Section Section of Section of Section of Section of
of Six Fourteen Fourteen Fourteen Sixteen
Leaves. Leaves. Leaves. Leaves. Leaves.
–5 . _6–19_. 20–33 34–47 48–63
1–4 . _7–18_. ._21–32_. 35–46 49–62
2–3 8–17 ._22–31_. 36–45 50–61
. _9–16_. 23–30 37–44 ._51–60_.
._10–15_. 24–29 38–43 52–59
._11–24_. 25–28 39–42 53–58
._12–13_. ._26–27_. 40–41 54–57
55–56
It should be noticed that the xylographic pages, as well as the
typographic pages, are always found in couples. The types are those of
the first edition, but there are [p272] variations in the composition
and spelling of words, which prove that they must have been recomposed
for this edition.
The _Third Edition_ is in Dutch prose. The types are like those of the
previous editions, with the exception of pages 49 and 60, which are
printed in types of a smaller body. The face of the smaller types has
all the peculiarities of the types of the earlier editions, and is
apparently the work of the same letter-cutter. In the few known copies
of this edition there are differences in typographic arrangement which
show that types were altered between the first and the last impression.
The _Fourth Edition_ is also in Dutch prose. All known copies of this
edition are so badly printed that they have the appearance of spoiled
or discarded sheets. Many authors have supposed that this must have
been the first edition, and, perhaps, the first experiment with types;
but a closer examination proves that the bad printing is owing, not so
much to ignorance and to inexperience as to worn types and careless
presswork—that this edition is really the last. The copy that is
preserved by the city of Haarlem shows, in the handwriting of the
sixteenth century, this inscription in Dutch: “The _Speculum Salutis_,
the earliest production of Lourens Coster, the inventor of typography,
who printed at Haarlem about the year 1440.” Between the second and the
third leaf has been inserted a portrait of Lourens Coster, “engraved
by Vandervelde after Van Campen,” with the words, in Latin, “Lourens
Coster, of Haarlem, first inventor of the typographic art about the
year 1440.” Underneath this inscription is a Latin verse by Scriverius,
in which he extols Coster as indisputably the inventor of typography.
As the writing, the portrait, and the inscription were added a
long time after the book had been printed, these additions cannot,
consequently, be accepted as evidences of any real value.
Junius, the historian of Holland, writing in 1568, was the first to
call attention to the _Speculum_. He noticed but one edition: it
is not probable that he knew of the others. He said it was made by
Coster from types of wood, in Haarlem, [p273] before the year 1440.
Scriverius, a Dutch author, writing in 1628, said that it was printed
by Coster from founded or cast types in or about 1428. Heineken, a
German bibliographer, intimates that the blocks of the _Speculum_ were
engraved, and that the two Latin editions were printed in Germany after
the invention of typography; but he concedes, rather grudgingly, that
the Dutch editions were printed in Holland. Santander says that the
book was printed in the Netherlands, but not before the year 1480.
The disagreements of bibliographers concerning this book have not been
restricted to controversies about its date and printer. Some have said
that there were no types in any of the editions, and that the letters,
like the pictures, were cut on solid blocks of wood. This error is
almost pardonable. The superficial observer of our own time will say
that the characters of this book are not types, but badly engraved
letters. They seem to lack the most distinguishing feature of types.
The letters are not at all alike, as may be seen in the accompanying
fac-simile. The variations in the shapes of the letters are so frequent
that a modern printer would at once decide that the dissimilar letters
could not have been cast in the same matrix. This is a curious defect,
but it can be shown that the letters are types, and founded types. “The
existence of a positive fact,” says Chatto, “can never be affected by
any arguments which are grounded on the difficulty of accounting for
it.” It is plain, however, that the types of the book were carelessly
made by an inexpert type-maker, and perhaps by a clumsy method now out
of use. Instead of making all the types of one character from one punch
or original, the printer of this book made them from two, four, or six
punches or originals. At this point it is not necessary to consider
why so many punches were made. It is enough to say that there is real
uniformity in the midst of all this diversity—that each letter is a
duplicate, more or less faithful according to the wear it has received,
of its own original. Careful tracings on transparent paper have been
repeatedly made of a selected letter [p274] for the purpose of testing
its agreement or disagreement with letters of the same kind on other
pages, and the comparison establishes the fact that the letters are
founded types.[136]
The errors of the _Speculum_ are those of types. They show the
inversion of letters in positions which preclude the possibility that
they could have been formed upon engraved blocks. The occasional
occurrence of a _c_ for an _e_, of an _n_ for a _u_, of an _ſ_ for an
_f_, and the “turning upside down” of other letters, are examples of
errors which can be made only by compositors.
