The claims of Coster and Haarlem considered, as opposed to those of Gutenberg and Mentz.—Claims based upon tradition.—No contemporary authorities in their favor.—Abundance of such testimony in favor of Gutenberg and Mentz.—Probable origin of tradition.—Block books.—Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.—Evidence of the Types: wood or metal, cut or cast?—Books “jettez en molle.”—Age of the Paper.—Date of Costume.—Fraternity of Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life.
The claims of Coster and Haarlem considered, as opposed to those of Gutenberg and Mentz.—Claims based upon tradition.—No contemporary authorities in their favor.—Abundance of such testimony in favor of Gutenberg and Mentz.—Probable origin of tradition.—Block books.—Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.—Evidence of the Types: wood or metal, cut or cast?—Books “jettez en molle.”—Age of the Paper.—Date of Costume.—Fraternity of Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life.
Clearand convincing as the evidence appears to be, that the Art of Typography originated in Germany, and that the honor claimed for Gutenberg as its inventor is rightly his; both positions are stoutly contestedby the Dutch, who assert that the Art originated at Haarlem, and was the invention of one Laurence Janssoen, the Coster or Sacristan of the great church of that city, who according to some of their writers, was not only the first engraver of block-books, and cutter of separable letters, but also the first who cast fusile metal types. It is necessary therefore, before proceeding further, to examine the grounds upon which these assertions are based, and to ascertain what amount of truth they contain.
The claim on behalf of Haarlem was first made by Jan Van Zuyren, (b.1517;d.1591), between the years 1549 and 1561,—(upwards of a century, at least, after the appearance of the first printed book in Germany),—in “A Dialogue on the first Invention of the Art of Typography,” of which only a part of the Dedicatory Preface remains. In this fragment, reprinted by Scriverius, the writer says:—
“It is from the love of my country alone,that I undertake this work, and that I institute further inquiries upon the subject of it; as I cannot consent that our claims to a portion of this glory;—claims which are even at this day fresh in the remembrance of our fathers, to whom, so to express myself, they have been transmitted from hand to hand from their ancestors, should be effaced from the memory of men, and be buried in eternal oblivion; claims of which it is our duty to preserve the memorial, for the benefit of our latest posterity.
“The city of Mentz, without doubt, merits great praise,for having been the first to produce and publish to the world in a becoming garb, an invention which she had received from us;for having perfected and embellished an art as yet rude and unformed. Who indeed, (although it be less difficult to add to an invention already made, than to originate a new one) would withhold the praises and honor due to a city, to which all the worldconsiders itself in a particular manner indebted for so great a benefit?
“For the rest, excellent Sir, you may consider it as certain that the foundations of this splendid art were laid in our city of Haarlem, rudely, indeed, but still the first. Here (be it understood without offence to the people of Mentz) the art of Typography was born and saw the light, with all her members formed, so that she might hereafter increase in strength and stature. Here, she for a long time received the treatment and the cares, which it is customary to use towards tender infancy, and for a long series of years was confined within the walls of a private dwelling house, which, though somewhat dilapidated, is still standing;but which has long since been despoiled of its precious contents. The art of printing, indeed, was here brought up, nourished, and maintained at small expense, and with too great parsimony; until at length, despising the poor andconfined appearance of her humble abode, she became the companion of a certain stranger, and leaving behind her native meanness, shewed herself publicly at Mentz, where after having become enriched, she in a short time rose to eminence.”[83]
Theodore Volckart Coornhert, an engraver, having in company with Van Zuyren established a printing office in Haarlem, published on the year 1561, a Dutch translation of Cicero’s Offices. In the Dedication of this work to the Burgomasters, Judges, and Senators of the city, he writes:—
“Most honorable and revered Sirs; it has often been related to me, bonâ fide, that the most useful art of Typography was originally invented in our city of Haarlem, although in a somewhat rude manner; for it is easier to perfect by degrees an art already discovered,than to invent a new one. This art, having been afterwards carried to Mentz by an unfaithful servant,was there perfected, and as it was alsofirst promulgated there, that city has so generally acquired the reputation of having first invented it, that our citizens can obtain but little credence, when they assert themselves to have been the real inventors; a fact generally believed by the greater number of them, and especially considered as undoubted by our most ancient citizens. I am aware, that in consequence of the blameable neglect of our ancestors, the common opinion that this art was invented at Mentz, is now so firmly established, that it is in vain to hope to change it, even by the best evidence, and the most irrefragable proof. But truth does not cease to be truth, because it is known only to a few; and I for my part, believe this to be most certain; convinced as I am, by the faithful testimonies of men, alike respectable from their age and authority; who not only haveoften told me of the family of the inventor, and of his name and surname; but have even described to me the rude manner of printing first used, and pointed out to me with their fingers the abode of the first printer. And therefore, not because I am jealous of the glory of others, but because I love truth, and desire to pay that tribute to the honor of our city which is justly her due, I have thought it incumbent upon me to mention these things.”
In 1567, Ludovico Guicciardini printed at Antwerp, a description of the Low Countries. The work was in Italian, and writing of Haarlem, he says:—
“According to the common tradition of the inhabitants, and the assertion of the other natives of Holland, as well as the testimony of certain authors and other records, it appears that the art of printing and stamping letters and characters on paper, in the manner now used, was first invented in this place.But the author of the invention happening to die, before the art was brought to perfection and had acquired repute, his servant, they say, went to reside at Mentz; where, giving proof of his knowledge in that science, he was joyfully received; and where, he having applied himself to the business with unremitting diligence, it was brought to entire perfection, and became at length generally known, in consequence of which, the fame afterwards spread abroad and became general, that the art and science of printing originated in that city. What the truth really is, I am not able, nor will I take upon me, to decide; it sufficing me to have said these few words, that I might not be guilty of injustice to this town and country.”
Eytzinger, in his work on the topography of the Low Countries, printed in 1583, and Braunius of Cologne, in hisCivitates Orbis Terrarum, printed in 1570–1588, assign to Haarlem the origin of the art. These authorshad before them the statement already quoted from Coornhert, as well as that of Ulric Zell, which says that Block-book Donatuses were originally printed in Holland; and they assume that to be a fact which Guicciardini will go no further than to repeat as a tradition, for the truthfulness of which he will not vouch.
We now come to the account given by Hadrian Junius,[84]in his work entitledBatavia, printed in 1588, thirteen years after his death.
This account[85]is supposed, from the context, to have been written in the year 1568, and in it the name of Coster appears for the first time.
“About a hundred and twenty eight years ago,” he says, “Laurentius Janssoen Coster inhabited a decent and fashionable house in the city of Haarlem, situated in the market place opposite the royal palace. The name of Coster was assumed, and inherited from his ancestors, who had long enjoyed the honorable and lucrative office of Coster or Sexton to the church. This man deserves to be restored to the honor of being the first inventor of printing, of which he has been unjustly deprived by others, who have enjoyed the praises due to him alone. As he was walking in the wood contiguous to the city, which was the general custom of the richer citizens and men of leisure, in the afternoon and on holidayshe began at first to cut some letters upon the rind of a beech tree; which for fancy’s sake, being impressed on paper, he printed one or two lines as a specimen for his grand-children (the sons of his daughter) to follow. This having happily succeeded, he meditated greater things (as he was a man of ingenuity and judgment); and first of all with his son-in-law Thomas Peter (who by the way left three sons, who all attained the consular dignity), invented a more glutinous writing ink, because he found the common ink sunk and spread; and then formed whole pages of wood, with letters cut upon them;—of which sort I have seen some essays in an anonymous work, printed only on one side, entitledSpeculum nostræ salutis: in which it is remarkable, that in the infancy of printing (as nothing is complete at its first invention), the back sides of the pages were pasted together, that they might not by their nakedness betray their deformity.—Thesebeechen letters he afterwards changed for leaden ones, and these again for a mixture of tin and lead, as a less flexible and more solid and durable substance. Of the remains of which types, when they were turned to waste metal, those old wine-pots were cast, that are still preserved in the family house which looks into the market-place, inhabited afterwards by his great-grandson Gerard Thomas, a gentleman of reputation, whom I mention for the honor of the family, and who died a few years since. A new invention never fails to engage curiosity. And when a commodity never before seen excited purchasers, to the advantage of the inventor, the admiration of the art increased, dependents were enlarged, and workmen multiplied; the first calamitous incident! Among these was one John. Whether, as we suspect, he had ominously the name of Faustus—unfaithful and unlucky to his master,—or whether he was really a personof that name, I shall not much inquire; being unwilling to molest the silent shades, who suffer from a consciousness of their past actions in this life. This man, bound by oath to keep the secret of printing, when he thought he had learned the art of joining the letters, the method of casting the types, and other things of that nature, taking the most convenient time that was possible, on Christmas eve, when every one was customarily employed in lustral sacrifices,seizes the collection of types, and all the implements his master had got together, and, with one accomplice, marches off to Amsterdam, thence to Cologne, and at last settled at Mentz, as at an asylum of security, where he might go to work with the tools he had stolen. It is certain that in a year’s time, viz. in 1442, theDoctrinaleof Alexander Gallus, which was a grammar much used at that time, together with theTractsof Peter of Spain, came forth there, from the same types asLaurentius had made use of at Haarlem. These were the first products of his press. These are the principal circumstances that I have collected from credible persons, far advanced in years, which they have transmitted like a flaming torch from hand to hand. I have also met with others who have confirmed the same.”[86]
Junius’s principal informant was, he says, his tutor, Nicholas Galius, an old gentlemen of very tenacious memory, who related that when a boy, he “had often heard one Cornelius, a bookbinder (then upwards of eighty years of age, who had when a youth, assisted at the printing office of Coster), describe with great earnestness the numerous trials and experiments made by his master in the infancy ofthe invention. When he came to that part of his narrative touching the robbery, he would burst into tears, and curse with the greatest vehemence those nights in which he had slept with so vile a miscreant, declaring that were he still alive, he could with pleasure execute the thief with his own hands.” Junius states, that he received a similar account from Quirinus Talesius, the Burgomaster, who asserted that it was recited to him by the said Cornelius: the latter died in 1515.[87]
Of Laurent Janssoen Coster, it seems to be satisfactorily proved, that he belonged to the most distinguished and wealthy class ofthe inhabitants of the city. He was born, it is supposed, about 1370, or 1371; and notices of him appear in official records as an officer of the city guard, a member of the great council, sheriff, sheriff-president, and treasurer, from 1417 to 1434. From the treasurer’s accounts he seems to have enjoyed a rent-charge upon the city from 1422 to 1435. In 1440 an entry is made of the payment of a similar charge to one “Ymme, widow of Laurent Janssoen”; and as Haarlem was visited by a contagious malady in 1439, the probability is that Laurent was one of its victims. Of his family the following particulars have been handed down. His daughter Lucetta married Thomas the son of Pieter; and bore him two daughters and three sons, Pieter, André and Thomas, all of whom filled important public office. Pieter the son of Thomas, had a son called Thomas the son of Pieter, whose son Gerard, died before Junius wrote his work. The lastdescendant of the family was William the son of Cornelius Kroon, who died the 24th March, 1724.[88]
As the account inserted in Junius’sBataviais the groundwork upon which all subsequent writers base their arguments in behalf of the claims they advance for Coster, it behoves us to note how far it agrees with the statements previously made by others.
It is alleged that Coster (1,) first cut letters on the bark of a beech tree for his amusement; (2,) then, with letters so cut, he made words and sentences for the instruction of his grand-children; after which he (3,) invented, with the assistance of his son-in-law, a more glutinous ink, whereupon he (4,) cut whole pages of letters on wood, and printed them. He next (5,) made letters of lead, and pewter, to supersede those ofwood; (6,) becoming known as a printer, and a public demand arising for his productions, he (7,) engaged numerous workmen, one of whom (8,) stole all his materials, and carried them off to Mentz.
Neither Van Zuyren, nor Coornhert, give particulars on the first five points, and in regard to the 6th and 7th, their statements are opposed to those of Junius. They say the art, as invented at Haarlem,was rude and imperfect, and was not made public there; and although Coornhert says he had often been told of the family of the inventor, his name and surname, of the rude manner of printing first used, and had even had shewn to him the abode of the first printer; he neither gives his name nor describes the method adopted. Guicciardini gives his statement, as a matter of hearsay, for the truth of which he will not vouch; but in it there is this difference from those of Van Zuyren and Coornhert, that the author of the inventionhappening to die before the art was brought to perfection and had acquired repute, his servant, they say, went to reside at Mentz.
Here then are three writers, living at the same time with Junius, all making inquiries upon the same subject, and deriving their information from a common source, who differ from him on almost every point, and in some of the most material plainly contradict him.
With reference to the 5th point, the invention of metal types,—whether cut or cast Junius does not say,—Henry Spiegel, senator of Amsterdam (b.1549,d.1612), states in his Dutch poemHertspiegel.
“Thou first, Laurentius, to supply the defect of wooden tablets, adoptedst wooden types, and afterwards didst connect them with a thread, to imitate writing. A treacherous servant surreptitiously obtained the honor of the discovery: but truth itself, though destitute of common and wide spread fame, truth I say, still remains.”
This Spiegel was a personal friend of Coornhert, and it may be presumed consulted him respecting Junius’s account of the origin of printing at Haarlem. Of metal types he makes no mention; but if the traditions of Haarlem at that time gave Laurentius the credit of their invention, it is altogether unaccountable why Spiegel omitted so noteworthy a circumstance. He probably rejected, on Coornhert’s authority, what Junius had written on that part of the subject.
Junius’s story of the theft of Coster’s types and implements is confused and contradictory. For supposing for a moment that Coster was the printer of theMirror of Salvation, and that the types were made of pewter; if all that had been cast for printing, (at the most not more than two pages at a time), had been carried away, together with the punches, matrices, &c., how came the wine-pots, alleged to be still in existencewhen Junius wrote, to be made of them when they became waste metal? These wine-pots afford grounds for the assertion, by later writers, that the art continued to be practised by the Coster familyafterthe alleged theft; but that assertion is contradicted by the statements elsewhere made. Of the theft itself there is no proof. The records of the city have been searched in vain for evidence of any such robbery. And the search has been equally fruitless for evidence of any such invention. As to the latter, the wine-pots are the chief witnesses. They were said to be kept in the house inhabited by Laurent Coster’s great-grandson Gerard Thomas; they could be appealed to; but what then? their evidence is not even as valuable as that adduced by the school boy who claimed to be the carver of a certain piece of wood-work, “and here,” said he, “is the very knife with which I did it.” In the boy’s case it could at least be shewn, thatthe knife was one with which the carving might have been executed; but it would be utterly impossible to prove, without other and more reliable evidence than the appearance of the pots themselves, that they had been the original prototypes of the art of Typography. Meerman, however, insists upon it that the Costers carried on the printing business at Haarlem until about the year 1472, when a better method having been introduced by disciples of the Mentz school, they sold off their stock and retired. But all these allegations are based upon suppositions; there is no proof whatever that such was the case: only, it is evident that some such story must be contrived, in order to account for the pewter wine-pots being manufactured out of the waste and worn-out types. But then the part of the narrative of Junius where the wine-pots are alluded to, does not tally with that other part, wherein it is stated that the thief and his accomplicedecamped with “the collection of types, andallthe implements his master had got together.” For Junius does not say, that Laurentius Janssoen Coster got together fresh implements, and made new types; nor does he intimate that his family did so after his decease. On the contrary, he speaks of the theft as an irreparable loss, the thought of which made the old book-binder Cornelius, curse with the greatest vehemence. This irascible garrulous old man is the same who, when a boy, is said to have been employed in Coster’s printing office, and who, when upwards of eighty years old, told the story to Nicholas Galius the old gentlemen of tenacious memory, who in his turn told it to his pupil Junius. It is plain that the sole object of the original tellers of the story of the stranger, servant, or thief, was to account for the otherwise inexplicable fact, that the world was persuaded that printing originated at Mentz, instead of, as the tradition-mongers would have it, at Haarlem.
It is singular that Van Zuyren and Coornhert make no mention of Coster and the wine-pots. They had had the house pointed out to them, where printing was said to have been invented and first practised in private and in a very rude and imperfect form; and if that house really belonged to the family of Laurent Janssoen, copies of the books printed,—the old types themselves,—the original prototypes of the art of Typography—ought surely to have been the pride and glory of the house, rather than pewter wine-pots, a common enough article of household furniture.
“But,” says Van Zuyren, “the house haslong sincebeen despoiled of its precious contents.” In his days then, and he is the earliest writer on the subject, the wine-pots did not exist; or if they did, and if they were known to be the re-shaped relics of the original metal types, how is his ignorance of their existence to be accounted for? He andCoornhert were both living and writing in the city at the same time with Junius, with whom, as one of the learned literati of the day, they could not but have been well acquainted, if not on intimate and friendly terms. After a long absence, Junius returned to the city where the others were born and bred, and where one of them, Van Zuyren, filled the office of Scabinus from 1549 to 1561, when he was advanced to the dignity of Burgomaster, (in which year his partner dedicated his work to him and the other officials of the city). How then came Junius alone to learn the history of Laurent Janssoen’s invention? and how is Van Zuyren and Coornhert’s silence to be accounted for, in regard to such important matters affecting Laurent the son of Jans, who filled the lucrative office of Coster of the great church; who was member of the great council, sheriff, sheriff-president, and finally treasurer of the city;—whose portrait was engraved, (or supposed to havebeen), along with those of Ouwater, Hemsen, Mandin, and Volkert, all eminent Haarlemese painters of the fifteenth century;—and whose history must have been well known to both, when they wrote, the one declaring “for the love of his country alone,”—and the other, “not because I am jealous of the glory of others, but because I love truth”? Where then was the love of country and the love of truth, if they omitted, or suppressed, the name of the man who invented the art, the glory of which they “could not consent should be effaced from the memory of men, and be buried in eternal oblivion; claims of which it is our duty to preserve the memorial, for the benefit of our latest posterity”?
There can be no doubt but that considerations of this nature have led older writers to express suspicions in regard to the authenticity of Junius’s narrative, and to believe that his manuscript was tampered withbetween the time of his death, and the publication of the work in which it appears; as well as to induce “misgivings” in the minds of learned Dutchmen of the present day “as to the ultimate result of full inquiry into the subject.”[89]
Admitting with the writers on the Haarlem side, that the Coster family was one of wealth and influence, how comes it, on the one hand, that the thief who stole the types and implements was not pursued, exposed and punished? or at any rate stripped of his stolen plumes, when so early as 1457 works were published in Mentz by printers who ascribed the whole merit of the invention to themselves?—and on the other, that having replaced the stolen types and other implements by new ones, and continuing to print until 1472, the descendants of Laurent never claimed the honor of the invention for themselvesor their sire, although they must have known all along of what was taking place at Mentz,—where Faust and Schœffer were yearly publishing books with their names attached? How comes it that the family possessed no documents that in any way referred to the invention?—that they never kept by them copies of the works they are said to have printed?—that none of such works were known or found in Haarlem until 1654 or 1660, when a chestfull of old books without date or printer’s name was bought by the city authorities at a sale at the Hague—two centuries later, and at once attributed to them?How is it that no Dutch writer or printer, from 1441 to 1588, claimed the honor of the invention for his countryman Coster?—that neither Nicholas the son of Peter of Haarlem, who printed at Padua in 1476, and at Vicenza in 1477; Henri of Haarlem, who printed from 1482 to 1499 in different cities; and Gerard of Haarlem, who exercised the art atFlorence in 1499, never claimed it for their brother citizen and birthplace? How comes it that the earliest known printers in Haarlem itself, John Andriesson and Jacob Bellaert, whose books are dated 1483 and 1485, are silent upon the subject?—that the first printers in Utrecht in 1473—and between that date and 1498, those of Alost, Antwerp, Bruges, Brussels, Culembourg, Delft, Deventer, Ghent, Gouda, Hertogenbosch, Leyden, Louvain, St. Maartensdyk, Niemegen, Oudenarde, Schiedam, Schoonhoven, Zwolle, and elsewhere in Holland and the Low countries, make no mention of it?—and that nothing whatever is known of any of the “multiplied workmen,” and “dependents,” whom Laurent Janssoen Coster, it is alleged, was obliged to employ to meet the demands made upon him by purchasers for copies of the products of the newly invented art? How, finally, is it to be accounted for, that while Coster’s descendants were living in Haarlem, when Van Zuyren,Coornhert, and Junius, were writing their works, those writers omitted to make inquiry of any member of the family on a subject respecting which the family were the parties most interested, and could have given the most authentic information? Perhaps they did; and when they asked for the story of the invention, discovered that the family had, like Canning’s knife-grinder, “no story to tell.”
To the objections, that no printed book bears the name of Coster or his descendants, and that neither he nor they ever entered their protest against the pretensions of Mentz, Koning replies:[90]—“We agree that no such book has been found; but neither is any book to be found bearing the name of Gutenberg. Must we, on this account, strike his name out of the list of the first printers? The aim of the first printers was to imitate manuscripts,and to make their printed books pass for such; and therefore, lest their art should be found out, it behoved them to keep their names a profound secret.... The first inventor could have no idea of the astonishing influence which his art would have in the world in future ages; and no person can feel surprise that he did not affix his name to his first essays.
“Besides, the printers of the fifteenth century very commonly omitted to put their names to the editions printed by them. The number of books existing of this century, without either the name of the printer or the place of their publication is prodigious. Ulric Zell, for example, according to Santander, printed eighty books, and, out of this number, has only put his name to two or three. With what appearance of reason is it insisted, that the works, which are attributed to Laurent Janssoen Coster, are not his, because they are not signed with his name?
“But it is said, that neither Coster nor his descendants ever vindicated their claims, against the pretensions put forth by the Mentz printers.... Neither did Gutenberg vindicate his, against Faust and Schœffer; who, in the colophon of the Psalter of 1457, and in the subscriptions of numerous other books, took all the honor to themselves, making no mention of him whatever; although it is not doubted that Gutenberg set up a printing office of his own in 1455, and he is regarded by the writers on the side of Mentz as the inventor and perfector of the art of printing.”
As to the inventor having no idea of the astonishing influence which his art would have in the world in future ages, it is plain from the evidence given in the Strasburg law-suit, that Gutenberg and his partners were fully persuaded, that the work they had undertaken was one by which they would make their fortunes. And, although it is asserted that Gutenberg never vindicated his claimagainst Faust and Schœffer, yet it is certain that his merit as the inventor of printing was known to the Elector of Mentz, and the King of France,and it is also expressly admitted, not onlyby his contemporaries, in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, but by Peter Schœffer himself, who besides the detailed account of the origin of the invention which he gave to the Abbot Trithemius in the year 1484, allowed the insertion of the following among other Latin verses at the end of the “Institutes of Justinian,” printed by him in 1468:—
Hos dedit eximios sculpendi in arte magistros,Cui placet en mactos arte sagire viros,Quos genuit ambos urbs moguntina JohannesLibrorum insignes protocaragmaticos;Cum quibus optatum Petrus venit ad polyandrum,Cursu posterior, introeundo prior;Quippe quibus præstat sculpendi lege sagitusA solo dante lumen et ingenium.
Hos dedit eximios sculpendi in arte magistros,Cui placet en mactos arte sagire viros,Quos genuit ambos urbs moguntina JohannesLibrorum insignes protocaragmaticos;Cum quibus optatum Petrus venit ad polyandrum,Cursu posterior, introeundo prior;Quippe quibus præstat sculpendi lege sagitusA solo dante lumen et ingenium.
Hos dedit eximios sculpendi in arte magistros,Cui placet en mactos arte sagire viros,Quos genuit ambos urbs moguntina JohannesLibrorum insignes protocaragmaticos;Cum quibus optatum Petrus venit ad polyandrum,Cursu posterior, introeundo prior;Quippe quibus præstat sculpendi lege sagitusA solo dante lumen et ingenium.
Hos dedit eximios sculpendi in arte magistros,
Cui placet en mactos arte sagire viros,
Quos genuit ambos urbs moguntina Johannes
Librorum insignes protocaragmaticos;
Cum quibus optatum Petrus venit ad polyandrum,
Cursu posterior, introeundo prior;
Quippe quibus præstat sculpendi lege sagitus
A solo dante lumen et ingenium.
These lines are thus translated by Humphreys,—“He who is pleased to create high talents has given us two great masters of theart of engraving, both bearing the name of John, both being natives of the city of Mayence, and both having become illustrious as the first printers of books. Peter advanced with them towards the desired goal, and, starting the last, arrived first, having been rendered the most skilful in the art of engraving by him who alone bestows light and genius.” There can be no doubt but the two Johns and the Peter here referred to were John Gutenberg, John Faust, and Peter Schœffer.[91]
Up to the date of Junius’s publication, 1588, no writer had claimed the honor of theinvention for Coster; and but three, who wrote between 1549 and 1567, had asserted Haarlem to have been its birthplace;—and one of these, as we have seen, expressly declines to vouch for the accuracy of the tradition. On the other hand, we learn from the researches of Dean Mallinckrot,[92]that up to the date of Junius’s publication no less than sixty-two writers had awarded the honor of the invention to Gutenberg, and fixed its birthplace, and the place of its promulgation to the world at the cities of Strasburg and Mentz. Although abundant proof has already been given upon these points, the following selection from contemporary and historicevidence is added, in order to shew the strength and solidity of the basis upon which those claims rest, and how thoroughly it outweighs all that has been brought forward by writers on the opposite side.
In 1457, on the publication of their Psalter, Faust and Schœffer ascribed to themselves the merit of the new invention.
After Faust’s death, Schœffer inserted in the imprint or colophon on the last page of his works, the words “in nobili urbe Magentiæ ejusdem (i. e.artis imprimendi) inventriæ elimatriceque prima.”
In 1480, William Caxton, in his continuation ofHigden’s Polychronicon, printed at Westminster, says “About this time [1455] the craft of imprynting was first found in Mogunce in Almayne.”[93]
In theFasciculi Temporumprinted by Quentel at Cologne in 1478 and 1481, it is stated that the art of printing originated at Mentz.
In the Black book or Register of the Garter, it is said with reference to the 35th year of the reign of Henry VI, anno 1457, “In this year of our most pious king, the art of printing books first began at Mentz, a famous city of Germany.” And inFabian’s Chronicle, the writer, a contemporary of Caxton, says, “This yere (35th of Henry VI,) after the opynyon of dyverse wryters, began in a citie of Almaine, namyd Mogunce, the crafte of empryntynge bokys, which sen that tyme hath had wonderful encrease.” It was in this year 1457, that the first book appeared which has the printer’s name, date, and place of printing, affixed. This is the celebrated Psalter printed by Faust and Schœffer.
In 1486, Berthold, Archbishop of Mentz, in a mandate which will be quoted at length in a subsequent chapter, states, “this art, [printing] was first discovered in this city of Mentz.”
A single testimony similar to either of the above in favor of Haarlem, would have beenhailed with delight by any of the writers in the latter half of the sixteenth century, and their tribe of followers who advocate the claims of that city; but what follows is much more forcible and decisive.
“Of all the authors to whom the world is indebted for a particular account of the discovery of printing,”says, Mr. Palmer,[94]“Abbot Trithemius justly claims pre-eminence; both upon account of his living nearest to the time when the art originated, which he tells us was in his younger years; as well as his care to derive his intelligence on the subject from the purest sources. We have two noble testimonies out of his chronicle; one from the first part entitledChronicon Spanheimense, wherein, speaking of the year 1450, he says: ‘That about this time, the art ofprinting and casting single types was found out anew in the city of Mentz, by one John Gutenberg, who having spent his whole estate in this difficult discovery, by the assistance and advice of some honest men, John Faust and others, brought his undertaking at length to perfection; that the first improver of this art, after the inventor, was Peter Schœffer de Gernsheim, who afterwards printed a great many volumes; that the said Gutenberg lived at Mentz, in a house calledZum-junghen, but afterwards known by the name of the printing house.’
“The next passage, which is fuller, and for its singularity and decisiveness deserves to be set down at length, is taken out of the second part of Trithemius’s chronicle, entitledChronicon Hirsaugiense:—‘About this time (anno 1450) in the city of Mentz in Germany upon the Rhine, and not in Italy, as some writers falsely affirmed, the wonderful andtill then unknownart of printing books bymetal types (characterizandi) was invented and devised by John Gutenberg, citizen of Mentz, who, having almost exhausted his whole estate in contriving of this new method, and labouring under such insuperable difficulties, in one respect or other, that he began to despair of and to throw up the whole design; was at length assisted with the advice and purse of John Faust, another citizen of Mentz, and happily brought it to perfection. Having therefore, begun with cutting characters of the letters upon wooden planks, in their right order, and completed their forms, they printed the vocabulary called theCatholicon; but could make no further use of those forms, because there was no possibility of separating the letters, which were engraven on the planks, as we hinted before. To this succeeded a more ingenious invention, for they found out a way of stamping the shapes of every letter of the Latin alphabet, in what they called matrices, from which they afterwardscast their letters, either in copper or tin, hard enough to be printed upon, which they first cut with their own hands. It is certain that this art met with no small difficulties from the beginning of its invention, as I heard thirty years ago from the mouth of Peter Schœffer de Gernsheim, citizen of Mentz, and son-in-law to the first inventor of the Art. For when they went about printing the Bible, before they had worked off the third quire it had cost them already above 4000 florins. But the afore-mentioned Peter Schœffer, then servant, (famulus,) and afterwards son-in-law, to the first inventor John Faust, as we hinted before, being a person of great ingenuity, discovered an easier method of casting letters, and perfected the art as we now have it. These three kept their manner of printing very secret for some time, until it was divulged by their servants, without whose help it was impossible to manage the business, who carried it first to Strasburg, andby degrees all over Europe. Thus much will suffice concerning the discovery of this wonderful art, the first inventors of which were citizens of Mentz. These three first discoverers of printing, viz. John Gutenberg, John Faust, and Peter Schœffer his son-in-law, lived at Mentz, in a house calledZum-junghen, but ever since known by the name of the printinghouse.’”[95]
Equally clear and to the point, if not more so, as well as the first published in point of time, is the statement given by Johan. Koelhoff, who in 1499 printed the following particulars in theCologne Chronicle, on the authority of Ulric Zell of Hainault, by whom the art ofprinting was first introduced to Cologne. Zell learned the art directly from the first Mentz printers; and in the colophons of two small works printed in the years 1466 and 1467, he styles himself a clerk of the diocese of Mentz. The statement is as follows:—
“Of the printing of Books, and when and by whom, this Art was discovered, of which the utility cannot be too highly appreciated, &c.
“Item: This most important art was first found out in Germany, at Mentz on the Rhyne. And it is a great honour to the German nation that such ingenious men were found in it. This took place about the year of our LordM.CCCC.XL., and from that time to the yearL., this art and whatever appertains to it were rendered more perfect. And in the yearM.CCCC.L.which was a jubilee year, they began to print;and the first book that was printed was the Bible in Latin, and it was printed with larger characters than those which are now used for printing Missals. Item: Althoughthis art, as we have said, was found out in Mentz in the way in which it is commonly used; nevertheless the prototype of it (‘vurbildung,’ præfiguratio) was found in Holland, in the Donatuses (den Donaten) which had been before printed there; and it is from and out of these, that the beginning of this art was taken. And this manner has been found much more masterly and subtle than that which before existed, and it has become more and more ingenious. Item: A person named Omnibonus writes in the preface to Quinctilian, and in other books, that a certain Frenchman, called Nicholas Genson, first discovered this important art; which is clearly not true. For there are persons now living, who can attest, that books were printed at Venice before Nicholas Genson went there, and began to sculpture and set up type. But the first inventor of printing was a citizen of Mentz, born at Strasburg, called Johan. Gudenburch, Gentleman. Item: From Mentz the said artwas first carried to Cologne, then to Strasburg, and then to Venice. The commencement and progress of this art has been told me expressly by word of mouth, by the revered master Ulrich Tzell of Hainault,[96]the printer, still living at Cologne in the present yearM.CCCC.XCIX., by whom the art was first brought to Cologne. Item: There are ill-informed persons who say that books were printed in more ancient times; but that is contrary to the truth, as in no country are books to be found printed in those times.”
Zell’s account is confirmed by the writer of theNurimberg Chronicle, printed by Koburger in 1493, who states that in the year 1450, the noble art of typography was first invented by John Gutenberg at Mentz.
To the like effect is the testimony of Marc Ant. Coccius Sabellicus (b.1436;d.1506,) in the sixth chapter of his Universal History, printed at Venice in 1504.
In 1502, Wimpheling, the earliest writer in favour of the pretensions of Strasburg, states, in hisEpitome Rerum Germanicarum,that Gutenberg was “the inventor of a new art of writing (ars impressoria), which might also be called a divine benefit, and which he happilycompleted at Mentz.”
In 1505, John Schœffer,eldest son and successor to Peter, Faust’s son-in-law, declares in a Dedication to the Emperor Maximilian of an edition of Livy, printed that year, that the admirable art of Typography was invented at Mentz in the year 1450, by John Gutenberg, and afterwards improved and perfected by the study, perseverance and labour of John Faust and Peter Schœffer.[97]This work was edited by the learned Dr. Ivo Wittig, the same who in 1508 erected the memorial tablet in front of the house Zum Gutenberg, the inscription on which is given at page 198.
About 1510, Mariangelus Accursius, a Neapolitan scholar of distinction, wrote on the first page of a Donatus, printed on vellum, “Johan Faust, a citizen of Mentz, the maternal grandfather of Johan Schœffer, first found out the art of printing with types of brass, for which he afterwards substituted those of lead; his son-in-law, Peter Schœffer, greatly assisting him in perfecting the art. But thisDonatusandConfessionaliawas first of all printed in the year 1450. It is certain that he took the idea from a Donatus which had been before printed from engraved wooden blocks in Holland.” The Donatus in which this was written was in the possession of the younger Aldus, who shewed it to Angelo Rocca, by whom the memorandum was copied, and printed in the year 1591.
Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was intimate with the most learned men and principal printers of Germany, Holland, Italy, and France, and whose inquisitive mind led himto obtain information on every possible topic; who had beside him for many years in the capacity of Secretary, the same Quirinus Talesius from whom Junius obtained the confirmation of the story of Nicholas Galius; who greatly eulogised the productions of the Fleming, Jodocus Badius, a printer in France, and moreover wrote the epitaph over his friend Theodore Martens, the first printer in Belgium, and who was as jealous of the honor of his fatherland as any Hollander could be; nevertheless repeatedly declared Faust to be the earliest printer, and Mentz the city where printing was first practised. This he did in 1518, in his dedicatory Epistle to an edition of Livy, published by John Schœffer, and again in his own edition of the Epistles of St. Hieronymous, published at Leyden in 1530.
Arnold de Bergel, in hisEncomion Chalcographiæ, previously referred to, describes the first printing of books by John Gutenbergat Mentz in the year 1450. The idea originated, he says, by Gutenberg observing while at Strasburg the impression made by his signet ring in soft wax.[98]
Sebastian Munster, in hisUniversal Cosmography, printed in 1571, states that in the years 1440 to 1450 the art of printing was invented and first practised in Mentz by John Gutenberg, afterwards assisted by John Faust and John Medinbach.
Peter Van Opmer,[99]a fellow-countryman and contemporary of Junius, and a writer of repute, says with reference to the suddenoutburst of learning at the commencement of the fifteenth century:—“This was effected by the assistance of that art, which from metal characters of letters ingeniously cast, disposed in the order in which we write, spread over with a convenient quantity of ink, and put under the press, has ushered into the world books in all languages, and multiplied their copies like a numerous offspring, and has obtained the name ofTypography. This Art of Printing was most certainly invented and brought to light by John Faust in the year 1440. It is amazing that the author of so important a discovery, and so generous a promoter of divine and human learning, should be unworthily forgotten, or only casually remembered as a mere artist. Surely such a person deserves a place amongst the greatest benefactors of mankind.”[100]
A goodly number of similar testimonies might easily be collected, in not one of which is any reference made to either Coster or Haarlem. Not a single Dutch or Flemish annalist or chronicler or historian, previous to 1560, ever makes the slightest allusion to the man or the place in connection with the art of printing. Even Jan Gerbrant, Prior of the Carmelite Order at Haarlem, who died there in 1504, knew nothing of the matter. Yet he is the compiler of the Chronicle of the Counts of Holland and Bishops of Utrecht; and if printing had been the invention of his contemporary Coster, and practised in the city of Haarlem, he could not have been ignorant of the facts, nor would he have failed to record them in his Chronicle.
Meerman and his followers vainly try to evade the force of this fatal silence; all their learning and ingenuity are brought to bear, but without effect; for if, as they maintain, the historians of that time considered theattempts made at Haarlem so crude and imperfect, as not to be worthy their notice, what is to be made of the statement of Junius, that the invention attracted notice; that the works printed were publicly sold, and the business increased so much, that numerous workmen and assistants had to be engaged? The number of works said by Koning and others to have issued from the Coster press, indicates anything but a crude and imperfect state of the art; and if those works had been printed by the sacristan of the great Church of Haarlem, the Prior of the Carmelites, living in the city at the same time, must have known of their existence. How then is his silence to be accounted for?
The only rational conclusion to which one can arrive, is, that the tradition, which, after the growth of a hundred years was moulded into historic narrative by Junius, had neither existence nor foundation in the days of Prior Gerbrant. As an aid to history, in the elucidationof facts otherwise obscure, tradition is a valuable auxiliary; but as opposed to history and well known facts, there is no more unreliable source of information. Every one is aware how witnesses of the same occurrence will differ in their statements of the particulars of what they saw; and all who have taken the pains to unravel old traditions well know how wholly unlike their origin they ultimately and all but invariably prove to be. There is no reason for supposing that the traditional account of the origin of printing in Haarlem is an exception to the rule. The age was one prone to the invention of legends; and in the early days of printing in that city, and after Ulric Zell had published his account at Cologne, and attributed to Gutenberg the taking of the idea from theDonatusesfirst printedin Holland, it is by no means unlikely that an old printer, or an old book-binder, in Haarlem, who had when a boy seen a specimen of aBiblia Pauperumor aDonatus, in the hands of the Sacristan of the Church, would say, first, that he had seen the proof that printing originated in Holland, there, in that city; then, stretching a point, that printing originated there; others, repeating this, would assert that the proof that such was the fact existed; that it had been seen in the hands of the Coster; that the Coster printed it; that there was the house he lived in; that it was a shame the Germans, who stole the idea of the separable types from the Dutch, should get all the credit; that they had robbed Coster of his fame; nay robbed him of his types; that it must have been one of the Johns of Mentz who was the thief; and so on, varying and amplifying the tale, until the time of Junius, who finding the poem of Arnold de Bergel imparting a fresh halo of glory to Mentz and her three first printers, adopted and embellished the tradition, and borrowing certainideas from Virgil as well as from Bergel, gave in hisBataviaan account of the first conception and ultimate realization of the idea, which should stand as a rival to the account given in theEncomion Chalcographiæ.
The documents upon which the Haarlemese mainly rely, prove of themselves that the tradition grew within the space of a few years almost as rapidly as the pillar-like flower-stalk of the gigantic American aloe, and effloresced as abundantly in the narrative of Junius—the prolific progenitor of a host of subsequent writers:—for first, (in say 1555,) the art only “became the companion of a certain stranger;”[101]—then (1561) it “was carried to Mentz by an unfaithful servant;”[102]—next, (1567) “the author of the inventionhappening to die before the art was brought to perfectionand had acquired repute, his servant they say went to reside at Mentz:”[103]—finally,(1568) the foresworn workman, the thief John,while his master was still alive... seizes the collection of types, and all the implements his master had got together ... marches off to Amsterdam, thence to Cologne, and at last settled at Mentz;—and Coster, lamenting his losses, tells his woes to the little boy Cornelis, who used to help the book-binder; and Cornelis is so powerfully affected by the tale, that seventy-two years after, whenever he was asked to repeat it, he would fall into passionate weepings, and curse and execrate the miscreant John, and vow nothing would please him more, were he but alive, than with his own hands to hang him outright.[104]Theseare the bases upon which are built “the accumulated and still accumulating evidence in favour of Coster,”—the “vast mass of unanswerable evidence in his favour,”—in presence of which “the advocates of Gutenberg’s claim to priority are slow to give way;” and for which slowness they are accused of “closing both eyes and ears to testimony of every kind, refusing to acknowledge that there is the slightest ground for the claims ofHollandas against the, asserted, overwhelming evidence in favour of Germany.”[105]With suchwriters, the array of facts on the Gutenberg side of the question goes for naught. Pinning their faith to Junius they