COSTER _v._ GUTENBERG.
In Mr. Hessels’ last work, _Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not
Mentz_, he gives a most interesting list of forty-seven books and
fragments of books, all connected together typographically, and all
without doubt printed in Holland at a very early stage of the art.
For these, eight different founts of type were used, and the proofs
of their origin are in the language of some, which is Dutch; in the
shape of the =t= and =r=, a form peculiar to Holland, and especially
peculiar to Dutch MSS. of the first half of the 15th century; and in
the typographical treatment. All are rude in workmanship, though not
contemporaneous, and twenty-one out of the forty-seven are editions of
the school-book known as _Donatus_, the very book which the Cologne
Chronicler refers to as having suggested to Gutenberg the idea of
improved movable types.
Forming as these do a group of books having similar peculiarities all
their own, we want a general title by which to speak of and identify
them; and the word “Costeriana,” by which already some of them are
known, seems a fit designation for the whole class.
Of these forty-seven “Costeriana,” thirty-five are printed on vellum
and twelve only on paper. Now, this great prevalence of vellum
over paper undoubtedly points to an early period of printing.[14]
Seven editions of the _Alex: Galli Doctrinale_, another well-known
school-book, are also among the “Costeriana.” Being all in Latin,
they would be equally useful as school-books in other countries, and
would naturally travel away from the seat of their production. It is
therefore nothing extraordinary to find them in towns outside Holland.
When they became injured by use, or, in the course of time, obsolete,
they naturally fell into the hands of the book-binders, who, according
to a well-known custom, cut them up and used them to strengthen the
backs and sides of any books they had to bind. Thus the great bulk of
“Costeriana” have been rescued from the sides and backs of old books,
and from the covers of a variety of 15th-century works. They have
turned up at Haarlem, Delft, Deventer, Strasbourg, Reutlingen, and even
at Cologne. Haarlem supplies five varieties, all found in the town or
cathedral archives, the earliest of which is a manuscript volume begun
in 1474, which belongs to Haarlem Cathedral. Of course a book which
begins in 1474, and is partly made up of fragments of a utilised book,
must have been bound earlier and with material already old. How far
back this would take us must remain a matter of conjecture: if we
reckon it as twenty years, we should just precede the Indulgence of
1454-55 attributed to Gutenberg.
Reverting to the eight varieties of type found in the forty-seven
“Costeriana,” there are no data at present by which to determine their
sequence. They ought all to be studied side by side by an expert in
early types,--apparently an impossibility, as they are scattered
through various libraries in Europe,--for, if their typographical
peculiarities were carefully and scientifically observed, I feel sure
that they would yield very important data, and probably supply us
with evidence of a true chronological sequence. There is no certain
evidence of their issue from one press, or even from one town. They
are, however, in one way or another closely related. When two sorts
of type, as happens with types 1 and 2, are used in the same book, we
may safely attribute them, as is the case with others, to the same
printing-office. Types 3, 4, 5, and 6 are in like manner closely
related, and with the same Gothic peculiarities as Nos. 1 and 2; while
types 7 and 8, though distinct, are plainly of the same class, and with
the others form an interesting family group.
Again, we must note that not one of these “Costeriana” has catchwords,
or signatures, or headlines, or hyphens. Four editions of the _Speculum
Humanæ Salvationis_ are printed by using the “froton,” and therefore
upon one side only of the paper, in a manner similar to that used by
our modern wood-engravers when they want to prove their work. These
rank among the “Block-books.” Certain pages in these books are entirely
cut in wood, certain others have a wood-block printed separately in the
upper part of the sheet, while the text beneath is printed at a press,
and with movable types. It would be absurd to place these typographical
customs anywhere in Germany so late as 1470--a period when books
printed with types were being sold in every capital of Europe.
But suppose that an early date is admitted for these “Costeriana,” can
we then place them before 1454, which is the date written upon an
Indulgence admittedly of German printing? Honestly speaking, I think
the direct proofs insufficient; but if we study the typographical
evidence by the light of the _Cologne Chronicle_, the probabilities
seem to me quite on the side of the “Costeriana.” Time, however, will
show. Mr. Hessels, reckoning the Donatus editions backwards from
1471, thinks that the demand which necessitated so many as twenty-one
editions must have been spread over a series of years long enough to
bring back the earliest edition to a period before the Indulgence of
1454. I am afraid this is a weak argument; and I would rather rest upon
the fact that these early Dutch prints fit in exactly with the allusion
to them in the _Cologne Chronicle_--that is, before 1450; that, try as
much as you like, you cannot place them in any other period, or with
any other group of Dutch typography. Bring them up to 1470, or near it,
and they are anachronisms; leave them, or some of them, anterior to
Gutenberg, and they “fit in.”
We should also remember that the evidence is not, and cannot for many
years to come, be complete. There are many collections in Europe
which have never been searched for “Costeriana,” and it is not often
that bibliographers can boast of a good “hunter,” who unites will,
knowledge, and devotion to the search. Several “Costeriana” have been
discovered within the last few years, and looking at the spoils already
snatched from the hands of time, we may well exclaim--
Quanta fuisti si tanta sunt reliquia!
