Chapter III: Invention of Typography (3)

If all Coster’s types had been stolen and he had not supplied himself with new ones, it would be difficult to account for the wine vessels which were cast from the old types; and if he or his heirs continued to print subsequent to the robbery, all that his advocates had to complain of was the theft. For since it must have been well known that he had discovered and practised the art, at least ten years previous to its known establishment at Mentz, and seventeen years before a book appeared with the name of the printers claiming the honour of the invention, the greatest injury which he received must have been from his fellow citizens; who perversely and wilfully would not recollect his previous discovery and do justice to his claims. Even supposing that a thief had stolen the whole of Coster’s printing-materials, types, chases, and presses, it by no means follows that he deprived of their memory not only all the citizens of Harlem, but all Coster’s customers who came from other places[III-68] to purchase the “new commodity” which his press supplied. Such however must have been the consequences of the robbery, if the narrative of Cornelius were true; for except himself no person seems to have remembered Coster’s invention, or that either he or his immediate descendants had ever printed a single book.

[Footnote III-68: “. . . . . quum nova merx, nunquam antea visa,
emptores undique exciret cum huberrimo questu.”--Junii Batavia.]

Notwithstanding the internal evidence of the improbability of Cornelius’s account of Coster and his invention, its claims to credibility are still further weakened by those persons who have shown themselves most wishful to establish its truth. Lawrence Janszoon, whom Meerman and others suppose to have been the person described by Cornelius as the inventor of printing, appears to have been custos of the church of St. Bavon at Harlem in the years 1423, 1426, 1432 and 1433. His death is placed by Meerman in 1440; and as, according to the narrative of Cornelius, the types and other printing materials were stolen on Christmas eve 1441, the inventor of typography must have been in his grave at the time the robbery was committed. Cornelius must have known of his master’s death, and yet in his account of the robbery he makes no mention of Coster being dead at the time, nor of the business being carried on by his descendants after his decease. It was at one time supposed that Coster died of grief on the loss of his types, and on account of the thief claiming the honour of the invention. But this it seems is a mistake; he was dead according to Meerman at the time of the robbery, and the business was carried on by his grandchildren.

Koning has discovered that Cornelius the bookbinder died in 1522, aged at least ninety years. Allowing him to have been ninety-two, this assistant in Coster’s printing establishment, and who learnt the account of the invention and improvement of the art from Coster himself, must have been just ten years old when his master died; and yet upon the improbable and uncorroborated testimony of this person are the claims of Coster founded.

Lehne, in his “Chronology of the Harlem fiction,”[III-69] thus remarks on the authorities, Galius, and Talesius, referred to by Junius as evidences of its truth. As Cornelius was upwards of eighty when he related the story to Nicholas Galius, who was then a boy, this must have happened about 1510. The boy Galius we will suppose to have been at that time about fifteen years old: Junius was born in 1511, and we will suppose that he was under the care of Nicholas Galius, the instructor of his youth, until he was fifteen; that is, until 1526. In this year Galius, the man venerable from his grey hairs, would be only thirty-six years old, an age at which grey hairs are premature. Grey hairs are only venerable in old age, and it is not usual to praise a young man’s faculty of recollection in the style in which Junius lauds the “iron memory” of his teacher. Talesius, as Koning states, was born in 1505, and consequently six years older than Junius; and on the death of Cornelius, in 1522, he would be seventeen, and Junius eleven years old. Junius might in his eleventh year have heard the whole account from Cornelius himself in the same manner as the latter when only ten must have heard it from Coster; and it is remarkable that Galius who was so well acquainted with Cornelius did not afford his pupil the opportunity. We thus perceive that in the whole of this affair children and old men play the principal parts, and both ages are proverbially addicted to narratives which savour of the marvellous.

[Footnote III-69: In “Einige Bemerkungen über das Unternehmen der
gelehrten Gesellschaft zu Harlem,” &c. S. 31.]

Meerman, writing to his correspondent Wagenaar in 1757, expresses his utter disbelief in the story of Coster being the inventor of typography, which, he observes, was daily losing credit: whatever historical evidence Seiz had brought forward in favour of Coster was gratuitously assumed; in short, the whole story of the invention was a fiction.[III-70] After the publication of Schœpflin’s Vindiciæ Typographicæ in 1760, giving proofs of Gutemberg having been engaged in 1438 with some invention relating to _printing_, and in which a _press_ was employed, Meerman appears to have received a new light; for in 1765 he published his own work in support of the very story which he had previously declared to be undeserving of credit. The mere change, however, of a writer’s opinions cannot alter the immutable character of truth; and the guesses and assumptions with which he may endeavour to gloss a fiction can never give to it the solidity of fact. What he has said of the work of Seiz in support of Coster’s claims may with equal truth be applied to his own arguments in the same cause: “Whatever historical evidence he has brought forward in favour of Coster has been gratuitously assumed.” Meerman’s work, like the story which it was written to support, “is daily losing credit.” It is a dangerous book for an advocate of Coster to quote; for he has scarcely advanced an argument in favour of Coster, and in proof of his stolen types being the foundation of typography at Mentz, but what is contradicted by a positive fact.

[Footnote III-70: Santander has published a French translation of
this letter in his Dictionnaire Bibliographique, tom. i. pp.
14-18.]

In order to make the documentary evidence produced by Schœpflin in favour of Gutemberg in some degree correspond with the story of Cornelius, Junius’s authority, he has assumed that Gutemberg had an elder brother also called John; and that he was known as Gænsfleisch the elder, while his younger brother was called by way of distinction Gutemberg. In support of this assumption he refers to Wimpheling,[III-71] who in one place has called the inventor Gænsfleisch, and in another Gutemberg; and he also supposes that the two epitaphs which have been given at page 144, relate to two different persons. The first, inscribed by Adam Gelthaus to the memory of John _Gænsfleisch_, he concludes to have been intended for the elder brother. The second, inscribed by Ivo Wittich to the memory of John _Gutemberg_, he supposes to relate to the younger brother, and to have been erected from a feeling of envy. The fact of Gutemberg being also named Gænsfleisch in several contemporary documents, is not allowed to stand in the way of Meerman’s hypothesis of the two “brother Johns,” which has been supposed to be corroborated by the fact of a John Gænsfleisch the Elder being actually the contemporary of John Gænsfleisch called also Gutemberg.

[Footnote III-71: Wimpheling, who was born at Sletstadt in 1451,
thus addresses the inventor of printing,--whose name, Gænsfleisch,
he Latinises “Ansicarus,”--in an epigram printed at the end of
“Memoriæ Marsilii ab Inghen,” 4to. 1499.

“Felix _Ansicare_, per te Germania felix
Omnibus in terris præmia laudis habet.
Urbe Moguntina, divino fulte Joannes
Ingenio, primus imprimis ære notas.
Multum Relligio, multum tibi Græca sophia,
Et multum debet lingua Latina.”

In his “Epitome Rerum Germanicarum,” 1502, he says that the art of
printing was discovered at Strasburg in 1440 by a native of that
city, who afterwards removing to Mentz there perfected the art. In
his “Episcoporum Argentinensium Catalogus,” 1508, he says that
printing was invented by a native of Strasburg, and that when the
inventor had joined some other persons engaged on the same
invention at Mentz, the art was there perfected by one John
Gænsfleisch, who was blind through age, in the house called
Gutemberg, in which, in 1508, the College of Justice held its
sittings. Wimpheling does not seem to have known that Gænsfleisch
was also called Gutemberg, and that his first attempts at printing
were made in Strasburg.]

Having thus provided Gutemberg with an elder brother also named John, Meerman proceeds to find him employment; for at the period of his writing much light had been thrown on the early history of printing, and no person in the least acquainted with the subject could believe that Faust was the thief who stole Coster’s types, as had been insinuated by Junius and affirmed by Boxhorn and Scriverius. Gænsfleisch the Elder is accordingly sent by Meerman to Harlem, and there engaged as a workman in Lawrence Coster’s printing office. It is needless to ask if there be any proof of this: Meerman having introduced a new character into the Harlem farce may claim the right of employing him as he pleases. As there is evidence of Gutemberg, or Gænsfleisch the Younger, being engaged at Strasburg about 1436 in some experiments connected with printing, and mention being made in the same documents of the fair of Aix-la-Chapelle, Meerman sends him there in 1435. From Aix-la-Chapelle, as the distance is not very great, Meerman makes him pay a visit to his elder brother, then working as a printer in Coster’s office at Harlem. He thus has an opportunity of seeing Coster’s printing establishment, and of gaining some information respecting the art, and hence his attempts at printing at Strasburg in 1436. In 1441 he supposes that John Gænsfleisch the Elder stole his master’s types, and printed with them, at Mentz, in 1442, “Alexandri Galli Doctrinale,” and “Petri Hispani Tractatus,” as related by Junius. As this trumpery story rests solely on the conjecture of the writer, it might be briefly dismissed for reconsideration when the proofs should be produced; but as Heineken[III-72] has afforded the means of showing its utter falsity, it may perhaps be worth while to notice some of the facts produced by him respecting the family and proceedings of Gutemberg.

[Footnote III-72: Nachrichten von Kunstlern und Kunst-Sachen, 1te.
Theil, S. 286-293.]

John Gænsfleisch the Elder, whom Meerman makes Gutemberg’s elder brother, was descended from a branch of the numerous family of Gænsfleisch, which was also known by the local names of zum Jungen, Gutenberg or Gutemberg, and Sorgenloch. This person, whom Meerman engages as a workman with Coster, was a man of property; and at the time that we are given to understand he was residing at Harlem, we have evidence of his being married and having children born to him at Mentz. This objection, however, could easily be answered by the ingenuity of a Dutch commentator, who, as he has made the husband a thief, would find no difficulty in providing him with a suitable wife. He would also be very likely to bring forward the presumed misconduct of the wife in support of his hypothesis of the husband being a thief. John Gænsfleisch the Elder was married to Ketgin, daughter of Nicholas Jostenhofer of Schenkenberg, on the Thursday after St. Agnes’s day, 1437. In 1439 his wife bore him a son named Michael; and in 1442 another son, who died in infancy. In 1441 we have evidence of his residing at Mentz; for in that year his relation Rudiger zum Landeck appeared before a judge to give Gænsfleisch an acknowledgment of his having properly discharged his duties as trustee, and of his having delivered up to the said Rudiger the property left to him by his father and mother.

That John Gænsfleisch the Elder printed “Alexandri Galli Doctrinale,” and “Petri Hispani Tractatus,” at Mentz in 1442 with the types which he had stolen from Coster, is as improbable as every other part of the story. There is, in fact, not the slightest reason to believe that the works in question were printed at Mentz in 1442, or that any book was printed there with types until nearly eight years after that period. In opposition, however, to a host of historical evidence we have the assertion of Cornelius, who told the tale to Galius, who told it to Junius, who told it to the world.

Meerman’s web of sophistry and fiction having been brushed away by Heineken, a modern advocate of Coster’s undertook to spin another, which has also been swept down by a German critic. Jacobus Koning,[III-73] town-clerk of Amsterdam, having learnt from a document printed by Fischer, that Gutemberg had a brother named Friele, sends him to Harlem to work with Coster, and makes him the thief who stole the types; thus copying Meerman’s plot, and merely substituting Gutemberg’s known brother for John Gænsfleisch the Elder. On this attempt of Koning’s to make the old sieve hold water by plastering it with his own mud, Lehne[III-74] makes the following remarks:--

“He gives up the name of John,--although it might be supposed that old Cornelius would have known the name of his bedfellow better than Koning,--and without hesitation charges Gutemberg’s brother with the theft. In order to flatter the vain-glory of the Harlemers, poor Friele, after he had been nearly four hundred years in his grave, is publicly accused of robbery on no other ground than that Mynheer Koning had occasion for a thief. It is, however, rather unfortunate for the credit of the story that this Friele should have been the founder of one of the first families in Mentz, of the order of knighthood, and possessed of great property both in the city and the neighbourhood. Is it likely that this person should have been engaged as a workman in the employment of the Harlem churchwarden, and that he should have robbed him of his types in order to convey them to his brother, who then lived at Strasburg, and who had been engaged in his own invention at least three years before, as is proved by the process between him and the Drytzehns published by Schœpflin? From this specimen of insulting and unjust accusation on a subject of literary inquiry, we may congratulate the city of Amsterdam that Mynheer Koning is but a law-writer and not a judge, should he be not more just as a man than as an author.”

[Footnote III-73: In a Memoir on the Invention of Printing, which
was crowned by the Academy of Sciences at Harlem in 1816.]

[Footnote III-74: Einige Bemerkungen, &c. S. 18, 19.]

In a book of old accounts belonging to the city of Harlem, and extending from April 1439 to April 1440, Koning having discovered at least nine entries of expenses incurred on account of messengers despatched to the Justice-Court of Amsterdam, he concludes that there must have been some conference between the judges of Harlem and Amsterdam on the subject of Coster’s robbery. There is not a word mentioned in the entries on what account the messengers were despatched, but he decides that it must have been on some business connected with this robbery, for the first messenger was despatched on the last day of the Christmas holidays; and the thief, according to the account of Junius, made choice of Christmas-eve as the most likely opportunity for effecting his purpose. To this most logical conclusion there happens to be an objection, which however Mynheer Koning readily disposes of. The first messenger was despatched on the last day of the Christmas holidays 1439, and the accounts terminate in April 1440; but according to the narrative of Cornelius the robbery was committed on Christmas-eve 1441. This trifling discrepancy is however easily accounted for by the fact of the Dutch at that period reckoning the commencement of the year from Easter, and by supposing,--as the date is printed in numerals,--that Junius might have written 1442, instead of 1441, as the time when the two books appeared at Mentz printed with the stolen types, and within a year after the robbery. Notwithstanding this _satisfactory_ explanation there still remains a trifling error to be rectified, and it will doubtless give the clear-headed advocate of Coster very little trouble. Admitting that the accounts are for the year commencing at Easter 1440 and ending at Easter 1441, it is rather difficult to comprehend how they should contain any notice of an event which happened at the Christmas following. The Harlem scribe possibly might have the gift of seeing into futurity as clearly as Mynheer Koning has the gift of seeing into the past. The arguments derived from paper-marks which Koning has advanced in favour of Coster are not worthy of serious notice.

He has found, as Meerman did before him, that one Lawrence Janszoon was living in Harlem between 1420 and 1436, and that his name occurs within that period as custos or warden of St. Bavon’s church. As he is never called “Coster,” a name acquired by the family, according to Junius, in consequence of the office which they enjoyed by hereditary right, the identity of Lawrence Janszoon and Lawrence Coster is by no means clearly established; and even if it were, the sole evidence of his having been a printer rests on the testimony of Cornelius, who was scarcely ten years old when Lawrence Janszoon died. The correctness of Cornelius’s narrative is questioned both by Meerman and Koning whenever his statements do not accord with their theory, and yet they require others to believe the most incredible of his assertions. They themselves throw doubts on the evidence of their own witness, and yet require their opponents to receive as true his deposition on the most important point in dispute---that Coster invented typography previous to 1441,--a point on which he is positively contradicted by more than twenty authors who wrote previous to 1500; and negatively by the silence of Coster’s contemporaries. Supposing that the account of Cornelius had been published in 1488 instead of 1588, it would be of very little weight unless corroborated by the testimony of others who must have been as well aware of Coster’s invention as himself; for the silence of contemporary writers on the subject of an important invention or memorable event, will always be of greater negative authority than the unsupported assertion of an individual who when an old man professes to relate what he had heard and seen when a boy. If therefore the uncorroborated testimony of Cornelius would be so little worth, even if published in 1488, of what value can it be printed in 1588, in the name of a person who was then dead, and who could not be called on to explain the discrepancies of his part of the narrative? Whatever might be the original value of Cornelius’s testimony, it is deteriorated by the channel through which it descends to us. He told it to a boy, who, when an old man, told it to another boy, who when nearly sixty years old inserts it in a book which he is writing, but which is not printed until twelve years after his death.

It is singular how Mr. Ottley, who contends for the truth of Papillon’s story of the Cunio, and who maintains that the art of engraving figures and text upon wood was well known and practised previous to 1285, should believe the account given by Cornelius of the origin of Coster’s invention. If he does not believe this part of the account, with what consistency can he require other people to give credit to the rest? With respect to the origin and progress of the invention, Cornelius was as likely to be correctly informed as he was with regard to the theft and the establishment of printing at Mentz; if therefore Coster’s advocates themselves establish the incorrectness of his testimony in the first part of the story, they destroy the general credibility of his evidence.

With respect to the fragments of “Alexandri Galli Doctrinale” and “Catonis Disticha” which have been discovered, printed with the same, or similar types as the Speculum Salvationis, no good argument can be founded on them in support of Coster’s claims, although the facts which they establish are decisive of the fallacy of Meerman’s assumptions. In order to suit his own theory, he was pleased to assert that the first edition of the Speculum was the only one of that book printed by Coster, and that it was printed with wooden types. Mr. Ottley has, however, shown that the edition which Meerman and others supposed to be the first was in reality the second; and that the presumed second was unquestionably the first, and that the text was throughout printed with metal types by means of a press. It is thus the fate of all Coster’s advocates that the last should always produce some fact directly contradicting his predecessors’ speculations, but not one confirmatory of the truth of the story on which all their arguments are based. Meerman questions the accuracy of Cornelius as reported by Junius; Meerman’s arguments are rejected by Koning; and Mr. Ottley, who espouses the same cause, has from his diligent collation of two different editions of the Speculum afforded a convincing proof that on a most material point all his predecessors are wrong. His inquiries have established beyond a doubt, that the text of the first edition of the Speculum was printed wholly with metal types; and that in the second the text was printed partly from metal types by means of a press, and partly from wood-blocks by means of friction. The assertion that Coster printed the first edition with wooden types, and that his grandsons and successors printed the second edition with types of metal, is thus most clearly refuted. As no printer’s name has been discovered in any of the fragments referred to, it is uncertain where or when they were printed. It however seems more likely that they were printed in Holland or the Low Countries than in Germany. The presumption of their antiquity in consequence of their rarity is not a good ground of argument. Of an edition of a “Donatus,” printed by Sweinheim and Pannartz, between 1465 and 1470, and consisting of three hundred copies, not one is known to exist. From sundry fragments of a “Donatus,” embellished with the same ornamented small capitals as are used in Faust and Scheffer’s Psalter, Fischer was pleased to conjecture that the book had been printed by Gutemberg and Faust previous to 1455. A copy, however, has been discovered bearing the imprint of Scheffer, and printed, in all probability, subsequent to 1467, as it is in this year that Scheffer’s name first appears alone. The “Historia Alexandri Magni,” pretendedly printed with wooden types, and ascribed by Meerman to Coster, was printed by Ketelar and Leempt, who first established a printing-office at Utrecht in 1473.

John Enschedius, a letter-founder and printer of Harlem, and a strenuous assertor of Coster’s pretensions, discovered a very curious specimen of typography which he and others have supposed to be the identical “short sentences” mentioned by Junius as having been printed by Coster for the instruction of his grand-children. This unique specimen of typography consists of eight small pages, each being about one inch and six-eighths high, by one and five-eighths wide, printed on parchment and on both sides. The contents are an alphabet; the Lord’s Prayer; the Creed; the Ave Mary; and two short prayers, all in Latin. Meerman has given a fac-simile of all the eight pages in the second volume of his “Origines Typographicæ;”[III-75] and if this be correct, I am strongly inclined to suspect that this singular “Horarium” is a modern forgery. The letters are rudely formed, and the shape of some of the pages is irregular; but the whole appears to me rather as an imitation of rudeness and a studied irregularity, than as the first essay of an inventor. There are very few contractions in the words; and though the letters are rudely formed, and there are no points, yet I have seen no early specimen of typography which is so easy to read. It is apparent that the printer, whoever he might be, did not forget that the little manual was intended for children. The letters I am positive could not be thus printed with types formed of beech-bark; and I am further of opinion that they were not, and could not be, printed with moveable types of wood. I am also certain that, whatever might be the material of which the types were formed, those letters could only be printed on parchment on both sides by means of a press. The most strenuous of Coster’s advocates have not ventured to assert that he was acquainted with the use of metal types in 1423, the pretended date of his first printing short sentences for the use of his grand-children, nor have any of them suggested that he used a press for the purpose of obtaining impressions from his letters of beech-bark; how then can it be pretended with any degree of consistency that this “Horarium” agrees exactly with the description of Cornelius? It is said that Enschedius discovered this singular specimen of typography pasted in the cover of an old book. It is certainly such a one as he was most wishful to find, and which he in his capacity of typefounder 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; on the contrary, I suspect it to be a Dutch typographic essay on popular credulity.

[Footnote III-75: Enschedius published a fac-simile himself, with
the following title: “Afbeelding van ’t A. B. C. ’t Pater Noster,
Ave Maria, ’t Credo, en Ave Salus Mundi, door Laurens Janszoon, te
Haarlem, ten behoeven van zyne dochters Kinderen, met beweegbaare
Letteren gedrukt, en teffens aangeweesen de groote der Stukjes
pergament, zekerlyk ’t oudste overblyfsel der eerste Boekdrukkery,
’t welk als zulk een eersteling der Konst bewaard word en berust
in de Boekery van _Joannes Enschedé_, Lettergieter en Boekdrukker
te Haarlem, 1768.--_A. J. Polak sculps. ex originali._”]

Of all the works which have been claimed for Coster, his advocates have not succeeded in making out his title to a single one; and the best evidence of the fallacy of his claims is to be found in the writings of those persons by whom they have been most confidently asserted. Having no theory of my own to support, and having no predilection in favour of Gutemberg, I was long inclined to think that there might be some rational foundation for the claims which have been so confidently advanced in favour of Harlem. An examination, however, of the presumed proofs and arguments adduced by Coster’s advocates has convinced me that the claims put forward on his behalf, as the inventor of typography, are untenable. They have certainly discovered that a person of the name of Lawrence Janszoon was living at Harlem between the years 1420 and 1440, but they have not been able to show anything in proof of this person ever having printed any book either from wood-blocks or with moveable types. There is indeed reason to believe that at the period referred to there were three persons of the name of Lawrence Janszoon,--or Fitz-John, as the surname may be rendered;--but to which of them the pretended invention is to be ascribed is a matter of doubt. At one time we find the inventor described as an illegitimate scion of the noble family of Brederode, which was descended from the ancient sovereigns of Holland; at another he is said to have been called Coster in consequence of the office of custos or warden of St. Bavon’s church being hereditary in his family; and in a third account we find Lawrence Janszoon figuring as a promoter of sedition and one of the leaders of a body of rioters. The advocates for the claims of Harlem have brought forward every Lawrence that they could find at that period whose father’s name was John; as if the more they could produce the more conclusive would be the _proof_ of one of them at least being the inventor of printing. As the books which are ascribed to Coster furnish positive evidence of the incorrectness of the story of Cornelius and of the comments of Meerman; and as records, which are now matters of history, prove that neither Gutemberg nor Faust stole any types from Coster or his descendants, the next supporter of the claims of Harlem will have to begin _de novo_; and lest the palm should be awarded to the wrong Lawrence Janszoon, he ought first to ascertain which of them is really the hero of the old bookbinder’s tale.