Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printingand the Eisenstein Thesis

Robert Mathiesen

In her book, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications andCultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe (rglg), and its abridge-ment, The Printing Reaolution in Early Modern Europe (1983), Elizabeth L.Eisenstein puts forth a number of theses concerning the effect which theinvention of printing with movable type had on the subsequent course ofEuropean history. Her work has called forth a certain amount of controversy:historians, to whom she can speak as a fellow professional, have generallyascribed a great deal of merit to it; while incunabulists and other specialists inearly printing, to whom she often appears to be a dilettante, have generallyfound much to criticize in it. Indeed, the author often shows herself to bemuch less familiar with the fine points of the history of printing than withthose of intellectual history.l I myself value Professor Eisenstein's work notso much for her conclusions about the history and historiography of EarlyModern Europe, as for the questions which she has raised and for theframework of concepts within which she has tried to answer them. In thisrespect I believe her work will have lasting value.

Although Professor Eisenstein's titles refer to Early Modern Europe ingeneral, she clearly has only the western part of Europe in view: rarelyventuring as far east as Bohemia or Poland, she entirely ignores Lithuania,Muscovy and the Balkans; and she makes reference to ConstantinopleiIstanbul only as a source from which the West could obtain Greek manu-scripts and scholars) never as the centre of the far-flung Ottoman Empire, onthe history of which the invention and spread of printing might be thought tohave had an impact.z From this too narrow point of view she can write:

The early presses which were first established between 146o and r48owere powered by many diflerent forces which had been incubating in theage of scribes. In a different cultural context, the same technology mighthave been used for different ends (as was the case in China and Korea) orit might have been unwelcome and not used at all (as was the case in manyregions outside of Europe where Western missionary presses were the firstto be installed). In this light one may agree with authorities who hold thatthe 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, Westmanr98o, Gingerich r98r, D. Shaw r98r and Barker 1983.

'z Cf. Rafikov 1973.

4 .Solanus rgg2

Unless it had been deemed useful to human agents, it would never havebeen put into operation in fifteenth-century European towns. IJnderdifferent circumstances, moreover, it might have been welcomed and putto 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 importanceof institutional context when considering technological innovation. Yetthe fact remains that once presses were established in numerous Europeantowns, the transforming powers of print did begin to take effect.3

Yet even for Europe, speculation along these lines need not be whollycounterfactual. Presses were also established in a number of places outsideWestern Europe during the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries, and inthese places 'the transforming powers of print' led to rather different resultsthan in lil7estern Europe.

Place Latin andGerman

Czech Polish Croatian

PlzeiBratislava?VimperkBrnoPragueKutn6 HoraMalborkOlomouc

CracowChelmno?WroclawGdansk

Croatia?

Venice

r476r48o?r48zr486

post r49or499

r473r473r475

ante 1499

r475?

r484

r487r48g

(r5o6) r513?

(rtts)

ca. r49O

r495

Nore.' Dates in parentheses refer to first printing of relatively brief Slavic texts in Latinbooks.

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.aThe Latin alphabet was used to print Slavic languages as early as 1475 orthereabouts, and the first S1avic languages printed by means of that alphabetwere Czech, Polish and Croatian. (See Table r.)

Moreover, Church Slavonic books were printed in one or other of the twoSlavic alphabets as early as 1483 (in the Glagolitic alphabet) and r49r (in theCyrillic alphabet). Thus the two Slavic alphabets were, respectively, thefourth 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 andMissionary Printing

Indigenous Printing

r45o-r5oo

r 5o r-r6oo

r6or-r7oo

1465: Greek (MainzSubiaco)

r5r3: Ethiopic (Rome)r514: Arabic (Fano)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)

r6r r: Runic (Stockholm)r6z9: Coptic (Rome)r665: Gothic (Dort)

1475: Hebrew (Piove diSacco, Reggio di Calabria)

r483: Glagolitic (placeunknown)

r49r : Cyrillic (Cracow)

Armenian (Venice)

Sources : 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 asmarking the start of Slavic printing. However, the true date of publication of the KronikaTrojdnska, 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 (SeeTable z.)

Nor was it long before each of these two alphabets had been used to printvernacular languages: Glagolitic was first used to print books in Serbo-Croatian in t496, or possibly even in r49z; and Cyrillic was used to printbooks in Serbo-Croatian in r5rz, in Belorussian in 15r7-r9, in Romanian in1544, in Slovene in 1583, in Ukrainian in 1587, etc.6 However, only a verysmall fraction of the books printed in Glagolitic or Cyrillic type prior to rToowere in vernacular languages; the vast majority of them continued to be inChurch Slavonic well into the eighteenth century.

Despite its early beginning, the development of printing in Eastern Europetook a different course than in $Testern Europe. Consequently the impactwhich that invention had on the history of Eastern Europe was rather differentfrom that which it had in the \$7est. An examination of these differences willlead us to a deeper understanding of the historical questions which ProfessorEisenstein has so provocatively asked, but only begun to answer.

Much of what I have to offer will be familiar to specialists in early Slavicprinting, and much of the rest will be equally familiar to their colleagues whostudy early printing in N7estern Europe. It is chiefly by juxtaposing these twofields of scholarship that I am able to make any substantial claim on yourattention,T

It will be most appropriate to examine these differences, which in large partalign themselves with different alphabets, against the general background ofprinting in languages and alphabets other than the Latin during the fifteenthto seventeenth centuries. \tr7e shall need to distinguish several cases duringthose centuries:

r. languages other than Latin written by means of the Latinalphabet, usually with minor modifications (e.g. many WesternEuropean 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 asLatin ones, fails not only to treat the Glagolitic and Cyrillic fonts of the same century, but evento warn its user of this omission. There is only the briefest of references (vol. II, p. r39) to theGlagolitic font possessed by Aldus Manutius and his heirs, and used by them to print threeChurch 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, Halenchanka1986, 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 correctionsto his views which have recently been proposed by A. S. Demin (1978, r98r, 1985, see alsoDerzhavina 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-Latinalphabets, but published largely for Latin-reading scholarlymarkets in Western Europe or for use by \Testern EuropeanCatholic missionaries (e.g. Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Coptic); and

3. languages other than Latin written by means of non-Latinalphabets 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. Bythe end of the fifteenth century, Latin-alphabet fonts of type had been usedto print books in more than a dozen European vernacular languages, and bythe end of the sixteenth century the list had grown to include a further dozenor so European vernacular languages, fifteen Native American languages, anda few other languages which do not fall under either of these heads. (SeeTable 3.) This list continued to grow, of course, during the seventeenth andsubsequent centuries.

It is the second and third cases which interest us chiefly in the presentpaper. They both look equally 'exotic' to a'W'estern European, and are littlediscussed in histories of printing. I do not think that there is a single W'esternEuropean history of printing which even /isls all the relevant alphabets forwhich fonts of type had been cut by the end of the seventeenth century, and Ihave not been able to find a single comprehensive and insightful discussion ofthe subject by any rJ7estern European scholar.

That there are two distinct kinds of historical events hidden behind themask of 'exotic' typography may be seen even from a comparison of the twoalphabets which are commonly treated in histories of printing, namely theGreek and the Hebrew. Books printed in each of these alphabets first appearabout 1475, and continue to be printed in moderately large numbersthroughout the entire period with which we are concerned.

During that period, the vast majority of books printed in the Hebrewalphabet were printed by Jews for Jewish use.8 Christian printing in Hebrewtype apparently began in the early sixteenth century) was largely restricted topublications able to facilitate the study of the Jewish Bible and its languagesby Christian scholars, and at no time has ever been responsible for more thana very small fraction of the total use of Hebrew type.e

The use of Greek type contrasts sharply with that of Hebrew type. Thevast majority of books printed with this type throughout the three centuriesunder examination were produced by rVestern European scholars primarilyfor 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 earlyas 15 12 at Prague and 1534 at Cracow (Freimann 1946, pp. 26, 59).e Febvre and Martin r976,pp.268-z7r; cf. also Schwab 1883, Marx r9r9, t924, 1948.

Solanus rggz

Period Languages in which Latin-Alphabet Printing Begins

t45r-r46o

t46t-t48o

r48 r-r 5oo

r5or-r520

r52r-r540

r 54r-r 560

r56r-r58o

r 58 r-r6oo

Romance: LatinGermanic: High German

Romance: Italian, French, Spanish, CatalanGermanic: Dutch, English, Low German, FlemishSlaoic : Czech, (Polish)

Romance: PortugueseGermanic : Swedish, DanishS laaic : Serbo-CroatianTurkic: (Turkish)

S/aaic: PolishSemitic: Arabic

Germanic: IcelandicBahic: LatvianOther Europeaz.' Estonian, HungarianNath.te American : Nahuatl

Romance: RomanschSlaaic: SloveneB alt ic : Prussian, LithuanianCeltic: WelshOther Europeaz.' Finnish, Basque, AlbanianNatiae American: Huastec, Tarasc, Quich6, Chiapanec,

Zoque, Tzeltal, Chinantec

Germanic: Old EnglishCeltic: Ir'ist^Natiae American: Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Chocho

Slaaic: SlovakNatiae American: Quichua, Aymara, TupiMalay o- P olynesian : Tagalog

Nore.' Languages in parentheses refer to first printing of relatively brief vernacular textsin Latin books.

Sources: Darlow and Moule r9o3-rr, Vargas Ugarte 1935-58, vol.7, GarciaIcazbalceta 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 Dekadyosprinted at venice in 494. In this book the printer stated his intention topublish additional books for Greek orthodox liturgical use (but in fact he didnot do so).10 other printers did produce other Greek orthodox liturgicalbooks in the early sixteenth century and subsequently, but these were alwaysa small fraction of the total number of books printed in Greek typethroughout the world.ll It is a telling fact that, although many editions ofthe whole christian Bible in Greek were printed from r5r8 throughout ourperiod, the first such edition printed specifically for the use of the Greekorthodox church appeared only at our period's very end (venice: NicholasGlykys, t687).12

In each of these two cases it should be noted that we are dealing withrelatively small numbers of editions, compared with the number printed in theLatin alphabet: the numbers of editions are in the low hundreds during thefifteenth century, and perhaps twenty times as many during the sixteenth.l3The corresponding figures for Latin-alphabet printing are in the neighbour-hood of 3o,ooo editions during the fifteenth century and perhaps 2ooroooduring the sixteenth.la

Most of the 'exotic' fonts cut during the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies belong, like the Greek fonts, to the second of the three cases listedabove. These include fonts for the alphabets (in one case, the syllabary) listedin the left column of rable z. None of these fonts (except the Greek ones)were employed in indigenous printing until the eighteenth century, to thebest of my knowledge.ls During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuriesthey seem to have been used exclusively by sTestern European scholars andmissionaries, who also had at their disposal a relatively small number of fontsfor the alphabets in the right column of Table z (i.e. those used chiefly inindigenous printing): Hebrew, Glagolitic, Cyrillic and Armenian. Table 4displays some additional data on the use of all these fonts in WesternEuropean scholarly and missionary printing during the sixteenth century.

During the seventeenth century several printing shops were formed whichhad large holdings of 'exotic' fonts of type. Thus by 1636 the TypographiaSanctae congregationis de Propaganda Fide at Rome had acquired fonts for

10 Legrand r885-19o6, no, rr.11 Legrand r885-19o6, r894-r9o3, Procror r9oo, Veloudis 1974.12 Legrand r894-r9o3, no. 6ro, Veloudis r974,rro.67.13 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'snotice, but see Vervliet r98r, pp. r4-r5.)

Solanus r99z

Alphabet Western European ( Non- Indigenous ) Use

Ethiopic

Arabic

Syriac

ArmenianMalayalamTamilCyrillicGlagoliticGeorgianPersianTurkish'Indian'Samaritan

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 Berlin1577 Goar578 Quilonr582 Rome, r583 Berlinr583 Berlinr583 Berlinr583 Berlinr583 Berlinr583 Berlinr593 Leiden

Sources: Saltini r86o, Darlow and Moule r9o3-rr, Hitti 1942143, Nemoy 1952, Reedr952r pp. 5r-7t, 153-167, r75*r78, Schurhammer and Cottrell 1952, I7iinman1952-57, 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.

Table 4. Use of Alphabets Other than Latin, Greek and Hebrewin Western European Scholarly and Missionary Printing

(r6th Century)

Greek, Hebrew (the rabbinical as well as the usual alphabet), Syriac (theEsrangela as well as the usual alphabet), Arabic, Ethiopic, Samaritan,Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Glagolitic and Cyrillic.l6 At the same time thepress of Antoine Vitr6 at Paris had Greek, Hebrew (usual and rabbinical),Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, Armenian, Persian and Turkish.lT Two decadeslater, the printing office of Thomas Roycroft in London had fonts for Greek,Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Samaritan and Ethiopic, all of which itemployed during the printing of Brian $Talton's Polyglot Bible (r653-57) andits 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 duringthe period under discussion: the Glagolitic, the Cyrillic and the Armenian.le

Glagolitic printing was the first of the three to develop, but it seems neverto have been used widely. Fifty-eight books and broadsides are known tohave been printed in Glagolitic during the fifteenth through eighteenthcenturies, 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 Croatianvariety of Church Slavonic, the other half in vernacular Serbo-Croatian.2oFlowever, sixteen of the fifty-eight were published by Protestants at Nurem-berg and Urach (near Ttibingen), and the use of a vernacular in themconformed to the theological programme of Protestantism. The other forty-two were from Catholic presses, and only about ten of these were in thevernacular. (See Table 5.)

Place r 450-r Sao r 5or-r6oo r60r-r7oo t 7or-r8oo

CroatiaVeniceNurembergUrachRome

4I

II

3

2

r47

4

t2

Totals: 5 3o 7 r6

Note: The Glagolitic font available at Berlin in r583 had such slight use that it may beexcluded 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 themost productive of the three, not only in terms of the total number ofeditions printed, but also in terms of the number of places where thisprinting 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 WesternEuropean schoiarly and missionary printing in the Glagolitic alphabet, since the alphabet'sindigenous market consisted of Croatians (and to some extent Slovenes), who are also VesternEuropeans.

'o On the varieties of Church Slavonic see Mathiesen 1984.

Solanus r99z

Place r45o-r 5oo r 5or-r6oo r 6o r-r 7oo r 7o r-r 8oo

Russia:MoscowSt Petersburgelsewhere

Ukraine:L'vivKievChernihivPochaivelsewhere

Belorussia andLithuania:

Vilnius/VevisSuprasl'elsewhere

Balkans:all places

Romania andMoldada:

all places

ather Lands:all places

4

4

r9

I

7

22

5r

3

I6

44

43

484

4

IIIr763oI

69

8r3

43

72

IO

I13 Ior95

13I470rt7235r9

5o9556

I

590

367

Totals: 8 2c,6 rro84 f,636

Nore.'The cyrillic font available at Berlin in r583 had such slight use that it may beexcluded from this table (Vervliet r98r, pp. r4-r5). Printing in Cyrillic Civil type isexcluded 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 editionsprinted during somewhat more than three centuries (r49r-r8oo). About oneseventh of them (7o6) were printed in Romania (including present-dayMoldavia), and constitute something of a special case. Virtually all the otherOld Cyrillic editions (4,228) are in one or another variety of Church

Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenste'in Thesis

Slavonic; only a very small fraction of them-perhaps a number in the lowhundreds-were in some vernacular Slavic language. In Romania andMoldavia, however, the vernacular language was Romanian, which is not aSlavic language but a Romance one, and there the use of Church Slavonicgave place to that of Romanian. Even during the period before r7or, oldCyrillic books in Romanian greatly outnumbered those in Church Slavonic:64 of the 116 Old Cyrillic books printed in Romania or Moldavia were inRomanian, while 39 were in Church Slavonic and another 13 employed bothlanguages.r, During the eighteenth century the fraction of the total outputprinted in Romanian noticeably increased. At the same time the situation inthe Slavic lands was complicated through the introduction of a new CivilCyrillic alphabet, which was promulgated in the early eighteenth century bythe Russian emperor Peter the Great. During the eighteenth century morethan rr,ooo books were pubtished in this new alphabet, almost all of them inone or another vernacular Slavic language (mostly Russian, but occasionallyUkrainian or Serbo-Croatian). Consequently, the use of Old Cyrillic becamemore and more limited to printing in Church Slavonic (or in Romanian) justwhen the vernacular Slavic languages were ousting Church Slavonic from allpublications other than 'church books' in a very narrow sense of the term(mostly liturgical books). As a result, printing in old Cyrillic sharplydeclined just when the printing industry in the eastern half of the Slavicworld underwent its most dramatic period of growth, and it was printing inthe Civil Cyrillic alphabet that increased in response to the new conditions ofwork for printers in that part of the world.22

