FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[83]Schrijver, P. Laurecrans voor Laurens Coster.Haarlem, 1628. 4to.[84]Hadrian Junius was born at Hoorn, in 1511, and is said to have been educated at a classical school of repute at Haarlem. He also studied at Louvain. He soon shewed himself a person of ability; and having embraced the medical profession, was appointed physician to the Duke of Norfolk, and afterwards to the King of Denmark. He is said to have taken up his abode in Haarlem in 1560, and to have resided there till 1572, when he quitted the city on account of the siege that then took place. According to Lypsius, he was the most learned man in Holland after Erasmus. His workBataviawas commenced late in life, and completed in January, 1575. His death took place at Middleburg, on the 16th June of the same year.[85]The original will be found in the Appendix.[86]The above translation is taken from the article on Printing in the Edinburgh edition (1815) of the Encyclopædia Britannica, supplemented by that given in Stower’s “Printers’ Grammar” (1808.) Both writers are strong pro-Costerians.[87]Galius is probably the same who is calledClaesLottynz, Gael,Scabinus Haarlemi, as it is in the Fasti of that city, in the years 1531, 1533, and 1535. Quirinus in the same Fasti is called Mr. Quiryn Dirkszoon. He was many years amanuensis to Erasmus, as appears from his epistle 23rd July, 1529, tom iii. Oper. p. 1222. He was afterwards Scabinus in 1537et seq., and Consul in 1552,et seq.But in the troubles of Holland he was cruelly killed by the Spanish soldiers, May 23, 1563.[88]Meerman’s Account of the family and descendants of Laurent Janssoen, vol. i. p. 38,et seq.[89]Ottley’sInquiry, p. 308.[90]Videch. xvii. of his work.[91]The writer of these verses was one of the correctors of the press employed by Schœffer, though his name does not appear. He concludes with the expression of a desire, which to this day finds a responsive echo in the bosom of every author and printer whose soul has been vexed by the blunders of copyists and compositors:—“Oh!” is his pathetic exclamation,—“if they could succeed in purging the texts of all their faults!—those who arrange the characters, as well as those who read the proofs; the friends of literature would then infallibly award to them a crown of glory, who thus come in aid by their books to thousands of seats of learning.” It is not at all unlikely that these verses were the origin of Junius’s assertion, that the name of the workman who stole Coster’s types and implements, and carried them off to Mentz, was John.[92]Mallinckrot, de Ortu et Progressu Artis Typographicæ.Coloniæ, 1639.[93]In order to evade the force of Caxton’s testimony, Costerian writers assert that he merely recorded the popular belief of the time. But Caxton, as he himself tells us in one of his works, had been residing from 1441 to 1476 “in the countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland, and Zealand.” During the greater portion of this time he was the Governor of the Company of Merchant Adventurers, trading in Brabant, Flanders, &c., and his principal place of residence was Bruges, not far distant from Haarlem. The merchandise of those days was not confined to silks and woollens, but included the manuscripts and books of the period. Caxton, after his appointment to the household of the Duchess of Burgundy, gave his mind to literary pursuits, and practised the art of printing at Bruges. He was also well acquainted with Ulric Zell of Hainault, the first printer of Cologne, at which city some suppose, on the authority of Wynkyn de Woorde, his successor, he also printed a book. He could not therefore be ignorant of the facts of the case. His position and pursuits gave him every opportunity for ascertaining them; and he was not a man who neglected opportunities for acquiring knowledge. He must consequently have known and been well satisfied of the accuracy of the statement he gave currency to. Had Coster or any of his descendants been printing at Haarlem from 1428 to 1472, as many of these writers allege, Caxton must have known of it, and would not in such a case have asserted that the “craft of imprinting was first found in Mogunce in Almayne.”[94]A General History of Printing, byS. Palmer, 4to.London, 1733. This work, although ostensibly written by Mr. S. Palmer, a London printer of some eminence, was in fact the production of the learned Psalmanazar.[95]As the Chronicle in which this account is given, is said to have been finished in the year 1514, Trithemius (b.1462;d.1516,) would have heard the particulars from Peter Schœffer, about the year 1484. The abbot would then have been twenty-two years of age.—Meerman, vol. ii. p. 101,n.The manuscript of the Chronicle was not discovered until near the close of the seventeenth century, when it was printed at St. Gall in the year 1690.[96]This fact is much overlooked by writers who invariably refer to Zell as a German authority. Hainault is a province adjoining South Brabant and West Flanders, in which provinces are situated the towns of Haarlem and Bruges, where Coster and Caxton resided. Along with Holland, Hainault was forcibly annexed by Philip of Burgundy in 1426. No doubt many of the families opposed to the annexation sought safety in flight, and among these may be included that of the Zells. But it is hardly to be credited that Ulric’s love of Fatherland was extinguished by his expatriation; or that he would give to Germany and Mentz, the honor that rightly belonged to Holland and Haarlem. All that he says, amounts to the statement, that Block-book Donatuses were printed in Holland, before printing,in the way it is commonly used, was invented at Mentz. If, as Costerians contend, “printing in the way it is commonly used” was known and practised by Laurent Janssoen in Haarlem from 1428 to 1440, both Caxton and Zell must have known of it; and would have stated it as a fact. The only inference therefore that can be drawn from what they say, as well as from what they do not say on the subject, is, that Typography was invented at Mentz, and was not known at Haarlem until after the advent of the first printer there in 1483.[97]“Admiranda ars typographica ab ingenioso Johanne Guttenbergio, anno a nativitate Christi, Domini nostri, 1450, inventa, et posthac studio, sumtu et labore Johannis Fust et Petri Schœfferi Moguntiæ, emendata et ad posteros propagata est.”[98]Hic ubi postremo descendit gurgite Moenus,Excipit et socias littore Rhenus aquasHanc peperit captis antiqua Moguntia murisHorrida dum tristis fata canebat avis.* * * * *Sæcula bis septem numerabant ordine fatiChristigenæ, hinc illis lustra decemque dabant,Tertius ac orbis Fridericus frena regebat,* * * * *Clarus Joannes en Gutenbergius hic est,A quo, ceu vivo flumine, manat opus.Hic est Aonidum custos fidissimus, hic est,Qui referat latices, quos pede fudit equus,Quam veteres nobis Argenti voce notarunt,A puero fertur sustinuisse virum;Illa sed huic civi largita est munera grata,Cui clarumnomenMogus habere dedit.Primitias illic coepit formare laboris,Ast hic maturum protulit artis opus.Stemmate præstabat; vicit virtute sed illud;Dicitur hinc veræ nobilitatis Eques.Annulis in digitis erat illi occasio prima,Palladium ut caelo sollicitaret opus.Illum tentabat molli committere ceræ,Redderet ut nomen littera sculpta suum.Respicit archetypos, auri vestigia lustrans,Et secum tacitus talia verba refert:Quam belle pandit certas hæc orbita voces,Monstrat et exactis apta reperta libris.Quid, si nunc justos, æris ratione reducta,Tentarem libros cudere mille modis?—v.v. 19–66.[99]Van Opmer was born at Amsterdam in 1526. He studied the classics at the Universities of Louvain and Delft; and also made himself a proficient in painting, engraving and architecture. He was known to Van Zuyren in 1561, the year when Coornhert published his edition of Cicero’s Offices; and was for some years a resident at Leyden. In 1578 he returned to Amsterdam. He is supposed to have died about the year 1595.[100]I am indebted to Hansard’sTypographia, (p. 60) for the above quotation; it is there quoted from Lemoine, (p. 99) without any further reference.[101]Van Zuyren.[102]Coornhert.[103]Guicciardini.[104]Dutch writers in accepting this tale of Junius as a genuine historical fact, have expended a vast amount of ingenuity in endeavouring to identify the workman and fix the date of the felony. The result is curious. Scriverius, writing in 1628, indicates John Gutenberg, in the year 1428; Boxhorn, in 1639, says it was John Faust, in 1420; Seiz, in 1740, says it was John Gutenberg, between the years 1428 and 1467; Meerman, in 1765, says it was John Gensfleisch the elder, in 1430; Westreenen, in 1809, says, about 1436, but does not give any name; Koning, in 1816, says it was Frielo Gensfleisch, between 1420 and 1436; De Vries, in 1822, says it was Johan Gensfleisch, in 1423; and Alb. Thijm, in 1867, says it was one Hans, in 1423. It is observable that all these writers decline to adopt the date which Junius fixes upon, antedating the occurrence from four to twenty years. This, however, they were compelled to do, in order to get rid of certain facts, which proved that the date 1440 was an impossible one, if either Faust or Gutenberg was to be criminated.[105]Humphreys, pp. 45 and 50.[106]“De Keulsche Kroniek en De Costerlegende van Dr. A. Van der Linde, te zamen getoetest door Dr. P. Van Meurs.”Haarlem, 1870.[107]“The recently erected statue of Koster at Haarlem, is one of the finest works of its class that I have ever had the good fortune to examine. The dimensions are colossal, the work of a French sculptor, M. Rouger. I could wish the artist were a Dutchman. The attitude of thestatue, nobly draped, and wearing the head gear of the time, is very impressive. The left hand clasps a book, while the right hand holds aloft, with an air of triumphant satisfaction, a “type,” by means of which the book has been, as it were, magically produced.”—Humphreys, p. 216.[108]“If,” saysSantander, “we examine all the authors without exception who have written in favour ofHaarlem, we shall not find the smallest proof, the least contemporaneous document, in support of their pretensions; all that we read in them, all that they allege, reduces itself to the narrative of Junius, which was itself composed from light hearsay evidence, and which each writer comments upon according to his fancy.” &c., &c.“What!” exclaimsOttley, “are the fragments ofDonatuses, foundin Holland, and printed in the same type as the Speculum, to be considered as no evidence whatever of early printingin that country,” &c., &c., &c.—Invention of Printing, p. 117.“Coster was the firstto use moveable [cast metal] types.... This view is not only supported by one of the earliest writers on the subject, but by ... Ulric Zell,” who says “Item: although this art was discovered at Mentz at first in the manner in which it is now commonly used,yet the first example of it was found in Holland,” &c.—Blades’sLife, &c. of W. Caxton, vol. i. p. 59.[109]After enumerating several works “printed with what may be termed Kosterian types,” Mr.Humphreyssays:—“Thus it is proved, not only that Koster is not a myth invented by the Dutch to glorify themselves, and that the ‘Speculum’ is not an isolated and unauthenticated monument; but that there was in all probability, a Koster (and if not, some other native of Holland) who was the printer of at least three out of the four editions of the ‘Speculum,’ and that his family successors, or pupils and workmen, continued to print in the same style after his death.”—Hist. of Art of Printing, p. 65.“The third edition [of the Speculum] has a much more important character than the second, being a Dutch translation in prose, printed by the same double process as the preceding, all the text being typographic, and only printed on one side of the paper. The issue of this edition (evidently from the same establishment), in the Dutch language, is an all sufficient proof of the celebrated ‘Speculum’ being beyond doubt, the production of a Dutch artisan, or rather artist,and if so, why not of Koster?”—Ib.p. 63.[110]Baron Heinecken, Santander, and others, assign a German origin to them.[111]“The Horarium (or more correctly A B C Darium) rendered so celebrated by the detailed notice of so many learned Bibliopolists, as one of the earliest efforts of Koster, and by some considered positively his first experimental work with moveable types, either of bark (?), wood (?), or metal, I have examined very closely, and do not consider that it has any claim whatever to be so considered. It is true, that both type and printing are rude, but that is no sufficient reason for assigning to it a strictly primitive character, as many rudely executed works might be cited long after the practical establishment of the Printing Press. The fact is, that its being printed on both sides, and the imposition for folding being arranged after the regular manner adopted when printing with moveable types was in general use, induce me to believe that it was printed long after the ‘Speculum,’ probably by the successors of Koster who used his types. Even the specimens of Donatuses, which I have examined in Holland (and elsewhere) especially in the Royal Library of the Hague, under the learned guidance of Dr. Holtrop and Mr. Campbel, lead me to the conviction that they were not essays by Koster anterior to the production of the ‘Speculum.’ It is true, that I was shewn a specimen of a Donatus printed on vellum, andon one side only, which has been recovered from the binding of an old Dutch book. But I look upon it as a rough ‘proof,’ that was never completed, and eventually used like ordinary waste to stiffen bindings.”—Humphreys, p. 215. This Horarium was discovered in the binding of an old book, forming in fact a portion of the binding. The pages are printed on vellum on both sides; and it has been pointed out that the letter i has a modern peculiarity in being dotted, instead of having, as in the ancient manuscripts and printed books, a stroke above it, thus, í. Enschedé who discovered the work, published a fac-simile of it in 1768. Chatto, who critically examined it, says, in Jackson’s Treatise on Wood-engraving (2d edit. 1861, p. 162,) “It is certainly such a one as he was most wishful to find, and which he in his capacity of type-founder and printer would find little difficulty in producing. I am firmly convinced that it is neither printed with wooden types, nor a specimen of early typography. I suspect it to be a Dutch typographic essay on popular credulity.”—This I think a harsh judgment; and, of the two, I prefer to believe, with Humphreys, that Enschedé was mistaken in supposing the pages he found to be a work, perhaps the earliest work, of Coster, rather than with Chatto, to suspect that he forged it himself.[112]The Town-hall at Haarlem possesses a collection of Costerian relics, but Mr. Humphreys says (p. 215) “they are not, as it seems to me, so important as many writers have deemed them.”[113]Inquiry, pp. 202–203.[114]“The works which may almost to a certainty be ascribed to the Costerian press after the death of the inventor, and the publication of theSpeculum, are various editions of the Donatus, Catonia Disticha, Laurentii Vallensi Facecie Morales, Ludovici Pontani de Roma Singularia in Causis Criminalibus, Gulielmus de Saliceto de Salute Corporis, Horarium, Alexandri Galli Doctrinale, Petri Hispani Tractatus, Francisci Petrarchæ de Salibus Virorum Illustrium et Faceciis Tractatus, &c., all of which are without date or name of printer, but are issued from the same press, and the types of which, perfectly like those in the Speculum, cannot be attributed by any such similarity to any other printing office either in Germany or even in Holland and the Low Countries.”—P. H. Berjeau, p. xxxvi.Introd. toOttley’sInquiry.[115]Meermanconsidered that this edition was the first, and only one printed by Coster, between the years 1430 and 1440; that the Latin edition with twenty pages of block-printing came next; then the other Dutch, and lastly the second Latin.Humphreys(p. 56,) concludes that all four editions were printed by Coster, the first being the one with twenty pages of xylographic text.Ottleyallows him one, and the greater part of another. Of the first edition (following Humphreys’ classification), ten copies are known—two in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, one in the British Museum, one in the Bodleian library at Oxford, one in the Spencer library, and five in Holland. Of the second edition there are six copies—one in the Imperial library at Vienna, one in the Palazzo Pitti at Florence, the third, without preface, in the Town Hall at Haarlem, the fourth with but 40 pages, in the library at Hanover, the fifth in the Royal library at Brussels; and the sixth and most perfect, the Inglis copy in the possession of Mr. Quaritch. Of the third edition (the first Dutch) copies are in the libraries of Lord Spencer, and Mr. Westreenen Von Tiellandt at the Hague; the fine copy formerly in the Enschedé collection is now in England. Of the fourth edition, only three copies are known—one in the Town Hall of Haarlem, the second in the public library of that city, and the third in the library at Lille. It is possible there may have been a larger number of early folio editions, as several of the above copies appear to have been made up from more than one.[116]“De l’Origine et des Débuts de l’Imprimerie en Europe.”Paris, 1853.[117]“Essai Historique et Critique sur l’Invention de l’Imprimerie.”Paris-Lille, 1859.[118]Mr. Humphreys concludes from his examination of the Dutch copy of theSpeculum, formerly in the Enschedé collection at Haarlem, that this edition was “by far the most finely executed.” It was sold, on the dispersion of the Enschedé collection in 1867, for 700 guineas. The purchaser, Mr. Quaritch of Piccadilly, it is understood has since resold it in England at a considerable advance. The same spirited bibliographer bought the Inglis copy (sold in 1871)—a specimen of the Latin edition with all the text in moveable types, in the most fine and perfect condition,—for £525.[119]From the fact that Enschedé was a printer and type-founder, his opinion has had great weight with subsequent writers. I have no doubt, however, but that his eagerness to secure for his own countryman and birth-place the honour of the invention of metal types, blinded him to the evidence which the letters in theSpeculumpresent to the contrary.[120]Prunelle, au Magazin Encyclopédique de 1806.[121]In plate 10, opposite page 295 in Mr. Ottley’s work, fac-similes are given of the types of theSpeculum, taken from the text beneath cuts 17 and 18. In these the capital D occurs twice, O three times, Q three times, S twice, T thrice, and V twice. And in every instance the differences are such as to shew that it was impossible for the several specimens of each of these letters to have been cast from a mould taken from either a pattern or a touched-up-type. What is true of the capitals is equally true of the smaller letters. The word ‘Tres’ for instance, occurs three times running, repeated exactly one under the other, thus affording the best possible condition for comparison. Each of the T’s—each of the compounded re’s,—and each of the s’s differ; they could not have been cast from the same matrix, nor could any one of them have stood for the original of successive mouldings for the rest, as suggested by Mr. Ottley.[122]“Der Heilsspiegel und alle andere Druckwerke, welche Meerman dem Laurens Koster und seinen Erben zuschreibt, sind alle mit gegossenen Typen gedruckt, und zwar gar nicht schlecht. Es ist unmöglich, mit hölzernen Buchstaben von solcher Kleinheit zu drucken.”—Krit. Gesch. der Erf. der Buchdruckerkunst, p. 590.[123]For the whole of his argument see pages 620–692 of his work. His object is to shew the probability that all the four folio editions may have been the work of Veldener at Utrecht. At page 654 he says, “that almost all the types used in the Netherlands have their original in those of the Rhine “Officinen,” is seen from the resemblance of the types of the Brethren of the Common Life at Marienthal on the Rhine, to those of Therhoernen of Cologne, and the Brethren at Brussels. Witness the fac-similes 1, 2, and 3, of Tab. 11, and especially all the fac-similes of Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12, (with the exception of Nos. 4 and 8 of Tab. 12.) Even the types of theSpeculumare nothing else than a diminution of the types of the 42-line (Mazarin) Bible, with sundry alterations in the capital letters.—The Dutch work of Ludovicus de Roma, ‘Singularia in causis criminalibus,’ (1471,) is printed with types, which, with the exception of the capital letters, are almost all such exact copies in size and shape of those of the Mazarin Bible, that they could cover each other reciprocally.”[124]“Idée Générale d’une collection complete d’Estampes.” 8vo.Leips.1771.[125]SeeWetter, p. 23.[126]M. Bernard; andP. C. Van der Meersch, in his “Recherches sur la Vie et les Travaux des Imprimeurs Belges et Néerlandais, établis a l’étranger.” 8vo.Gand, 1856:—are here referred to.[127]The manuscript from which these extracts are taken was brought to light by the Abbé Ghesquiere of Cambrai, in the year 1772. See “Esprit des Journaux,” June 1779, Nov. 1779, and April 1780.[128]“Notice sur Colard Mansion, Libraire et Imprimeur de la Ville de Bruges.” 8vo.Paris, 1829.[129]M. Berjeau, in Introduction to Ottley’s Inquiry concerning the Invention of Printing, p. xxxvii.[130]The discussion of this subject occupies the last 65 pages of Mr. Ottley’s work, the careful perusal of which will well repay the student of this most interesting branch of archæological research.[131]Seeante, p. 86.

[83]Schrijver, P. Laurecrans voor Laurens Coster.Haarlem, 1628. 4to.

[84]Hadrian Junius was born at Hoorn, in 1511, and is said to have been educated at a classical school of repute at Haarlem. He also studied at Louvain. He soon shewed himself a person of ability; and having embraced the medical profession, was appointed physician to the Duke of Norfolk, and afterwards to the King of Denmark. He is said to have taken up his abode in Haarlem in 1560, and to have resided there till 1572, when he quitted the city on account of the siege that then took place. According to Lypsius, he was the most learned man in Holland after Erasmus. His workBataviawas commenced late in life, and completed in January, 1575. His death took place at Middleburg, on the 16th June of the same year.

[85]The original will be found in the Appendix.

[86]The above translation is taken from the article on Printing in the Edinburgh edition (1815) of the Encyclopædia Britannica, supplemented by that given in Stower’s “Printers’ Grammar” (1808.) Both writers are strong pro-Costerians.

[87]Galius is probably the same who is calledClaesLottynz, Gael,Scabinus Haarlemi, as it is in the Fasti of that city, in the years 1531, 1533, and 1535. Quirinus in the same Fasti is called Mr. Quiryn Dirkszoon. He was many years amanuensis to Erasmus, as appears from his epistle 23rd July, 1529, tom iii. Oper. p. 1222. He was afterwards Scabinus in 1537et seq., and Consul in 1552,et seq.But in the troubles of Holland he was cruelly killed by the Spanish soldiers, May 23, 1563.

[88]Meerman’s Account of the family and descendants of Laurent Janssoen, vol. i. p. 38,et seq.

[89]Ottley’sInquiry, p. 308.

[90]Videch. xvii. of his work.

[91]The writer of these verses was one of the correctors of the press employed by Schœffer, though his name does not appear. He concludes with the expression of a desire, which to this day finds a responsive echo in the bosom of every author and printer whose soul has been vexed by the blunders of copyists and compositors:—“Oh!” is his pathetic exclamation,—“if they could succeed in purging the texts of all their faults!—those who arrange the characters, as well as those who read the proofs; the friends of literature would then infallibly award to them a crown of glory, who thus come in aid by their books to thousands of seats of learning.” It is not at all unlikely that these verses were the origin of Junius’s assertion, that the name of the workman who stole Coster’s types and implements, and carried them off to Mentz, was John.

[92]Mallinckrot, de Ortu et Progressu Artis Typographicæ.Coloniæ, 1639.

[93]In order to evade the force of Caxton’s testimony, Costerian writers assert that he merely recorded the popular belief of the time. But Caxton, as he himself tells us in one of his works, had been residing from 1441 to 1476 “in the countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland, and Zealand.” During the greater portion of this time he was the Governor of the Company of Merchant Adventurers, trading in Brabant, Flanders, &c., and his principal place of residence was Bruges, not far distant from Haarlem. The merchandise of those days was not confined to silks and woollens, but included the manuscripts and books of the period. Caxton, after his appointment to the household of the Duchess of Burgundy, gave his mind to literary pursuits, and practised the art of printing at Bruges. He was also well acquainted with Ulric Zell of Hainault, the first printer of Cologne, at which city some suppose, on the authority of Wynkyn de Woorde, his successor, he also printed a book. He could not therefore be ignorant of the facts of the case. His position and pursuits gave him every opportunity for ascertaining them; and he was not a man who neglected opportunities for acquiring knowledge. He must consequently have known and been well satisfied of the accuracy of the statement he gave currency to. Had Coster or any of his descendants been printing at Haarlem from 1428 to 1472, as many of these writers allege, Caxton must have known of it, and would not in such a case have asserted that the “craft of imprinting was first found in Mogunce in Almayne.”

[94]A General History of Printing, byS. Palmer, 4to.London, 1733. This work, although ostensibly written by Mr. S. Palmer, a London printer of some eminence, was in fact the production of the learned Psalmanazar.

[95]As the Chronicle in which this account is given, is said to have been finished in the year 1514, Trithemius (b.1462;d.1516,) would have heard the particulars from Peter Schœffer, about the year 1484. The abbot would then have been twenty-two years of age.—Meerman, vol. ii. p. 101,n.The manuscript of the Chronicle was not discovered until near the close of the seventeenth century, when it was printed at St. Gall in the year 1690.

[96]This fact is much overlooked by writers who invariably refer to Zell as a German authority. Hainault is a province adjoining South Brabant and West Flanders, in which provinces are situated the towns of Haarlem and Bruges, where Coster and Caxton resided. Along with Holland, Hainault was forcibly annexed by Philip of Burgundy in 1426. No doubt many of the families opposed to the annexation sought safety in flight, and among these may be included that of the Zells. But it is hardly to be credited that Ulric’s love of Fatherland was extinguished by his expatriation; or that he would give to Germany and Mentz, the honor that rightly belonged to Holland and Haarlem. All that he says, amounts to the statement, that Block-book Donatuses were printed in Holland, before printing,in the way it is commonly used, was invented at Mentz. If, as Costerians contend, “printing in the way it is commonly used” was known and practised by Laurent Janssoen in Haarlem from 1428 to 1440, both Caxton and Zell must have known of it; and would have stated it as a fact. The only inference therefore that can be drawn from what they say, as well as from what they do not say on the subject, is, that Typography was invented at Mentz, and was not known at Haarlem until after the advent of the first printer there in 1483.

[97]“Admiranda ars typographica ab ingenioso Johanne Guttenbergio, anno a nativitate Christi, Domini nostri, 1450, inventa, et posthac studio, sumtu et labore Johannis Fust et Petri Schœfferi Moguntiæ, emendata et ad posteros propagata est.”

[98]Hic ubi postremo descendit gurgite Moenus,Excipit et socias littore Rhenus aquasHanc peperit captis antiqua Moguntia murisHorrida dum tristis fata canebat avis.* * * * *Sæcula bis septem numerabant ordine fatiChristigenæ, hinc illis lustra decemque dabant,Tertius ac orbis Fridericus frena regebat,* * * * *Clarus Joannes en Gutenbergius hic est,A quo, ceu vivo flumine, manat opus.Hic est Aonidum custos fidissimus, hic est,Qui referat latices, quos pede fudit equus,Quam veteres nobis Argenti voce notarunt,A puero fertur sustinuisse virum;Illa sed huic civi largita est munera grata,Cui clarumnomenMogus habere dedit.Primitias illic coepit formare laboris,Ast hic maturum protulit artis opus.Stemmate præstabat; vicit virtute sed illud;Dicitur hinc veræ nobilitatis Eques.Annulis in digitis erat illi occasio prima,Palladium ut caelo sollicitaret opus.Illum tentabat molli committere ceræ,Redderet ut nomen littera sculpta suum.Respicit archetypos, auri vestigia lustrans,Et secum tacitus talia verba refert:Quam belle pandit certas hæc orbita voces,Monstrat et exactis apta reperta libris.Quid, si nunc justos, æris ratione reducta,Tentarem libros cudere mille modis?—v.v. 19–66.

[98]

Hic ubi postremo descendit gurgite Moenus,Excipit et socias littore Rhenus aquasHanc peperit captis antiqua Moguntia murisHorrida dum tristis fata canebat avis.* * * * *Sæcula bis septem numerabant ordine fatiChristigenæ, hinc illis lustra decemque dabant,Tertius ac orbis Fridericus frena regebat,* * * * *Clarus Joannes en Gutenbergius hic est,A quo, ceu vivo flumine, manat opus.Hic est Aonidum custos fidissimus, hic est,Qui referat latices, quos pede fudit equus,Quam veteres nobis Argenti voce notarunt,A puero fertur sustinuisse virum;Illa sed huic civi largita est munera grata,Cui clarumnomenMogus habere dedit.Primitias illic coepit formare laboris,Ast hic maturum protulit artis opus.Stemmate præstabat; vicit virtute sed illud;Dicitur hinc veræ nobilitatis Eques.Annulis in digitis erat illi occasio prima,Palladium ut caelo sollicitaret opus.Illum tentabat molli committere ceræ,Redderet ut nomen littera sculpta suum.Respicit archetypos, auri vestigia lustrans,Et secum tacitus talia verba refert:Quam belle pandit certas hæc orbita voces,Monstrat et exactis apta reperta libris.Quid, si nunc justos, æris ratione reducta,Tentarem libros cudere mille modis?—v.v. 19–66.

Hic ubi postremo descendit gurgite Moenus,

Excipit et socias littore Rhenus aquas

Hanc peperit captis antiqua Moguntia muris

Horrida dum tristis fata canebat avis.

* * * * *

Sæcula bis septem numerabant ordine fati

Christigenæ, hinc illis lustra decemque dabant,

Tertius ac orbis Fridericus frena regebat,

* * * * *

Clarus Joannes en Gutenbergius hic est,

A quo, ceu vivo flumine, manat opus.

Hic est Aonidum custos fidissimus, hic est,

Qui referat latices, quos pede fudit equus,

Quam veteres nobis Argenti voce notarunt,

A puero fertur sustinuisse virum;

Illa sed huic civi largita est munera grata,

Cui clarumnomenMogus habere dedit.

Primitias illic coepit formare laboris,

Ast hic maturum protulit artis opus.

Stemmate præstabat; vicit virtute sed illud;

Dicitur hinc veræ nobilitatis Eques.

Annulis in digitis erat illi occasio prima,

Palladium ut caelo sollicitaret opus.

Illum tentabat molli committere ceræ,

Redderet ut nomen littera sculpta suum.

Respicit archetypos, auri vestigia lustrans,

Et secum tacitus talia verba refert:

Quam belle pandit certas hæc orbita voces,

Monstrat et exactis apta reperta libris.

Quid, si nunc justos, æris ratione reducta,

Tentarem libros cudere mille modis?—v.v. 19–66.

[99]Van Opmer was born at Amsterdam in 1526. He studied the classics at the Universities of Louvain and Delft; and also made himself a proficient in painting, engraving and architecture. He was known to Van Zuyren in 1561, the year when Coornhert published his edition of Cicero’s Offices; and was for some years a resident at Leyden. In 1578 he returned to Amsterdam. He is supposed to have died about the year 1595.

[100]I am indebted to Hansard’sTypographia, (p. 60) for the above quotation; it is there quoted from Lemoine, (p. 99) without any further reference.

[101]Van Zuyren.

[102]Coornhert.

[103]Guicciardini.

[104]Dutch writers in accepting this tale of Junius as a genuine historical fact, have expended a vast amount of ingenuity in endeavouring to identify the workman and fix the date of the felony. The result is curious. Scriverius, writing in 1628, indicates John Gutenberg, in the year 1428; Boxhorn, in 1639, says it was John Faust, in 1420; Seiz, in 1740, says it was John Gutenberg, between the years 1428 and 1467; Meerman, in 1765, says it was John Gensfleisch the elder, in 1430; Westreenen, in 1809, says, about 1436, but does not give any name; Koning, in 1816, says it was Frielo Gensfleisch, between 1420 and 1436; De Vries, in 1822, says it was Johan Gensfleisch, in 1423; and Alb. Thijm, in 1867, says it was one Hans, in 1423. It is observable that all these writers decline to adopt the date which Junius fixes upon, antedating the occurrence from four to twenty years. This, however, they were compelled to do, in order to get rid of certain facts, which proved that the date 1440 was an impossible one, if either Faust or Gutenberg was to be criminated.

[105]Humphreys, pp. 45 and 50.

[106]“De Keulsche Kroniek en De Costerlegende van Dr. A. Van der Linde, te zamen getoetest door Dr. P. Van Meurs.”Haarlem, 1870.

[107]“The recently erected statue of Koster at Haarlem, is one of the finest works of its class that I have ever had the good fortune to examine. The dimensions are colossal, the work of a French sculptor, M. Rouger. I could wish the artist were a Dutchman. The attitude of thestatue, nobly draped, and wearing the head gear of the time, is very impressive. The left hand clasps a book, while the right hand holds aloft, with an air of triumphant satisfaction, a “type,” by means of which the book has been, as it were, magically produced.”—Humphreys, p. 216.

[108]“If,” saysSantander, “we examine all the authors without exception who have written in favour ofHaarlem, we shall not find the smallest proof, the least contemporaneous document, in support of their pretensions; all that we read in them, all that they allege, reduces itself to the narrative of Junius, which was itself composed from light hearsay evidence, and which each writer comments upon according to his fancy.” &c., &c.“What!” exclaimsOttley, “are the fragments ofDonatuses, foundin Holland, and printed in the same type as the Speculum, to be considered as no evidence whatever of early printingin that country,” &c., &c., &c.—Invention of Printing, p. 117.“Coster was the firstto use moveable [cast metal] types.... This view is not only supported by one of the earliest writers on the subject, but by ... Ulric Zell,” who says “Item: although this art was discovered at Mentz at first in the manner in which it is now commonly used,yet the first example of it was found in Holland,” &c.—Blades’sLife, &c. of W. Caxton, vol. i. p. 59.

“What!” exclaimsOttley, “are the fragments ofDonatuses, foundin Holland, and printed in the same type as the Speculum, to be considered as no evidence whatever of early printingin that country,” &c., &c., &c.—Invention of Printing, p. 117.

“Coster was the firstto use moveable [cast metal] types.... This view is not only supported by one of the earliest writers on the subject, but by ... Ulric Zell,” who says “Item: although this art was discovered at Mentz at first in the manner in which it is now commonly used,yet the first example of it was found in Holland,” &c.—Blades’sLife, &c. of W. Caxton, vol. i. p. 59.

[109]After enumerating several works “printed with what may be termed Kosterian types,” Mr.Humphreyssays:—“Thus it is proved, not only that Koster is not a myth invented by the Dutch to glorify themselves, and that the ‘Speculum’ is not an isolated and unauthenticated monument; but that there was in all probability, a Koster (and if not, some other native of Holland) who was the printer of at least three out of the four editions of the ‘Speculum,’ and that his family successors, or pupils and workmen, continued to print in the same style after his death.”—Hist. of Art of Printing, p. 65.“The third edition [of the Speculum] has a much more important character than the second, being a Dutch translation in prose, printed by the same double process as the preceding, all the text being typographic, and only printed on one side of the paper. The issue of this edition (evidently from the same establishment), in the Dutch language, is an all sufficient proof of the celebrated ‘Speculum’ being beyond doubt, the production of a Dutch artisan, or rather artist,and if so, why not of Koster?”—Ib.p. 63.

“The third edition [of the Speculum] has a much more important character than the second, being a Dutch translation in prose, printed by the same double process as the preceding, all the text being typographic, and only printed on one side of the paper. The issue of this edition (evidently from the same establishment), in the Dutch language, is an all sufficient proof of the celebrated ‘Speculum’ being beyond doubt, the production of a Dutch artisan, or rather artist,and if so, why not of Koster?”—Ib.p. 63.

[110]Baron Heinecken, Santander, and others, assign a German origin to them.

[111]“The Horarium (or more correctly A B C Darium) rendered so celebrated by the detailed notice of so many learned Bibliopolists, as one of the earliest efforts of Koster, and by some considered positively his first experimental work with moveable types, either of bark (?), wood (?), or metal, I have examined very closely, and do not consider that it has any claim whatever to be so considered. It is true, that both type and printing are rude, but that is no sufficient reason for assigning to it a strictly primitive character, as many rudely executed works might be cited long after the practical establishment of the Printing Press. The fact is, that its being printed on both sides, and the imposition for folding being arranged after the regular manner adopted when printing with moveable types was in general use, induce me to believe that it was printed long after the ‘Speculum,’ probably by the successors of Koster who used his types. Even the specimens of Donatuses, which I have examined in Holland (and elsewhere) especially in the Royal Library of the Hague, under the learned guidance of Dr. Holtrop and Mr. Campbel, lead me to the conviction that they were not essays by Koster anterior to the production of the ‘Speculum.’ It is true, that I was shewn a specimen of a Donatus printed on vellum, andon one side only, which has been recovered from the binding of an old Dutch book. But I look upon it as a rough ‘proof,’ that was never completed, and eventually used like ordinary waste to stiffen bindings.”—Humphreys, p. 215. This Horarium was discovered in the binding of an old book, forming in fact a portion of the binding. The pages are printed on vellum on both sides; and it has been pointed out that the letter i has a modern peculiarity in being dotted, instead of having, as in the ancient manuscripts and printed books, a stroke above it, thus, í. Enschedé who discovered the work, published a fac-simile of it in 1768. Chatto, who critically examined it, says, in Jackson’s Treatise on Wood-engraving (2d edit. 1861, p. 162,) “It is certainly such a one as he was most wishful to find, and which he in his capacity of type-founder and printer would find little difficulty in producing. I am firmly convinced that it is neither printed with wooden types, nor a specimen of early typography. I suspect it to be a Dutch typographic essay on popular credulity.”—This I think a harsh judgment; and, of the two, I prefer to believe, with Humphreys, that Enschedé was mistaken in supposing the pages he found to be a work, perhaps the earliest work, of Coster, rather than with Chatto, to suspect that he forged it himself.

[112]The Town-hall at Haarlem possesses a collection of Costerian relics, but Mr. Humphreys says (p. 215) “they are not, as it seems to me, so important as many writers have deemed them.”

[113]Inquiry, pp. 202–203.

[114]“The works which may almost to a certainty be ascribed to the Costerian press after the death of the inventor, and the publication of theSpeculum, are various editions of the Donatus, Catonia Disticha, Laurentii Vallensi Facecie Morales, Ludovici Pontani de Roma Singularia in Causis Criminalibus, Gulielmus de Saliceto de Salute Corporis, Horarium, Alexandri Galli Doctrinale, Petri Hispani Tractatus, Francisci Petrarchæ de Salibus Virorum Illustrium et Faceciis Tractatus, &c., all of which are without date or name of printer, but are issued from the same press, and the types of which, perfectly like those in the Speculum, cannot be attributed by any such similarity to any other printing office either in Germany or even in Holland and the Low Countries.”—P. H. Berjeau, p. xxxvi.Introd. toOttley’sInquiry.

[115]Meermanconsidered that this edition was the first, and only one printed by Coster, between the years 1430 and 1440; that the Latin edition with twenty pages of block-printing came next; then the other Dutch, and lastly the second Latin.Humphreys(p. 56,) concludes that all four editions were printed by Coster, the first being the one with twenty pages of xylographic text.Ottleyallows him one, and the greater part of another. Of the first edition (following Humphreys’ classification), ten copies are known—two in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, one in the British Museum, one in the Bodleian library at Oxford, one in the Spencer library, and five in Holland. Of the second edition there are six copies—one in the Imperial library at Vienna, one in the Palazzo Pitti at Florence, the third, without preface, in the Town Hall at Haarlem, the fourth with but 40 pages, in the library at Hanover, the fifth in the Royal library at Brussels; and the sixth and most perfect, the Inglis copy in the possession of Mr. Quaritch. Of the third edition (the first Dutch) copies are in the libraries of Lord Spencer, and Mr. Westreenen Von Tiellandt at the Hague; the fine copy formerly in the Enschedé collection is now in England. Of the fourth edition, only three copies are known—one in the Town Hall of Haarlem, the second in the public library of that city, and the third in the library at Lille. It is possible there may have been a larger number of early folio editions, as several of the above copies appear to have been made up from more than one.

[116]“De l’Origine et des Débuts de l’Imprimerie en Europe.”Paris, 1853.

[117]“Essai Historique et Critique sur l’Invention de l’Imprimerie.”Paris-Lille, 1859.

[118]Mr. Humphreys concludes from his examination of the Dutch copy of theSpeculum, formerly in the Enschedé collection at Haarlem, that this edition was “by far the most finely executed.” It was sold, on the dispersion of the Enschedé collection in 1867, for 700 guineas. The purchaser, Mr. Quaritch of Piccadilly, it is understood has since resold it in England at a considerable advance. The same spirited bibliographer bought the Inglis copy (sold in 1871)—a specimen of the Latin edition with all the text in moveable types, in the most fine and perfect condition,—for £525.

[119]From the fact that Enschedé was a printer and type-founder, his opinion has had great weight with subsequent writers. I have no doubt, however, but that his eagerness to secure for his own countryman and birth-place the honour of the invention of metal types, blinded him to the evidence which the letters in theSpeculumpresent to the contrary.

[120]Prunelle, au Magazin Encyclopédique de 1806.

[121]In plate 10, opposite page 295 in Mr. Ottley’s work, fac-similes are given of the types of theSpeculum, taken from the text beneath cuts 17 and 18. In these the capital D occurs twice, O three times, Q three times, S twice, T thrice, and V twice. And in every instance the differences are such as to shew that it was impossible for the several specimens of each of these letters to have been cast from a mould taken from either a pattern or a touched-up-type. What is true of the capitals is equally true of the smaller letters. The word ‘Tres’ for instance, occurs three times running, repeated exactly one under the other, thus affording the best possible condition for comparison. Each of the T’s—each of the compounded re’s,—and each of the s’s differ; they could not have been cast from the same matrix, nor could any one of them have stood for the original of successive mouldings for the rest, as suggested by Mr. Ottley.

[122]“Der Heilsspiegel und alle andere Druckwerke, welche Meerman dem Laurens Koster und seinen Erben zuschreibt, sind alle mit gegossenen Typen gedruckt, und zwar gar nicht schlecht. Es ist unmöglich, mit hölzernen Buchstaben von solcher Kleinheit zu drucken.”—Krit. Gesch. der Erf. der Buchdruckerkunst, p. 590.

[123]For the whole of his argument see pages 620–692 of his work. His object is to shew the probability that all the four folio editions may have been the work of Veldener at Utrecht. At page 654 he says, “that almost all the types used in the Netherlands have their original in those of the Rhine “Officinen,” is seen from the resemblance of the types of the Brethren of the Common Life at Marienthal on the Rhine, to those of Therhoernen of Cologne, and the Brethren at Brussels. Witness the fac-similes 1, 2, and 3, of Tab. 11, and especially all the fac-similes of Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12, (with the exception of Nos. 4 and 8 of Tab. 12.) Even the types of theSpeculumare nothing else than a diminution of the types of the 42-line (Mazarin) Bible, with sundry alterations in the capital letters.—The Dutch work of Ludovicus de Roma, ‘Singularia in causis criminalibus,’ (1471,) is printed with types, which, with the exception of the capital letters, are almost all such exact copies in size and shape of those of the Mazarin Bible, that they could cover each other reciprocally.”

[124]“Idée Générale d’une collection complete d’Estampes.” 8vo.Leips.1771.

[125]SeeWetter, p. 23.

[126]M. Bernard; andP. C. Van der Meersch, in his “Recherches sur la Vie et les Travaux des Imprimeurs Belges et Néerlandais, établis a l’étranger.” 8vo.Gand, 1856:—are here referred to.

[127]The manuscript from which these extracts are taken was brought to light by the Abbé Ghesquiere of Cambrai, in the year 1772. See “Esprit des Journaux,” June 1779, Nov. 1779, and April 1780.

[128]“Notice sur Colard Mansion, Libraire et Imprimeur de la Ville de Bruges.” 8vo.Paris, 1829.

[129]M. Berjeau, in Introduction to Ottley’s Inquiry concerning the Invention of Printing, p. xxxvii.

[130]The discussion of this subject occupies the last 65 pages of Mr. Ottley’s work, the careful perusal of which will well repay the student of this most interesting branch of archæological research.

[131]Seeante, p. 86.

Back to Index Next