>z. L-lf mi 7673-3 . Cornell University Library Z126 .L74 1871 Ha ^ri!Si'!?.,,, l , l B8S!!! d of ,he Invention of print olln 3 1924 029 494 337 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://archive.org/details/cu31924029494337 :c THE if HAARLEM LEGEnI €\t Intentiün üf f rmtmg BY L0UEEN8 JANSZOON COSTER, CRITICALLY EXAMINED 4' ■DB. A, c VAN DEE LINDE, •*f?a FROM THE DUTCH J. H. HESSELS, WITH AN INTRODUCTION, AND A CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE (JOSTERIAN INCUNABULA. > &- London : BLADES, EAST, & BLADES, 11, ABCHTJRCH LANE. J': 1871. fflomell HttiMmtg |f itog 4^ét~ THE HAARLEM LEGEND 0Ï Cjre fntmrtiim tf |)rittt% BY LOURENS JANSZOON COSTER, CRITICALLY EXAMINED De. A. VAN DER LINDE. **-.;. FROM THE DUTCH J. H. HESSELS, WITH AN" INTRODUCTION, AND A CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE COSTERIAN INCUNABULA. London : BLADES, EAST, & BLADES, 11, ABCHTJRCH LANE. 1871. 'CORNELL UNIVERSITY! LIBRARV ,A D LONDON: Printed by Jas. TauacoTT and Son, Suffolk Laae, City. CONTENTS, PAGE INTRODUCTION V The Author's Prepack . . . ' xxvii I. Writing, Xylography and Typography 1 II. Gutenberg's Preparation 12 III. Gutenberg at Mentz ... 21 IV. The Memory of Gutenberg 29 V. Spread of Typography in the Netherlands .... .34 VI. Gerrit Thomaszoon 40 Til. "Van Zuren and Coornhert 48 VIII. LUIGI GUICCIARDINI 5 * IX. Hadrianus Junius 66 X. 1440 XI. A Beech in " den Hout." 66 72 XII. Speculum nostra Salutis 80 XIII. Joannes Paustus 89 XIV. The Bookbinder Cornelis ... 96 XV. Quirijn Dirksz • .101 XVI. The Revelations of Scriverius XVII. Louwerijs Janszoen . . 126 XVIII. Costerianism XIX. Gerardus Meerman 147 XX. A Herald of Lies ... . ' 155 X$I. Metamorphosis of the Legend ■ 164 XXII. A, Municipal Show-Booth . 167 XXIII. Conclusion INTRODUCTION. 1 The original Dutch work, of which we here offer an English translation, was com-, menced, as the author tells us in his preface, in the " Nederlandschen Spectator" of 4th December, 1869, and continued in the weekly numbers of that periodical till its completion, 28th May, 1870. Afterwards the author considerably altered and ex- tended the work, republishing it as a second edition in August, 1870, under the title of : de Haarlemsche Costerlegende. The minds of many of those who took an interest in this subject had been pre- pared for this sweeping essay of Dr. Van der Linde, by the publication, in 1867, of some documents, by M. A. J. Enschedé, the archivist of Haarlem, and by M. J. A. Alberdingk Thijm, in a preface which the latter wrote for a Dutch translation of Paeile's work : Essai hist, et critique sur l'invention de l'Imprimerie. 8vo Lille 1859. These documents had been found by M. Enschedé, in the archives of Haarlem, and contained evidence that Lourens Janszoon Coster, the so-called Dutch inventor of printing, was alive and selling candles in 1447, while, according to the system of his worshippers, he had, and really ought to have, died at the end of 1439. Jac. Koning — after Junius the chief author on the Haarlem invention .of printing, whose book : Verhandeling over den oorsprong, de uitvinding, verbetering en volmaking der Boekdrukkunst, &c, was published in 1816, and later (1819) in the shape of an abridged French translation — had also made researches in the Haarlem archives, and, as it now appears from a MS. left by him (see page 91, note 3, of the present book), noticed all items relating to the so-called Haarlem inventor, but used only those which served his purpose, which was to write a book on the Haarlem invention and its inventor, Lourens Janszoon Coster, as he had been revealed to the world by Junius. Koning wisely concluded that his hero should die at the proper moment. Now, as the proper moment for the death of the Dutch inventor was the end of 1439, and as some person called Lourens Janszoon (this is the name by which the inventor was also known ; that of Coster or Koster, meaning a sacristan, being derived from the office he is said to have held), did die, or at least was buried, about that time, Koning took no further notice of other items which might have interfered with his work. In this way he made his system complete, wrote his book, and reaped great glory as the fruit of his patriotic labour. Later writers on the same subject, Dr. A. de Vries, Noordziek, &c, seldom omitted to say- that Koning's book had become obsolete and was defective in many respects; but they never took the trouble of verifying his annotations with regard to Coster. At last, in 1840, M. Joh. Enschedé, the uncle of the above-mentioned M. Enschedé, examined the Haarlem archives, and found the same documents which Koning had found before him, but had not used. This M. Enschedé, however, happening 1 I must ask those who hare not made a study of the mimitim of the history of the invention of printing, and do not wish to do so, to read of this Introduction only as far