FOOTNOTES:[148]Dr. Van Der Linde infers that the Latin edition of the Speculum, wholly printed with separable types, was the first, and the one with the twenty pages of solid blocks, the second. From the fact, that the curious manuscript of the “Spiegel der behoudenis,” (written on 290 8vo. leaves of vellum), which is preserved at Haarlem, has the following inscription at the end, “Dit boec is gheeyndet int jaer ons herenMCCCC endeIII endetsestich optenXVI dach in jul. Een ave Maria on God voer die scrijver;” and that another inscription in it states, that it belonged to “Cayman Janszoen of Zierickzee, living with the Carthusians near Utrecht;” the Dr. comes to the following conclusion: “Therefore, the Speculum was written, and finished in the Dutch language at Utrecht in 1464, in the daysbeforethe introduction of the art of printing.”... “Utrecht had an episcopal see, a gymnasium, a Burgundian prince,—indeed, if hypotheses are allowed, then is that of anUtrechtorigin of the Specula provisionally, the only reasonable one.”—pp. 34, 38.[149]Seven different kinds of types of theSpeculumschool have been identified, and these are used in 43 different specimens, many of which are second and subsequent editions. It is not however, material to the validity of the argument, that the whole of these seven different kinds of types should be proved to have been made of wood; it is enough, in the absence of the actual types themselves, that there is reasonable evidence, from their appearance in print, as well as from the probabilities of the case, that some of them were so made. To argue, that because Trithemius, Bergellanus, J. F. Faust, or others, may have misrepresented, unintentionally or otherwise, some of the leading facts in connection with the origin, or the inventors, of typography, therefore, on this one point of the original use of wooden letters, in which they all agree, they are not to be believed, is unworthy of one who assumes the functions of, and desires to be looked up to as, a sound historical critic.
[148]Dr. Van Der Linde infers that the Latin edition of the Speculum, wholly printed with separable types, was the first, and the one with the twenty pages of solid blocks, the second. From the fact, that the curious manuscript of the “Spiegel der behoudenis,” (written on 290 8vo. leaves of vellum), which is preserved at Haarlem, has the following inscription at the end, “Dit boec is gheeyndet int jaer ons herenMCCCC endeIII endetsestich optenXVI dach in jul. Een ave Maria on God voer die scrijver;” and that another inscription in it states, that it belonged to “Cayman Janszoen of Zierickzee, living with the Carthusians near Utrecht;” the Dr. comes to the following conclusion: “Therefore, the Speculum was written, and finished in the Dutch language at Utrecht in 1464, in the daysbeforethe introduction of the art of printing.”... “Utrecht had an episcopal see, a gymnasium, a Burgundian prince,—indeed, if hypotheses are allowed, then is that of anUtrechtorigin of the Specula provisionally, the only reasonable one.”—pp. 34, 38.
[148]Dr. Van Der Linde infers that the Latin edition of the Speculum, wholly printed with separable types, was the first, and the one with the twenty pages of solid blocks, the second. From the fact, that the curious manuscript of the “Spiegel der behoudenis,” (written on 290 8vo. leaves of vellum), which is preserved at Haarlem, has the following inscription at the end, “Dit boec is gheeyndet int jaer ons herenMCCCC endeIII endetsestich optenXVI dach in jul. Een ave Maria on God voer die scrijver;” and that another inscription in it states, that it belonged to “Cayman Janszoen of Zierickzee, living with the Carthusians near Utrecht;” the Dr. comes to the following conclusion: “Therefore, the Speculum was written, and finished in the Dutch language at Utrecht in 1464, in the daysbeforethe introduction of the art of printing.”... “Utrecht had an episcopal see, a gymnasium, a Burgundian prince,—indeed, if hypotheses are allowed, then is that of anUtrechtorigin of the Specula provisionally, the only reasonable one.”—pp. 34, 38.
[149]Seven different kinds of types of theSpeculumschool have been identified, and these are used in 43 different specimens, many of which are second and subsequent editions. It is not however, material to the validity of the argument, that the whole of these seven different kinds of types should be proved to have been made of wood; it is enough, in the absence of the actual types themselves, that there is reasonable evidence, from their appearance in print, as well as from the probabilities of the case, that some of them were so made. To argue, that because Trithemius, Bergellanus, J. F. Faust, or others, may have misrepresented, unintentionally or otherwise, some of the leading facts in connection with the origin, or the inventors, of typography, therefore, on this one point of the original use of wooden letters, in which they all agree, they are not to be believed, is unworthy of one who assumes the functions of, and desires to be looked up to as, a sound historical critic.
[149]Seven different kinds of types of theSpeculumschool have been identified, and these are used in 43 different specimens, many of which are second and subsequent editions. It is not however, material to the validity of the argument, that the whole of these seven different kinds of types should be proved to have been made of wood; it is enough, in the absence of the actual types themselves, that there is reasonable evidence, from their appearance in print, as well as from the probabilities of the case, that some of them were so made. To argue, that because Trithemius, Bergellanus, J. F. Faust, or others, may have misrepresented, unintentionally or otherwise, some of the leading facts in connection with the origin, or the inventors, of typography, therefore, on this one point of the original use of wooden letters, in which they all agree, they are not to be believed, is unworthy of one who assumes the functions of, and desires to be looked up to as, a sound historical critic.