Mentz on the Rhine. And it is a great honor to the German nation that
such ingenious men are found among them. And it took place about the
year of our Lord 1440, and from this time until the year 1450, the
art, and what is connected with it, was being investigated. And in the
year of our Lord 1450 it was a golden year [jubilee], and they began
to print, and the first book they printed was the Bible in Latin; it
was printed in a large letter, resembling the letter with which at
present missals are printed. Although the art [as has been said] was
discovered at Mentz, in the manner as it is now generally used, yet
the first prefiguration [_die erste vurbyldung_] was found in Holland
[the Netherlands], in the _Donatuses_, which were printed there before
that time. And from these _Donatuses_ the beginning of the said art
was taken, and it was invented in a manner much more masterly and
subtile than this, and became more and more ingenious. One named
Omnibonus, wrote in a preface to the book called Quinctilianus, and
in some other books too, that a Walloon from France, named Nicol.
Jenson, discovered first of all this masterly art; but that is untrue,
for [p316] there are those still alive who testify that books were
printed at Venice before Nicol. Jenson came there and began to cut
and make letters. But the first inventor of printing was a citizen of
Mentz, born at Strasburg, and named Junker Johan Gutenberg. From Mentz
the art was introduced first of all into Cologne, then into Strasburg,
and afterward into Venice. The origin and progress of the art was
told me verbally by the honorable master Ulrich Zell, of Hanau, still
printer at Cologne, anno 1499, and by whom the said art came to
Cologne.[175]
Ulrich Zell is a candid and a competent witness, yet he narrates not
what he had seen, but what he had heard. He was but a mere child,
possibly unborn, when Gutenberg began to experiment with types at
Strasburg about the year 1436, or sixty-three years before this
chronicle was printed.
Zell’s statement is the earliest acknowledgment of the priority of
book-printing in Holland, but it is an incomplete and unsatisfactory
acknowledgment. He names Gutenberg, but he does not name the printer
of the _Donatus_. He specifies the period between 1440 and 1450 as
the time, and Mentz as the place, and the great _Latin Bible_ as
the first product, of the German invention; but he does not specify
the year nor the city in which the _Donatus_ was first printed. The
only specifications are—in Holland,[176] before Gutenberg, and by an
inferior method. It is apparent that Zell did not have exact knowledge
of the details of early Dutch printing, and that he could not describe
its origin nor its peculiarities with accuracy.
We cannot supplement Zell’s imperfect description of early Dutch
printing with knowledge or with inferences that might [p317] be
derived from a critical examination of the Dutch _Donatuses_. These
books, described by him as the prefiguration of typography, have been
destroyed. There is no known copy of the _Donatus_, neither typographic
nor xylographic, which can be attributed to a period before that of
Gutenberg’s first experiments in Strasburg. The early typographic
copies have the full-spaced lines, which were not in use before 1460 in
any book; the xylographic copies are about as old, and, for the most
part, are imitations of the typographic editions. Guided by these facts
we have to conclude that it is not probable that the _Donatuses_ of
Zell were printed from types.
The frequent repetition of the statement that _the_ art was invented
in Germany shows there was no confusion in the mind of the writer
concerning the relative importance of the German and the Dutch method
of printing. He clearly perceived, although he obscurely described,
two distinct methods of book-printing: the first, the method used
for printing the _Donatus_, which method was imperfect and but a
prefiguration; the second, the method that was more masterly and
subtile, the method that now is used. The second method was, without
doubt, the making of accurate types in metal moulds, and the printing
of great books. It was not the second invention, but the invention,
inasmuch as it was the only invention that had a practical value. The
_Donatus_ was printed, but it was not printed by _the art_. It was _the
art as it is now used_, the only practical art of making types and
books, of which Gutenberg was the first inventor.
According to German historians, the first method was xylography.
They say that it was the sight of some lost or now unknown copy of
an engraved _Donatus_, which gave to Gutenberg the suggestion of the
more subtile invention of movable types; that this _Donatus_ was not
taken as a model for imitation—it served only as the suggestion of an
entirely new method. Dutch historians say that it is unreasonable to
assume that this _Donatus_ was engraved on wood. There is force in the
argument that it is not probable that Ulrich Zell, [p318] the printer,
who furnished the writer of the chronicle with his facts, and who,
as a German, was proud that typography was a German invention, would
have ascribed the first rude practice of printing to Holland, if this
practice had been nothing but xylography. It cannot be supposed that
Gutenberg was so ignorant of the productions of German formschneiders
that he believed xylographic printing was done only in Holland. They
say that the suggestive _Donatus_ which was made in Holland should have
been a typographic book, printed as the _Speculum_ was printed, from
types founded by an inferior method—a method that was never imitated.
