THE CLAIMS OF COSTER AND HAARLEM CONSIDERED, AS OPPOSED TO
THOSE OF GUTENBERG AND MENTZ.--CLAIMS BASED UPON TRADITION.--NO
CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES IN THEIR FAVOR.--ABUNDANCE OF SUCH
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF GUTENBERG AND MENTZ.--PROBABLE ORIGIN OF
TRADITION.--BLOCK BOOKS.--SPECULUM HUMANÆ SALVATIONIS.--EVIDENCE
OF THE TYPES: WOOD OR METAL, CUT OR CAST?--BOOKS “JETTEZ EN
MOLLE.”--AGE OF THE PAPER.--DATE OF COSTUME.--FRATERNITY OF
BRETHREN AND CLERKS OF THE COMMON LIFE.
Clear and convincing as the evidence appears to be, that the Art of
Typography originated in Germany, and that the honor claimed for
Gutenberg as its inventor is rightly his; both positions are stoutly
contested by the Dutch, who assert that the Art originated at Haarlem,
and was the invention of one Laurence Janssoen, the Coster or Sacristan
of the great church of that city, who according to some of their
writers, was not only the first engraver of block-books, and cutter
of separable letters, but also the first who cast fusile metal types.
It is necessary therefore, before proceeding further, to examine the
grounds upon which these assertions are based, and to ascertain what
amount of truth they contain.
The claim on behalf of Haarlem was first made by Jan Van Zuyren,
(_b._ 1517; _d._ 1591), between the years 1549 and 1561,--(upwards of
a century, at least, after the appearance of the first printed book
in Germany),--in “A Dialogue on the first Invention of the Art of
Typography,” of which only a part of the Dedicatory Preface remains. In
this fragment, reprinted by Scriverius, the writer says:--
“It is from the love of my country alone, that I undertake this work,
and that I institute further inquiries upon the subject of it; as I
cannot consent that our claims to a portion of this glory;--claims
which are even at this day fresh in the remembrance of our fathers, to
whom, so to express myself, they have been transmitted from hand to
hand from their ancestors, should be effaced from the memory of men,
and be buried in eternal oblivion; claims of which it is our duty to
preserve the memorial, for the benefit of our latest posterity.
“The city of Mentz, without doubt, merits great praise, _for having
been the first to produce and publish to the world in a becoming garb_,
an invention which she had received from us; _for having perfected and
embellished an art as yet rude and unformed_. Who indeed, (although
it be less difficult to add to an invention already made, than to
originate a new one) would withhold the praises and honor due to a
city, to which all the world considers itself in a particular manner
indebted for so great a benefit?
“For the rest, excellent Sir, you may consider it as certain that the
foundations of this splendid art were laid in our city of Haarlem,
rudely, indeed, but still the first. Here (be it understood without
offence to the people of Mentz) the art of Typography was born and saw
the light, with all her members formed, so that she might hereafter
increase in strength and stature. Here, she for a long time received
the treatment and the cares, which it is customary to use towards
tender infancy, and for a long series of years was confined within the
walls of a private dwelling house, which, though somewhat dilapidated,
is still standing; _but which has long since been despoiled of its
precious contents_. The art of printing, indeed, was here brought
up, nourished, and maintained at small expense, and with too great
parsimony; until at length, despising the poor and confined appearance
of her humble abode, she became the companion of a certain stranger,
and leaving behind her native meanness, shewed herself publicly at
Mentz, where after having become enriched, she in a short time rose to
eminence.”[83]
Theodore Volckart Coornhert, an engraver, having in company with Van
Zuyren established a printing office in Haarlem, published on the year
1561, a Dutch translation of Cicero’s Offices. In the Dedication of
this work to the Burgomasters, Judges, and Senators of the city, he
writes:--
“Most honorable and revered Sirs; it has often been related to me, bonâ
fide, that the most useful art of Typography was originally invented
in our city of Haarlem, although in a somewhat rude manner; for it is
easier to perfect by degrees an art already discovered, than to invent
a new one. This art, having been afterwards carried to Mentz by an
unfaithful servant, _was there perfected_, and as it was also _first
promulgated there_, that city has so generally acquired the reputation
of having first invented it, that our citizens can obtain but little
credence, when they assert themselves to have been the real inventors;
a fact generally believed by the greater number of them, and especially
considered as undoubted by our most ancient citizens. I am aware,
that in consequence of the blameable neglect of our ancestors, the
common opinion that this art was invented at Mentz, is now so firmly
established, that it is in vain to hope to change it, even by the best
evidence, and the most irrefragable proof. But truth does not cease to
be truth, because it is known only to a few; and I for my part, believe
this to be most certain; convinced as I am, by the faithful testimonies
of men, alike respectable from their age and authority; who not only
have often told me of the family of the inventor, and of his name and
surname; but have even described to me the rude manner of printing
first used, and pointed out to me with their fingers the abode of the
first printer. And therefore, not because I am jealous of the glory of
others, but because I love truth, and desire to pay that tribute to the
honor of our city which is justly her due, I have thought it incumbent
upon me to mention these things.”
In 1567, Ludovico Guicciardini printed at Antwerp, a description of
the Low Countries. The work was in Italian, and writing of Haarlem, he
says:--
“According to the common tradition of the inhabitants, and the
assertion of the other natives of Holland, as well as the testimony of
certain authors and other records, it appears that the art of printing
and stamping letters and characters on paper, in the manner now used,
was first invented in this place. But the author of the invention
happening to die, before the art was brought to perfection and had
acquired repute, his servant, they say, went to reside at Mentz;
where, giving proof of his knowledge in that science, he was joyfully
received; and where, he having applied himself to the business with
unremitting diligence, it was brought to entire perfection, and became
at length generally known, in consequence of which, the fame afterwards
spread abroad and became general, that the art and science of printing
originated in that city. What the truth really is, I am not able, nor
will I take upon me, to decide; it sufficing me to have said these
few words, that I might not be guilty of injustice to this town and
country.”
Eytzinger, in his work on the topography of the Low Countries, printed
in 1583, and Braunius of Cologne, in his _Civitates Orbis Terrarum_,
printed in 1570-1588, assign to Haarlem the origin of the art. These
authors had before them the statement already quoted from Coornhert,
as well as that of Ulric Zell, which says that Block-book Donatuses
were originally printed in Holland; and they assume that to be a fact
which Guicciardini will go no further than to repeat as a tradition,
for the truthfulness of which he will not vouch.
We now come to the account given by Hadrian Junius,[84] in his work
entitled _Batavia_, printed in 1588, thirteen years after his death.
This account[85] is supposed, from the context, to have been written in
the year 1568, and in it the name of Coster appears for the first time.