The unequal perspicuity of the letters in the _Speculum_ is that of
unequally worn types. Of two adjoining letters, one will be distinct,
black, and deeply indented in the paper; the other will be of dull
color, and of indistinct outlines. The distinct letter is a new and
high type, which has received the full force of impression; the
indistinct letter is an old and worn type which has been touched but
feebly by impression. If all the letters had been engraved on one
plate, they would have been of equal height, and should have been
equally legible, or nearly so, under impression.
The four editions of the _Speculum_ are, of themselves, presumptive
evidence that each edition was printed from types. It is improbable
that the printer would re-engrave blocks for a second edition when
those of the first were in existence. If the first edition had
been printed from types, and the types had been distributed, as is
customary, the printer was obliged to reset them in order to make the
second edition.
These four editions were certainly the work of the same printing
office, and, without doubt, of the same printer, for [p275] the
engravings are the same, and the types, ink, paper, and workmanship
have similar defects and peculiarities. The first edition shows pages
of types only; the next edition has types and blocks, but the types are
like those of the first; then comes a third edition in the same types,
but with two pages of types differing somewhat as to body and face;
lastly an edition entirely in the old types, in a worn condition. Each
edition has more or less connection with the others.[137]
[Illustration:
English.
Two-line Brevier.]
The body or dimension of the types used in the _Speculum_ approximates
the size known to all British and American printers as English; but
it is rather larger than any of the modern standards. It is really
intermediate between the body English and the little-used body of
Two-line brevier or Columbian.[138]
The appearance of twenty engraved pages in the second edition of the
_Speculum_ cannot be explained with satisfaction. Bernard thinks that
these pages are the relics of an earlier edition engraved, or at least
attempted, on wood, which, for some unknown reason, were temporarily
substituted for types. [p276] No trace of this imaginary edition
has been discovered. It has been claimed that the engraver of these
xylographic blocks was the probable inventor of typography. It is
supposed that he matured the ideas he had cherished about movable types
when he was engraving and printing the first edition of the book; that
when he became fully convinced of their feasibility, he stopped the
engraving of the blocks, and finished the work with types which were
made for the purpose. This hypothesis is not reasonable. If the printer
of the book suddenly abandoned blocks for types, the change would be
abruptly marked in his work. The twenty pages at the beginning of the
book would be xylographic, and all following would be typographic. But
it will be perceived that the twenty pages are scattered, without any
order, throughout the book. Instead of being the relics of an earlier
edition, it is demonstrable that these xylographic blocks were cut from
transfers obtained from a typographic edition. A traced drawing upon
transparent paper, taken with accuracy from the first edition of the
_Speculum_, and carefully laid over a corresponding xylographic page
in the second edition, will show an agreement in the length of lines,
in the abbreviation of words, and in the copying of little errors or
blemishes, which could have been produced only by means of transferred
drawing.[139] With this fact before us, the supposition of the priority
of an engraved edition of the book is untenable. Dutch authors say that
these xylographic blocks corroborate a Hollandish legend, in which it
is stated that the materials of the printer of the _Speculum_ were
stolen. They suppose that the first typographer was obliged to engrave
[p278] these twenty blocks to complete his imperfect edition. This
hypothesis does not accord with other facts: the appearance of three
successive editions of the book, each with a text of types, proves that
the practice of typography was continued.