It will be seen that the statement of the Cologne chronicler is so
ambiguous that it can be wrested to the benefit of either side of the
question. It can be used to support the hypothesis that there were two
inventions of typography—one Dutch, one German—one of little and the
other of great merit—both alike in theory, but unlike in process and
in result. But it is not worth while to consider the probability of a
very early invention of typography in Holland until we can find the
evidences which will compensate for the deficiencies of Zell.
This evidence is wanting. The statement attributed to Ulrich Zell is
the only acknowledgment made by any writer, Dutch or German, during the
fifteenth century. In view of the pretensions subsequently made, the
silence of the earliest Dutch writers and printers seems unaccountable.
Many of the printers were learned and patriotic men, proud of their art
and of their country, but in none of their books do we find any claim
for Holland as the birthplace of typography. Nor was this claim made by
any of the great men of Holland. Erasmus, the scholar, the guest and
corrector of the press for John Froben, the friend and correspondent
of Thierry Martens, first scholarly printer in the Netherlands, should
have known something of the introduction of typography in his native
country; but the only mention that he made of the origin of the art
was to attribute its invention to Germany. Before the year 1480, three
chronicles of the events of the century had been [p319] printed in
Holland, but in none of them is any notice made of early printing in
Holland. The printers of Holland who followed their business in other
cities never claimed Haarlem as the birthplace of typography. Before
the year 1500, there were Dutch printers who put on record, in imprints
attached to their books,[177] their belief in the statement that
printing had been invented in Germany. It does not appear that there
was then any knowledge of the legend of Haarlem.
[Illustration: Fac-simile of the types of Jacob Bellaert.
[From Holtrop.]]
At this point it may be proper to record what is exactly known about
the old printing offices of this town. The first Haarlem book with a
printed date is of the year 1483. It is a little religious book that
contains thirty-two wood-cuts and a peculiar face of type that had been
used the year before by one Gerard Leeu of Gouda. The printer’s name is
not given, but a colophon at the end of the book distinctly says that
it was printed at “haerlem in hollant.” From the same press, by the
same printer, and with the same types, seven other books were printed
before the year 1486. In one of these books, dated 1484, is printed the
name of the printer, Jacob Bellaert of Zierikzee. There is no evidence
that he had been taught typography in Haarlem, nor that he succeeded
to any old printing office in that town. Bellaert was from Zierikzee;
his types and his wood-cuts had been procured from Gerard Leeu of
Gouda. The types are of a condensed form, superior to those of the
_Speculum_, fairly lined, obviously cast in moulds [p320] of metal,
entirely unlike those of the unknown printer. The engravings have many
peculiarities of design and cut which are not to be found in any known
block-book.
Jan Andrieszoon was the second printer of Haarlem. In 1485 he opened
a printing office with a stock of old and worn types, printed seven
books, four with and three without a date. There is no evidence
whatever that connects him or his works with the unknown printer. The
competition of two rival printers in a small town produced the usual
result. As no book can be found with the imprint of either printer
after 1486, we have to infer that the printers closed their offices and
abandoned typography.
The imprint of Haarlem does not again appear on any book before 1507.
The name of the third printer is supposed to be Hasback, who, in 1506,
had an office in Amsterdam, which he removed to Haarlem. His enterprise
was unsuccessful, for no book of a later date can be attributed to him.
There is neither record nor tradition of any typographic printer in
Haarlem between the years 1507 and 1561. The account books of the
treasury of the town contain entries which show that its typographic
work was done at Leyden. Coornhert and Van Zuren, “sworn book-printers
at Haarlem,” were also unsuccessful, for we have no evidences of their
work after the year 1562.
In 1581, Anthonis Ketel was in possession of a printing office in
Haarlem, but typography cannot be considered as securely established in
that town before 1587, in which year one Gillis Rooman began to print.
He continued to work as printer until 1611, when he was succeeded by
Adrien Rooman.
There is nothing in this list of unsuccessful printers which assures
us that typography had been invented or cherished in Haarlem. Nor is
there even any recorded evidence of an early printing of block-books.
There was, at an early date, in Haarlem a guild composed of painters,
goldsmiths, sculptors, and of other artisans; but we can find no
engraver on wood, no _prenter_ or _figuersnyder_ among the members.
“The harvest [p321] of history,” writes Dr. Van der Linde, concerning
Haarlem, “on the field of typography may be scanty; on the field of
xylography it does not yield anything.”
This recital of the names and the fortunes of the earlier printers
of Haarlem is not altogether irrelevant; it furnishes a proper
introduction to the legend of Haarlem. The first printer in Haarlem,
Jacob Bellaert, whose art must have been a wonder to simple people,
closed his office after two or three years of unsuccessful labor, and
probably went to some other place. The printers who followed him at
long intervals were equally unsuccessful. Van der Linde thinks that
it is around the first printing office of Haarlem that the vague
traditions have clustered.
In none of the notices of early Netherlandish printing do we find
any mention of Coster of Haarlem, or any description of printing by
types. There is extant, however, an allusion, which cannot be passed
by unnoticed, to the printed work of one Brito of Bruges, who, about
1481, printed a little book entitled _The Book of Doctrine for the
Instruction of Christians_. The first page of this book says that it
is a copy of two great tablets in the Church of Our Lady of Terouanne;
the last page has this inscription in six lines of faulty Latin rhyme:
[p322]
[Illustration: Fac-simile of the Types of John Brito.[178]
[From Holtrop.]]
Brito was a member of the Fraternity of Saint John the Baptist,
between the years 1454 and 1494, but he was not industrious as a
printer, for Campbell can attribute but four books to him. Van
Praet[179] says that he was engaged by the bishop of the church to
paint or to affix this _Book of Doctrine_ on the great tablets, which
he did by the wonderful art of stenciling, with the very astonishing
instruments of perforated letters, nobody having instructed him.
Proud of his work, he attached this inscription. When he printed
the composition in the form of a book he repeated the inscription.
It is not possible that Brito intended to convey the notion that he
had invented typography. So far from inventing types, Brito did not
even make the types that he used in this book. They are the types of
Veldener of Utrecht.[180]
From the early records we can glean nothing which will demonstrate that
typography was practised in any part of the Netherlands before 1472.
The workmanship of all known Netherlandish printers after this date
is of every degree of merit and of demerit, but in all their books
it shows the impressions of types founded in moulds of hard metal,
and properly printed on a press, on both sides of the paper, and in
black ink. As it is a style of workmanship entirely unlike that of the
unknown printer, it is a proper inference that typography came into the
Netherlands, as it did into all other countries, through the pupils and
by the method of Gutenberg.
The table annexed will show how late was the beginning of typography in
the Netherlands. It also shows that printing “by the art that is now
used,” was introduced almost simultaneously in three different towns of
the Netherlands. In the year 1473, John of Westphalia was first printer
at Alost; [p324] the partners Ketelaer and De Leempt were at Utrecht;
and Veldener was at Louvain. Ketelaer and De Leempt were Netherlanders,
but there is no evidence to confirm the conjecture that they had been
instructed by the unknown printer. Veldener of Wurtzburg, John of
Westphalia, Colard Mansion, William Caxton, Arnold Ter Hoorne, Conrad
of Westphalia, Richard Paffroed, Conrad Braem, and Hermann of Nassau
were graduates from printing offices at Cologne.[181] It is possible
that Thierry Martens also was taught typography in the same city. We
have many evidences that Cologne was the school of typography for the
Netherlands.
[Illustration:
THE TOWNS AND CITIES OF THE NETHERLANDS IN WHICH PRINTING OFFICES WERE
ESTABLISHED DURING THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
[From Holtrop.]
Utrecht Nicholas Ketelaer, Gerard de Leempt, 1473–1474.
William Hees 1475.
John Veldener 1478–1481.
Alost John of Westphalia 1473–1474.
Thierry Martens 1474–1490.
Louvain John Veldener 1473–1477.
John of Westphalia 1474–1496.
Conrad Braem 1475–1481.
Conrad of Westphalia 1476.
Hermann of Nassau, Rud. Loeffs, 1483.
Egidius van der Heerstraten 1485–1488.
Louis de Ravescot 1488.
Thierry Martens 1498–1500.
Brussels Brotherhood of the Life-in-Common, 1476–1487.
Gouda Gerard Leeu 1477–1484.
Godfrey de Os 1486.
