up his presses at the “Red-pale” in the Almonry, and, before remarking upon its peculiarities, we will give a list of the books known to have been printed from it. Of these, as will be shown further on, there are two easily-distinguished classes; those printed first, with type No. 2, and those printed afterwards, with a re-casting of the fount, which we call type No. 2*.

TYPE No. 2.

Les quatre derrennieres choses _ante_ 1477
History of Jason _circa_ 1477
Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers, 1st edition 1477
Horæ, 1st edition _circa_ 1477
Canterbury Tales, 1st edition _ante_ 1478
Moral Proverbs 1478
Anelida and Arcyte _circa_ 1478
Boethius de Consolatione Philosophiæ 1478
Propositio clarissimi Johannis Russell _ante_ 1479
Stans Puer ad Mensam _ante_ 1479
Parvus Catho and Magnus Catho, 1st edition _ante_ 1479
Ditto ditto 2nd edition _ante_ 1479
The Horse, the Sheep, and the Goose, 1st edition _ante_ 1479
Ditto ditto 2nd edition _ante_ 1479
Infancia Salvatoris _ante_ 1479
The Temple of Glass _ante_ 1479
The Chorle and the Bird, 1st edition _ante_ 1479
Ditto 2nd edition _ante_ 1479
The Temple of Brass _ante_ 1479
The Book of Courtesy, 1st edition _ante_ 1479

TYPE No. 2*.

Cordial 1479
Laurentius Gulielmus de Saona de Nova Rhethorica, _circa_ 1479
Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers, 2nd edit., _circa_ 1480
An Indulgence 1480
Parvus Catho and Magnus Catho, 3rd edition _circa_ 1480
Mirrour of the World, 1st edition 1480
Reynard the Fox, 1st edition 1480
Tully of Old Age, and of Friendship 1481
The Game and Play of the Chess, 2nd edition _circa_ 1481

This type has a more dashing, picturesque, and elaborate character than type No. 1. It is an imitation of the “gros-bâtarde” type of Colard Mansion, with some variation in the capital letters, which are extremely irregular, not only in size but also in design, some being of the simplest possible construction, whilst others have spurs, lines, and flourishes.

The general appearance of type No. 2 is very different from that of No. 2*, many letters in the earlier fount having a bolder and thicker face than in the later; and the fact of there being a perfect division of the books into two distinct classes prevents our attributing this difference to either wear of type or faulty printing--the former would be gradual, the latter irregular.

On comparing the two classes, letter by letter, we find several single and compound letters occurring in the one and not in the other. Thus ~en~ (not final) is peculiar to the first class, while two forms of ~k~ without a loop in the head, double ~ll~ without loops, ~th~, ~wa~, ~we~, and ~wo~ are found in the second class only. Other letters are so entirely different that a single example is convincing of their not having been printed from the same founts; and the remainder, although often very nearly alike, so constantly preserve some slight characteristic peculiar to each section, that a close examination of numerous instances, after making allowance for faulty printing, leads to the conclusion that no letters of the first section are identical with those of the second.

A minute examination discloses the general fact, that the letters of Type No. 2* are somewhat thinner than those of Type No. 2, and that, in numerous instances, the tops, the descending tails, and the titles generally, have been truncated. For example, examine the letter ~f~ and its combinations in the two types; the second shows _always_ a thinner-faced letter than the first. Again, notice how the tops of the various ~d~s, the tails of ~en~ and ~in~, and the tails generally appear in the second state. Observing that the two founts (2 and 2*) are never mixed, and that all the books dated before 1479 occur in Type No. 2, and all those dated after 1479 No. 2*, the two types appear to indicate two distinct periods; and, taking into consideration the peculiarities just noticed, it would seem that, upon the types becoming worn, some of the best were selected, trimmed up with a graver, and used for making matrices for a new casting. If this were not the case, how should we account for the new fount being so nearly like the old? for, the two not having been used together, there was no reason for such care to make them match.

