is purely conjectural; there is not the slightest foundation for it,
beyond the necessity for thus accounting for a certain fact, and making
that fact dove-tail in with the writer’s theory that the edition with
twenty-pages of xylographic text was the second, and not the first; a
theory which equally able writers, writers too on the Costerian side
of the controversy, deny; maintaining, with a better show of reason
on their side, that the xylographic edition was the first. But apart
from this consideration, _if the twenty pages engraved on blocks,
are fac-simile imitations_ of the twenty corresponding pages in the
other Latin edition, what are we to think of Mr. Ottley’s previous
assertion, that in these identical pages, there is “_throughout, a
sensible difference of form as well as dimensions_ between the various
repetitions of the same letter; _and in the capital letters especially,
this difference is material_.”? Both statements cannot be correct; and
how they are to be reconciled I know not.
After confessing that the changes of opinion he had previously
described were those which had taken place in his own mind, Mr. Ottley
proceeds:--
“At length the following mode occurred to me of accounting
satisfactorily, as I still think it does, for the dissimilarities
above noticed in the type of that work. The type of the
_Speculum_ was, I conceive, made by pouring melted lead, pewter,
or other metal, into moulds of earth or plaster, formed, whilst
the earth or plaster was in a moist state, upon letters cut by
the hand in wood or metal; in the ordinary manner used, from time
immemorial, in casting statues of bronze and other articles of
metal, whether for use or ornament. The mould thus formed could
not be of long duration like a matrix, cut or stamped in metal,
since it was obviously subject to fracture; nor could it be
equally true and perfect in other respects, as it was liable to
warp in drying. From moulds thus constructed, but a small number
of specimens of each letter could be taken, before they would
require to be renewed. This it is reasonable to suppose, was
effected _by forming new moulds upon the various pieces which
had been cast out of the old ones_. Those characters however,
before they could have been fit for use, it had been necessary
to clear, by means of the graver, from certain small particles
of extraneous metal left upon them by the process of casting; so
that the small accidental dissimilarities in different specimens
of the same letter, originally occasioned by this imperfect mode
of casting them, were necessarily augmented by the after process
of finishing or clearing them with a sharp instrument, (the marks
of which are very clearly to be perceived in the type of the
Speculum); and thus the renewed moulds, formed upon the letters
thus prepared, would necessarily differ, and in some cases very
materially, from the former moulds, and also (for these moulds
could be multiplied at pleasure) from each other. That a book,
printed with type thus manufactured, should present a never
ending variety in the forms of the different specimens of the
same letter, is therefore not surprising; it is rather a subject
for our admiration that the dissimilarity in the characters in
the work before us is not greater and more immediately apparent.”
The above mode of accounting for the discrepancies in the appearances
of the different specimens of the same letter, is opposed to that put
forward by Koning, who takes it for granted that the types were cast
by the printer of the _Speculum_ in the same way, and with the same
kind of apparatus, as that now used by type-founders, only that the
punches were made of hard wood, and the matrices of lead or pewter; and
he accounts for certain peculiar fractures he had perceived in several
instances on the top of the capital =E= as well as in a number of the
capital =M= in which a part of the central upright stroke was broken in
the middle, by supposing that some of the punches had been continued in
use after they had received small injuries.
On the supposition that the types of the _Speculum_ really were of
cast metal, Koning’s idea is much more reasonable than that of Ottley;
but he is wrong in his notion that matrices could be struck in lead
or pewter, from punches of hard wood on which letters of the size and
character of those used in the _Speculum_ had been engraved. A few
indifferent matrices might indeed be struck from some of the larger
letters, say the letter =m=, but of the smaller ones, and those which
had fine hair strokes, both capitals and minuscules, the fine strokes
and faces of the letters would invariably be crushed. That, at any
rate, is the result of a series of experiments made by the writer, with
the view of ascertaining whether with letters so engraved on wood and
with the softest procurable sheet lead, matrices could be struck from
which types might be cast; and in which he was not successful in a
single instance.
Admitting, however, for the moment, that the printer of the _Speculum_
succeeded in striking a complete set of matrices; it has been proved
by experiments, that from matrices of soft lead as many as from 120 to
150 letters can be cast,[120] before they are rendered useless; only
after 50 or 60 had been made, the fine strokes would begin to thicken.
Now it has already been shewn, that the oldest printers did not put
to press more than a single page, or at most two pages, at a time, in
their earliest attempts in the new art. This is a fact, acknowledged
by every one who has made the Incunabula of the Fifteenth century
a subject of special study. Admitting then that two pages of the
_Speculum_ were printed together, what amount of type, and how many of
each letter would be required for those two pages?
An analysis of the fac-simile given in Mr. Humphreys’ work yields the
following results. About 1430 separate types in the one page gives
2860 as the number required for two. The following figures (twice the
number occurring in the specimen page) shew the numbers required of
each of the letters most commonly used, a 44, e 122, i 182, o 146,
u 74, d 44, h 28, m 60, n 100, s 84, t 82; there are, besides, the
following duplicate and triplicate characters, of which no other
printed work shews so large a number,--an, ca, cā, cc, ce, ch, ci, cī,
co, cō, ct, cti, cu, cū, cp, cy, da, dā, de, dē, do, du, dū, eē, et,
ect, fa, fā, fe, ff, fi, fl, fo, fr, fu, ga, ge, gē, gi, go, gu, gū,
gp, gr, gy, ii, ib, in, la, le, lē, li, ll, lle, llz, œ, ori, no, nō,
nu, pe, pp, ra, rā, re, rē, ri, ro, rō, ru, rū, ria, sa, se, si, so,
ss, st, ssi, ssz, ste, ta, tā, te, tē, ti, to, tu, tū, tri,--varying
in the frequency of their occurrence from twice to twenty-two times,
leaving but 1082 other letters for the rest of the alphabet, including
the capitals: and of these last from 6 to say 40 would be the utmost
of each required. It is thus shewn, that out of the whole number of
matrices, upwards of 300, which would be required for a complete
fount, not more than _eight_ would be used up to or beyond the point
where the fine strokes (supposing the matrices to have been of soft
lead) would begun to thicken; and of these it would be a most easy
matter to provide duplicates or triplicates, in order to preserve the
uniformity of character aimed at by the first printers, in imitation
of the manuscripts they intended their works to supersede. _All the
letters thus cast, would moreover, be fac-similes of each other_, and
would not, nay could not, present those dissimilarities of appearance
observable in specimens of the same letter occurring in every line of
the _Speculum_. Koning’s idea is thus proved to be erroneous.
But Ottley’s is much more so. Types of the size of those used in the
_Speculum_ could no doubt be cast in the way he describes, either in
plaster, or in the fine prepared sand or earth used by workers in
metal. The original letter cut by hand would be the _pattern_ type,
from which every mould for that description of letter would be made;
but the mould so made would suffice for _but one specimen_ of that one
letter; for after it had dried, and the fused metal had been poured in
and cooled, the cast letter could only be extracted by breaking away
the earth or plaster in which it had been moulded; and if the mould had
been made with ordinary care by an expert workman, the letter would
turn out an exact fac-simile of the pattern on which the mould had
been made. There would not be the slightest necessity for clearing off
particles of sand or plaster adhering to the face of the letter, so
as to leave upon it marks of the graving tool, nor yet of continually
re-casting new types in moulds made from others so disfigured. From
the one pattern type first made of each letter, as many moulds as were
wanted for the whole supply of every letter could be made, before the
operation of casting a single type was commenced; and whatever defect
was observed in any of the types after the casting, could be much more
satisfactorily remedied by a fresh cast in a mould from the original
pattern, than by graving the face of the letter and so altering its
appearance. The main object of casting the types was to make every
letter the exact counterpart of its fellow; and if the mode of casting
was so imperfect, that each one had to be touched up and cleared out
with a graver, before it could be used, that object was defeated. But
for so complicated a process there was no need, for wooden types can
be cut and completed in much less time than would be occupied by the
moulding, drying, casting, clearing and touching up, necessitated by
the Ottley-method of producing metal types. This has also been proved
by actual experiment: and my previous conviction that the separable
letters used in the _Speculum_ were, and could only be, hand-cut wooden
types, was thus still further confirmed. The marks of the graver,
which, as Mr. Ottley points out, “are very clearly to be perceived in
the type of the _Speculum_,” are just those that were produced by the
“letter-snyder” in the course of cutting out his letters, which, as
they were finished, were sent direct from his hands to those of the
printers.[121]
The extraordinary number of duplicate and triplicate (logographs) as
well as ligatured letters, that are made use of in the _Speculum_, has
already been referred to. Mr. Ottley considers that they are a proof
of the antiquity of that work; but in that direction they only exhibit
a peculiarity which is not observable in other works: they furnish
however a strong argument in proof of the types of the _Speculum_
having been cut in wood. For, taking into account the limited number
of letters required for that work (printed but two pages at a time),
to cut _ninety_ separate punches, and to strike the same number of
matrices, when one-third of that number would suffice, was a gratuitous
waste of labour; whereas, in cutting wooden types sufficient for the
composition of two pages, a great saving of time would be effected by
duplicating and triplicating as many characters as possible; and not
only would time and labour be thus saved, but the types themselves, by
being double or treble the thickness of single letters, would be so
much the stronger and more durable.
