But Mr. Ottley will not venture to assign to the woodcuts so early a date. He says:—
“I believe all will agree with Dr. Meyrick, that the artists of the times we are speaking of, and of earlier as well as much later periods, were universally accustomed to dress their figures according to the fashion of their own day, whatever the age of the subject they had to represent; and that, thereforecostume(and I might add, the style of art) affords, next to actual dates, the surest means of determining the age of an illuminated manuscript or other monument.“But, I suspect, if Dr. Meyrick means to speak generally, that he goes too far, when he says that, by such means, the true date of a work of art is to be ascertained to within the short period of five or ten years.“In the early times we are speaking of, the main articles of dress continued so nearly the same for great part of a century, that the same suit of armour, and the same gown, descended from father to son, and from mother to daughter, and when altered, perhaps, in certain small details, rendering them so far conformable to the particular fashion of the day, served even for a third generation. Thesesmall details,I admit, may in many cases greatly help us; and will sometimes point to a period of very small duration. But I suspect, that theexactdate when one fashion had its commencement, and another went out, is known but in very few instances; and it can scarce be doubted but that in one country—nay in one part of the same country—certain fashions continued to prevail for some time after they had been discontinued in another.“In addition to this, it seems probable, from the great costliness of armour, that when a suit, or part of a suit, had become too much out of fashion to be any longer worn by a man of rank, it would, instead of being thrown aside as useless lumber, be often handed over to one of his dependents: and in consequence, in designs and illuminations done in these times, it might happen that subordinate figures would here and there appear, dressed in costume of a more ancient character than the principal personages.“Again, I think, that an artist advanced in years, when illuminating a manuscript, or making designs to engrave from, would often be likely, from habit, to represent his figures in costume more or less resembling that which had prevailed in his younger days, when he made his studies; and, hence, although he would scarcely fail to introduce also certain new changes of fashion, too remarkable to be overlooked, his work on the whole, would savour more of the costume of former days, than would be the case with the performance of a younger artist, executed at the same time.“But our means of forming a correct judgment of thedateof these cuts, are not in all respects so complete, as those which enable us to determine the country ... Holland has no monumental effigies of these times, to which we mayrefer as authorities ... still, did Holland herself furnish us with more numerous authorities, we should, I think, be enabled to determine the date of the work in question, with fuller confidence than we can do under the existing circumstances.“To conclude—I have found nothing in the costume of the cuts of theSpeculum, that appears to me to militate directly against the supposition that they may be of the early date Dr. Meyrick has assigned to them, and, although the argument produced by that gentleman to shew that they cannot be later, is not perhaps in all respects conclusive, still, considering all the circumstances, I could with difficulty persuade myself that the work was notcommenced, at least, within a few years of the period he has supposed, and certainly, I should say, not later than 1450.”
“I believe all will agree with Dr. Meyrick, that the artists of the times we are speaking of, and of earlier as well as much later periods, were universally accustomed to dress their figures according to the fashion of their own day, whatever the age of the subject they had to represent; and that, thereforecostume(and I might add, the style of art) affords, next to actual dates, the surest means of determining the age of an illuminated manuscript or other monument.
“But, I suspect, if Dr. Meyrick means to speak generally, that he goes too far, when he says that, by such means, the true date of a work of art is to be ascertained to within the short period of five or ten years.
“In the early times we are speaking of, the main articles of dress continued so nearly the same for great part of a century, that the same suit of armour, and the same gown, descended from father to son, and from mother to daughter, and when altered, perhaps, in certain small details, rendering them so far conformable to the particular fashion of the day, served even for a third generation. Thesesmall details,I admit, may in many cases greatly help us; and will sometimes point to a period of very small duration. But I suspect, that theexactdate when one fashion had its commencement, and another went out, is known but in very few instances; and it can scarce be doubted but that in one country—nay in one part of the same country—certain fashions continued to prevail for some time after they had been discontinued in another.
“In addition to this, it seems probable, from the great costliness of armour, that when a suit, or part of a suit, had become too much out of fashion to be any longer worn by a man of rank, it would, instead of being thrown aside as useless lumber, be often handed over to one of his dependents: and in consequence, in designs and illuminations done in these times, it might happen that subordinate figures would here and there appear, dressed in costume of a more ancient character than the principal personages.
“Again, I think, that an artist advanced in years, when illuminating a manuscript, or making designs to engrave from, would often be likely, from habit, to represent his figures in costume more or less resembling that which had prevailed in his younger days, when he made his studies; and, hence, although he would scarcely fail to introduce also certain new changes of fashion, too remarkable to be overlooked, his work on the whole, would savour more of the costume of former days, than would be the case with the performance of a younger artist, executed at the same time.
“But our means of forming a correct judgment of thedateof these cuts, are not in all respects so complete, as those which enable us to determine the country ... Holland has no monumental effigies of these times, to which we mayrefer as authorities ... still, did Holland herself furnish us with more numerous authorities, we should, I think, be enabled to determine the date of the work in question, with fuller confidence than we can do under the existing circumstances.
“To conclude—I have found nothing in the costume of the cuts of theSpeculum, that appears to me to militate directly against the supposition that they may be of the early date Dr. Meyrick has assigned to them, and, although the argument produced by that gentleman to shew that they cannot be later, is not perhaps in all respects conclusive, still, considering all the circumstances, I could with difficulty persuade myself that the work was notcommenced, at least, within a few years of the period he has supposed, and certainly, I should say, not later than 1450.”
These reasons, and the conclusion they lead to, on the part of a writer so decidedly Costerian as Mr. Ottley undoubtedly is, are very important in a controversy of the kind such as that with which we are dealing. The 58 cuts of two designs each, and their engraving on wood, together with the twenty pages of texts, similarly engraved, must have taken a very considerable time to complete, on the part of the artist “Beelde-maker,” and “Letter-snyder,” employed upon them. Supposingthen the work of engraving the cuts wascommencedin 1450, and the whole work wascompletedin three years, we are brought back to the same date for the earliest probable original printing of theSpeculum, that we reached from a consideration of the paper-marks, a few pages previous; that is, at least thirteen years subsequent to the death of the man, whom Junius calls the first printer, and who, all those who have adopted his narrative, insist upon it, was, by the printing of that book, the original inventor and first practiser of Typography in Europe; but which, as we have seen, could not have appeared until more than seventeen years had passed away from the time when Gutenberg first made his separable metal types at Strasburg.
Enough, and more than enough, has already been stated, to prove that Laurent Janssoen Coster was not the inventor, nor Haarlem, the birthplace of the TypographicArt; and that theSpeculum Humanæ Salvationis, the first Dutch book printed with separable letters was not, and could not have been, printed at the place where, and by the man to whom, from 1588 to 1871, a host of writers, following the lead of Junius, have attributed it.
But it may fairly be asked,—If that work, as well as the others which have been imputed to Coster, were not the products of his press, by whom then were they printed? This question, although one of those seemingly more easily asked than answered, is yet one that need not be shrunk from, inasmuch as in the far-off vista of antiquity, and amid the dim mists of uncertainty which encompass it, certain ancient landmarks are perceivable, which may serve to guide the inquirer, and possibly help him to arrive at convictions capable of enduring the test of examinations as potent and searching as the touch of an Ithuriel’s spear.
Reference has more than once been made to the impulse given to learning at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries. This movement was helped forward by no one in Holland and Germany more than by Gerhard Groote, or Magnus, of Deventer, (b.1326,d.1370), who after studying theology at Paris, became a canon of Utrecht and Aix-la-Chapelle, and founded the Order of the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life, generally known as the “Gemeineslebens,” or “Frères de la Vie Commune,” but sometimes confounded with the Beghards and Lollhards of an earlier time. The headquarters of the Brotherhood was at Deventer, where a College was built and inhabited by them in the year 1400. Receiving the approval of the Council of Constance, the Order was propagated throughout Holland, Lower Germany, and other provinces. “It was divided into the literary Brethren or Clerks, and the unlearned Brethren, who lived indifferent houses, but in bonds of the greatest friendship.The Clerks devoted themselves to transcribing books, the cultivation of polite learning, and the instruction of youth; and they erected schools wherever they went.The Brethren laboured with their hands, and pursued various mechanic trades. Neither were under the restraint of religious vows; but still they ate at a common table, and had a general community of goods. The Sisters lived in nearly the same manner, and the time which was not employed in prayer and reading, they devoted to education of female children, and to such labours as were suitable for their sex. The schools of these Clerks of the Common Life were very celebrated in this century, and in them were trained nearly all the restorers of polite learning in Germany and Holland; and among others the great Erasmus of Rotterdam, Alexander Hegius, John Murmelius and others.” Thus far Mosheim. Hallam, in his “Introduction tothe Literature of Europe,” says, “they were distinguished by their strict lives, their community, at least a partial one, of goods, their industry in manual labour,their tendency to mysticism. But they were as strikingly distinguished by the cultivation of knowledge, which was encouraged in brethren of sufficient capacity, and promoted by schools, both for primary and for enlarged education. These schools were, says Eichhorn, ‘the first genuine nurseries of literature in Germany, so far as it depended on the knowledge of languages; and in them was first taught the Latin, and in the process of time the Greek, and Eastern tongues.’ Some of them, such as that of St. Edward’s at Groningen, and the one at Zwoll, presided over by Thomas à Kempis, were of considerable reputation. In the year 1430 they had established as many as forty-five houses in Germany and the Low Countries, and in 1460 they had more than thrice that number. Amongst other occupations, theybusied themselves in copying and binding books.”
Bound to live by labour, and under a semi-ascetic discipline, self-abnegation was a distinguishing characteristic of the Frères de la Vie Commune; while the instruction of youth, and the promotion of piety, were the objects to which they devoted their lives and labours. The multiplication of books, which formed a portion of their occupations, could not but prove a powerful means for assisting them to the attainment of the objects which they had at heart. These books were naturally divided into educational and devotional, according to the classes of individuals for whose use they were designed. Among the former would be A B C Dariums, Catonis Disticha, Donatuses, Doctrinals, and such like. Among the latter, the Poor Man’s Bible, the Apocalypse of St. John, the Book of Canticles, the History of the Virgin, the Arts of Memory and Dying, and the Mirror of Human Salvation.
As the operations of the Brotherhood extended, and their schools increased, the greater would be the demand for the above works, and the more laborious the efforts of the copyists to meet that demand. At their establishments, whether at Deventer, Bruges, Brussels, Zwolle, or elsewhere, artists and illuminators would be found among their ranks. And as Zwolle is known to have been a very early seat of the engraver’s art, such pictorial embellishments as these artists designed would speedily be transferred to wood. That such was the case, and that Zwolle was the place where Block-books were first produced, seems to be certain, from the fact that in 1489 the Brethren there used the original blocks of theBiblia Pauperumin printing the work “Passye ende dat Leven van onsers liefs hern.” The silver cross and arms of Zwolle are also to be found in the cuts of the Book of Canticles. As the labours of the copyists increased, and as scrolls and inscriptions were addedto the engraved figures, and the art of the ‘letter-snyder’ was called in to assist that of the ‘beelde-maker,’ and the ‘formen-’ and ‘figure-snyder,’ there can be no question but that it not unfrequently occurred to the minds of thoughtful copyists, that whole texts of books could be so engraved. A representation to that effect to the chief of the brotherhood would lead to an order to carry the idea into execution. In the descriptive text of theArs Moriendiand like works, and in the twenty xylographic pages of the first Latin edition of the “Mirror of Salvation,” we see the realization of the idea. But in the course of continually cutting the letters on the wood, an intelligent ‘letter-snyder’ would be struck by the constant recurrence of certain letters and combinations of letters,—a fact much more likely to attract his attention than a copyist’s,—and he would find, in counting over these letters, that his future labours could be greatly abridged, bymerely cutting as many separate letters and combinations of each sort, as would suffice for printing a page or two at a time; the same letters answering again and again for the work in hand, or for any other that might be required. In the reduction of this idea to practice, the reason may be seen why the first edition of theSpeculumis partly xylographic and partly typographic.
The success attending these first Dutch efforts at printing with separable types would at once lead to further applications of the art in the production of elementary educational books; and as the reputation of the Brethren as schoolmasters was great, and they were often invited and sent for by the magistrates of cities to open schools in Germany as well as in Holland, they would carry such books with them. The fact of fragments of early Donatuses and Doctrinals being found in Germany is thus accounted for, without any necessity for supposing, with Junius and his followers,that the types from which they were printed were stolen from Coster of Haarlem, and carried away to Mentz: while sets of types cut by different ‘letter-snyders’ would also account for the differences observed in the typography of the four folio editions of theSpeculum.
Bearing in mind then, the objects to which the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life devoted themselves;—the classes of books, educational and devotional, of which the block-books consisted, and their special adaptability to promote the objects of the fraternity:—the fact, that Zwolle was one of the earliest seats of the engraver’s art, as well as a central station of the brotherhood;—that the original blocks of theBiblia Pauperumwere reproduced at the Brethren’s printing press there in 1489;—that large editions of these works were never required,[131]and that therefore one printing establishment might suffice for theneeds in this respect of the whole fraternity;—that the arms of the city were engraved on one of these books, the Song of Songs;—that all those with pictorial embellishments, claimed as Costerian productions, are, in the opinion of so competent a judge as Ottley, the work of the same artist, or at least of the same school, as regards design and execution, as theBiblia Pauperum;—and that from the paper-marks, as well as the character of the costume and armour of the figures in theSpeculum, that work could not have been printed until about the year 1453, or later:—the conclusion seems reasonable, that all the works which from 1588 have been traditionally attributed to Coster and his alleged successors, came in reality from the establishment of the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life at Zwolle:—and if so, this satisfactorily accounts for there being neither name nor initial nor date, to indicate either author, designer or printer;the principles of the fraternity being such as to merge the individual in the brotherhood, and to make the work of one a portion of the common work of all.
Setting aside, therefore, the conclusions of Baron Heinecken and Wetter in regard to the party by whom, and the date when, theSpeculumwas originally printed, (which nevertheless are not without grounds for their support), this view of the question gives to some unknown brother or brethren the merit of having independently worked out the idea of separable letters on wood about the years 1450–53; thus adding one more to the number of known instances, when at certain historic periods the minds of individuals wholly unknown to each other, and in widely different parts of the world, have almost simultaneously worked out the same invention, or made the same discovery. Instances of such coincidences will no doubt at once occur to the minds of intelligent readers; I shalltherefore only refer by way of illustration to the invention of Photography by M. Niepce and Mr. Fox Talbot, and the discovery of the planet Neptune by the English and French astronomers, Adams and Leverrier.
The rarity of copies of works in which the types used in theSpeculumhave been recognised, is accounted for by the fact of their speedy supercession by cast fusile metal types, when a knowledge of the Arts of Typography and Typefounding became spread throughout Europe by the dispersion of the workmen at Mentz, on the capture and sack of that city in 1462. Most, if not all of the early printers, were men of learning. Many of those who first practised the art in the Netherlands would consequently have been educated by the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life; and amongst these some were very probably members of that fraternity. It is certain that at Brussels (1476) and at Zwolle, as well as at Rheingau (1474) and Rostock (1476), theBrethren speedily practised the new art as first brought to perfection at Mentz. And at one or other of these places, it is much more likely that Veldener obtained the cuts of the Mirror of Salvation, which he reprinted at Culembourg in 1483, than that he purchased them from the descendants of Coster at Haarlem;—a statement which, however much insisted upon by Dutch, and reiterated of late by French and English writers, is purely suppositious, and utterly void of the slightest foundation in fact.