The body of Type No. 2 is the same as that of Type No. 2*, and is exactly equal to two lines of “Long Primer” (Caslon’s standard), which is very near to “Paragon.” A complete fount of Type No. 2 consisted of 217 sorts, and Type No. 2* of 254 sorts.

The ~&c~ of Type No. 1, which, if it occurred at all, might have been expected in the first fount used in England, is found only in books printed with Type No. 2*.

We may notice here that the sorts ~Iz~, ~ez~, ~br~, and others, presume an intended French use of Type No. 2, a probability strengthened by the ~th~, and the combinations of ~w~, being later additions to the fount in No. 2*.

TYPE NO. 3.

This grand type, which was in use from about 1479 to 1483, has perhaps less direct interest for us than any of the others. No English book in this type is known, and until a very recent period it was considered merely as a supplementary fount used by Caxton for headings, &c. But the discovery of a “Psalterium,” fragments of a “Horæ,” and a “Directorium” proves that three works at least were printed entirely with this fount. Upon these, especially the “Psalterium,” and upon the headings of “Boethius,” the “Golden Legend,” and “Tully,” the following remarks are based.

The small letters are an exact copy of those cast by the early German founders, Fust and Schœffer, and are equally well executed. The capital letters, however, are very unlike Fust’s, being for the most part a modification of the Flemish “Secretary,” as already presented to us in the gros-bâtarde type of Colard Mansion.

The body is identical, or very nearly so, with type No. 2, and is used with it to distinguish proper names, &c., in the “Cordial” and in “Tully,” but, having a much larger face, it is never in line.

The complete fount comprised 194 sorts. The stops generally are smaller than those of type No. 2, which is remarkable, as the face of the letter is much larger.

This type was intended for Latin works, as the contractions sufficiently prove. All the books we have in it are in Latin, except headings in the first edition of the “Golden Legend,” &c., and proper names, as in the “Cordial” and “Tully.” Used almost entirely for Church Service books, it does not seem to have been much in favour with Caxton; but upon his death his successor, Wynken de Worde, came into possession of it, and used it continually.

TYPE NO. 4.

Types No. 4 and 4* may be spoken of generally as _one_, there being the same intimate connection between them as between Nos. 2 and 2*; unlike them, however, there is a slight variation in the body, type No. 4 being, as compared with the re-casting of it, or type No. 4*, as 20 is to 19. In other words, the body of type No. 4 is rather smaller than that of Type No. 4*. This of course would only be possible by direct intention with modern typefounders, who use the same moulds and matrices for as many founts of the type as are required; but as is shown in the chapter on typefounding, the moulds and matrices were in those days very different.

The engraving of the types is neat, and appears to have been executed by the same hand that cut type No. 2; but there is this difference between the second states of the two founts--type No. 2* was, as already shown, cast from matrices formed by the use of old casts of type No. 2 as punches, after being trimmed by hand, but for types Nos. 4 and 4* there is the strongest evidence of the same punches having been used, and therefore the variation of body is the more remarkable, as it would have been as easy to make the re-casting agree in size with the original as to make the letters of each fount agree among themselves. The variation, however, is a fact.

The body of type No. 4 is very near indeed to modern English (Caslon’s standard), and is the smallest of any used by Caxton. The re-casting, or type No. 4* (which loses 1 in 20--that is to say, 19 lines of type No. 4* take up only the same depth as 20 of type No. 4), is exactly two lines of minion. The total number of sorts in type No. 4 appears to have been 194, and in No. 4* 187, a few sorts not having been re-cast.

We will now give a list of the works for which this type, in its two states, was employed.

TYPE No. 4.