“About a hundred and twenty eight years ago,” he says, “Laurentius
Janssoen Coster inhabited a decent and fashionable house in the city of
Haarlem, situated in the market place opposite the royal palace. The
name of Coster was assumed, and inherited from his ancestors, who had
long enjoyed the honorable and lucrative office of Coster or Sexton
to the church. This man deserves to be restored to the honor of being
the first inventor of printing, of which he has been unjustly deprived
by others, who have enjoyed the praises due to him alone. As he was
walking in the wood contiguous to the city, which was the general
custom of the richer citizens and men of leisure, in the afternoon
and on holidays he began at first to cut some letters upon the rind
of a beech tree; which for fancy’s sake, being impressed on paper, he
printed one or two lines as a specimen for his grand-children (the
sons of his daughter) to follow. This having happily succeeded, he
meditated greater things (as he was a man of ingenuity and judgment);
and first of all with his son-in-law Thomas Peter (who by the way left
three sons, who all attained the consular dignity), invented a more
glutinous writing ink, because he found the common ink sunk and spread;
and then formed whole pages of wood, with letters cut upon them;--of
which sort I have seen some essays in an anonymous work, printed
only on one side, entitled _Speculum nostræ salutis_: in which it is
remarkable, that in the infancy of printing (as nothing is complete at
its first invention), the back sides of the pages were pasted together,
that they might not by their nakedness betray their deformity.--These
beechen letters he afterwards changed for leaden ones, and these again
for a mixture of tin and lead, as a less flexible and more solid and
durable substance. Of the remains of which types, when they were
turned to waste metal, those old wine-pots were cast, that are still
preserved in the family house which looks into the market-place,
inhabited afterwards by his great-grandson Gerard Thomas, a gentleman
of reputation, whom I mention for the honor of the family, and who died
a few years since. A new invention never fails to engage curiosity. And
when a commodity never before seen excited purchasers, to the advantage
of the inventor, the admiration of the art increased, dependents were
enlarged, and workmen multiplied; the first calamitous incident! Among
these was one John. Whether, as we suspect, he had ominously the name
of Faustus--unfaithful and unlucky to his master,--or whether he
was really a person of that name, I shall not much inquire; being
unwilling to molest the silent shades, who suffer from a consciousness
of their past actions in this life. This man, bound by oath to keep the
secret of printing, when he thought he had learned the art of joining
the letters, the method of casting the types, and other things of that
nature, taking the most convenient time that was possible, on Christmas
eve, when every one was customarily employed in lustral sacrifices,
_seizes the collection of types, and all the implements his master had
got together_, and, with one accomplice, marches off to Amsterdam,
thence to Cologne, and at last settled at Mentz, as at an asylum of
security, where he might go to work with the tools he had stolen. It
is certain that in a year’s time, viz. in 1442, the _Doctrinale_ of
Alexander Gallus, which was a grammar much used at that time, together
with the _Tracts_ of Peter of Spain, came forth there, from the same
types as Laurentius had made use of at Haarlem. These were the first
products of his press. These are the principal circumstances that I
have collected from credible persons, far advanced in years, which they
have transmitted like a flaming torch from hand to hand. I have also
met with others who have confirmed the same.”[86]
Junius’s principal informant was, he says, his tutor, Nicholas Galius,
an old gentlemen of very tenacious memory, who related that when a boy,
he “had often heard one Cornelius, a bookbinder (then upwards of eighty
years of age, who had when a youth, assisted at the printing office
of Coster), describe with great earnestness the numerous trials and
experiments made by his master in the infancy of the invention. When
he came to that part of his narrative touching the robbery, he would
burst into tears, and curse with the greatest vehemence those nights
in which he had slept with so vile a miscreant, declaring that were
he still alive, he could with pleasure execute the thief with his own
hands.” Junius states, that he received a similar account from Quirinus
Talesius, the Burgomaster, who asserted that it was recited to him by
the said Cornelius: the latter died in 1515.[87]
Of Laurent Janssoen Coster, it seems to be satisfactorily proved,
that he belonged to the most distinguished and wealthy class of
the inhabitants of the city. He was born, it is supposed, about
1370, or 1371; and notices of him appear in official records as an
officer of the city guard, a member of the great council, sheriff,
sheriff-president, and treasurer, from 1417 to 1434. From the
treasurer’s accounts he seems to have enjoyed a rent-charge upon the
city from 1422 to 1435. In 1440 an entry is made of the payment of a
similar charge to one “Ymme, widow of Laurent Janssoen”; and as Haarlem
was visited by a contagious malady in 1439, the probability is that
Laurent was one of its victims. Of his family the following particulars
have been handed down. His daughter Lucetta married Thomas the son of
Pieter; and bore him two daughters and three sons, Pieter, André and
Thomas, all of whom filled important public office. Pieter the son of
Thomas, had a son called Thomas the son of Pieter, whose son Gerard,
died before Junius wrote his work. The last descendant of the family
was William the son of Cornelius Kroon, who died the 24th March,
1724.[88]
As the account inserted in Junius’s _Batavia_ is the groundwork upon
which all subsequent writers base their arguments in behalf of the
claims they advance for Coster, it behoves us to note how far it agrees
with the statements previously made by others.
It is alleged that Coster (1,) first cut letters on the bark of a beech
tree for his amusement; (2,) then, with letters so cut, he made words
and sentences for the instruction of his grand-children; after which he
(3,) invented, with the assistance of his son-in-law, a more glutinous
ink, whereupon he (4,) cut whole pages of letters on wood, and printed
them. He next (5,) made letters of lead, and pewter, to supersede those
of wood; (6,) becoming known as a printer, and a public demand arising
for his productions, he (7,) engaged numerous workmen, one of whom (8,)
stole all his materials, and carried them off to Mentz.
Neither Van Zuyren, nor Coornhert, give particulars on the first five
points, and in regard to the 6th and 7th, their statements are opposed
to those of Junius. They say the art, as invented at Haarlem, _was rude
and imperfect, and was not made public there_; and although Coornhert
says he had often been told of the family of the inventor, his name and
surname, of the rude manner of printing first used, and had even had
shewn to him the abode of the first printer; he neither gives his name
nor describes the method adopted. Guicciardini gives his statement, as
a matter of hearsay, for the truth of which he will not vouch; but in
it there is this difference from those of Van Zuyren and Coornhert,
that the author of the invention _happening to die before the art was
brought to perfection and had acquired repute_, his servant, they say,
went to reside at Mentz.
Here then are three writers, living at the same time with Junius, all
making inquiries upon the same subject, and deriving their information
from a common source, who differ from him on almost every point, and in
some of the most material plainly contradict him.
With reference to the 5th point, the invention of metal types,--whether
cut or cast Junius does not say,--Henry Spiegel, senator of Amsterdam
(_b._ 1549, _d._ 1612), states in his Dutch poem _Hertspiegel_.
“Thou first, Laurentius, to supply the defect of wooden tablets,
adoptedst wooden types, and afterwards didst connect them with a
thread, to imitate writing. A treacherous servant surreptitiously
obtained the honor of the discovery: but truth itself, though destitute
of common and wide spread fame, truth I say, still remains.”
This Spiegel was a personal friend of Coornhert, and it may be presumed
consulted him respecting Junius’s account of the origin of printing at
Haarlem. Of metal types he makes no mention; but if the traditions of
Haarlem at that time gave Laurentius the credit of their invention,
it is altogether unaccountable why Spiegel omitted so noteworthy a
circumstance. He probably rejected, on Coornhert’s authority, what
Junius had written on that part of the subject.
Junius’s story of the theft of Coster’s types and implements is
confused and contradictory. For supposing for a moment that Coster
was the printer of the _Mirror of Salvation_, and that the types were
made of pewter; if all that had been cast for printing, (at the most
not more than two pages at a time), had been carried away, together
with the punches, matrices, &c., how came the wine-pots, alleged to be
still in existence when Junius wrote, to be made of them when they
became waste metal? These wine-pots afford grounds for the assertion,
by later writers, that the art continued to be practised by the Coster
family _after_ the alleged theft; but that assertion is contradicted by
the statements elsewhere made. Of the theft itself there is no proof.
The records of the city have been searched in vain for evidence of any
such robbery. And the search has been equally fruitless for evidence
of any such invention. As to the latter, the wine-pots are the chief
witnesses. They were said to be kept in the house inhabited by Laurent
Coster’s great-grandson Gerard Thomas; they could be appealed to; but
what then? their evidence is not even as valuable as that adduced by
the school boy who claimed to be the carver of a certain piece of
wood-work, “and here,” said he, “is the very knife with which I did
it.” In the boy’s case it could at least be shewn, that the knife was
one with which the carving might have been executed; but it would be
utterly impossible to prove, without other and more reliable evidence
than the appearance of the pots themselves, that they had been the
original prototypes of the art of Typography. Meerman, however, insists
upon it that the Costers carried on the printing business at Haarlem
until about the year 1472, when a better method having been introduced
by disciples of the Mentz school, they sold off their stock and
retired. But all these allegations are based upon suppositions; there
is no proof whatever that such was the case: only, it is evident that
some such story must be contrived, in order to account for the pewter
wine-pots being manufactured out of the waste and worn-out types.
But then the part of the narrative of Junius where the wine-pots are
alluded to, does not tally with that other part, wherein it is stated
that the thief and his accomplice decamped with “the collection of
types, and _all_ the implements his master had got together.” For
Junius does not say, that Laurentius Janssoen Coster got together fresh
implements, and made new types; nor does he intimate that his family
did so after his decease. On the contrary, he speaks of the theft as
an irreparable loss, the thought of which made the old book-binder
Cornelius, curse with the greatest vehemence. This irascible garrulous
old man is the same who, when a boy, is said to have been employed
in Coster’s printing office, and who, when upwards of eighty years
old, told the story to Nicholas Galius the old gentlemen of tenacious
memory, who in his turn told it to his pupil Junius. It is plain that
the sole object of the original tellers of the story of the stranger,
servant, or thief, was to account for the otherwise inexplicable fact,
that the world was persuaded that printing originated at Mentz, instead
of, as the tradition-mongers would have it, at Haarlem.
It is singular that Van Zuyren and Coornhert make no mention of
Coster and the wine-pots. They had had the house pointed out to them,
where printing was said to have been invented and first practised
in private and in a very rude and imperfect form; and if that house
really belonged to the family of Laurent Janssoen, copies of the books
printed,--the old types themselves,--the original prototypes of the
art of Typography--ought surely to have been the pride and glory of
the house, rather than pewter wine-pots, a common enough article of
household furniture.
“But,” says Van Zuyren, “the house has _long since_ been despoiled
of its precious contents.” In his days then, and he is the earliest
writer on the subject, the wine-pots did not exist; or if they did, and
if they were known to be the re-shaped relics of the original metal
types, how is his ignorance of their existence to be accounted for? He
and Coornhert were both living and writing in the city at the same
time with Junius, with whom, as one of the learned literati of the
day, they could not but have been well acquainted, if not on intimate
and friendly terms. After a long absence, Junius returned to the city
where the others were born and bred, and where one of them, Van Zuyren,
filled the office of Scabinus from 1549 to 1561, when he was advanced
to the dignity of Burgomaster, (in which year his partner dedicated his
work to him and the other officials of the city). How then came Junius
alone to learn the history of Laurent Janssoen’s invention? and how is
Van Zuyren and Coornhert’s silence to be accounted for, in regard to
such important matters affecting Laurent the son of Jans, who filled
the lucrative office of Coster of the great church; who was member of
the great council, sheriff, sheriff-president, and finally treasurer of
the city;--whose portrait was engraved, (or supposed to have been),
along with those of Ouwater, Hemsen, Mandin, and Volkert, all eminent
Haarlemese painters of the fifteenth century;--and whose history must
have been well known to both, when they wrote, the one declaring “for
the love of his country alone,”--and the other, “not because I am
jealous of the glory of others, but because I love truth”? Where then
was the love of country and the love of truth, if they omitted, or
suppressed, the name of the man who invented the art, the glory of
which they “could not consent should be effaced from the memory of men,
and be buried in eternal oblivion; claims of which it is our duty to
preserve the memorial, for the benefit of our latest posterity”?
There can be no doubt but that considerations of this nature have led
older writers to express suspicions in regard to the authenticity of
Junius’s narrative, and to believe that his manuscript was tampered
with between the time of his death, and the publication of the work in
which it appears; as well as to induce “_misgivings_” in the minds of
learned Dutchmen of the present day “as to the ultimate result of full
inquiry into the subject.”[89]
Admitting with the writers on the Haarlem side, that the Coster family
was one of wealth and influence, how comes it, on the one hand, that
the thief who stole the types and implements was not pursued, exposed
and punished? or at any rate stripped of his stolen plumes, when so
early as 1457 works were published in Mentz by printers who ascribed
the whole merit of the invention to themselves?--and on the other,
that having replaced the stolen types and other implements by new
ones, and continuing to print until 1472, the descendants of Laurent
never claimed the honor of the invention for themselves or their
sire, although they must have known all along of what was taking place
at Mentz,--where Faust and Schœffer were yearly publishing books
with their names attached? How comes it that the family possessed no
documents that in any way referred to the invention?--that they never
kept by them copies of the works they are said to have printed?--that
none of such works were known or found in Haarlem until 1654 or 1660,
when a chestfull of old books without date or printer’s name was bought
by the city authorities at a sale at the Hague--two centuries later,
and at once attributed to them? _How is it that no Dutch writer or
printer, from 1441 to 1588_, claimed the honor of the invention for
his countryman Coster?--that neither Nicholas the son of Peter of
Haarlem, who printed at Padua in 1476, and at Vicenza in 1477; Henri of
Haarlem, who printed from 1482 to 1499 in different cities; and Gerard
of Haarlem, who exercised the art at Florence in 1499, never claimed
it for their brother citizen and birthplace? How comes it that the
earliest known printers in Haarlem itself, John Andriesson and Jacob
Bellaert, whose books are dated 1483 and 1485, are silent upon the
subject?--that the first printers in Utrecht in 1473--and between that
date and 1498, those of Alost, Antwerp, Bruges, Brussels, Culembourg,
Delft, Deventer, Ghent, Gouda, Hertogenbosch, Leyden, Louvain, St.
Maartensdyk, Niemegen, Oudenarde, Schiedam, Schoonhoven, Zwolle, and
elsewhere in Holland and the Low countries, make no mention of it?--and
that nothing whatever is known of any of the “multiplied workmen,” and
“dependents,” whom Laurent Janssoen Coster, it is alleged, was obliged
to employ to meet the demands made upon him by purchasers for copies
of the products of the newly invented art? How, finally, is it to be
accounted for, that while Coster’s descendants were living in Haarlem,
when Van Zuyren, Coornhert, and Junius, were writing their works,
those writers omitted to make inquiry of any member of the family on a
subject respecting which the family were the parties most interested,
and could have given the most authentic information? Perhaps they did;
and when they asked for the story of the invention, discovered that the
family had, like Canning’s knife-grinder, “no story to tell.”
To the objections, that no printed book bears the name of Coster or
his descendants, and that neither he nor they ever entered their
protest against the pretensions of Mentz, Koning replies:[90]--“We
agree that no such book has been found; but neither is any book to be
found bearing the name of Gutenberg. Must we, on this account, strike
his name out of the list of the first printers? The aim of the first
printers was to imitate manuscripts, and to make their printed books
pass for such; and therefore, lest their art should be found out,
it behoved them to keep their names a profound secret.... The first
inventor could have no idea of the astonishing influence which his art
would have in the world in future ages; and no person can feel surprise
that he did not affix his name to his first essays.
“Besides, the printers of the fifteenth century very commonly omitted
to put their names to the editions printed by them. The number of books
existing of this century, without either the name of the printer or
the place of their publication is prodigious. Ulric Zell, for example,
according to Santander, printed eighty books, and, out of this number,
has only put his name to two or three. With what appearance of reason
is it insisted, that the works, which are attributed to Laurent
Janssoen Coster, are not his, because they are not signed with his
name?
“But it is said, that neither Coster nor his descendants ever
vindicated their claims, against the pretensions put forth by the
Mentz printers.... Neither did Gutenberg vindicate his, against Faust
and Schœffer; who, in the colophon of the Psalter of 1457, and in
the subscriptions of numerous other books, took all the honor to
themselves, making no mention of him whatever; although it is not
doubted that Gutenberg set up a printing office of his own in 1455, and
he is regarded by the writers on the side of Mentz as the inventor and
perfector of the art of printing.”
As to the inventor having no idea of the astonishing influence which
his art would have in the world in future ages, it is plain from the
evidence given in the Strasburg law-suit, that Gutenberg and his
partners were fully persuaded, that the work they had undertaken was
one by which they would make their fortunes. And, although it is
asserted that Gutenberg never vindicated his claim against Faust and
Schœffer, yet it is certain that his merit as the inventor of printing
was known to the Elector of Mentz, and the King of France, _and it is
also expressly admitted_, not only _by his contemporaries_, in Germany,
Italy, and elsewhere, but by Peter Schœffer himself, who besides the
detailed account of the origin of the invention which he gave to
the Abbot Trithemius in the year 1484, allowed the insertion of the
following among other Latin verses at the end of the “_Institutes of
Justinian_,” printed by him in 1468:--
Hos dedit eximios sculpendi in arte magistros,
Cui placet en mactos arte sagire viros,
Quos genuit ambos urbs moguntina Johannes
Librorum insignes protocaragmaticos;
Cum quibus optatum Petrus venit ad polyandrum,
Cursu posterior, introeundo prior;
Quippe quibus præstat sculpendi lege sagitus
A solo dante lumen et ingenium.
These lines are thus translated by Humphreys,--“He who is pleased
to create high talents has given us two great masters of the art
of engraving, both bearing the name of John, both being natives of
the city of Mayence, and both having become illustrious as the first
printers of books. Peter advanced with them towards the desired goal,
and, starting the last, arrived first, having been rendered the most
skilful in the art of engraving by him who alone bestows light and
genius.” There can be no doubt but the two Johns and the Peter here
referred to were John Gutenberg, John Faust, and Peter Schœffer.[91]
Up to the date of Junius’s publication, 1588, no writer had claimed the
honor of the invention for Coster; and but three, who wrote between
1549 and 1567, had asserted Haarlem to have been its birthplace;--and
one of these, as we have seen, expressly declines to vouch for the
accuracy of the tradition. On the other hand, we learn from the
researches of Dean Mallinckrot,[92] that up to the date of Junius’s
publication no less than sixty-two writers had awarded the honor of
the invention to Gutenberg, and fixed its birthplace, and the place of
its promulgation to the world at the cities of Strasburg and Mentz.
Although abundant proof has already been given upon these points, the
following selection from contemporary and historic evidence is added,
in order to shew the strength and solidity of the basis upon which
those claims rest, and how thoroughly it outweighs all that has been
brought forward by writers on the opposite side.
In 1457, on the publication of their Psalter, Faust and Schœffer
ascribed to themselves the merit of the new invention.
After Faust’s death, Schœffer inserted in the imprint or colophon on
the last page of his works, the words “in nobili urbe Magentiæ ejusdem
(_i. e._ artis imprimendi) inventriæ elimatriceque prima.”
In 1480, William Caxton, in his continuation of _Higden’s
Polychronicon_, printed at Westminster, says “About this time [1455]
the craft of imprynting was first found in Mogunce in Almayne.”[93]
In the _Fasciculi Temporum_ printed by Quentel at Cologne in 1478 and
1481, it is stated that the art of printing originated at Mentz.
In the Black book or Register of the Garter, it is said with reference
to the 35th year of the reign of Henry VI, anno 1457, “In this year of
our most pious king, the art of printing books first began at Mentz,
a famous city of Germany.” And in _Fabian’s Chronicle_, the writer, a
contemporary of Caxton, says, “This yere (35th of Henry VI,) after the
opynyon of dyverse wryters, began in a citie of Almaine, namyd Mogunce,
the crafte of empryntynge bokys, which sen that tyme hath had wonderful
encrease.” It was in this year 1457, that the first book appeared which
has the printer’s name, date, and place of printing, affixed. This is
the celebrated Psalter printed by Faust and Schœffer.
In 1486, Berthold, Archbishop of Mentz, in a mandate which will be
quoted at length in a subsequent chapter, states, “this art, [printing]
was first discovered in this city of Mentz.”
A single testimony similar to either of the above in favor of Haarlem,
would have been hailed with delight by any of the writers in the
latter half of the sixteenth century, and their tribe of followers
who advocate the claims of that city; but what follows is much more
forcible and decisive.
“Of all the authors to whom the world is indebted for a particular
account of the discovery of printing,” says, Mr. Palmer,[94] “Abbot
Trithemius justly claims pre-eminence; both upon account of his living
nearest to the time when the art originated, which he tells us was in
his younger years; as well as his care to derive his intelligence on
the subject from the purest sources. We have two noble testimonies
out of his chronicle; one from the first part entitled _Chronicon
Spanheimense_, wherein, speaking of the year 1450, he says: ‘That about
this time, the art of printing and casting single types was found out
anew in the city of Mentz, by one John Gutenberg, who having spent his
whole estate in this difficult discovery, by the assistance and advice
of some honest men, John Faust and others, brought his undertaking at
length to perfection; that the first improver of this art, after the
inventor, was Peter Schœffer de Gernsheim, who afterwards printed a
great many volumes; that the said Gutenberg lived at Mentz, in a house
called _Zum-junghen_, but afterwards known by the name of the printing
house.’
“The next passage, which is fuller, and for its singularity and
decisiveness deserves to be set down at length, is taken out of
the second part of Trithemius’s chronicle, entitled _Chronicon
Hirsaugiense_:--‘About this time (anno 1450) in the city of Mentz in
Germany upon the Rhine, and not in Italy, as some writers falsely
affirmed, the wonderful and _till then unknown_ art of printing books
by metal types (_characterizandi_) was invented and devised by John
Gutenberg, citizen of Mentz, who, having almost exhausted his whole
estate in contriving of this new method, and labouring under such
insuperable difficulties, in one respect or other, that he began to
despair of and to throw up the whole design; was at length assisted
with the advice and purse of John Faust, another citizen of Mentz,
and happily brought it to perfection. Having therefore, begun with
cutting characters of the letters upon wooden planks, in their right
order, and completed their forms, they printed the vocabulary called
the _Catholicon_; but could make no further use of those forms,
because there was no possibility of separating the letters, which were
engraven on the planks, as we hinted before. To this succeeded a more
ingenious invention, for they found out a way of stamping the shapes
of every letter of the Latin alphabet, in what they called matrices,
from which they afterwards cast their letters, either in copper or
tin, hard enough to be printed upon, which they first cut with their
own hands. It is certain that this art met with no small difficulties
from the beginning of its invention, as I heard thirty years ago
from the mouth of Peter Schœffer de Gernsheim, citizen of Mentz, and
son-in-law to the first inventor of the Art. For when they went about
printing the Bible, before they had worked off the third quire it had
cost them already above 4000 florins. But the afore-mentioned Peter
Schœffer, then servant, (_famulus_,) and afterwards son-in-law, to
the first inventor John Faust, as we hinted before, being a person
of great ingenuity, discovered an easier method of casting letters,
and perfected the art as we now have it. These three kept their
manner of printing very secret for some time, until it was divulged
by their servants, without whose help it was impossible to manage
the business, who carried it first to Strasburg, and by degrees all
over Europe. Thus much will suffice concerning the discovery of this
wonderful art, the first inventors of which were citizens of Mentz.
These three first discoverers of printing, viz. John Gutenberg, John
Faust, and Peter Schœffer his son-in-law, lived at Mentz, in a house
called _Zum-junghen_, but ever since known by the name of the printing
house.’”[95]
Equally clear and to the point, if not more so, as well as the
first published in point of time, is the statement given by Johan.
Koelhoff, who in 1499 printed the following particulars in the _Cologne
Chronicle_, on the authority of Ulric Zell of Hainault, by whom the
art of printing was first introduced to Cologne. Zell learned the art
directly from the first Mentz printers; and in the colophons of two
small works printed in the years 1466 and 1467, he styles himself a
clerk of the diocese of Mentz. The statement is as follows:--
“Of the printing of Books, and when and by whom, this Art was
discovered, of which the utility cannot be too highly appreciated, &c.
“Item: This most important art was first found out in Germany, at
Mentz on the Rhyne. And it is a great honour to the German nation that
such ingenious men were found in it. This took place about the year of
our Lord M.CCCC.XL., and from that time to the year L., this art and
whatever appertains to it were rendered more perfect. And in the year
M.CCCC.L. which was a jubilee year, they began to print; _and the first
book that was printed was the Bible in Latin_, and it was printed with
larger characters than those which are now used for printing Missals.
Item: Although this art, as we have said, was found out in Mentz in
the way in which it is commonly used; nevertheless the prototype of it
(‘_vurbildung_,’ præfiguratio) was found in Holland, in the Donatuses
(_den Donaten_) which had been before printed there; and it is from
and out of these, that the beginning of this art was taken. And this
manner has been found much more masterly and subtle than that which
before existed, and it has become more and more ingenious. Item: A
person named Omnibonus writes in the preface to Quinctilian, and in
other books, that a certain Frenchman, called Nicholas Genson, first
discovered this important art; which is clearly not true. For there are
persons now living, who can attest, that books were printed at Venice
before Nicholas Genson went there, and began to sculpture and set up
type. But the first inventor of printing was a citizen of Mentz, born
at Strasburg, called Johan. Gudenburch, Gentleman. Item: From Mentz
the said art was first carried to Cologne, then to Strasburg, and
then to Venice. The commencement and progress of this art has been
told me expressly by word of mouth, by the revered master Ulrich Tzell
of Hainault,[96] the printer, still living at Cologne in the present
year M.CCCC.XCIX., by whom the art was first brought to Cologne. Item:
There are ill-informed persons who say that books were printed in more
ancient times; but that is contrary to the truth, as in no country are
books to be found printed in those times.”
Zell’s account is confirmed by the writer of the _Nurimberg Chronicle_,
printed by Koburger in 1493, who states that in the year 1450, the
noble art of typography was first invented by John Gutenberg at Mentz.
To the like effect is the testimony of Marc Ant. Coccius Sabellicus
(_b._ 1436; _d._ 1506,) in the sixth chapter of his Universal History,
printed at Venice in 1504.
In 1502, Wimpheling, the earliest writer in favour of the pretensions
of Strasburg, states, in his _Epitome Rerum Germanicarum_,
that Gutenberg was “the inventor of a new art of writing (_ars
impressoria_), which might also be called a divine benefit, and which
he happily _completed at Mentz_.”
In 1505, John Schœffer, _eldest son and successor to Peter_, Faust’s
son-in-law, declares in a Dedication to the Emperor Maximilian of
an edition of Livy, printed that year, that the admirable art of
Typography was invented at Mentz in the year 1450, by John Gutenberg,
and afterwards improved and perfected by the study, perseverance and
labour of John Faust and Peter Schœffer.[97] This work was edited by
the learned Dr. Ivo Wittig, the same who in 1508 erected the memorial
tablet in front of the house Zum Gutenberg, the inscription on which is
given at page 198.
About 1510, Mariangelus Accursius, a Neapolitan scholar of distinction,
wrote on the first page of a Donatus, printed on vellum, “Johan Faust,
a citizen of Mentz, the maternal grandfather of Johan Schœffer, first
found out the art of printing with types of brass, for which he
afterwards substituted those of lead; his son-in-law, Peter Schœffer,
greatly assisting him in perfecting the art. But this _Donatus_ and
_Confessionalia_ was first of all printed in the year 1450. It is
certain that he took the idea from a Donatus which had been before
printed from engraved wooden blocks in Holland.” The Donatus in which
this was written was in the possession of the younger Aldus, who shewed
it to Angelo Rocca, by whom the memorandum was copied, and printed in
the year 1591.
Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was intimate with the most learned men and
principal printers of Germany, Holland, Italy, and France, and whose
inquisitive mind led him to obtain information on every possible
topic; who had beside him for many years in the capacity of Secretary,
the same Quirinus Talesius from whom Junius obtained the confirmation
of the story of Nicholas Galius; who greatly eulogised the productions
of the Fleming, Jodocus Badius, a printer in France, and moreover
wrote the epitaph over his friend Theodore Martens, the first printer
in Belgium, and who was as jealous of the honor of his fatherland as
any Hollander could be; nevertheless repeatedly declared Faust to be
the earliest printer, and Mentz the city where printing was first
practised. This he did in 1518, in his dedicatory Epistle to an edition
of Livy, published by John Schœffer, and again in his own edition of
the Epistles of St. Hieronymous, published at Leyden in 1530.
Arnold de Bergel, in his _Encomion Chalcographiæ_, previously referred
to, describes the first printing of books by John Gutenberg at Mentz
in the year 1450. The idea originated, he says, by Gutenberg observing
while at Strasburg the impression made by his signet ring in soft
wax.[98]
Sebastian Munster, in his _Universal Cosmography_, printed in 1571,
states that in the years 1440 to 1450 the art of printing was invented
and first practised in Mentz by John Gutenberg, afterwards assisted by
John Faust and John Medinbach.
Peter Van Opmer,[99] a fellow-countryman and contemporary of Junius,
and a writer of repute, says with reference to the sudden outburst
of learning at the commencement of the fifteenth century:--“This was
effected by the assistance of that art, which from metal characters
of letters ingeniously cast, disposed in the order in which we write,
spread over with a convenient quantity of ink, and put under the press,
has ushered into the world books in all languages, and multiplied
their copies like a numerous offspring, and has obtained the name
of TYPOGRAPHY. This Art of Printing was most certainly invented and
brought to light by John Faust in the year 1440. It is amazing that
the author of so important a discovery, and so generous a promoter of
divine and human learning, should be unworthily forgotten, or only
casually remembered as a mere artist. Surely such a person deserves a
place amongst the greatest benefactors of mankind.”[100]
A goodly number of similar testimonies might easily be collected, in
not one of which is any reference made to either Coster or Haarlem. Not
a single Dutch or Flemish annalist or chronicler or historian, previous
to 1560, ever makes the slightest allusion to the man or the place in
connection with the art of printing. Even Jan Gerbrant, Prior of the
Carmelite Order at Haarlem, who died there in 1504, knew nothing of
the matter. Yet he is the compiler of the Chronicle of the Counts of
Holland and Bishops of Utrecht; and if printing had been the invention
of his contemporary Coster, and practised in the city of Haarlem, he
could not have been ignorant of the facts, nor would he have failed to
record them in his Chronicle.
Meerman and his followers vainly try to evade the force of this fatal
silence; all their learning and ingenuity are brought to bear, but
without effect; for if, as they maintain, the historians of that time
considered the attempts made at Haarlem so crude and imperfect, as
not to be worthy their notice, what is to be made of the statement of
Junius, that the invention attracted notice; that the works printed
were publicly sold, and the business increased so much, that numerous
workmen and assistants had to be engaged? The number of works said
by Koning and others to have issued from the Coster press, indicates
anything but a crude and imperfect state of the art; and if those works
had been printed by the sacristan of the great Church of Haarlem, the
Prior of the Carmelites, living in the city at the same time, must have
known of their existence. How then is his silence to be accounted for?
The only rational conclusion to which one can arrive, is, that the
tradition, which, after the growth of a hundred years was moulded into
historic narrative by Junius, had neither existence nor foundation in
the days of Prior Gerbrant. As an aid to history, in the elucidation
of facts otherwise obscure, tradition is a valuable auxiliary; but as
opposed to history and well known facts, there is no more unreliable
source of information. Every one is aware how witnesses of the same
occurrence will differ in their statements of the particulars of what
they saw; and all who have taken the pains to unravel old traditions
well know how wholly unlike their origin they ultimately and all
but invariably prove to be. There is no reason for supposing that
the traditional account of the origin of printing in Haarlem is an
exception to the rule. The age was one prone to the invention of
legends; and in the early days of printing in that city, and after
Ulric Zell had published his account at Cologne, and attributed to
Gutenberg the taking of the idea from the _Donatuses_ first printed
_in Holland_, it is by no means unlikely that an old printer, or an
old book-binder, in Haarlem, who had when a boy seen a specimen of a
_Biblia Pauperum_ or a _Donatus_, in the hands of the Sacristan of the
Church, would say, first, that he had seen the proof that printing
originated in Holland, there, in that city; then, stretching a point,
that printing originated there; others, repeating this, would assert
that the proof that such was the fact existed; that it had been seen
in the hands of the Coster; that the Coster printed it; that there was
the house he lived in; that it was a shame the Germans, who stole the
idea of the separable types from the Dutch, should get all the credit;
that they had robbed Coster of his fame; nay robbed him of his types;
that it must have been one of the Johns of Mentz who was the thief; and
so on, varying and amplifying the tale, until the time of Junius, who
finding the poem of Arnold de Bergel imparting a fresh halo of glory
to Mentz and her three first printers, adopted and embellished the
tradition, and borrowing certain ideas from Virgil as well as from
Bergel, gave in his _Batavia_ an account of the first conception and
ultimate realization of the idea, which should stand as a rival to the
account given in the _Encomion Chalcographiæ_.
