Cologne” (1499) wherein the author speaks of information about the
invention of typography received by him from Ulrich Zell, who printed
books at Cologne, Germany, as early as 1464. He states that the “art was
discovered first of all in Germany, at Mainz on the Rhine,” and that the
“first inventor of printing was a citizen . . . named Junker Johann
Gutenberg.” This statement is added to by the assertion that the new art
“found its first prefiguration in Holland in the Donatuses which were
printed there before that time.” It has been argued that the last
assertion refers to block books.
An extract from the Cologne-Chronicle account may be of interest:
This highly valuable art was discovered first of all in Germany,
at Mainz 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, 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. Altho the art
was discovered at Mainz, in the manner as it is now generally
used, yet the prefiguration 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.... But the first inventor of
printing was a citizen of Mainz, born at Strassburg, and named
Junker Johann Gutenberg. From Mainz the art was introduced first
of all into Cologne, then into Strassburg, and afterwards into
Venice. The origin and progress of the art was told me verbally by
the honorable master Ulrich Zell, of Hanan, still printer at
Cologne, anno 1499, by whom the said art came to Cologne.
There was printed in the year 1561 an address to the town officers at
Haarlem by Dierick Coornhert, an engraver, in which he stated that he
was
often told in good faith that the useful art of printing books was
invented, first of all, here in Haarlem, altho in a crude way, as
it is easier to improve on an invention than to invent; which art
having been brought to Mainz 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
the art, that our fellow-citizens find very little credence when
they ascribe this honor to the true inventor. . . . And because I
implicitly believe what I have said before, on account of the
trustworthy evidence of very old, dignified and gray 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.
It will be noticed that Coornhert fails to mention the name of the
alleged inventor, the location of his house, or the date of the
invention. The claim that “the useful art of printing books was
invented, first of all, here at Haarlem, altho in a crude way,” may
refer to the printing of block books and not to typography.
The claims of Holland were first presented definitely about 1566 in a
history of the Netherlands called “Batavia,” the author of which was
known in his own tongue as Adrian de Jonghe; in English as Adrian the
Younger, and in Latin as Hadrian Junius. The story as written by Junius
has been dubbed the “Coster Legend” and it reads in part as follows:
About one hundred and twenty-eight years ago there dwelt in a
house of some magnificence (as may be verified by inspection, for
it stands intact to this day) in Haarlem, near to the market, and
opposite the royal palace, Laurentius Joannes, surnamed Æditus, or
Custos, by reason of this lucrative and honorable office, which by
hereditary right appertained to the distinguished family of that
name. . . . When strolling in the woods near the city, as citizens
who enjoyed ease were accustomed to do after dinner and on
holidays, it happened that he undertook as an experiment to
fashion the bark of a beech tree in the form of letters. The
letters so made, he impressed the reverse way, consecutively, upon
a leaf of paper, in little lines of one kind and another....
Thereupon he made, by the addition of letters, explanations for
pictures on engraved wood. Of this kind of printing, I myself have
seen some stamped block books, the first essays of the art,
printed on one side only, with the printed pages facing each
other, and not upon both sides of the leaf. Among them was a book
in the vernacular written by an unknown author, bearing the title
“Spieghel onzer Behoudenis” [_Dutch edition of the “Mirror of
Salvation,” two pages of the Latin edition of which are here
shown_].... He subsequently changed the beech-wood letters for
those of lead, and these again for letters of tin, because tin was
a less flexible material, harder and more durable. To this day may
be seen in the very house itself ... some very old wine flagons,
which were made from the melting down of the remnants of these
very types. The new invention met with favor from the public and
... attracted purchasers from every direction.... He added
assistants to his band of workmen, and here may be found the cause
of his troubles. Among these workmen was a certain John. Whether
or not, as suspicion alleges, he was Faust ... or another of the
same name I shall not trouble myself to ascertain. This man, altho
bound by oath to the typographic art, when he knew himself to be
perfectly skilled in the operation of type setting, in the
knowledge of type founding, and in every other detail appertaining
to the work, seized the first favorable opportunity ... and flew
into the closet of the types, and packed up the instruments used
in making them that belonged to his master, and ... immediately
after slunk away from the house with the thief. He went first to
Amsterdam, thence to Cologne and finally regained Mainz.... Within
the space of a year, or about 1442, it is well known that he
published, by the aid of the same types which Laurentius had used
in Haarlem, the “Doctrinal” of Alexander Gallus ... and also the
“Treatises” of Peter, of Spain.... I remember that Nicholas
Gallius, the preceptor of my boyhood, a man of tenacious memory,
and venerable with gray hairs, narrated these circumstances to me.
He, when a boy, had more than once heard Cornelis, an old
bookbinder and an underworkman in the same printing office when
not an octogenarian and bowed down with years, recite all these
details as he had received them from his master.
This is the strongest proof the friends of Coster can present, and it
has been thoroughly dissected by investigators representing both sides
of the controversy. The weak points of the document appear to be:
(1) The date of the experiment with wood letters in the garden
(about 1440) does not leave enough time for completion of the
invention of separate metal types and the equipment of a large
printing office until the theft which Junius says occurred in
1441.
(2) The date of the theft of 1441 does not reconcile itself with the
fact that Gutenberg in 1436 was probably experimenting with his
invention at Strassburg.
(3) The claim that a Dutch edition of the “Mirror of Salvation” was
printed with separate types cut from wood seems doubtful, because
even the best modern machinery has not demonstrated that wood type
can be made as accurately as is necessary for arrangement of small
types in a massed page. When it is considered that the size of
types used on the edition mentioned was about fourteen point, and
the lines were printed in alignment, the modern printer is sure to
question the accuracy of the assertion.
Four editions, two in Latin and two in Dutch, of the “Mirror of
Salvation,” are known to exist, all printed from types except twenty
pages of the second edition, which are printed from engraved blocks.
They are the work of some early printer of Holland; whether his name was
Coster or whether the books were printed before or after 1450 will
probably never be ascertained.
One Peter Scriverius in 1628 wrote a new version of the invention in
which he says that “In the year 1428, Laurens Coster, then a sheriff of
Haarlem, strolled into the Haarlem woods. 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,” etc.
Junius had placed the date of Coster’s invention at about 1440;
Scriverius put it at 1428. The date was again changed, this time to
1420, by Marcus Boxhorn, who wrote on the subject in 1640.
In 1722 a statue of Coster was erected in Haarlem, but no date was
placed upon it.
A “true and rational account of the invention” was published at Haarlem
by one Leiz in 1742, which gives in detail the supposed events of
Coster’s life as a printer, from the cutting of the wood letters on the
tree bark in 1428 to his death in 1467, but does not reveal the source
of information.
Gerard Meerman, a learned but impractical writer of Rotterdam, in 1765
published a book, “Origines Typographical,” and comes to the conclusion
that typography was invented by Louwerijs Janszoon, known as Laurens
Coster, who was sheriff at various times between 1422 and 1434, and who
died between 1434 and 1440; he used separate wooden types about 1428 or
1430, and did not (as Junius had claimed) use lead or tin types; he was
robbed on Christmas night 1440 by Johann Gensfleisch (elder brother of
Johann Gutenberg), who carried the art to Mainz; he printed one edition
of the “Mirror” from wooden types.
In the early part of the nineteenth century a scientific society of
Holland offered a prize for the best treatise on the subject of the
invention and in 1816 Jacob Koning was given the award for his essay,
“The Origin, Invention and Development of Printing.” Koning was the
first writer on the subject to make researches in the Haarlem archives
and in his book he claimed to have carefully collected from the
registers, account books, and other official data all the entries that
could throw light on the subject, and to have got together all the
documentary evidence to be found.
The investigations of Koning, as reported by himself, corroborated some
of the details of the stories of those who preceded him, and he found
that Louwerijs Janszoon lived at Haarlem from 1370 to 1439, when he
died.
For many years the discussion stood as Koning had left it and Coster was
universally given equal honors with Gutenberg as the inventor of
typography; but for several years previous to 1869 rumors of errors and
defects in the Haarlem claim were in circulation in Holland.
Dr. Anton Van der Linde took up the task of investigating these rumors
and the results of his labors were given in a series of articles in the
_Dutch Spectator_ during 1870. These articles were revised and issued in
book form under the title, “The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of
Printing.”
Van der Linde showed how Coster’s cause had been bolstered by Koning and
others with misrepresentations, evasions and even forgeries, and Holland
practically surrendered its claims and altered its school books to meet
the new conditions.
The town records revealed no mention of printing in connection with
Louwerijs Janszoon, the sheriff, who died in 1439, or with Laurens
Janszoon Coster.
Van der Linde went to Germany as librarian of the royal library at
Wiesbaden, became _Von_ der Linde and in 1878 published an enlarged
edition of his former book under the title “Gutenberg,” in which he
argued that Gutenberg was the inventor of typography.
In 1879 J. H. Hessels, who had translated into English Van der Linde’s
first book, was asked to write a review of the new book, “Gutenberg,”
and in doing this he became so interested in the subject that he began a
careful investigation into the question. He afterward declared in the
preface of his book, “Gutenberg” (1882). “Had I myself been able to
realize beforehand the time, the trouble, and the expense that this
Gutenberg study would cost me, I should have abandoned the subject at
the outset.” But the work was so infatuating that in 1887 he published
another book: “Haarlem, the Birthplace of Printing; not Mentz.”
To demonstrate the fickle workings of the human mind it may be
interesting to note that in his book of 1882 Mr. Hessels wrote, “I have
never made any thoro examination of the Haarlem question, but such
inquiries as I have made have led me to believe that the Haarlem claim
cannot be maintained.” Contrast this with the title of his book of 1887:
“Haarlem, not Mentz,” and notice his change of base.
While Mr. Hessels had come to believe in Haarlem, Van der Linde’s faith
in the cause of Gutenberg was so strong he forsook his native land, and
in America Theodore L. De Vinne in his book “The Invention of Printing”
(1876) had reasoned out the tangle in a way to satisfy himself and many
others that Gutenberg, and not Coster, was the inventor of typography.
It is impossible here to go into detailed discussion of the points at
issue, and only because the burden of proof is upon the Holland
advocates has so much space been given to Coster.
While there may be some truth in the Coster story, the proofs are weak,
and Haarlem claimants do not seem able to agree as to the identity of
the man Coster.
Gutenberg, on the contrary, is shown by records too numerous to here
mention separately, to have been a real, tangible human being, one who
printed with separate metal types, and the probable inventor of the art.
It is believed that Gutenberg was born at Mainz, Germany, about the year
1399. His parents were Frielo Gensfleisch (goose-flesh) and Else
Gutenberg (good-hill). The boy Johann took the last name of his mother,
in accordance with the German custom of perpetuating a name.
Because of civil strife in Mainz, the Gensfleisch family left that city
about 1420 and took up residence presumably at Strassburg.
There is a possibility that typography spent its infant days at
Strassburg. Gutenberg lived there in 1439 and was practicing a secret
art, which resulted in a lawsuit. The records of the case had lain, with
other records of the time, in an old tower, and were not found until
about 1740. They were removed to the Library of Strassburg, remaining
there until the Franco-Prussian War (1870), when they were destroyed by
soldiers.
This suit against Gutenberg was brought by the relatives of Andrew
Dritzehen, one of his workmen, whom Gutenberg had agreed to teach
certain things connected with the business in which he was engaged. The
testimony of the several witnesses includes references to secrets which
Gutenberg would not impart to his associates: four pieces lying in a
press (which De Vinne claims was a type-mould); lead, melted forms, work
connected with printing, etc.
It is argued that Gutenberg could not have printed in such a perfect
manner at Mainz in 1455 if he had not devoted many of the years before
to perfecting the new art, and for this reason Strassburg may reasonably
claim to be the birthplace of typography.
* * * * *
Gutenberg’s greatest misfortune, the seizure by Fust of his printing
office and the just completed edition of the famous Forty-Two-Line
Bible, furnishes a strong link in the chain of evidence that goes to
prove him the inventor of printing.
The story has been often told how Johann Gutenberg, in need of cash to
finance his invention, went to Johann Fust, a citizen of Mainz, and
obtained a sum of money for which he mortgaged his printing office. This
was in 1450. Five years later we find Fust appearing before a public
notary in the convent of the Bare-Footed Friars to enforce his claim.
Fust evidently caught Gutenberg unawares, for the courts decided against
the inventor, and all types, presses and books in the possession of
Gutenberg were taken to the house of Johann Fust.
The records of the agreement and lawsuit just mentioned are proof that
Johann Gutenberg printed with separate metal types at Mainz, Germany,
during the years 1450–1455. While he did not print his name on any of
the products of his printing office, there are specimens of Mainz
printing such as Indulgences, Donatuses, etc., which corroborative
evidence shows to have been done before 1455.
The greatest achievement of Gutenberg, the culmination of his efforts in
the new art, was the famous Forty-Two-Line Bible. There are a number of
copies of this book in existence, some printed on vellum, some on paper.
It consists of almost thirteen hundred pages, about twelve by sixteen
inches, two columns to the page, the columns containing for the most
part forty-two lines, whence the name by which the book is known. The
types in size are equivalent to the present-day twenty-point, and in
style are a copy of the book-Gothic letters of the fifteenth century.
The reproduction of an illuminated page of the Bible herewith is less
than one-half the size of the original, which is in the British Museum,
but will give an idea of the style of treatment accorded what is
probably the first type-printed book. The text portion was printed in
black ink only. The illuminators put a dab of red on the initial
beginning each sentence, and filled all blank spaces with decoration,
with which the initials I and P are cleverly blended. The smaller
reproduction shows two pages from the copy that was sold for fifty
thousand dollars in 1911.
Johann Gutenberg, after his printing outfit was taken by Fust, did not
entirely lose heart, but again established himself as a printer, altho
he never afterward produced the equal of his great work, the
Forty-Two-Line Bible. In 1465 he was appointed a gentleman of the court
of the Bishop of Mainz, as a reward either for his invention or for
political activity.
Gutenberg died about 1468 and his printing material and equipment went
to one Conrad Humery, who had some rights of ownership in them.
* * * * *
Among Gutenberg’s workmen in 1455 was a young man about twenty-five
years of age named Peter Schœffer, who previously had copied books while
a student at the University of Paris. He was a valued assistant to
Gutenberg, and when Fust took over the equipment forfeited by the
inventor, Schœffer assumed charge, married Fust’s daughter and became a
partner in the business.
Two years later the new firm published a Psalter, which has become,
along with Gutenberg’s Bible, one of the great books of historic
printerdom. Seven copies are known to exist. The Psalter consists of one
hundred and seventy-five vellum leaves nearly square. The Psalms are in
types of about forty-point body, twice the size of those used on
Gutenberg’s Bible and of a similar style. The features of the Psalter
are the large printed two-color initials, generally credited to
Schœffer, altho some authorities have declared that they originated with
Gutenberg.
This Psalter was the first book with a printed date, the colophon at the
end containing “August 14, 1457.”
The portion of a page shown in this connection, being full size and in
colors, should convey an idea of the appearance of the Psalter. The four
cross lines are for the music notes, which were inserted by hand.
Fust died about 1466 from the plague while at Paris arranging for the
sale of books. Schœffer continued to print, and many books came from his
presses. The last book he printed, just before his death (about 1502),
was, a fourth edition of his Psalter.
[Illustration:
THE GUTENBERG BIBLE OF FORTY-TWO LINES
Photographed by Walter Gilliss from the copy for which Henry E.
Huntington paid fifty thousand dollars at the sale of Robert Hoe’s
library in 1911
]
[Illustration:
THE GUTENBERG BIBLE, ILLUMINATED
Less than half the size of the original which is in the British
Museum. Not all pages in the book were decorated like this, and
copies in other collections are illuminated in a different style.
From Humphrey
]
[Illustration:
The Venetian style of typography and decoration
]
[Illustration]
THE SPREAD OF TYPOGRAPHY
The city of Mainz is in the western part of Germany, on the banks of the
river Rhine, and even at the present time is heavily fortified. In the
year 1462, seven years after Gutenberg’s first Bible was completed, it
was the scene of a terrible conflict between two archbishops, Diether
and Adolph II., who contended for the office of elector. The elector had
a vote in the selection of the king or emperor, and Mainz was one of
seven principalities entitled to such an officer.
Diether was the choice of a majority of the citizens of Mainz, but
Adolph had the support of the pope in his claims and made war to
establish himself in the office. One night in October, 1462, there was
an uprising of the followers of Adolph within the city and hundreds of
the inhabitants were murdered. The soldiers of Adolph then entered Mainz
and set it afire. Most of the citizens fled, and industry and business
were paralyzed.
Gutenberg was not affected by these events, as his new shop was outside
of the city proper, in the village of Eltville, a short distance away.
The printing office of Fust and Schœffer, however, was burned, and the
workmen, fleeing for safety from the distressed city, took up residence
in various parts of Europe. Thus was the new art of typography spread
and its secrets made common property.
As an introduction to the consideration of the spread of typography, the
accompanying table may be of value. The information is as accurate as
can be given after carefully consulting numerous authoritative books on
the subject. Most writers disagree as to the years in which typography
was introduced into many of the cities of Europe, and for that reason in
cases where such doubt exists one of the later dates has been chosen for
the purpose of this table.
_In Germany_, before the capture of Mainz, John Mentel at Strassburg and
Albrecht Pfister at Bamberg, were printing books by the new process.
With this fact as a basis, both Mentel and Pfister were once proclaimed
inventors of typography by over-enthusiastic students of printing
history.
Of the printers driven from Mainz by the sacking of the city, Ulrich
Zell is probably the best known, because of his connection with the
Coster-Gutenberg controversy. Zell became rich as a printer and
publisher at Cologne, conducting an office there for more than forty
years. During all that time he never printed a book in the German
language. He had as business competitors twenty-one other master
printers, one of whom, Arnold Ter Hoorne, was the first to make use of
Arabic numerals.
Gunther Zainer began to practice typography at Augsburg in 1468 and was
the first printer in Germany to print a book in Roman characters. He was
also one of the first printers to encounter restrictions by labor
unions. Zainer illustrated his books with woodcuts, and this the
block-printers’ guild objected to. They induced the magistrates to pass
a law against typographers using woodcuts, but this law was afterward
modified to allow the use of woodcuts when made by regular engravers.
Heinrich Keffer printed at Nuremberg about 1470 under the direction of
John Sensenschmidt, who in 1481, at Bamberg, published his famous
Missal, printed with large Gothic types of about sixty-point body.
Keffer had been a witness for Gutenberg in his law suit of 1455.
Anthony Koburger opened a printing office at Nuremberg in 1473, and
later also conducted offices at Basel in Switzerland, and at Lyons in
France. Koburger was one of the most successful of the early printers;
he had twenty-four presses in operation at Nuremberg alone and is said
to have printed twelve editions of the Bible in Latin and one in German.