Chapter III: Invention of Typography (2)

It has been stated that previous to the introduction of metal types Gutemberg and Faust used moveable types of wood; and Schœpflin speaks confidently of such being used at Strasburg by Mentelin long after Scheffer had introduced the improved method of forming metal types by means of punches and matrices. On this subject, however, Schœpflin’s opinion is of very little weight, for on whatever relates to the practice of typography or wood engraving he was very slightly informed. He fancies that all the books printed at Strasburg previous to the appearance of _Vincentii Bellovacensis Speculum Historiale_ in 1473, were printed with moveable types of wood. It is, however, doubtful if ever a single book was printed in this manner.

Willett in his Essay on Printing, published in the eleventh volume of the Archæologia, not only says that no entire book was ever printed with wooden types, but adds, “I venture to pronounce it impossible.” He has pronounced rashly. Although it certainly would be a work of considerable labour to cut a set of moveable letters of the size of what is called Donatus type, and sufficient to print such a book, yet it is by no means impossible. That such books as “_Eyn Manung der Cristenheit widder die durken_,” of which a fac-simile is given by Aretin, and the first and second Donatuses, of which specimens are given by Fischer, might be printed from wooden types I am perfectly satisfied, though I am decidedly of opinion that they were not. Marchand has doubted the possibility of printing with wooden types, which he observes would be apt to warp when wet for the purpose of cleaning; but it is to be observed that they would not require to be cleaned before they were used.

Fournier, who was a letter-founder, and who occasionally practised wood engraving, speaks positively of the Psalter first printed by Faust and Scheffer in 1457, and again in 1459, being printed with wooden types; and he expresses his conviction of the practicability of cutting and printing with such types, provided that they were not of a smaller size than Great Primer Roman. Meerman shows the possibility of using such types; and Camus caused two lines of the Bible, supposed to have been printed by Gutemberg, to be cut in separate letters on wood, and which sustained the action of the press.[III-35] Lambinet says, it is certain that Gutemberg cut moveable letters of wood, but he gives no authority for the assertion; and I am of opinion that no unexceptionable testimony on this point can be produced. The statements of Serarius and Paulus Pater,[III-36] who profess to have seen such ancient wooden types at Mentz, are entitled to as little credit as Daniel Specklin, who asserted that he had seen such at Strasburg. They may have seen large initial letters of wood with holes bored through, but scarcely any lower-case letters which were ever used in printing any book.

[Footnote III-35: Oberlin, Essai d’Annales de la Vie de
Gutenberg.]

[Footnote III-36: “. . . . ligneos typos, ex buxi frutice,
perforatos in medio, ut zona colligari una jungique commode
possint, ex Fausti officina reliquos, Moguntiæ aliquando me
conspexisse memini.”--Paulus Pater, in Dissertatione de Typis
Literarum, &c. p, 10. 4to. Lipsiæ, 1710. Heineken, at p. 254 of
his Idée Gén., declares himself to be convinced that Gutemberg had
cut separate letters on wood, but he thinks that no person would
be able to cut a quantity sufficient to print whole sheets, and,
still less, large volumes as many pretend.]

That experiments might be made by Gutemberg with wooden types I can believe, though I have not been able to find any sufficient authority for the fact. Of the possibility of cutting moveable types of a certain size in wood, and of printing a book with them, I am convinced from experiment; and could convince others, were it worth the expense, by printing a fac-simile, from wooden types, of any page of any book which is of an earlier date than 1462. But, though convinced of the possibility of printing small works in letters of a certain size, with wooden types, I have never seen any early specimens of typography which contained positive and indisputable indications of having been printed in that manner. It was, until of late, confidently asserted by persons who pretended to have a competent knowledge of the subject, that the text of the celebrated Adventures of Theurdank, printed in 1517, had been engraved on wood-blocks, and their statement was generally believed. There cannot, however, now be a doubt in the mind of any person who examines the book, and who has the slightest knowledge of wood engraving and printing, of the text being printed with metal types.

During the partnership of Gutemberg and Faust it is likely that they printed some works, though there is scarcely one which can be assigned to them with any degree of certainty. One of the supposed earliest productions of typography is a letter of indulgence conceded on the 12th of August, 1451, by Pope Nicholas V, to Paulin Zappe, counsellor and ambassador of John, King of Cyprus. It was to be in force for three years from the 1st of May, 1452, and it granted indulgence to all persons who within that period should contribute towards the defence of Cyprus against the Turks. Four copies of this indulgence are known, printed on vellum in the manner of a patent or brief. The characters are of a larger size than those of the “Durandi Rationale,” 1459, or of the Latin Bible printed by Faust and Scheffer in 1462. The following date appears at the conclusion of one of the copies: “Datum _Erffurdie_ sub anno Domini m cccc liiij, die vero _quinta decima_ mensis _novembris_.” The words which are here printed in Italic, are in the original written with a pen. A copy of the same indulgence discovered by Professor Gebhardi is more complete. It has at the end, a “_Forma plenissimæ absolutionis et remissionis in vita et in mortis articulo_,”--a form of plenary absolution and remission in life and at the point of death. At the conclusion is the following date, the words in Italics being inserted with a pen: “Datum in _Luneborch_ anno Domini m cccc l _quinto_, die vero _vicesima sexta_ mensis _Januarii_.” Heineken, who saw this copy in the possession of Breitkopf, has observed that in the original date, m cccc liiij, the last four characters had been effaced and the word _quinto_ written with a pen; but yet in such a manner that the numerals iiij might still be perceived. In two copies of this indulgence in the possession of Earl Spencer, described by Dr. Dibdin in the Bibliotheca Spenceriana, vol. i. p. 44, the final units (iiij) have not had the word “quinto” overwritten, but have been formed with a pen into the numeral V. In the catalogue of Dr. Kloss’s library, No. 1287, it is stated that a fragment of a “Donatus” there described, consisting of two leaves of parchment, is printed with the same type as the Mazarine Bible; and it is added, on the authority of George Appleyard, Esq., Earl Spencer’s librarian, that the “Littera Indulgentiæ” of Pope Nicholas V, in his lordship’s possession, contains two lines printed with the same type. Breitkopf had some doubts respecting this instrument; but a writer in the Jena Literary Gazette is certainly wrong in supposing that it had been ante-dated ten years. It was only to be in force for three years; and Pope Nicholas V, by whom it was granted, died on the 24th March, 1455.[III-37] Two words, UNIVERSIS and PAULINUS, which are printed in capitals in the first two lines, are said to be of the same type as those of a Bible of which Schelhorn has given a specimen in his “Dissertation on an early Edition of the Bible,” Ulm, 1760.

[Footnote III-37: Oberlin, Essai d’Annales de la Vie de
Gutenberg.]

The next earliest specimen of typography with a date is the tract entitled “_Eyn Manung der Cristenkeit widder die durken_,”--An Appeal to Christendom against the Turks,--which has been alluded to at page 136. A lithographic fac-simile of the whole of this tract, which consists of nine printed pages of a quarto size, is given by Aretin at the end of his “Essay on the earliest historical results of the invention of Printing,” published at Munich in 1808. This “Appeal” is in German rhyme, and it consists of exhortations, arranged under every month in the manner of a calendar, addressed to the pope, the emperor, to kings, princes, bishops, and free states, encouraging them to take up arms and resist the Turks. The exhortation for January is addressed to Pope Nicholas V, who died, as has been observed, in March 1455. Towards the conclusion of the prologue is the date “_Als man zelet noch din’ geburt offenbar m.cccc.lv. iar sieben wochen und iiii do by von nativitatis bis esto michi_.” At the conclusion of the exhortation for December are the following words: “Eyn gut selig nuwe Jar:” A happy new year! From these circumstances Aretin is of opinion that the tract was printed towards the end of 1454. M. Bernhart, however, one of the superintendents of the Royal Library at Munich, of which Aretin was the principal director, has questioned the accuracy of this date; and from certain allusions in the exhortation for December, has endeavoured to show that the correct date ought to be 1472.[III-38]

[Footnote III-38: Dr. Dibdin, Bibliog. Tour, vol iii. p. 135,
second edition.]

Fischer in looking over some old papers discovered a calendar of a folio size, and printed on one side only, for 1457. The letters, according to his description, resemble those of a Donatus, of which he has given a specimen in the third part of his Typographic Rarities, and he supposes that both the Donatus and the Calendar were printed by Gutemberg.[III-39] It is, however, certain that the Donatus which he ascribed to Gutemberg was printed by Peter Scheffer, and in all probability after Faust’s death; and from the similarity of the type it is likely that the Calendar was printed at the same office. Fischer, having observed that the large ornamental capitals of this Donatus were the same as those in the Psalter printed by Faust and Scheffer in 1457, was led most erroneously to conclude that the large ornamental letters of the Psalter, which were most likely of wood, had been cut by Gutemberg. The discovery of a Donatus with Peter Scheffer’s imprint has completely destroyed his conjectures, and invalidated the arguments advanced by him in favour of the Mazarine Bible being printed by Gutemberg alone.

[Footnote III-39: Gotthelf Fischer, Notice du premier livre
imprimé avec date. 4to. Mayence, An xi. Typographisch. Seltenheit.
6te. Lieferung, S. 25. 8vo. Nürnberg, 1804. When Fischer published
his account of the Calendar, Aretin had not discovered the tract
entitled “_Eyn Manung der Cristenheit widder die durken_.”]

As Trithemius and the compiler of the Cologne Chronicle have mentioned a Bible as one of the first books printed by Gutemberg and Faust, it has been a fertile subject of discussion among bibliographers to ascertain the identical edition to which the honour was to be awarded. It seems, however, to be now generally admitted that the edition called the Mazarine[III-40] is the best entitled to that distinction. In 1789 Maugerard produced a copy of this edition to the Academy of Metz, containing memoranda which seem clearly to prove that it was printed at least as early as August 1456. As the partnership between Gutemberg and Faust was only dissolved in November 1455, it is almost impossible that such could have been printed by either of them separately in the space of eight months; and as there seems no reason to believe that any other typographical establishment existed at that period, it is most likely that this was the identical edition alluded to by Trithemius as having cost 4,000 florins before the partners, Gutemberg and Faust, had finished the third quaternion, or quire of four sheets.

[Footnote III-40: It is called the Mazarine Bible in consequence
of the first known copy being discovered in the library formed by
Cardinal Mazarine. Dr. Dibdin, in his Bibliographical Tour, vol.
ii. p. 191, mentions having seen not fewer than ten or twelve
copies of this edition, which he says must not be designated as
“of the very first degree of rarity.” An edition of the Bible,
supposed to have been printed at Bamberg by Albert Pfister about
1461, is much more scarce.]