Indigenous printing in the Armenian alphabet was the last of the three todevelop. It provides an instructive contrast to printing in the two Slavicalphabets. Although the total number of books printed in the Armenianalphabet during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries seems to have been163, and another 767 books appear to have been produced during theeighteenth century, the number of places where indigenous Armenian printingwas carried on during those three centuries seems to have been aboutfourteen.23 It was much less centralized than printing in either of the two Slavicalphabets during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (See Table 7.)

Having presented these tables, I should now caution my readers that thenumbers in them, however precise they may appear, are in fact onlyprovisional, and are subject to change as new editions continue to bediscovered. Indeed, they may never become definitive, for the surviving

21 Deletant ry7 5, r98z-83.22 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, NovyiNakhichevan' and Astrakhan' for the eighteenth century (Ishkhanian t964b)'

r3

r4 Solanus r99z

Place r 5or-t6oo r 6o r-r 7oo

VenicePaviaConstantinopleRomeBerlinL'vivMilanParisNew JulfaLivornoAmsterdamMarseillesLeipzigPadua

8*I

6*5*2

r3*29

3*2*4

84

3rt7*I*2

Totals: r4r

Nore.'Non-indigenous printing is marked with an asterisk (*). Davtyan et al. t963 wasnot 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 largenumber of editions of which not a single copy seems to have survived; nor is itunreasonable to assume that there were still other editions not mentioned in thesurviving 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 mostproductive 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 thepotential to become a printing-history museum to rival the famous Plantin-Moretus Museum atAntwerp. See Mansvetov 1883, Nikolaevskii r89o-9r. W'hether any of the old equipment stillexists I do not krtow, but I am encouraged to learn from two recent studies that the records, andalso the huge library of copy texts and proof-reader's texts, still exist and form several separatecollections in the Central State Archive of Ancient Acts in Moscow (Luppov 1983, Siromakhovaand 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 thesematerials to create a centre for the study of early printing at Moscow comparable to thePlantin-Moretus Museum?

Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 15

Nevertheless, though the numbers in these tables can never be definitive, Iam confident that they are near enough to the truth for our purposes.

I7e now undertake to examine the differences between Latin-alphabetprinting and indigenous printing in other alphabets. These differences willprove to be in part quantitative, in part qualitative, and the latter differencesare to some extent consequences of the former.

Possibly the most significant quantitative difference is found in the totalnumber of editions printed in the various alphabets during the fifteenththrough seventeenth centuries. These numbers (and the correspondingnumbers for the eighteenth century, when available) are shown in Table 8.

Period Latin | ,f0,,0,,,*,:'i'3i';,"ic lArmenian I Hebrew

r45o-r5oor5or-r6oor6or-r7oor7o r-r 8oo

3O,OOO?

2OOTOOO

2TOOOTOOO?

even more!

8

zo6

rro84

3'636 r r ro65

5

3o

7r6

22

r4r767

2o0

4rooo

)

Sources: The numbers for editions in the Glagolitic, Old Cyrillic and Armenianalphabets are from Tables 5, 6 and 7 above. The number of editions in the Armenianalphabet during the eighteenth century is from Ishkhanian ry64b, p.246. Those foreditions in the Latin and Hebrew alphabets derive from the text at footnotes r3 and 14above. Those for editions in the Civil Cyrillic alphabet are from Bykova, Gurevich andKozintseva 1955-72, Kaufman t96z-75, Mihailovic 1964, Zapasko and Isaievychr98r-84, andHalenchanka 1986, pp. r9o-r92.

Table 8. Cornparison of Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printingwith Latin-Alphabet Printing: Nurnber of Editions

(r5th-r8th Centuries)

The number of editions printed even in Old Cyrillic-to say nothing ofthose printed in Glagolitic or in Armenian type-during the 35o-year period(r49r-r8oo) is noticeably less than the number of editions printed in theLatin alphabet just during the first half century after the invention ofprinting (r45o-r5oo). Even taking both the Old Cyrillic and the new CivilCyrillic alphabets together, no more than about 16,000 editions had beenprinted by the end of the eighteenth century, and the number of 3orooo

t6 Solanus r99zeditions printed is probably achieved sometime in the first half of thenineteenth century.zs

One might also compare the relative contemporaneity of the works chosento be printed. Curt Btihler (rg5+), generalizing from a sample which mayrepresent about one fourth of all the books printed in the Latin alphabetduring the fifteenth century, fournd that about 7zo/o of the authors (68o inall) whose works appeared in print during the fifteenth cenrury lived in thefifteenth century, i.e. were more or less contemporary with the first printers.The next largest groups were as follows: authors of the fourteenth century-go/"; of Classical Antiquity-7o/o; and of the thirteenth century-6o/o.Authors of all other centuries, including all Christian authors before the yearr2oo, formed no more than 60/o of the total.26 No comparable number ofauthors, nor any comparable degree of emphasis on contemporary authors, isfound in Old Cyrillic printing from the fifteenth cenrury through theeighteenth.2T

A third, truly significant quantitative difference between printing in theCyrillic and the Latin alphabets during the period under examination is to befound in the degree of centralization. After an initial relatively decentralizedperiod, Cyrillic printing became highly centralized during the seventeenthcentury) and even more so during the eighteenth: not quite one half of allbooks printed in Old Cyrillic from 16or through rSoo-excluding thoseprinted in the Romanian language-were printed in one place (Moscow) andessentially in one printing office-the Pechatnyi dvor ('Printing Yard' or'Printing House'), later renamed the Sinodal'naia tipografiia ('SynodalPress').28 Latin-alphabet printing, in contrast, became increasingly decentral-ized during the same period. Even during the fifteenth century, Latin-alphabet printing offices were found in somewhat more than 2oo places. Intwelve of those places local printers were able to produce more than r,oooeditions each.2e Yet the editions printed in these twelve places were onlyabout 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 Isaievychr98 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 kindsof books are similar in the sixteenth century (29 in Cyrillic, z3 in Latin) and in the seventeenthG8Z in Cyrillic, 323 in Latin), they diverge greatly during the eighteenth century (gn inCyrillic, 2,364 in Latin).

26 Cf. also Steele r9o3-o7.27 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 withLatin-alphabet printing still remained sharp. See especially the index of presses in Kaufman196z-7 5, vol. S, pp. 278-290.

2e Strasbourg Cologne, Rome, Augsburg, Nuremberg, Venice, Basel, Paris, Milan, Florence,Lyons and Leipzig (Teichl 1964).

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 andreligious decentralization of Western Europe (and its colonies) increased.3o

Qualitative differences are more easily expressed in prose than in numericaltables. One of the most important of these differences is that the rise of theprinted book did not immediately lead to the decline of the manuscript bookin the Slavic lands where the Cyrillic alphabet was in use. (\7e shall employRiccardo Picchio's convenient Latin term 'slavia Orthodoxa'to refer to theselands.3t It remains a matter of controversy whether Romania and Moldaviabelong to Slavia Orthodoxa during the period under discussion here.) InWestern Europe, the printed book largely replaced the manuscript bookwithin a hundred years after the invention of printing, if not earlier, sinceprinted books answering to the demands of almost all markets soon becameavailable in much greater numbers and at much lower prices than manuscriptbooks. As a consequence, the invention of printing created a kind of filter inWestern Europe during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century: textswhich got into print continued to circulate while texts that were not printedgradually dropped out of circulation and out of use. In Slavia Orthodoxa theproducts of the printing press met the demands only of relatively limitedsectors of the whole existing market for books until well into the lateeighteenth century or the early nineteenth. This was partly because the totalnumber of editions printed in Old Cyrillic remained very much lower than thenumber of editions printed in the Latin alphabet, but even more because therange of texts put into print in Slavia Orthodoxa was very much narrower: thebulk of what was printed in Old Cyrillic was liturgical texts and the one basictextbook-the Primer (Azbuka or Buhoar ' )-by means of which the studentcould be taught the art of reading these liturgical texts aloud.

These basic qualitative differences between printing in Slavia Orthodoxaand in Western Europe had as their consequence a whole series of secondarydifferences, which may be grouped under most of Professor Eisenstein's sixprincipal heads of discussion: (r) dissemination, (z) amplification andreinforcement, (3) preservation, (4) standardization, (5) data collection, and(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 theHebrew alpirabet may be cited: z7 in the fifteenth century, 8 r more in the sixteenth, ror others inthe 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 toreject Professor Eisenstein's theses as to refine them.

(r) Dissernination. One of Professor Eisenstein's most interestingtheses is that the wider dissemination of books which followed upon theinvention of printing made it easier for the reader to juxtapose more texts forconsultation and comparison, and to iuxtapose a greater variety of such texts.This in turn made contradictions between these texts more obvious, and themethods which were then developed to deal with these contradictions-empirical methods in natural science; methods of textual and literary criticismfirst in the study of belletristic texts, but eventually also in the study ofreligious texts-led to the rise of modern science, on the one hand, and themodern critical approach to religion, on the other.33 This thesis needs to bemore precisely stated if it is to account for the case of Slavia Orthodoxa as wellas that of !flestern Europe. In Slavia Orthodoxa it was chiefly liturgical textsthat were more widely disseminated after the introduction of printing, and themost visible result of the increasing juxtaposition of texts within thislimitation may be the development in Muscovy of a series of increasinglybitter controversies on points of liturgical practice, leading not only to aschism within the Russian Orthodox Church, but also to many furtherschisms within the resulting body of Old Believers. Clearly the invention ofprinting can at best be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, for thedistinctive evolution of the natural sciences in Western Europe, in contrast toMuscovite Russia, or for the distinctive characteristics which prevent onefrom drawing too close a parallel between the sixteenth-century schismbetween Protestants and Catholics in \Testern Europe and the seventeenth-century schism between the Orthodox and the Old Believers in MuscoviteRussia.

(z) Amplification and Reinforcernent. According to ProfessorEisenstein, the development of printing served to reinforce linguistic andliterary frontiers, and eventually to amplify the diversely oriented national'memories'which took shape during the following centuries as different partsof the common Classical and Medieval heritage were taken up into the variousnational vernacular traditions.3a In Slavia Orthodoxa, however, it was chieflythe several varieties of the liturgical language-Church Slavonic-and notthe incipient national vernaculars, which were the main beneficiaries ofamplification and reinforcement during the period with which we areconcerned 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 in t983, pp.42-5c).

3n Eisenstein D79,pp.rz6-rz8 (: 1983, pp. 88-9o).3s Mathiesen t97 2, pp. 64-7 4, 1984, pp. 6z-64.

Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 19

which led to the same results for the vernacular languages of SlaviaOrthodoxa, and this alphabet was not created until the eighteenth century.(Note that the Cyrillic Civil alphabet was one of the first alphabets inventedand promulgated specifically for use in printing.) Again we find that theinvention of printing, though it may be a necessary condition, is not asufficient one for the kind of historical development specified by ProfessorEisenstein.

(3) Preservation. The invention of printing, according to ProfessorEisenstein, made it easier to preserve any text or any idea, whether progressiveor regressive, from destructionl likewise, a knowledge of the exotic and dyinglanguages in which some texts were written could be secured forever.36 Thephysical safety of a few copies of a valued text does not lead so surely to itspreservation as does the publication of that text in quantity.3T The potentialof which Professor Eisenstein speaks here was realized in Slavia Orthodoxaonly in the case of those relatively few, most highly valued texts which wereput into print; it could not, of course, be realized in the case of texts whichwere not printed.

(4) Standardization. The invention of printing made it easier tostandardize texts. One of Professor Eisenstein's theses is that this develop-ment afforded governments and churches more powerful means to secureconformity and uniformity, to control the populace. The invention of printingled to the printed blank form, which was important for the development ofbureaucratic methods of administration. Such printed blank forms were infact among the very first texts printed in Western Europe, and they continuedto be printed throughout our period.38 To the best of my knowledge, printedblank forms in Old Cyrillic were not produced by Slavia Orthodoxa duringthe fifteenth through seventeenth centuries, and relatively few products ofthepress-one thinks immediately of the Lithuanian Statute of 1588, theUlozhenie (Code of Laws) of t649 and the Kormchaia kniga (Nomocanon) of165o-1653 as obvious isolated exceptions-had much to do with the day-to-day administration of church or state. In a more general sense, other textswere occasionally printed which were meant to influence or control thepopulace in specific ways, such as Patriarch Nikon's Pouchenie o morovoi iazoe(Sermon on the Plague) of 1656. Flowever, this use of the printing pressclearly 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 anddictionaries of that language, and the use made of them by Josef Dobrovsky (who wrote the firstmodern 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 r99zprinted output in Slavia orthodoxa than in riTestern Europe. Nevertheless, itcannot truly be said that bureaucratic methods of administration wereunder-utilized by the Slavic orthodox states and churches. In this respect, theinvention ofprinting does not seem to be even a necessary condition, let alonea sufficient one, for the development of bureaucracy.

(5) Data collection. Professor Eisenstein's theses in this area pertainso largely to the specific development of the natural sciences in westernEurope that they appear to be untestable by comparison with SlaviaOrthodoxa during our period.3e

(6) Reorganization of Texts. According to professor Eisenstein,differences in their production led to qualitative differences between printedand manuscript books, despite their superficial similarities; they resulted in a'paradoxical combination ... of seeming continuity with radical change,.aocommercial pressures favoured innovations which were able to serve areader'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 chaoticheritage of the past, creating in the process many new points of social conflictand controversy.al Although Professor Eisenstein's general observation iscorrect concerning the utility of many innovations which took place in thedevelopment of the strucrure of the lTestern European book during thecentury after the invention of printing, her thesis that the invention ofprinting 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 ofthese innovations in w'estern Europe more complicated and less connectedwith the rise of printing than Professor Eisenstein assumes, but arso the sametechnology failed to give rise to the same innovations in the same order and atthe same rate in Slavia Orthodoxa as in lTestern Europe.a2

Underlying the whole structure of concepts and theses which professorEisenstein 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 fifteenthcentury) than like $Testern European printing ofthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Evenas late as the middle of the eighteenth century, virtually all Old-Cyrillic presses seem to have cutand cast their owrl fonts of Old Cyrillic type, and the title page did not become a normal part ofmost 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 iotechniques and technology which in \il7estern Europe were largely confined to the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries.

Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis 2rplaces, but does not particularly emphasize. put most simply, this postulatestates that the invention of printing placed printers 'temporarily in commandof the nascent communications industry'; this industry in turn brought about'something rather like a knowledge explosion' which began in the sixteenthcentury (and has continued into the present).43 The foremost cause of thedifferences between the impact which the invention of printing had on thecourse of history in rJTestern Europe and in Slavia Orthodoxa, put with equalsimplicity, is that in western Europe printers did in fact achieve such aposition of command and kept it for centuries, whereas in Slavia orthodoxathey did not do so. (The same is true, by the way, of printers in the Glagoliticand Armenian alphabets.) whether this followed from differences in socialand economic conditions sufficient to require this development in rJTesternEurope while preventing it in Slavia orthodoxa, or whether both courses ofdevelopment lay open in each region and the printers themselves happened totake one path in w'estern Europe, the other in Slavia orthodoxa, may remaincontroversial; but we do not need to settle this controversy in order to deepenour understanding of the roles which the new craft of printing played in bothparts 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 centurythrough the seventeenth provides an interesting and instructive contrast tothe history of printing in the Latin alphabet during the same cenruries. Evenso brief an exploration of this contrast has allowed us ro refine some ofProfessor Eisenstein's theses, and to deepen our understanding of some of theproblems to which she has so provocatively directed our attention. I intend toreturn to these problems in the future, and I invite others to do the same, for Iam persuaded that problems of this kind-problems which touch on themeans of communication and communion between people and betweenpeoples-are the problems which lie closest to the hidden processes that haveshaped and continue to shape the unfolding history of mankind. The historyof the book, whether manuscript or printed, is a complex of problems of justthis kind. To have deepened our undersranding of so basic a set of problems isan achievement well worth the considerable efforts it may cost.

a3 Eisenstein 1979,pp. 385, 7z-73,rr5-rr6.

