« AnkstesnisTęsti »
slander that he had ever been a proof-reader
Áldus's fortunes were not improved by
pel the invasion of France Cautum eft ct in hoc,ut in cæteris ·
IMPRINT OF ALDUS.
and Spain, yet was reck-
His ardor in publishing books increased
with age and with the accession of means; in two years he printed twenty-one books, eight of them folios. This activity was the flash of a dying lamp. In January, 1515, he was seized with a sickness which he knew was his last. He made a will, intrusting the sale of his interest in the printing-office (which was but one-fifth) to the care of his wife, and the education of his four minor children to his father-in-law and business partner, Andrew Torresano. One of his executors in Ferrara was "the very illustrious Duchess of Ferrara," the sister of the infamous Cæsar Borgia, the Lucretia Borgia of Donizetti's opera, and by that and by other writings known to the world as the archetype of female depravity. For many years she had been friend and patron to Aldus. It is possible that she may have been, as a recent Italian historian declares, the best abused woman in history. His wife, mentioned in the will with affection, was to have the use of his estate until the sons were twenty-five years of age, when it was to be equally divided among them. "And, lastly, as the Italian letter needs improvement, I beg my fatherin-law to intrust to Giulio Campagnola the making of new capital letters which shall accord with the small letters."
VENETIIS IN AEDIE Vs
Aldus died February 6, 1515. His body was buried, as he requested, at Carpi, where he had passed his youth and early manhood. Andrew Torresano religiously obeyed all requests of the will. His sons were fairly educated. One of them, Paul, afterward became the head of the printing-house, and almost as famous as his father.
Aldus began to print at an age when most men think their life-work at least half done, and he was interrupted by sickness, war, and loss of property; yet he printed one hundred and twenty-six editions known to bibliographers, seventy-eight of them quartos and folios, and many of two or more volumes. It is probable that he also printed, for account of others, books which do not appear in his catalogue. In time of peace his printinghouse was in full employment; he had a right to say, as he did, metaphorically, that he kept his types warm and made his presses sweat. Very proud he was, in 1502, when he told his readers that his expenses for labor were two hundred ducats a month, and that his increasing business was the envy of all his rivals.
Unlike these rivals, he neglected books of theology,—not because he was a skeptic, or a heathen of the classic model, as was many a brother academician, for he was always a devout Catholic,-but because he believed it was his proper work to print school and text books. Only five of his books are theological; a few relate to science and belleslettres; some are historical; most of them are the grammars and text-books of classic literature. In all departments his work was thorough-just as thorough in writing and editing rudimentary Latin and Greek grammars for boys' schools as he was in preparing accurate copies of the great Greek authors. These grammars, frequently reprinted, were popular long after he died. His zeal in trying to reform Italian orthography, his good advice to students, and his valuable papers on education, entitle him to high rank as an educational reformer. Erasmus thought his attention to grammar was a waste of time. He says, in his "Praise of Folly":
“I know a man well read in all the sciences, thoroughly versed in
Greek, Latin, mathematics, philosophy, and medicine, and yet he loses
his good sense in the study of gram
It will be his great happiness
to live long enough to nicely estab. lish distinctions concerning the parts
of speech-a task which neither among Greeks or Latins, has perfectly done. As if it were cause of war to use a conjunction instead of an adverb! There are already as many grammars as grammarians,— indeed, there are more, for my friend Aldus has produced and there
are none, no matter how barbarous and fatiguing they may be, that Aldus
has not read and re-read."