The copy produced by Maugerard is printed on paper, and is now in the Royal Library at Paris. It is bound in two volumes; and every complete page consists of two columns, each containing forty-two lines. At the conclusion of the first volume the person by whom it was rubricated[III-41] and bound has written the following memorandum: “_Et sic est finis prime partis biblie. Scr. Veteris testamenti. Illuminata seu rubricata et illuminata p’ henricum Albeh alius Cremer anno dn’i m.cccc.lvi festo Bartholomei apli--Deo gratias--alleluja._” At the end of the second volume the same person has written the date in words at length: “_Iste liber illuminatus, ligatus & completus est p’ henricum Cremer vicariū ecclesie collegatur Sancti Stephani maguntini sub anno D’ni millesimo quadringentesimo quinquagesimo sexto festo assumptionis gloriose virginis Marie. Deo gracias alleluja._”[III-42] Fischer[III-43] says that this last memorandum assigns “einen spätern tag”--a later day--to the end of the rubricator’s work. In this he is mistaken; for the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, when the _second_ volume was finished, is on the 15th of August: while the feast of St. Bartholomew, the day on which he finished the _first_, falls on August 24th. Lambinet,[III-44] who doubts the genuineness of those inscriptions, makes the circumstance of the second volume being finished nine days before the first, a ground of objection. This seeming inconsistency however can by no means be admitted as a proof of the inscriptions being spurious. It is indeed more likely that the rubricator might actually finish the second volume before the first, than that a modern forger, intent to deceive, should not have been aware of the objection.

[Footnote III-41: In most of the early printed books the capitals
were left to be inserted in red ink by the pen or pencil of the
“rubricator.”]

[Footnote III-42: There are fac-simile tracings of those
memorandums, on separate slips of paper, in the copy of the
Mazarine Bible in the King’s Library at the British Museum; and
fac-simile engravings of them are given in the M’Carthy
Catalogue.]

[Footnote III-43: Typograph. Seltenheit. S. 20, 3te. Lieferung.]

[Footnote III-44: Recherches sur l’Origine de l’Imprimerie,
p. 135.]

The genuineness of the inscriptions is, however, confirmed by other evidence which no mere conjecture can invalidate. On the last leaf of this Bible there is a memorandum written by Berthold de Steyna, vicar of the parochial church of “Ville-Ostein,”[III-45] to the sacrist of which the Bible belonged. The sum of this memorandum is that on St. George’s day [23d April] 1457 there was chaunted, for the first time by the said Berthold, the mass of the holy sacrament. In the Carthusian monastery without the walls of Mentz, Schwartz[III-46] says that he saw a copy of this edition, the last leaves of which were torn out; but that in an old catalogue he perceived an entry stating that this Bible was presented to the monastery by Gutemberg and Faust. If the memorandum in the catalogue could be relied on as genuine, it would appear that this Bible had been completed before the dissolution of Gutemberg and Faust’s partnership in November 1455.

[Footnote III-45: Oberlin says that “Ville-Ostein” lies near
Erfurth, and is in the diocese of Mentz.]

[Footnote III-46: Index librorum sub incunabula typograph.
impressorum. 1739; cited by Fischer, Typograph. Seltenheit. S. 21,
3te. Lieferung.]

Although not a single work has been discovered with Gutemberg’s imprint, yet there cannot be a doubt of his having established a press of his own, and printed books at Mentz after the partnership between him and Faust had been dissolved. In the chronicle printed by Philip de Lignamine at Rome in 1474, it is expressly stated, under the year 1458, that there were then two printers at Mentz skilful in printing on parchment with metal types. The name of one was _Cutemberg_, and the other Faust; and it was known that each of them could print three hundred sheets in a day.[III-47] On St. Margaret’s day, 20th July, 1459, Gutemberg, in conjunction with his brother Friele and his cousins John, Friele, and Pederman, executed a deed in favour of the convent of St. Clara at Mentz, in which his sister Hebele was a nun. In this document, which is preserved among the archives of the university of Mentz, there occurs a passage, “which makes it as clear,” says Fischer, who gives the deed entire, “as the finest May-day noon, that Gutemberg had not only printed books at that time, but that he intended to print more.” The passage alluded to is to the following effect: “And with respect to the books which I, the above-named John, have given the library of the said convent, they shall remain for ever in the said library; and I, the above-named John, will furthermore give to the library of the said convent all such books required for pious uses and the service of God,--whether for reading or singing, or for use according to the rules of the order,--as I, the above-named John, have printed or shall hereafter print.”[III-48]

[Footnote III-47: Philippi de Lignamine Chronica Summorum
Pontificum Imperatorumque, anno 1474, Romæ impressa. A second
edition of this chronicle was printed at Rome in 1476 by
“Schurener de Bopardia.” In both editions Gutemberg is called
“Jacobus,”--James, and is said to be a native of Strasburg. Under
the same year John Mentelin is mentioned as a printer at
Strasburg.]

[Footnote III-48: Fischer, Typograph. Seltenheit. S. 44, 1ste.
Lieferung. In this instrument Gutemberg describes himself as
“Henne Genssfleisch von Sulgeloch, genennt Gudinberg.”]

That Gutemberg had a press of his own is further confirmed by a bond or deed of obligation executed by Dr. Conrad Homery on the Friday after St. Matthias’ day, 1468, wherein he acknowledges having received “certain forms, letters, utensils, materials, and other things belonging to printing,” left by John Gutemberg deceased; and he binds himself to the archbishop Adolphus not to use them beyond the territory of Mentz, and in the event of his selling them to give a preference to a person belonging to that city.

The words translated “certain forms, letters, utensils, materials, and other things belonging to printing,” in the preceding paragraph, are in the original enumerated as: “_etliche formen_, _buchstaben_, _instrument_, _gezuge und anders zu truckwerck gehoerende_.” As there is a distinction made between “formen” and “buchstaben,”--literally, “forms” and “letters,”--Schwartz is inclined to think that by “formen” engraved wood-blocks might be meant, and he adduces in favour of his opinion the word “formen-schneider,” the old German name for a wood-engraver. One or more pages of type when wedged into a rectangular iron frame called a “chase,” and ready for the press, is termed a “form” both by English and German printers; but Schwartz thinks that such were not the “forms” mentioned in the document. As there appears to be a distinction also between “_instrument_” and “_gezuge_,”--translated utensils and materials,--he supposes that the latter word may be used to signify the metal of which the types were formed. He observes that German printers call their old worn-out types “_der Zeug_”--literally, “stuff,” and that the mixed metal of which types are composed is also known as “der Zeug, oder Metall.”[III-49] It is to be remembered that the earliest printers were also their own letter-founders.

[Footnote III-49: Primaria quædam Document. pp. 26-34.]

The work called the Catholicon, compiled by Johannes de Balbis, Januensis, a Dominican, which appeared in 1460 without the printer’s name, has been ascribed to Gutemberg’s press by some of the most eminent German bibliographers. It is a Latin dictionary and introduction to grammar, and consists of three hundred and seventy-three leaves of large folio size. Fischer and others are of opinion that a Vocabulary, printed at Elfeld,--in Latin, Altavilla,--near Mentz, on 6th November, 1467, was executed with the same types. At the end of this work, which is a quarto of one hundred and sixty-five leaves, it is stated to have been begun by Henry Bechtermuntze, and finished by his brother Nicholas, and Wigand Spyess de Orthenberg.[III-50] A second edition of the same work, printed by Nicholas Bechtermuntze, appeared in 1469. The following extract from a letter written by Fischer to Professor Zapf in 1803, contains an account of his researches respecting the Catholicon and Vocabulary: “The frankness with which you retracted your former opinions respecting the printer of the Catholicon of 1460, and agreed with me in assigning it to Gutemberg, demands the respect of every unbiassed inquirer. I beg now merely to mention to you a discovery that I have made which no longer leaves it difficult to conceive how the Catholicon types should have come into the hands of Bechtermuntze. From a monument which stands before the high altar of the church of Elfeld it is evident that the family of Sorgenloch, of which that of Gutemberg or Gænsfleisch was a branch, was connected with the family of Bechtermuntze by marriage. The types used by Bechtermuntze were not only similar to those formerly belonging to Gutemberg, but were the very same, as I always maintained, appealing to the principles of the type-founder’s art. They had come into the possession of Bechtermuntze by inheritance, on the death of Gutemberg, and hence Dr. Homery’s reclamation.”[III-51]

[Footnote III-50: “. . . . per henricum bechtermuncze pie memorie
in altavilla est inchoatum. et demū sub anno dñi M.CCCCLXII. ipō
die Leonardi confessoris qui fuit quarta die mensis novembris
p. nycolaum bechtermūcze fratrem dicti Henrici et Wygandū Spyess
de orthenberg ē consummatū.” There is a copy of this edition in
the Royal Library at Paris.]

[Footnote III-51: Typographisch. Seltenheit. S. 101, 5te.
Lieferung.]

Zapf, to whom Fischer’s letter is addressed, had previously communicated to Oberlin his opinion that the types of the Catholicon were the same as those of an _Augustinus de Vita Christiana_, 4to, without date or printer’s name, but having at the end the arms of Faust and Scheffer. In his account, printed at Nuremberg, 1803, of an early edition of “Joannis de Turre-cremata explanatio in Psalterium,” he acknowledged that he was mistaken; thus agreeing with Schwartz, Meerman, Panzer, and Fischer, that no book known to be printed by Faust and Scheffer is printed with the same types as the Catholicon and the Vocabulary.

Although there can be little doubt of the Catholicon and the Elfeld Vocabulary being printed with the same types, and of the former being printed by Gutemberg, yet it is far from certain that Bechtermuntze inherited Gutemberg’s printing materials, even though he might be a relation. It is as likely that Gutemberg might sell to the brothers a portion of his materials and still retain enough for himself. If they came into their possession by inheritance, which is not likely, Gutemberg must have died some months previous to 4th November, 1467, the day on which Nicholas Bechtermuntze and Wygand Spyess finished the printing of the Vocabulary. If the materials had been purchased by Bechtermuntze in Gutemberg’s lifetime, which seems to be the most reasonable supposition, Conrad Homery could have no claim upon them on account of money advanced to Gutemberg, and consequently the types and printing materials which after his death came into Homery’s possession, could not be those employed by the brothers Bechtermuntze in their establishment at Elfeld.[III-52]

[Footnote III-52: The two following works, without date or
printer’s name, are printed with the same types as the Catholicon,
and it is doubtful whether they were printed by Gutemberg, or by
other persons with his types.
1. Matthei de Cracovia tractatus, seu dialogus racionis et
consciencie de sumpcione pabuli salutiferi corporis domini nostri
ihesu christi. 4to. foliis 22.
2. Thome de Aquino summa de articulis fidei et ecclesie
sacramentis. 4to. foliis 13.
A declaration of Thierry von Isenburg, archbishop of Mayence,
offering to resign in favour of his opponent, Adolphus of Nassau,
printed in German and Latin in 1462, is ascribed to Gutemberg: it
is of quarto size and consists of four leaves.--Oberlin, Annales
de la Vie de Gutenberg.]

By letters patent, dated at Elfeld on St. Anthony’s day, 1465, Adolphus, archbishop and elector of Mentz, appointed Gutemberg one of his courtiers, with the same allowance of clothing as the rest of the nobles attending his court, with other privileges and exemptions. From this period Fischer thinks that Gutemberg no longer occupied himself with business as a printer, and that he transferred his printing materials to Henry Bechtermuntze. “If Wimpheling’s account be true,” says Fischer, “that Gutemberg became blind in his old age, we need no longer be surprised that during his lifetime his types and utensils should come into the possession of Bechtermuntze.” The exact period of Gutemberg’s decease has not been ascertained, but in the bond or deed of obligation executed by Doctor Conrad Homery the Friday after St. Matthias’s day,[III-53] 1468, he is mentioned as being then dead. He was interred at Mentz in the church of the Recollets, and the following epitaph was composed by his relation, Adam Gelthaus:[III-54]

“D. O. M. S.

“Joanni Genszfleisch, artis impressoriæ repertori, de omni natione et lingua optime merito, in nominis sui memoriam immortalem Adam Gelthaus posuit. Ossa ejus in ecclesia D. Francisci Moguntina feliciter cubant.”

From the last sentence it is probable that this epitaph was not placed in the church wherein Gutemberg was interred. The following inscription was composed by Ivo Wittich, professor of law and member of the imperial chamber at Mentz:

“Jo. Guttenbergensi, Moguntino, qui primus omnium literas ære imprimendas invenit, hac arte de orbe toto bene merenti Ivo Witigisis hoc saxum pro monimento posuit M.D.VII.”

[Footnote III-53: St. Matthias’s Day is on 24th February.]

[Footnote III-54: In the instrument dated 1434, wherein Gutemberg
agrees to release the town-clerk of Mentz, whom he had arrested,
mention is made of a relation of his, Ort Gelthus, living at
Oppenheim. Schœpflin, mistaking the word, has printed in his
Documenta, p. 4, “Artgeld huss,” which he translates “Artgeld
domo,” the house of Artgeld.]

This inscription, according to Serarius, who professes to have seen it, and who died in 1609, was placed in front of the school of law at Mentz. This house had formerly belonged to Gutemberg, and was supposed to be the same in which he first commenced printing at Mentz in conjunction with Faust.[III-55]

[Footnote III-55: Serarii Historia Mogunt. lib. 1. cap. xxxvii.
p. 159. Heineken, Nachrichten von Kunstlern und Kunst-Sachen, 2te.
Theil, S. 299.]

From the documentary evidence cited in the preceding account of the life of Gutemberg, it will be perceived that the art of printing with moveable types was not perfected as soon as conceived, but that it was a work of time. It is highly probable that Gutemberg was occupied with his invention in 1436; and from the obscure manner in which his “admirable discovery” is alluded to in the process between him and the Drytzehns in 1439, it does not seem likely that he had then proceeded beyond making experiments. In 1449 or 1450, when the sum of 800 florins was advanced by Faust, it appears not unreasonable to suppose that he had so far improved his invention, as to render it practically available without reference to Scheffer’s great improvement in casting the types from matrices formed by punches, which was most likely discovered between 1452 and 1455.[III-56] About fourteen years must have elapsed before Gutemberg was enabled to bring his invention into practice. The difficulties which must have attended the first establishment of typography could only have been surmounted by great ingenuity and mechanical knowledge combined with unwearied perseverance. After the mind had conceived the idea of using moveable types, those types, whatever might be the material employed, were yet to be formed, and when completed they were to be arranged in pages, divided by proper spaces, and bound together in some manner which the ingenuity of the inventor was to devise. Nor was his invention complete until he had contrived a PRESS, by means of which numerous impressions from his types might be perfectly and rapidly obtained.

[Footnote III-56: In the colophon to “Trithemii Breviarium
historiarum de origine Regum et Gentis Francorum,” printed at
Mentz in 1515 by John Scheffer, son of Peter Scheffer and
Christina, the daughter of Faust, it is stated that the art of
printing was perfected in 1452, through the labour and ingenious
contrivances of Peter Scheffer of Gernsheim, and that Faust gave
him his daughter Christina in marriage as a reward.]

Mr. Ottley, at page 285 of the first volume of his Researches, informs us that “almost all great discoveries have been made by accident;” and at page 196 of the same volume, when speaking of printing as the invention of Lawrence Coster, he mentions it as an “art which had been at first taken up as the amusement of a leisure hour, became improved, and was practised by him as a profitable trade.” Let any unbiassed person enter a printing-office; let him look at the single letters, let him observe them formed into pages, and the pages wedged up in forms; let him see a sheet printed from one of those forms by means of the press; and when he has seen and considered all this, let him ask himself if ever, since the world began, the amusement of an old man practised in his hours of leisure was attended with such a result? “Very few great discoveries,” says Lord Brougham, “have been made by chance and by ignorant persons, much fewer than is generally supposed.--They are generally made by persons of competent knowledge, and who are in search of them.”[III-57]

[Footnote III-57: On the Pleasures and Advantages of Science,
p. 160. Edit. 1831.]

Having now given some account of the grounds on which Gutemberg’s claims to the invention of typography are founded, it appears necessary to give a brief summary, from the earliest authorities, of the pretensions of Lawrence Coster not only to the same honour, but to something more; for if the earliest account which we have of him be true, he was not only the inventor of typography, but of block-printing also.

The first mention of Holland in connexion with the invention of typography occurs in the Cologne Chronicle, printed by John Kœlhoff in 1499, wherein it is said that the first idea of the art was suggested by the Donatuses printed in Holland; it being however expressly stated in the same work that the art of printing as then practised was invented at Mentz. In a memorandum, which has been referred to at page 123, written by Mariangelus Accursius, who flourished about 1530, the invention of printing with metal types is erroneously ascribed to Faust; and it is further added, that he derived the idea from a Donatus printed in Holland from a wood-block. That a Donatus might be printed there from a wood-block previous to the invention of typography is neither impossible nor improbable; although I esteem the testimony of Accursius of very little value. He was born and resided in Italy, and it is not unlikely, as has been previously observed, that he might derive his information from the Cologne Chronicle.

John Van Zuyren, who died in 1594, is said to have written a book to prove that typography was invented at Harlem; but it never was printed, and the knowledge that we have of it is from certain fragments of it preserved by Scriverius, a writer whose own uncorroborated testimony on this subject is not entitled to the slightest credit. The substance of Zuyren’s account is almost the same as that of Junius, except that he does not mention the inventor’s name. The art according to him was invented at Harlem, but that while yet in a rude and imperfect state it was carried by a stranger to Mentz, and there brought to perfection.

Theodore Coornhert, in the dedication of his Dutch translation of Tully’s Offices to the magistrates of Harlem, printed in 1561, says that he had frequently heard from respectable people that the art of printing was invented at Harlem, and that the house where the inventor lived was pointed out to him. He proceeds to relate that by the dishonesty of a workman the art was carried to Mentz and there perfected. Though he says that he was informed by certain respectable old men both of the inventor’s name and family, yet, for some reason or other, he is careful not to mention them. When he was informing the magistrates of Harlem of their city being the nurse of so famous a discovery, it is rather strange that he should not mention the parent’s name. From the conclusion of his dedication we may guess why he should be led to mention Harlem as the place where typography was invented. It appears that he and certain friends of his, being inflamed with a patriotic spirit, designed to establish a new printing-office at Harlem, “in honour of their native city, to the profit of others, and for their own accommodation, and yet without detriment to any person.” His claiming the invention of printing for Harlem was a good advertisement for the speculation.

The next writer who mentions Harlem as the place where printing was invented is Guicciardini, who in his Description of the Low Countries, first printed at Antwerp in 1567, gives the report, without vouching for its truth, as follows: “In this place, it appears, not only from the general opinion of the inhabitants and other Hollanders, but from the testimony of several writers and from other memoirs, that the art of printing and impressing letters on paper such as is now practised, was invented. The inventor dying before the art was perfected or had come into repute, his servant, as they say, went to live at Mentz, where making this new art known, he was joyfully received; and applying himself diligently to so important a business, he brought it to perfection and into general repute. Hence the report has spread abroad and gained credit that the art of printing was first practised at Mentz. What truth there may be in this relation, I am not able, nor do I wish, to decide; contenting myself with mentioning the subject in a few words, that I might not prejudice [by my silence the claims of] this district.”[III-58]

[Footnote III-58: Ludovico Guicciardini, Descrittione di tutti i
Paesi Bassi: folio, Anversa, 1581. The original passage is given
by Meerman. The original words _altre memorie_--translated in the
above extract “other memoirs”--are rendered by Mr. Ottley “other
records.” This may pass; but it scarcely can be believed that
Guicciardini consulted or personally knew of the existence of any
such records. Mr. Ottley also, to match his “records,” refers to
the relations of Coornhert, Zuyren, Guicciardini, and Junius as
“documents.”]

It is evident that the above account is given from mere report. What other writers had previously noticed the claims of Harlem, except Coornhert and Zuyren, remain yet to be discovered. They appear to have been unknown to Guicciardini’s contemporary, Junius, who was the first to give a name to the Harlem inventor; a “local habitation” had already been provided for him by Coornhert.

The sole authority for one Lawrence Coster having invented wood-engraving, block-printing, and typography, is Hadrian Junius, who was born at Horn in North Holland, in 1511. He took up his abode at Harlem in 1560. During his residence in that city he commenced his Batavia,--the work in which the account of Coster first appeared,--which, from the preface, would seem to have been finished in January, 1575. He died the 16th June in the same year, and his book was not published until 1588, twelve years after his decease.[III-59] In this work, which is a topographical and historical account of Holland, or more properly of the country included within the limits of ancient Batavia, we find the first account of Lawrence Coster as the inventor of typography. Almost every succeeding advocate of Coster’s pretensions has taken the liberty of altering, amplifying, or contradicting the account of Junius according as it might suit his own line of argument; but not one of them has been able to produce a single solitary fact in confirmation of it. Scriverius, Seiz, Meerman, and Koning are fertile in their conjectures about the thief that stole Coster’s types, but they are miserably barren in their proofs of his having had types to be stolen. “If the variety of opinions,” observes Naude, speaking of Coster’s invention, “may be taken as an indication of the falsehood of any theory, it is impossible that this should be true”. Since Naude’s time the number of Coster’s advocates has been increased by Seiz, Meerman, and Koning;[III-60] who, if they have not been able to produce any evidence of the existence of Lawrence Coster as a printer, have at least been fertile in conjectures respecting the thief. They have not strengthened but weakened the Costerian triumphal arch raised by Junius, for they have all more or less knocked a piece of it away; and even where they have pretended to make repairs, it has merely been “one nail driving another out.”

[Footnote III-59: Junius was a physician, and unquestionably a
learned man. He is the author of a nomenclator in Latin, Greek,
Dutch, and French. An edition, with the English synonyms, by John
Higins and Abraham Fleming, was printed at London in 1585. The
following passage concerning Junius occurs in Southey’s
Biographical Sketch of the Earl of Surrey in the “Select Works of
the British Poets from Chaucer to Jonson:” “Surrey is next found
distinguishing himself at the siege of Landrecy. At that siege
Bonner, who was afterwards so eminently infamous, invited Hadrian
Junius to England. When that distinguished scholar arrived, Bonner
wanted either the means, or more probably the heart, to assist
him; but Surrey took him into his family in the capacity of
physician, and gave him a pension of fifty angels.”]

[Footnote III-60: Koning’s Dissertation on the Invention of
Printing, which was crowned by the Society of Sciences of Harlem,
was first printed at Harlem in the Dutch language in 1816. It was
afterwards abridged and translated into French with the
approbation, and under the revision, of the author. In 1817 he
published a first supplement; and a second appeared in 1820.]

Junius’s account of Coster is supposed to have been written about 1568; and in order to do justice to the claims of Harlem I shall here give a faithful translation of the “document,”--according to Mr. Ottley,--upon which they are founded. After alluding, in a preliminary rhetorical flourish, to Truth being the daughter of Time, and to her being concealed in a well, Junius thus proceeds to draw her out.

“If he is the best witness, as Plutarch says, who, bound by no favour and led by no partiality, freely and fearlessly speaks what he thinks, my testimony may deservedly claim attention. I have no connexion through kindred with the deceased, his heirs, or his posterity, and I expect on this account neither favour nor reward. What I have done is performed through a regard to the memory of the dead. I shall therefore relate what I have heard from old and respectable persons who have held offices in the city, and who seriously affirmed that they had heard what they told from their elders, whose authority ought justly to entitle them to credit.”

About a hundred and twenty-eight years ago,[III-61] Lawrence John, called the churchwarden or keeper,[III-62] from the profitable and honourable office which his family held by hereditary right, dwelt in a large house, which is yet standing entire, opposite the Royal Palace. This is the person who now on the most sacred ground of right puts forth his claims to the honour of having invented typography, an honour so nefariously obtained and possessed by others. Walking in a neighbouring wood, as citizens are accustomed to do after dinner and on holidays, he began to cut letters of beech-bark, with which for amusement, the letters being inverted as on a seal, he impressed short sentences on paper for the children of his son-in-law. Having succeeded so well in this, he began to think of more important undertakings, for he was a shrewd and ingenious man; and, in conjunction with his son-in-law Thomas Peter, he discovered a more glutinous and tenacious kind of ink, as he found from experience that the ink in common use occasioned blots. This Thomas Peter left four sons, all of whom were magistrates; and I mention this that all may know that the art derived its origin from a respectable and not from a mean family. He then printed whole figured pages with the text added. Of this kind I have seen specimens executed in the infancy of the art, being printed only on one side. This was a book composed in our native language by an anonymous author, and entitled _Speculum Nostræ Salutis_. In this we may observe that in the first productions of the art--for no invention is immediately perfected--the blank pages were pasted together, so that they might not appear as a defect. He afterwards exchanged his beech types for leaden ones, and subsequently he formed his types of tin, as being less flexible and of greater durability. Of the remains of these types certain old wine-vessels were cast, which are still preserved in the house formerly the residence of Lawrence, which, as I have said, looks into the market-place, and which was afterwards inhabited by his great-grandson Gerard Thomas, a citizen of repute, who died an old man a few years ago.

[Footnote III-61: Reckoning from 1568, the period referred to
would be 1440.]

[Footnote III-62: “Ædituus Custosve.” The word “Koster” in modern
Dutch is synonymous with the English “Sexton.”]

“The new invention being well received, and a new and unheard-of commodity finding on all sides purchasers, to the great profit of the inventor, he became more devoted to the art, his business was increased, and new workmen--the first cause of his misfortune--were employed. Among them was one called John; but whether, as is suspected, he bore the ominous surname of Faust,--_infaustus_[III-63] and unfaithful to his master--or whether it were some other John, I shall not labour to prove, as I do not wish to disturb the dead already enduring the pangs of conscience for what they had done when living.[III-64] This person, who was admitted under an oath to assist in printing, as soon as he thought he had attained the art of joining the letters, a knowledge of the fusile types, and other matters connected with the business, embracing the convenient opportunity of Christmas Eve, when all persons are accustomed to attend to their devotions, stole all the types and conveyed away all the utensils which his master had contrived by his own skill; and then leaving home with the thief, first went to Amsterdam, then to Cologne, and lastly to Mentz, as his altar of refuge, where being safely settled, beyond bowshot as they say, he might commence business, and thence derive a rich profit from the things which he had stolen. Within the space of a year from Christmas, 1442, it is certain that there appeared printed with the types which Lawrence had used at Harlem ‘_Alexandri Galli Doctrinale_,’ a grammar then in frequent use, with ‘_Petri Hispani Tractatus_.’

[Footnote III-63: “Sive is (ut fert suspicio) Faustus fuerit
ominoso cognomine, hero suo infidus et infaustus.” The author here
indulges in an ominous pun. The Latinised name “_Faustus_,”
signifies lucky; the word “_infaustus_,” unlucky. The German name
Füst may be literally translated “Fist.” A clenched hand is the
crest of the family of Faust.]

[Footnote III-64: This is an admirable instance of candour.
A charge is insinuated, and presumed to be a fact, and yet the
writer kindly forbears to bring forward proof, that he may not
disturb the dead. History has long since given the lie to the
insinuation of the thief having been Faust.]

“The above is nearly what I have heard from old men worthy of credit who had received the tradition as a shining torch transferred from hand to hand, and I have heard the same related and affirmed by others. I remember being told by Nicholas Galius, the instructor of my youth,--a man of iron memory, and venerable from his long white hair,--that when a boy he had often heard one Cornelius, a bookbinder, not less than eighty years old (who had been an assistant in the same office), relate with such excited feelings the whole transaction,--the occasion of the invention, its progress, and perfection, as he had heard of them from his master,--that as often as he came to the story of the robbery he would burst into tears; and then the old man’s anger would be so roused on account of the honour that had been lost through the theft, that he appeared as if he could have hanged the thief had he been alive; and then again he would vow perdition on his sacrilegious head, and curse the nights that he had slept in the same bed with him, for the old man had been his bedfellow for some months. This does not differ from the words of Quirinus Talesius, who admitted to me that he had formerly received nearly the same account from the mouth of the same bookseller.”[III-65]

[Footnote III-65: Hadriani Junii Batavia, p. 253, et sequent.
Edit. Ludg. Batavor. 1588.]

As Junius died upwards of twelve years before his book was published, it is doubtful whether the above account was actually written by him or not. It may have been an interpolation of an editor or a bookseller anxious for the honour of Harlem, and who might thus expect to gain currency for the story by giving it to the world under the sanction of Junius’s name. There was also another advantage attending this mode of publication; for as the reputed writer was dead, he could not be called on to answer the many objections which remain yet unexplained.

The manner in which Coster, according to the preceding account, first discovered the principle of obtaining impressions from separate letters formed of the bark of the beech-tree requires no remark.[III-66] There are, however, other parts of this narrative which more especially force themselves on the attention as being at variance with reason as well as fact.

[Footnote III-66: Scriverius--whose book was printed in
1628--thinking that there might be some objection raised to the
letters of beech-bark, thus, according to his own fancy, amends
the account of Cornelius as given by Junius: “Coster walking in
the wood picked up a small bough of a beech, or rather of an
oak-tree blown off by the wind; and after amusing himself with
cutting some letters on it, wrapped it up in paper, and afterwards
laid himself down to sleep. When he awoke, he perceived that the
paper, by a shower of rain or some accident having got moist, had
received an impression from these letters; which induced him to
pursue the accidental discovery.” This is more imaginative than
the account of Cornelius, but scarcely more probable.]

Coster, we are informed, lived in a large house, and, at the time of his engaging the workman who robbed him, he had brought the art to such perfection that he derived from it a great profit; and in consequence of the demand for the new commodity, which was eagerly sought after by purchasers, he was obliged to increase his establishment and engage assistants. It is therefore evident that the existence of such an art must have been well known, although its details might be kept secret. Coster, we are also informed, was of a respectable family; his grand-children were men of authority in the city, and a great-grandson of his died only a few years before Junius wrote, and yet not one of his friends or descendants made any complaint of the loss which Coster had sustained both in property and fame. Their apathy, however, was compensated by the ardour of old Cornelius, who used to shed involuntary tears whenever the theft was mentioned; and used to heap bitter curses on the head of the thief as often as he thought of the glory of which Coster and Harlem had been so villanously deprived. It is certainly very singular that a person of respectability and authority should be robbed of his materials and deprived of the honour of the invention, and yet neither himself nor any one of his kindred publicly denounce the thief; more especially as the place where he had established himself was known, and where in conjunction with others he had the frontless audacity to claim the honour of the invention.

Of Lawrence Coster, his invention, and his loss, the world knew nothing until he had been nearly a hundred and fifty years in his grave. The presumed writer of the account which had to do justice to his memory had been also twelve years dead when his book was published. His information, which he received when he was a boy, was derived from an old man who when a boy had heard it from another old man who lived with Coster at the time of the robbery, and who had heard the account of the invention from his master. Such is the list of the Harlem witnesses. If Junius had produced any evidence on the authority of Coster’s great-grandson that any of his predecessors--his father or his grandfather--had carried on the business of a printer at Harlem, this might in part have corroborated the narrative of Cornelius; but, though subsequent advocates of the claims of Harlem have asserted that Coster’s grand-children continued the printing business, no book or document has been discovered to establish the fact.

The account of Cornelius involves a contradiction which cannot be easily explained away. If the thief stole the whole or greater part of Coster’s printing materials,--types and press and all, as the narrative seems to imply,--it is difficult to conceive how he could do so without being discovered, even though the time chosen were Christmas Eve; for on an occasion when all or most people were engaged at their devotions, the fact of two persons being employed would in itself be a suspicious circumstance: a tenant with a small stock of furniture who wished to make a “moonlight flitting” would most likely be stopped if he attempted to remove his goods on a Sunday night. As the dishonest workman had an assistant, who is rather unaccountably called “_the_ thief,” it is evident from this circumstance, as well as from the express words of the narrative,[III-67] that the quantity of materials stolen must have been considerable. If, on the contrary, the thief only carried away a portion of the types and matrices, with a few other instruments,--“all that could be moved without manifest danger of immediate detection,” to use the words of Mr. Ottley,--what was there to prevent Coster from continuing the business of printing? Did he give up the lucrative trade which he had established, and disappoint his numerous customers, because a dishonest workman had stolen a few of his types? But even if every letter and matrice had been stolen,--though how likely this is to be true I shall leave every one conversant with typography to decide,--was the loss irreparable, and could this “shrewd and ingenious man” not reconstruct the types and other printing materials which he had originally contrived?

[Footnote III-67: “Choragium omne typorum involat, instrumentorum
herilium ei artificio comparatorum suppelectilem convasat, deinde
_cum fure_ domo se proripit.”--H. Junii Batavia, p. 255.]

If the business of Coster was continued uninterruptedly, and after his death carried on by his grand-children, we might naturally expect that some of the works which they printed could be produced, and that some record of their having practised such an art at Harlem would be in existence. The records of Harlem are however silent on the subject; no mention is made by any contemporary author, nor in any contemporary document, of Coster or his descendants as printers in that city; and no book printed by them has been discovered except by persons who decide upon the subject as if they were endowed with the faculty of intuitive discrimination. If Coster’s business had been suspended in consequence of the robbery, his customers, from all parts, who eagerly purchased the “new commodity,” must have been aware of the circumstance; and to suppose that it should not have been mentioned by some old writer, and that the claims of Coster should have lain dormant for a century and a half, exceeds my powers of belief. Where pretended truth can only be perceived by closing the eyes of reason I am content to remain ignorant; nor do I wish to trust myself to the unsafe bridge of conjecture--a rotten plank without a hand-rail,--

“O’er which lame faith leads understanding blind.”