But, say certain writers, amongst whom is Wetter: “It is impossible
to print with such small wooden types” as those used in the
_Speculum_.[122] Now Wetter’s object was to shew that the _Speculum_
was of a much later date than is attributed to it by Dutch
authorities,[123] and he argues that the types used must have been
metal, although Meerman insists upon it that they were of wood. It
is singular that Wetter should have committed himself to such a
statement, when in Tab. II. of his work he has printed a whole column
from wooden-types, some of which are of the same size as those in the
_Speculum_. Possibly he considered that the numerous hair strokes,
and particularly those which front the capital A and the minuscule t,
(peculiarities found only in letters of the _Speculum_ school) were too
fragile to withstand the pressure of printing.
Baron Heinecken,[124] from whom Wetter in all probability borrowed
some of his ideas, is of opinion that all the separable letters used
in the four folio editions of the _Speculum_ were of cast metal, and
that they were printed by Germans who imitated the Gothic style of
type first used by Gutenberg at Mentz. In one place he writes:--“It
is almost certain that the Speculum Salvationis in Latin was first
printed in Germany; and that it was afterwards translated and printed
in the Low Countries.” Elsewhere he says, “I come at last to the new
edition of the _Speculum_, which the printer Johan Veldener published
in 1483, with his name, in the Flemish language. The vignettes which
are placed at the head of each discourse, are the same as those we see
in the ancient editions. He cut the engraved blocks, which represented
always two sacred or historical subjects, sawing through the middle
of the central pillar which divided them, so as to make them into two
pieces, in order to insert them in this new edition, which is in small
4to.” “It was probably Theodore Martens,” he remarks further on, “that
brought these vignettes with him from Germany, or from France.... We
may also conjecture that Johan of Westphalia was the printer of the
first Flemish editions, and that Veldener received the blocks from
him.... Veldener, after having learned Typography at Cologne, went
to live at Louvain, where he printed in 1476, among other books, the
_Fasciculus Temporum_ in Latin, with figures engraved in wood. This
same printer afterward went to Utrecht, where in 1480, he published
the same work in Flemish, introducing also the same cuts which he had
brought with him from Louvain.... Nothing seems more natural than that
he should have brought with him from Cologne the ancient moulds or
matrices, from which the rude type of the two first Flemish editions
of the _Speculum_ already spoken of was cast; nothing more reasonable,
than that he should afterward abandon that type at Louvain or at
Utrecht, or rather at Culemborch, after having made better; for he was
certainly a man of enterprise and genius.”
Heinecken concludes this part of his argument by saying, “I trust
that this extravagant notion of finding books, and sometimes even
large volumes, printed with these moveable characters of wood, will by
degrees cease, and that able printers may be found, _who will shew the
impossibility of it_.”
There is not however, any _impossibility_ in the matter. Box wood
will bear printing from better than soft lead; and Mr. Blades has
demonstrated that types of unhardened lead can be used at an ordinary
printing press,--the half of plate IX. B, in the 2d volume of his
_Life and Typography of William Caxton_ being printed from such types.
Argument however is needless in the presence of a fact, and in the word
=Art= here given, each of the three letters is separately engraved on
a piece of box-wood, the shanks of the letters being two sizes smaller
than those of the _Speculum_, while a portion of the upper part of
the capital overhangs its shank; each letter is also perforated and
nicked, and is therefore altogether weaker than a letter of the same
size as in the _Speculum_ would be. As a proof that it was perfectly
possible for such works as the _Speculum_ to have been printed with
wooden types, three such letters are as good as three thousand; and
letters with the finest strokes most exposed to damage have been
purposely selected, in order to demonstrate the fact.
The existence in the middle of the Fifteenth century of Guilds or
confraternities of trades connected with book-making, in Antwerp,
Bruges, and Brussels, amongst whom were included ‘Prenters,’ ‘Letter-,’
and ‘Form-snyders,’ and ‘Beelde-makers;’--Letter and Form and Figure
engravers, and those who printed them;--is brought forward as a part of
the “vast mass” of so-called “unanswerable evidence,” which sustains
the claims of Coster and Haarlem to be the man and the place by whom
and where the Art of Typography was invented.
“The ‘figure engravers’ (writes Mr. Blades,) were doubtless the artists
of the playing cards, the images of saints, and the block-books,
then manufactured to a great extent in Holland and Flanders. The
term ‘letter engraver’ may have been applied to the sculptor of the
legends on the block-books, when not executed by the same artist as the
figure itself, but of this there is no evidence, and it seems far from
impossible that the term was used to denote artists employed to produce
moveable types. The ‘printers’ were doubtless workmen who took the
impressions, whether by friction or a press, from the engraved blocks
delivered to them; but there is no reason to restrict the meaning of
the word, and the same term was from the commencement always applied
to printers from moveable types. There is therefore, _primâ facie_,
evidence to support the supposition that at a very early period there
were workmen in Bruges who employed themselves, albeit in a very
rudimentary way, in printing from moveable types.”
But if moveable types were at this date in use at Bruges or elsewhere
in Holland, and if these were of cast fusile metal, how comes
it that “Letter-zetters” and “Letter-geiters,”--compositors and
type-founders,--are not included among the crafts incorporated by the
Guilds? How comes it, too, that no mention is made of the “Drukker,”
and the “Drukkers-maker”--the press and press-maker? “Printer” is a
common enough term applied to pressmen now-a-days, but as late as 1454
it had an exclusive reference to the producer of prints--the printers
of the figures sculptured by the “Beelde-makers” on the solid blocks;
and it may safely be inferred that these prints were produced after
the Chinese manner, by friction, seeing that the term “Drukker,” is
that which is applied amongst the Dutch to letter-press printers,--the
pressmen of modern days.
If, moreover, from the mention of “letter engravers” and “printers”
in the records of the Dutch Guilds referred to, we are to understand
that there is “_primâ facie_ evidence to support the supposition that
at a very early period there were workmen ... who employed themselves
in working from moveable types,”--typographic printers in fact,--then,
upon the same ground, it must be admitted that there is _primâ facie_
evidence for admitting the priority of the art in various parts of
Germany, for as early as 1428 we find a record of a “letter-printer,”
one Wilhelm Kegler, at Nördlingen, besides card-makers at Augsburg in
1418. And in 1440 there is found a record of Henne Cruse of Mayence,
one of the fraternity, on the roll of the citizens of Frankfort.[125]
But so far from there being any such _primâ facie_ evidence, the
inference to be drawn lies, I think, in an opposite direction; and
the absence of all mention of “Letter-zetters,” “Letter-geiters,”
“Drukkers,” and “Drukker-makers,” is rather to be considered a proof
that they were not then known; that moveable types and presses had not
at that time been introduced; and that “Letter-snyders,” and “Prenters”
were wholly and solely engaged upon block-books, just as much as the
“Beelde-makers,” the figure-engravers were.
“The general opinion of late writers,”[126] Mr. Blades continues, “is,
that the art was first _perfected_ at Mentz ... but that nevertheless
the _earliest use_ of moveable types must be recognized in the rude
specimens attributed to Laurence Coster of Haarlem. Coster died in
1440, and nothing is known to have issued from his press between
that period and 1483; but what became of his assistants? Did they,
after gaining some insight into the curious effects of Coster’s
trials, resign all further attempts, or did they seek to imitate
him, some in one town, some in another?” These are very pertinent
questions, inasmuch as if they are asked in reference to the assistants
of Gutenberg, Faust and Schœffer, they can be answered in the
affirmative, and their respective movements traced. But asked with
reference to Coster, the disappointing answer is, “NO ONE KNOWS;” yet
it seems more than probable that _experiments in the direction of
printing from moveable types were making about this period in every
city where wood engraving and block-printing were practised_.... The
idea was simple enough, in the execution was the difficulty. Nor need
the opinion that at Bruges there existed at a very early period rude
printers, be based on the notice of ‘letter-snyders’ and ‘prenters’
only; there has fortunately been preserved in the Archives at Lille
an original manuscript, containing a diary of Jean le Robert, Abbé de
S. Aubert de Cambrai, among the entries in which the two following are
especially worthy of notice:--
“Item pour .j. doctrinal gette en molle anuoiet querre a Brug.
par Marquet .j. escripuain de Vallen. ou mois de jenuier xlv.
pour Jaq. xx. s.t.”
“Item enuoiet Arras .j. doctrinal pour apprendre ledit d. Girard
qui fu accatez a Vallen. et estoit jettez en molle et cousta
xxiiij. gr. Se me renuoia led. doctrinal le jour de Touss. lan.
.lj. disans quil ne falloit rien et estoit tout faulx. Sen anoit
accate .j. x patt. en. papier.”[127]
“Item. For a printed Doctrinal (doctrinal gette en molle) that I
have sent for to Bruges, by Marquet, a writer of Valenciennes, in
the month of January, 1445 (_i. e._ 1446) for Jacquet, xx sous
tournois.”
“Item. Sent to Arras a Doctrinal for the instruction of dom.
Gerard, which was purchased at Valenciennes, and was printed
(jettez en molle) and cost xxiiij. gros. The same Doctrinal he
returned to me on Christmas Day 1451, saying ‘it was worthless,
and full of errors;’ he had bought one on paper for xx patards.”
In these memoranda, says Mr. Humphreys, (pp. 66-67) “we have positive
proof that printed Doctrinals were commonly sold in Flanders in 1445;
and M. Bernard was the first to elucidate the full value and bearing
of this passage, of which M. Van Praet,[128] who had already mentioned
it, failed to see the drift, from not understanding the meaning of the
term _gette_, or rather _jette_, _en molle_, which simply means cast
in a mould, in reference to the metallic types, which were so cast.
That M. Bernard is correct in his explanation of the term, is clearly
proved by many passages having reference to the same subject, in which
the term is used as one well understood. For instance, in the letters
of naturalization accorded to the first printers with moveable types
established in Paris, a document dated 1474 (old style) the terms
_ecriture en molle_ or writing by means of moulds, or moulded letters,
is used. Also, in 1496, on the occasion of the purchase of two books
of prayer by the Duke of Orleans, the Constable describes them as
both _escrites en moule_. Also, in the list of furniture and books of
Anne of Britanny about the same time, books are mentioned ‘_tant en
parchemin que en papier, à la main, et en molle_;’ that is, both on
vellum and on paper, both manuscript and printed.”
Commenting upon these memoranda, Mr. Blades exclaims, “_Jettez en
molle!_--Cast in a mould! What can this expression mean, except
that the ‘Doctrinals’ were printed from cast types? As applied to
manuscripts, or to stencilling, or to block-printing, ‘_jettez en
molle_’ has no meaning whatever.”
“Drowning men,” it has well been said, “will clutch at a straw,” and
surely a consciousness of the peril in which their argument stood, must
have made the above writers clutch at Abbé Jean le Robert’s memoranda
in the way they have. It may be admitted, that the phrase “à la main,
et en molle,” means “_both manuscript and printed_;” but upon what fair
principle of philology M. Bernard and Mr. Humphreys make out that the
words “jettez en molle,” “ecriture en molle,” and “escrites en moule,”
mean “cast in a mould, _in reference to the metallic types which were
so cast_,” and “writing by means of moulds, _or moulded letters_;” is
more than I can make out. They may certainly be understood in such a
sense _now_, but when originally used they could only have referred
to the moulded appearance,--the indented impressions on the leaves of
the book, totally irrespective of the types or blocks by which such
appearance was produced.
Certainly, as applied to _manuscripts_, the phrase “_jettez en molle_”
has no meaning. But with all deference to Mr. Blades, whose “Life and
Typography of William Caxton,” is a work of the highest possible merit
with reference to all that concerns the introduction of Printing into
England,--the words in question are pregnant with meaning in regard
to both block-printing and stencilling. Every one acquainted with the
ordinary processes of printing must know, that freshly-printed paper
has exactly the appearance of having been moulded; the damped paper,
in fact, is actually moulded on the type or wood-engraving, by the
forcible pressure brought to bear upon it, and on being released from
that pressure, the paper cast that has been made brings away with it,
on removal, the colouring matter with which the blocks or types have
been inked. In the old solid blocks, when the hollows cut to leave in
relief the characters used for the School-books--the Donatuses and
Doctrinals--would be wider, deeper, and more irregular than in the
more modern types, this indented and moulded appearance would be much
more apparent, especially when impressions were taken by the Chinese
method of rubbing the back of the paper, and the printer was careless
about smoothing out and obliterating the evidences of indentation, in
the manner adopted by typographers now-a-days. In stencilling too, the
perforated plate, when laid upon the paper, became to all intents and
purposes a mould. The bottom of the mould was the surface of the paper
on which, through the perforations in the plate, the ink or pigment
would be brushed, the paper being thus made to take a coloured cast of
the hollows in the plate. With reference to either process therefore,
the phrase “_jettez en molle_” might most naturally be used to express
on the part of any one ignorant of the process of printing, the
appearance of a book which he knew was not written, but which bore upon
its face the evidence of having, in some way or other, been cast or
moulded. As this evidence would appear the same, or nearly so, whether
produced from engraved blocks, or from separable letters, the phrase
would be just as applicable in the one case as in the other. When thus
examined, the assertion that “_jettez en molle_” means, and can only
mean, “_printed from cast types_,” is deprived of all its weight, and
the phrase itself is valueless as an evidence that cast types were in
use at Bruges, or elsewhere in Holland, at the time when Abbé Jean le
Robert wrote his diary.
Xylographic and typographic productions, as well as that edition of
the Mirror of Human Salvation which partook of the nature of both, may
therefore be described alike, as books “jettez en molle.”
But in endeavouring to ascertain the time when this latter work was
printed, there are still two important points to be considered; and
these are, the age of the paper, and the date of the costume and armour
of the figures represented in the vignettes. On both of these points
Mr. Ottley’s writings are most instructive. As regards the first, the
only guides are the paper-marks, and as the same marks continued to
be used by manufacturers for many successive years, it follows, that
although the _Speculum_ might possibly have been printed when peculiar
marks were first made use of, the printing may, just as likely, not
have taken place till many years later: the only certainty, therefore,
that an undated paper-mark affords, is, that the work in which it
appears could not have been printed prior to the time when it has been
ascertained that that particular mark was originally introduced.
The marks observed in the paper on which the earliest edition of
the _Speculum_ is printed, consist of a fleur-de-lis (or anchor) an
unicorn, two keys side by side, a hand, a St. Catharine wheel, a circle
enclosing the letters M A with a coat of arms beneath; and the letter
P; and in the later Latin edition, the letter Y. These three last are
considered the most important, and are dealt with as such by Mr.
Koning.
As to the circle with the letters and coat of arms, he says, the
initials signify without doubt, the initials of Margaret, widow of
William, Count of Holland, and the mother of the Countess Jacqueline,
the arms being those of Bavaria, whence he concludes, that the paper
was manufactured during the reign of the Countess Jacqueline in Brabant
and Hainault, after her marriage with the Dauphin, and before the
treaty of transfer made to Philip of Burgundy in 1433, it being the
custom of manufacturers of paper in the fifteenth century to put the
arms of their sovereigns in their marks. Mr. Ottley, however, points
out, that this usage was rare before the latter part of the century,
although afterwards the practise became common.
The letter P, which Koning considers to have been the initial of
Philip of Burgundy (who reigned in Brabant from 1430 to 1467,) was
found by him, he says, in a memorandum of accounts of the date 1432;
and he remarks further, that “a large proportion of the books printed
in Holland in the latter part of the fifteenth century, have this
paper-mark, which will never be found in any book, nor in any paper,
coming from Germany or from Italy.”
This last assertion Mr. Ottley disproves, by citing several instances
of its occurrence in various works of Zell, as well as the marks of
the unicorn, the two keys, and the capital Y, &c., shewing, as he
says, that Koning has “_erred egregiously_.” He also says (note, p.
160,) “The supposed _initial of Philip the Bold_ is very doubtful. I
have reason to believe that the paper on which it is found was made in
Italy.” And he moreover shews, that he could not find it in any of Mr.
Koning’s tracings, earlier than 1453. He himself saw it “in company
with other papers which _he thought_ not to be older than 1438; but in
a dated book he did not find it earlier than 1445.”
“The letter Y,” says Mr. Koning, “is, without doubt, the initial of
Ysabel of Portugal, who was married to Philip le Bon in 1430.”
Mr. Koning sums up the third chapter of his book by saying, “the
paper-marks prove that the said works were published between the years
1420 and 1440; since it appears from what has been said above, that the
paper of the first Dutch edition (of the _Speculum_) which is evidently
the most ancient, bears alone the marks which are the most ancient;
that is to say, the arms of Bavaria which were used by the paper-makers
in the reign of the Countess Jacqueline, and consequently, before the
year 1428; and that the paper of the second or third edition of the
_Speculum_ bears the letter P, the mark of the sovereign Philip of
Burgundy, which certainly was not in usage until the year 1425.”
Upon all this Mr. Ottley thus comments:--(pp. 163-164).
“Now, with respect to _the Gothic letter P_, which was so much
used on paper, from the middle of the fifteenth to the early part
of the sixteenth century, I shall not take upon me to deny Mr.
Koning’s assertion, that it is to be considered as _the initial
of Philip of Burgundy_; although, as it appears to have been
used in other parts, as well as in his dominions, and continued
so long after his death (as was the _Y_ also, after that of
_Ysabel_, the wife of Philip), the fact may be doubted. As to Mr.
Koning’s hypothesis, concerning the _two_ paper-marks with the
_arms of Bavaria_, it is certainly ingenious: and, had he proved
that the paper so marked, was manufactured in the dominions of
_Jacqueline_, or of her mother _Margaret_, at the early period
he speaks of, I should have thought it so strong a circumstance,
in favour of that edition of the _Speculum_ in which those
paper-marks occur, that I should have felt disposed to carry
back the three preceding editions of that work (for it certainly
is the fourth) to a very remote period indeed, rather than have
denied that it was printed at the early date he has assigned
to it. But _first_, Mr. Koning has brought no evidence to shew
that the paper was made in Brabant; (for the circumstance,
supposing it true, that all the paper used in those times, at
Haarlem, came from that great commercial depôt, Antwerp, proves
nothing, since paper coming from different parts, was doubtless
sold there); and, _secondly_, we have no proof that it was made
at that early period. Suffice it for me to add, that neither
of these paper-marks was to be found among the tracings, made
by Mr. Koning from the ancient registers of Haarlem, which, as
I have said, he was so good as to lend to me; and that after a
diligent search of several months in the extensive collections
of original Books of Accounts, from 1352 to about 1470, in the
archives at the Hague, I was unable to discover either of them;
though at length I chanced to find them both, in a book in sq.
fol. obligingly lent to me by Mr. De Jonge, now the principal
archivist at the Hague; viz. the _Fasciculus Temporum_ in Dutch,
printed at Utrecht, by _Joh. Veldener_, in 1480; though perhaps
the paper was not made from the same identical sieves or moulds,
as the paper that is found in the _Speculum_.”
Thus then, Mr. Ottley, who “shews a determined inclination to favour
the claims of Laurent Coster,”[129] also shews, that M. Koning, who
obtained the prize from the Dutch Society of Arts and Sciences at
Haarlem, for the best dissertation in support of the ancient tradition
that the Art of Printing was invented in that city,--is wrong in
his assertions in regard to the paper-marks; and that the earliest
instances of the occurrence of those to which Koning chiefly refers,
the Gothic P, and the arms of Bavaria, are in the years 1445, 1453, and
1480.
It follows therefore, from the evidence of the paper-marks, that the
printing of the _Speculum_ could not have taken place before 1445; that
most probably it was not printed earlier than 1453; and that it may
not have issued from the press before even 1480. Consequently, as the
_Speculum_ was the first Dutch work printed with separable types, it
cannot claim priority over the invention of Gutenberg, which, as has
been shewn in the preceding chapter, must have been previous to 1436.
As to the costume and armour of the figures in the vignettes of the
_Speculum_,[130] the following extracts from Sir Samuel Meyrick’s
letter to Mr. Ottley, and the observations of the latter thereon, are
most pertinent. Sir Samuel says:--
“Next to actual dates, there is no criterion of age so sure as
_Costume, which, changing on an average within every ten years,
fixes the real period, almost precisely_; especially, as, all
its parts not varying at the same moment, the one rectifies the
vagueness of the other. After costume, ornament is a fair guide,
as is architecture; and next to these, the style of writing,
where the subject is a manuscript.
“You are, no doubt, well aware that the _designers of the middle
ages_, until the latter part of the seventeenth century, _always
dressed their figures from the objects before their eyes_; and
those writers who would fabricate descriptions of what they
wished should be supposed to have occurred before their times,
always used the terms of costume applicable to their own period.”
Then follow numerous illustrations and references, in proof of the
position laid down; amongst which are the different articles of armour
used from the reigns of Edward I, to Henry VIII. With reference to some
of these articles, Sir S. Meyrick continues:--
“On comparing these with what appears in the woodcuts to the
Speculum, the identity will be evident. It is true that their
use continued till the close of the fifteenth century; but this
authority shews that they were also known at its commencement....
“On a careful review and consideration of the whole, I am
inclined to think, that the wood-blocks of the Speculum cannot be
of later date than 1435, and that they may be a little earlier;
nor is this opinion in the least degree shaken on an examination
of the rest, besides that of which you more particularly asked
it.”
But Mr. Ottley will not venture to assign to the woodcuts so early a
date. He says:--
“I believe all will agree with Dr. Meyrick, that the artists of
the times we are speaking of, and of earlier as well as much
later periods, were universally accustomed to dress their figures
according to the fashion of their own day, whatever the age of
the subject they had to represent; and that, therefore _costume_
(and I might add, the style of art) affords, next to actual
dates, the surest means of determining the age of an illuminated
manuscript or other monument.
“But, I suspect, if Dr. Meyrick means to speak generally, that he
goes too far, when he says that, by such means, the true date of
a work of art is to be ascertained to within the short period of
five or ten years.
“In the early times we are speaking of, the main articles of
dress continued so nearly the same for great part of a century,
that the same suit of armour, and the same gown, descended from
father to son, and from mother to daughter, and when altered,
perhaps, in certain small details, rendering them so far
conformable to the particular fashion of the day, served even for
a third generation. These _small details_, I admit, may in many
cases greatly help us; and will sometimes point to a period of
very small duration. But I suspect, that the _exact_ date when
one fashion had its commencement, and another went out, is known
but in very few instances; and it can scarce be doubted but that
in one country--nay in one part of the same country--certain
fashions continued to prevail for some time after they had been
discontinued in another.
“In addition to this, it seems probable, from the great
costliness of armour, that when a suit, or part of a suit, had
become too much out of fashion to be any longer worn by a man
of rank, it would, instead of being thrown aside as useless
lumber, be often handed over to one of his dependents: and in
consequence, in designs and illuminations done in these times,
it might happen that subordinate figures would here and there
appear, dressed in costume of a more ancient character than the
principal personages.
“Again, I think, that an artist advanced in years, when
illuminating a manuscript, or making designs to engrave from,
would often be likely, from habit, to represent his figures in
costume more or less resembling that which had prevailed in his
younger days, when he made his studies; and, hence, although he
would scarcely fail to introduce also certain new changes of
fashion, too remarkable to be overlooked, his work on the whole,
would savour more of the costume of former days, than would be
the case with the performance of a younger artist, executed at
the same time.
“But our means of forming a correct judgment of the _date_ of
these cuts, are not in all respects so complete, as those which
enable us to determine the country ... Holland has no monumental
effigies of these times, to which we may refer as authorities ...
still, did Holland herself furnish us with more numerous
authorities, we should, I think, be enabled to determine the date
of the work in question, with fuller confidence than we can do
under the existing circumstances.
“To conclude--I have found nothing in the costume of the cuts
of the _Speculum_, that appears to me to militate directly
against the supposition that they may be of the early date Dr.
Meyrick has assigned to them, and, although the argument produced
by that gentleman to shew that they cannot be later, is not
perhaps in all respects conclusive, still, considering all the
circumstances, I could with difficulty persuade myself that the
work was not _commenced_, at least, within a few years of the
period he has supposed, and certainly, I should say, not later
than 1450.”
These reasons, and the conclusion they lead to, on the part of a
writer so decidedly Costerian as Mr. Ottley undoubtedly is, are very
important in a controversy of the kind such as that with which we
are dealing. The 58 cuts of two designs each, and their engraving on
wood, together with the twenty pages of texts, similarly engraved,
must have taken a very considerable time to complete, on the part of
the artist “Beelde-maker,” and “Letter-snyder,” employed upon them.
Supposing then the work of engraving the cuts was _commenced_ in 1450,
and the whole work was _completed_ in three years, we are brought back
to the same date for the earliest probable original printing of the
_Speculum_, that we reached from a consideration of the paper-marks,
a few pages previous; that is, at least thirteen years subsequent to
the death of the man, whom Junius calls the first printer, and who,
all those who have adopted his narrative, insist upon it, was, by
the printing of that book, the original inventor and first practiser
of Typography in Europe; but which, as we have seen, could not have
appeared until more than seventeen years had passed away from the time
when Gutenberg first made his separable metal types at Strasburg.
Enough, and more than enough, has already been stated, to prove
that Laurent Janssoen Coster was not the inventor, nor Haarlem, the
birthplace of the Typographic Art; and that the _Speculum Humanæ
Salvationis_, the first Dutch book printed with separable letters was
not, and could not have been, printed at the place where, and by the
man to whom, from 1588 to 1871, a host of writers, following the lead
of Junius, have attributed it.
But it may fairly be asked,--If that work, as well as the others which
have been imputed to Coster, were not the products of his press, by
whom then were they printed? This question, although one of those
seemingly more easily asked than answered, is yet one that need not
be shrunk from, inasmuch as in the far-off vista of antiquity, and
amid the dim mists of uncertainty which encompass it, certain ancient
landmarks are perceivable, which may serve to guide the inquirer, and
possibly help him to arrive at convictions capable of enduring the test
of examinations as potent and searching as the touch of an Ithuriel’s
spear.
Reference has more than once been made to the impulse given to learning
at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth
centuries. This movement was helped forward by no one in Holland and
Germany more than by Gerhard Groote, or Magnus, of Deventer, (_b._
1326, _d._ 1370), who after studying theology at Paris, became a canon
of Utrecht and Aix-la-Chapelle, and founded the Order of the Brethren
and Clerks of the Common Life, generally known as the “Gemeineslebens,”
or “Frères de la Vie Commune,” but sometimes confounded with the
Beghards and Lollhards of an earlier time. The headquarters of the
Brotherhood was at Deventer, where a College was built and inhabited
by them in the year 1400. Receiving the approval of the Council of
Constance, the Order was propagated throughout Holland, Lower Germany,
and other provinces. “It was divided into the literary Brethren or
Clerks, and the unlearned Brethren, who lived in different houses, but
in bonds of the greatest friendship. _The Clerks devoted themselves
to transcribing books, the cultivation of polite learning, and the
instruction of youth; and they erected schools wherever they went._
The Brethren laboured with their hands, and pursued various mechanic
trades. Neither were under the restraint of religious vows; but still
they ate at a common table, and had a general community of goods. The
Sisters lived in nearly the same manner, and the time which was not
employed in prayer and reading, they devoted to education of female
children, and to such labours as were suitable for their sex. The
schools of these Clerks of the Common Life were very celebrated in
this century, and in them were trained nearly all the restorers of
polite learning in Germany and Holland; and among others the great
Erasmus of Rotterdam, Alexander Hegius, John Murmelius and others.”
Thus far Mosheim. Hallam, in his “Introduction to the Literature of
Europe,” says, “they were distinguished by their strict lives, their
community, at least a partial one, of goods, their industry in manual
labour, _their tendency to mysticism_. But they were as strikingly
distinguished by the cultivation of knowledge, which was encouraged
in brethren of sufficient capacity, and promoted by schools, both for
primary and for enlarged education. These schools were, says Eichhorn,
‘the first genuine nurseries of literature in Germany, so far as it
depended on the knowledge of languages; and in them was first taught
the Latin, and in the process of time the Greek, and Eastern tongues.’
Some of them, such as that of St. Edward’s at Groningen, and the one
at Zwoll, presided over by Thomas à Kempis, were of considerable
reputation. In the year 1430 they had established as many as forty-five
houses in Germany and the Low Countries, and in 1460 they had more than
thrice that number. Amongst other occupations, they busied themselves
in copying and binding books.”
Bound to live by labour, and under a semi-ascetic discipline,
self-abnegation was a distinguishing characteristic of the Frères de
la Vie Commune; while the instruction of youth, and the promotion
of piety, were the objects to which they devoted their lives and
labours. The multiplication of books, which formed a portion of their
occupations, could not but prove a powerful means for assisting them
to the attainment of the objects which they had at heart. These books
were naturally divided into educational and devotional, according to
the classes of individuals for whose use they were designed. Among the
former would be A B C Dariums, Catonis Disticha, Donatuses, Doctrinals,
and such like. Among the latter, the Poor Man’s Bible, the Apocalypse
of St. John, the Book of Canticles, the History of the Virgin, the Arts
of Memory and Dying, and the Mirror of Human Salvation.
As the operations of the Brotherhood extended, and their schools
increased, the greater would be the demand for the above works, and
the more laborious the efforts of the copyists to meet that demand.
At their establishments, whether at Deventer, Bruges, Brussels,
Zwolle, or elsewhere, artists and illuminators would be found among
their ranks. And as Zwolle is known to have been a very early seat of
the engraver’s art, such pictorial embellishments as these artists
designed would speedily be transferred to wood. That such was the case,
and that Zwolle was the place where Block-books were first produced,
seems to be certain, from the fact that in 1489 the Brethren there
used the original blocks of the _Biblia Pauperum_ in printing the
work “Passye ende dat Leven van onsers liefs hern.” The silver cross
and arms of Zwolle are also to be found in the cuts of the Book of
Canticles. As the labours of the copyists increased, and as scrolls and
inscriptions were added to the engraved figures, and the art of the
‘letter-snyder’ was called in to assist that of the ‘beelde-maker,’ and
the ‘formen-’ and ‘figure-snyder,’ there can be no question but that
it not unfrequently occurred to the minds of thoughtful copyists, that
whole texts of books could be so engraved. A representation to that
effect to the chief of the brotherhood would lead to an order to carry
the idea into execution. In the descriptive text of the _Ars Moriendi_
and like works, and in the twenty xylographic pages of the first Latin
edition of the “Mirror of Salvation,” we see the realization of the
idea. But in the course of continually cutting the letters on the
wood, an intelligent ‘letter-snyder’ would be struck by the constant
recurrence of certain letters and combinations of letters,--a fact much
more likely to attract his attention than a copyist’s,--and he would
find, in counting over these letters, that his future labours could
be greatly abridged, by merely cutting as many separate letters and
combinations of each sort, as would suffice for printing a page or two
at a time; the same letters answering again and again for the work in
hand, or for any other that might be required. In the reduction of this
idea to practice, the reason may be seen why the first edition of the
_Speculum_ is partly xylographic and partly typographic.
The success attending these first Dutch efforts at printing with
separable types would at once lead to further applications of the
art in the production of elementary educational books; and as the
reputation of the Brethren as schoolmasters was great, and they were
often invited and sent for by the magistrates of cities to open schools
in Germany as well as in Holland, they would carry such books with
them. The fact of fragments of early Donatuses and Doctrinals being
found in Germany is thus accounted for, without any necessity for
supposing, with Junius and his followers, that the types from which
they were printed were stolen from Coster of Haarlem, and carried away
to Mentz: while sets of types cut by different ‘letter-snyders’ would
also account for the differences observed in the typography of the four
folio editions of the _Speculum_.
Bearing in mind then, the objects to which the Brethren and Clerks of
the Common Life devoted themselves;--the classes of books, educational
and devotional, of which the block-books consisted, and their special
adaptability to promote the objects of the fraternity:--the fact, that
Zwolle was one of the earliest seats of the engraver’s art, as well
as a central station of the brotherhood;--that the original blocks
of the _Biblia Pauperum_ were reproduced at the Brethren’s printing
press there in 1489;--that large editions of these works were never
required,[131] and that therefore one printing establishment might
suffice for the needs in this respect of the whole fraternity;--that
the arms of the city were engraved on one of these books, the Song
of Songs;--that all those with pictorial embellishments, claimed as
Costerian productions, are, in the opinion of so competent a judge as
Ottley, the work of the same artist, or at least of the same school,
as regards design and execution, as the _Biblia Pauperum_;--and that
from the paper-marks, as well as the character of the costume and
armour of the figures in the _Speculum_, that work could not have been
printed until about the year 1453, or later:--the conclusion seems
reasonable, that all the works which from 1588 have been traditionally
attributed to Coster and his alleged successors, came in reality
from the establishment of the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life
at Zwolle:--and if so, this satisfactorily accounts for there being
neither name nor initial nor date, to indicate either author, designer
or printer; the principles of the fraternity being such as to merge
the individual in the brotherhood, and to make the work of one a
portion of the common work of all.
Setting aside, therefore, the conclusions of Baron Heinecken and Wetter
in regard to the party by whom, and the date when, the _Speculum_
was originally printed, (which nevertheless are not without grounds
for their support), this view of the question gives to some unknown
brother or brethren the merit of having independently worked out the
idea of separable letters on wood about the years 1450-53; thus adding
one more to the number of known instances, when at certain historic
periods the minds of individuals wholly unknown to each other, and in
widely different parts of the world, have almost simultaneously worked
out the same invention, or made the same discovery. Instances of such
coincidences will no doubt at once occur to the minds of intelligent
readers; I shall therefore only refer by way of illustration to the
invention of Photography by M. Niepce and Mr. Fox Talbot, and the
discovery of the planet Neptune by the English and French astronomers,
Adams and Leverrier.
The rarity of copies of works in which the types used in the _Speculum_
have been recognised, is accounted for by the fact of their speedy
supercession by cast fusile metal types, when a knowledge of the Arts
of Typography and Typefounding became spread throughout Europe by the
dispersion of the workmen at Mentz, on the capture and sack of that
city in 1462. Most, if not all of the early printers, were men of
learning. Many of those who first practised the art in the Netherlands
would consequently have been educated by the Brethren and Clerks of the
Common Life; and amongst these some were very probably members of that
fraternity. It is certain that at Brussels (1476) and at Zwolle, as
well as at Rheingau (1474) and Rostock (1476), the Brethren speedily
practised the new art as first brought to perfection at Mentz. And at
one or other of these places, it is much more likely that Veldener
obtained the cuts of the Mirror of Salvation, which he reprinted at
Culembourg in 1483, than that he purchased them from the descendants of
Coster at Haarlem;--a statement which, however much insisted upon by
Dutch, and reiterated of late by French and English writers, is purely
suppositious, and utterly void of the slightest foundation in fact.
FOOTNOTES:
[83] Schrijver, P. Laurecrans voor Laurens Coster. Haarlem, 1628. 4to.
[84] Hadrian Junius was born at Hoorn, in 1511, and is said to have
been educated at a classical school of repute at Haarlem. He also
studied at Louvain. He soon shewed himself a person of ability; and
having embraced the medical profession, was appointed physician to the
Duke of Norfolk, and afterwards to the King of Denmark. He is said
to have taken up his abode in Haarlem in 1560, and to have resided
there till 1572, when he quitted the city on account of the siege that
then took place. According to Lypsius, he was the most learned man in
Holland after Erasmus. His work _Batavia_ was commenced late in life,
and completed in January, 1575. His death took place at Middleburg, on
the 16th June of the same year.
[85] The original will be found in the Appendix.
[86] The above translation is taken from the article on Printing in the
Edinburgh edition (1815) of the Encyclopædia Britannica, supplemented
by that given in Stower’s “Printers’ Grammar” (1808.) Both writers are
strong pro-Costerians.
[87] Galius is probably the same who is called _Claes_ Lottynz, Gael,
_Scabinus Haarlemi_, as it is in the Fasti of that city, in the years
1531, 1533, and 1535. Quirinus in the same Fasti is called Mr. Quiryn
Dirkszoon. He was many years amanuensis to Erasmus, as appears from
his epistle 23rd July, 1529, tom iii. Oper. p. 1222. He was afterwards
Scabinus in 1537 _et seq._, and Consul in 1552, _et seq._ But in the
troubles of Holland he was cruelly killed by the Spanish soldiers, May
23, 1563.
[88] Meerman’s Account of the family and descendants of Laurent
Janssoen, vol. i. p. 38, _et seq._
[89] OTTLEY’S _Inquiry_, p. 308.
[90] _Vide_ ch. xvii. of his work.
[91] The writer of these verses was one of the correctors of the press
employed by Schœffer, though his name does not appear. He concludes
with the expression of a desire, which to this day finds a responsive
echo in the bosom of every author and printer whose soul has been vexed
by the blunders of copyists and compositors:--“Oh!” is his pathetic
exclamation,--“if they could succeed in purging the texts of all their
faults!--those who arrange the characters, as well as those who read
the proofs; the friends of literature would then infallibly award to
them a crown of glory, who thus come in aid by their books to thousands
of seats of learning.” It is not at all unlikely that these verses were
the origin of Junius’s assertion, that the name of the workman who
stole Coster’s types and implements, and carried them off to Mentz, was
John.
[92] MALLINCKROT, de Ortu et Progressu Artis Typographicæ. _Coloniæ_,
1639.
[93] In order to evade the force of Caxton’s testimony, Costerian
writers assert that he merely recorded the popular belief of the time.
But Caxton, as he himself tells us in one of his works, had been
residing from 1441 to 1476 “in the countries of Brabant, Flanders,
Holland, and Zealand.” During the greater portion of this time he
was the Governor of the Company of Merchant Adventurers, trading in
Brabant, Flanders, &c., and his principal place of residence was
Bruges, not far distant from Haarlem. The merchandise of those days was
not confined to silks and woollens, but included the manuscripts and
books of the period. Caxton, after his appointment to the household
of the Duchess of Burgundy, gave his mind to literary pursuits, and
practised the art of printing at Bruges. He was also well acquainted
with Ulric Zell of Hainault, the first printer of Cologne, at which
city some suppose, on the authority of Wynkyn de Woorde, his successor,
he also printed a book. He could not therefore be ignorant of the facts
of the case. His position and pursuits gave him every opportunity for
ascertaining them; and he was not a man who neglected opportunities
for acquiring knowledge. He must consequently have known and been
well satisfied of the accuracy of the statement he gave currency to.
Had Coster or any of his descendants been printing at Haarlem from
1428 to 1472, as many of these writers allege, Caxton must have known
of it, and would not in such a case have asserted that the “craft of
imprinting was first found in Mogunce in Almayne.”
[94] _A General History of Printing_, by S. PALMER, 4to. _London_,
1733. This work, although ostensibly written by Mr. S. Palmer, a London
printer of some eminence, was in fact the production of the learned
Psalmanazar.
[95] As the Chronicle in which this account is given, is said to
have been finished in the year 1514, Trithemius (_b._ 1462; _d._
1516,) would have heard the particulars from Peter Schœffer, about
the year 1484. The abbot would then have been twenty-two years of
age.--_Meerman_, vol. ii. p. 101, _n._ The manuscript of the Chronicle
was not discovered until near the close of the seventeenth century,
when it was printed at St. Gall in the year 1690.
[96] This fact is much overlooked by writers who invariably refer to
Zell as a German authority. Hainault is a province adjoining South
Brabant and West Flanders, in which provinces are situated the towns
of Haarlem and Bruges, where Coster and Caxton resided. Along with
Holland, Hainault was forcibly annexed by Philip of Burgundy in 1426.
No doubt many of the families opposed to the annexation sought safety
in flight, and among these may be included that of the Zells. But it is
hardly to be credited that Ulric’s love of Fatherland was extinguished
by his expatriation; or that he would give to Germany and Mentz, the
honor that rightly belonged to Holland and Haarlem. All that he says,
amounts to the statement, that Block-book Donatuses were printed
in Holland, before printing, _in the way it is commonly used_, was
invented at Mentz. If, as Costerians contend, “printing in the way
it is commonly used” was known and practised by Laurent Janssoen in
Haarlem from 1428 to 1440, both Caxton and Zell must have known of it;
and would have stated it as a fact. The only inference therefore that
can be drawn from what they say, as well as from what they do not say
on the subject, is, that Typography was invented at Mentz, and was not
known at Haarlem until after the advent of the first printer there in
1483.
[97] “Admiranda ars typographica ab ingenioso Johanne Guttenbergio,
anno a nativitate Christi, Domini nostri, 1450, inventa, et posthac
studio, sumtu et labore Johannis Fust et Petri Schœfferi Moguntiæ,
emendata et ad posteros propagata est.”
[98]
Hic ubi postremo descendit gurgite Moenus,
Excipit et socias littore Rhenus aquas
Hanc peperit captis antiqua Moguntia muris
Horrida dum tristis fata canebat avis.
* * * * *
Sæcula bis septem numerabant ordine fati
Christigenæ, hinc illis lustra decemque dabant,
Tertius ac orbis Fridericus frena regebat,
* * * * *
Clarus Joannes en Gutenbergius hic est,
A quo, ceu vivo flumine, manat opus.
Hic est Aonidum custos fidissimus, hic est,
Qui referat latices, quos pede fudit equus,
Quam veteres nobis Argenti voce notarunt,
A puero fertur sustinuisse virum;
Illa sed huic civi largita est munera grata,
Cui clarum nomen Mogus habere dedit.
Primitias illic coepit formare laboris,
Ast hic maturum protulit artis opus.
Stemmate præstabat; vicit virtute sed illud;
Dicitur hinc veræ nobilitatis Eques.
_Annulis in digitis erat illi occasio prima_,
Palladium ut caelo sollicitaret opus.
Illum tentabat molli committere ceræ,
Redderet ut nomen littera sculpta suum.
Respicit archetypos, auri vestigia lustrans,
Et secum tacitus talia verba refert:
Quam belle pandit certas hæc orbita voces,
Monstrat et exactis apta reperta libris.
Quid, si nunc justos, æris ratione reducta,
Tentarem libros cudere mille modis?--v.v. 19-66.
[99] Van Opmer was born at Amsterdam in 1526. He studied the classics
at the Universities of Louvain and Delft; and also made himself a
proficient in painting, engraving and architecture. He was known to
Van Zuyren in 1561, the year when Coornhert published his edition of
Cicero’s Offices; and was for some years a resident at Leyden. In 1578
he returned to Amsterdam. He is supposed to have died about the year
1595.
[100] I am indebted to Hansard’s _Typographia_, (p. 60) for the above
quotation; it is there quoted from Lemoine, (p. 99) without any further
reference.
[101] Van Zuyren.
[102] Coornhert.
[103] Guicciardini.
[104] Dutch writers in accepting this tale of Junius as a genuine
historical fact, have expended a vast amount of ingenuity in
endeavouring to identify the workman and fix the date of the felony.
The result is curious. Scriverius, writing in 1628, indicates John
Gutenberg, in the year 1428; Boxhorn, in 1639, says it was John Faust,
in 1420; Seiz, in 1740, says it was John Gutenberg, between the years
1428 and 1467; Meerman, in 1765, says it was John Gensfleisch the
elder, in 1430; Westreenen, in 1809, says, about 1436, but does not
give any name; Koning, in 1816, says it was Frielo Gensfleisch, between
1420 and 1436; De Vries, in 1822, says it was Johan Gensfleisch, in
1423; and Alb. Thijm, in 1867, says it was one Hans, in 1423. It is
observable that all these writers decline to adopt the date which
Junius fixes upon, antedating the occurrence from four to twenty years.
This, however, they were compelled to do, in order to get rid of
certain facts, which proved that the date 1440 was an impossible one,
if either Faust or Gutenberg was to be criminated.
[105] Humphreys, pp. 45 and 50.
[106] “De Keulsche Kroniek en De Costerlegende van Dr. A. Van der
Linde, te zamen getoetest door Dr. P. Van Meurs.” _Haarlem_, 1870.
[107] “The recently erected statue of Koster at Haarlem, is one of the
finest works of its class that I have ever had the good fortune to
examine. The dimensions are colossal, the work of a French sculptor, M.
Rouger. I could wish the artist were a Dutchman. The attitude of the
statue, nobly draped, and wearing the head gear of the time, is very
impressive. The left hand clasps a book, while the right hand holds
aloft, with an air of triumphant satisfaction, a “type,” by means of
which the book has been, as it were, magically produced.”--HUMPHREYS,
p. 216.
[108] “If,” says SANTANDER, “we examine all the authors without
exception who have written in favour of _Haarlem_, we shall not find
the smallest proof, the least contemporaneous document, in support of
their pretensions; all that we read in them, all that they allege,
reduces itself to the narrative of Junius, which was itself composed
from light hearsay evidence, and which each writer comments upon
according to his fancy.” &c., &c.
“What!” exclaims OTTLEY, “are the fragments of _Donatuses_, found
_in Holland_, and printed in the same type as the Speculum, to
be considered as no evidence whatever of early printing _in that
country_,” &c., &c., &c.--_Invention of Printing_, p. 117.
“_Coster was the first_ to use moveable [cast metal] types.... This
view is not only supported by one of the earliest writers on the
subject, but by ... Ulric Zell,” who says “Item: although this art
was discovered at Mentz at first in the manner in which it is now
commonly used, _yet the first example of it was found in Holland_,”
&c.--BLADES’S _Life, &c. of W. Caxton_, vol. i. p. 59.
[109] After enumerating several works “printed with what may be termed
Kosterian types,” Mr. HUMPHREYS says:--“Thus it is proved, not only
that Koster is not a myth invented by the Dutch to glorify themselves,
and that the ‘Speculum’ is not an isolated and unauthenticated
monument; but that there was in all probability, a Koster (_and if
not, some other native of Holland_) who was the printer of at least
three out of the four editions of the ‘Speculum,’ and that his family
successors, or pupils and workmen, continued to print in the same style
after his death.”--_Hist. of Art of Printing_, p. 65.
“The third edition [of the Speculum] has a much more important
character than the second, being a Dutch translation in prose, printed
by the same double process as the preceding, all the text being
typographic, and only printed on one side of the paper. The issue of
this edition (evidently from the same establishment), in the Dutch
language, is an all sufficient proof of the celebrated ‘Speculum’ being
beyond doubt, the production of a Dutch artisan, or rather artist, _and
if so, why not of Koster?_”--_Ib._ p. 63.
[110] Baron Heinecken, Santander, and others, assign a German origin to
them.
[111] “The Horarium (or more correctly A B C Darium) rendered so
celebrated by the detailed notice of so many learned Bibliopolists,
as one of the earliest efforts of Koster, and by some considered
positively his first experimental work with moveable types, either
of bark (?), wood (?), or metal, I have examined very closely, and
do not consider that it has any claim whatever to be so considered.
It is true, that both type and printing are rude, but that is no
sufficient reason for assigning to it a strictly primitive character,
as many rudely executed works might be cited long after the practical
establishment of the Printing Press. The fact is, that its being
printed on both sides, and the imposition for folding being arranged
after the regular manner adopted when printing with moveable types
was in general use, induce me to believe that it was printed long
after the ‘Speculum,’ probably by the successors of Koster who used
his types. Even the specimens of Donatuses, which I have examined in
Holland (and elsewhere) especially in the Royal Library of the Hague,
under the learned guidance of Dr. Holtrop and Mr. Campbel, lead me to
the conviction that they were not essays by Koster anterior to the
production of the ‘Speculum.’ It is true, that I was shewn a specimen
of a Donatus printed on vellum, and _on one side only_, which has been
recovered from the binding of an old Dutch book. But I look upon it as
a rough ‘proof,’ that was never completed, and eventually used like
ordinary waste to stiffen bindings.”--HUMPHREYS, p. 215. This Horarium
was discovered in the binding of an old book, forming in fact a portion
of the binding. The pages are printed on vellum on both sides; and it
has been pointed out that the letter i has a modern peculiarity in
being dotted, instead of having, as in the ancient manuscripts and
printed books, a stroke above it, thus, í. Enschedé who discovered the
work, published a fac-simile of it in 1768. Chatto, who critically
examined it, says, in Jackson’s Treatise on Wood-engraving (2d edit.
1861, p. 162,) “It is certainly such a one as he was most wishful
to find, and which he in his capacity of type-founder and printer
would find little difficulty in producing. I am firmly convinced that
it is neither printed with wooden types, nor a specimen of early
typography. I suspect it to be a Dutch typographic essay on popular
credulity.”--This I think a harsh judgment; and, of the two, I prefer
to believe, with Humphreys, that Enschedé was mistaken in supposing
the pages he found to be a work, perhaps the earliest work, of Coster,
rather than with Chatto, to suspect that he forged it himself.
[112] The Town-hall at Haarlem possesses a collection of Costerian
relics, but Mr. Humphreys says (p. 215) “they are not, as it seems to
me, so important as many writers have deemed them.”
[113] _Inquiry_, pp. 202-203.
[114] “The works which may almost to a certainty be ascribed to the
Costerian press after the death of the inventor, and the publication of
the _Speculum_, are various editions of the Donatus, Catonia Disticha,
Laurentii Vallensi Facecie Morales, Ludovici Pontani de Roma Singularia
in Causis Criminalibus, Gulielmus de Saliceto de Salute Corporis,
Horarium, Alexandri Galli Doctrinale, Petri Hispani Tractatus,
Francisci Petrarchæ de Salibus Virorum Illustrium et Faceciis
Tractatus, &c., all of which are without date or name of printer, but
are issued from the same press, and the types of which, perfectly like
those in the Speculum, cannot be attributed by any such similarity to
any other printing office either in Germany or even in Holland and the
Low Countries.”--P. H. BERJEAU, p. xxxvi. _Introd. to OTTLEY’S Inquiry_.
[115] MEERMAN considered that this edition was the first, and only one
printed by Coster, between the years 1430 and 1440; that the Latin
edition with twenty pages of block-printing came next; then the other
Dutch, and lastly the second Latin. HUMPHREYS (p. 56,) concludes that
all four editions were printed by Coster, the first being the one
with twenty pages of xylographic text. OTTLEY allows him one, and the
greater part of another. Of the first edition (following Humphreys’
classification), ten copies are known--two in the Bibliothèque
Nationale at Paris, one in the British Museum, one in the Bodleian
library at Oxford, one in the Spencer library, and five in Holland. Of
the second edition there are six copies--one in the Imperial library
at Vienna, one in the Palazzo Pitti at Florence, the third, without
preface, in the Town Hall at Haarlem, the fourth with but 40 pages, in
the library at Hanover, the fifth in the Royal library at Brussels;
and the sixth and most perfect, the Inglis copy in the possession of
Mr. Quaritch. Of the third edition (the first Dutch) copies are in the
libraries of Lord Spencer, and Mr. Westreenen Von Tiellandt at the
Hague; the fine copy formerly in the Enschedé collection is now in
England. Of the fourth edition, only three copies are known--one in the
Town Hall of Haarlem, the second in the public library of that city,
and the third in the library at Lille. It is possible there may have
been a larger number of early folio editions, as several of the above
copies appear to have been made up from more than one.
[116] “De l’Origine et des Débuts de l’Imprimerie en Europe.” _Paris_,
1853.
[117] “Essai Historique et Critique sur l’Invention de l’Imprimerie.”
_Paris-Lille_, 1859.
[118] Mr. Humphreys concludes from his examination of the Dutch copy
of the _Speculum_, formerly in the Enschedé collection at Haarlem,
that this edition was “by far the most finely executed.” It was sold,
on the dispersion of the Enschedé collection in 1867, for 700 guineas.
The purchaser, Mr. Quaritch of Piccadilly, it is understood has since
resold it in England at a considerable advance. The same spirited
bibliographer bought the Inglis copy (sold in 1871)--a specimen of the
Latin edition with all the text in moveable types, in the most fine and
perfect condition,--for £525.
[119] From the fact that Enschedé was a printer and type-founder, his
opinion has had great weight with subsequent writers. I have no doubt,
however, but that his eagerness to secure for his own countryman and
birth-place the honour of the invention of metal types, blinded him
to the evidence which the letters in the _Speculum_ present to the
contrary.
[120] PRUNELLE, au Magazin Encyclopédique de 1806.
[121] In plate 10, opposite page 295 in Mr. Ottley’s work, fac-similes
are given of the types of the _Speculum_, taken from the text beneath
cuts 17 and 18. In these the capital D occurs twice, O three times, Q
three times, S twice, T thrice, and V twice. And in every instance the
differences are such as to shew that it was impossible for the several
specimens of each of these letters to have been cast from a mould
taken from either a pattern or a touched-up-type. What is true of the
capitals is equally true of the smaller letters. The word ‘Tres’ for
instance, occurs three times running, repeated exactly one under the
other, thus affording the best possible condition for comparison. Each
of the T’s--each of the compounded re’s,--and each of the s’s differ;
they could not have been cast from the same matrix, nor could any one
of them have stood for the original of successive mouldings for the
rest, as suggested by Mr. Ottley.
[122] “Der Heilsspiegel und alle andere Druckwerke, welche Meerman dem
Laurens Koster und seinen Erben zuschreibt, sind alle mit gegossenen
Typen gedruckt, und zwar gar nicht schlecht. Es ist unmöglich, mit
hölzernen Buchstaben von solcher Kleinheit zu drucken.”--_Krit. Gesch.
der Erf. der Buchdruckerkunst_, p. 590.
[123] For the whole of his argument see pages 620-692 of his work. His
object is to shew the probability that all the four folio editions may
have been the work of Veldener at Utrecht. At page 654 he says, “that
almost all the types used in the Netherlands have their original in
those of the Rhine “Officinen,” is seen from the resemblance of the
types of the Brethren of the Common Life at Marienthal on the Rhine,
to those of Therhoernen of Cologne, and the Brethren at Brussels.
Witness the fac-similes 1, 2, and 3, of Tab. 11, and especially all the
fac-similes of Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12, (with the exception of Nos. 4
and 8 of Tab. 12.) Even the types of the _Speculum_ are nothing else
than a diminution of the types of the 42-line (Mazarin) Bible, with
sundry alterations in the capital letters.--The Dutch work of Ludovicus
de Roma, ‘Singularia in causis criminalibus,’ (1471,) is printed with
types, which, with the exception of the capital letters, are almost all
such exact copies in size and shape of those of the Mazarin Bible, that
they could cover each other reciprocally.”
[124] “Idée Générale d’une collection complete d’Estampes.” 8vo.
_Leips._ 1771.
[125] See WETTER, p. 23.
[126] M. BERNARD; and P. C. VAN DER MEERSCH, in his “Recherches sur
la Vie et les Travaux des Imprimeurs Belges et Néerlandais, établis a
l’étranger.” 8vo. _Gand_, 1856:--are here referred to.
[127] The manuscript from which these extracts are taken was brought to
light by the Abbé Ghesquiere of Cambrai, in the year 1772. See “Esprit
des Journaux,” June 1779, Nov. 1779, and April 1780.
[128] “Notice sur Colard Mansion, Libraire et Imprimeur de la Ville de
Bruges.” 8vo. _Paris_, 1829.
[129] M. BERJEAU, in Introduction to Ottley’s Inquiry concerning the
Invention of Printing, p. xxxvii.
[130] The discussion of this subject occupies the last 65 pages of Mr.
Ottley’s work, the careful perusal of which will well repay the student
of this most interesting branch of archæological research.
[131] See _ante_, p. 86.
Early Typography.