GUTENBERG _v._ COSTER.
Coster of Haarlem the inventor of Printing? ’Tis a mere figment born of
national vanity. There is not an atom of real evidence to prove that a
man named _Coster_ ever existed as a printer. “Stat nominis Umbra,” and
very shady is the whole story, being nothing more than empty theory,
supported by phrases such as “in all probability”--“irresistible
deduction”--“must have been,” and similar empty words, which sound big
to the ear, but which added all together = 0. Applying the usual laws
of evidence to the arguments of Costerians, there is simply “no case.”
The evidence of the _Cologne Chronicle_ is twisted and strained to
support the claims of Holland. The writer of that work had no idea that
his words would in future ages become a battlefield for nations, or he
would have taken good care to have made himself better acquainted with
the early chronology of the art. Costerians admit that he is wrong in
his account of the towns to which the art was first taken; why then do
they insist so strongly on his verbal accuracy just where it tells in
their favour?
It is now admitted that on each side various documents have been
forged or falsified. More’s the pity, for they have confused and
mystified the question greatly. Mr. Hessels says that “in the case of
Gutenberg far more forgeries have been perpetrated than in that of
the Haarlem inventor.” But supposing this absurd dictum to be true
(which it is not) the character of such forgeries is very different
in the two cases. On the one side they are unimportant as regards
the invention--on the other, vital. The false documents concocted by
Bodmann, the Archeviste of Strasbourg, and others, in the Gutenberg
interest, concern points of family history only, with scarcely the
remotest interest typographically. They would add materials, if true,
to his biography, but would not add an iota to his claim to be the
first printer with types. On the other hand, the Coster typography
rests entirely on a padded legend, cooked up for the national palate
by Junius--on the Costerian pedigree concocted by Gerrit Thomaszoon
and the bare-faced falsifications of Meerman, De Vries, and others.
Compare such an impostor with _Gutenberg_! a real man of flesh and
blood about whose existence there is no doubt; and whose abilities as
a printer even Mr. Hessels does not deny, although he dates them later
than his opponents. He uses some clever arguments to show that the
early books hitherto attributed to Gutenberg were printed at Bamberg by
Pfister; but here he is evidently conscious that his argument proves
too much, for, carried out consistently, it would prove that Gutenberg
never printed at all. This would be such a flying in the face of
universally received evidence, that he wisely if illogically stops in
his destructive career. It would indeed be a difficult task to explain
the spread of Gutenberg’s fame, not only as a printer, but as the first
printer, if we eliminate from his history the Donatuses in the Bible
type, the Indulgences, and the first Bible. But as an historical fact,
we find his name and his fame spread through Germany, Italy, France,
England (see Caxton’s _Chronicle_), and we may say all Europe, a
century before any one ever heard of Coster. Mr. Hessels pretends that
Gutenberg himself spread the rumours about himself; but the argument
is very weak and untenable, for surely if Gutenberg had wished at all
to uphold his fame, a simple claim at the end of his great Bible would
have been much more efficacious than a roundabout plan of getting
his friends Ivo Wittig, A. Gelthus, and others, to proclaim him the
inventor of printing. Two words, “Gutenberg fecit,” at the end of any
of his works would have served the purpose. His omission to do this
was probably owing to his pride, which persuaded him not to boast of
what all the world knew, and for which all the world at that very time
gave him credit. Mr. Hessels’ whole argument is here weak--weak in the
extreme--especially in supposing that debt would make him reticent.
Here, too, we must note the difference of tone in the earliest notices
of the invention. The _Cologne Chronicle_ mentions Holland, but not
a word of Coster--Gutenberg is the hero. For a century and a half
no record mentions Coster, but after Junius wrote his _Batavia_ the
legendary figure fills Dutch literature. On the other hand, there is no
doubt as to Gutenberg’s first appearance. A good deal of his biography
unconnected with printing is known, and when as a printer he is first
spoken of, we find his name and fame the common property of the nation.
The earliest positive notice connecting Gutenberg by name with
typography appears in an interesting Latin preface to a special copy of
_Gasparinus_, printed by Gering, at Paris, in 1472. It was written by
Prof. Fichet, of Sorbonne,--he who with Jean Heynlin started the first
printing-press on French soil. He there speaks at great length of the
immense importance to mankind of the newly invented art which had been
discovered in Germany. The important part is thus translated: “People
say[16] in these parts (_i.e._ Paris) that a man named Gutenberg,[17]
not far from Mayence, was formerly the first inventor of the Printing
Art, by means of which, with rapidity, precision, and elegance, books
are made by means of metal letters, and no longer by means of a
reed-pen as of old, nor with a quill as in our days.... Gutenberg has
discovered the way of engraving letters by means of which all that
can be said or thought is at once reproduced, so that it descends to
posterity.” When these words were printed, the Sorbonne printers,
Gering, Friburger, and Crantz, had been at work about two years. They
were pupils from the German school of typography, and we can hardly
resist the conviction that they gave Fichet his information, and that
they had personal knowledge of its accuracy.
The expression, “people here say,” which has been taken to prove
hearsay only, does not mean that the writer had any doubt of the truth
of his information--it was simply a colloquial phrase for “the general
belief.” This discovery, therefore, of Fichet’s evidence is of great
interest and importance in the history of the invention. Mr. Bullen
plainly showed this in the interesting paper read by him on the subject
at a meeting of the Association of Librarians.
After Fichet in 1472, the next notice of Gutenberg is found in the
_Chronicon_ of Lignamine dated 1474. He mentions Gutenberg as a
printer, and from that time onward there is an unbroken testimony in
every age and in every country to the same effect.
Examining critically the earliest remains of the German press, we get
into great confusion if we dethrone Gutenberg. Who could have printed
the early Indulgences, one of which bears the year 1454, if Gutenberg
did not? His efforts there and upon the large type Donatuses, of which
several fragments have been preserved, would be a fitting and useful
prelude to such grand works as the Bible and Psalter, and they afford a
complete reply to those who say that these magnificent specimens could
never have been the first efforts of any infant press. Depend upon it,
if time, as Costerians say, is to prove so much in favour of their
theory, it is still more likely to unfold new Donatuses and unknown
editions of the _Speculum_ in the types of Gutenberg, and possibly with
his name or some note of their origin. It is a weak cause that takes
unknown discoveries for evidence.
No! Gutenberg is king. Mr. Hessels may spin out his fine-drawn and
prolix arguments--may arrange his regiments of “must-have-beens” and
probabilities; but “an ounce of fact is worth a ton of probabilities,”
and fact and history and general belief down to the present day are all
against him. His shady Costeriana will never be supported by a real
date, and in spite of him and them Gutenberg will reign through all
ages as the great inventor of Typography.
* * * * *
And now, as the writer of the foregoing articles, I feel that, having
stated the arguments on each side with as much fairness as I can, a
personal opinion may be expected from me, and without hesitation I will
give it.
The evidence on each side may be enlarged in the course of years, but
so far as it goes at present it is strongly in favour of a first rude
invention of movable types in Holland by some one whose name may have
been Coster. The claim of Gutenberg upon the respect of posterity rests
on his great improvements--so great as to entitle him in a sense to be
deemed the inventor--foremost in excellence if not first in time.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
EARLY GREEK TYPES OF THE ROYAL PRINTING OFFICE, PARIS, AND THE
CHANCELLOR OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.
Francis I. was perhaps the most literary monarch of which the French
nation can boast. It was he who, in 1540, promoted the printing of
Classic and Hebrew Authors, by appointing special printers for each
language, and bestowing upon them personal protection and numerous
privileges. Thus the celebrated Robert Estienne was appointed by
Letters Patent “Greek Printer to the King.” The better to carry into
effect the King’s wishes, he determined, with assistance from the
royal purse, to cut entirely new founts of various sizes. For this
purpose he engaged the services of Claude Garamond, who was the most
skilful engraver in France, to cut the punches, the designs being
contributed by a young Cretan in the King’s employment, celebrated for
his beautiful Greek handwriting. The result was a great success; and,
ever since, these types have been known as “the Royal Greek.” They
derived their fame from the picturesque beauty of their outline, and
their curious varieties of ligatures, each fount having a minimum of
536 matrices.
In the year 1700, the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge opened
negotiations with the Court of France concerning the terms on which a
complete set of these matrices might be obtained; engaging on his part,
not only to pay all expenses, but to acknowledge in the Prefaces of
the first works for which they might be used the favour conferred. The
arrangements made satisfactory progress on both sides until the matter
came before the Warden of the King’s Library, who had the custody of
the punches, when he stipulated for a new and stringent condition,
as follows: “The Chancellor of Cambridge shall engage to place the
following notice in the Title-page of every work for which the type
is used: _Caracteribus græcis e typographio regio Parisiensi_.” All
French printers who used these types were compelled to conform to this
condition; it was too much, however, for our English “amour propre,”
and so the negotiations were broken off and never after renewed. These
interesting punches formed part of the earliest material of the French
Imperial Printing Office, but at the present day they are not to be
found, nor does any record remain of their fate.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
THE FIRST PRINTING-PRESS IN ENGLAND, AS PICTORIALLY PRESENTED.
There have been, I believe, only three attempts to treat in a pictorial
manner that interesting subject, the introduction of the Art of
Printing to England; of these, two may be dismissed with a brief
notice, while the third, as issuing from the brain, and illustrated by
the genius of, a very popular artist, will be discussed more at length.
I.--A Painting in oil, by JAMES E. DOYLE, 1848. Engraved by W.
WALKER: entitled, “Caxton submitting his Proof-sheet to John
Esteney, Abbot of Westminster, in 1477.”
In this the aim of the artist has not been high; there are in all but
four figures, viz.: _Caxton_, who stands leaning upon an old wooden
press; _Abbot Esteney_, who is sitting upon a stool examining the
fresh-pulled proof of a half-sheet of quarto (4 pp. on one side of the
sheet); _Earl Rivers_, one of Caxton’s patrons; and, in the background,
_Wynken de Worde_, Caxton’s successor. A Gothic door and window, and
part of some stone groining in the roof, are intended to represent a
portion of Westminster Abbey. All accessories are omitted, the artist
depending upon his figures only for effect, feeling probably that, as
very little of the subject was accurately known, the details might be
left to imagination. With this idea the types, inking apparatus, and a
large portion of the press, are either entirely hidden from view, or
placed very indefinitely in the dark. The figure of Caxton is drawn
too young by some ten or fifteen years; as, if born in 1412, he was at
least sixty-five years of age when he began printing at Westminster.
II.--A Painting in oil, by E. H. WEHNERT. Engraved by
F. BACON: entitled, “William Caxton examining the First
Proof-sheet from his Printing-press in Westminster Abbey, 1474.”
This is much bolder in design than the former. We can see Caxton
as the central figure, wearing the conventional cap and streamers
invented for him about the year 1750 by Bagford, who was the first
to draw his likeness. He is seated before an old-fashioned wooden
press, Wynken de Worde looking over his shoulder at the printed sheet
which has just been pulled and placed in the hands of his master.
Three workmen--Machlinia, Pynson, and Lettou--are eagerly looking
on, while others are variously employed. The stone-pointed roof of a
long Gothic aisle denotes the scene to be placed in the Abbey. The
artist has evidently paid attention to the technical details of early
printing--the press is well designed, only the bar-handle should be a
fixture, and not made to take in and out like a binder’s press. The
types are placed as they should be: not in an iron chase, but in an
oblong wooden coffin, only one page at a time being put to press. The
compositor’s case, too, is correct, the boxes in Caxton’s time being
all of one size. All these minutiæ are good, and show careful research.
III.--A Painting in oil, by D. MACLISE, R.A. Engraved by
FRED. BROMLEY: entitled, “Caxton showing the First Specimen
of his Printing to King Edward the Fourth, at the Almonry,
Westminster.”
This large and grand picture was exhibited at the Royal Academy
in 1851, where it attracted daily crowds of admirers. The critics
were unanimous in praising its poetical composition, its accurate
anatomy, and its wonderful colouring. The artist, however, has aimed
at perfection, not in these qualities alone; but by the extraordinary
care he has taken to present in detail all the mechanical operations
and every tool in use by the workmen, he has challenged the criticism
of the artisan as well as the connoisseur. This, indeed, is almost
stated in the Exhibition Catalogue (1851, No. 67), where the
following remarks are appended: “The designer, the illuminator,
the wood-engraver, and the bookbinder, all worked at their several
trades in the office of the First English Printer; combining with the
Compositors and Pressmen to achieve the first complete book published
in England”; and with reference to it the _Art Journal_ critic
pronounced the drawing of the tools to be “fastidiously careful” and
“exquisitely rendered,” ending by the declaration that “the subject
never could be treated in a manner more masterly.”
Accepting, therefore, the challenge, not at all as an art critic, but
simply as an artisan who has paid some attention to the antiquities of
his craft, I beg to submit the following remarks:--
“This scene, so memorable in the history of English literature, took
place in the Almonry at Westminster,” says the Catalogue. No doubt the
fancy of a royal visit adds great life and interest to the subject,
but the fact is purely imaginary, without the slightest historical
basis. The Almonry, too, I take to have been a place outside the
consecrated walls but inside the abbey precincts, where almshouses and
other tenements were. In one of these houses, the “Red Pale,” Caxton
was placed, as he himself states in the handbill upon the side of the
press. Permission to carry on a trade, and that often a very dirty
trade, within the walls of any consecrated building, would never have
been asked of, nor granted by, the Abbot.
Upon approaching the painting, the first thing that attracts the eye
is the great wooden press, which occupies a large portion of the
canvas, thus striking at once the key-note to the whole subject. On
the further side of the press are grouped the principal characters, an
arrangement admirably adapted to show their features and action. Caxton
has just raised the tympan, upon which is a sheet of paper bearing the
impression of two folio pages, which the title to the engraving informs
us is “The _first_ specimen of his Printing.” The King and Queen with
three young princes are looking at it with interest. Behind them is
the Earl of Clarence, to whom Caxton, when abroad, had dedicated the
First Edition of his Chess-book, and by their side in full armour is
Earl Rivers, a constant patron of Caxton, who has brought in his hand a
roll of paper, upon which is revealed part of a title-page, displaying
in a bold 19th-century hand the word “Dictes.” This is plainly “copy”
which, with an eye to business, the Earl has brought with him, and
which Caxton actually put to press the next year, viz., 1477. Two
fly-boys (or Printers’ Devils) are waiting by the tympan to hand up
and take off the sheets--they are beautifully painted with delicately
clean hands and faces, and with snow-white linen shirt-sleeves, their
hair carefully brushed and parted, and with spotless lay-down collars.
To the right are four compositors--one, an old man, is puzzling,
spectacles on nose, over a crabbed piece of copy; one is composing;
one correcting; and the fourth moving a galley. To the left is a
table, at which a multiplicity of operations are going on: one man has
a paint-brush, and is taking colour from a pretty white enamelled
tray of saucers, keeping his hand in as future “rubrissher” to the
forthcoming sheets; another is binding a book; while a third and fourth
are engraving “illustrations on wood-blocks.” Tools of all kinds are
placed here and there. The Abbot, fat and stolid (the conventional
stage monk), stands with crossed hands near the wall, his shadow hiding
and darkening a copy of the Bible, which, with a block-book or two, he
has had chained to a shelf for the use of the workmen. Six soldiers
keep guard at the door. In a niche behind is an image of the Virgin and
Child, before which a lamp is burning.
Such is the best account I can give of this clever and ambitious
composition. Where much that is excellent exists the task of
fault-finding is not agreeable; yet, looking at it from a common-sense
point of view, I confess that the painting not only disappointed but
pained me. Every artist should feel that his mission is to instruct
the mind as well as gratify the eye; and that, above all things,
truth--not truth of colour and drawing only, but truth historical and
mechanical--truth in small as well as great things must be sought for.
With a feeling, apparently, that he possesses intuitive knowledge,
and with a lofty disregard of possibilities, Mr. Maclise paints
anachronisms and mechanical untruths, which must always prevent any
one who has the least practical acquaintance with the subject enjoying
the work. In more than one instance it puts me in mind of the Dutch
painter, who depicted Isaac bound upon the altar, and Abraham, in baggy
Dutch costume, firing a blunderbuss to kill his son, a catastrophe
prevented only by a naked angel, who, in a very natural way, is wetting
the powder in the touch-hole. As some of the most evident untruths and
anachronisms take the following:--First, as to the tools, etc. The
compositor to the right is using a brand-new _steel_ composing-stick,
with latest improvements. The oldest “sticks” we know of are of wood,
intended to hold one line only. Such may still be found in the rural
towns of both Germany and France. Then the compositor is placing his
types _face downwards_ in the stick![18] Another workman is correcting
a page of loose matter upon a galley, and the galley is laid flat upon
the stone!--alas, for the pie! it is unavoidable.
The earliest representation of a Printing-press is that of Ascensius,
1508. Several writers have given fac-simile copies of it, and it is the
nearest approach we have to presses of the 15th century. Mr. Maclise
makes Caxton use the press with _iron_ screw instead of wood, with
the platen “slung,” and not fixed,--in fact, the press, as improved
in the middle of last century by Blaew, which, after superseding the
old wooden press, was in its turn superseded by the iron Stanhope. But
what can we say of the “forme” upon the press? the _first_ “forme”
worked by the _first_ English printer? Chronology and the laws of
mechanics are equally violated. The chase is iron,--and _cast_ iron
too,--the first invention and introduction of which are in the memory
of many still living. The painting of this chase is so good, that the
peculiar grain of cast iron is easily recognised, if the fixed cross
and strengthened corners did not unmistakably betray the fact. It is,
in fact, an admirable copy from a cast-iron folio chase as seen in any
modern printing-office. With such a chase the quoins, of course, would
be at each side and foot; but our artist, probably copying blindly from
an octavo form with double cross, has put quoins at the head and foot
too, making the pages lock up all round the chase--truly a mechanical
puzzle. After this, minor untruths seem hardly worth remark--though
there is no lack of them. The foot-block of the pressman is on the
wrong side, and quite useless unless fastened down in its proper
position. The little fat bottles with _ground-glass_ stoppers, used in
modern times for holding coloured inks in powder, were as unknown to
Caxton as the electric light.
Leaving the mechanical aspect of the painting, let us now look for a
minute at the literary--or rather the bibliographical--information
offered for public acceptance. The sheet just pulled is, as the
Catalogue says, “a proof of that famous production, _The Game of
Chesse_.” A fine copy of this First Edition is openly shown in the
British Museum, where any one who cares can examine it. Why, then, does
Mr. Maclise give us the Second Edition? The printed sheet on the tympan
shows a wood-cut of a man in a state chair, with the chess-board before
him: this is the third folio of the edition of 1480, the first edition
being entirely without wood-cuts. How absurd to see the King and Queen,
their children and courtiers, looking with admiration at a book which
did not exist till the majority of them were in their graves! Looking
further, so many similar anachronisms occur, that I begin to think they
must be intentional, and meant to convey an abstruse, hidden meaning,
not to be understood by matter-of-fact men. I will, therefore, without
remark, note a few others. The well-known handbill about the sale of
“pyes of Salisbury use,” printed in 1480-81, is pasted on the cheek
of the press. Numerous specimens of _future_ works are hung upon a
rope, stretched from one pillar of the Abbey to another, while upon
the pillar itself is seen a sheet bearing the device of Wynken de
Worde, who succeeded Caxton in 1491-92. No artist can be expected to
know the peculiarities of every trade; but, if not too self-contained
to ask, he can always obtain the opinion of a sensible workman, who
would certainly have pointed out most of the above blunders. Some of
the anachronisms last mentioned may, perhaps, be justified by the
conventional rules of Art; but surely truth is of more value than any
amount of sentimental painting.
[Illustration]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Memoir by Talbot B. Reed prefixed to _The Pentateuch of Printing_,
by William Blades, 1891, p. xv. _The Dictes and Sayings of the
Philosophers_, 1477, was the first book printed in England. _The
Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, 1471, although the first printed
English book, was really printed at Bruges, where also was printed _The
Game and Playe of the Chesse_, 1474.
[2] Vol. iii., pp. 13-17.
[3] March 16, 30; May 18.
[4] Students of old MSS. may often come across the bold autograph
“_cest a moy Homfrey_.”
[5] Macray, p. 7.
[6] _Illustrium Hollandiæ et Westfrisiæ Ordinum Alma Academia Leidensis
Icones._ Lugduni Bavatorum, 1614. 4to. B. M. (Acad.), 731, g. 16.
