Chapter IV (3)

Certainly, as applied to _manuscripts_, the phrase “_jettez en molle_” has no meaning. But with all deference to Mr. Blades, whose “Life and Typography of William Caxton,” is a work of the highest possible merit with reference to all that concerns the introduction of Printing into England,--the words in question are pregnant with meaning in regard to both block-printing and stencilling. Every one acquainted with the ordinary processes of printing must know, that freshly-printed paper has exactly the appearance of having been moulded; the damped paper, in fact, is actually moulded on the type or wood-engraving, by the forcible pressure brought to bear upon it, and on being released from that pressure, the paper cast that has been made brings away with it, on removal, the colouring matter with which the blocks or types have been inked. In the old solid blocks, when the hollows cut to leave in relief the characters used for the School-books--the Donatuses and Doctrinals--would be wider, deeper, and more irregular than in the more modern types, this indented and moulded appearance would be much more apparent, especially when impressions were taken by the Chinese method of rubbing the back of the paper, and the printer was careless about smoothing out and obliterating the evidences of indentation, in the manner adopted by typographers now-a-days. In stencilling too, the perforated plate, when laid upon the paper, became to all intents and purposes a mould. The bottom of the mould was the surface of the paper on which, through the perforations in the plate, the ink or pigment would be brushed, the paper being thus made to take a coloured cast of the hollows in the plate. With reference to either process therefore, the phrase “_jettez en molle_” might most naturally be used to express on the part of any one ignorant of the process of printing, the appearance of a book which he knew was not written, but which bore upon its face the evidence of having, in some way or other, been cast or moulded. As this evidence would appear the same, or nearly so, whether produced from engraved blocks, or from separable letters, the phrase would be just as applicable in the one case as in the other. When thus examined, the assertion that “_jettez en molle_” means, and can only mean, “_printed from cast types_,” is deprived of all its weight, and the phrase itself is valueless as an evidence that cast types were in use at Bruges, or elsewhere in Holland, at the time when Abbé Jean le Robert wrote his diary.

Xylographic and typographic productions, as well as that edition of the Mirror of Human Salvation which partook of the nature of both, may therefore be described alike, as books “jettez en molle.”

But in endeavouring to ascertain the time when this latter work was printed, there are still two important points to be considered; and these are, the age of the paper, and the date of the costume and armour of the figures represented in the vignettes. On both of these points Mr. Ottley’s writings are most instructive. As regards the first, the only guides are the paper-marks, and as the same marks continued to be used by manufacturers for many successive years, it follows, that although the _Speculum_ might possibly have been printed when peculiar marks were first made use of, the printing may, just as likely, not have taken place till many years later: the only certainty, therefore, that an undated paper-mark affords, is, that the work in which it appears could not have been printed prior to the time when it has been ascertained that that particular mark was originally introduced.

The marks observed in the paper on which the earliest edition of the _Speculum_ is printed, consist of a fleur-de-lis (or anchor) an unicorn, two keys side by side, a hand, a St. Catharine wheel, a circle enclosing the letters M A with a coat of arms beneath; and the letter P; and in the later Latin edition, the letter Y. These three last are considered the most important, and are dealt with as such by Mr. Koning.

As to the circle with the letters and coat of arms, he says, the initials signify without doubt, the initials of Margaret, widow of William, Count of Holland, and the mother of the Countess Jacqueline, the arms being those of Bavaria, whence he concludes, that the paper was manufactured during the reign of the Countess Jacqueline in Brabant and Hainault, after her marriage with the Dauphin, and before the treaty of transfer made to Philip of Burgundy in 1433, it being the custom of manufacturers of paper in the fifteenth century to put the arms of their sovereigns in their marks. Mr. Ottley, however, points out, that this usage was rare before the latter part of the century, although afterwards the practise became common.

The letter P, which Koning considers to have been the initial of Philip of Burgundy (who reigned in Brabant from 1430 to 1467,) was found by him, he says, in a memorandum of accounts of the date 1432; and he remarks further, that “a large proportion of the books printed in Holland in the latter part of the fifteenth century, have this paper-mark, which will never be found in any book, nor in any paper, coming from Germany or from Italy.”

This last assertion Mr. Ottley disproves, by citing several instances of its occurrence in various works of Zell, as well as the marks of the unicorn, the two keys, and the capital Y, &c., shewing, as he says, that Koning has “_erred egregiously_.” He also says (note, p. 160,) “The supposed _initial of Philip the Bold_ is very doubtful. I have reason to believe that the paper on which it is found was made in Italy.” And he moreover shews, that he could not find it in any of Mr. Koning’s tracings, earlier than 1453. He himself saw it “in company with other papers which _he thought_ not to be older than 1438; but in a dated book he did not find it earlier than 1445.”

“The letter Y,” says Mr. Koning, “is, without doubt, the initial of Ysabel of Portugal, who was married to Philip le Bon in 1430.”

Mr. Koning sums up the third chapter of his book by saying, “the paper-marks prove that the said works were published between the years 1420 and 1440; since it appears from what has been said above, that the paper of the first Dutch edition (of the _Speculum_) which is evidently the most ancient, bears alone the marks which are the most ancient; that is to say, the arms of Bavaria which were used by the paper-makers in the reign of the Countess Jacqueline, and consequently, before the year 1428; and that the paper of the second or third edition of the _Speculum_ bears the letter P, the mark of the sovereign Philip of Burgundy, which certainly was not in usage until the year 1425.”

Upon all this Mr. Ottley thus comments:--(pp. 163-164).

“Now, with respect to _the Gothic letter P_, which was so much
used on paper, from the middle of the fifteenth to the early part
of the sixteenth century, I shall not take upon me to deny Mr.
Koning’s assertion, that it is to be considered as _the initial
of Philip of Burgundy_; although, as it appears to have been
used in other parts, as well as in his dominions, and continued
so long after his death (as was the _Y_ also, after that of
_Ysabel_, the wife of Philip), the fact may be doubted. As to Mr.
Koning’s hypothesis, concerning the _two_ paper-marks with the
_arms of Bavaria_, it is certainly ingenious: and, had he proved
that the paper so marked, was manufactured in the dominions of
_Jacqueline_, or of her mother _Margaret_, at the early period
he speaks of, I should have thought it so strong a circumstance,
in favour of that edition of the _Speculum_ in which those
paper-marks occur, that I should have felt disposed to carry
back the three preceding editions of that work (for it certainly
is the fourth) to a very remote period indeed, rather than have
denied that it was printed at the early date he has assigned
to it. But _first_, Mr. Koning has brought no evidence to shew
that the paper was made in Brabant; (for the circumstance,
supposing it true, that all the paper used in those times, at
Haarlem, came from that great commercial depôt, Antwerp, proves
nothing, since paper coming from different parts, was doubtless
sold there); and, _secondly_, we have no proof that it was made
at that early period. Suffice it for me to add, that neither
of these paper-marks was to be found among the tracings, made
by Mr. Koning from the ancient registers of Haarlem, which, as
I have said, he was so good as to lend to me; and that after a
diligent search of several months in the extensive collections
of original Books of Accounts, from 1352 to about 1470, in the
archives at the Hague, I was unable to discover either of them;
though at length I chanced to find them both, in a book in sq.
fol. obligingly lent to me by Mr. De Jonge, now the principal
archivist at the Hague; viz. the _Fasciculus Temporum_ in Dutch,
printed at Utrecht, by _Joh. Veldener_, in 1480; though perhaps
the paper was not made from the same identical sieves or moulds,
as the paper that is found in the _Speculum_.”

Thus then, Mr. Ottley, who “shews a determined inclination to favour the claims of Laurent Coster,”[129] also shews, that M. Koning, who obtained the prize from the Dutch Society of Arts and Sciences at Haarlem, for the best dissertation in support of the ancient tradition that the Art of Printing was invented in that city,--is wrong in his assertions in regard to the paper-marks; and that the earliest instances of the occurrence of those to which Koning chiefly refers, the Gothic P, and the arms of Bavaria, are in the years 1445, 1453, and 1480.

It follows therefore, from the evidence of the paper-marks, that the printing of the _Speculum_ could not have taken place before 1445; that most probably it was not printed earlier than 1453; and that it may not have issued from the press before even 1480. Consequently, as the _Speculum_ was the first Dutch work printed with separable types, it cannot claim priority over the invention of Gutenberg, which, as has been shewn in the preceding chapter, must have been previous to 1436.

As to the costume and armour of the figures in the vignettes of the _Speculum_,[130] the following extracts from Sir Samuel Meyrick’s letter to Mr. Ottley, and the observations of the latter thereon, are most pertinent. Sir Samuel says:--

“Next to actual dates, there is no criterion of age so sure as
_Costume, which, changing on an average within every ten years,
fixes the real period, almost precisely_; especially, as, all
its parts not varying at the same moment, the one rectifies the
vagueness of the other. After costume, ornament is a fair guide,
as is architecture; and next to these, the style of writing,
where the subject is a manuscript.

“You are, no doubt, well aware that the _designers of the middle
ages_, until the latter part of the seventeenth century, _always
dressed their figures from the objects before their eyes_; and
those writers who would fabricate descriptions of what they
wished should be supposed to have occurred before their times,
always used the terms of costume applicable to their own period.”

Then follow numerous illustrations and references, in proof of the position laid down; amongst which are the different articles of armour used from the reigns of Edward I, to Henry VIII. With reference to some of these articles, Sir S. Meyrick continues:--

“On comparing these with what appears in the woodcuts to the
Speculum, the identity will be evident. It is true that their
use continued till the close of the fifteenth century; but this
authority shews that they were also known at its commencement....

“On a careful review and consideration of the whole, I am
inclined to think, that the wood-blocks of the Speculum cannot be
of later date than 1435, and that they may be a little earlier;
nor is this opinion in the least degree shaken on an examination
of the rest, besides that of which you more particularly asked
it.”

But Mr. Ottley will not venture to assign to the woodcuts so early a date. He says:--

“I believe all will agree with Dr. Meyrick, that the artists of
the times we are speaking of, and of earlier as well as much
later periods, were universally accustomed to dress their figures
according to the fashion of their own day, whatever the age of
the subject they had to represent; and that, therefore _costume_
(and I might add, the style of art) affords, next to actual
dates, the surest means of determining the age of an illuminated
manuscript or other monument.

“But, I suspect, if Dr. Meyrick means to speak generally, that he
goes too far, when he says that, by such means, the true date of
a work of art is to be ascertained to within the short period of
five or ten years.

“In the early times we are speaking of, the main articles of
dress continued so nearly the same for great part of a century,
that the same suit of armour, and the same gown, descended from
father to son, and from mother to daughter, and when altered,
perhaps, in certain small details, rendering them so far
conformable to the particular fashion of the day, served even for
a third generation. These _small details_, I admit, may in many
cases greatly help us; and will sometimes point to a period of
very small duration. But I suspect, that the _exact_ date when
one fashion had its commencement, and another went out, is known
but in very few instances; and it can scarce be doubted but that
in one country--nay in one part of the same country--certain
fashions continued to prevail for some time after they had been
discontinued in another.

“In addition to this, it seems probable, from the great
costliness of armour, that when a suit, or part of a suit, had
become too much out of fashion to be any longer worn by a man
of rank, it would, instead of being thrown aside as useless
lumber, be often handed over to one of his dependents: and in
consequence, in designs and illuminations done in these times,
it might happen that subordinate figures would here and there
appear, dressed in costume of a more ancient character than the
principal personages.

“Again, I think, that an artist advanced in years, when
illuminating a manuscript, or making designs to engrave from,
would often be likely, from habit, to represent his figures in
costume more or less resembling that which had prevailed in his
younger days, when he made his studies; and, hence, although he
would scarcely fail to introduce also certain new changes of
fashion, too remarkable to be overlooked, his work on the whole,
would savour more of the costume of former days, than would be
the case with the performance of a younger artist, executed at
the same time.

“But our means of forming a correct judgment of the _date_ of
these cuts, are not in all respects so complete, as those which
enable us to determine the country ... Holland has no monumental
effigies of these times, to which we may refer as authorities ...
still, did Holland herself furnish us with more numerous
authorities, we should, I think, be enabled to determine the date
of the work in question, with fuller confidence than we can do
under the existing circumstances.

“To conclude--I have found nothing in the costume of the cuts
of the _Speculum_, that appears to me to militate directly
against the supposition that they may be of the early date Dr.
Meyrick has assigned to them, and, although the argument produced
by that gentleman to shew that they cannot be later, is not
perhaps in all respects conclusive, still, considering all the
circumstances, I could with difficulty persuade myself that the
work was not _commenced_, at least, within a few years of the
period he has supposed, and certainly, I should say, not later
than 1450.”

These reasons, and the conclusion they lead to, on the part of a writer so decidedly Costerian as Mr. Ottley undoubtedly is, are very important in a controversy of the kind such as that with which we are dealing. The 58 cuts of two designs each, and their engraving on wood, together with the twenty pages of texts, similarly engraved, must have taken a very considerable time to complete, on the part of the artist “Beelde-maker,” and “Letter-snyder,” employed upon them. Supposing then the work of engraving the cuts was _commenced_ in 1450, and the whole work was _completed_ in three years, we are brought back to the same date for the earliest probable original printing of the _Speculum_, that we reached from a consideration of the paper-marks, a few pages previous; that is, at least thirteen years subsequent to the death of the man, whom Junius calls the first printer, and who, all those who have adopted his narrative, insist upon it, was, by the printing of that book, the original inventor and first practiser of Typography in Europe; but which, as we have seen, could not have appeared until more than seventeen years had passed away from the time when Gutenberg first made his separable metal types at Strasburg.

Enough, and more than enough, has already been stated, to prove that Laurent Janssoen Coster was not the inventor, nor Haarlem, the birthplace of the Typographic Art; and that the _Speculum Humanæ Salvationis_, the first Dutch book printed with separable letters was not, and could not have been, printed at the place where, and by the man to whom, from 1588 to 1871, a host of writers, following the lead of Junius, have attributed it.

But it may fairly be asked,--If that work, as well as the others which have been imputed to Coster, were not the products of his press, by whom then were they printed? This question, although one of those seemingly more easily asked than answered, is yet one that need not be shrunk from, inasmuch as in the far-off vista of antiquity, and amid the dim mists of uncertainty which encompass it, certain ancient landmarks are perceivable, which may serve to guide the inquirer, and possibly help him to arrive at convictions capable of enduring the test of examinations as potent and searching as the touch of an Ithuriel’s spear.

Reference has more than once been made to the impulse given to learning at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries. This movement was helped forward by no one in Holland and Germany more than by Gerhard Groote, or Magnus, of Deventer, (_b._ 1326, _d._ 1370), who after studying theology at Paris, became a canon of Utrecht and Aix-la-Chapelle, and founded the Order of the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life, generally known as the “Gemeineslebens,” or “Frères de la Vie Commune,” but sometimes confounded with the Beghards and Lollhards of an earlier time. The headquarters of the Brotherhood was at Deventer, where a College was built and inhabited by them in the year 1400. Receiving the approval of the Council of Constance, the Order was propagated throughout Holland, Lower Germany, and other provinces. “It was divided into the literary Brethren or Clerks, and the unlearned Brethren, who lived in different houses, but in bonds of the greatest friendship. _The Clerks devoted themselves to transcribing books, the cultivation of polite learning, and the instruction of youth; and they erected schools wherever they went._ The Brethren laboured with their hands, and pursued various mechanic trades. Neither were under the restraint of religious vows; but still they ate at a common table, and had a general community of goods. The Sisters lived in nearly the same manner, and the time which was not employed in prayer and reading, they devoted to education of female children, and to such labours as were suitable for their sex. The schools of these Clerks of the Common Life were very celebrated in this century, and in them were trained nearly all the restorers of polite learning in Germany and Holland; and among others the great Erasmus of Rotterdam, Alexander Hegius, John Murmelius and others.” Thus far Mosheim. Hallam, in his “Introduction to the Literature of Europe,” says, “they were distinguished by their strict lives, their community, at least a partial one, of goods, their industry in manual labour, _their tendency to mysticism_. But they were as strikingly distinguished by the cultivation of knowledge, which was encouraged in brethren of sufficient capacity, and promoted by schools, both for primary and for enlarged education. These schools were, says Eichhorn, ‘the first genuine nurseries of literature in Germany, so far as it depended on the knowledge of languages; and in them was first taught the Latin, and in the process of time the Greek, and Eastern tongues.’ Some of them, such as that of St. Edward’s at Groningen, and the one at Zwoll, presided over by Thomas à Kempis, were of considerable reputation. In the year 1430 they had established as many as forty-five houses in Germany and the Low Countries, and in 1460 they had more than thrice that number. Amongst other occupations, they busied themselves in copying and binding books.”

Bound to live by labour, and under a semi-ascetic discipline, self-abnegation was a distinguishing characteristic of the Frères de la Vie Commune; while the instruction of youth, and the promotion of piety, were the objects to which they devoted their lives and labours. The multiplication of books, which formed a portion of their occupations, could not but prove a powerful means for assisting them to the attainment of the objects which they had at heart. These books were naturally divided into educational and devotional, according to the classes of individuals for whose use they were designed. Among the former would be A B C Dariums, Catonis Disticha, Donatuses, Doctrinals, and such like. Among the latter, the Poor Man’s Bible, the Apocalypse of St. John, the Book of Canticles, the History of the Virgin, the Arts of Memory and Dying, and the Mirror of Human Salvation.

As the operations of the Brotherhood extended, and their schools increased, the greater would be the demand for the above works, and the more laborious the efforts of the copyists to meet that demand. At their establishments, whether at Deventer, Bruges, Brussels, Zwolle, or elsewhere, artists and illuminators would be found among their ranks. And as Zwolle is known to have been a very early seat of the engraver’s art, such pictorial embellishments as these artists designed would speedily be transferred to wood. That such was the case, and that Zwolle was the place where Block-books were first produced, seems to be certain, from the fact that in 1489 the Brethren there used the original blocks of the _Biblia Pauperum_ in printing the work “Passye ende dat Leven van onsers liefs hern.” The silver cross and arms of Zwolle are also to be found in the cuts of the Book of Canticles. As the labours of the copyists increased, and as scrolls and inscriptions were added to the engraved figures, and the art of the ‘letter-snyder’ was called in to assist that of the ‘beelde-maker,’ and the ‘formen-’ and ‘figure-snyder,’ there can be no question but that it not unfrequently occurred to the minds of thoughtful copyists, that whole texts of books could be so engraved. A representation to that effect to the chief of the brotherhood would lead to an order to carry the idea into execution. In the descriptive text of the _Ars Moriendi_ and like works, and in the twenty xylographic pages of the first Latin edition of the “Mirror of Salvation,” we see the realization of the idea. But in the course of continually cutting the letters on the wood, an intelligent ‘letter-snyder’ would be struck by the constant recurrence of certain letters and combinations of letters,--a fact much more likely to attract his attention than a copyist’s,--and he would find, in counting over these letters, that his future labours could be greatly abridged, by merely cutting as many separate letters and combinations of each sort, as would suffice for printing a page or two at a time; the same letters answering again and again for the work in hand, or for any other that might be required. In the reduction of this idea to practice, the reason may be seen why the first edition of the _Speculum_ is partly xylographic and partly typographic.

The success attending these first Dutch efforts at printing with separable types would at once lead to further applications of the art in the production of elementary educational books; and as the reputation of the Brethren as schoolmasters was great, and they were often invited and sent for by the magistrates of cities to open schools in Germany as well as in Holland, they would carry such books with them. The fact of fragments of early Donatuses and Doctrinals being found in Germany is thus accounted for, without any necessity for supposing, with Junius and his followers, that the types from which they were printed were stolen from Coster of Haarlem, and carried away to Mentz: while sets of types cut by different ‘letter-snyders’ would also account for the differences observed in the typography of the four folio editions of the _Speculum_.

Bearing in mind then, the objects to which the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life devoted themselves;--the classes of books, educational and devotional, of which the block-books consisted, and their special adaptability to promote the objects of the fraternity:--the fact, that Zwolle was one of the earliest seats of the engraver’s art, as well as a central station of the brotherhood;--that the original blocks of the _Biblia Pauperum_ were reproduced at the Brethren’s printing press there in 1489;--that large editions of these works were never required,[131] and that therefore one printing establishment might suffice for the needs in this respect of the whole fraternity;--that the arms of the city were engraved on one of these books, the Song of Songs;--that all those with pictorial embellishments, claimed as Costerian productions, are, in the opinion of so competent a judge as Ottley, the work of the same artist, or at least of the same school, as regards design and execution, as the _Biblia Pauperum_;--and that from the paper-marks, as well as the character of the costume and armour of the figures in the _Speculum_, that work could not have been printed until about the year 1453, or later:--the conclusion seems reasonable, that all the works which from 1588 have been traditionally attributed to Coster and his alleged successors, came in reality from the establishment of the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life at Zwolle:--and if so, this satisfactorily accounts for there being neither name nor initial nor date, to indicate either author, designer or printer; the principles of the fraternity being such as to merge the individual in the brotherhood, and to make the work of one a portion of the common work of all.

Setting aside, therefore, the conclusions of Baron Heinecken and Wetter in regard to the party by whom, and the date when, the _Speculum_ was originally printed, (which nevertheless are not without grounds for their support), this view of the question gives to some unknown brother or brethren the merit of having independently worked out the idea of separable letters on wood about the years 1450-53; thus adding one more to the number of known instances, when at certain historic periods the minds of individuals wholly unknown to each other, and in widely different parts of the world, have almost simultaneously worked out the same invention, or made the same discovery. Instances of such coincidences will no doubt at once occur to the minds of intelligent readers; I shall therefore only refer by way of illustration to the invention of Photography by M. Niepce and Mr. Fox Talbot, and the discovery of the planet Neptune by the English and French astronomers, Adams and Leverrier.

The rarity of copies of works in which the types used in the _Speculum_ have been recognised, is accounted for by the fact of their speedy supercession by cast fusile metal types, when a knowledge of the Arts of Typography and Typefounding became spread throughout Europe by the dispersion of the workmen at Mentz, on the capture and sack of that city in 1462. Most, if not all of the early printers, were men of learning. Many of those who first practised the art in the Netherlands would consequently have been educated by the Brethren and Clerks of the Common Life; and amongst these some were very probably members of that fraternity. It is certain that at Brussels (1476) and at Zwolle, as well as at Rheingau (1474) and Rostock (1476), the Brethren speedily practised the new art as first brought to perfection at Mentz. And at one or other of these places, it is much more likely that Veldener obtained the cuts of the Mirror of Salvation, which he reprinted at Culembourg in 1483, than that he purchased them from the descendants of Coster at Haarlem;--a statement which, however much insisted upon by Dutch, and reiterated of late by French and English writers, is purely suppositious, and utterly void of the slightest foundation in fact.

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 work _Batavia_ was 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 called _Claes_ Lottynz, 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 1537 _et 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’S _Inquiry_, p. 308.

[90] _Vide_ ch. 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_, by S. 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 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 clarum nomen Mogus 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’s _Typographia_, (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 the statue, 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,” says SANTANDER, “we examine all the authors without exception who have written in favour of _Haarlem_, 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!” exclaims OTTLEY, “are the fragments of _Donatuses_, found _in Holland_, and printed in the same type as the Speculum, to be considered as no evidence whatever of early printing _in that country_,” &c., &c., &c.--_Invention of Printing_, p. 117.

“_Coster was the first_ to 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’S _Life, &c. of W. Caxton_, vol. i. p. 59.

[109] After enumerating several works “printed with what may be termed Kosterian types,” Mr. HUMPHREYS says:--“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, and _on 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 the _Speculum_, 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. to OTTLEY’S Inquiry_.

[115] MEERMAN considered 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. OTTLEY allows 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 the _Speculum_, 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 the _Speculum_ present 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 the _Speculum_, 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 the _Speculum_ are 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] See WETTER, p. 23.

[126] M. BERNARD; and P. 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] See _ante_, p. 86.

Early Typography.