Godfrey de Ghemen
Unnamed Printer 1486.
Bruges Colard Mansion 1475–1484.
John Brito
Deventer Richard Paffroed 1477–1500.
Jacques de Breda 1485–1500.
Delft Jacob Jacobzoon 1477–1479.
J. Van der Meer 1480–1487.
Unnamed Printer 1488–1494.
St. Maartensdyk Werrecoren 1478.
Nimeguen Gerard Leempt 1479.
Zwoll Unknown Printer 1479.
Peter von Os 1480–1500.
Audenarde Arn. l’Empereur 1480–1482.
Hasselt Pereg. Bermentlo 1480–1481.
Antwerp Matt. Van der Goes 1482–1491.
Gerard Leeu 1484–1493.
Thierry Martens 1493–1497.
Leyden Henry Henry 1483–1484.
Gand Arnold l’Empereur 1483–1489.
Culenburg John Veldener 1483–1484.
Bois-le-Duc Gerard Leempt 1484–1487.
Schoonhoven Brotherhood 1495–1500.
Schiedam Unnamed Printer 1498–1500.
Haarlem Jacob Bellaert 1483–1486.]
We have no evidences that the unknown printer acquired his poor
knowledge of typography through any other channel. His unequal
workmanship is an indication that his instruction was imperfect;
the neat presswork of his wood-cuts is that of an expert printer of
block-books, who, no doubt, had abundant practice in this field before
he undertook to print with types; the rudeness of his typographic
work is that of one who had never received regular instruction in
typography. It is possible that he received only a verbal explanation
of the processes of the art,[182] and that he tried, unaided, to
graft the new into the old method. His workmanship seems to be that
of an imitator, a curious mixture of skill and of ignorance, but its
inferiority to the workmanship of other printers of his time is not
proof of its greater age or of his originality; it proves only his
imperfect instruction or greater incapacity. So far from showing
the first steps in an immature invention, his books truly show the
degradation of a perfect method. They show the ignorance of a badly
taught typographic printer, and [p325] the prejudices of an old
block-printer who had adopted the newer method with reluctance. We have
seen that Walther’s edition of the _Bible of the Poor_ is every way
inferior to the first edition, and have drawn from it the conclusion
that there was a wonderful degradation of the art of engraving on wood.
When we establish a comparison between the great _Bible_ of Gutenberg
and the _Speculum_ of the unknown printer we have similar premises,
and have to form the similar conclusion, that the arts do not always
improve with age, and that the pupil or the imitator is often inferior
to the master.
The evidences in favor of the priority of the unknown printer are
very slight. It may be conceded that he was the first printer of the
Netherlands, but it has not been proved, nor is it probable, that he
printed with types earlier than the year 1463. Still more improbable
is the assumption that he was an independent inventor of printing. We
have to judge of the merits of this pretended invention as we do of
every other—by its fruits. It had no fruit. The facts that this unknown
printer made no mark on his age—that he left no work worthy of his
alleged invention—that neither he nor his printed work was noticed by
any of the chroniclers of his day—that he had no pupils, no successors,
no imitators—should be sufficient to prove that he was not an inventor
but an imitator.
By many authors the question of his possible priority has been decided,
not from an examination of known and proved facts, but from the
assertions of prejudiced and untrustworthy witnesses. The frequent
presentation of the statement of the _Cologne Chronicle_, and of the
legends that find their support in it, has not been without effect.
There is a general belief in the tradition that types were first made
in Haarlem by Coster, and that the German method was the outgrowth of
the Dutch method. This proposition has been repeated so frequently and
so confidently that it becomes necessary to give a critical examination
to the legend of printing in Haarlem.
[p326]
XVII
The Legend of Loureus Janszoon Coster.
Coornhert’s Notice of Printing in Haarlem . . . Notice by Van Zuren
. . . By Guicciardini . . . The Statement of Junius . . . Fac-simile
of Scriverius’s Portrait of Coster . . . Sketch of Junius’s life and
Works . . . Examination of his Statement . . . Vagueness of the Date
. . . Junius’s Story is Incredible . . . Wood Types could not be Used
. . . Metal Types made too soon . . . This story an Imitation of a
Spurious German Story . . . Fust was not the Thief . . . Absurdity
of the Accusation . . . Evidence of Cornelis . . . Our knowledge of
Cornelis from other Sources . . . Cornelis not an Eye-Witness . . .
Talesius not a Satisfactory Witness . . . Disappearance of the Art
more Wonderful than its Invention . . . Legend Cherished for Patriotic
Reasons . . . Its Growth and its Exaggerations.
* * * * *
He who is satisfied, as regards a fact like that of the invention of
typography, with the simple assertion of people who talk of things
which are said to have happened more than a century before their time,
is destitute of scientific morality: he is ignorant of the passion of
truth; in short, he belongs to the plebeians. We have not only the
right to reject the fable fabricated by Junius, . . . but as honest
men we are bound to do it.
_Van der Linde._
* * * * *
In the year 1561, Jan Van Zuren and Dierick Coornhert, with other
partners, set up a printing office in Haarlem. Van Zuren was a native
and burgomaster of the town of Amsterdam; Coornhert, who was a notary
and an engraver, is said to have been the instructor of the famous
engraver Goltzius. Their first book was an edition of _Cicero de
Officiis_, to which they prefixed the following quaint dedication:
To the burgomaster, sheriffs and councilors of the town of Haarlem, D.
V. Coornhert wishes as his honorable and commanding masters, salvation
to soul and body.
“I was often told, in good faith, honorable, wise, and prudent
gentlemen, that the useful art of printing books was invented first of
all here at Haarlem, although in a very crude way, as it is easier to
improve on an invention than to invent; which art having been [p327]
brought to Mentz by an unfaithful servant, was very much improved
there, whereby this town, on account of its first having spread it,
gained such a reputation for the invention of this art, that our
fellow-citizens find very little credence when they ascribe this honor
to the true inventor, as it is believed by many here on incontestable
information, and is undoubtedly known to the elder citizens. Nor am
I ignorant that this fame of Mentz has taken so deeply root in the
opinion of all, by the heedless carelessness of our forefathers, that
no proof, however apparent, however clear, however blameless it may
be, would be capable of removing this inveterate impression from the
hearts of the people. But—for truth is no less truth when known only
to a few, and because I implicitly believe what I have said before, on
account of the trustworthy evidence of very old, dignified, and grey
heads, who often told me not only the family of the inventor, but also
his name and surname, and explained the first crude way of printing,
and pointed with their finger the house of the first printer out to
me—I could not help mentioning this in few words, not as an envier
of another’s glory, but as a lover of truth, and to the promotion of
the honor of this town; which proper and just ambition seems to have
also been the cause for the re-establishment and recommencement of
this printing office (as a shoot from the root of an old tree). For
it often happened, when the citizens talked to each other about this
case, that they complained that others enjoyed this glory unjustly,
and (as they said) without anybody contradicting them, because no one
exercised printing in this town.”[183]
The claim of Haarlem to the invention of printing is confidently
stated, but Coornhert has neglected to give the name or describe the
process of the inventor, to fix the date of the invention, or to
specify any of its products. He and his venerable informants, the
“honorable, wise and prudent gentlemen,” knew all these matters, but
Coornhert prudently kept silence. It is worthy of notice that Coornhert
admits that, in 1561, “the fame of Mentz” had taken so deep a root in
the minds of many people that no proof could remove it.
A full notice of the details of early printing might have been
considered out of place in the preface to a classic text book, but
it would have been pertinent in a “_Dialogue on the First Invention
of the Typographic Art_,” which was the title of a book said to have
been written by Jan Van Zuren. Of [p328] this dialogue nothing is
known but the introduction. Whether the author grew weary of his task,
and abandoned it before completion, or whether the manuscript was
destroyed, as is alleged, during the siege of Haarlem in 1573, cannot
now be ascertained. All we know of this manuscript is through Peter
Scriverius, who, diligently gleaning every scrap of history that favors
the Haarlem invention, has preserved the preface. It is too long and
rambling for a literal translation; this is the substance, which Van
Zuren approached with great delicacy:
He does not wish to deprive Mentz of its rightful honors, but he will
see that the honors of Haarlem are not altogether lost. The town of
Mentz, so justly lauded, first introduced this art, received from us,
in public life. The first crude foundations of this excellent art were
laid in our town of Haarlem. Here the art of printing was born. No
doubt it was here carefully cultivated and improved; here it remained
during many years, until at last it accompanied a foreigner and made,
at last, its public appearance at Mentz.
Here again is a noticeable absence of names, dates, books, evidences
and authorities.[184] From beginning to end there is nothing in this
statement but naked assertion.