[7] Built for the purpose in 1693, when the chained books numbered 100.
(_Notes and Queries_, Ser. VI., Vol. IV., p. 304.)
[8] “Je n’ai vu les signatures dans aucun ancien manuscrit, et
plusieurs personnes bien plus familiarisées que moi avec les
manuscrits, m’ont assuré la même chose.”
[9] This is found as a signature in one of the early Block-books.
[10] In Vol. I. of _The Life and Typography of William Caxton_, I have
given the evidences of Caxton’s connection with the Bruges Press. It
is a great mistake to suppose that Caxton printed his first book, _The
Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, in 1471; that is merely the date
of translation. It was not till about 1474 that Caxton learnt the art,
Colard Mansion being his instructor.
[11] Italy should also be included.
[12] A Paper read at the meeting of the Library Association of the
United Kingdom, at Birmingham, September 20-23, 1887.
[13] These _Academy_ letters were revised with additions, and published
by Elliot Stock in 1887 under the title of _Haarlem the Birth-place of
Printing, not Mentz_.
[14] This is used as an argument for the antiquity of the two or three
Donatuses printed with the types of Pfister or Gutenberg, and therefore
is equally good when applied to Dutch Donatuses.
[15] Without the humble Donatuses of Haarlem we should never have had
the wonderful Bible of thirty-six lines; and without the persevering
and fruitful efforts of Gutenberg during the ten years from 1440 to
1450, mankind would never have been blessed with that art which his
creative genius has raised to a perfection which leaves far behind the
first and necessarily imperfect attempts of Coster. In a word: Coster
gave us Gutenberg, and Gutenberg has given us Typography.
[16] The Latin is “ferunt enim illic,” which M. Philippe translates “on
rapporte dans cette contrée.”
[17] The Latin is “Bonemontanus.”
[18] The engraver appears to have noticed this, and as far as possible
rectified it in the print, by a masterly indistinctness just at that
point.
[Illustration]
INDEX.
Abingdon, chained books in St. Helen’s Church, 29.
All Hallows’ Church, Lombard Street, chained books in, 59.
Appleby Church, chained books in, 30.
Arreton Church, chained books in, 31.
Barber-Surgeons’ Hall, chained books at, 31.
Barcheston Church, chained books in, 34.
Bercula (Who was)? xxviii.
Berthelet (Thomas), supposed to be Bercula, xxviii.
_Bibliographical Miscellanies_, xxxv, 1-122.
Bibliography, scientific method in, 85.
Binding expenses at Eton, 20.
Bingley Church, chained books in, 34.
Blades (William), his busy life, ix;
his earliest work, x;
his Life of Caxton, x;
his contributions to bibliography considered under four headings:
(i) _Work on Caxton_, xii-xvi;
Caxton Exhibition, xiv;
proposed Caxton Publication Society, xv;
(ii) _Invention of Printing_, xvi-xix;
(iii) _Types_, xix-xxvii;
Plantin Museum, xxii;
Type specimen books, xxiv;
(iv) _Miscellaneous_, xxvii-xxxviii;
Who was Bercula? xxviii;
pictorial representations of the first Printing-Press in
England, xxviii, 209;
Nicholson the inventor of the steam press, xxix;
_Numismata Typographica_, xxxi;
Shakspere and typography, xxxiii;
_Enemies of Books_, xxxiii;
German morality-play, xxxiii;
Watermarks, xxxiv;
_Bibliographical Miscellanies_, xxxv, 1-122;
_Pentateuch of Printing_, xxxvi;
at the Library Association Meetings, xxxvii.
Bolton-in-the-Moors Grammar School, chained books in, 35.
Books in Chains, 1-81.
Borden Church, chained books in, 36.
Bowness Church, chained books in, 37.
Bridlington Church, chained books in, 37.
Bristol, Redcliffe Church, lectern with chain, 38.
Bromsgrove Church, chained book, 38.
Cambridge, application of the University for Greek types of the Royal
Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.
---- chains for books in the College libraries, 4.
Canterbury Cathedral, chained Bible there formerly, 38.
Cartmel Church, chained books in, 39.
