Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis Robert Mathiesen In her book, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe (rglg), and its abridgement, The Printing Reaolution in Early Modern Europe (1983), Elizabeth L. Eisenstein puts forth a number of theses concerning the effect which the invention of printing with movable type had on the subsequent course of European history. Her work has called forth a certain amount of controversy: historians, to whom she can speak as a fellow professional, have generally ascribed a great deal of merit to it; while incunabulists and other specialists in early printing, to whom she often appears to be a dilettante, have generally found much to criticize in it. Indeed, the author often shows herself to be much less familiar with the fine points of the history of printing than with those of intellectual history.l I myself value Professor Eisenstein's work not so much for her conclusions about the history and historiography of Early Modern Europe, as for the questions which she has raised and for the framework of concepts within which she has tried to answer them. In this respect I believe her work will have lasting value. Although Professor Eisenstein's titles refer to Early Modern Europe in general, she clearly has only the western part of Europe in view: rarely venturing as far east as Bohemia or Poland, she entirely ignores Lithuania, Muscovy and the Balkans; and she makes reference to Constantinoplei Istanbul only as a source from which the West could obtain Greek manuscripts and scholars) never as the centre of the far-flung Ottoman Empire, on the history of which the invention and spread of printing might be thought to have had an impact.z From this too narrow point of view she can write: The early presses which were first established between 146o and r48o were powered by many diflerent forces which had been incubating in the age of scribes. In a different cultural context, the same technology might have been used for different ends (as was the case in China and Korea) or it might have been unwelcome and not used at all (as was the case in many regions outside of Europe where Western missionary presses were the first to be installed). In this light one may agree with authorities who hold that the duplicating process which was developed in fifteenth-century Mainz, was in itself of no more consequence than any other inanimate tool. 1 See especially the reviews by Grafton r98o, Kingdon r98o, Needham r98o, Westman r98o, Gingerich r98r, D. Shaw r98r and Barker 1983. 'z Cf. Rafikov 1973. .Solanus rgg2 4 Unless it had been deemed useful to human agents, it would never have been put into operation in fifteenth-century European towns. IJnder different circumstances, moreover, it might have been welcomed and put to entirely different uses-monopolized by priests and rulers, for example, and withheld from free-wheeling urban entrepreneurs. Such counterfactual speculation is useful for suggesting the importance of institutional context when considering technological innovation. Yet the fact remains that once presses were established in numerous European towns, the transforming powers of print did begin to take effect.3 Yet even for Europe, speculation along these lines need not be wholly counterfactual. Presses were also established in a number of places outside Western Europe during the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries, and in these places 'the transforming powers of print' led to rather different results than in lil7estern Europe. Latin and Place Czech Polish Croatian German Plzei r476 Bratislava? r48o? Vimperk Brno r486 r475? r484 r48z r487 r48g Prague Kutn6 Hora Malbork Olomouc Cracow Chelmno? Wroclaw Gdansk post r49o r499 (r5o6) r513? r473 r473 r475 ante 1499 (rtts) ca. r49O Croatia? r495 Venice Nore.' Dates in parentheses refer to first printing of relatively brief Slavic texts in Latin books. Sources: Burger r9o2, Teichl 1964, Boinjak r968, Urbariczyk r983, Budi5a 1984. Table r. Latin-Alphabet Printing in Slavic Lands and Languages (r5th-Early r6th Centuries) 3 Eisenstein 1979, pp. 7o2-7o3 (= 1983, p. 273). Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 5 The invention of printing with movable type came early to the Slavs.a The Latin alphabet was used to print Slavic languages as early as 1475 or thereabouts, and the first S1avic languages printed by means of that alphabet were Czech, Polish and Croatian. (See Table r.) Moreover, Church Slavonic books were printed in one or other of the two Slavic alphabets as early as 1483 (in the Glagolitic alphabet) and r49r (in the Cyrillic alphabet). Thus the two Slavic alphabets were, respectively, the fourth and fifth alphabets used to print books. (The first three are the Latin, the Greek and the Hebrew.) These five alphabets are the only ones for which Period Western Scholarly and Missionary Printing r45o-r5oo 1465: Greek (Mainz Subiaco) Indigenous Printing 1475: Hebrew (Piove di Sacco, Reggio di Calabria) r483: Glagolitic (place unknown) r49r : Cyrillic (Cracow) r 5o r-r6oo r5r3: Ethiopic (Rome) r514: Arabic (Fano) Armenian (Venice) r539: Syriac (Pavia) r577: Malayalam (Goa) r578: Tamil (Quilon) r 583: Georgian (Berlin) r583: Turkish (Berlin) r583: Persian (Berlin) r 583 :'Indian' (Berlin) r593: Samaritan (Leiden) r6or-r7oo Sources : r6r r: Runic (Stockholm) r6z9: Coptic (Rome) r665: Gothic (Dort) Tables 4, 5, 6 andT below; also Reed 1952, p. 66, Emmel r987. Table z. First Fonts of Type for Non-Latin Alphabets (r5th-r7th Centuries) a See Myl'nikov t967 for an excellent treatment of the events which ought to be taken as marking the start of Slavic printing. However, the true date of publication of the Kronika Trojdnska, which he rakes to be 1468 (as stated in its colophon), is controversial; see Teichl 1964, pp.232-233 and Stilwell r97z,p.7r in favour ofa later date (ca. 1476-78?). 6 .Solanus rgg2 fonts of movable type were cut and cast during the fifteenth century.s (See Table z.) Nor was it long before each of these two alphabets had been used to print vernacular languages: Glagolitic was first used to print books in SerboCroatian in t496, or possibly even in r49z; and Cyrillic was used to print books in Serbo-Croatian in r5rz, in Belorussian in 15r7-r9, in Romanian in 1544, in Slovene in 1583, in Ukrainian in 1587, etc.6 However, only a very small fraction of the books printed in Glagolitic or Cyrillic type prior to rToo were in vernacular languages; the vast majority of them continued to be in Church Slavonic well into the eighteenth century. Despite its early beginning, the development of printing in Eastern Europe took a different course than in $Testern Europe. Consequently the impact which that invention had on the history of Eastern Europe was rather different from that which it had in the \$7est. An examination of these differences will lead us to a deeper understanding of the historical questions which Professor Eisenstein has so provocatively asked, but only begun to answer. Much of what I have to offer will be familiar to specialists in early Slavic printing, and much of the rest will be equally familiar to their colleagues who study early printing in N7estern Europe. It is chiefly by juxtaposing these two fields of scholarship that I am able to make any substantial claim on your attention,T It will be most appropriate to examine these differences, which in large part align themselves with different alphabets, against the general background of printing in languages and alphabets other than the Latin during the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries. \tr7e shall need to distinguish several cases during those centuries: r. languages other than Latin written by means of the Latin alphabet, usually with minor modifications (e.g. many Western European vernacular languages); 5 Even so satisfyingly exhaustive a reference work as Haebler's Tltpenrepertorium (t9o5-24), though it indexes and classifies Greek and Hebrew type fonts of the fifteenth century as well as Latin ones, fails not only to treat the Glagolitic and Cyrillic fonts of the same century, but even to warn its user of this omission. There is only the briefest of references (vol. II, p. r39) to the Glagolitic font possessed by Aldus Manutius and his heirs, and used by them to print three Church Slavonic books in 1493, r5z7 and 156r (Kruming t977,nos.3, r r and zr). 6 Boiniak 1968, no. 44 (or possibly 4o), Badalit 1966, nos. r8fr9, zo, r79, Halenchanka 1986, no. r, Zapasko and Isaievych r98r-84, no. r8, Deletant 1975,p. 163. 7 There is a profound earlier study along the same lines by the Soviet scholar N. P. Kiselev (196o), which deserves the attention of every historian of early printing-despite the corrections to his views which have recently been proposed by A. S. Demin (1978, r98r, 1985, see also Derzhavina 1979, Robinson 1982, and Pozdeeva in this issue of So/anzs). Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 7 z. languages other than Latin written by means of non-Latin alphabets, but published largely for Latin-reading scholarly markets in Western Europe or for use by \Testern European Catholic missionaries (e.g. Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Coptic); and 3. languages other than Latin written by means of non-Latin alphabets and published largely for indigenous markets (e.g. Hebrew, Church Slavonic, Armenian). \7e need not spend a great deal of time on the flrst of these three cases. By the end of the fifteenth century, Latin-alphabet fonts of type had been used to print books in more than a dozen European vernacular languages, and by the end of the sixteenth century the list had grown to include a further dozen or so European vernacular languages, fifteen Native American languages, and a few other languages which do not fall under either of these heads. (See Table 3.) This list continued to grow, of course, during the seventeenth and subsequent centuries. It is the second and third cases which interest us chiefly in the present paper. They both look equally 'exotic' to a'W'estern European, and are little discussed in histories of printing. I do not think that there is a single W'estern European history of printing which even /isls all the relevant alphabets for which fonts of type had been cut by the end of the seventeenth century, and I have not been able to find a single comprehensive and insightful discussion of the subject by any rJ7estern European scholar. That there are two distinct kinds of historical events hidden behind the mask of 'exotic' typography may be seen even from a comparison of the two alphabets which are commonly treated in histories of printing, namely the Greek and the Hebrew. Books printed in each of these alphabets first appear about 1475, and continue to be printed in moderately large numbers throughout the entire period with which we are concerned. During that period, the vast majority of books printed in the Hebrew alphabet were printed by Jews for Jewish use.8 Christian printing in Hebrew type apparently began in the early sixteenth century) was largely restricted to publications able to facilitate the study of the Jewish Bible and its languages by Christian scholars, and at no time has ever been responsible for more than a very small fraction of the total use of Hebrew type.e The use of Greek type contrasts sharply with that of Hebrew type. The vast majority of books printed with this type throughout the three centuries under examination were produced by rVestern European scholars primarily for their own use. Perhaps the earliest book printed by a Greek with Greek E This is true also in the Slavic lands, where printing in the Hebrew alphabet began as early (Freimann 1946, pp. 26, 59). e Febvre and Martin r976,pp.268-z7r; cf. also Schwab 1883, Marx r9r9, t924, 1948. as 15 12 at Prague and 1534 at Cracow Solanus rggz Period Languages in which t45r-r46o Romance: Latin-Alphabet Printing Begins Latin Germanic: High German t46t-t48o r48 r-r 5oo Romance: Italian, French, Spanish, Catalan Germanic: Dutch, English, Low German, Flemish Slaoic : Czech, (Polish) Romance: Portuguese Germanic : Swedish, Danish S laaic : Serbo-Croatian Turkic: (Turkish) r5or-r520 r52r-r540 S/aaic: Polish Semitic: Arabic Germanic: Icelandic Bahic: Latvian Other Europeaz.' Estonian, Hungarian Nath.te American : Nahuatl r 54r-r 560 Romance: Romansch Slaaic: Slovene B alt ic : Prussian, Lithuanian Celtic: Welsh Other Europeaz.' Finnish, Basque, Albanian Natiae American: Huastec, Tarasc, Quich6, Chiapanec, Zoque, Tzeltal, Chinantec r56r-r58o r 58 r-r6oo Germanic: Old English Celtic: Ir'ist^ Natiae American: Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Chocho Slaaic: Slovak Natiae American: Quichua, Aymara, Tupi Malay o- P olynesian : Tagalog Nore.' Languages in parentheses refer to first printing of relatively brief vernacular texts in Latin books. Sources: Darlow and Moule r9o3-rr, Vargas Ugarte 1935-58, vol.7, Garcia Icazbalceta 1954, Vogel 1962, Muller and R6th 1969, Rowe r974, Budisa 1984. Table 3. First Latin-Alphabet Printing in Various Languages (r5th-r5th Centuries) Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis use exclusively in view is the Greek orthodox Psalter which Justin Dekadyos printed at venice in 494. In this book the printer stated his intention to publish additional books for Greek orthodox liturgical use (but in fact he did not do so).10 other printers did produce other Greek orthodox liturgical books in the early sixteenth century and subsequently, but these were always a small fraction of the total number of books printed in Greek type throughout the world.ll It is a telling fact that, although many editions of the whole christian Bible in Greek were printed from r5r8 throughout our period, the first such edition printed specifically for the use of the Greek orthodox church appeared only at our period's very end (venice: Nicholas Glykys, t687).12 In each of these two cases it should be noted that we are dealing with relatively small numbers of editions, compared with the number printed in the Latin alphabet: the numbers of editions are in the low hundreds during the fifteenth century, and perhaps twenty times as many during the sixteenth.l3 The corresponding figures for Latin-alphabet printing are in the neighbourhood of 3o,ooo editions during the fifteenth century and perhaps 2oorooo during the sixteenth.la Most of the 'exotic' fonts cut during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries belong, like the Greek fonts, to the second of the three cases listed above. These include fonts for the alphabets (in one case, the syllabary) listed in the left column of rable z. None of these fonts (except the Greek ones) were employed in indigenous printing until the eighteenth century, to the best of my knowledge.ls During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they seem to have been used exclusively by sTestern European scholars and missionaries, who also had at their disposal a relatively small number of fonts for the alphabets in the right column of Table z (i.e. those used chiefly in indigenous printing): Hebrew, Glagolitic, Cyrillic and Armenian. Table 4 displays some additional data on the use of all these fonts in Western European scholarly and missionary printing during the sixteenth century. During the seventeenth century several printing shops were formed which had large holdings of 'exotic' fonts of type. Thus by 1636 the Typographia Sanctae congregationis de Propaganda Fide at Rome had acquired fonts for 10 11 12 13 Legrand r885-19o6, no, rr. Legrand r885-19o6, r894-r9o3, Procror r9oo, Veloudis 1974. Legrand r894-r9o3, no. 6ro, Veloudis r974,rro.67. It has been estimated that some zoo books were printed in the Hebrew alphabet during the fifteenth century, and some 4,ooo during the sixteenth (Febvre and Martin 1976, pp. z7o-z7t). 1a Febvre and Martin 1976,pp.248-249, z6z, Geldner 1978, pp. 235-46; cf. also Haebler 1933, p. zo5, Lenhart 1935, pp. 6-1 5, Hirsch 1974, p. ro5. 1s For the particularly interesting case of Georgian see Gogoladze r964a, r964b. (The earliest use of what may be Georgian type, at Berlin in r 583, seems to have escaped Gogoiadze's notice, but see Vervliet r98r, pp. r4-r5.) Solanus r99z ) Alphabet Western European ( Non- Indigenous Ethiopic r513 Rome, r5r8 Cologne, r527 Basel, r549 Rome, 1583 Berlin, r598 Leiden 1514 Fano, 1516 Genoa, r5r8 Venice, r566 Rome, r58o Rome, 1583 Berlin, r593 Leiden 1539 Pavia, 1555 Vienna, 1569 Antwerp, r58o Rome, r583 Berlin 1539 Pavia, 1579 Rome, 1583 Berlin 1577 Goa r578 Quilon r582 Rome, r583 Berlin r583 Berlin r583 Berlin r583 Berlin r583 Berlin r583 Berlin r593 Leiden Arabic Syriac Armenian Malayalam Tamil Cyrillic Glagolitic Georgian Persian Turkish 'Indian' Samaritan Use r9o3-rr, Hitti 1942143, Nemoy 1952, Reed 153-167, r75*r78, Schurhammer and Cottrell 1952, I7iinman 1952-57, 1957, t96o, Vervliet 1968, pp. 3r5-32o, Strothmann r97r, Nersessian r98o, pp. 36-38, r47-r79, G. Shaw r98r, Vervliet r98r, Rafikov 1982, ch. z, Mathiesen 1985, K6vorkian r986, pp. XVIII-XIX, r52-r74. Sources: Saltini r86o, Darlow and Moule r952r pp. 5r-7t, Table 4. Use of Alphabets Other than Latin, Greek and Hebrew in Western European Scholarly and Missionary Printing (r6th Century) Greek, Hebrew (the rabbinical as well as the usual alphabet), Syriac (the Esrangela as well as the usual alphabet), Arabic, Ethiopic, Samaritan, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Glagolitic and Cyrillic.l6 At the same time the press of Antoine Vitr6 at Paris had Greek, Hebrew (usual and rabbinical), Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, Armenian, Persian and Turkish.lT Two decades later, the printing office of Thomas Roycroft in London had fonts for Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Samaritan and Ethiopic, all of which it employed during the printing of Brian $Talton's Polyglot Bible (r653-57) and its accompanying grammars and dictionaries. 18 The third of the cases listed above is for indigenous printing in non-Latin 16 Pollard 1928, nos. z-9, Ishkhanian 1964a, Gogoladze r964a, Nazor 1978, pp. 74-8o, Nersessian r98o, pp.36-38, Vervliet r98r, Mathiesen 1985, no.26, K6vorkian t986, pp. r53-r65, Emmel r987. 17 Bernard 1857, Mathiesen 1985, no. zz. '8 Reed t95z,pp.156-163, Mathiesen 1985, nos. z3-25. Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and tke Eisenstein Thesis r r alphabets. Other than the Hebrew, only three alphabets belong here during the period under discussion: the Glagolitic, the Cyrillic and the Armenian.le Glagolitic printing was the first of the three to develop, but it seems never to have been used widely. Fifty-eight books and broadsides are known to have been printed in Glagolitic during the fifteenth through eighteenth centuries, and all but fifteen of them were printed in just four place (Venice, Nuremberg, IJrach and Rome). About half of these books were in a Croatian variety of Church Slavonic, the other half in vernacular Serbo-Croatian.2o Flowever, sixteen of the fifty-eight were published by Protestants at Nuremberg and Urach (near Ttibingen), and the use of a vernacular in them conformed to the theological programme of Protestantism. The other fortytwo were from Catholic presses, and only about ten of these were in the vernacular. (See Table 5.) Place r 450-r Sao Croatia 4 Venice I r 5or-r6oo r60r-r7oo 7or-r8oo II 4 3 Nuremberg 2 r4 Urach Rome Totals: t 3o 5 7 t2 7 r6 Note: The Glagolitic font available at Berlin in r583 had such slight use that it may be excluded from this table (Vervliet r98r, pp. r4-r5). Sources: Badali6 r966, Bo5njak r968, KruminE1977, Nazor r978. Table 5. Distribution of Glagolitic Printing (r5th-r8th Centuries) Cyrillic printing was the next to develop, and has always been by far the most productive of the three, not only in terms of the total number of editions printed, but also in terms of the number of places where this printing was caried out. (See Table 6.) If we confine our attention for the le It is difficult to make a sharp distinction between indigenous printing and Western European schoiarly and missionary printing in the Glagolitic alphabet, since the alphabet's indigenous market consisted of Croatians (and to some extent Slovenes), who are also Vestern Europeans. 'o On the varieties of Church Slavonic see Mathiesen 1984. Solanus r99z r45o-r 5oo Place r 5or-r6oo r 6o r-r 7oo r 7o r-r 8oo Russia: Moscow St Petersburg r9 elsewhere I 4 7 III r76 484 I13 Io r95 Ukraine: L'viv Kiev Chernihiv 3o Pochaiv elsewhere 13I 470 rt7 I 235 22 69 r9 5r 8r 5o 95 56 Belorussia and Lithuania: Vilnius/Vevis Suprasl' 3 elsewhere 3 43 Balkans: all places 4 I6 I Romania and Moldada: all places 44 72 590 4 43 IO 367 8 2c,6 rro84 f,636 ather Lands: all places Totals: Nore.'The cyrillic font available at Berlin in r583 had such slight use that it may be excluded from this table (Vervliet r98r, pp. r4-r5). Printing in Cyrillic Civil type is excluded from this table, but may be found in Table 8 below. Sources: Bianu, Hodog and Simonescu r9o8-44, Zernova 1958, Mihailovi6 1964, Badali6 1966, Bo5njak rg6S,Zernovaand Kameneva r968, Bykova r97r, Deletartt rg75, t98z-83, Nemirovskii 19T6,Labyntsev rg79, rgSz,Zapasko and Isaievych r98r-84, Halenchanka 1986. Table 6. Distribution of Cyrillic Printing (r5th-r8th Centuries) moment to printing in the Old Cyrillic alphabet, rhere were 4,934 editions printed during somewhat more than three centuries (r49r-r8oo). About one seventh of them (7o6) were printed in Romania (including present-day Moldavia), and constitute something of a special case. Virtually all the other Old Cyrillic editions (4,228) are in one or another variety of Church Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenste'in Thesis r3 Slavonic; only a very small fraction of them-perhaps a number in the low hundreds-were in some vernacular Slavic language. In Romania and Moldavia, however, the vernacular language was Romanian, which is not a Slavic language but a Romance one, and there the use of Church Slavonic gave place to that of Romanian. Even during the period before r7or, old Cyrillic books in Romanian greatly outnumbered those in Church Slavonic: 64 of the 116 Old Cyrillic books printed in Romania or Moldavia were in Romanian, while 39 were in Church Slavonic and another 13 employed both languages.r, During the eighteenth century the fraction of the total output printed in Romanian noticeably increased. At the same time the situation in the Slavic lands was complicated through the introduction of a new Civil Cyrillic alphabet, which was promulgated in the early eighteenth century by the Russian emperor Peter the Great. During the eighteenth century more than rr,ooo books were pubtished in this new alphabet, almost all of them in one or another vernacular Slavic language (mostly Russian, but occasionally Ukrainian or Serbo-Croatian). Consequently, the use of Old Cyrillic became more and more limited to printing in Church Slavonic (or in Romanian) just when the vernacular Slavic languages were ousting Church Slavonic from all publications other than 'church books' in a very narrow sense of the term (mostly liturgical books). As a result, printing in old Cyrillic sharply declined just when the printing industry in the eastern half of the Slavic world underwent its most dramatic period of growth, and it was printing in the Civil Cyrillic alphabet that increased in response to the new conditions of work for printers in that part of the world.22 Indigenous printing in the Armenian alphabet was the last of the three to develop. It provides an instructive contrast to printing in the two Slavic alphabets. Although the total number of books printed in the Armenian alphabet during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries seems to have been 163, and another 767 books appear to have been produced during the eighteenth century, the number of places where indigenous Armenian printing was carried on during those three centuries seems to have been about fourteen.23 It was much less centralized than printing in either of the two Slavic alphabets during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (See Table 7.) Having presented these tables, I should now caution my readers that the numbers in them, however precise they may appear, are in fact only provisional, and are subject to change as new editions continue to be discovered. Indeed, they may never become definitive, for the surviving 21 22 Deletant ry7 5, r98z-83. Moreover, during the nineteenth century the Romanians adopted the Latin alphabet in place of the Cyrillic for Romanian, thereby curtailing the use of Old Cyrillic even more. ^ ,. To the jlaces listed in Table 7 add Echmiadzin, Madras, Calcutta, St Petersburg, Novyi Nakhichevan' and Astrakhan' for the eighteenth century (Ishkhanian t964b)' r4 Solanus r99z Place r Venice 5or-t6oo r 6o r-r 7oo 8 Pavia *I Constantinople Rome *5 Berlin L'viv 6 r3 *29 *2 3 *2 Milan *4 Paris New Julfa 8 Livorno Amsterdam Marseilles Leipzig 4 3r t7 *I Padua *2 Totals: r4r Nore.'Non-indigenous printing is marked with an asterisk (*). Davtyan et al. t963 was not available at the time of writing. Sources: Ishkhanian r964a, r964b, Nersessian r98o, K6vorkian r986. Table 7. Distribution of Arrnenian Printing (r6th-r8th Centuries) records of the presses which produced these books indicate a surprisingly large number of editions of which not a single copy seems to have survived; nor is it unreasonable to assume that there were still other editions not mentioned in the surviving records, which are far from complete when they survive at alll2a 2a Zernova 1958, pp. 8j, Isaievych r97o, pp.9rro, Zapasko and Isaievych r98r-84, vol. r, pp. 2r-22. Some of my readers may not be aware that the records of one of the oldest and most productive of the Old Cyrillic presses, the Moscow Synodal Press (originally the Pechatnyi dtor) had preserved most of its o1d records and equipment from as far back as 16z0, and had the potential to become a printing-history museum to rival the famous Plantin-Moretus Museum at Antwerp. See Mansvetov 1883, Nikolaevskii r89o-9r. W'hether any of the old equipment still exists I do not krtow, but I am encouraged to learn from two recent studies that the records, and also the huge library of copy texts and proof-reader's texts, still exist and form several separate collections in the Central State Archive of Ancient Acts in Moscow (Luppov 1983, Siromakhova and Uspenskii 1987, cf. also Klepikov 196o, p. r3z, and Pozdeeva in this issue of Solanus). \7ould it be out ofplace to express the hope that our Russian colleagues may someday use these materials to create a centre for the study of early printing at Moscow comparable to the Plantin-Moretus Museum? Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 15 Nevertheless, though the numbers in these tables can never be definitive, am confident that they are near enough to the truth for our purposes. I I7e now undertake to examine the differences between Latin-alphabet printing and indigenous printing in other alphabets. These differences will prove to be in part quantitative, in part qualitative, and the latter differences are to some extent consequences of the former. Possibly the most significant quantitative difference is found in the total number of editions printed in the various alphabets during the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries. These numbers (and the corresponding numbers for the eighteenth century, when available) are shown in Table 8. Latin Period r45o-r5oo r5or-r6oo 3O,OOO? 2OOTOOO | ,f0,,0,,,*,:'i'3i';,"ic 5 zo6 3o 22 7 r4r r6 767 2TOOOTOOO? rro84 r-r even more! 3'636 8oo r r ro65 I Hebrew 2o0 8 r6or-r7oo r7o lArmenian 4rooo ) Sources: The numbers for editions in the Glagolitic, Old Cyrillic and Armenian alphabets are from Tables 5, 6 and 7 above. The number of editions in the Armenian alphabet during the eighteenth century is from Ishkhanian ry64b, p.246. Those for editions in the Latin and Hebrew alphabets derive from the text at footnotes r3 and 14 above. Those for editions in the Civil Cyrillic alphabet are from Bykova, Gurevich and Kozintseva 1955-72, Kaufman t96z-75, Mihailovic 1964, Zapasko and Isaievych r98r-84, andHalenchanka 1986, pp. r9o-r92. Table 8. Cornparison of Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing with Latin-Alphabet Printing: Nurnber of Editions (r5th-r8th Centuries) The number of editions printed even in Old Cyrillic-to say nothing of type-during the 35o-year period (r49r-r8oo) is noticeably less than the number of editions printed in the Latin alphabet just during the first half century after the invention of printing (r45o-r5oo). Even taking both the Old Cyrillic and the new Civil Cyrillic alphabets together, no more than about 16,000 editions had been printed by the end of the eighteenth century, and the number of 3orooo those printed in Glagolitic or in Armenian t6 Solanus r99z editions printed is probably achieved sometime in the first half of the nineteenth century.zs One might also compare the relative contemporaneity of the works chosen to be printed. Curt Btihler (rg5+), generalizing from a sample which may represent about one fourth of all the books printed in the Latin alphabet during the fifteenth century, fournd that about 7zo/o of the authors (68o in all) whose works appeared in print during the fifteenth cenrury lived in the fifteenth century, i.e. were more or less contemporary with the first printers. The next largest groups were as follows: authors of the fourteenth centurygo/"; of Classical Antiquity-7o/o; and of the thirteenth century-6o/o. Authors of all other centuries, including all Christian authors before the year r2oo, formed no more than 60/o of the total.26 No comparable number of authors, nor any comparable degree of emphasis on contemporary authors, is found in Old Cyrillic printing from the fifteenth cenrury through the eighteenth.2T A third, truly significant quantitative difference between printing in the Cyrillic and the Latin alphabets during the period under examination is to be found in the degree of centralization. After an initial relatively decentralized period, Cyrillic printing became highly centralized during the seventeenth century) and even more so during the eighteenth: not quite one half of all books printed in Old Cyrillic from 16or through rSoo-excluding those printed in the Romanian language-were printed in one place (Moscow) and essentially in one printing office-the Pechatnyi dvor ('Printing Yard' or 'Printing House'), later renamed the Sinodal'naia tipografiia ('Synodal Press').28 Latin-alphabet printing, in contrast, became increasingly decentralized during the same period. Even during the fifteenth century, Latinalphabet printing offices were found in somewhat more than 2oo places. In twelve of those places local printers were able to produce more than r,ooo editions each.2e Yet the editions printed in these twelve places were only about two fifths of the total number of editions printed in the Latin alphabet 2s The same point can be made in another, equally instructive, way. Zapasko and Isaievych r98 r-84 have inventoried all the books known to have been printed in the Ukraine through r 8oo, whether printed in the Cyrillic alphabet or the Latin. Although the numbers of these two kinds of books are similar in the sixteenth century (29 in Cyrillic, z3 in Latin) and in the seventeenth G8Z in Cyrillic, 323 in Latin), they Cyrillic, 2,364 in Latin). diverge greatly during the eighteenth century (gn in 26 27 Cf. also Steele r9o3-o7. Kiselev 196o, but cf. Demin 1985. 'z8 Printing in the Cyrillic Civil alphabet, once it had begun in the early eighteenth century, soon became slightly less centralized than Old Cyrillic printing, but the contrast with Latin-alphabet printing still remained sharp. See especially the index of presses in Kaufman 196z-7 5, vol. S, pp. 278-290. 2e Strasbourg Cologne, Rome, Augsburg, Nuremberg, Venice, Basel, Paris, Lyons and Leipzig (Teichl 1964). Milan, Florence, Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 17 during the fifteenth century. During the sixteenth and subsequent centuries, Latin-alphabet printing became even more decentralized, as the political and religious decentralization of Western Europe (and its colonies) increased.3o Qualitative differences are more easily expressed in prose than in numerical tables. One of the most important of these differences is that the rise of the printed book did not immediately lead to the decline of the manuscript book in the Slavic lands where the Cyrillic alphabet was in use. (\7e shall employ Riccardo Picchio's convenient Latin term 'slavia Orthodoxa'to refer to these lands.3t It remains a matter of controversy whether Romania and Moldavia belong to Slavia Orthodoxa during the period under discussion here.) In Western Europe, the printed book largely replaced the manuscript book within a hundred years after the invention of printing, if not earlier, since printed books answering to the demands of almost all markets soon became available in much greater numbers and at much lower prices than manuscript books. As a consequence, the invention of printing created a kind of filter in Western Europe during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century: texts which got into print continued to circulate while texts that were not printed gradually dropped out of circulation and out of use. In Slavia Orthodoxa the products of the printing press met the demands only of relatively limited books until well into the late was partly because the total This eighteenth century or the early nineteenth. very much lower than the remained number of editions printed in Old Cyrillic even more because the but alphabet, number of editions printed in the Latin much narrower: the very was print in Slavia Orthodoxa range of texts put into and the one basic texts liturgical printed was in Old Cyrillic bulk of what was the student ' which of means (Azbuka Buhoar or textbook-the Primer )-by aloud. texts liturgical these could be taught the art of reading These basic qualitative differences between printing in Slavia Orthodoxa and in Western Europe had as their consequence a whole series of secondary differences, which may be grouped under most of Professor Eisenstein's six principal heads of discussion: (r) dissemination, (z) amplification and reinforcement, (3) preservation, (4) standardization, (5) data collection, and sectors of the whole existing market for (6) reorganization of texts.32 Space permits me to give only a few of them here 30 By way of further comparison, the numbers of places where books were printed in the Hebrew alpirabet may be cited: z7 in the fifteenth century, 8 r more in the sixteenth, ror others in the seventeenth and still another rz5 in the eighteenth (Freimann 1946, pp. 8z-83)' 31 Picchio 1963. 32 Eisensrein 1979,pp.7o-rz9(or 1983,pp.+r-9o);Ihavealteredheretheorderinwhichshe treats these six questions. r8 Solanus t99z as examples. Even so, consideration of these examples leads us not so much to reject Professor Eisenstein's theses as to refine them. (r) Dissernination. One of Professor Eisenstein's most interesting theses is that the wider dissemination of books which followed upon the invention of printing made it easier for the reader to juxtapose more texts for consultation and comparison, and to iuxtapose a greater variety of such texts. This in turn made contradictions between these texts more obvious, and the methods which were then developed to deal with these contradictionsempirical methods in natural science; methods of textual and literary criticism first in the study of belletristic texts, but eventually also in the study of religious texts-led to the rise of modern science, on the one hand, and the modern critical approach to religion, on the other.33 This thesis needs to be more precisely stated if it is to account for the case of Slavia Orthodoxa as well as that of !flestern Europe. In Slavia Orthodoxa it was chiefly liturgical texts that were more widely disseminated after the introduction of printing, and the most visible result of the increasing juxtaposition of texts within this limitation may be the development in Muscovy of a series of increasingly bitter controversies on points of liturgical practice, leading not only to a schism within the Russian Orthodox Church, but also to many further schisms within the resulting body of Old Believers. Clearly the invention of printing can at best be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, for the distinctive evolution of the natural sciences in Western Europe, in contrast to Muscovite Russia, or for the distinctive characteristics which prevent one from drawing too close a parallel between the sixteenth-century schism between Protestants and Catholics in \Testern Europe and the seventeenthcentury schism between the Orthodox and the Old Believers in Muscovite Russia. (z) Amplification and Reinforcernent. According to Professor Eisenstein, the development of printing served to reinforce linguistic and literary frontiers, and eventually to amplify the diversely oriented national 'memories'which took shape during the following centuries as different parts of the common Classical and Medieval heritage were taken up into the various national vernacular traditions.3a In Slavia Orthodoxa, however, it was chiefly the several varieties of the liturgical language-Church Slavonic-and not the incipient national vernaculars, which were the main beneficiaries of amplification and reinforcement during the period with which we are concerned here.3s It was principally printing in the Cyrillic Civil alphabet 33 Eisenstein rg7g, pp. 7t-8o, 333-f38, 355-356, 466, 606-612 (partly also 42-5c). 3n Eisenstein 1983, pp. 88-9o). D79,pp.rz6-rz8 3s Mathiesen t97 2, pp. 64-7 4, 1984, pp. 6z-64. (: in t983, pp. Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 19 which led to the same results for the vernacular languages of Slavia Orthodoxa, and this alphabet was not created until the eighteenth century. (Note that the Cyrillic Civil alphabet was one of the first alphabets invented and promulgated specifically for use in printing.) Again we find that the invention of printing, though it may be a necessary condition, is not a sufficient one for the kind of historical development specified by Professor Eisenstein. (3) Preservation. The invention of printing, according to Professor Eisenstein, made it easier to preserve any text or any idea, whether progressive or regressive, from destructionl likewise, a knowledge of the exotic and dying languages in which some texts were written could be secured forever.36 The physical safety of a few copies of a valued text does not lead so surely to its preservation as does the publication of that text in quantity.3T The potential of which Professor Eisenstein speaks here was realized in Slavia Orthodoxa only in the case of those relatively few, most highly valued texts which were put into print; it could not, of course, be realized in the case of texts which were not printed. (4) Standardization. The invention of printing made it easier to standardize texts. One of Professor Eisenstein's theses is that this development afforded governments and churches more powerful means to secure conformity and uniformity, to control the populace. The invention of printing led to the printed blank form, which was important for the development of bureaucratic methods of administration. Such printed blank forms were in fact among the very first texts printed in Western Europe, and they continued to be printed throughout our period.38 To the best of my knowledge, printed blank forms in Old Cyrillic were not produced by Slavia Orthodoxa during the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries, and relatively few products ofthe press-one thinks immediately of the Lithuanian Statute of 1588, the Ulozhenie (Code of Laws) of t649 and the Kormchaia kniga (Nomocanon) of 165o-1653 as obvious isolated exceptions-had much to do with the dayto-day administration of church or state. In a more general sense, other texts were occasionally printed which were meant to influence or control the populace in specific ways, such as Patriarch Nikon's Pouchenie o morovoi iazoe (Sermon on the Plague) of 1656. Flowever, this use of the printing press clearly began much later, and constituted a much smaller part of the total 36 This is surely true of Church Slavonic; for the earliest indigenous grammars and dictionaries of that language, and the use made of them by Josef Dobrovsky (who wrote the first modern grammar of Church Slavonic), see Mathiesen t97 z, ch. 5, r 98 r. 37 Eisenstein 1979,pp.rt3-126 (: 1983, pp. 78-88). 3E Eisenstein 1979; pp.59, 80-88, rr8-r19 (partly also in 1983, pp. 5o-63, 8z-83). For the earliest blank forms printed in Western Europe (in 1454-55), see Stillwell 1972, nos. 8-r r. 20 Solanus r99z printed output in Slavia orthodoxa than in riTestern Europe. Nevertheless, it cannot truly be said that bureaucratic methods of administration were under-utilized by the Slavic orthodox states and churches. In this respect, the invention ofprinting does not seem to be even a necessary condition, let alone a sufficient one, for the development of bureaucracy. (5) Data collection. Professor Eisenstein's theses in this area pertain so largely to the specific development of the natural sciences in western Europe that they appear to be untestable by comparison with Slavia Orthodoxa during our period.3e (6) Reorganization of Texts. According to professor Eisenstein, differences in their production led to qualitative differences between printed and manuscript books, despite their superficial similarities; they resulted in a 'paradoxical combination ... of seeming continuity with radical change,.ao commercial pressures favoured innovations which were able to serve a reader's convenience: graduated typefaces, headlines, footnotes, cross- references, foliation and pagination, indices, tables of contents, title pages, and so on. Printing served as a necessary tool for sorting out the whole chaotic heritage of the past, creating in the process many new points of social conflict and controversy.al Although Professor Eisenstein's general observation is correct concerning the utility of many innovations which took place in the development of the strucrure of the lTestern European book during the century after the invention of printing, her thesis that the invention of printing caused these innovations, or at least gave them their full importance, will not stand up to critical investigation, for not only is the actual history of these innovations in w'estern Europe more complicated and less connected with the rise of printing than Professor Eisenstein assumes, but arso the same technology failed to give rise to the same innovations in the same order and at the same rate in Slavia Orthodoxa as in lTestern Europe.a2 Underlying the whole structure of concepts and theses which professor Eisenstein has created is a very simple postulate which she stares in several 3e Eisenstein ry7g,pp.ro7-r 13 (or 1983, pp. 73-78). ao Eisenstein g79tp.5r 1983,p. zo). a1 Eisensrein g79,pg.5r-52,88-ro7 (or 1983, pp. r9-2r,63-72). a2 There are many (: ways in which much old cyrillic printing even as late as the early eighteenth century is more like \07estern European printing of the incunable period (the fifteenth century) than like $Testern European printing ofthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even as late as the middle of the eighteenth century, virtually all Old-Cyrillic presses seem to have cut and cast their owrl fonts of Old Cyrillic type, and the title page did not become a normal part of most old cyrillic books printed ar Moscow until that same cenrury was well undei way. Moreover, the details of composition and presswork remained in many cases faithful io techniques and technology which in \il7estern Europe were largely confined to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 2r places, but does not particularly emphasize. put most simply, this postulate states that the invention of printing placed printers 'temporarily in command of the nascent communications industry'; this industry in turn brought about 'something rather like a knowledge explosion' which began in the sixteenth century (and has continued into the present).43 The foremost cause of the differences between the impact which the invention of printing had on the course of history in rJTestern Europe and in Slavia Orthodoxa, put with equal simplicity, is that in western Europe printers did in fact achieve such a position of command and kept it for centuries, whereas in Slavia orthodoxa they did not do so. (The same is true, by the way, of printers in the Glagolitic and Armenian alphabets.) whether this followed from differences in social and economic conditions sufficient to require this development in rJTestern Europe while preventing it in Slavia orthodoxa, or whether both courses of development lay open in each region and the printers themselves happened to take one path in w'estern Europe, the other in Slavia orthodoxa, may remain controversial; but we do not need to settle this controversy in order to deepen our understanding of the roles which the new craft of printing played in both parts of the world. A simple comparison of the results suffices at present. Thus we see how the history of indigenous printing in non-Latin alphabets (and especially in the old cyrillic alphabet) from the fifteenth century through the seventeenth provides an interesting and instructive contrast to the history of printing in the Latin alphabet during the same cenruries. Even so brief an exploration of this contrast has allowed us ro refine some of Professor Eisenstein's theses, and to deepen our understanding of some of the problems to which she has so provocatively directed our attention. I intend to return to these problems in the future, and I invite others to do the same, for I am persuaded that problems of this kind-problems which touch on the means of communication and communion between people and between peoples-are the problems which lie closest to the hidden processes that have shaped and continue to shape the unfolding history of mankind. The history of the book, whether manuscript or printed, is a complex of problems of just this kind. To have deepened our undersranding of so basic a set of problems is an achievement well worth the considerable efforts it may cost. a3 Eisenstein 1979,pp. 385, 7z-73,rr5-rr6. Solanus r99z 22 RrrrnsNcrs Badali6, losip. t966. Jugoslaoica usque ad annum MDC: Bibliographie der siidslawischen Frilhdrucke, Bibliotheca bibliographica aureliana, II. znd ed. (Baden-Baden: Verlag Heitz). Barker, Nicolas. 1983. [Review of Eisenstein 1979.) The Times Literary Supplement, z4 June r983, p.679. Bernard, Auguste Joseph. 1857. Antoine Vitd et les caractdres orientaux de la Bible Polyglotte de Paris: Origine et oicissitudes des premiers caractdres orientaux introduits en France (Paris: Dumoulin). Bianu, Ioan, Nerva Hodos and Dan Simonescu. r9o8-44. Bibliografia Romdniscdaeche, r 5o8-r8 jo.4 vols (Bucuresci: J. V. Socec) (Reprinted, Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, r968-69). Boinjak, Mladen. 1968. A Study of Slavic Incunabula (Zagreb: Mladost-Munich: Kubon & Sagner). Budiia, DraZen. ry84. Poieci tiskarstaa u earopskih naroda (Zagreb: Kri6anska sada5njost-Nacionalna i sveuiiliSna biblioteka). Biihler, Curt F. 1954. 'Authors and Incunabula', in Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene, edited by Dorothy Miner (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), pp. 4or-4o6 (Reprinted in Btihler t973, pp. 2t2-2t9). t973. Early Books and Manusoipts: Forty Years of Research (New York: The Grolier Club / The Pierpont Morgan Library). Burger, Konrad. r9oz. 'The Printers and Publishers of the XV Century with Lists of their'W'orks', Supplement to Hain's'Repertorium Bibliographicun', by W. A. Copinger (London, r895-r9oz), vol. II, pp. i-xvi, 319-67o (Reprinted, Milan: Grirlich, r95o). Bykova, T. A. r97r. Katalog russkoi knigi kirillooskoi pechati Peterburgskikh tipografii XVIII oeka (Leningrad: Gos. Publichnaia biblioteka im. M. E. SaltykovaShchedrina). Bykova, T. A., M. M. napechatannykh Gurevich and R. I. Kozintseva.ry55-72.Opisanie izdanii pri Petre I: saodnyi katalog, z vols and supplement (Moscow, Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR). Darlow, T. H., and H. F. Moule. r9o3-r r. Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 4 vols (London: The British and Foreign Bible Society). Davtyan, G.M., et al. 1963. Hay hnatip grk'i matenagitakan c'uc'ak, r5rz-t8oo (Erevan). Deletant, Dennis. 1975.'A Survey of Rumanian Presses and Printing in the Sixteenth Century', The Slaaonic and East European Reztiew, vol. 53, pp. r6vr74, r98z-83. 'Rumanian Presses and Printing in the Seventeenth Century', The Slauonic and East European Reoiew, vol.6o, pp.48r-499, vol.6t, pp.48r-5rr. Demin, A. S. (ed.) 1978. Literaturnyi sbornik XVII aeka: Prolog. Russkaia staropechatnaia literatura (XVl-pervaia chetvert' XVIIIv.), vol. z (Moscow: Nauka). (ed.) r98 r. Tematika i stilistika predisloaii i poslesloaii. Russkaia staropechatnaia literatura (XVl*pervaia chetvert' XVIIIv.), vol. r (Moscow: Nauka). 1985. Pisatel' i obshchestzto a Rossii XVI-XVII aekoa (Obshchesruennye -. nastoeniia ) (Moscow: Nauka). Derzhavina,O. A. (ed.) rg7g. PanegiricheskaialiteraturaPetrotsskogoaremeni. Russkaia staropechamaia literatura (XVl-pervaia chetvert' XVIIIv.), vol. 4 (Moscow: Nauka). Cyrillic and Glagoliric Printing and the Eisenstein Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. rg7g. The Printing Thesis Press as an Agent of 23 Change: Communications and Cuhural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 1983. The Printing Reoolution in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Emmel, Stephen. 1987. 'Specimens of Coptic Type from the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in Rome', Yale Unhtersity Library Gazette,6r, pp. 97*to4. Febvre, Lucien, and Henri-Jean Martin. ry76. The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing, r45o-t8oo, English translation by David Gerard (London: NLB). Freimann, Aron. 1946. A Gazetteer of Hebrew Printing (Revised ed.) (New York: The New York Public Library). Garcia Icazbalceta, Joaquin. ry54. Bibliografia mexicana del siglo XVI: catalogo razonado de libros impresos en Mdxico de r 5 j9 a r6oo, edited by Agustin Millares Carlo (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica). Geldner, Ferdinand. 1978. Inkunabelkunde: Eine Einfiihrung in die Welt des friihsten Buchdrucks, Elemente des Buch- und Bibliothekswesens, 5 flJTiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag). Gingerich, Owen. r98r. [Review of Eisenstein rgTg), Papers of the Bibliographical Societg of America,75, pp. zz8-23o. Gogoladze, V. M. r964a. 'Knigopechatanie v Gruzii XVI-XVIIvv.', in Chetyresta let russkogo knigopechataniia, r564-1964, edited by A. A. Sidorov (Moscow: Nauka), vol. I, pp. rz9-r3o,609. r964b. 'Knigopechatanie v Gruzii XVIIIv.', in Chetyresta let russkogo knigopechataniia, r 564-1964, edited by A. A. Sidorov (Moscow: Nauka), vol. I, pp. 247-250,6t4. Grafton, Anthony T. r98o. [Review of Eisenstein t97g), Journal of Interdisciplinary Historg, rr: pp. 265-286. Haebler, Konrad. rgo5-24. Typenrepertorium der Wiegendrucke. Sammlung Bibliothekwissenschaftlicher Arbeiten rgf 2c, 22123,27,2gf 3c.,4o (Halle a/S, Leipzig and New York) (Reprinted, Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, 1968). 1933. The Study of Incunabula. Revised by the author. Translated by Lucy Eugenia Osborne (and Helmut Lehmann-Haupt) (New York: The Grolier Club) (Reprinted, New York: Kraus Reprint, 1967). Halenchanka, H. Ia. r986. 'Staradrukavanyia kirylichnyia vydanni XVI-XVIIIst.', in Kniha Belarusi r5r7-rgr7: zaodny kataloh (Minsk: Belaruskaia savetskaia entsyklapedyia), pp. 9-r92, 57o-585. Hirsch, Rudolf. 1974. Printing, Selling and Reading, r45o-155o, znd printing ($Tiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). Hitti, Philip K. r94zlq. 'The First Book Printed in Arabic', Princeton Library Chronicle,4, pp. 5-9. Isaievych, Ia. D. r97o. L'ztias'ki aydannia XVI-XVIIIst.: kataloh (L'viv: L'vivs'ka derzhavna naukova biblioteka AN URSR). Ishkhanian, R. A. r964a. 'Knigopechatanie v Armenii XVI-XVIIvv.', in Chetyresta let russkogo knigopechataniia, r564-1964, edited by A. A. Sidorov (Moscow: Nauka), vol. I, pp. r25-r29,6c,9. r964b. 'Knigopechatanie v Armenii XVIIIv.', in Chetyresta let russkogo knigopechataniia, r 564-1 964, edited by A. A. Sidorov (Moscow: Nauka), vol. I, pp. 240-246, 614. Kaufman, l. M. 196z-75. Stodnyi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati XVIII aeka: r7z5-t8oo.5 vols and supplement (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina). Solanus tggz 24 K6vorkian, Raymond H. 1986. Catalogue des 'incunables' arminiens ( r 5r r 1t695 ), ou Chronique de l'imprimerie arminienne, Cahiers d'orientalisme, IX (Geneva: Patrick Cramer). Kingdon, Robert M. r98o. [Review of Eisenstein t97gl, The Library Quarterly,5o,pp. r39-r4t. XVII veka', Kniga: issledottaniia i materialy, z, pp. tz3-t86. Kruming, A. A. t977. Predvaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii glagolicheskogo Kiselev, N. P. r96o. 'O moskovskom knigopechatanii shrifta XV-XVIIIaa., V pomoshch' sostaviteliam Svodnogo kataloga staropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov, z (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina). Labyntsev, Iu. A. 1979. Predaaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii kirilloztskogo shriJtaatoroi polooiny XVI aekarV pomoshch' sostaviteliam Svodnogo kataloga staropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov, 4 (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina). 1982. Predztaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii kirilloaskogo shrifta peraoi XVII aeka, V pomoshch' sostaviteliam Svodnogo kataloga staropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov, 7 (Moscow: chetaerti Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina). Legrand, Emile. r885-t9o6. Bibliographie helldnique, ou Description raisonie des ouarages publids en grec par des Grecs aux XVe et XVIe sidcles,4 vols (Paris: E. Leroux) (Reprinted, Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963). r894-r9o3. Bibliographiehellinique,ouDescriptionraisoniedesouaragespublids par des Grecs aux XVIIe siicle, 5 vols (Paris: A. Picard et fils, J. Maisonneuve) (Reprinted, Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963). Lenhart, John M. 1935. Pre-Reformation Printed Books: A Study in Statistical and Applied Bibliography, Franciscan Studies, r4 (New York: Joseph F' IJflagner). Luppov, S. P. 1983. Chitateli izdanii Moskottskoi tipografii a seredine XVII oeka (Leningrad: Nauka). Mansverov, I. 1883. Kak u nas pravilis' tserkoanye knigi: material dlia istorii knizhnoi spraay a XVII stoletii (po bumagam arkhiaa Tipografskoi biblioteki o Moskae) (Moscow: Lavrov). Marx, Alexander. r9r9. 