The documents upon which the Haarlemese mainly rely, prove of
themselves that the tradition grew within the space of a few years
almost as rapidly as the pillar-like flower-stalk of the gigantic
American aloe, and effloresced as abundantly in the narrative of
Junius--the prolific progenitor of a host of subsequent writers:--for
first, (in say 1555,) the art only “became the companion of a certain
stranger;”[101]--then (1561) it “was carried to Mentz by an unfaithful
servant;”[102]--next, (1567) “the author of the invention _happening
to die before the art was brought to perfection_ and had acquired
repute, his servant they say went to reside at Mentz:”[103]--finally,
(1568) the foresworn workman, the thief John, _while his master was
still alive_ ... seizes the collection of types, and all the implements
his master had got together ... marches off to Amsterdam, thence to
Cologne, and at last settled at Mentz;--and Coster, lamenting his
losses, tells his woes to the little boy Cornelis, who used to help the
book-binder; and Cornelis is so powerfully affected by the tale, that
seventy-two years after, whenever he was asked to repeat it, he would
fall into passionate weepings, and curse and execrate the miscreant
John, and vow nothing would please him more, were he but alive, than
with his own hands to hang him outright.[104] These are the bases
upon which are built “the accumulated and still accumulating evidence
in favour of Coster,”--the “vast mass of unanswerable evidence in his
favour,”--in presence of which “the advocates of Gutenberg’s claim to
priority are slow to give way;” and for which slowness they are accused
of “closing both eyes and ears to testimony of every kind, refusing
to acknowledge that there is the slightest ground for the claims of
_Holland_ as against the, asserted, overwhelming evidence in favour of
Germany.”[105] With such writers, the array of facts on the Gutenberg
side of the question goes for naught. Pinning their faith to Junius they
... “with power (their power was great)
Hovering upon the waters what they met
Solid or slimy, as in raging sea
Toss’d up and down, together crowded drove
From each side shoaling.”
Labouring thus, they from Meerman to Van Meurs[106]
... “following his track
Paved after him a broad and beaten way
Over the dark abyss, whose boiling gulf
Tamely endured a bridge of wondrous length.”
And patriotic Dutchmen in the nineteenth century, with a full reliance
on the stability of the structure thus raised, have struck medals,
put up tablets, and erected monuments, commemorative of the memory of
the “immortal and incomparable Laurent Janssoen,” and the art he is
alleged to have invented, with an enthusiasm strangely at variance with
their utter ignorance of the man and his invention for upwards of a
century after his death.[107]
Of a very different opinion however was Erasmus, who, it may fairly
be presumed, was not left unacquainted by his secretary, Talesius,
with the tradition which assigned to Haarlem and Coster the origin of
printing; but who shewed, by his public declarations assigning that
honor to Mentz, that he deemed the tradition unworthy of belief, and
destitute of even a basis of truth. Of a different opinion too, was
Van Opmer, who must have been aware of the statements put forth in
Coornhert’s edition of Cicero’s Offices, and had opportunity of judging
of their truth; although Spiegel, living at the same time and in the
same city with Opmer, adopted them, and asserted Laurentius to be the
inventor of separable wooden types. Carl Van Mander, however, a later
writer, pursuing his investigations in the city of Haarlem, while
preparing the materials for his History of the Lives of Painters and
Engravers, which was printed there about 1605, is as silent on the
subject of Coster, as Prior Gerbrant.
Notwithstanding all this, Meerman and the multitude who follow in his
wake, cling to their faith in Junius. His assertions, contradictory as
they have been shewn to be, to those of writers immediately preceding
him, outweigh with them all other evidence. Enough for them the
support he receives in the testimony of Ulric Zell and Mariangelus
Accursius. The reader has that testimony before him, and can form
his own estimate of its weight on the Costerian side of the balance.
Zell is the only authority for the statement that Block-book Donatuses
were first printed _in Holland_. Accursius but recapitulates Zell’s
words, upon a Donatus which he states was printed by Faust at Mentz
in 1450. Zell was a Fleming, and although he learned the art of
printing at Mentz and carried it thence to Cologne, he had without
doubt his national partialities; his account is not however borne
out by that of Schœffer, given to Abbot Trithemius in 1484, although
the two statements are not contradictory. Neither do they contradict
the account of the origin of the art as stated by Bergel. Each may
supplement the other. The first idea of printing may have occurred
to Gutenberg from the impressions made in wax by his signet ring,
and his cogitations upon the subject have been further confirmed by
Block-books bought at Aix-la-Chapelle. It may therefore be admitted,
that Block-book Donatuses were printed and sold in Holland, prior to
1436. But what then? Haarlem is not Holland, any more than Liverpool is
England. And to argue that if such books were printed in Holland, they
must therefore have been produced at Haarlem;[108] and if the work of a
Hollander, why not of Coster?[109] is simply to attempt to cut through
a difficulty which has defied every other effort to penetrate or solve;
and moreover it leaves untouched the question, whether separable types
were first made in Germany or Holland, which is the hinge whereon the
whole controversy in regard to the origin of Typography turns.
But Junius specifies the “Mirror of Human Salvation,” as a work, the
like of which, or of which sort, was the work which had been printed by
Coster:--a work with wood-cut figures and descriptive text below, and
printed on one side only. There were several works of this kind known;
and although some have been alluded to in the previous chapters, a more
extended notice of them may here be given.
Temptationes Demonis; a large block covering one side of an entire
sheet of paper, and containing texts of Scripture, with figures of
angels and devils.
_Donatus_, de Octo Partibus Orationis.
_Biblia Pauperum_, consisting of forty leaves of small folio; each
leaf contains a central design of three scriptural subjects, with two
half-length figures of prophets or holy men both above and below; on
either side of these are explanatory descriptions, while beneath are
their names, with additional inscriptions on scrolls.
_Historia Sancti Johannis Evangelistæ, Ejusque Visiones Apocalypticæ_;
folio designs of scenes from the Apocalypse, two subjects on each page,
with labels and scrolls containing descriptive matter.
_Historia seu Providentia Virginis Mariæ, ex Cantico Canticorum_, or
the Book of Canticles; consisting of eight blocks, each containing four
designs, with Latin inscriptions on scrolls interspersed among the
figures.
Historia Beatæ Mariæ Virginis ex Evangelistis et Patribus excerpta et
per Figuras Demonstrata.
Defensorium inviolatæ Virginitatis Mariæ Virginis.
Der Entkrist, or the Book of Antichrist; consisting of thirty-nine cuts
with text.
Ars Memorandi; a quarto work of fourteen pages, consisting of whole
page engravings of symbols of the four Evangelists, with accompanying
pages of explanations.
_Ars Moriendi_; a series of quarto cuts, exhibiting the deaths of good
and bad men, with descriptive pages of text opposite the cuts.
A quarto work of thirty-two cuts, containing subjects of Sacred writ;
under each cut are fifteen verses in the German language.
_Speculum Humanæ Salvationis_; fifty-eight leaves, each containing
two designs, mostly from the Old or New Testament; each design has
a Latin inscription of one line engraved on it. Beneath is placed
the descriptive text. In the Latin edition there are five leaves of
preface, and in the Dutch four.
Die Kunst Cheiromantia; a work treating of palmistry.
Planetenbuch; treating of the influence of planets on human life.
Mirabilia Romæ; a guide to the principal shrines in Rome.
Opera nova contemplativa.
* * * * *
Of the above, Koning ascribes all those printed in italics to
Coster,[110] together with the _Catonis Disticha_, and _Horarium_,
the latter a book of eight small pages discovered by M. Enschedé of
Haarlem, containing the letters of the Alphabet, the Lord’s Prayer,
the Ave Maria, the Apostles’ Creed, &c., printed with moveable
characters.[111] Including separate editions, Koning gives Coster
the credit of printing seventeen works. Now the time, as well as
labour, involved in designing and engraving these works must have been
very great. In the _Biblia Pauperum_ there are 200 designs, besides
the text; in the _Book of Canticles_, 32; in the _Speculum Humanæ
Salvationis_, 116; besides those in the _Ars Moriendi_, and the
_Apocalypse_. These are among the very earliest specimens of design
and engraving on wood that are known to exist. If then these were
executed, as alleged, by Coster in Haarlem,[112] how came it, that
his contemporaries knew nothing of them; that Van Mander,--himself
an artist and an engraver, who describes in his History, written and
printed at Haarlem, the works of Flemish and Dutch artists living both
before and after Coster’s time,--is silent in regard to both the man
and his works?--although he says that the city of Haarlem “dares to
pretend to the glory of having invented printing.”