latee plateas. wzra παιαι τάς πλαταιάς, προ παροξύνεται τὰ ἑνικά. ὡς τὸ ὅιτέ πλάταιαν ἔχον τὰ δὲ πληθυντικὰ ὀξύνεται ταυτὸ πάχον, ἡ θεασιέων πόλις προπαροξύνεται ένικῶς καὶ διφθογγογραφία unpos. bar pa άF TE • HANBUUTIKŮS de fureta nài iwτarpaq αι.τινὲς, μέντοι καὶ τὰ ἕνε κὰ διὰ τοῦ ἰῶτα γεγράφα" vavanos Tάua άμνια· μέτιβι εἰσάβιον ἐν τοις ἐς ἢ κατάλογον· ALDUS'S SMALL GREEK TYPE,
It is hardly necessary to allude to the ungenerous taunts of Erasmus at certain faults in Aldus's earlier Greek texts. Aldus did his best to make them correct. Considering the difficulties he had to encounter, not the least of them the difficulty of getting compositors who could read Greek MSS. and compose Greek types, it is a wonder that they are as correct as they are. Some of them are above reproach. When he offered to the reader of his edition of Plato, as he did in the preface of that book, a gold crown for every discovered error, he must have had a confidence in its accuracy which comes only from the consciousness of thorough editorial work. Aldus's taste as editor went beyond the text. Not content with an accurate version, he had that version presented in pleasing types. Every
body admits the value of his invention of Italic, even if his use of it as a text letter be not approved. But few persons consider that we are indebted to Aldus for the present form of Greek printing-types. Modern taste has weeded out the ligatures he admired, but the forms of the single Greek letters that we have adopted are the forms that he introduced. How great this obligation is will be readily acknowledged after an examination of the uncouth characters and the discordant styles of Greek copyists before the sixteenth century. Aldus's invention of small capitals has already been noticed. Here, then, are three distinct styles of book printing-types which he introduced, and which have been adopted everywhere almost without dissent. Other printers have done work of high merit; other type-founders have made pleasing. ornamental or fancy types; but no printer or founder since Aldus has invented even one original style of printing types which has been adopted and kept in use as a
text letter for books.
This remarkable success was not had without effort. His first Greek types were inferior and were discarded. The second font was better, but imperfect. steady improvement may be noted in the four succeeding fonts which he made. But he was never entirely satisfied with any font; every year he made
changesinsome character. Typefounding was his ruling passion, strong in death. He was not
successful with his first Roman types, which are inferior to those of Jenson and De Spira. The second font was worse. The third, cut by Francesco Raibolini, has remarkable beauty. The fourth was bad; the fifth very good. Of Italic he made but two sizes. The specimen here shown is the larger-the one he preferred, which was kept in use by his sons for fifty years. The smaller size was used only for tables or summaries of chapters.
Áldus's types were extravagantly praised by his admirers. Some said, in all seriousness, that their beauty was owing to the silver of which they were made. Probably they had noted the white, silvery appearance of his newly cast types, and had concluded that they were made of this precious metal. Aldus was too practical for such folly. His types, like those of his contem
poraries, were of lead and tin, with possibly a little antimony. In speaking of his printed books, which were in imitation of handwriting, Aldus says that they were made "with a hand of tin"-meaning that the types were largely composed of tin.
Aldus did not excel in everything. His press-work is always good, but not superior to that of Jenson and Torresano. His skill in printing wood-cuts, and even in showing to advantage the beauty and delicacy of wellcut type, was decidedly inferior to that shown by Kerver, Vostre, and Pigouchet, of Paris, the printers of illustrated missals and books of devotion. Aldus had no enthusiasm for this department of printing. His first experiment in this • difficult field was his last. This experimental book, the "Reveries of Polyphilus," a stout folio of two hundred and thirty-four leaves, fully illustrated with designs from an unknown but able master, possibly Benedetto Mantegna, was published at the expense of Leonardo Crasso, in December, 1499. The author, the ecclesiastic. Francesco Colonna, judiciously withheld his name, for it is a queer book to have been written by a priest, and he was wise in securing the protection of the cardinal to whom it was dedicated. The subject matter is the love of Polyphilus for Polia, a weak and wordy imitation of the amorous poetry of Dante and Petrarch. The amatory sentiment is extravagant, yet even that is kept subordinate to the author's desire to display his profound knowledge of art and mythology. The designs are of high merit, the engraving, fairly done, is in the old outline style of the early block printers; the presswork does not show marked skill.
faults and all, from the Statius of 1502. Four variations of this design were afterward made by Aldus or his sons; two of them are more ornate, but none is better than this.
Among the illustrations of this book is one of a dolphin twining about an anchor. It pleased Aldus, who at once adopted it as his trade-mark, showing it for the first time in his edition of Dante of 1502, and ever after in all his books. Erasmus, explaining the device, with the motto (added afterward) Festina lente, says the dolphin signified speed, the anchor deliberation, and was an exemplification of the proverb, "Make haste slowly." This illustration is taken literally,
Aldus died poor. He may have had the money-getting, but he did not have the money-keeping, faculty. Whether he sold folios at high price, or octavos at low price, the result was the same. Directly or indirectly, he gave to the book-buyer quite as much as he received.
In 1529, Andrew Torresano died. His sons and the sons of Aldus continued the work of their fathers, but they did not agree. They published but few books. In 1540, the sons of Torresano withdrew, and the books of the house after this date bear the imprint of Aldus's sons. Paul Manutius, the elder, then twenty-eight years old, was the manager. Like his father, he drew about him many learned men, and kept the favor of eminent Italian ecclesiastics and princes. He re-opened the Academy, and with its aid. published many valuable books. But the wars and the waning commercial prosperity of Venice compelled him to remove his printing-office to Rome, where he was cordially received and provided for by Pope Pius IV.
Although Aldus did a great deal for the revival of learning, neither he nor his sons lived to see the benefits which he hoped would follow a wider study of classic texts. The golden age of literature that he hoped for did not return. His books and exhortations did not bring to Venice the ideal republic of Plato. They did not fully accomplish the purpose for which printing was sent. Of help to the wise, but of no benefit to the ignorant, they really widened the gulf between the two classes at a time when they should have bridged it. should have bridged it. It was not in the shadow of St. Mark, where Aldus labored, nor in the palaces of the Medici and of the Vatican, where his sons were welcomed, that printing received the nurture that made it a reorganizing force in the world. The seed from which the greatest harvest of good came was sown by early printers, like those of England, who seldom printed a Greek or Latin text, but who made books in languages that common people could read.
DEVICE OF ALDUS, FROM STATIUS.
A PLEA FOR RAILROADS.
THE war against railroads, which commenced several years since at the West and was waged by the Grangers with more or less success, has recently been transferred to the East, and during the past year New York has been the immediate field of hostilities, the chief operations being conducted before a legislative committee of investigation, by commercial "committees on transportation," aided by able and astute counsel. The voluminous testimony-if much of it can be called testimony-taken in this investigation is full of conflicting opinions and a spirit of opposition. Its effect has been to create a feeling adverse to railroads, outside of the authors of the investigation, which is unintelligent and extreme. It has given rise to a very general outcry in the commercial world, and charges of "extortion," "discrimination," and "watering stock" against all railroad corporations. Without discussing this contradictory testimony or the arguments of counsel, and steering clear of the extreme opinions on either side, it may be well to consider if railroad management in general is as black as it is painted, and if something cannot be justly and reasonably said on behalf of the railroads, admitting their responsibility to the public and their subjection to State control in some respects, but asserting their rights and privileges under a fair construction of law.
There is a quite common opinion in the business world, supported by a recent letter of Hon. Jeremiah Black, in reply to certain interrogatories proposed by the New York Chamber of Commerce, that railroads are simply public highways. There are, it is true, some judicial opinions looking in the same direction; but the recent common opinion goes a step farther than the judicial opinions, and, according to that, quasi public highways have become actual public highways. The argument is that private property can be taken by right of eminent domain only for public use, and, private property being taken for the construction of railroads, they are roads dedicated to the public, and the property taken from individuals becomes the property of the public"the people," or the representative of the people, the State. Now that is not true in fact, and it is not founded in reason, however plausible it is in theory, and easily
evolved from some old principles of law. The necessities of modern progress render a modification of old theories, and even of old principles, inevitable; and, since the introduction of railroads, the idea that private property taken for the purpose of travel in a peculiar manner, and under new conditions, becomes a public highway as a county road is a highway, is no longer tenable, and, in practice, is not recognized. When the earliest railroad corporations were chartered, it was supposed that they would be open to the use of everybody, each with his own vehicles and motive power (horses), upon the payment of tolls for such use, as canals had previously been used. The introduction. of steam locomotives at once changed all that. Without taking into view the cost of locomotives, such a mode of using railroads was palpably impracticable, and the old theory of the rights of the public in such a road was necessarily modified in practice, though it still lingered in its earlier form in the minds of some jurists.
A railroad, whether constructed over land taken by the right of eminent domain granted to the corporation by the legislature, or over land the fee of which has been purchased, is the property of the corporation. Even if it be only an easement it is held exclusively by the corporation or its assigns, and the body of railroad law which has grown up in the last fifty years, in spite of adverse theories, recognizes it as the property of the corporation. A person walking on it is a trespasser and liable to
penalty; its structures, fixtures, and appliances are protected by stringent laws. The State cannot take it without paying for it, and all laws which authorize such purchase recognize it as the property of the corporation. Only in case of forfeiture of its franchise can the State take from the corporation its road. So long as it performs its functions as a railroad corporation and violates no fundamental law of its existence as a corporation, its property cannot be taken from it. It has the exclusive right to move cars over its rails and to carry passengers and goods. So far as the roadbed, rails, and fixtures are concerned, the public has no right in or to them. It simply has a right to be carried over them by the proprietors. The relation of the railroad corporation to the public is simply that
of a common carrier. It is authorized to construct a railroad and to exercise exclusively on that railroad the functions of a common carrier. Deriving its right by grant from the State, it is subject to the control of the State to a certain extent, so far as such control does not violate the contract between the State and the corporation, or trespass upon the legal rights of the corporators. That is the relation of the railroad to the State, and that relation is conceded by most railroad managers.
As common carriers, railroads are subject to the common law concerning common carriers, reënforced, modified, and supplemented by statute law. By such laws they are bound to carry all persons (not excluded by police regulations), and, if they are freight roads, all goods (under the same restrictions) at certain established rates. They must transport at reasonable rates, and they have no right, in most of the States, to make unequal rates to different persons for the same service; or, in other words, to make unjust discrimination in favor of or against any parties.
It is undoubtedly true that many railroad corporations have not observed this lastmentioned law, and the existence of any such law is in some quarters denied. In Massachusetts, however, most intelligent railroad managers recognize their obligation not to make any unjust discrimination. But, honestly admitting the force of the law, they as honestly differ with many who are bitterly denouncing all railroad managers in their view of what are reasonable rates and what is discrimination.
And, first, as to reasonable rates. It may be said, at the outset, that there can be no common standard for "reasonable rates." What is reasonable for a road of easy grades, and a large volume of business, would be unreasonably low for a road of heavy grades and a small volume of busiAnd there is no classification yet attempted that will not work injustice to some roads. The question, "What is reasonable?" therefore, will naturally be an swered according to the point from which the matter is viewed,-whether by railroad managers, from the stand-point of their own roads, or by the traveling and commercial public, from the stand-point of their own interests. Which of these parties is best qualified to determine the question? Rairoad managers are men who are familiar with the operation of railroads; who know the cost of maintenance of way, stations,
and rolling-stock; the amount of wages of numerous employés; the expense of running trains under various conditions; the necessity for providing for contingencies and increased facilities for a growing business; and they know, too, how large is the investment in the plant and other property of the corporation, which is entitled to a fair profit, if it can be legitimately obtained. With such knowledge and qualifications, are they not better judges of the rates at which transportation can be afforded on their respective roads than the commercial or traveling public, who have little or no knowledge of the cost of operating a railroad, and who judge of rates by the margin of profit which the market affords, or the amount they are willing to take from their purses for railroad fares?
These trained railroad managers are chosen or appointed by the stockholders as their agents to carry on the business of common carriers. As agents and trustees of valuable properties, they are in duty bound to look after the interests of their principals, and so to manage the business as to avoid loss, and if possible to secure a fair return. It is the fashion with many of those who are "fighting" the railroads to denounce railroad managers as extortioners, and to act and speak as if the stockholders had no rights which the general public is bound to respect. Human nature is not very different in the various pursuits of our busy age, and it may well be doubted if the greed of gain is any greater among railroad managers and stockholders than among grain merchants and other large or small patrons of railroads. Each of these conflicting interests desires to avoid a loss and insure a profit. The one seeks to make as wide a margin as possible between the market price of his merchandise and the cost, by making the rates of transportation as low as possible; and the other, knowing the actual cost of transportation, seeks a margin of profit in the rates. If there are some managers who are disposed to make rates" as high as the merchandise will bear," it would not be difficult to find merchants who would like to have their goods transported at rates below the actual cost. Who then are best qualified to determine what is reasonable? Certainly those men who by an analysis of expenses have ascertained the cost of transportation, rather than those who, ignorant of that cost, seek only to obtain the lowest possible rates.