[Illustration: Fac-simile of part of a Page of the Speculum Salutis.]
The provision of black ink for the types and brown ink for the cuts
seems unnecessary, but Van der Linde’s explanation of this peculiarity
is plausible. He says that the oily black ink used on the types may
have been rejected for the cuts because its greasy surface interfered
with the brush of the colorist. It does not appear that the inquiry has
ever been made, whether the brown ink of block-books was always brown.
It is probable that this brown ink was once black. The variability of
the color, so frequently remarked in all block-books, is the certain
indication of a faded black writing ink. It was the fluidity of this
writing ink that prevented its use on the types of the _Speculum_; the
fluid collected in globules on the metal, spreading under impression,
and blotting the paper. Oily ink was required for a surface of metal.
The unequal indentation of the letters indicates that the types were
not of a uniform height. Nor is it probable that the engravings at
the head of every page were always truly flat and of precisely the
same height as the types. They were pieces of flat boards, which must
have warped with every change from heat to cold, or from dampness to
dryness.[140] In these irregularities we find the probable reason for
the employment of two distinct methods of impression. Two impressions
were needed as much as two kinds of ink. [p279] The types required
strong, and the wood-cuts weak impression. If the impression had been
graduated to suit the wood-cuts, the print of the types would not have
been visible; if enough impression had been given to face the types,
the wood-cuts, if in the same form, would have been crushed.
The quality of the presswork of the _Speculum_ has been strangely
misrepresented. Sotheby, who tries to establish the priority of Dutch
printing, says that the ink in one edition is brilliant; that its
types have great beauty and sharpness; that its presswork is equal in
clearness to that of Gutenberg’s Bible. In this high praise no other
author joins: most critics say it is but a shabby piece of presswork.
The Dutch authors, who wish to show the imperfections of typography in
its infancy, call especial attention to the illegibility of the fourth
edition in Dutch, which they claim as the first, and for that reason
they rate it as an unusually clumsy piece of printing. Van der Linde
says that the presswork of the _Speculum_ does not differ materially
from that of many books printed in the Netherlands during the last
quarter of the fifteenth century.[141]
The wood-cuts were printed by the unknown process then made use of by
all block-printers; the types were printed on a press which was fitted
with at least one of the appliances of a well-made printing press; but
the two editions in Latin, which are in verse, with lines of irregular
length, show typographical blemishes of an extraordinary nature. In
the blank spaces at the ends of the short lines are found impressions
of letters never intended to be seen or read—of letters that do
[p280] not belong to the text—of letters not printed with ink, but
embossed or jammed in the paper. On some pages entire words are found.
These words and letters, which are always found within the square of
the printed page, and in line with the types printed in black, are,
undeniably, embossings of types from the same font. The printer who
critically examines these embossed letters will be convinced that the
types making them were used as bearers at the ends of the short lines,
to shield adjacent types from hard impression: he will also know that
they were printed on a press provided with a frisket.[142]
The period in which the early editions of the _Speculum_ were printed
will be the subject of the next chapter, but it may here be told when
the wood-cuts were destroyed. In the year 1483, one John Veldener,
then a printer at Culembourg, printed two editions of the _Speculum_,
in the Dutch language, and in small quarto form. One edition contained
116 and another 128 illustrations, printed from the wood-cuts that had
been previously used in the four notable editions. To make these broad
wood-cuts, which had been designed for pages in folio, serve for pages
in quarto, Veldener cut away the architectural frame-work surrounding
each illustration, and then sawed each block in two pieces. Mutilated
in this fashion, it was impossible afterward for any printer to use
these blocks in the production of an edition in folio like any of those
that have been previously described. Veldener’s editions were not made
by the method used by the printer of the earlier editions: the types
and the wood-cuts were printed together, [p281] in black ink and upon
both sides of the leaf. The blocks were badly worn before they were
mutilated: the finer lines of the engraving are flattened out, and
retain too much ink, producing an effect of blackness and muddiness
not shown in the impressions of the earlier editions. The fault is
certainly in the cuts, and not in the presswork, for Veldener was an
able printer. The wood-cuts printed by him in other books, at Louvain
and at Utrecht, show neater presswork, although they are of feeble
design and meanly engraved.[143]
Although Veldener made use of the wood-cuts, he did not use any of the
types of the _Speculum_. His book types are well known: as they are of
different bodies and faces, they may be regarded as conclusive evidence
that Veldener was not the printer of the early editions. It is probable
that he bought from the printer of the first editions, or from his
successors, the wood-cuts only. We may suppose that the types were worn
out, and that the punches and matrices were also worn out or obsolete,
for we find no traces of them in the books of any later printer. We
have, therefore, to attribute all the books in which these types are
found to a printer who preceded Veldener. We do not know the name of
this printer, nor can we fix the date when he began to print, but it is
evident that he was one of the earliest if not the first typographic
printer in the Netherlands.