By this expression it is contended by Coster’s advocates, Van Mander
“intended to say, that the claims of Haarlem were well founded.” And
furthermore, that his silence is to be accounted for from the fact,
that “none of these wood engravings bear the initials of the artists
who designed or engraved them, and that he may have been uncertain as
to their names.” But what a lame and impotent conclusion is this to
arrive at. Van Mander, it is plain, knew of the tradition about the
origin of printing in Haarlem. His own work was carried down to the
year 1604, and Junius’s Batavia was printed in 1588--sixteen years
previously. He could not therefore have been ignorant of what was said
in that work about Coster, and his printing works with woodcuts similar
to those of the Mirror of Salvation. Knowing that, he must have made
inquiry concerning both, and have arrived at the same conclusion as
Erasmus and Van Opmer. Otherwise, how is his silence to be accounted
for? The very fact of the woodcuts being without initials should have
stimulated inquiry. They are the work of an artist of no mean skill;
and to suppose that he passed them by without notice, or without an
attempt to discover their designer, engraver, or printer, who was
alleged to have been a wealthy and influential burgher of the city in
which he was writing, is to cast a slur on Van Mander’s reputation as
an historian which he does not appear to deserve. Even as the works of
an unknown artist they demanded, and would have received, notice, had
they been printed and sold in the manner described by Junius, and those
who have subsequently amplified his narrative.
With regard to the engravings in the “Poor Man’s Bible,” Ottley says
(p. 87,) “the style of these cuts has considerable resemblance to
that of the two Van Eycks,” and he considers that the designs in this
work, together with those in the Book of Canticles, and the Mirror of
Salvation, were, with the exception of the last ten cuts of the latter,
the production of the same artist, or at any rate of artists of the
same school; all the others being of a different style, and of inferior
merit. He regrets his inability to speak with certainty upon their
age, but relies upon the following note in Dr. Dibdin’s _Bibliotheca
Spenceriana_, (vol. i. p. 4.)
“Mr. Horn, a gentleman long and well known for his familiar
acquaintance with ancient books printed abroad was in possession
of a copy of the _Biblia Pauperum_, of the _Ars Moriendi_, and
of the _Apocalypse_, all bound in one volume, which volume had
upon the exterior of the cover, the following words stamped
at the extremity of the binding, towards the edge of the
squares:--‘HIC LIBER RELEGATUS FUIT PER PLEBANUM ECCLESIE--ANNO
DOMINI 142[8].’ Mr. Horn having broken up the volume and parted
with its contents, was enabled to supply me with the foregoing
information _upon the strength of his memory alone_; but he is
quite confident of the three following particulars:--1, That
the works, contained in this volume, were as have been just
mentioned:--2, That the binding was the ancient legitimate one,
and that the treatise had _not_ been _subsequently_ introduced
into it:--and 3, That the date was 142...odd--but positively
anterior to the year 1430.”
This testimony Mr. Ottley considers it ungracious to question; but
“with all this,” he says, “I wish that the volume still existed entire,
or that, at least, the cover had been preserved.... But, whatever the
antiquity of the first block-books, which almost all writers are of
opinion preceded the first attempts to print with moveable characters,
it is certain, _that for many years after the invention of typography_,
the engravers in wood continued to publish works of this kind.”[113]
The most interesting of these works is the _Speculum Humanæ
Salvationis_, which in one of its four folio editions has the text
partly in block, and thus forms a connecting link between Xylographic
and Typographic printing. The whole of these four editions are thought
by many to have been printed previous to Gutenberg’s first production
at Mentz. They are attributed to Coster and his descendants solely
on account of the obscure passage in reference to them which occurs
in the narrative of Junius; and because of that reference, and their
manifest superiority over others of the same class, all those which
resemble them in general appearance and style of types, and that have
neither initial, date, name or place, to indicate by whom and when and
where they were printed, are in like manner claimed as the product of
Coster’s Press, by every writer who from the days of Meerman to the
present, has advocated the pretensions of Haarlem in opposition to
those of Mentz to be the seat of the origin of the Typographic Art.[114]
Of these four editions, the first and third, says Ottley, are those
in the Latin language; the second and fourth those in Dutch. The
engravings are the same in each; but differences exist in the texts;
and it is on the assumption that the text was printed previous to
taking the impressions of the cuts, that he deduces the order of the
editions from the condition and appearance of the cuts. According to
this arrangement, the text of the second edition is printed with the
same type that was used in the first, with the exception of two pages
containing cuts 45 and 56, the type of which is inferior to that of the
rest of the book. In the third edition (the second Latin) twenty pages
of the text are engraved on solid blocks. The types of the text of the
fourth edition, although similar in appearance to those of the three
preceding, are somewhat smaller and coarser.[115]
To account for these differences, Mr. Ottley has framed a theory which
exactly fits the narrative given by Junius, viz:--that while the second
edition (the first Dutch) was in progress and nearly finished, the
original printer died and his types were stolen, which compelled his
successor, who was unable to replace the original types, either to
use some older discarded ones, or to avail himself of a supply of an
inferior description in order to finish it; that while the first Dutch
edition was in progress a second Latin one was demanded, to meet which,
and to bring both the Dutch and the Latin out as quick as possible,
the wood engraver was employed to make fac-similes of the texts of
20 pages; and that for the fourth edition, an old inferior fount was
used. And upon this theory he says, (p. 298,) “I am of opinion that
the concluding passage of his (Junius’s) narrative, wherein, upon the
authority of Nicholas Galius and Quirinus Talesius, he relates the
story of the robbery which they had formerly more than once heard from
the mouth of Old Cornelius the book-binder, who in his youth had lived
in the service of the printer who was robbed, merits to be considered
as one of the best attested accounts that we possess respecting the
early history of typography.”!
But Messrs. Berjeau, Bernard,[116] Paiele,[117] and Humphreys, who have
also made the _Speculum_ a special subject of study, do not admit the
assumption that the text was printed before the cuts; they adduce good
arguments to shew that the impressions of the cuts might have been,
and probably were, rubbed off before the text was printed; and the
character of the Gothic framework of the cuts that surmount the pages
with solid text, being much plainer than that in those where moveable
type is used, affords strong ground for the belief that the edition in
which they occur was the first instead of the third; the first, that
is, that was issued in a completed form; for there can be no doubt but
that the splendid copy owned by the late J. B. Inglis, Esq., was the
first as regards the impression of the cuts,--the body of some of the
scrolls in that copy having been left untouched by the wood engraver,
while in all others it is cut away. This peculiarity it was that led
Mr. Ottley to the belief that it was the first completed edition,
both as regards cuts and texts; while Mr. Humphreys, with more
reason on his side, considers that the edition with the twenty pages
of xylographic text was the first. “The execution of the subjects,”
he says, (p. 60,) “is not equal to those of some of the pages with
the typographic text, and there is no foliage in the architectural
spandrils. This may serve to prove that the entirely xylographic pages
were older than the typographic ones; and that only a few of the best
of them were used in the edition which has typographic texts to most of
the illustrations.”[118] The conclusion to which these writers have
come, upsets Mr. Ottley’s theory, and renders nugatory his opinion,
that Junius’s story of the thief “is one of the best attested accounts
that we possess respecting the early history of typography.”
The weight which is attached to Mr. Ottley’s deliverances on the
subjects upon which he has written, (and particularly in regard to the
_Speculum_, to which four chapters of his work are devoted,) makes
it necessary to consider with care whatever he advances upon matters
wherein he is largely quoted as an authority by those who have not
had similar opportunities for examining the documents upon which he
bases his conclusions; and as he does not scruple to denounce those as
sophists whose arguments run counter to his own, and to triumphantly
expose any slips or inconsistencies which he can detect in the writings
of those to whom he opposes himself, it will be well to see whether he
is himself free from the failings he so ruthlessly exposes in others.
On the question of the separable types which were used in the various
editions of the _Speculum_, I shall therefore give his argument entire.
He first says--“this type appears to have been formed upon the exact
model of the genuine black letter, commonly used from an early period
in Holland, and which is of almost constant occurrence in old Dutch
manuscript Missals, and other books of prayer. It is similar, in the
forms and joinings of the letters, and in the contractions used in it,
to what we often find in the most highly embellished books of devotion
of the fourteenth century ... this broad-faced type, this genuine
black-letter, is a characteristic of early Dutch typography. This,
indeed, is now so generally acknowledged by Bibliographers, that it is
unnecessary to insist upon it further; as every judge of old printing
will at once declare, upon looking at the _Speculum_, that the type it
is printed with, is Dutch type.” To all which a ready assent may be
given. He proceeds as follows:--
“Any person at all conversant with printing, upon first viewing
the Speculum, naturally determines that, except the twenty
pages of block-printing, so often noticed, in one of the Latin
editions, it was printed with _cast metal types_. Upon an
attentive examination of a page, however, he discovers small,
but yet, sometimes, very evident variations of form in different
specimens of the same letter, which it appears difficult to
account for: he finds, perhaps, by measurement, that the same
word, although spelt exactly in the same manner, does not always
occupy the same space; he is induced perhaps, to hesitate as to
the correctness of his first judgment, and to suspect that the
type was prepared by the painful and tedious operation of cutting
each individual character on a separate piece of metal by the
hand.
“If he embrace the latter opinion, he finds, in the work before
him, ample cause to admire the invincible patience, the skill,
and the exactness of the artist, who could succeed, not only
in giving to the sculptured characters that general uniformity
of appearance, which at first occasioned him to consider them
as cast type; but even so strict a resemblance between perhaps
a dozen specimens of the same letter in the first six lines of
a page, as to baffle the exertions of the most correct eye to
detect any sensible difference between them, except such as must
necessarily occur even in the ordinary method of printing with
cast type; either in consequence of one letter happening to
have been more used and worse than another, more charged with
printing ink, or from an irregularity not unfrequent in ordinary
presswork, forced deeper into the paper than the rest.”
Having been “conversant with printing” for more than forty years,
during thirty-two of which I have been constantly engaged in
superintending the passing of works through the press, and in
the general management of extensive private and public printing
establishments, and having besides a practical knowledge of the arts
of wood-engraving, stereotyping, and type-founding, I must own, that
the impression made on my mind upon examining the fac-similes of the
_Speculum_ given in Wetter’s, Ottley’s, and Humphreys’ books, was,
that the separable types used in printing that work were cut in wood,
and were not made of cast metal; and the longer I have studied the
subject, the more satisfied I am, that Meerman was right in rejecting
the opinion of Enschedé,[119] who was strenuously opposed to the
idea of wooden types having been used. The eye that has been trained
to trace out and instantly detect the most minute differences in the
shapes of letters of different founts of the same sized types, from the
largest of those ordinarily used in book-work to the smallest employed
in newspapers,--to mark out for correction n’s and p’s and q’s that
have been turned upside down in order to serve for u’s and d’s and
b’s, and _vice versâ_, as well as to reverse turned s’s and o’s--all
common enough occurrences with careless compositors, and which only
practised eyes can detect;--the eye of a “reader” who has had only a
few years’ experience of such work cannot but note the multitudinous
differences, the variations in shape externally and internally, of
specimens of the same letters which occur in every line of the
fac-simile pages of the _Speculum_ given in the books quoted; and which
cannot be accounted for by one being more worn than another, or more
or less charged with ink, or more deeply pressed into the paper than
the rest. Such imperfections are of a totally different character, and
produce appearances altogether dissimilar to those which distinguish
the different specimens of the same letters in the same lines of the
_Speculum_ one from the other. Looked at through a magnifying glass,
these differences are of course much more easily discernible, and as
they are of precisely the same kind that are found in the letters in
the solid xylographic blocks, the conviction finally forces itself upon
the mind, that such types could not have been cast, but must have been
cut, and cut in wood. In an examination of this nature, the letters
of a single page, or at the most those of the two pages of a single
sheet, are all that can be attended to; for in their early efforts,
the oldest printers usually printed but one small folio page, and
seldom if ever more than two such pages at a time; and when as many
copies as were wanted were struck off, the types were broken up for the
next page, or two, and so on until the work in hand was completed. The
types therefore that were used in the two pages first printed would
constantly recur in all the following pages; and it is principally
owing to this recurrence of particular letters bearing on their faces
some special peculiarity, that the fact is detected that such ancient
books as the _Speculum_ are printed with moveable letters. Mr. Ottley
goes on:--
“_But let him_ (the person at all conversant with printing)
_turn from the page which he has been examining, to one of those
printed from a wooden block_; AND HE WILL SOON BE CONVINCED,
_by the comparison, that the uniformity of appearance which he
witnessed in the characters of the former, could not have been
produced by means similar to those used in the execution of
the latter_; for in the page printed from the engraved block
he will discover, throughout, a sensible difference of form,
as well as dimensions, between the various repetitions of the
same letter: and in the capital letters especially, he will find
this difference so material, as to render it easy for him to
trace with a point the precise variations of form by which, for
example, each of a dozen letters, S, is to be distinguished from
all the others. It will then occur to him, _that it must have
been a task of less difficulty to preserve uniformity in the
shapes and dimensions of the letters, in a page of text engraved
upon a plain block of wood_, which would have afforded the
artist not only _the means of a constant comparison_, but also
_a convenient and steady rest for his hand_ during the operation
of engraving, _than it could have been to cut the numerous
characters required_, with so strict a resemblance to each other,
_on small separate pieces of wood or metal_; and he will perceive
his second opinion to be untenable.”--(pp. 257-259.)
The means of such a comparison are afforded in the absolute fac-similes
in Mr. Humphreys’ book, and the differences of form and dimensions
in the various repetitions of the same letter are not by any means
so material as Mr. Ottley intimates. He moreover assumes, that if
the separate letters were cut by hand, they must have been cut on
“separate pieces of wood or metal,” and therefore, he argues, there
could not have been preserved the same uniformity “in the shapes and
dimensions of the letters,” as in a page of text engraved upon a plain
block of wood, because there would be lacking “the means of a constant
comparison,” as well as “the convenient and steady rest for the hand
during the operation of engraving.” But this assumption is utterly
uncalled for. What was to hinder the engraver, after calculating the
probable number of each kind of letter he required, to trace the whole
in alphabetical order on his blocks of wood, and to engrave them all,
before he cut them into separate pieces? He would thus have the best
possible means for constantly comparing every specimen of the same
letter, as he proceeded with his task, and be able to preserve a steady
and convenient rest for his hand until all were sculptured out, leaving
the minor operation of separating the letters for use in combination to
the very last moment. But Mr. Ottley forgets himself; for in the next
chapter, after pointing out sundry differences in the orthography of
the pages printed with moveable types in the two Latin editions, he
writes (p. 294):--
“If the pages printed from engraved blocks, in the Second Latin
Edition, be compared with same pages in the First Edition, we
shall not find these changes.
“Although, when I wrote upon this subject twenty years ago, I was
fully satisfied, as I then said, that the twenty pages of block
printing in the Second Latin Edition, were of later date than the
rest of the work, and that they had been engraved for the express
purpose of completing the copies of this edition; still I was not
then aware that such undeniable evidence existed of the fact,
as I afterwards discovered. Suffice it to say, that, upon an
opportunity being afforded me of comparing this edition with the
First Latin, I immediately perceived (and I was rather gratified
than surprised at the discovery) that those twenty pages in the
Second Latin are no other than _fac-simile imitations of the same
pages, as printed with type in the first edition_.
“The printer, or his successor, as has been said, having been
deprived of the type hitherto used in the work, printed the two
pages wanting to complete his Dutch edition with the remains
of some old type, a little different, which had previously
been thrown aside, as no longer fit for use. But in doing it,
he experienced, perhaps, more trouble than he anticipated; and
as twenty pages, instead of two, were wanting to complete the
second Latin edition, he now bethought himself of another mode of
procedure. Having taken from a copy of the first Latin edition
the ten sheets containing the twenty pages wanting to complete
the second edition, and having corrected with a pen a letter
here and there misprinted, he delivered those sheets to a wood
engraver, with directions to copy them exactly; and the engraver
executed the commission, by first glueing these ten sheets with
their face downwards upon ten prepared blocks of wood (according
to the method then used), then, rendering the paper transparent
by oil or otherwise, and lastly, by cutting away the wood around
the letters.”