THE INVENTION OF PRINTING--HOLLAND
Up to the year 1465 only one firm of printers evinced any appreciation
of the uses of advertisement. In 1457 Johann Fust and Peter Schoeffer,
of Mainz, set their names at the end of the liturgical Psalter which
they were issuing from their press, and stated also the date of its
completion, "In vigilia Assumpcionis," on the vigil of the feast of the
Assumption, i.e. August 14th. Save in the case of a few unimportant
books this preference for publicity remained the settled practice of the
firm until Peter Schoeffer's death early in the sixteenth century, and
later still when it was in the hands of his son Johann. With other
printers at first the tendency was all the other way. Albrecht Pfister
placed his name in one or two of the handful of popular illustrated
books which he printed at Bamberg about 1461. No other book before 1465
contains its printer's name, and both at Strassburg and at Basel the
practice of publishing anonymously continued in fashion throughout the
'seventies--in Strassburg, indeed, for the best part of another decade.
[Illustration: IV. EARLY DUTCH PRESS
ALEXANDER GALLES, DOCTRINALE (3^a)]
While printing continued mainly anonymous chroniclers took no note of
it, but in the ten years which began in 1465 the progress of the art was
rapid and triumphant. Printers, mostly Germans, invaded the chief cities
of Europe, and boasted in their books of having been the first to
practise it in this place or that. Curiosity as to the beginnings of the
invention was thus aroused, and from 1470 onwards we meet with numerous
attempts, not always accurate, to satisfy it. The earliest of these
attempts is in a letter from Guillaume Fichet, a Professor at the
Sorbonne, who was mainly responsible for bringing the first printers to
Paris, to his friend Robert Gaguin. This is contained in one copy of the
second Paris book, the _Orthographia_ of Gasparinus Barzizius, printed
in 1470, Fichet having a fondness for giving individuality to special
copies by additions of this kind. In this letter he speaks of the great
light which he thinks learning will receive from the new kind of bookmen
whom Germany, like another Trojan Horse, has poured forth.
Ferunt enim illic, haut procul a ciuitate Maguncia, Ioannem quendam
fuisse cui cognomen bonemontano, qui primus omnium impressoriam artem
excogitauerit, qua non calamo (ut prisci quidem illi) neque penna (ut
nos fingimus) sed aereis litteris libri finguntur, et quidem expedite,
polite et pulchre. Dignus sane hic uir fuit quem omnes musae, omnes
artes, omnesque eorum linguae qui libris delectantur, diuinis laudibus
ornent, eoque magis dis deabusque anteponant, quo propius ac
presentius litteris ipsis ac studiosis hominibus suffragium tulit. Si
quidem deificantur Liber et alma Ceres, ille quippe dona Liei inuenit
poculaque inuentis acheloia miscuit uuis, haec chaoniam pingui glandem
mutauit arista. Atque (ut poeta utamur altero) prima Ceres unco glebam
dimouit aratro, prima dedit fruges alimenta mitia terris. At
bonemontanus ille, longe gratiora diuinioraque inuenit, quippe qui
litteras eiusmodi exculpsit, quibus quidquid dici, aut cogitari
potest, propediem scribi ac transcribi & posteritatis mandari memoriae
possit.
The good Fichet is absurdly rhetorical, but here in 1470 is a quite
clear statement that, according to report, there (i.e. in Germany), not
far from[12] the city of Mainz, a certain John, surnamed Gutenberg,
first of all men thought out the printing art, by which books are
fashioned not with a reed or pen, but with letters of brass, and thus
deserved better of mankind than either Bacchus or Ceres, since by his
invention whatever can be said or thought can forthwith be written and
transcribed and handed down to posterity.
Four years later in his continuation of the _Chronica Summorum
Pontificum_, begun by Riccobaldus, Joannes Philippi de Lignamine, the
physician of Pope Sixtus IV, who had set up a press of his own at Rome,
wrote as one of the events of the pontificate of Pius II (1458-64), how
"Jakob Gutenberg, a native of Strassburg, and a certain other whose name
was Fust, being skilled in printing letters on parchment with metal
forms, are known each of them to be turning out three hundred sheets a
day at Mainz, a city of Germany, and Johann Mentelin also, at
Strassburg, a city of the same province, being skilled in the same
craft, is known to be printing daily the same number of sheets."[13] A
little later De Lignamine records the arrival at Rome of Sweynheym and
Pannartz, and also of Ulrich Han, and credits them also with printing
three hundred sheets a day. Other references follow in later books
without adding to our knowledge, save by proving the widespread
recognition in the fifteenth century that printing was invented at
Mainz; but there is nothing specially to detain us until the publication
by Johann Koelhoff in 1499 of the Cologne Chronicle--_Die Cronica van
der hilliger Stat Coellen_--in which occurs a famous passage about
printing, which may be translated or paraphrased as follows:--
"This right worthy art was invented first of all in Germany, at Mainz,
on the Rhine. And that is a great honour to the German nation that such
ingenious men are found there. This happened in the year of our Lord
1440, and from that time until 1450 the art and all that pertains to it
was investigated, and in 1450, which was a Golden Year, men began to
print, and the first book that was printed was the Bible in Latin, and
this was printed with a letter as large as that now used in missals.
"Although this art was invented at Mainz, as far as regards the manner
in which it is now commonly used, yet the first prefiguration
(Vurbyldung) was invented in Holland from the Donatuses which were
printed there before that time. And from and out of these the aforesaid
art took its beginning, and was invented in a manner much more masterly
and subtler than this, and the longer it lasted the more full of art it
became.
"A certain Omnibonus wrote in the preface to a Quintilian, and also in
other books, that a Walloon from France, called Nicolaus Jenson, was the
first inventor of this masterly art--a notorious lie, for there are men
still alive who bear witness that books were printed at Venice before
the aforesaid Nicolaus Jenson came there, and began to cut and make
ready his letter. But the first inventor of printing was a Burgher at
Mainz, and was born at Strassburg, and called Yunker Johann Gutenberg.
"From Mainz the art came first of all to Cologne, after that to
Strassburg, and after that to Venice. The beginning and progress of the
art were told me by word of mouth by the Worshipful Master Ulrich Zell
of Hanau, printer at Cologne in this present year 1499, through whom the
art came to Cologne."[14]
Zell, or his interviewer, ignores the books printed anonymously at
Strassburg by Mentelin and Eggestein, and also the handful printed by
Albrecht Pfister at Bamberg; he also is misled by Gutenberg's long
residence at Strassburg into calling him a native of that city; in other
respects, so far as we are able to check this account, it is quite
accurate. It tells us emphatically that "this right worthy art was
invented first of all in Germany, at Mainz, on the Rhine"; and again,
that "the first inventor of printing was a Burgher at Mainz named Junker
Johann 'Gudenburch'"; but between these two unqualified statements is
sandwiched a reference to a prefiguration which took shape in Holland in
_Donatuses_, printed there before the Mainz presses were at work, and
much less masterly and subtle than the books which they produced. He
connects no name with this "Vorbildung," and, unhappily, he gives no
clue as to how it foreshadowed, and was yet distinct from, the real
invention.
Sixty-nine years[15] after the appearance of this carefully balanced
statement, the facts as to Dutch "prefigurations" which had inspired it
moved a Dutch chronicler, Hadrianus Junius, in compiling his _Batavia_
(not published till 1588), to write the well-known passage as to the
invention of printing, which has been summarized as follows:--
There lived, about 1440, at Haarlem, in the market-place opposite the
Town Hall, in a respectable house still in existence, a man named
Lourens Janszoon Coster, i.e. Laurence, son of John Coster. The family
name was derived from the hereditary office of Sacristan, or Coster of
the Church--a post both honourable and lucrative. The town archives
give evidence of this, his name appearing therein many times, and in
the Town Hall are preserved his seal and signature to various
documents. To this man belongs the honour of inventing Printing, an
honour of which he was unjustly robbed, and which afterwards was
ascribed to another. The said Laurence Coster, one day after dinner,
took a walk in the wood near Haarlem. While there, to amuse himself,
he began to cut letters out of some beech-bark. The idea struck him to
ink some of these letters and use them as stamps. This he did to amuse
his grandchildren, cutting them in reverse. He thus formed two or
three sentences on paper. The idea germinated, and soon with the help
of his son-in-law, and by using a thick ink, he began to print whole
pages, and to add lines of print to the block-books, the text of which
was the most difficult part to engrave. Junius had seen such a book,
called _Spieghel onzer Behoudenisse_. It should have been said that
Coster was descended from the noble house of Brederode, and that his
son-in-law was also of noble descent. Coster's first efforts were of
course very rude, and to hide the impression of the letters on the
back, they pasted the leaves, which had one side not printed,
together. His letters at first were made of lead, which he afterwards
changed for tin. Upon his death these letters were melted down and
made into wine-pots, which at the time that Junius wrote were still
preserved in the house of Gerrit Thomaszoon, the grandson of Coster.
Public curiosity was greatly excited by Coster's discovery, and he
gained much profit from his new process. His trade, indeed, so
increased that he was obliged to employ several workmen, one of whom
was named John. Some say this was John Faust, afterwards a partner
with Gutenberg, and others say he was Gutenberg's brother. This man
when he had learnt the art in all its branches, took the opportunity
one Christmas eve, when all good people are accustomed to attend
Church, to break into the rooms used for printing, and to pack up and
steal all the tools and appliances which his master, with so much care
and ingenuity, had made. He went off by Amsterdam and Cologne to
Mainz, where he at once opened a workshop and reaped rich fruit from
this theft, producing several printed books. The accuracy of this
story was attested by a respectable bookbinder, of great age but clear
memory, named Cornelis who had been a fellow-servant with the culprit
in the house of Coster, and indeed had occupied the same bed for
several months, and who could never talk of such baseness without
shedding tears and cursing the thief.
Written nearly a hundred and thirty years after the supposed events
which it narrates, this story is damned by its circumstantiality. It is
thus that legends grow, and it is not difficult to imagine Haarlem
bookmen picking up ideas out of colophons in old books and asking the
"respectable bookbinder of great age" whether it was not thus and thus
that things happened. Many of the details of the story are demonstrably
false; its one strong point is the bookbinder, Cornelis, for a binder of
this name is said to have been employed as early as 1474 and as late as
1514 to bind the account-books of Haarlem Cathedral, and in the two
years named, and also in 1476, to have strengthened his bindings by
pasting inside them fragments of _Donatuses_ printed on vellum in the
type of the _Speculum Humanae Saluationis_. The fragment in the
account-book for 1474 is rubricated, and must thus either have been sold
or prepared for selling, i.e. it is not "printer's waste," but may have
been bought by Cornelis for lining his covers in the ordinary way of
trade. But we have here a possible link between Zell's story of early
Dutch _Donatuses_ and the story of Junius about Coster and his servant
Cornelis, since we find fragments of a _Donatus_ in the possession of
this particular man.
There were plenty of such _Donatuses_ in existence in the Netherlands
about 1470. In 1887 Dr. Hessels, in his _Haarlem the Birthplace of
Printing, not Mentz_, enumerated fragments of twenty different editions,
printed in eight types, of which the type used in the _Speculum Humanae
Saluationis_ (see p. 26) is one, while the other seven are linked to it,
or to each other, in such a way that we may either suppose them to have
all belonged to the same printer, or distribute them among two or more
anonymous firms. Besides these twenty editions of _Donatus_ on the Eight
Parts of Speech, Dr. Hessels enumerated eight editions of the
_Doctrinale_ of Alexander Gallus[16] (another school book popular in the
fifteenth century), three of the Distichs of Dionysius Cato (the work
from which Dame Pertelote quoted to convince Chantecleer of the futility
of dreams), and one or two editions each of a few other works, the
_Facetiae Morales_ of Laurentius Valla (twenty-four leaves), the
_Singularia Juris_ of Ludovicus Pontanus, with a treatise of Pope Pius
II (sixty leaves), and the _De Salute Corporis_ of Gulielmus de Saliceto
with other small works (twenty-four leaves). These latter books offer no
very noticeable features; some of the _Donatus_ fragments, on the other
hand, have printing only on one side of the leaf (whence they are called
by the barbarous term "anopisthographic," "not printed on the back") and
have a very rude and primitive appearance. This may have been caused in
part at least by their having been pasted down, and possibly scraped, by
binders, for almost all of them have been found in bindings; but it
counts for something.
Not one of the books or fragments of which we have been speaking makes
any mention of its printer, or of the place or date at which it was
produced. A copy of one of the later books, the _De Salute Corporis_ of
Gulielmus de Saliceto, was purchased by Conrad du Moulin while abbot of
the Convent of S. James at Lille, a dignity which he held from 1471 to
1474. The earliest Haarlem account-book which contained _Donatus_
fragments was for the year 1474. It is entirely a matter of opinion as
to how much earlier than this any of the extant fragments can be dated.
There is no reason why some of them should not be later.
As to the place or places at which these books were printed, there is no
evidence of any weight. But, as has been already said, the whole series
can be closely or loosely connected with the types used in editions of
the _Speculum Humanae Saluationis_, and in 1481 Jan Veldener, a
wandering printer, while working at Utrecht, introduced into an edition
of the Epistles and Gospels in Dutch two woodcuts, each of which was a
half of one of the double pictures in the _Speculum_. Two years later,
when at Kuilenburg, he printed a quarto edition of the _Speculum_ itself
(Dutch version), in which he used a large number of the original
_Speculum_ blocks, all cut up into halves, so as to fit a small page. As
Veldener (as far as we know) used the _Speculum_ blocks first at
Utrecht, it is supposed that it was at Utrecht that he obtained them. If
the blocks were for sale at Utrecht, this may have been the place at
which the earlier editions of the _Speculum_ were issued, and thus, in
the absence of any evidence which they were willing to recognize in
favour of any other place, Henry Bradshaw and his disciples attributed
the whole series of editions of the _Speculum_, _Donatus_, _Doctrinale_,
etc., to Utrecht, about, or "not after," 1471-1474. Bradshaw himself
clearly indicated that this attribution was purely provisional. He felt
"compelled to leave" the books at Utrecht, so he phrased it, i.e. the
presumption that Veldener found the blocks of the _Speculum_ there
constituted a grain of evidence in favour of Utrecht; and if a balance
is sufficiently sensitive and both scales are empty, a grain thrown into
one will suffice to weigh it down. It would have been better, in the
present writer's opinion, if the grain had been disregarded, and no
attempt made to assign these books and fragments to any particular
place. As it is, Bradshaw's attribution of them to Utrecht has been
repeated without any emphasis on its entirely provisional character,
even without any mention of this at all, and perhaps with a certain
humorous enjoyment of the chance of prejudicing the claims of Haarlem by
an unusually rigorous application of the rules as to bibliographical
evidence.
In the eyes of Dr. Hessels, on the other hand, the legend narrated by
Junius offers a sufficient reason for assigning all these books to
Haarlem, and to Lourens Janszoon Coster as their printer. Dr. Hessels
was even ill-advised enough to point out that, as there are twenty
editions of _Donatus_ in this group of types, we have only to allow an
interval of a year and a half between each to take back the earliest
very close to 1440, the traditional date of the invention of printing.
This is perfectly true, but as no reason can be assigned for fixing on
this particular interval the value of such a calculation is very slight.
One result of all this controversy is that the whole series of books and
fragments have been dubbed "Costeriana," and the convenience of having a
general name for them is so great that it has been generally adopted,
even by those who have no belief in the theory which it implies. All
that is known of Lourens Janszoon Coster is that he resided at Haarlem
from 1436 to 1483, and that contemporary references show him to have
been a chandler and innkeeper, without making any mention of his having
added printing to his other occupations.
It is difficult to claim more for the story told by Junius than that it
represents an unknown quantity of fact with various legendary additions.
It is difficult to dismiss it as less than a legend which must have had
some element of fact as its basis. In so far as it goes beyond the
statements of the Cologne Chronicle, it is supported only by the
evidence that Coster and the venerable bookbinder Cornelis existed, and
that the latter bound the account-books of Haarlem Cathedral. But no
indiscretion of Hadrianus Junius writing in 1568 can affect the credit
of the statements made in the Cologne Chronicle in 1499 on the
authority of Ulrich Zell, and we have now to mention an important piece
of evidence in favour of Zell's accuracy. This is the entry in the
diaries of Jean de Robert, Abbot of Saint Aubert, Cambrai, of the
purchase in 1446 and again in 1451 of a copy of the _Doctrinale_ of
Alexander Gallus, _jete en moule_, a phrase which, while far from
satisfactory as a description of a book printed from movable type,
cannot possibly refer to editions printed from woodblocks, even if these
existed. The _Doctrinale_, which was in verse, was a less popular
school-book than the _Donatus_. It is significant that among the
so-called "Costeriana" there are eight editions of the one against
twenty of the other. Where the _Doctrinale_ was used we may be sure that
the _Donatus_ would be used also, and in greater numbers, so that this
mention of a "mould-casted" _Doctrinale_ as purchased as early as 1446
is a real confirmation of Zell's assertion. We have no sufficient ground
for believing that any of the fragments, either of the one book or the
other, now in existence were produced as early as this. It is of the
nature of school-books to be destroyed, and every improvement in the
process of production would help to drive the earlier experiments out of
existence. But taking Zell's statement and the entries in the Abbot's
diaries together, it seems impossible to deny that there is evidence of
some kind of printing being practised in Holland not long after 1440.
An ingenious theory as to the form which these "prefigurements" may have
taken has lately been suggested, viz. that the earliest types may have
consisted simply of flat pieces of metal, without any shanks to them,
and that they were "set up" by being glued upon wood or stiff paper in
the order required. They would thus be movable, but with a very low
degree of movability, so that we can easily understand why short books
like the _Donatus_ and _Doctrinale_ were continually reprinted without
any attempt being made to produce a large work such as the Bible. It is
curious, however, that in the description of a "ciripagus" by Paulus
Paulirinus, of Prag,[17] "we have a reference" to a Bible having been
printed at Bamberg "super lamellas," a phrase which might very well
refer to types of this kind, though the sentence is usually explained as
referring to either the Latin or German edition of the _Biblia Pauperum_
issued by Albrecht Pfister. I think it just possible myself that the
reference is really to the Latin Bible known as the Thirty-six Line
Bible, which seems certainly to have been sold, if not printed, at
Bamberg a little before 1460, and that Paulirinus, having seen books
printed "super lamellas," supposed (wrongly) that this was printed in
that way. But the statement that it was printed in four weeks is against
this.
Whether the Dutch "Vorbildung" of the Art of Printing subsequently
invented at Mainz took the form of experiments with shankless types, or
fell short of the fully developed art in some other way, does not
greatly concern the collector. It is in the highest degree improbable
that the claim put forward on behalf of the so-called "Costeriana" will
ever be decisively proved or disproved. They are likely to remain as
perpetual pretenders, and as such will always retain a certain interest,
and a specimen of them always be a desirable addition to any collection
which aims at illustrating the history of the invention of printing.
Such a specimen will not be easy to procure, because many of the extant
fragments have been found in public libraries, more especially the Royal
Library at the Hague, and have never left their first homes. On the
other hand, the number of fragments known has been considerably
increased by new finds. Thus there is no reason to regard a specimen as
unattainable.
FOOTNOTES:
[12] Dr. Hessels supposes that this phrase indicates the Monastery of
Saint Victor, outside Mainz, with which Gutenberg was connected, and
that the "report," therefore, can be traced to Gutenberg himself. If
so, we have the very important fact that Gutenberg himself claimed to
be the inventor.
[13] Iacobus cognomento Gutenbergo: patria Argentinus, & quidam alter
cui nomen Fustus, imprimendarum litterarum in membranis cum
metallicis formis periti, trecentas cartas quisque eorum per diem
facere innotescunt apud Maguntiam Germanie ciuitatem. Iohannes quoque
Mentelinus nuncupatus apud Argentinam eiusdem prouincie ciuitatem: ac
in eodem artificio peritus totidem cartas per diem imprimere
agnoscitur.... Conradus Suueynem: ac Arnoldus pannarcz Vdalricus
Gallus parte ex alia Teuthones librarii insignes Romam uenientes
primi imprimendorum librorum artem in Italiam introduxere trecentas
cartas per diem imprimentes.
[14] Item dese hoichwyrdige kunst vursz is vonden aller eyrst in
Duytschlant tzo Mentz am Rijne. Ind dat is der duytschscher nacion
eyn groisse eirlicheit dat sulche synrijche mynschen syn dae tzo
vynden. Ind dat is geschiet by den iairen vns heren, anno domini.
MCCCCxl. ind van der zijt an bis men schreue. l. wart vndersoicht die
kunst ind wat dair zo gehoirt. Ind in den iairen vns heren do men
schreyff. MCCCCl. do was eyn gulden iair, do began men tzo drucken
ind was dat eyrste boich dat men druckde die Bybel zo latijn, ind
wart gedruckt mit eynre grouer schrifft. as is die schrifft dae men
nu Mysseboicher mit druckt.
Item wiewail die kunst is vonden tzo Mentz, als vursz vp die wijse,
als dan nu gemeynlich gebruicht wirt, so is doch die eyrste
vurbyldung vonden in Hollant vyss den Donaten, die dae selffst vur
der tzijt gedruckt syn. Ind van ind vyss den is genommen dat begynne
der vursz kunst. ind is vill meysterlicher ind subtilicher vonden dan
die selue manier was, vnd ye langer ye mere kunstlicher wurden.
Item eynre genant Omnebonum der schrijfft in eynre vurrede vp dat
boich Quintilianus genoempt. vnd ouch in anderen meir boicher, dat
eyn Wale vyss Vranckrijch, genant Nicolaus genson haue alre eyrst
dese meysterliche kunst vonden, mer dat is offenbairlich gelogen.
want Sij syn noch jm leuen die dat getzuigen dat men boicher druckte
tzo Venedige ee der vursz Nicolaus genson dar quame, dair he began
schrifft zo snijden vnd bereyden. Mer der eyrste vynder der druckerye
is gewest eyn Burger tzo Mentz. ind was geboren van Straiszburch. ind
hiesch joncker Johan Gudenburch. Item van Mentz is die vursz kunst
komen alre eyrst tzo Coellen. Dairnae tzo Straisburch, ind dairnae
tzo Venedige. Dat begynne ind vortganck der vursz kunst hait myr
muntlich vertzelt d' Eirsame man Meyster Vlrich tzell van Hanauwe.
boich drucker zo Coellen noch zertzijt. anno. MCCCCxcix. durch den
die kunst vursz is zo Coellen komen.
[15] The first trace of the legend is in a reference to Coster as
having "brought the first print into the world in 1446" in a
manuscript pedigree of the Coster family compiled about 1559.
[16] A page from a fragment of one of these in the British Museum
forms the frontispiece to this chapter (Plate IV).
[17] Et tempore mei Pambergae quidam scripsit integrum Bibliam super
lamellas, et in quatuor septimanis totam Bibliam super pargameno
subtili presignavit scriptura.