The Chronicles of England, 1st edition 1480
The Description of Britain 1480
An Indulgence 1481
Curia Sapientiæ _circa_ 1481
Godfrey of Boloyne 1481
The Chronicles of England, 2nd edition 1482
Polycronicon 1482
The Pilgrimage of the Soul 1483
A Vocabulary 1483
Servitium de Visitatione _circa_ 1483
Confessio Amantis (_mostly_) 1483
Sex Epistolæ (_mostly_) 1483
The Knight of the Tower (_partly_) 1484

TYPE No. 4*.

The Festial, 1st edition 1483
Quatuor Sermones, 1st edition 1483
Confessio Amantis (_partly_) 1483
The Knight of the Tower (_mostly_) 1484
Caton _circa_ 1484
Golden Legend _circa_ 1484
Death-Bed Prayers _circa_ 1484
Æsop 1484
Order of Chivalry _circa_ 1484
Canterbury Tales, 2nd edition _circa_ 1484
Book of Fame _circa_ 1484
The Curial _circa_ 1484
Troylus and Creside _circa_ 1484
Life of our Lady _circa_ 1484
Life of St. Winifred _circa_ 1485
Life of King Arthur 1485
Life of Charles the Great 1485
Paris and Vienne 1485

The commas have a notable chronological bearing. The short comma (~⸝~) was used alone up to the second edition of the “Chronicles,” in 1482--is used occasionally with the long comma (~/~) in 1483--and disappears entirely after that year.

A good test by which to distinguish 4 and 4* is the shape of the lower-case ~w~; the letter with the curled top distinguishing the book at once as belonging to type No. 4, whereas its absence is a sure sign that the type is No. 4*.

Type No. 4* makes its first appearance among Caxton’s founts in a very peculiar manner. In the autumn of 1483 he was engaged in printing two works, Gower’s “Confessio Amantis” and the “Knight of the Tower.” At sig. ~y~ of “Confessio Amantis” we find that the inmost sheet is in type No. 4*, the three other sheets of the section being in type No. 4. Several pages in sig. ~z~; are also in No. 4*, and on sig. ~z iiij~ recto the first column is in No. 4, while the second column is in No. 4*. This mixture of founts by no means proves that the two were in use at the same time; it only shows that before the cases containing type No. 4 were finally emptied out to make room for the new fount, one compositor had worked ahead of his fellows, who had not finished their taking of copy when the new letter supplanted the old. The table, although placed at the commencement of the book, was necessarily printed last, and therefore, as a matter of course, we find type No. 4* used for it. In the “Knight of the Tower,” sig. ~f~ introduces the new fount to us, all that follows, as well as the introductory matter, being type No. 4*.

TYPE NO. 5.

There is much similarity of design between this and type No. 3, the likeness between some of the letters being so close as to lead to the conclusion that one artist cut both.

The books printed in this letter are as follows:--

The Royal Book _circa_ 1487
The Book of Good Manners 1487
Directorium Sacerdotum, 1st edition _circa_ 1487
Speculum Vitæ Christi _circa_ 1488
Commemoratio Lamentationis _circa_ 1488
The Doctrinal of Sapience 1489
Horæ _circa_ 1490
Servitium de Transfiguratione _circa_ 1491

In the 2nd edition of the “Golden Legend” (1487?), all the headings, both of chapters and pages, are in this type.

Type No. 5 has no exact counterpart in the bodies of modern founders. The nearest would be two lines of brevier, than which it is slightly larger, losing one line in thirty-five. The total number of sorts in use appears to have been 153. The comparative scarcity of double letters is very noticeable. No Arabic numerals are used.

The large Lombardic capitals used with this fount have a bold and striking appearance. Unlike any former fount of Caxton’s, they are all cast with the largest face the body will bear, and without the least beard. They are used, more or less, in every book printed with this type, although in some books (_e.g._ “Royal” and “Speculum”) they appear very seldom. They do not look at all well when used as initials to a word, on account of their size preventing them ranging with the sequent letters, and this may have been the cause why Caxton, except in the “Directorium,” made a very sparing use of them, save indeed that he converted them into quadrats. For this purpose they were doubtless adapted by some shortening process, which, however, has not prevented them cropping out continually in the blank spaces of the head lines and signature lines, where they often assume a very puzzling appearance. In the latest books printed with type No. 5 these Lombardic capitals appear as _red_ initials, printed at a separate operation. This use for them was, doubtless, the invention of Caxton’s successor, Wynken de Worde, who appears to have inherited his master’s working materials.

