I think it is not difficult to conceive how forgeries
of remote events, before the invention of printing
and the general diffusion of knowledge might gain
an authority, and especially with the zealous, hardly
inferior to that of the most genuine history."

De Vinne, however, in his "Invention of Printing,"
New York, 1878, best explains the status quo of those
times, relative not only to book (MSS.) making, and
methods of circulation, but the causes which led up to
their eventual disappearance and the literary darkness
which ensued. His remarks are so pertinent
that they are quoted at length:

"The civilization of ancient Rome did not require
printing. If all the processes of typography
had been revealed to its scholars the art would not
have been used. The wants of readers and writers
were abundantly supplied by the pen. Papyrus
paper was cheap, and scribes were numerous; Rome
had more booksellers than it needed, and books
were made faster than they could be sold. The
professional scribes were educated slaves, who, fed
and clothed at nominal expense, and organized under
the direction of wealthy publishers, were made
so efficient in the production of books, that typography,
in an open competition, could have offered few advantages.

"Our knowledge of the Roman organization of
labor in the field of bookmaking is not as precise as