COSTER _v._ GUTENBERG.
The ebb and flow of opinion, even upon the most important questions,
upon which one would suppose everybody would agree, is a remarkable
psychological fact. Upon no question has this alternation of opinion
been more noticeable than “On the Origin of Printing.” Indeed, from
the earliest times up to now there have been divergent opinions. That
movable types were used in Holland before the earliest specimens of the
Gutenberg school appeared has been maintained with more or less success
ever since 1499, when the author of the _Cologne Chronicle_ published
his important history. And that belief was held by many learned
bibliographers when Dr. Van der Linde in 1870 issued his remarkable
book, known in England as _The Haarlem Legend_. The vigour of his
attack in that work upon the Dutch claims, and his wonderful skill in
the use of his materials and the marshalling of his arguments, made his
readers shut their eyes to the savage personality of his warfare and
the gross unfairness of his statements. Nevertheless, he did good by
sweeping away many literary cobwebs and erroneous ideas by which former
writers had been entrapped, and by placing the facts of the debate upon
a firmer basis. In stating the case for either Holland or Germany,
theory must to some extent be introduced, but theory must always be
grounded on a good substratum of fact, and then the reader must judge
for himself whether the facts are sufficiently strong to support the
superstructure.
The first fact adduced in favour of Holland as the birth-place of
printing is the _Cologne Chronicle_ for 1499. This evidence, coming
as it does from a writer who lived and wrote in the 15th century, and
who obtained his information from “Master Ulric Zell,” a celebrated
Cologne printer of the Gutenberg school, demands the most serious
consideration. Unfortunately there are certain discrepancies in his
narrative, which, however, are not in that portion which concerns
the positive invention, so much as in the sequence of the places in
which the art was introduced. We must remember, too, that the account
was written at a time when criticism or bibliography was unborn. The
passage, which is quoted from _The Haarlem Legend_ (1871), page 8, is
as follows:--
“When, where, and by whom was found out the unspeakably useful
art of printing books?
“Here we have especially to observe that of late the love
and ardour of mankind have decreased very much, or have
been polluted, at one time by vain glory, at another time
by covetousness, idleness, etc., particularly reprehensible
in the clergy, who are more watchful and anxious to gather
temporal good, and to seek the enjoyments of the flesh, than
the salvation of the soul; whereby the common people fall into
great error, for they and their leaders seek only temporal
good, as if there were no eternal good or eternal life
hereafter. In order, therefore, that the negligence of our
leaders, and the evil example and corruption of the Divine
Word by all preachers in general, who cause their immoral
covetousness to be heard and observed, at the same time might
not be too great an impediment and injury to good Christians;
and in order that nobody might excuse himself, the Eternal
God has produced out of His impenetrable wisdom the present
excellent art, whereby books are printed and multiplied, so
that every person himself is able to read, or hear read, the
way to salvation. How should I attempt to write or to relate
the praise, the advantage, and the bliss which arise, and have
arisen, from this art? for they are inexpressible. Let all who
love letters testify it. God gives it to laymen who are able to
read German, to the learned who make use of the Latin language,
to monks and nuns, in short to all. Oh, how many prayers,
what unspeakable edification, is derived from printed books!
How many precious and wholesome exhortations are given in
preaching! All this arises from this noble art. Oh, how great
an advantage and blessing proceed, if they choose, from those
who either make, or are instrumental in making, printed books.
And he who wishes to read about this may peruse the little
book, written by the great and celebrated Doctor Joh. Gerson,
_De laude scriptorum, or the book of the spiritual father and
abbot of Spanheim, Joh. von Trittenheim_. This highly valuable
art was discovered first of all in Germany, at Mentz, on the
Rhine. And it is a great honour 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
pre-figuration (_die erste vurbyldung_) was found in Holland,
in the Donatuses, which were printed there before that time.
And from these the beginning of the said art was taken, and it
was invented in a manner much more masterly and subtle 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 there are those still alive who testify that books
were printed at Venice before Nic. Jenson came there and began
to cut and make letters. But the first inventor of printing was
Junker Johan Gutenberg. From Mentz the art was introduced first
of all into Cologne, then into Strasbourg, and afterwards into
Venice. The origin and progress of the art was told me verbally
by the honourable Master Ulrich Zell, of Harran, still printer
at Cologne, Anno 1499, by whom the said art came to Cologne.
There are also some confident persons who say that books had
been already printed before; but this is not true, for we find
in no country books printed at that time.”
We have here the account of a writer who is eminently German in his
sympathies, and is proud of the position held by his countrymen in
the early stage of printing. He lived in the midst of an extensive
book manufactory--Cologne--and his ideas are large and biblical.
When he speaks of Gutenberg’s art, he refers to Bibles and Psalters
and Classics, books of literary and religious importance, and not to
school-books for boys. His account reads thus: “This highly valuable
art (that is, the perfected state of which he had been speaking) was
discovered first in Germany, and the first book printed was the Bible,
in Latin. But although the art was discovered at Mentz _in the manner
now generally used_ (the manner of the first great Bible), yet the
first pre-figuration was found in Holland, in the Donatuses, which
were printed there _before_ that time. And from these the beginning
of the said art was taken, and it was invented (by Gutenberg) in a
manner much more masterly and subtle than this (viz., the Holland
school-books), and became more and more ingenious.”
Surely this is easy to understand, notwithstanding the learned mists
by which it has been enveloped. The Donatuses referred to, says Dr.
Van der Linde, were block-books, engraved on, and printed from, wood.
But a block-printed Donatus of Dutch make does not exist, while early
Dutch Donatuses in movable types are among the most common on the
list of “Costeriana.” It is to me plain that Gutenberg could not have
taken the idea of separate types from a Dutch block-book which did
not exist, while German ones were within his reach; but that seeing a
type-printed Donatus which had come from Holland, he was struck with
the novel process, saw that it was capable of great improvement, and
after years of trial and experiment, produced books in a manner “much
more masterly and subtle” than the poor Dutch Donatus. This argument
formerly was much less complete, because the type Donatuses were then
unknown. Now, there are at least twenty editions in various types all
belonging to Holland. The only question is, Are there reasons for
believing that these Donatuses, or some of them, are products of the
Dutch press anterior to the first German-printed dated piece, viz., the
_Indulgence_ of 1454? This and other arguments we will discuss in a
future article.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ.