of Haarlem when Junius was writing _Batavia_. In referring to him,
Junius is careful in his choice of words. “My account does not disagree
with that of Talesius. . . . I recollect that I have heard from him
nearly the same story.” This is a timid assertion—one that Talesius
could have modified in some of its features. Talesius himself has not
spoken. Talesius was, in his youth, the secretary, and, in mature age,
the intimate friend of Erasmus, to whom he must have spoken about the
legend, but he did not make Erasmus believe it.[201]
The mysterious disappearance of the practice of the art from Haarlem
is even more wonderful than its introduction. The tools may have
been stolen, but the knowledge of the art must have remained. Coster
may have died immediately after the theft, but his son-in-law Thomas
Pieterzoon, and the workmen, who knew all about the details of
typography, were living, and able to go on with the work.[202] The
making of books may have been temporarily suspended, but the curious
[p346] public who clamored for them should have persuaded Coster’s
successors to fill their wants. The new art of printing which found
so many admirers should not have been completely forgotten fifty
years afterward. There is nothing in the story of Junius to satisfy
these doubts. If we accept his account of the invention, we must rest
contented with the belief that typography in Haarlem died as suddenly
as it was born, leaving behind as its only relics one edition of the
_Speculum_ and the old wine-flagons of Thomaszoon. The same strange
fatality followed the alleged thief John who fled to Mentz and printed
two books in 1442. Immediately after, his types, his peculiar process
and his printed books disappear forever.
The improbable features of this legend were not seen in the uncritical
age in which _Batavia_ was written. Patriotic Dutchmen did not wish to
see them. Holland, at the close of the sixteenth century, was flushed
with pride at her successful resistance to the power of Spain. Grateful
to the men who had made her famous, she exaggerated the services of
all her eminent sons. Coster was not forgotten. The name of Junius
gave authority to the Haarlem legend, and the story of Coster was
read and believed throughout the Netherlands. There were dramatic
features connected with it which pleased the imagination and fastened
themselves to the memory. To people who had no opportunity to examine
the evidences, the legend of Haarlem soon became an article of national
faith, to disbelieve which was to be disloyal and unpatriotic. But
this enthusiasm would have subsided if it had not been nourished. If
subsequent writers had added nothing to this legend of Junius, it
would not be necessary to write more about it. Long ago it would have
been put aside as untrue. But the legend has grown: it has been almost
hidden under the additions that have been made to it. The snow-ball
has become a snow-heap. It is necessary to expose the falsity of the
additions as well as of the legend, and to show how recklessly this
chapter of the history of typography has been written.
[p347]
XVIII
The Growth of the Legend.
Perversion by Bertius . . . Romance of Scriverius . . . Date of
Invention removed to 1428 . . . Illustration of First Statue to
Coster . . . Date of 1420 given by Boxhorn . . . Rooman’s Date of
1430 . . . History and Chronology of Seiz . . . Doubts of Hollanders
. . . Discrepancies in the Dates on Medals . . . Meerman and his
Unsatisfactory System . . . Fac-similes of Medals . . . Koning and his
Prize Essay . . . Dr. De Vries’s Theory . . . Radical Disagreements of
the Authors . . . All Versions Enlargements of the Legend as given by
Junius . . . An Article of Patriotic Faith in Holland . . . Monuments
to Coster . . . Illustration of Last Statue.
* * * * *
Who is there that has not opinions planted in him by education time
out of mind, which by that means came to be as the municipal laws
of the country, which must not be questioned, but are to be looked
on with reverence . . . when these opinions are but the traditional
grave talk of those who receive them from hand to hand without ever
examining them?
_Locke._
* * * * *
At the end of the sixteenth century, the legend had two strong
supports—the authority of an eminent scholar, and the patriotic pride
of the Hollanders, who accepted it as truthful history. It did not,
however, pass the ordeal of criticism unharmed: the weaker points of
the legend were exposed by many German authors, and the weight of
their objections compelled Dutch writers to attempt new explanations.
Bertius,[203] writing in 1600, and evidently perplexed by the
carelessness with which Junius had noticed Coster’s first experiments,
says, but without producing any proof, that “Coster invented the art
of printing with engraved blocks or xylography . . . . the three-fold
villain John Faust stole the invention.” Here we see the unavoidable
result of Junius’s [p348] malignant innuendo: Bertius does not
hesitate, as Junius did, to name Fust as the false workman who stole
Coster’s tools.
Peter Scriverius thought it necessary, in 1628, to enlarge and
embellish the story of Junius. He wrote a new version of the invention,
which appeared with a curious poem called the _Laurecrans_.[204]
This, says Scriverius, was the manner of it: In the year 1428,
Laurens Coster, then a sheriff of Haarlem, strolled in the Haarlem
wood. He took up the branch of an oak-tree, cut a few letters in
relief on the wood, and after a while wrapped them up in paper. He
then fell asleep, but while he slept, rain descended and soaked the
paper. Awakened by a clap of thunder, he took up the sheet, and, to
his astonishment, discovered that the rain had transferred to it the
impress of the letters. Here was the suggestion of xylography, which
he at once followed to a successful conclusion. He printed a great
many block-books and a _Donatus_, but finding to his surprise that
letters cut upon a solid block could not be used for other work, he
thereupon invented typography. John Gutenberg, who had been employed
as a workman, stole the tools and the secret. Disheartened with this
misfortune, Coster abandoned printing and died. He proceeds:
It is my opinion that the art was first invented ten or twelve years
before the year of our Lord 1440 (in which the most trustworthy
authors agree), in Holland, at Haarlem. Junius has told its beginning
and progress before us. And although he discovered some particulars
about the invention, yet he has (I may be allowed to say it without
disturbing his ashes) his errors, and may not be pronounced free from
inadvertence. To-day (A. D. 1628) is just two centuries since the
[p349] excellent and valuable art of printing made its appearance (A.
D. 1428). Not in the manner that is used now, with letters cast of
lead and tin. No, it did not go on like that; but a book was cut, leaf
for leaf, on wooden blocks . . . . We must not think that every letter
was cut separately on wood, and that these letters were collected and
put together to a line, and in a certain number of lines. . . . . Our
acute Laurens first cut the letters, twisted and close to each other,
in the manner of writing on wood or tin; but afterward, when he was so
successful, he changed his method of working, and, having invented the
matrices, cast his letters. (!)
I will not say further how the noble art of engraving and printing
of engravings is connected with the invention of printing, which
arose afterward. But just as the dexterous Jan Fuyst imitated the
appropriate art of printing, so the excellent and talented printers
and designers, who also handled the artistic chisel and knife,
contrived to multiply and publish their engravings, cut after the
printing of the Haarlem figures. And all have been instructed by,
and got their first experience from, our clever and talented Laurens
Koster.[205]
Scriverius has given dates and new details, but he has not thrown any
clear light on the subject. He has not made the story of Junius more
credible, but he has exposed himself as a romancer and a fabricator.
In trying to mend the legend, he has destroyed it. If the story of
Scriverius is true, then that of Junius is false, for they contradict
each other. The statements of Junius were based on the pedigree and the
gossip of the old men of Haarlem; the statements of Scriverius were
based on nothing, for he had no authorities which the most lenient
critic could accept.
Scriverius said that Lourens Janszoen or Laurens Koster was the
inventor of xylography as well as of types. After an examination of
the _Speculum_, he had wit enough to see what Junius did not, that
the printer of the book must have had practice with blocks, and that
printing on blocks necessarily preceded printing with types. His
description of the growth of the new art is not at all satisfactory.
The careless manner in which he skips over the invention of matrices
and the making of the moulds is that of a man who knows nothing [p350]
about type-founding, neither from instruction nor observation.
Encouraged by the praise which Scriverius had received for his
performance, Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn undertook to place the date of the
invention eight years earlier. In his _Dissertation on the Invention of
Typography_, printed by Vogel at Leyden in the year 1640,[206] Boxhorn
says that the invention was made in 1420. Here we encounter a curious
fact. The story of Junius had been published less than fifty years, yet
the writers disagreed concerning the date of the invention. Believers
in the legend had been taught by one teacher that typography was
invented in 1440—by another, in 1428—by another, in 1420. And it is a
noticeable circumstance that the authors farthest removed from the date
of the invention were the most positive in their statements. The later
writers, who knew the least, give us the earlier dates.
Adrien Rooman, a printer of Haarlem, and apparently a conservative
and conciliatory man, thought that these differences could be most
satisfactorily adjusted by fixing the date midway between the extremes.
He was not in the possession of any newly discovered facts, and had no
authority for the arbitrary selection, but this incompetency did not
prevent him from publishing a portrait of Coster, with an inscription
which made the year 1430 the date of the invention.
To the thinking men of Haarlem the assumptions of Boxhorn were as
unsatisfactory as those of Junius and Scriverius. There was an air of
improbability, or at least of uncertainty, about the statements of
all the authorities, which filled their minds with doubts as to the
truth of the legend. The statue to Coster, which was soon after put up
in the Doctors’ Garden, had no date of invention on the pedestal. To
remove these doubts, Seiz[207] undertook, in 1742, to furnish “a true
and rational account of the invention” by Coster. The truth and reason
of this new description of the invention of Coster are most strikingly
illustrated in its chronology. [p352]
[Illustration: The Statue of Coster in the Doctors’ Garden.
[From Seiz.]]
1428 Laurens Coster engraved a few letters upon the bark of a tree.
1429 He gave one year to experimental engraving on wood.
1431 He printed the _Temptations of Demons_ or _Ars Moriendi_.
1432 Printed the _Bible of the Poor_.
1435 He began to engrave and print an edition of the _Donatus_.
1436 He cut separate letters or single types out of lead.
1437 After prolonged experiment, he abandoned this method.
1438 He invented a method of casting types of lead.
1439 He began to print an edition of the _Donatus_, and the Dutch
edition of the _Speculum_. In this year Gutenberg took service with
Coster, and began to print for him, by which he earned the title of
the Book-printer of Haarlem. (!)
1440 Gutenberg absconded with some knowledge of the invention. He was
able to cut, but not to cast types. (!)
1441 He established a printing office in Mentz.
1442 Gutenberg printed an _A b c_ book, the _Doctrinal_ of Alexander
Gallus and the _Treatise_ of Peter of Spain. By this time Coster had
repaired the damages of the theft.
1443 Coster printed the second edition of the _Speculum_ in Dutch.
1444 Coster printed a Latin edition of the _Speculum_.
1446 Gutenberg also induced Gensfleisch, called afterward Faust, (!)
and Meydenbach to join him in printing a _Latin Bible_.
1457 Coster’s art was well known, and excited the envy of the
Archbishop of Canterbury and of King Henry VI of England.
1457 The Archbishop persuaded the king to get a knowledge of the art
from Gutenberg, the first book printer of Haarlem. (!)
1459 Turnour and Caxton, who were sent on this mission, bribed
Frederick Corsellis, a workman of Coster, to run away from Haarlem in
disguise. To prevent his escape, Corsellis was taken to Oxford, in
which town he began to print in 1468.
1467 Coster died, about the same time that Gutenberg and Faust died.
(!) His printing office ceased to exist.[208]
Seiz has not told us where he obtained this curious information, but we
shall make no mistake if we attribute it to an imagination disordered
by national pride. His chronology is so absurd that serious criticism
would be a waste of time.
Notwithstanding the strong efforts of Seiz to remove the impression
created by the contradictory accounts of his predecessors, the citizens
of Haarlem seemed to be involved in [p353] greater doubts than ever
about the chronology of the invention. For, in 1740, upon the occasion
of the third jubilee of Coster’s invention, two silver medals were
struck, with legends curiously unlike. We here see that the name of the
inventor is printed in different forms; one medal bears the date 1440,
and the other contains the date 1428. These irregularities prepare us
for what is to follow.
[Illustration: Medals in Honor of Coster.
[From Seiz.]]
In 1757, Gerard Meerman, subsequently a distinguished champion of the
Haarlem legend, wrote “that the pretentious assertion of the invention
of printing by Laurens Coster begins to lose credit more and more.
The particulars that have been related by Seiz are mere suppositions,
and the chronology of Coster’s invention and enterprise is a romantic
fiction.”
But, in the year 1760, Daniel Schoepflin, an eminent scholar of
Strasburg, wrote a valuable contribution to the history of typography,
under the title of _Vindiciæ Typographicæ_. Meerman was provoked to
emulation. He had not believed in the legend, but he thought that
he could construct a theory of the invention, which would, to some
extent, concede the claims of the rival cities of Haarlem, Strasburg
and Mentz. In this illogical manner, by the construction of a theory
before [p354] he was in possession of the facts, he began to write the
_Origines Typographicæ_. The entire book was published in 1765, with a
portrait of Lourens Coster by the eminent Dutch engraver Houbraken, and
a portrait of Meerman himself by Daullé. In the matter of scholarship,
Meerman was thoroughly qualified for his task. He wrote in a clear
style and with admirable method. But he knew nothing of the mechanics
of printing nor of type-founding, and, unfortunately, he was too
conceited to accept correction or instruction even from the hands of
experts like Enschedé, Fournier and others. In trying to make facts
suit theories, he went so far as to order the engraver of a fac-simile
to stretch the vellum of a _Donatus_ so that the types used upon this
_Donatus_ should appear to be the same as the types of the _Speculum_.
[Illustration: Medals in Honor of Coster.
[From Seiz.]]
These are the conclusions submitted by Meerman as the result of his
study of, and reflection on, the legend of Haarlem:
Typography was invented by Louwerijs Janszoen, also known as Laurens
Coster, who, at various times between 1422 and 1434, filled the office
of sheriff, treasurer and sacristan. He was of noble blood, but a
bastard of one of the [p355] Brederodes. He died sometime between
1434 and 1440. He invented typography about 1428 or 1430, using only
movable types of wood. All that Junius has written about an invention
of lead and tin types by Coster is incorrect. He thinks it useless
to consider the engraving of letters upon solid wood-blocks, for
this is not typography, and is not printing as we now understand it.
Laurens was robbed on Christmas night, 1440, by Johan Gensfleisch
the elder, who carried the art to Mentz. The son-in-law and heirs
of Coster continued his business for some time after his death, but
with little appreciation, as they were overshadowed by the superior
invention of Gutenberg and Schœffer. Coster printed but one edition of
the _Speculum_ from types of wood. His successors printed the other
Dutch edition and the two Latin editions from engraved metal types.
The contributions of different inventors toward the perfect invention
are acknowledged in this manner: Laurens Coster was the first to
demonstrate the feasibility of typography by his use of wood types;
John Gensfleisch was the first to make cut or engraved metal types;
Peter Schoeffer was the inventor of cast or founded metal types; John
Gutenberg and John Fust were printers who invented nothing.
Meerman had fair warning from the type-founder and printer John
Enschedé that his theories of wood types[209] and of cut metal types
were preposterous. He did not heed the warning. He wrote, not for
printers, but for bibliographers who believed in the practicability of
wood types, and he did not mistake his readers. The bibliographers,
who knew little or nothing of the theory or practice of type-making,
were not competent to criticise the mechanical part of his theory.
He hoped to disarm the prejudices of German authors by his frank
acknowledgment of the contributions of Schœffer and Gensfleisch as
co-inventors. The novelty of his theory, the [p356] judicial equity
with which he decreed to Coster, Gensfleisch and Schœffer what he said
was their share in the honors of the invention, the temperate tone and
calm philosophic spirit in which the book was written, the breadth
of scholarship displayed in exact quotations from a great number of
authors, won admirers in all countries. The theory of Meerman about a
contributive invention need not be examined here: it has been entirely
refuted by many French and German authors; it was abandoned even by
Hollanders[210] at the beginning of the present century. The authority
of the book is at an end.