22 Solanus r99z

RrrrnsNcrs

Badali6, losip. t966. Jugoslaoica usque ad annum MDC: Bibliographie der siidslawischenFrilhdrucke, Bibliotheca bibliographica aureliana, II. znd ed. (Baden-Baden:Verlag Heitz).

Barker, Nicolas. 1983. [Review of Eisenstein 1979.) The Times Literary Supplement, z4June r983, p.679.

Bernard, Auguste Joseph. 1857. Antoine Vitd et les caractdres orientaux de la BiblePolyglotte de Paris: Origine et oicissitudes des premiers caractdres orientauxintroduits 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: Kri6anskasada5njost-Nacionalna i sveuiiliSna biblioteka).

Biihler, Curt F. 1954. 'Authors and Incunabula', in Studies in Art and Literature forBelle da Costa Greene, edited by Dorothy Miner (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press), pp. 4or-4o6 (Reprinted in Btihler t973, pp. 2t2-2t9).

t973. Early Books and Manusoipts: Forty Years of Research (New York: TheGrolier Club / The Pierpont Morgan Library).

Burger, Konrad. r9oz. 'The Printers and Publishers of the XV Century with Lists oftheir'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 tipografiiXVIII oeka (Leningrad: Gos. Publichnaia biblioteka im. M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina).

Bykova, T. A., M. M. Gurevich and R. I. Kozintseva.ry55-72.Opisanie izdaniinapechatannykh 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 ofHoly 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 SixteenthCentury', The Slaaonic and East European Reztiew, vol. 53, pp. r6vr74,

r98z-83. 'Rumanian Presses and Printing in the Seventeenth Century', TheSlauonic and East European Reoiew, vol.6o, pp.48r-499, vol.6t, pp.48r-5rr.

Demin, A. S. (ed.) 1978. Literaturnyi sbornik XVII aeka: Prolog. Russkaiastaropechatnaia literatura (XVl-pervaia chetvert' XVIIIv.), vol. z (Moscow:Nauka).

-.

(ed.) r98 r. Tematika i stilistika predisloaii i poslesloaii. Russkaia staropechatnaialiteratura (XVl*pervaia chetvert' XVIIIv.), vol. r (Moscow: Nauka).

1985. Pisatel' i obshchestzto a Rossii XVI-XVII aekoa (Obshchesruennyenastoeniia ) (Moscow: Nauka).

Derzhavina,O. A. (ed.) rg7g. PanegiricheskaialiteraturaPetrotsskogoaremeni. Russkaiastaropechamaia literatura (XVl-pervaia chetvert' XVIIIv.), vol. 4 (Moscow:Nauka).

Cyrillic and Glagoliric Printing and the Eisenstein Thesis

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. rg7g. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change:Communications and Cuhural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

1983. The Printing Reoolution in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).

Emmel, Stephen. 1987. 'Specimens of Coptic Type from the Sacra Congregatio dePropaganda 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 ofPrinting, r45o-t8oo, English translation by David Gerard (London: NLB).

Freimann, Aron. 1946. A Gazetteer of Hebrew Printing (Revised ed.) (New York: TheNew York Public Library).

Garcia Icazbalceta, Joaquin. ry54. Bibliografia mexicana del siglo XVI: catalogorazonado de libros impresos en Mdxico de r 5 j9 a r6oo, edited by Agustin MillaresCarlo (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica).

Geldner, Ferdinand. 1978. Inkunabelkunde: Eine Einfiihrung in die Welt des friihstenBuchdrucks, Elemente des Buch- und Bibliothekswesens, 5 flJTiesbaden: Dr.Ludwig Reichert Verlag).

Gingerich, Owen. r98r. [Review of Eisenstein rgTg), Papers of the BibliographicalSocietg of America,75, pp. zz8-23o.

Gogoladze, V. M. r964a. 'Knigopechatanie v Gruzii XVI-XVIIvv.', in Chetyresta letrusskogo knigopechataniia, r564-1964, edited by A. A. Sidorov (Moscow:Nauka), vol. I, pp. rz9-r3o,609.

r964b. 'Knigopechatanie v Gruzii XVIIIv.', in Chetyresta let russkogoknigopechataniia, 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 InterdisciplinaryHistorg, rr: pp. 265-286.

Haebler, Konrad. rgo5-24. Typenrepertorium der Wiegendrucke. SammlungBibliothekwissenschaftlicher 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 LucyEugenia 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.', inKniha Belarusi r5r7-rgr7: zaodny kataloh (Minsk: Belaruskaia savetskaiaentsyklapedyia), 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 LibraryChronicle,4, pp. 5-9.

Isaievych, Ia. D. r97o. L'ztias'ki aydannia XVI-XVIIIst.: kataloh (L'viv: L'vivs'kaderzhavna naukova biblioteka AN URSR).

Ishkhanian, R. A. r964a. 'Knigopechatanie v Armenii XVI-XVIIvv.', in Chetyrestalet 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 russkogoknigopechataniia, 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 XVIIIaeka: r7z5-t8oo.5 vols and supplement (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I.Lenina).

23

24 Solanus tggz

K6vorkian, Raymond H. 1986. Catalogue des 'incunables' arminiens ( r 5r r 1t695 ), ouChronique 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.

Kiselev, N. P. r96o. 'O moskovskom knigopechatanii XVII veka', Kniga: issledottaniia imaterialy, z, pp. tz3-t86.

Kruming, A. A. t977. Predvaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii glagolicheskogoshrifta XV-XVIIIaa., V pomoshch' sostaviteliam Svodnogo katalogastaropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov, z (Moscow:Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina).

Labyntsev, Iu. A. 1979. Predaaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii kirilloztskogoshriJtaatoroi polooiny XVI aekarV pomoshch' sostaviteliam Svodnogo katalogastaropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov, 4 (Moscow:Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina).

1982. Predztaritel'nyi spisok staropechatnykh izdanii kirilloaskogo shrifta peraoichetaerti XVII aeka, V pomoshch' sostaviteliam Svodnogo katalogastaropechatnykh izdanii kirillovskogo i glagolicheskogo shriftov, 7 (Moscow:Gos. Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina).

Legrand, Emile. r885-t9o6. Bibliographie helldnique, ou Description raisonie desouarages 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,ouDescriptionraisoniedesouaragespublidsen grec 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 andApplied 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 knizhnoispraay 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 ofthe Bibliographical Society of America, 13, pp. 64-67.

1924. 'Some Notes on the Use of Hebrew Type in Non-Hebrew Books,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 SlaoonicVerb. 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-XXCenturies)', in Aspects of the Stattic Language Question, edited by RiccardoPicchio and Harvey Goldblatt (New Haven, CT: Yale Concilium onInternational and Area Studies), vol. I, pp. 45-65'

rg85. The Great Polyglot Bibles: The Impact of Printing on Religion in theSixteenth and Seaenteenth Centuries (Providence, RI: The John Carter BrownLibrary).

Cyrillic and Glagolitic Printing and rhe Eisenstein Thesis

Mihailovi6, Georgije. ry64. Srpska bibliografija XVIII aekabiblioteka SR Srbiie).

25

(Belgrade: Narodna

Muller, Jean, and Ernst R6th. t969. AuJ3ereurop(iische Druckereien im r6. Jahrhundert:Bibliographie der Drucke, Bibliotheca bibliographica aureliana, XXII (Baden-Baden: 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 Svodnogokataloga 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 UniztersityLibrary Gazette 27, p. 126.

Nersessian, Vrej. r98o. Catalogue of Early Armenian Books, r 5rz-r85o (London: TheBritish 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 linguisticaslava ecclesiastica', Ricerche slavistiche, rr, pp. ro5-r27.

[Pollard, Graham.] 1928. Catalogue of , I, Typefounders' Specimens; II, Books Printed inFounts of Historic Importancel III, Works on Typefounding, Printing andBibliography, Offeredfor Sa/e (London: Birrell & Garnett, Ltd., Booksellers).

Proctor, Robert. rgoa. The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century, IllustratedMonographs 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', Studiesin 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 GiovanBattista Raimondi', Giornale Storico degli Archioi Toscani, 4, pp. 257-3o8.

Schurhammer, Georg, and G. W'. Cottrell, lr. 1952.'The First Printing in IndicCharacters', Haroard Library Bulletin, 6, pp. 147-16o.

Schwab, Moise. r883. Les incunables orientaux et les impressions orientales aucommencement 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 undlVissenschaft, r, pp. zo5-265a, map.

Urbanczyk, Stanislaw. ry83. Die ahpolnischen Orthographien des 16. Jahrhunderts'Slavistische Forschungen, 37 (Cologne and Vienna: B<ihlau).

Siromakhova, V.G., and B. A. Uspenskii.t987.'Kavychnye knigi 5o-kh godovXVIIv.', Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za r986 (Moscow: Nauka), pp. 75-84.

Vargas IJgarte, Rub6n. 1935-58. Biblioteca peruana. rz vols (Lima: Editorial SanMarcos).

Veloudis, Georg. 1974. Das griechische Druck- und Verlagshaus 'Glikis' in Venedig( r 67o-t 8 54 ) : Das griechische Buch zur Zeit der Tilrkenherrschaft, Schriften zurGeistesgeschichte 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 SixteenthCentury (Berkeley, CA: Poltroon Press).

Vogel, Paul Heniz. 1962. Europ(iische Bibeldrucke des r5. und r6. Jahrhunderts in denVolkssprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Bibliographie des Bibeldrucks, Bibliothecabibliographica 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: Vyshchashkola).

Zernova, A. S. 1958. Knigi kirilloaskoi pechati, izdannye o Moskae a XVI-XVIIoekakh: saodnyi katalog (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka SSSR im. V. I. Lenina).

-,

and T. N. Kameneva. 1968. Saodu)i katalog russkoi knigi kirilloaskoi pechatiXVIII ze&a (Moscow: Gos. Biblioteka SSSR im. V. I. Lenina).

This article and the following one by I. V. Pozdeeva were originally presented at aconference entitled 'The Millennium of the Baptism of Rus'', convened by JamesBillington, Librarian of Congress, ot z6-27 May 1988. Both papers were part of thepanel '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 onby Professor Gary Marker, State lJniversity of New York at Stonybrook, and ProfessorEdward L. Keenan, Harvard University.