Royal Library at Paris. It is bound in two volumes; and every complete
page consists of two columns, each containing forty-two lines. At the
conclusion of the first volume the person by whom it was
rubricated[III-41] and bound has written the following memorandum: “_Et
sic est finis prime partis biblie. Scr. Veteris testamenti. Illuminata
seu rubricata et illuminata p’ henricum Albeh alius Cremer anno dn’i
m.cccc.lvi festo Bartholomei apli--Deo gratias--alleluja._” At the end
of the second volume the same person has written the date in words at
length: “_Iste liber illuminatus, ligatus & completus est p’ henricum
Cremer vicariū ecclesie collegatur Sancti Stephani maguntini sub anno
D’ni millesimo quadringentesimo quinquagesimo sexto festo assumptionis
gloriose virginis Marie. Deo gracias alleluja._”[III-42] Fischer[III-43]
says that this last memorandum assigns “einen spätern tag”--a later
day--to the end of the rubricator’s work. In this he is mistaken; for
the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, when the _second_ volume was
finished, is on the 15th of August: while the feast of St. Bartholomew,
the day on which he finished the _first_, falls on August 24th.
Lambinet,[III-44] who doubts the genuineness of those inscriptions,
makes the circumstance of the second volume being finished nine days
before the first, a ground of objection. This seeming inconsistency
however can by no means be admitted as a proof of the inscriptions being
spurious. It is indeed more likely that the rubricator might actually
finish the second volume before the first, than that a modern forger,
intent to deceive, should not have been aware of the objection.
[Footnote III-41: In most of the early printed books the capitals
were left to be inserted in red ink by the pen or pencil of the
“rubricator.”]
[Footnote III-42: There are fac-simile tracings of those
memorandums, on separate slips of paper, in the copy of the
Mazarine Bible in the King’s Library at the British Museum; and
fac-simile engravings of them are given in the M’Carthy
Catalogue.]
[Footnote III-43: Typograph. Seltenheit. S. 20, 3te. Lieferung.]
[Footnote III-44: Recherches sur l’Origine de l’Imprimerie,
p. 135.]
The genuineness of the inscriptions is, however, confirmed by other
evidence which no mere conjecture can invalidate. On the last leaf of
this Bible there is a memorandum written by Berthold de Steyna, vicar of
the parochial church of “Ville-Ostein,”[III-45] to the sacrist of which
the Bible belonged. The sum of this memorandum is that on St. George’s
day [23d April] 1457 there was chaunted, for the first time by the said
Berthold, the mass of the holy sacrament. In the Carthusian monastery
without the walls of Mentz, Schwartz[III-46] says that he saw a copy of
this edition, the last leaves of which were torn out; but that in an old
catalogue he perceived an entry stating that this Bible was presented to
the monastery by Gutemberg and Faust. If the memorandum in the catalogue
could be relied on as genuine, it would appear that this Bible had been
completed before the dissolution of Gutemberg and Faust’s partnership in
November 1455.
[Footnote III-45: Oberlin says that “Ville-Ostein” lies near
Erfurth, and is in the diocese of Mentz.]
[Footnote III-46: Index librorum sub incunabula typograph.
impressorum. 1739; cited by Fischer, Typograph. Seltenheit. S. 21,
3te. Lieferung.]
Although not a single work has been discovered with Gutemberg’s imprint,
yet there cannot be a doubt of his having established a press of his
own, and printed books at Mentz after the partnership between him and
Faust had been dissolved. In the chronicle printed by Philip de
Lignamine at Rome in 1474, it is expressly stated, under the year 1458,
that there were then two printers at Mentz skilful in printing on
parchment with metal types. The name of one was _Cutemberg_, and the
other Faust; and it was known that each of them could print three
hundred sheets in a day.[III-47] On St. Margaret’s day, 20th July, 1459,
Gutemberg, in conjunction with his brother Friele and his cousins John,
Friele, and Pederman, executed a deed in favour of the convent of St.
Clara at Mentz, in which his sister Hebele was a nun. In this document,
which is preserved among the archives of the university of Mentz, there
occurs a passage, “which makes it as clear,” says Fischer, who gives the
deed entire, “as the finest May-day noon, that Gutemberg had not only
printed books at that time, but that he intended to print more.” The
passage alluded to is to the following effect: “And with respect to the
books which I, the above-named John, have given the library of the said
convent, they shall remain for ever in the said library; and I, the
above-named John, will furthermore give to the library of the said
convent all such books required for pious uses and the service of
God,--whether for reading or singing, or for use according to the rules
of the order,--as I, the above-named John, have printed or shall
hereafter print.”[III-48]
[Footnote III-47: Philippi de Lignamine Chronica Summorum
Pontificum Imperatorumque, anno 1474, Romæ impressa. A second
edition of this chronicle was printed at Rome in 1476 by
“Schurener de Bopardia.” In both editions Gutemberg is called
“Jacobus,”--James, and is said to be a native of Strasburg. Under
the same year John Mentelin is mentioned as a printer at
Strasburg.]
[Footnote III-48: Fischer, Typograph. Seltenheit. S. 44, 1ste.
Lieferung. In this instrument Gutemberg describes himself as
“Henne Genssfleisch von Sulgeloch, genennt Gudinberg.”]
That Gutemberg had a press of his own is further confirmed by a bond or
deed of obligation executed by Dr. Conrad Homery on the Friday after St.
Matthias’ day, 1468, wherein he acknowledges having received “certain
forms, letters, utensils, materials, and other things belonging to
printing,” left by John Gutemberg deceased; and he binds himself to the
archbishop Adolphus not to use them beyond the territory of Mentz, and
in the event of his selling them to give a preference to a person
belonging to that city.
The words translated “certain forms, letters, utensils, materials, and
other things belonging to printing,” in the preceding paragraph, are in
the original enumerated as: “_etliche formen_, _buchstaben_,
_instrument_, _gezuge und anders zu truckwerck gehoerende_.” As there is
a distinction made between “formen” and “buchstaben,”--literally,
“forms” and “letters,”--Schwartz is inclined to think that by “formen”
engraved wood-blocks might be meant, and he adduces in favour of his
opinion the word “formen-schneider,” the old German name for a
wood-engraver. One or more pages of type when wedged into a rectangular
iron frame called a “chase,” and ready for the press, is termed a “form”
both by English and German printers; but Schwartz thinks that such were
not the “forms” mentioned in the document. As there appears to be a
distinction also between “_instrument_” and “_gezuge_,”--translated
utensils and materials,--he supposes that the latter word may be used to
signify the metal of which the types were formed. He observes that
German printers call their old worn-out types “_der Zeug_”--literally,
“stuff,” and that the mixed metal of which types are composed is also
known as “der Zeug, oder Metall.”[III-49] It is to be remembered that
the earliest printers were also their own letter-founders.
[Footnote III-49: Primaria quædam Document. pp. 26-34.]
The work called the Catholicon, compiled by Johannes de Balbis,
Januensis, a Dominican, which appeared in 1460 without the printer’s
name, has been ascribed to Gutemberg’s press by some of the most eminent
German bibliographers. It is a Latin dictionary and introduction to
grammar, and consists of three hundred and seventy-three leaves of large
folio size. Fischer and others are of opinion that a Vocabulary, printed
at Elfeld,--in Latin, Altavilla,--near Mentz, on 6th November, 1467, was
executed with the same types. At the end of this work, which is a quarto
of one hundred and sixty-five leaves, it is stated to have been begun by
Henry Bechtermuntze, and finished by his brother Nicholas, and Wigand
Spyess de Orthenberg.[III-50] A second edition of the same work, printed
by Nicholas Bechtermuntze, appeared in 1469. The following extract from
a letter written by Fischer to Professor Zapf in 1803, contains an
account of his researches respecting the Catholicon and Vocabulary: “The
frankness with which you retracted your former opinions respecting the
printer of the Catholicon of 1460, and agreed with me in assigning it to
Gutemberg, demands the respect of every unbiassed inquirer. I beg now
merely to mention to you a discovery that I have made which no longer
leaves it difficult to conceive how the Catholicon types should have
come into the hands of Bechtermuntze. From a monument which stands
before the high altar of the church of Elfeld it is evident that the
family of Sorgenloch, of which that of Gutemberg or Gænsfleisch was a
branch, was connected with the family of Bechtermuntze by marriage. The
types used by Bechtermuntze were not only similar to those formerly
belonging to Gutemberg, but were the very same, as I always maintained,
appealing to the principles of the type-founder’s art. They had come
into the possession of Bechtermuntze by inheritance, on the death of
Gutemberg, and hence Dr. Homery’s reclamation.”[III-51]
[Footnote III-50: “. . . . per henricum bechtermuncze pie memorie
in altavilla est inchoatum. et demū sub anno dñi M.CCCCLXII. ipō
die Leonardi confessoris qui fuit quarta die mensis novembris
p. nycolaum bechtermūcze fratrem dicti Henrici et Wygandū Spyess
de orthenberg ē consummatū.” There is a copy of this edition in
the Royal Library at Paris.]
[Footnote III-51: Typographisch. Seltenheit. S. 101, 5te.
Lieferung.]
Zapf, to whom Fischer’s letter is addressed, had previously communicated
to Oberlin his opinion that the types of the Catholicon were the same as
those of an _Augustinus de Vita Christiana_, 4to, without date or
printer’s name, but having at the end the arms of Faust and Scheffer. In
his account, printed at Nuremberg, 1803, of an early edition of “Joannis
de Turre-cremata explanatio in Psalterium,” he acknowledged that he was
mistaken; thus agreeing with Schwartz, Meerman, Panzer, and Fischer,
that no book known to be printed by Faust and Scheffer is printed with
the same types as the Catholicon and the Vocabulary.
Although there can be little doubt of the Catholicon and the Elfeld
Vocabulary being printed with the same types, and of the former being
printed by Gutemberg, yet it is far from certain that Bechtermuntze
inherited Gutemberg’s printing materials, even though he might be a
relation. It is as likely that Gutemberg might sell to the brothers a
portion of his materials and still retain enough for himself. If they
came into their possession by inheritance, which is not likely,
Gutemberg must have died some months previous to 4th November, 1467, the
day on which Nicholas Bechtermuntze and Wygand Spyess finished the
printing of the Vocabulary. If the materials had been purchased by
Bechtermuntze in Gutemberg’s lifetime, which seems to be the most
reasonable supposition, Conrad Homery could have no claim upon them on
account of money advanced to Gutemberg, and consequently the types and
printing materials which after his death came into Homery’s possession,
could not be those employed by the brothers Bechtermuntze in their
establishment at Elfeld.[III-52]
[Footnote III-52: The two following works, without date or
printer’s name, are printed with the same types as the Catholicon,
and it is doubtful whether they were printed by Gutemberg, or by
other persons with his types.
1. Matthei de Cracovia tractatus, seu dialogus racionis et
consciencie de sumpcione pabuli salutiferi corporis domini nostri
ihesu christi. 4to. foliis 22.
2. Thome de Aquino summa de articulis fidei et ecclesie
sacramentis. 4to. foliis 13.
A declaration of Thierry von Isenburg, archbishop of Mayence,
offering to resign in favour of his opponent, Adolphus of Nassau,
printed in German and Latin in 1462, is ascribed to Gutemberg: it
is of quarto size and consists of four leaves.--Oberlin, Annales
de la Vie de Gutenberg.]
By letters patent, dated at Elfeld on St. Anthony’s day, 1465, Adolphus,
archbishop and elector of Mentz, appointed Gutemberg one of his
courtiers, with the same allowance of clothing as the rest of the nobles
attending his court, with other privileges and exemptions. From this
period Fischer thinks that Gutemberg no longer occupied himself with
business as a printer, and that he transferred his printing materials to
Henry Bechtermuntze. “If Wimpheling’s account be true,” says Fischer,
“that Gutemberg became blind in his old age, we need no longer be
surprised that during his lifetime his types and utensils should come
into the possession of Bechtermuntze.” The exact period of Gutemberg’s
decease has not been ascertained, but in the bond or deed of obligation
executed by Doctor Conrad Homery the Friday after St. Matthias’s
day,[III-53] 1468, he is mentioned as being then dead. He was interred
at Mentz in the church of the Recollets, and the following epitaph was
composed by his relation, Adam Gelthaus:[III-54]
“D. O. M. S.
“Joanni Genszfleisch, artis impressoriæ repertori, de omni natione et
lingua optime merito, in nominis sui memoriam immortalem Adam Gelthaus
posuit. Ossa ejus in ecclesia D. Francisci Moguntina feliciter cubant.”
From the last sentence it is probable that this epitaph was not placed
in the church wherein Gutemberg was interred. The following inscription
was composed by Ivo Wittich, professor of law and member of the imperial
chamber at Mentz:
“Jo. Guttenbergensi, Moguntino, qui primus omnium literas ære
imprimendas invenit, hac arte de orbe toto bene merenti Ivo Witigisis
hoc saxum pro monimento posuit M.D.VII.”
[Footnote III-53: St. Matthias’s Day is on 24th February.]
[Footnote III-54: In the instrument dated 1434, wherein Gutemberg
agrees to release the town-clerk of Mentz, whom he had arrested,
mention is made of a relation of his, Ort Gelthus, living at
Oppenheim. Schœpflin, mistaking the word, has printed in his
Documenta, p. 4, “Artgeld huss,” which he translates “Artgeld
domo,” the house of Artgeld.]
This inscription, according to Serarius, who professes to have seen it,
and who died in 1609, was placed in front of the school of law at Mentz.
This house had formerly belonged to Gutemberg, and was supposed to be
the same in which he first commenced printing at Mentz in conjunction
with Faust.[III-55]
[Footnote III-55: Serarii Historia Mogunt. lib. 1. cap. xxxvii.
p. 159. Heineken, Nachrichten von Kunstlern und Kunst-Sachen, 2te.
Theil, S. 299.]
From the documentary evidence cited in the preceding account of the life
of Gutemberg, it will be perceived that the art of printing with
moveable types was not perfected as soon as conceived, but that it was a
work of time. It is highly probable that Gutemberg was occupied with his
invention in 1436; and from the obscure manner in which his “admirable
discovery” is alluded to in the process between him and the Drytzehns in
1439, it does not seem likely that he had then proceeded beyond making
experiments. In 1449 or 1450, when the sum of 800 florins was advanced
by Faust, it appears not unreasonable to suppose that he had so far
improved his invention, as to render it practically available without
reference to Scheffer’s great improvement in casting the types from
matrices formed by punches, which was most likely discovered between
1452 and 1455.[III-56] About fourteen years must have elapsed before
Gutemberg was enabled to bring his invention into practice. The
difficulties which must have attended the first establishment of
typography could only have been surmounted by great ingenuity and
mechanical knowledge combined with unwearied perseverance. After the
mind had conceived the idea of using moveable types, those types,
whatever might be the material employed, were yet to be formed, and when
completed they were to be arranged in pages, divided by proper spaces,
and bound together in some manner which the ingenuity of the inventor
was to devise. Nor was his invention complete until he had contrived a
PRESS, by means of which numerous impressions from his types might be
perfectly and rapidly obtained.
[Footnote III-56: In the colophon to “Trithemii Breviarium
historiarum de origine Regum et Gentis Francorum,” printed at
Mentz in 1515 by John Scheffer, son of Peter Scheffer and
Christina, the daughter of Faust, it is stated that the art of
printing was perfected in 1452, through the labour and ingenious
contrivances of Peter Scheffer of Gernsheim, and that Faust gave
him his daughter Christina in marriage as a reward.]
Mr. Ottley, at page 285 of the first volume of his Researches, informs
us that “almost all great discoveries have been made by accident;” and
at page 196 of the same volume, when speaking of printing as the
invention of Lawrence Coster, he mentions it as an “art which had been
at first taken up as the amusement of a leisure hour, became improved,
and was practised by him as a profitable trade.” Let any unbiassed
person enter a printing-office; let him look at the single letters, let
him observe them formed into pages, and the pages wedged up in forms;
let him see a sheet printed from one of those forms by means of the
press; and when he has seen and considered all this, let him ask himself
if ever, since the world began, the amusement of an old man practised in
his hours of leisure was attended with such a result? “Very few great
discoveries,” says Lord Brougham, “have been made by chance and by
ignorant persons, much fewer than is generally supposed.--They are
generally made by persons of competent knowledge, and who are in search
of them.”[III-57]
[Footnote III-57: On the Pleasures and Advantages of Science,
p. 160. Edit. 1831.]
Having now given some account of the grounds on which Gutemberg’s claims
to the invention of typography are founded, it appears necessary to give
a brief summary, from the earliest authorities, of the pretensions of
Lawrence Coster not only to the same honour, but to something more; for
if the earliest account which we have of him be true, he was not only
the inventor of typography, but of block-printing also.
The first mention of Holland in connexion with the invention of
typography occurs in the Cologne Chronicle, printed by John Kœlhoff in
1499, wherein it is said that the first idea of the art was suggested by
the Donatuses printed in Holland; it being however expressly stated in
the same work that the art of printing as then practised was invented at
Mentz. In a memorandum, which has been referred to at page 123, written
by Mariangelus Accursius, who flourished about 1530, the invention of
printing with metal types is erroneously ascribed to Faust; and it is
further added, that he derived the idea from a Donatus printed in
Holland from a wood-block. That a Donatus might be printed there from a
wood-block previous to the invention of typography is neither impossible
nor improbable; although I esteem the testimony of Accursius of very
little value. He was born and resided in Italy, and it is not unlikely,
as has been previously observed, that he might derive his information
from the Cologne Chronicle.
John Van Zuyren, who died in 1594, is said to have written a book to
prove that typography was invented at Harlem; but it never was printed,
and the knowledge that we have of it is from certain fragments of it
preserved by Scriverius, a writer whose own uncorroborated testimony on
this subject is not entitled to the slightest credit. The substance of
Zuyren’s account is almost the same as that of Junius, except that he
does not mention the inventor’s name. The art according to him was
invented at Harlem, but that while yet in a rude and imperfect state it
was carried by a stranger to Mentz, and there brought to perfection.
Theodore Coornhert, in the dedication of his Dutch translation of
Tully’s Offices to the magistrates of Harlem, printed in 1561, says that
he had frequently heard from respectable people that the art of printing
was invented at Harlem, and that the house where the inventor lived was
pointed out to him. He proceeds to relate that by the dishonesty of a
workman the art was carried to Mentz and there perfected. Though he says
that he was informed by certain respectable old men both of the
inventor’s name and family, yet, for some reason or other, he is careful
not to mention them. When he was informing the magistrates of Harlem of
their city being the nurse of so famous a discovery, it is rather
strange that he should not mention the parent’s name. From the
conclusion of his dedication we may guess why he should be led to
mention Harlem as the place where typography was invented. It appears
that he and certain friends of his, being inflamed with a patriotic
spirit, designed to establish a new printing-office at Harlem, “in
honour of their native city, to the profit of others, and for their own
accommodation, and yet without detriment to any person.” His claiming
the invention of printing for Harlem was a good advertisement for the
speculation.
The next writer who mentions Harlem as the place where printing was
invented is Guicciardini, who in his Description of the Low Countries,
first printed at Antwerp in 1567, gives the report, without vouching for
its truth, as follows: “In this place, it appears, not only from the
general opinion of the inhabitants and other Hollanders, but from the
testimony of several writers and from other memoirs, that the art of
printing and impressing letters on paper such as is now practised, was
invented. The inventor dying before the art was perfected or had come
into repute, his servant, as they say, went to live at Mentz, where
making this new art known, he was joyfully received; and applying
himself diligently to so important a business, he brought it to
perfection and into general repute. Hence the report has spread abroad
and gained credit that the art of printing was first practised at Mentz.
What truth there may be in this relation, I am not able, nor do I wish,
to decide; contenting myself with mentioning the subject in a few words,
that I might not prejudice [by my silence the claims of] this
district.”[III-58]
[Footnote III-58: Ludovico Guicciardini, Descrittione di tutti i
Paesi Bassi: folio, Anversa, 1581. The original passage is given
by Meerman. The original words _altre memorie_--translated in the
above extract “other memoirs”--are rendered by Mr. Ottley “other
records.” This may pass; but it scarcely can be believed that
Guicciardini consulted or personally knew of the existence of any
such records. Mr. Ottley also, to match his “records,” refers to
the relations of Coornhert, Zuyren, Guicciardini, and Junius as
“documents.”]
It is evident that the above account is given from mere report. What
other writers had previously noticed the claims of Harlem, except
Coornhert and Zuyren, remain yet to be discovered. They appear to have
been unknown to Guicciardini’s contemporary, Junius, who was the first
to give a name to the Harlem inventor; a “local habitation” had already
been provided for him by Coornhert.
The sole authority for one Lawrence Coster having invented
wood-engraving, block-printing, and typography, is Hadrian Junius, who
was born at Horn in North Holland, in 1511. He took up his abode at
Harlem in 1560. During his residence in that city he commenced his
Batavia,--the work in which the account of Coster first
appeared,--which, from the preface, would seem to have been finished in
January, 1575. He died the 16th June in the same year, and his book was
not published until 1588, twelve years after his decease.[III-59] In
this work, which is a topographical and historical account of Holland,
or more properly of the country included within the limits of ancient
Batavia, we find the first account of Lawrence Coster as the inventor of
typography. Almost every succeeding advocate of Coster’s pretensions has
taken the liberty of altering, amplifying, or contradicting the account
of Junius according as it might suit his own line of argument; but not
one of them has been able to produce a single solitary fact in
confirmation of it. Scriverius, Seiz, Meerman, and Koning are fertile in
their conjectures about the thief that stole Coster’s types, but they
are miserably barren in their proofs of his having had types to be
stolen. “If the variety of opinions,” observes Naude, speaking of
Coster’s invention, “may be taken as an indication of the falsehood of
any theory, it is impossible that this should be true”. Since Naude’s
time the number of Coster’s advocates has been increased by Seiz,
Meerman, and Koning;[III-60] who, if they have not been able to produce
any evidence of the existence of Lawrence Coster as a printer, have at
least been fertile in conjectures respecting the thief. They have not
strengthened but weakened the Costerian triumphal arch raised by Junius,
for they have all more or less knocked a piece of it away; and even
where they have pretended to make repairs, it has merely been “one nail
driving another out.”
[Footnote III-59: Junius was a physician, and unquestionably a
learned man. He is the author of a nomenclator in Latin, Greek,
Dutch, and French. An edition, with the English synonyms, by John
Higins and Abraham Fleming, was printed at London in 1585. The
following passage concerning Junius occurs in Southey’s
Biographical Sketch of the Earl of Surrey in the “Select Works of
the British Poets from Chaucer to Jonson:” “Surrey is next found
distinguishing himself at the siege of Landrecy. At that siege
Bonner, who was afterwards so eminently infamous, invited Hadrian
Junius to England. When that distinguished scholar arrived, Bonner
wanted either the means, or more probably the heart, to assist
him; but Surrey took him into his family in the capacity of
physician, and gave him a pension of fifty angels.”]
[Footnote III-60: Koning’s Dissertation on the Invention of
Printing, which was crowned by the Society of Sciences of Harlem,
was first printed at Harlem in the Dutch language in 1816. It was
afterwards abridged and translated into French with the
approbation, and under the revision, of the author. In 1817 he
published a first supplement; and a second appeared in 1820.]
Junius’s account of Coster is supposed to have been written about 1568;
and in order to do justice to the claims of Harlem I shall here give a
faithful translation of the “document,”--according to Mr. Ottley,--upon
which they are founded. After alluding, in a preliminary rhetorical
flourish, to Truth being the daughter of Time, and to her being
concealed in a well, Junius thus proceeds to draw her out.
“If he is the best witness, as Plutarch says, who, bound by no favour
and led by no partiality, freely and fearlessly speaks what he thinks,
my testimony may deservedly claim attention. I have no connexion through
kindred with the deceased, his heirs, or his posterity, and I expect on
this account neither favour nor reward. What I have done is performed
through a regard to the memory of the dead. I shall therefore relate
what I have heard from old and respectable persons who have held offices
in the city, and who seriously affirmed that they had heard what they
told from their elders, whose authority ought justly to entitle them to
credit.”
About a hundred and twenty-eight years ago,[III-61] Lawrence John,
called the churchwarden or keeper,[III-62] from the profitable and
honourable office which his family held by hereditary right, dwelt in a
large house, which is yet standing entire, opposite the Royal Palace.
This is the person who now on the most sacred ground of right puts forth
his claims to the honour of having invented typography, an honour so
nefariously obtained and possessed by others. Walking in a neighbouring
wood, as citizens are accustomed to do after dinner and on holidays, he
began to cut letters of beech-bark, with which for amusement, the
letters being inverted as on a seal, he impressed short sentences on
paper for the children of his son-in-law. Having succeeded so well in
this, he began to think of more important undertakings, for he was a
shrewd and ingenious man; and, in conjunction with his son-in-law Thomas
Peter, he discovered a more glutinous and tenacious kind of ink, as he
found from experience that the ink in common use occasioned blots. This
Thomas Peter left four sons, all of whom were magistrates; and I mention
this that all may know that the art derived its origin from a
respectable and not from a mean family. He then printed whole figured
pages with the text added. Of this kind I have seen specimens executed
in the infancy of the art, being printed only on one side. This was a
book composed in our native language by an anonymous author, and
entitled _Speculum Nostræ Salutis_. In this we may observe that in the
first productions of the art--for no invention is immediately
perfected--the blank pages were pasted together, so that they might not
appear as a defect. He afterwards exchanged his beech types for leaden
ones, and subsequently he formed his types of tin, as being less
flexible and of greater durability. Of the remains of these types
certain old wine-vessels were cast, which are still preserved in the
house formerly the residence of Lawrence, which, as I have said, looks
into the market-place, and which was afterwards inhabited by his
great-grandson Gerard Thomas, a citizen of repute, who died an old man a
few years ago.
[Footnote III-61: Reckoning from 1568, the period referred to
would be 1440.]
[Footnote III-62: “Ædituus Custosve.” The word “Koster” in modern
Dutch is synonymous with the English “Sexton.”]
“The new invention being well received, and a new and unheard-of
commodity finding on all sides purchasers, to the great profit of the
inventor, he became more devoted to the art, his business was increased,
and new workmen--the first cause of his misfortune--were employed. Among
them was one called John; but whether, as is suspected, he bore the
ominous surname of Faust,--_infaustus_[III-63] and unfaithful to his
master--or whether it were some other John, I shall not labour to prove,
as I do not wish to disturb the dead already enduring the pangs of
conscience for what they had done when living.[III-64] This person, who
was admitted under an oath to assist in printing, as soon as he thought
he had attained the art of joining the letters, a knowledge of the
fusile types, and other matters connected with the business, embracing
the convenient opportunity of Christmas Eve, when all persons are
accustomed to attend to their devotions, stole all the types and
conveyed away all the utensils which his master had contrived by his own
skill; and then leaving home with the thief, first went to Amsterdam,
then to Cologne, and lastly to Mentz, as his altar of refuge, where
being safely settled, beyond bowshot as they say, he might commence
business, and thence derive a rich profit from the things which he had
stolen. Within the space of a year from Christmas, 1442, it is certain
that there appeared printed with the types which Lawrence had used at
Harlem ‘_Alexandri Galli Doctrinale_,’ a grammar then in frequent use,
with ‘_Petri Hispani Tractatus_.’
[Footnote III-63: “Sive is (ut fert suspicio) Faustus fuerit
ominoso cognomine, hero suo infidus et infaustus.” The author here
indulges in an ominous pun. The Latinised name “_Faustus_,”
signifies lucky; the word “_infaustus_,” unlucky. The German name
Füst may be literally translated “Fist.” A clenched hand is the
crest of the family of Faust.]
[Footnote III-64: This is an admirable instance of candour.
A charge is insinuated, and presumed to be a fact, and yet the
writer kindly forbears to bring forward proof, that he may not
disturb the dead. History has long since given the lie to the
insinuation of the thief having been Faust.]
“The above is nearly what I have heard from old men worthy of credit who
had received the tradition as a shining torch transferred from hand to
hand, and I have heard the same related and affirmed by others.
I remember being told by Nicholas Galius, the instructor of my youth,--a
man of iron memory, and venerable from his long white hair,--that when a
boy he had often heard one Cornelius, a bookbinder, not less than eighty
years old (who had been an assistant in the same office), relate with
such excited feelings the whole transaction,--the occasion of the
invention, its progress, and perfection, as he had heard of them from
his master,--that as often as he came to the story of the robbery he
would burst into tears; and then the old man’s anger would be so roused
on account of the honour that had been lost through the theft, that he
appeared as if he could have hanged the thief had he been alive; and
then again he would vow perdition on his sacrilegious head, and curse
the nights that he had slept in the same bed with him, for the old man
had been his bedfellow for some months. This does not differ from the
words of Quirinus Talesius, who admitted to me that he had formerly
received nearly the same account from the mouth of the same
bookseller.”[III-65]
[Footnote III-65: Hadriani Junii Batavia, p. 253, et sequent.
Edit. Ludg. Batavor. 1588.]
As Junius died upwards of twelve years before his book was published, it
is doubtful whether the above account was actually written by him or
not. It may have been an interpolation of an editor or a bookseller
anxious for the honour of Harlem, and who might thus expect to gain
currency for the story by giving it to the world under the sanction of
Junius’s name. There was also another advantage attending this mode of
publication; for as the reputed writer was dead, he could not be called
on to answer the many objections which remain yet unexplained.
The manner in which Coster, according to the preceding account, first
discovered the principle of obtaining impressions from separate letters
formed of the bark of the beech-tree requires no remark.[III-66] There
are, however, other parts of this narrative which more especially force
themselves on the attention as being at variance with reason as well as
fact.
[Footnote III-66: Scriverius--whose book was printed in
1628--thinking that there might be some objection raised to the
letters of beech-bark, thus, according to his own fancy, amends
the account of Cornelius as given by Junius: “Coster walking in
the wood picked up a small bough of a beech, or rather of an
oak-tree blown off by the wind; and after amusing himself with
cutting some letters on it, wrapped it up in paper, and afterwards
laid himself down to sleep. When he awoke, he perceived that the
paper, by a shower of rain or some accident having got moist, had
received an impression from these letters; which induced him to
pursue the accidental discovery.” This is more imaginative than
the account of Cornelius, but scarcely more probable.]
Coster, we are informed, lived in a large house, and, at the time of his
engaging the workman who robbed him, he had brought the art to such
perfection that he derived from it a great profit; and in consequence of
the demand for the new commodity, which was eagerly sought after by
purchasers, he was obliged to increase his establishment and engage
assistants. It is therefore evident that the existence of such an art
must have been well known, although its details might be kept secret.
Coster, we are also informed, was of a respectable family; his
grand-children were men of authority in the city, and a great-grandson
of his died only a few years before Junius wrote, and yet not one of his
friends or descendants made any complaint of the loss which Coster had
sustained both in property and fame. Their apathy, however, was
compensated by the ardour of old Cornelius, who used to shed involuntary
tears whenever the theft was mentioned; and used to heap bitter curses
on the head of the thief as often as he thought of the glory of which
Coster and Harlem had been so villanously deprived. It is certainly very
singular that a person of respectability and authority should be robbed
of his materials and deprived of the honour of the invention, and yet
neither himself nor any one of his kindred publicly denounce the thief;
more especially as the place where he had established himself was known,
and where in conjunction with others he had the frontless audacity to
claim the honour of the invention.
Of Lawrence Coster, his invention, and his loss, the world knew nothing
until he had been nearly a hundred and fifty years in his grave. The
presumed writer of the account which had to do justice to his memory had
been also twelve years dead when his book was published. His
information, which he received when he was a boy, was derived from an
old man who when a boy had heard it from another old man who lived with
Coster at the time of the robbery, and who had heard the account of the
invention from his master. Such is the list of the Harlem witnesses. If
Junius had produced any evidence on the authority of Coster’s
great-grandson that any of his predecessors--his father or his
grandfather--had carried on the business of a printer at Harlem, this
might in part have corroborated the narrative of Cornelius; but, though
subsequent advocates of the claims of Harlem have asserted that Coster’s
grand-children continued the printing business, no book or document has
been discovered to establish the fact.
The account of Cornelius involves a contradiction which cannot be easily
explained away. If the thief stole the whole or greater part of Coster’s
printing materials,--types and press and all, as the narrative seems to
imply,--it is difficult to conceive how he could do so without being
discovered, even though the time chosen were Christmas Eve; for on an
occasion when all or most people were engaged at their devotions, the
fact of two persons being employed would in itself be a suspicious
circumstance: a tenant with a small stock of furniture who wished to
make a “moonlight flitting” would most likely be stopped if he attempted
to remove his goods on a Sunday night. As the dishonest workman had an
assistant, who is rather unaccountably called “_the_ thief,” it is
evident from this circumstance, as well as from the express words of the
narrative,[III-67] that the quantity of materials stolen must have been
considerable. If, on the contrary, the thief only carried away a portion
of the types and matrices, with a few other instruments,--“all that
could be moved without manifest danger of immediate detection,” to use
the words of Mr. Ottley,--what was there to prevent Coster from
continuing the business of printing? Did he give up the lucrative trade
which he had established, and disappoint his numerous customers, because
a dishonest workman had stolen a few of his types? But even if every
letter and matrice had been stolen,--though how likely this is to be
true I shall leave every one conversant with typography to decide,--was
the loss irreparable, and could this “shrewd and ingenious man” not
reconstruct the types and other printing materials which he had
originally contrived?
[Footnote III-67: “Choragium omne typorum involat, instrumentorum
herilium ei artificio comparatorum suppelectilem convasat, deinde
_cum fure_ domo se proripit.”--H. Junii Batavia, p. 255.]
If the business of Coster was continued uninterruptedly, and after his
death carried on by his grand-children, we might naturally expect that
some of the works which they printed could be produced, and that some
record of their having practised such an art at Harlem would be in
existence. The records of Harlem are however silent on the subject; no
mention is made by any contemporary author, nor in any contemporary
document, of Coster or his descendants as printers in that city; and no
book printed by them has been discovered except by persons who decide
upon the subject as if they were endowed with the faculty of intuitive
discrimination. If Coster’s business had been suspended in consequence
of the robbery, his customers, from all parts, who eagerly purchased the
“new commodity,” must have been aware of the circumstance; and to
suppose that it should not have been mentioned by some old writer, and
that the claims of Coster should have lain dormant for a century and a
half, exceeds my powers of belief. Where pretended truth can only be
perceived by closing the eyes of reason I am content to remain ignorant;
nor do I wish to trust myself to the unsafe bridge of conjecture--a
rotten plank without a hand-rail,--
“O’er which lame faith leads understanding blind.”
If all Coster’s types had been stolen and he had not supplied himself
with new ones, it would be difficult to account for the wine vessels
which were cast from the old types; and if he or his heirs continued to
print subsequent to the robbery, all that his advocates had to complain
of was the theft. For since it must have been well known that he had
discovered and practised the art, at least ten years previous to its
known establishment at Mentz, and seventeen years before a book appeared
with the name of the printers claiming the honour of the invention, the
greatest injury which he received must have been from his fellow
citizens; who perversely and wilfully would not recollect his previous
discovery and do justice to his claims. Even supposing that a thief had
stolen the whole of Coster’s printing-materials, types, chases, and
presses, it by no means follows that he deprived of their memory not
only all the citizens of Harlem, but all Coster’s customers who came
from other places[III-68] to purchase the “new commodity” which his
press supplied. Such however must have been the consequences of the
robbery, if the narrative of Cornelius were true; for except himself no
person seems to have remembered Coster’s invention, or that either he or
his immediate descendants had ever printed a single book.
[Footnote III-68: “. . . . . quum nova merx, nunquam antea visa,
emptores undique exciret cum huberrimo questu.”--Junii Batavia.]
Notwithstanding the internal evidence of the improbability of
Cornelius’s account of Coster and his invention, its claims to
credibility are still further weakened by those persons who have shown
themselves most wishful to establish its truth. Lawrence Janszoon, whom
Meerman and others suppose to have been the person described by
Cornelius as the inventor of printing, appears to have been custos of
the church of St. Bavon at Harlem in the years 1423, 1426, 1432 and
1433. His death is placed by Meerman in 1440; and as, according to the
narrative of Cornelius, the types and other printing materials were
stolen on Christmas eve 1441, the inventor of typography must have been
in his grave at the time the robbery was committed. Cornelius must have
known of his master’s death, and yet in his account of the robbery he
makes no mention of Coster being dead at the time, nor of the business
being carried on by his descendants after his decease. It was at one
time supposed that Coster died of grief on the loss of his types, and on
account of the thief claiming the honour of the invention. But this it
seems is a mistake; he was dead according to Meerman at the time of the
robbery, and the business was carried on by his grandchildren.
Koning has discovered that Cornelius the bookbinder died in 1522, aged
at least ninety years. Allowing him to have been ninety-two, this
assistant in Coster’s printing establishment, and who learnt the account
of the invention and improvement of the art from Coster himself, must
have been just ten years old when his master died; and yet upon the
improbable and uncorroborated testimony of this person are the claims of
Coster founded.
Lehne, in his “Chronology of the Harlem fiction,”[III-69] thus remarks
on the authorities, Galius, and Talesius, referred to by Junius as
evidences of its truth. As Cornelius was upwards of eighty when he
related the story to Nicholas Galius, who was then a boy, this must have
happened about 1510. The boy Galius we will suppose to have been at that
time about fifteen years old: Junius was born in 1511, and we will
suppose that he was under the care of Nicholas Galius, the instructor of
his youth, until he was fifteen; that is, until 1526. In this year
Galius, the man venerable from his grey hairs, would be only thirty-six
years old, an age at which grey hairs are premature. Grey hairs are only
venerable in old age, and it is not usual to praise a young man’s
faculty of recollection in the style in which Junius lauds the “iron
memory” of his teacher. Talesius, as Koning states, was born in 1505,
and consequently six years older than Junius; and on the death of
Cornelius, in 1522, he would be seventeen, and Junius eleven years old.
Junius might in his eleventh year have heard the whole account from
Cornelius himself in the same manner as the latter when only ten must
have heard it from Coster; and it is remarkable that Galius who was so
well acquainted with Cornelius did not afford his pupil the opportunity.
We thus perceive that in the whole of this affair children and old men
play the principal parts, and both ages are proverbially addicted to
narratives which savour of the marvellous.
[Footnote III-69: In “Einige Bemerkungen über das Unternehmen der
gelehrten Gesellschaft zu Harlem,” &c. S. 31.]
Meerman, writing to his correspondent Wagenaar in 1757, expresses his
utter disbelief in the story of Coster being the inventor of typography,
which, he observes, was daily losing credit: whatever historical
evidence Seiz had brought forward in favour of Coster was gratuitously
assumed; in short, the whole story of the invention was a
fiction.[III-70] After the publication of Schœpflin’s Vindiciæ
Typographicæ in 1760, giving proofs of Gutemberg having been engaged in
1438 with some invention relating to _printing_, and in which a _press_
was employed, Meerman appears to have received a new light; for in 1765
he published his own work in support of the very story which he had
previously declared to be undeserving of credit. The mere change,
however, of a writer’s opinions cannot alter the immutable character of
truth; and the guesses and assumptions with which he may endeavour to
gloss a fiction can never give to it the solidity of fact. What he has
said of the work of Seiz in support of Coster’s claims may with equal
truth be applied to his own arguments in the same cause: “Whatever
historical evidence he has brought forward in favour of Coster has been
gratuitously assumed.” Meerman’s work, like the story which it was
written to support, “is daily losing credit.” It is a dangerous book for
an advocate of Coster to quote; for he has scarcely advanced an argument
in favour of Coster, and in proof of his stolen types being the
foundation of typography at Mentz, but what is contradicted by a
positive fact.
[Footnote III-70: Santander has published a French translation of
this letter in his Dictionnaire Bibliographique, tom. i. pp.
14-18.]
In order to make the documentary evidence produced by Schœpflin in
favour of Gutemberg in some degree correspond with the story of
Cornelius, Junius’s authority, he has assumed that Gutemberg had an
elder brother also called John; and that he was known as Gænsfleisch
the elder, while his younger brother was called by way of
distinction Gutemberg. In support of this assumption he refers
to Wimpheling,[III-71] who in one place has called the inventor
Gænsfleisch, and in another Gutemberg; and he also supposes that the two
epitaphs which have been given at page 144, relate to two different
persons. The first, inscribed by Adam Gelthaus to the memory of John
_Gænsfleisch_, he concludes to have been intended for the elder brother.
The second, inscribed by Ivo Wittich to the memory of John _Gutemberg_,
he supposes to relate to the younger brother, and to have been erected
from a feeling of envy. The fact of Gutemberg being also named
Gænsfleisch in several contemporary documents, is not allowed to stand
in the way of Meerman’s hypothesis of the two “brother Johns,” which has
been supposed to be corroborated by the fact of a John Gænsfleisch the
Elder being actually the contemporary of John Gænsfleisch called also
Gutemberg.
[Footnote III-71: Wimpheling, who was born at Sletstadt in 1451,
thus addresses the inventor of printing,--whose name, Gænsfleisch,
he Latinises “Ansicarus,”--in an epigram printed at the end of
“Memoriæ Marsilii ab Inghen,” 4to. 1499.
“Felix _Ansicare_, per te Germania felix
Omnibus in terris præmia laudis habet.
Urbe Moguntina, divino fulte Joannes
Ingenio, primus imprimis ære notas.
Multum Relligio, multum tibi Græca sophia,
Et multum debet lingua Latina.”
In his “Epitome Rerum Germanicarum,” 1502, he says that the art of
printing was discovered at Strasburg in 1440 by a native of that
city, who afterwards removing to Mentz there perfected the art. In
his “Episcoporum Argentinensium Catalogus,” 1508, he says that
printing was invented by a native of Strasburg, and that when the
inventor had joined some other persons engaged on the same
invention at Mentz, the art was there perfected by one John
Gænsfleisch, who was blind through age, in the house called
Gutemberg, in which, in 1508, the College of Justice held its
sittings. Wimpheling does not seem to have known that Gænsfleisch
was also called Gutemberg, and that his first attempts at printing
were made in Strasburg.]
Having thus provided Gutemberg with an elder brother also named John,
Meerman proceeds to find him employment; for at the period of his
writing much light had been thrown on the early history of printing, and
no person in the least acquainted with the subject could believe that
Faust was the thief who stole Coster’s types, as had been insinuated by
Junius and affirmed by Boxhorn and Scriverius. Gænsfleisch the Elder is
accordingly sent by Meerman to Harlem, and there engaged as a workman in
Lawrence Coster’s printing office. It is needless to ask if there be any
proof of this: Meerman having introduced a new character into the Harlem
farce may claim the right of employing him as he pleases. As there is
evidence of Gutemberg, or Gænsfleisch the Younger, being engaged at
Strasburg about 1436 in some experiments connected with printing, and
mention being made in the same documents of the fair of Aix-la-Chapelle,
Meerman sends him there in 1435. From Aix-la-Chapelle, as the distance
is not very great, Meerman makes him pay a visit to his elder brother,
then working as a printer in Coster’s office at Harlem. He thus has an
opportunity of seeing Coster’s printing establishment, and of gaining
some information respecting the art, and hence his attempts at printing
at Strasburg in 1436. In 1441 he supposes that John Gænsfleisch the
Elder stole his master’s types, and printed with them, at Mentz, in
1442, “Alexandri Galli Doctrinale,” and “Petri Hispani Tractatus,” as
related by Junius. As this trumpery story rests solely on the conjecture
of the writer, it might be briefly dismissed for reconsideration when
the proofs should be produced; but as Heineken[III-72] has afforded the
means of showing its utter falsity, it may perhaps be worth while to
notice some of the facts produced by him respecting the family and
proceedings of Gutemberg.
[Footnote III-72: Nachrichten von Kunstlern und Kunst-Sachen, 1te.
Theil, S. 286-293.]
John Gænsfleisch the Elder, whom Meerman makes Gutemberg’s elder
brother, was descended from a branch of the numerous family of
Gænsfleisch, which was also known by the local names of zum Jungen,
Gutenberg or Gutemberg, and Sorgenloch. This person, whom Meerman
engages as a workman with Coster, was a man of property; and at the time
that we are given to understand he was residing at Harlem, we have
evidence of his being married and having children born to him at Mentz.
This objection, however, could easily be answered by the ingenuity of a
Dutch commentator, who, as he has made the husband a thief, would find
no difficulty in providing him with a suitable wife. He would also be
very likely to bring forward the presumed misconduct of the wife in
support of his hypothesis of the husband being a thief. John Gænsfleisch
the Elder was married to Ketgin, daughter of Nicholas Jostenhofer of
Schenkenberg, on the Thursday after St. Agnes’s day, 1437. In 1439 his
wife bore him a son named Michael; and in 1442 another son, who died in
infancy. In 1441 we have evidence of his residing at Mentz; for in that
year his relation Rudiger zum Landeck appeared before a judge to give
Gænsfleisch an acknowledgment of his having properly discharged his
duties as trustee, and of his having delivered up to the said Rudiger
the property left to him by his father and mother.
That John Gænsfleisch the Elder printed “Alexandri Galli Doctrinale,”
and “Petri Hispani Tractatus,” at Mentz in 1442 with the types which he
had stolen from Coster, is as improbable as every other part of the
story. There is, in fact, not the slightest reason to believe that the
works in question were printed at Mentz in 1442, or that any book was
printed there with types until nearly eight years after that period. In
opposition, however, to a host of historical evidence we have the
assertion of Cornelius, who told the tale to Galius, who told it to
Junius, who told it to the world.
Meerman’s web of sophistry and fiction having been brushed away by
Heineken, a modern advocate of Coster’s undertook to spin another, which
has also been swept down by a German critic. Jacobus Koning,[III-73]
town-clerk of Amsterdam, having learnt from a document printed by
Fischer, that Gutemberg had a brother named Friele, sends him to Harlem
to work with Coster, and makes him the thief who stole the types; thus
copying Meerman’s plot, and merely substituting Gutemberg’s known
brother for John Gænsfleisch the Elder. On this attempt of Koning’s to
make the old sieve hold water by plastering it with his own mud,
Lehne[III-74] makes the following remarks:--
“He gives up the name of John,--although it might be supposed that old
Cornelius would have known the name of his bedfellow better than
Koning,--and without hesitation charges Gutemberg’s brother with the
theft. In order to flatter the vain-glory of the Harlemers, poor Friele,
after he had been nearly four hundred years in his grave, is publicly
accused of robbery on no other ground than that Mynheer Koning had
occasion for a thief. It is, however, rather unfortunate for the credit
of the story that this Friele should have been the founder of one of the
first families in Mentz, of the order of knighthood, and possessed of
great property both in the city and the neighbourhood. Is it likely that
this person should have been engaged as a workman in the employment of
the Harlem churchwarden, and that he should have robbed him of his types
in order to convey them to his brother, who then lived at Strasburg, and
who had been engaged in his own invention at least three years before,
as is proved by the process between him and the Drytzehns published by
Schœpflin? From this specimen of insulting and unjust accusation on a
subject of literary inquiry, we may congratulate the city of Amsterdam
that Mynheer Koning is but a law-writer and not a judge, should he be
not more just as a man than as an author.”
[Footnote III-73: In a Memoir on the Invention of Printing, which
was crowned by the Academy of Sciences at Harlem in 1816.]
[Footnote III-74: Einige Bemerkungen, &c. S. 18, 19.]
In a book of old accounts belonging to the city of Harlem, and extending
from April 1439 to April 1440, Koning having discovered at least nine
entries of expenses incurred on account of messengers despatched to the
Justice-Court of Amsterdam, he concludes that there must have been some
conference between the judges of Harlem and Amsterdam on the subject of
Coster’s robbery. There is not a word mentioned in the entries on what
account the messengers were despatched, but he decides that it must have
been on some business connected with this robbery, for the first
messenger was despatched on the last day of the Christmas holidays; and
the thief, according to the account of Junius, made choice of
Christmas-eve as the most likely opportunity for effecting his purpose.
To this most logical conclusion there happens to be an objection, which
however Mynheer Koning readily disposes of. The first messenger was
despatched on the last day of the Christmas holidays 1439, and the
accounts terminate in April 1440; but according to the narrative of
Cornelius the robbery was committed on Christmas-eve 1441. This trifling
discrepancy is however easily accounted for by the fact of the Dutch at
that period reckoning the commencement of the year from Easter, and by
supposing,--as the date is printed in numerals,--that Junius might have
written 1442, instead of 1441, as the time when the two books appeared
at Mentz printed with the stolen types, and within a year after the
robbery. Notwithstanding this _satisfactory_ explanation there still
remains a trifling error to be rectified, and it will doubtless give the
clear-headed advocate of Coster very little trouble. Admitting that the
accounts are for the year commencing at Easter 1440 and ending at Easter
1441, it is rather difficult to comprehend how they should contain any
notice of an event which happened at the Christmas following. The Harlem
scribe possibly might have the gift of seeing into futurity as clearly
as Mynheer Koning has the gift of seeing into the past. The arguments
derived from paper-marks which Koning has advanced in favour of Coster
are not worthy of serious notice.
He has found, as Meerman did before him, that one Lawrence Janszoon was
living in Harlem between 1420 and 1436, and that his name occurs within
that period as custos or warden of St. Bavon’s church. As he is never
called “Coster,” a name acquired by the family, according to Junius, in
consequence of the office which they enjoyed by hereditary right, the
identity of Lawrence Janszoon and Lawrence Coster is by no means clearly
established; and even if it were, the sole evidence of his having been a
printer rests on the testimony of Cornelius, who was scarcely ten years
old when Lawrence Janszoon died. The correctness of Cornelius’s
narrative is questioned both by Meerman and Koning whenever his
statements do not accord with their theory, and yet they require others
to believe the most incredible of his assertions. They themselves throw
doubts on the evidence of their own witness, and yet require their
opponents to receive as true his deposition on the most important point
in dispute---that Coster invented typography previous to 1441,--a point
on which he is positively contradicted by more than twenty authors who
wrote previous to 1500; and negatively by the silence of Coster’s
contemporaries. Supposing that the account of Cornelius had been
published in 1488 instead of 1588, it would be of very little weight
unless corroborated by the testimony of others who must have been as
well aware of Coster’s invention as himself; for the silence of
contemporary writers on the subject of an important invention or
memorable event, will always be of greater negative authority than the
unsupported assertion of an individual who when an old man professes to
relate what he had heard and seen when a boy. If therefore the
uncorroborated testimony of Cornelius would be so little worth, even if
published in 1488, of what value can it be printed in 1588, in the name
of a person who was then dead, and who could not be called on to explain
the discrepancies of his part of the narrative? Whatever might be the
original value of Cornelius’s testimony, it is deteriorated by the
channel through which it descends to us. He told it to a boy, who, when
an old man, told it to another boy, who when nearly sixty years old
inserts it in a book which he is writing, but which is not printed until
twelve years after his death.
It is singular how Mr. Ottley, who contends for the truth of Papillon’s
story of the Cunio, and who maintains that the art of engraving figures
and text upon wood was well known and practised previous to 1285, should
believe the account given by Cornelius of the origin of Coster’s
invention. If he does not believe this part of the account, with what
consistency can he require other people to give credit to the rest? With
respect to the origin and progress of the invention, Cornelius was as
likely to be correctly informed as he was with regard to the theft and
the establishment of printing at Mentz; if therefore Coster’s advocates
themselves establish the incorrectness of his testimony in the first
part of the story, they destroy the general credibility of his evidence.
With respect to the fragments of “Alexandri Galli Doctrinale” and
“Catonis Disticha” which have been discovered, printed with the same, or
similar types as the Speculum Salvationis, no good argument can be
founded on them in support of Coster’s claims, although the facts which
they establish are decisive of the fallacy of Meerman’s assumptions. In
order to suit his own theory, he was pleased to assert that the first
edition of the Speculum was the only one of that book printed by Coster,
and that it was printed with wooden types. Mr. Ottley has, however,
shown that the edition which Meerman and others supposed to be the first
was in reality the second; and that the presumed second was
unquestionably the first, and that the text was throughout printed with
metal types by means of a press. It is thus the fate of all Coster’s
advocates that the last should always produce some fact directly
contradicting his predecessors’ speculations, but not one confirmatory
of the truth of the story on which all their arguments are based.
Meerman questions the accuracy of Cornelius as reported by Junius;
Meerman’s arguments are rejected by Koning; and Mr. Ottley, who espouses
the same cause, has from his diligent collation of two different
editions of the Speculum afforded a convincing proof that on a most
material point all his predecessors are wrong. His inquiries have
established beyond a doubt, that the text of the first edition of the
Speculum was printed wholly with metal types; and that in the second the
text was printed partly from metal types by means of a press, and partly
from wood-blocks by means of friction. The assertion that Coster printed
the first edition with wooden types, and that his grandsons and
successors printed the second edition with types of metal, is thus most
clearly refuted. As no printer’s name has been discovered in any of the
fragments referred to, it is uncertain where or when they were printed.
It however seems more likely that they were printed in Holland or the
Low Countries than in Germany. The presumption of their antiquity in
consequence of their rarity is not a good ground of argument. Of an
edition of a “Donatus,” printed by Sweinheim and Pannartz, between 1465
and 1470, and consisting of three hundred copies, not one is known to
exist. From sundry fragments of a “Donatus,” embellished with the same
ornamented small capitals as are used in Faust and Scheffer’s Psalter,
Fischer was pleased to conjecture that the book had been printed by
Gutemberg and Faust previous to 1455. A copy, however, has been
discovered bearing the imprint of Scheffer, and printed, in all
probability, subsequent to 1467, as it is in this year that Scheffer’s
name first appears alone. The “Historia Alexandri Magni,” pretendedly
printed with wooden types, and ascribed by Meerman to Coster, was
printed by Ketelar and Leempt, who first established a printing-office
at Utrecht in 1473.
John Enschedius, a letter-founder and printer of Harlem, and a strenuous
assertor of Coster’s pretensions, discovered a very curious specimen of
typography which he and others have supposed to be the identical “short
sentences” mentioned by Junius as having been printed by Coster for the
instruction of his grand-children. This unique specimen of typography
consists of eight small pages, each being about one inch and six-eighths
high, by one and five-eighths wide, printed on parchment and on both
sides. The contents are an alphabet; the Lord’s Prayer; the Creed; the
Ave Mary; and two short prayers, all in Latin. Meerman has given a
fac-simile of all the eight pages in the second volume of his “Origines
Typographicæ;”[III-75] and if this be correct, I am strongly inclined to
suspect that this singular “Horarium” is a modern forgery. The letters
are rudely formed, and the shape of some of the pages is irregular; but
the whole appears to me rather as an imitation of rudeness and a studied
irregularity, than as the first essay of an inventor. There are very few
contractions in the words; and though the letters are rudely formed, and
there are no points, yet I have seen no early specimen of typography
which is so easy to read. It is apparent that the printer, whoever he
might be, did not forget that the little manual was intended for
children. The letters I am positive could not be thus printed with types
formed of beech-bark; and I am further of opinion that they were not,
and could not be, printed with moveable types of wood. I am also certain
that, whatever might be the material of which the types were formed,
those letters could only be printed on parchment on both sides by means
of a press. The most strenuous of Coster’s advocates have not ventured
to assert that he was acquainted with the use of metal types in 1423,
the pretended date of his first printing short sentences for the use of
his grand-children, nor have any of them suggested that he used a press
for the purpose of obtaining impressions from his letters of beech-bark;
how then can it be pretended with any degree of consistency that this
“Horarium” agrees exactly with the description of Cornelius? It is said
that Enschedius discovered this singular specimen of typography pasted
in the cover of an old book. It is certainly such a one as he was most
wishful to find, and which he in his capacity of typefounder and printer
would find little difficulty in producing. I am firmly convinced that it
is neither printed with wooden types nor a specimen of early typography;
on the contrary, I suspect it to be a Dutch typographic essay on popular
credulity.
[Footnote III-75: Enschedius published a fac-simile himself, with
the following title: “Afbeelding van ’t A. B. C. ’t Pater Noster,
Ave Maria, ’t Credo, en Ave Salus Mundi, door Laurens Janszoon, te
Haarlem, ten behoeven van zyne dochters Kinderen, met beweegbaare
Letteren gedrukt, en teffens aangeweesen de groote der Stukjes
pergament, zekerlyk ’t oudste overblyfsel der eerste Boekdrukkery,
’t welk als zulk een eersteling der Konst bewaard word en berust
in de Boekery van _Joannes Enschedé_, Lettergieter en Boekdrukker
te Haarlem, 1768.--_A. J. Polak sculps. ex originali._”]
Of all the works which have been claimed for Coster, his advocates have
not succeeded in making out his title to a single one; and the best
evidence of the fallacy of his claims is to be found in the writings of
those persons by whom they have been most confidently asserted. Having
no theory of my own to support, and having no predilection in favour of
Gutemberg, I was long inclined to think that there might be some
rational foundation for the claims which have been so confidently
advanced in favour of Harlem. An examination, however, of the presumed
proofs and arguments adduced by Coster’s advocates has convinced me that
the claims put forward on his behalf, as the inventor of typography, are
untenable. They have certainly discovered that a person of the name of
Lawrence Janszoon was living at Harlem between the years 1420 and 1440,
but they have not been able to show anything in proof of this person
ever having printed any book either from wood-blocks or with moveable
types. There is indeed reason to believe that at the period referred to
there were three persons of the name of Lawrence Janszoon,--or
Fitz-John, as the surname may be rendered;--but to which of them the
pretended invention is to be ascribed is a matter of doubt. At one time
we find the inventor described as an illegitimate scion of the noble
family of Brederode, which was descended from the ancient sovereigns of
Holland; at another he is said to have been called Coster in consequence
of the office of custos or warden of St. Bavon’s church being hereditary
in his family; and in a third account we find Lawrence Janszoon figuring
as a promoter of sedition and one of the leaders of a body of rioters.
The advocates for the claims of Harlem have brought forward every
Lawrence that they could find at that period whose father’s name was
John; as if the more they could produce the more conclusive would be the
_proof_ of one of them at least being the inventor of printing. As the
books which are ascribed to Coster furnish positive evidence of the
incorrectness of the story of Cornelius and of the comments of Meerman;
and as records, which are now matters of history, prove that neither
Gutemberg nor Faust stole any types from Coster or his descendants, the
next supporter of the claims of Harlem will have to begin _de novo_; and
lest the palm should be awarded to the wrong Lawrence Janszoon, he ought
first to ascertain which of them is really the hero of the old
bookbinder’s tale.
[Illustration]