[p282]
XV
The Works and Workmanship of an Unknown Printer.
The Speculum not the Work of an Experimenter . . . Improbable that
this was his only Typographic Book . . . Twelve Books, Eight Faces
of Types and Forty-two Editions attributed to him or his Successors
. . . Hessel’s Classification of these Types . . . Fac-simile of the
Types of the Speculum . . . Fac-simile of the Fables of Lorenzo Valla
. . . Fac-simile of the Peculiarities of Criminal Law . . . Fac-simile
of the Epitaphs of Pope Pius II . . . The Donatus . . . Fac-simile
of the Abecedarium . . . The Eight Faces of Types were made by the
same Printer . . . An Indication that he Wore out Types rapidly . . .
That he Sold many Books . . . Trivial Character of the Books . . .
His Types not Made of Wood . . . Illustrations of Types of Wood . . .
Their Impracticability Demonstrated . . . Books not made from Cut
Types . . . Cause of the Dissimilar Appearance of the Types . . . Were
Founded . . . The Press of the Unknown Printer . . . Its Defects . . .
Indications of the Use of a Frisket.
* * * * *
If any shall suggest, that some of the Enquiries here insisted upon
(as particularly those about the Letters of the Alphabet) do seem too
minute and trivial for any prudent man to bestow his serious thoughts
and time about, such persons may know that the discovery of the true
nature and cause of any the most minute thing doth promote real
knowledge, and therefore cannot be unfit for any Man’s endeavours.
_Bishop Wilkins_, 1668.
* * * * *
If the printer of the _Speculum_ was the rightful inventor of
typography, his workmanship, as shown in the different editions of the
book, clearly proves that he had passed the shoals of experiment, and
was on the broad sea of successful practice. We can see, even without
the help of the legends or chronicles, that he cut punches, made moulds
and founded types of different faces and bodies; that he compounded
ink in a proper manner, and printed his types upon a press constructed
for the needs of his work; that he was successful both as a publisher
and a printer. He practised printing not for amusement, nor in the way
of scientific experiment, but as a business. Rude as his workmanship
may appear, it fairly included all departments of the art: it was not
experimental, but practical typography. [p283]
With these facts before us, it would seem proper to pass at once
to the examination of the statements that have been made about the
supposed printer of the book. But an examination at this point would be
premature, for we have not, as yet, all the facts that are required.
The four editions of the _Speculum_ do not furnish enough evidence. It
is not reasonable to suppose that two or three distinct fonts of type
were made for no other purpose than the printing of four editions of
this book. It is probable that the printer printed other books. But
the early chronicles of Dutch printing tell us very little about these
books. They are not only meagre in their recital of the more important
facts connected with the invention, but are notoriously incorrect in
their description of the minor details. They are unsafe guides. The
books themselves, which reveal, to some extent, the process by which
they were printed, are now regarded as of higher authority. We can
accept the chronicles only so far as they corroborate the internal
evidences of the books. It is proper that the books should be examined
first.