We must now refer shortly to the account of Coster, given by the
historian Junius. This writer’s character and work have been most
unfairly treated by Dr. Van der Linde. Junius narrates the story of
the Dutch invention of printing as it was current in Holland in 1568,
and because his account overthrows Dr. Van der Linde’s pet theory, he
is accused of every base artifice and historical deceit. Now, who was
Junius? The Dutch form of his name was De Jonghe; but as he lived in
a scholarly age and wrote mostly in Latin, and as the fashion in his
time was to Latinise surnames, he was universally known as Junius. Few
men had a more extended fame in the latter part of the 16th century
than he. Wherever throughout all Europe men of culture and learning
congregated, his name was known and respected; and in any collection
of letters from and to literary men of that period, you are sure to
meet with his name. His career was brilliant, and it has been left for
one of his own countrymen to bolster up a weak cause by attributing
base motives to him after the general consent of 300 years had agreed
to yield him honour. Junius, writing in 1568, the true date of his
_Batavia_, gives a rather lengthy account of the origin of printing
in Haarlem--not as a proved historical narrative, but as reported to
him on trustworthy testimony. He states the general belief of the
Dutch people at that time, which was that a native of Haarlem, named
Laurens Janszoon Coster, about the year 1440, discovered the means
of printing from separate wooden types, which shortly afterwards led
to the use of metal types, and that he printed small books with them.
This is the pith of the story; for whether he was a tallow-chandler or
Custos of the Cathedral, whether he had children and grandchildren,
or whether his types were years afterwards cast into wine-pots, is of
no moment whatever. What is of moment is this: When Junius wrote the
story of Coster, he depended upon what had been handed down through
three or four generations to his time, and was quite unaware that the
Town Registers of Haarlem sustained his account in some important
particulars. For instance, Junius gives the name of the man who
invented printing as Coster of Haarlem, and sure enough, between 1436
and 1483, the name of Laurens Janszoon Coster appears frequently in the
Haarlem Town Records. Coster there is a tallow-chandler, and of course
the occurrence of such a name is no evidence that the Coster of Junius
was the Coster of the Haarlem Records. Still it is worth remembering.
Again, Junius says Coster had a servant named Cornelis, and here again
is a curious agreement in name, for the Cathedral Records of Haarlem
mention several times the employment of “Cornelis, the book-binder.”
Here, too, we must remember that several fragments of “Costeriana” have
been extracted from volumes bound by this very Cornelis. Many minor
arguments and coincidences might be adduced to show that if the story
of Coster has not been handed down with that accuracy of statement we
so much desire in old history, but which, alas, we so seldom get, there
is nevertheless a foundation for it stronger than mere rumour, and in
it a history free from intentional misrepresentation.
Turning now to Gutenberg, we have much firmer ground to stand upon. We
have, to begin with, abundant evidence of his existence, and of his
having been a printer. We have the general consent of Germany, Italy,
and France as to the art, as practised by them, having been derived
from him, and the natural tendency is to attach greater weight to this
evidence than upon critical examination it will bear. Workmen whose
tuition had come more or less directly from him, and book-buyers, who
were naturally in ignorance of the steps which led up to Gutenberg’s
success, attributed to him, not only priority in producing the
books which called forth their admiration, but believed him to have
been the first to use movable types. And yet, as we have seen, the
testimony is not given with that perfect assurance of its truth that
one might expect if they spoke of things within their own knowledge.
The weak part of Gutenberg’s case is that, notwithstanding several
opportunities, he never claimed the invention, although others around
him were taking the honour to themselves; that there is not a single
piece bearing his name; and that the earliest efforts attributed to him
may with just as much probability be put down to Pfister, the first
printer at Bamberg. Not indeed until 1472 do we meet with a direct
mention of Gutenberg’s name in connection with the discovery, and
then (it is Prof. Fichet, of Sorbonne, who is writing) the statement
is not positive; “_ferunt enim illic_,” which may be rendered by the
French “_on dit_.” In the sense that he improved so far on his Haarlem
originals as to enable him to print grand instead of unimportant books,
Gutenberg was an inventor; but had the question been put to him,
“Had you any idea of movable, separate types before you saw a Dutch
Donatus?” his answer would, I believe, have been “No!”
Perhaps the best verdict upon the whole question has come from the
pen of M. Madden, of Versailles. This biographer is a strong adherent
of Dr. Van der Linde, yet this is the conclusion of an article in the
February number of _La Typologie Tucker_:--
“Sans les humbles Donats de Haarlem nous n’aurions pas l’admirable
Bible de Trente-six lignes, et sans les persévérants et féconds efforts
de Gutenberg pendant dix ans, de 1440 à 1450, l’humanité ne jouirait
pas de l’art que son génie créateur a élevé à une perfection qui laisse
très loin en arrière les premiers et nécessairement très imparfaits
produits des essais de Laurent Coster. En un mot: Coster nous a donné
Gutenberg, et Gutenberg nous a donné la Typographie.”[15]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ.