243 Macmillan and Co. 243 Unwin, T. Fisher 243, 245 Lawrence and Bullen 243 Kegan Paul and Co. 243 Clark, R. and R. 244 Constable, T. and A. 246 Morris, William 247, 248 Appleton, D., and Co. 250 Cushing, J. S., and Co. 250 Harper Brothers 250 Lockwood, H., and Co. 250 Berwick and Smith 251 De Vinne, Theodore L., and Co. 251 Lippincott, J. B., Co. 251 Nijhoff, M. 251 Norton, William 252 Bell, George, and Sons 261 [Decoration] [Decoration] PRINTERS’ MARKS. INTRODUCTION. Shorn of all the romance and glamour which seem inevitably to surround every early phase of typographic art, a Printer’s Device may be described as nothing more or less than a trade mark. It is usually a sufficient proof that the book in which it occurs is the work of a particular craftsman. Its origin is essentially unromantic, and its employment, in the earlier stages of its history at all events, was merely an attempt to prevent the inevitable pirate from reaping where he had not sown. At one time a copy, or more correctly a forgery, of a Printer’s Mark could be detected with comparative ease, even if the body of the book had all the appearance of genuineness. [Illustration: G. U. VON ANDLAU.] This self-protection was necessary on many grounds. First of all, the privileges of impression which were granted by kings, princes, and supreme pontiffs, were usually obtained only by circuitous routes and after the expenditure of much time and money. Moreover, the counterfeit book was rarely either typographically or textually correct, and was more often than not abridged and mutilated almost beyond recognition, to the serious detriment of the printer whose name appeared on the title-page. Places as well as individualities suffered, for very many books were sold as printed in Venice, without having the least claim to that distinction. The Lyons printers were most unblushing sinners in this respect, and Renouard cites a Memorial drawn up by Aldus himself on the subject, and published at Venice in 1503.