The number of these books is greater than has been supposed, even
by those who have favored the Dutch version of the invention of
typography. Forty-three editions of twelve different works, printed
from eight faces of types, are now attributed to the unknown printer
of the _Speculum_ or to his successors. In eleven works, the types
resemble those of the _Speculum_, but the books are different as to
character. They are in the form of small quarto or octavo, and are
entirely destitute of illustrations. They are without name or place
of printer, and, with one exception, are without date; they have
no literary and no historical value; they differ but little, in a
mechanical point of view, from numerous undated works of similar nature
that have been assigned by bibliographers to the latter part of the
fifteenth century. The places where these books or their fragments
were found, and some of their peculiarities of workmanship, furnish
evidences of value in an inquiry concerning their printer. [p284]
These books have been carefully classified according to their types, by
J. H. Hessels, the translator in English of Van der Linde’s _Haarlem
Legend_, from which work the classification following has been copied.
The types have been specified by numbers, and have been arranged
according to the order in which they are described by Holtrop in his
_Monuments typographiques_. It is not pretended that the order of these
numbers indicates the order in which the types were made; numbers have
been assigned to them only for convenience in reference and for the
purpose of accurate classification.
TYPE I. In this character[144] the four notable editions of the
_Speculum_ were printed. In the same character were found the relics of
six editions of the _Donatus_. The single leaf by which one edition of
this book was identified, was pasted in a volume which once belonged to
Sion Convent, at Cologne, and which contained several treatises printed
by Ulric Zell, of Cologne. One of these treatises is dated 1467.
Another leaf, now in the city hall of the city of Haarlem, was found
in the original binding of an account book for the year 1474, which
book was kept in the cathedral of that city. The account books of this
church for the years 1476, 1485 and 1514, contain cuttings of leaves
from the same edition. The first entry in the record of 1474 is to this
effect: “_Item._ I have paid six Rhine florins to Cornelis the binder,
for the binding of books.”[145] Fragments of other little books printed
in the types of the _Speculum_ have been found:
An abridgment of the Liturgy, then known as the _Little Book of the
Mass_,[146] a small quarto, with pages of twelve lines. [p285]
A Dutch version of the _Seven Penitential Psalms_, in the form of a
very small quarto, containing but eleven lines to the page, printed on
vellum, on one side only of the leaf. The only known copy of this work
was found in Brussels.
Fragments on vellum of three editions of the _Doctrinal of Alexander
Gallus_, a Latin grammar in rhyme, noticed by Van der Linde as the
shabby compilation, by a priest of Brittany who lived in the thirteenth
century, of the old Latin grammar of Priscianus. One of these fragments
was found within the lining of a book printed at Deventer in 1495.
Four leaves of the _Couplets of Cato_, a small quarto which was then
very popular in the schools.
[Illustration: Type II. Fac-simile of the Small Types in the Third
Edition of the Speculum.
[From Holtrop.]]
TYPE II. The Dutch edition of the _Speculum_, which is described in
this book as the third, contains, on pages 49 and 60, types which
resemble those of other editions, and which seem to be the workmanship
of the same letter-cutter. As these types are of a smaller face and
body, they must have been founded in another mould. No fragments of any
book in this smaller type have been found.
[Illustration: Type III. Fac-simile of the Types of the Fables of
Lorenzo Valla.
[From Koning.]]
TYPE III. The types of this face are newer, but they resemble those
of Type II; some capitals are identical, but others have differences
which establish it as a distinct face. As it is of a larger body, it
must have been founded in a [p286] different mould. A book which
contains the _Fables of Lorenzo Valla_ and the _Witty Speeches of Great
Men_, two little works of some popularity in the fifteenth century,
is the only known specimen of this type. The paper of this book,
which is like that of the _Speculum_, contains many of the strange
blemishes, previously described, of useless letters embossed in the
white lines and near the margins. As the written preface of the author
is dated May, 1438, it is apparent that the book must have been printed
subsequently to this date.
[Illustration: Type IV. Fac-simile of the Types of the Peculiarities of
Criminal Law.
[From Koning.]]