as the end of the first paragraph of p. vii. before they proceed to read the book itself. The greatest part of what follows can have no great importance to them ; and even those who are acquainted with the controversy, or wish to make themselves acquainted with it, would do well to read the Introduction laet of all. INTRODUCTION. to be a great friend of Dr. Abraham de VrieB, the champion of the Haarlem claims, and unwilling to annoy him, resolved never to reveal the documents he had found, so long as his friend was alive. His death took place in 1864, but M. Enschedé never even then told the secret, 1 until his nephew, after making inde- pendent researches, again discovered the above-mentioned documents. It was then that this part of the history became gradually known ; and when, after the death of M. Enschedé, the uncle, in 1867, M. Rutjes translated into Dutch the French work of Paeile, and M. J. A. Alberdingk Thijm was writing an introduction to this. book, M. A. J. Enschedé communicated his discovery to M. Thijm, who now enriched his introduction with the five documents which the reader will find on page 42 of the present book, together with a few more. M. Thijm reasonably concluded that he could not publish these entirely new documents without some remarks, and wishing to give M. Enschedé all the fame of the discovery, he expressed himself thus : " I agree with my esteemed friend M. A. J. Enschedé, to whom I am indebted for these indications, that Lourens Janszoon Coster, the chandler of 1441 [ — 1447] . . ., Lourens Janszoon, the sheriff in 1425 — 1431 [who really died at the end of 1439, see pages 116 and 119 of this work] , and Lourens Janszoon Coster, who invented the art of printing in the Wood near Haarlem, are one and the same person. I also agree with M. Enschedé, who remarked to me in a letter, that ' he saw no objection whatever to take a Haarlem chandler of the 15th century to be identical with a sheriff, as we have had many burgomasters, who were brewers, coopers, or the like, at the same time. That Junius makes no mention of this circumstance, proves nothing against his account ; it was, perhaps, a particular of very little value in his eye, but it does not appear so trifling to me. I can understand that a man like Gutenberg, who was acquainted with several industries, improved the art of printing ; or that a chandler, acquainted with founding in moulds, among which were, perhaps, marks, conceived the art of printing, rather than a sheriff, conversant with judicial matters. I, for one, believe that Coster got first of all the idea by moulding candles ; that thereupon he made experiments by cutting letters out of beech-bark in the Wood and printed from them ; that he did not do so by accident, but that the invention was the fruit of an idea living in him, and which even accompanied him on his walks in the Wood.'." " I have," said M. Alb. Thijm, "nothing to add to these words of the Haarlem archivist." This is said in the preface to the very book (of Paeile) in which six pages (62 — 67) are devoted to demonstrating that Coster died at the end of 1439, where a document is given of Coster's burial, and where it is distinctly pointed out, that this event (the death of Coster in 1439) is in perfect harmony with the account of Junius. Moreover, among the notes at the end of the same book, is one which refers to what is demonstrated in these six pages, and where it is said that M. A. J. Enschedé (the man who had sent the five documents proving that L. J. C. was alive in 1447) confirmed the genuineness of the document of Coster's burial at the end of 1439 ! The above remarks and inconsistencies, although coming from such well-known, learned men, did- not satisfy all persons, and especially those who could not believe that a man, who was buried at the end of 1439, sold candles till 1447. The whole case soon brought down a shower of ridicule upon the Dutch in general, and upon the chief actors in the dispute in particular, as may be seen in the Nederl. Spectator (29th Feb. 1868), and more especially in " Le Bibliophile Beige," 1868, No. 2, pp. 152 — 183, where M. C(harles) E(uelens) severely criticized the proceedings of the Costerians in an article headed : " L'Odyssée de Laurent Coster en Hollande." 1 Except thus Dr. Van Meurs, of Haarlem, wrote to me, " to some of his relations and also to myself, about 1861, under condition of never speaking about it. Dr. Tan der Willigen, of Haarlem also knew it, and when he, with the assistance of Dr. A. J. Enschede', made researches in our archives about Haarlem painters, he found the places where the items occurred." INTBODUOTION. The question was now subjected to a new inquiry, the fruit of which is Dr. Van der Linde's book, wherein he strikingly exposes many other curious proceedings of the Costerians which were hitherto entirely unknown. His book has already called forth several articles in different periodicals and newspapers in Holland and in other countries. They are mostly confirmatory, but I do- not think them important enough to be translated here ; the majority of them hardly touch the question at issue. Only one brochure entitled : De Keulsche Kroniek en de Coster-legende van Dr. A. Van der Linde te zamen getoetst door Dr. P. Van Meurs. 8° Haarlem, 1870 (The Cologne Chronicle and the Coster Jegend of Dr. A. Van der Linde tested by each other), deserves somewhat our attention, as it probably expresses the opinion of the present Costerians in Holland ; although the author, who is a physician at Haarlem, tells us in his preface that he speaks only for himself. I will give the cream of this brochure while treating of some passages of Dr. Van der Linde's book. But before I do so I wish to make one general remark : no one who has written against Dr. Van der Linde has attempted to say one word in behalf of Coster, only Dr. Van Meurs, the title of whose brochure sufficiently indicates its object, says in his preface, that " he considers it a secondary question whether the statue erected at Haarlem in 1856, bears the name of Laurentius Johannes or Laurentius Johannes Cognomento iEdituus, Custosve, or any other name." I said before that the minds of many of those who took an interest in this subject had been prepared for Dr. Van der Linde's essay, but I must not forget to say that to many others there was hardly a time that the cause of Haarlem seemed so strong as during the last twenty or thirty years. This was owing to the works of Ottley, Bernard, Sotheby, Berjeau, Noel Humphreys, Blades, &c, who are all in favour of Haarlem. It would, perhaps, be unjust to blame these authors for having so entirely relied upon what had been advanced by Junius, Koning, De Vries, Noordziek, &c. It was only natural that foreigners, who did not give way to patriotic prejudices, should fall into the trap, so long as Dutch authors, who enjoyed the highest reputation in their own country and whose honesty could not be suspected, published documents by which they, to all appearance, proved the soundness of Coster's history, as far as the time of his life and death was concerned. Whatever may be said about the discrepancies and absurdities of the Coster-legend, now that we possess a full knowledge of it, there is one circumstance which has given, and will give, an air of probability to the story, even now that it is deprived of its hero, so long as this circumstance cannot be sufficiently accounted for. I mean tbe existence of a comparatively large number of works — block-books and incunabula — which are of an incontestably early, and Dutch origin, and which cannot, even at present, be ascribed to any known printer, but of which it is certain that they belong to the printer who produced the four editions of the Speculum Humana Salvationis, the book referred to by Junius (see page 61.) A great part of these works — which we might still call, for the sake of con- venience, Costeriana — consists of different typographical editions of Donatus, the very book in which, according to the famous passage in the Cologne chronicle on the invention of printing (see page 8), " the first prefiguration (die eyrste vurbyldung) [for the invention at Mentz] was found, and which was printed in Holland before that time " [the' invention at Mentz] . We find, moreover, among those Costeriana a goodly number of different editions of Alexander Gallus' Doctrinale, a little school-book, of which it seems that copies, gette en molle, were sold at Bruges and Valenciennes in 1446 and 1451 (see page 6), and which is also mentioned by Junius as being the first book printed at Mentz with the types stolen from Coster (see page 61). Those who do not believe in an Haarlem invention of printing with moveable vill INTKODUCTION. types, argue that the Doctrinales referred to in the Cambray MS., and the Donatuses spoken of in the Cologne chronicle, must have been xylographic. The reader may find this view more broadly expressed by our author (on pp. 6 and 7 with regard to the Doctrinales and on p. 10 with regard to the Donatuses) than in any other book on the question. The partizans of Haarlem, on the other hand, argue that in both cases typographic- productions must have been meant, and this, they say, is all the more evident, as no xylographic copy of either of these little works has ever been discovered, which could reasonably be put so early as c. 1440, while a great number of typographic Donatuses and Doctrinales has been found which bear the stamp of great antiquity. There is no technical term in the passage of the Cologne chronicle to qualify the Donatuses mentioned there, and we can, therefore, not be surprised that that account has continually been interpreted in favour of either party, although Dr. Van der Linde points out that the whole passage would be perfect nonsense, if we asserted that the Dutch Donatuses mentioned in it were typographic ones (see p. 8 (note 5), 10, and 142, note). We find, however, a technical term " gette en molle" in the Cambray MS., which seems to be applicable to either mode of printing (xylography or typography), while it appears also capable of being interpreted in a way disconnecting it altogether from our subject. Those who are desirous of going a little further into this matter may compare with Dr. Van der Linde's arguments on page 7, regarding the Cambray document, Bernard, de l 'origine de Vimprimerie en Europe. Paris. 1853. Vol. I. pp. 97 sqq. Bernard, who is in favour of a separate invention of typography, at Haarlem and at Mentz, but earlier at the former place than at the latter, sees in the little books, mentioned in the Diary of Jean Le Bobert, typographical productions of the press of Coster, or at least of one of his workmen. According to him they could only have been printed with moveable types, for the terms gette en molle, jettez en molls could only have regard to books printed with moveable types, cast in a mould, and he refers to several documents in support of his opinion, among which are the very same quoted by Dr. Van der Linde, in favour of a contrary opinion. Bernard, moreover, asserts that not a single instance can be found where these terms refer to xylographic productions, whereas it is constantly applied to typographically printed works. He argues further that these terms could not be interpreted otherwise, for moveable cast types only made the use of a mould necessary ; that they were borrowed from the scholars, or at all events from the merchants, who had to employ particular terms to designate the new products of typography ; that the books of which Jean Le Bobert speaks, were on vellum, except the last ; and no one could print on vellum with the frotton, an instrument used for printing xylographic productions, &c. &c. ; concluding that if it is proved that xylographic Donatuses were productions posterior to the invention of typography, it is also proved that the Dutch Donatuses of which the Cologne chronicle speaks are printed with moveable types, and not with wooden blocks. In Trübner's American and Oriental Literary Becord, No. 72 (June 30, 1871), we find an article of Mr. William Skeen, in which he says that the term gette en molle " certainly has no meaning as applying to manuscripts, but that ... it is pregnant with meaning in regard both to block-printing and stencilling ..... The assertion that jettez en molle means, and can only mean, printed from cast types, has no weight, and the phrase itself is valueless as an evidence that cast types were in use at the time when Abbé Jean Le Bobert wrote his diary." This article is a chapter of Mr. Skeen's "Work on Early Typography, which will soon be ready, and which will throw very considerable light on several obscure points connected with the early history of typography, and in connexion with the work of Dr. Van der Linde . . . will confound not a little the Costerians at home and abroad." The book is being printed in Ceylon. Finally, Dr. Van Meurs expresses himself on page 14 of his brochure as follows : " These Doctrinales (mentioned in the Diary of Jean Le Bobert), are INTRODUCTION. arbitrarily ' declared by Dr. Van der Linde to be the Doctrinalo of Alexander Gallus, but which exegetical dexterity allows him (Dr. Van der Linde) to distort the text of the Cologne chronicle, and to place the Donatuses, alluded to by Zell as having been printed already before 1440, in Flanders rather than in Holland, because (observe !) in 1446 two copies of a Doctrinale, gette en nolle, were sold at Bruges for 20 pence, and because in 1451 again the same work jettez en matte was exchanged for one en papier ? What right has he to make xylography of that gette en molle, after Bernard has pointed out that it could not have that signification ? Or does Dr. Van der Linde think — because there is question in 1514 of lettre mollé, which undoubtedly refers to a typographical missal, and because Philip de Commines mentions in 1498 the Sermons of Savonarola, qu'il a fait mettre en moule, by which are perhaps meant the | Prediche raccolte per Ser Lorenzo VioH,' which were published at Florence, probably in 1496 or 1497, and had, no doubt, "nothing to do with xylography — that the term gette en molle, which he applies so arbitrarily to the printed Bible of Gutenberg and the printed Donatuses, could have been applied in 1446 also to xylography ? " The application of the words gette en m.olle, as meaning xylography, to any book, is pure fancy of those who wish to find that meaning in it. So long as not a single xylographic book can be produced to which the words gette en molle are unmistakeably applied in that way in the 15th century, so long is the whole manufactory of xylo- graphic school-books in