The conviction that all previously written defences of the legend were
untenable, caused a scientific society of Holland to offer a prize for
the best treatise on the invention. Jacobus Koning was the successful
competitor. In 1816, he published, under the sanction of the society,
the essay that had won the prize, under the title of “_The Origin,
Invention and Development of Printing_.” It was an inquiry of more than
ordinary merit—the first book on the subject which showed evidences of
original research. Koning tried to supplement the many deficiencies
of Junius, with extracts from the records of the old church and town
of Haarlem, which he had studied with diligence. He brought to light
a great deal of information about one Laurens Janszoon, whom he
confounded, as Meerman had done, with Lourens Janszoon Coster. This is
the substance of his discoveries and of his conclusions therefrom:
Koning describes the inventor as Laurens Janszoon Koster, and not as
Lourens Janszoon. He says that Koster was born about 1370; that there
are no records of his early life, and that his name does not appear
on any of the registers of Haarlem, municipal or ecclesiastical,
until he became a man of middle age. After this period of his life,
notices are frequent. He was the sacristan of a church from 1421 to
1433. He was, at different times, alderman and presiding alderman,
treasurer of the town, lender of money to the city, officer in the
citizens’ guard, member of the grand council, and deputy to a [p357]
convocation of the States—clearly a man of wealth and distinction.
There was a great pestilence in Haarlem in the latter part of the
year 1439, and Koning says it seems probable that Koster was one of
its many victims. Koster’s only child was a daughter named Lucette,
who married Thomas, the son of Pieter Pieterzoon—the Peter mentioned
by Junius. Pieterzoon had three children, but with them the family
name was lost. This Laurens Janszoon Koster invented xylography and
typography. He experimented with types of wood, but did not use them
for practical work. His types were founded in matrices of lead, and
in moulds of metal; he invented printing ink, and printed his books
with inking balls on a press. His materials were rude, but the process
was substantially the same as that of modern printers. He printed
the first edition of the _Speculum_ in 1430, and sixteen other books
before his death. His business as a printer was continued for some
years, but in a feeble manner, by his grandsons. The thief of Koster’s
process was Frielo Gensfleisch.
In the town records Koster is not noticed as a printer, but Koning
described his method of printing, his punches, moulds, matrices,
presses, inking balls, ink, types, and printing office furniture, with
as much boldness as if he had been eye-witness to the entire process.
Nor was this his only error. It has since been proved that he willfully
suppressed many important facts in the records which are of great
importance in an examination of the life and services of Coster. It is
plain that he was more intent on pleasing the national pride than on
revealing the truth.
The speculations of Koning were destroyed by the keen criticisms of
the authors who followed him. Dr. Abraham De Vries[211] set aside
impatiently nearly all the ingenious theories devised by former
commentators. He repudiated the statement that Coster had been a
sexton or sacristan, or that he invented engraving on wood. Warned
by the failures of his predecessors, he advanced no new theory about
the peculiarities of Coster’s typographic process; he professed to
be satisfied with the bald statement of Junius, and dogmatically
maintained that Coster “was the inventor of typography, of the proper
art of printing, the first who invented and practised [p358] the art
of printing with movable and cast letters, and so gave the example to
Mentz. . . . In the beginning, the art was secretly practised as a
trade in manuscripts, not only during the lifetime of the inventor, but
by his successors after his death.” De Vries placed the invention about
1423.
It is not necessary to protract this review of the different versions
of the legend, nor yet to point out the fatal disagreements and
inaccuracies of these versions. It is plain that all the authors who
have maintained the claims of Coster have taken their leading facts
from Junius. It is equally plain that they have been dissatisfied with
his statements and have tried to fill up the gaps in the evidence with
conjectures. But they have not made the legend any more credible. The
exact nature and date of the invention, the name of the inventor, his
method of making types, the books he printed, the thief who stole his
process, the fate of his printing office, the total disappearance of
the knowledge of the new art—these and other features of the positive
statement first made by Junius are enveloped in as complete a mystery
as they were when _Batavia_ was written.
With all its inconsistencies and improbabilities, the legend has
been accepted as essentially truthful by many eminent bibliographers
in France and England. Of late years it has encountered but feeble
opposition from German writers. In many modern books on printing,
Coster has been recognized either as the inventor or as one of the
co-inventors of the art. There has been a general belief that, however
absurd the legend might be in some minor matters of detail, it had
a nucleus of truth. Coster’s place in typographical history, at the
middle of the present century, seemed almost as firmly fixed as that of
Gutenberg.