Latin lost its printing hegemony within a century of 1500

Evidence

But by the sixteenth century all this was changing fast. The reasons for the change need not detain us here: the central importance of print-capitalism will be discussed below. It is sufficient to remind ourselves of its scale and pace. Febvre and Martin estimate that 77% of the books printed before 1500 were still in Latin (meaning nonetheless that 23% were already in vernaculars). If of the 88 editions printed in Paris in 1501 all but 8 were in Latin, after 1575 a majority were always in French. Despite a temporary come-back during the Counter-Reformation, Latin’s hegemony was doomed. — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 73

Categorization

• XREF: This data directly sets up Anderson’s core print-capitalism thesis examined in the next chapter. — connects to: Printing emphasized vernacular languages and divided the European intellectual mind — Harold Innis, The Bias of Communication, 804; Printing did not immediately collapse manuscript culture — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 167; Capitalism’s search for monoglot mass markets drove print vernacularization — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on…, 175 (+1 more)

Related

• Capitalism’s search for monoglot mass markets drove print vernacularization (similarity 0.88)
• Printing emphasized vernacular languages and divided the European intellectual mind (similarity 0.85)
• Print’s fixity of language produced the image of deep national antiquity (similarity 0.85)
• Print-capitalism enabled the Reformation to outspeed Rome’s communications (similarity 0.82)
• Protestantism outflanked the Counter-Reformation by exploiting vernacular print markets (similarity 0.82)
• Print alone is not revolutionary; capitalism is the decisive factor. (similarity 0.81)
• Manuscript collectors assembled bespoke texts, a freedom print abolished (similarity 0.81)
• Manuscript-era readers could compile bespoke texts; print ended that autonomy. (similarity 0.80)
• Printing initially amplified medieval texts rather than new knowledge (similarity 0.80)
• Print-languages made mutually unintelligible dialects into unified national communities (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Printing emphasized vernacular languages and divided the European intellectual mind #expands (0.85) — Harold Innis, The Bias of Communication, 804
• Printing did not immediately collapse manuscript culture #qualifies (0.80) — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 167
• Capitalism’s search for monoglot mass markets drove print vernacularization #corroborates (0.75) — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 175
• Manuscript-era readers could compile bespoke texts; print ended that autonomy. #expands (0.72)