Caslon (William), specimens of his types, xxv.
Caxton (William), _Life and Typography_ of, x.
Caxton (William), Blades’s researches on the history of his press,
xiv.
---- signatures in his books, 94.
Caxton Exhibition, xiii.
Caxton Publication Society, proposed, xv.
Chained books, 1-81.
Cheddar Church, chained book formerly there, 39.
Chelsea Old Church, chained books in, 40.
Chesterton Church, chained book formerly there, 40.
Chetham (Humphrey), chained books left by him to the Parish Church of
Bolton-in-the-Moors, 35;
to Gorton Chapel, 46;
to Jesus Chapel, 65;
to Turton Chapel, 73;
to Walmsley Chapel, 75.
Chetham Library, Manchester, books formerly chained, 65.
Chew Magna Church, chained book in, 40.
Chirbury Parish School-room, chained books in, 41.
Cirencester Church, chained books formerly there, 41.
Colard Mansion at Bruges, 127.
Conway (W. M.) on the wood-cutters of the Netherlands, 144.
Cornelis, assistant to Coster, 154, 188.
Corsellis, supposed Oxford printer, 87.
Coster’s claims to be the inventor of printing, 126, 134.
Coster _v._ Gutenberg, 171-191.
Costeriana, 157, 180.
Cumnor Church, chained Bible in, 42.
Denchworth Church, chained books in the vicar’s library, 42.
De Vinne (Theodore) on the invention of printing, 139.
Donatuses in Holland, 151, 177, 180.
Doyle’s (J. E.) painting of the printing-press, 209.
East Winch Church, chained Bible at, 44.
Easton-in-Gordano Church, chained book formerly in, 43.
Ecclesfield Church, chained books formerly there, 44.
Enschedé Type Foundry, xxvi.
_Enemies of Books_, xxxiii.
Florence, chained books in the Laurentian Library, 26.
Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_ common among chained books, 19.
Frampton Cotterell Church, chained book in, 45.
Fuhrmann (G. L.), specimens of his types, xxvi.
Gloucester (Humphrey, Duke of), honoured by book-lovers, 19.
Gorton Church schools, chained books, 47.
Grantham Church, chained books in, 48.
Great Durnford Church, chained book in, 48.
Greek Types of the Royal Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.
Gutenberg, his name does not appear in any production of his press,
153.
---- _v._ Coster, 192-200.
Hales Owen Church, chained books formerly there, 49.
Hanmer Church, chained books burnt in 1889, 49.
Hereford, All Saints’ Church, chained library in, 50.
---- Cathedral, chained books in, 5, 52.
Hessels (J. H.), translated Van der Linde’s _Haarlem Legend_, xvi.
---- _Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_ xviii.
---- _Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz_, xviii, 179.
Hull, Holy Trinity Church, Foxe’s _Martyrs_ formerly there, 54.
Impington Church, chained books in, 54.
Jewel’s (Bishop) works common among chained books, 19.
Junius on the Dutch invention of printing, 185.
Kettering Church, chained books formerly there, 55.
Kidderminster Church, chained book in, 55.
King’s Lynn, St. Mary’s Church, chained Bible in, 55.
Kinver Church, chained books in, 56.
Koenig (F.), introducer of the steam press, xxix.
Lessingham Church, chained book in, 57.
Leyden, chained books in the University Library, 25.
Leyland Church, chained books in, 57.
Library Association Meetings, xxxvii.
Lincoln Cathedral, chained books formerly in the Chapter Library, 58.
Linde (Van der), _Haarlem Legend_, xvi, 168.
Llanbadarn Church, chained books formerly there, 59.
Luton Church, chained books in, 63.
Maclise’s (D.) painting of the printing-press, 212.
Madden (J. P. A.) on Gutenberg, 140;
on Coster, 190.
Malvern Abbey, chained books in, 63.
Mancetter Church, chained books in, 64.
Manchester, Jesus Chapel Collegiate Church, chained books formerly
there, 65.
Manuscripts with written signatures at the foot of the page, 89, 96.
Margate Church, chained books in, 66.
Medals connected with printing, xxxi.
Meurs (P. Van), his answer to Dr. Van der Linde, 138.
Minster Church, chained Bible from Margate, 66.
Montgomery Castle, chained library formerly there, 67.
Morality-play (German), xxxiii.
Moxon (Joseph), Proves of Letters cast by him, xxv.
Newport Pagnell Church, chained books in, 67.
Nicholson (John), the inventor of the steam press, xxix.
Northwold Church, chained Bible formerly there, 67.
_Numismata Typographica_, xxxii.
Oldfield (Humphrey), 69.
Ortu (De) Typographiæ, 163-200.
Oxford, first printing-press at, xix.
---- St. Mary’s Church, chained books formerly there, 68.
Paper, use of, for books, 117.
_Pentateuch of Printing_, xxxvi.
Plantin Museum, Blades’s account of, xxi.
Prestwich Church, chained book formerly there, 68.
Printing, Blades’s researches on the history of the invention of, xvi.
---- common typographical errors, xxxii.
---- De Ortu Typographiæ, 163-200.
---- Early Greek Types of the Royal Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.
---- Early Schools of Typography, 123-130.
---- invention of the steam press, xxix.
---- List of Books on the Invention of Printing published since
1868, 159.
---- medals connected with, xxxi.
---- proposed Bibliotheca Typographica, xxxii.
---- Type specimen books, xxiv.
---- Who was the Inventor of, present aspect of the question,
131-162.
Printing-Press, the first in England, as pictorially presented,
209-221.
Quatt Church, 68.
Reed (Talbot B.), his Memoir of Blades, xiii (_note_).
Richmond (Margaret, Countess of), patron of Caxton, 6.
Rochester, St. Nicholas Church, chained book in, 69.
St. Albans, Typography of, in the fifteenth century, xx.
St. Andrew Undershaft Church, chained books in, 61.
St. Clement’s, Eastcheap Church, chained books in, 62.
Salford Free Library, chained books, 69.
Salisbury Cathedral, chained books in, 69.
Selden’s books in the Bodleian, 25.
_Shakspere and Typography_, xxxiii.
Signatures in Books, Use and Development of, 83-122.
---- idea of books without, a bibliographical delusion, 96.
---- (written) in manuscripts, 90, 96.
---- in early printed books, 92, 100.
---- (manuscript and printed) in the same book, 106.
---- stamped in with separate types, 108.
---- not stamped in but printed at the same time as the text, 112.
---- (normal) printed in the line just beneath the text, 115.
Sittingbourne Church, 70.
Southampton, St. Michael’s Church, chained books in, 70.
Standon Church, chained book in, 71.
Stevens (Henry), his answer to the question “Who was Bercula?” xxviii.
Stratford-on-Avon Church, chained Bible in, 71.
Suckley Church, 72.
Survival of the fittest in the study of bibliography, 85.
Tavistock Church, chained book in, 72.
Turton Church, chained books in, 73.
Type specimen books, xxiv.
Types, Blades’s researches on the history of, xix.
Typography, Early Schools of, 123-130 (see also Printing).
Walmsley Church, 75.
Wantage Church, chained books formerly there, 76.
Watermarks, Blades’s researches on, xxxiv.
Wehnert’s (E. H.) painting of the printing-press, 211.
Wells Cathedral, chained books in, 76,
Whissonsett Church, 76.
Whitchurch, Little Stanmore, 77.
Wiggenhall Church, chained books in, 77.
Wigtoft Church, 78.
Wimborne Minster, chained library, 1-16, 78.
Windsor, St. George’s Chapel, chained Bible formerly there, 78.
Wisbeach, chained books at, 79.
Wolverley Church, chained book in, 79.
Wootton Wawen Church, chained books in, 80.
Worcester, All Saints’ Church, chained Bible in, 80.
Wrington Church, chained books in, 81.
York, St. Crux Church, chained book, 81.
Zutphen, chained books in the Church of St. Wallberg, 27.
[Illustration]
Transcriber’s Notes.
Italic text is indicated with _underscores_, black-letter text with
=equals=. Small/mixed capitals have been replaced with ALL CAPITALS.
Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected
silently. Inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has been normalised.
Half-titles and reiterations of chapter titles have been discarded.
End of page footnotes have been sequentially numbered and placed at the
end of the text.
Cover art created for this eBook is granted to the public domain.