'Aldus and the First Use of Hebrew Type in Venice', Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 13, pp. 64-67. 1924. 'Some Notes on the Use of Hebrew Type in Non-Hebrew Books, en grec r475-r52o', h Bibliographical Essays: A Tribute to lVilberforce Eames (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp' 38r-4o8. 1948. 'The Choice of Books by Printers of Hebrew Incunables', in To Doctor R: Essays Here Collected and Published in Honor of the Seaenrieth Birthday of Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach (Philadelphia, PA), pp. r54-r73. Mathiesen, Robert. 1972. The Inflectional Morphology of the Synodal Church Slaoonic Verb. Pl.D dissertation, Columbia IJniversity, New York, NY. r98r. 'Two Contributions to the Bibliography of Meletii Smotryc'kyi', Haraard Ukrainian Studies 5' pp. 230-244. 1984. 'The Church Slavonic Language Question: An Overview (IX-XX Centuries)', in Aspects of the Stattic Language Question, edited by Riccardo Picchio and Harvey Goldblatt (New Haven, CT: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies), vol. I, pp. 45-65' rg85. The Great Polyglot Bibles: The Impact of Printing on Religion in the Sixteenth and Seaenteenth Centuries (Providence, RI: The John Carter Brown Library). Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and rhe Eisenstein Thesis 25 XVIII aeka (Belgrade: Narodna biblioteka SR Srbiie). Muller, Jean, and Ernst R6th. t969. AuJ3ereurop(iische Druckereien im r6. Jahrhundert: Bibliographie der Drucke, Bibliotheca bibliographica aureliana, XXII (BadenBaden: Verlag Heitz). Myl'nikov, A. S. 1967. 'Gde i kogda nachalos' slavianskoe knigopechatanie?', Kniga: Issledooaniia i materialg, 14, pp. r2r-t32. Nazor, Anica. r978. Zagreb riznica glagoljice: Katalog izloibe (Zagreb: Ognjen Prica). Needham, Paul. r98o. [Review of Eisenstein t9791, Fine Print, 6, pp. 23-35. Nemirovskii, E. L. 1976. Predoaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii kirilloaskogo shrifta XV-pervoi poloainy XVIoa., V pomoshch' sostaviteliam Svodnogo kataloga staropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov, r (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina). N[emoy], L[eon]. 1952. 'The Psalms and Song of Songs in Ethiopic', Yale Uniztersity Mihailovi6, Georgije. ry64. Srpska bibliografija Library Gazette 27, p. 126. Nersessian, Vrej. r98o. Catalogue of Early Armenian Books, r 5rz-r85o (London: The British Library). Nikolaevskii, Pavel. r89o-9r. 'Moskovskii pechatnyi dvor pri patriarkhe Nikone', Khristianskoe chtenie, r89o/r, pp. rr4-r4r, r89o/5, pp. 434-467, r89r/r, pp. t47-r86, t89tl4, pp. r5r-r86. Picchio, Riccardo. r963. 'A proposito della Slavia ortodossa e della comunitd linguistica slava ecclesiastica', Ricerche slavistiche, rr, pp. ro5-r27. [Pollard, Graham.] 1928. Catalogue of , I, Typefounders' Specimens; II, Books Printed in Founts of Historic Importancel III, Works on Typefounding, Printing and Bibliography, Offeredfor Sa/e (London: Birrell & Garnett, Ltd., Booksellers). Proctor, Robert. rgoa. The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century, Illustrated Monographs of the Bibliographical Society, 8 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Rafikov, A. Kh. 1973. Ocherk istorii knigopechataniia v Turrsii (Leningrad: Nauka). Reed, Talbot Baines. 1952. A History of the Old English Letter Foundries. Revised edition by A. F. Johnson (London: Faber & Faber). Robinson, A. N. (ed.) rg9z. Simeon Polotskii i ego knigoizdatel'skaia deiatel'nost', Russkaia staropechatnaia literatura (XVl-pervaia chetvert' XVIIIv.), 3 (Moscow: Nauka). Rowe, John Howland. 1974. 'Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Grammars', Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms, edited by Dell Hymes (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), pp. 36r-379. Saltini, Guglielmo Enrico. r86o. 'Della Stamperie Orientale Medicea e di Giovan Battista Raimondi', Giornale Storico degli Archioi Toscani, 4, pp. 257-3o8. Schurhammer, Georg, and G. W'. Cottrell, lr. 1952.'The First Printing in Indic Characters', Haroard Library Bulletin, 6, pp. 147-16o. Schwab, Moise. r883. Les incunables orientaux et les impressions orientales au commencement du r6e siicle (Paris: L. Techener). Shaw, David. r98 r. [Review of Eisenstein ry79], The Library (series 6), 3, pp. 26r-263. Shaw, Graham !7. r98r. 'Scaliger's Copy of an Early Tamil Catechism', The Library (series 6), 3, pp. 139-243. Steele, Robert. rgo347.'What Fifteenth Century Books are About', The Library (series z), 4,pp.337-354; 5, pp. 337158;6, pp. r37-r55; 8, pp. zz5-238. Stillwell, Margaret Bingham. 1972. The Beginning of the lYorld of Books, r4So to r4Zo (New York: The Bibliographical Society). Strothmann, \7erner. r97r. Die Anfringe der syrischen Studien in Europa, Gcittinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca, r (lTiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz). 26 Solanus rggz Teichl, Robert. 1964. 'Der ri7iegendruck im Kartenbild' (znd ed.), Bibliothek und lVissenschaft, r, pp. zo5-265a, map. Urbanczyk, Stanislaw. ry83. Die ahpolnischen Orthographien des 16. Jahrhunderts' Slavistische Forschungen, 37 (Cologne and Vienna: B<ihlau). V.G., and B. A. Uspenskii.t987.'Kavychnye knigi 5o-kh godov XVIIv.', Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za r986 (Moscow: Nauka), pp. 75-84. Vargas IJgarte, Rub6n. 1935-58. Biblioteca peruana. rz vols (Lima: Editorial San Siromakhova, Marcos). Veloudis, Georg. 1974. Das griechische Druck- und Verlagshaus 'Glikis' in Venedig ( r 67o-t 8 54 ) : Das griechische Buch zur Zeit der Tilrkenherrschaft, Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des <istlichen Europa, 9 (trTiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). Vervliet, Hendrik D. L. r968. Sixteenth-Century Printing Types of the Low Counties (Amsterdam: Menno Hertzberger). r98r. Cyrillic and Oriental Typography in Rome at the End of the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley, CA: Poltroon Press). Vogel, Paul Heniz. 1962. Europ(iische Bibeldrucke des r5. und r6. Jahrhunderts in den Volkssprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Bibliographie des Bibeldrucks, Bibliotheca bibliographica aureliana, V (Baden-Baden: Verlag Heitz). IJfestman, Robert S. r98o. [Review of Eisenstein 1979), Isis' 7r' pp. 474-477. rJ(/ijnman, H. F. r95z-57. 'De Studie van het Ethiopisch en de Ontwikkeling van de Ethiopische Typographie in West-Europa in de r6e Eeuw', Het Boek' 3r, pp. 326-447; 32, pp. 225-246. r957. 'The Origin of Arabic Typography in Leiden', Books on the Orient, r 957 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, Bookseller). 196o. 'An Outline of the Development of Ethiopian Typography in Europe', Books on the Orient, r96o (Leiden: E. J. Brill, Bookseller), pp. IX-XXVIII. Zapasko, Iakym, and Iaroslav Isaievych. r98r-84. Pam"iatky knyzhkovoho mystetstaa: kataloh starodtukia, oydanykh na Ukraini, vols I, IIlt' lllz (L'viv: Vyshcha shkola). Zernova, A. S. 1958. Knigi kirilloaskoi pechati, izdannye o Moskae a XVI-XVII oekakh: saodnyi katalog (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka SSSR im. V. I. Lenina). and T. N. Kameneva. 1968. Saodu)i katalog russkoi knigi kirilloaskoi pechati XVIII ze&a (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka SSSR im. V. I. Lenina). -, This article and the following one by I. V. Pozdeeva were originally presented at a conference entitled 'The Millennium of the Baptism of Rus'', convened by James Billington, Librarian of Congress, ot z6-27 May 1988. Both papers were part of the panel 'The Religious Book Culture of the Eastern Slavs', chaired by Edward Kasinec, Chief of the New York Public Library's Slavic and Baltic Division, and commented on by Professor Gary Marker, State lJniversity of New York at Stonybrook, and Professor Edward L. Keenan, Harvard University.