TYPE NO. 6.

The body of this fount is great primer (Caslon’s standard) within a shade, being almost the same as type No. 1. The number of sorts in the fount is, for Caxton, very small, amounting to only 138. It may be called Caxton’s last fount, for it came into use in 1489, and was used for books up to 1491, the date of Caxton’s death. Indeed, there seems good reason for supposing that for some time after Caxton’s death it served his successor, Wynken de Worde. With it the following works were printed:--

The Fayts of Arms 1489
Statutes of Henry VII _circa_ 1489
The Gouvernal of Health _circa_ 1489
Reynard the Fox, 2nd edition _circa_ 1489
Blanchardin and Eglantine _circa_ 1489
The Four Sons of Aymon _circa_ 1489
Directorium Sacerdotum, 2nd edition _circa_ 1489
Eneydos _circa_ 1490
The Fifteen Oes, &c. _circa_ 1490
The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers, 3rd edition _circa_ 1490
The Mirrour of the World, 2nd edition _circa_ 1490
Divers Ghostly Matters _circa_ 1490
The Art and Craft to know well to Die _circa_ 1491
The Book of Courtesy, 2nd edition _circa_ 1491
The Festial, 2nd edition _circa_ 1491
Quatuor Sermones, 2nd edition _circa_ 1491
The Chastising of God’s Children _circa_ 1491
A Treatise of Love _circa_ 1491

We have in this fount another remarkable instance of the contrivances employed by the early typefounders. A new fount was required, but whether Caxton gave the founders instructions concerning its size, or whether the fount was cast first, and then sold to our printer, there seems no possibility of discovering; but this we can prove from the pages themselves, that the greater portion of type No. 6 was made from the punches, or from old letters of Caxton’s Nos. 2 and 2*. The body is rather smaller, nine lines occupying the same depth as eight lines of No. 2; and it is amusing to observe the shifts and contrivances resorted to for reducing those letters which, in type No. 2, occupied the full body. For instance, the ~A~, ~M~, and ~N~ have the flourish which passes under the letter brought close up to the letter itself. The ~K~ was also treated in the same way, but the violence used has damaged the flourish so much that, in most instances, it broke away; in some cases, however, it remains in a most pitiable and crippled condition. The corresponding flourish in the ~B~ has been boldly cropped off. ~F~ and ~J~ are strangely transformed, evidently by a blow on the soft metal, lengthwise. A few characters altogether new appear, and a few interpolations from other founts, besides a quaint set of Lombardic capitals, among which occurs now and then a letter from the Lombardic fount used with type No. 5. The total number of sorts was 141.

But here the question may very naturally be asked, How do we know that the books in the foregoing lists which are without date, without place, and without printer’s name, although printed with the same types as those of Caxton, are not really from the workshop of another printer, who had obtained his material from the same source as our printer? The evidence is entirely negative, but it is nevertheless very strong.

When a new branch of industry becomes sufficiently developed, one of the immediate consequences is a division of labour. Thus typefounders became separated from printers, as soon as the latter became sufficiently numerous to keep the former in constant employment. The earliest printers were almost of necessity their own typefounders, and it appears that they each made or otherwise exclusively possessed those patterns of types which they used. There is certainly no evidence that prior to the end of the 15th century the types of one printer were at the same time in use by another. This exclusive use of types has been accepted as a fact by the best authorities, and has been of great use to the bibliographer in identifying the printer of books _sine ullâ notâ_, for a printer may thus be recognised at once by his types, just as a man may be distinguished by his handwriting.

THE COMPOSITOR.