Flanders, which is only founded on those Doctrinales, nothing but a chimera. The remark that a copy nefalloit rien et estoit tout faulx, is already sufficient to put the idea of xylography out of the question ; and we may say this with the more right, as not a single xylographic Doctrinale has come down to us, or exists otherwise but in the obscure words of the Cambray MS. The explanation has, there- fore, no foundation. " If we can, however, point out no xylographic, but typographic books, to which the words mettre or jeter en moule have been applied, I think it still more probable — at least as long as this question has not incontrovertibly been settled — that a livre gette en molle, has nothing to do either with xylography or typography. Who does not perceive, while reading the Cambray document, that in 1451 the term gette en molle is used in contradistinction to en papier ? The same is the case in the ordinance of Louis XL of 1474, in which he granted naturalization to Friburger, Gehring, and Mart. Crantz, and where we read : ' Que ilz sont venuz demourer en nostre royaume puis aucun temps en 9a, pour 1 'exercise de leurs ars et mestiers de faire livres de plusieurs manieres d'escriptures en mosle et autrement.' " Do not these terms make us rather think of books in loose sheets or bound ? In this way the Sermons of Savonarola, qu'il a fait mettre en moule, would simply mean that they were collected in some form, i.e. put together to one whole, or bound. In 1498 the art of printing was sufficiently known, and it would appear strange if Philip de Commines had spoken of it in metaphorical terms. He, therefore, means some- thing else. And what can molle be but a form, and what is therefore a book gette en molle but a book brought together in a form or in a binding, in contradis- tinction to another en papier, i.e. in a paper cover ? By this interpretation, the expensive (written, but bound) Doctrinale, which was exchanged for a much cheaper (unbound) copy, gets a natural sense ; but that very sense would be unnatural when, by a most forced explanation, we declare the Doctrinale en papier to be a MS. copy, in contradistinction to a printed one ; for, in this case, the MS. copy would probably have been the most expensive. " If, notwithstanding this, the author of ' the Coster-legend ' abides by his xylo- graphic Doctrinale of Alex. Gallus, of which never any trace has been found, it is then his duty to produce evidence not only that really such a Doctrinale was meant, but also 1 " It appears to me much more rational that a ' Doctrinale de Sapience ' is meant ; a work written in 1388 by Guy de Eoye, and much used in convents ; it commences thus : ' E qui est en ce petit liure doibuent ensainger les prestres a leurs parochiens. Et aussi pour les simples prestres qui n'entendent pas bien les escriptures,' 4c. The first edition with a date was printed in 1478." b X INTKODUCTION. a fragment of such an edition ; or to show, with undeniable proofs, that such works were printed, by the side of the typographical fragments which do exist, and of which the Costerians have spoken ever since three centuries. The words of Paeile are, therefore, based on some foundation. But, however this may be, if Paeile had no right to invent, on the authority simply of that gette en molle, a whole bookseller's correspond- ence between Haarlem and Bruges ; yet Dr. Van der Linde has much less right, on the same authority, 1st, to give to a word a meaning for which hitherto not the least logical reason exists, and which is, therefore, based on nothing but arbitrariness ; 2nd, to represent a whole shop and manufactory of xylographic school-books in Flanders as a proved fact ; 3rd, to represent xylographic Donatuses as having been published by the same firm some years earlier ; 4th, to metamorphose typographical Donatuses into xylographic ones ; 5th, to represent Donatuses, which ' an admirably accurate author, from whose credibility we may not deduct anything,' unconditionally ascribes to Holland, as having been born in Flanders, and all this because, according to a MS. annotation, Jean Le Eobert, abbat of the convent St. Aubert at Cambray, had bought for him at Bruges, in January, 1446, by means of a writer of Valenciennes, a Doc- trinale gette en molle, for which he paid twenty pence tournois, and also because later a similar copy had been sent by him to Arras, which had been bought at Valenciennes for twenty -four groots (the market was therefore higher there). This last copy, how- ever, was full of misprints (of course a second, but not corrected, xylographic edition !). It was not accepted, and the Doctrinale gette en molls-was exchanged for one en papier. Would it not be desirable to establish a professorship for Dr. Van der Linde's special criticism and exegetical dexterity ? ' ' It will be observed that Dr. Van Meurs does not apply the words gette en molle to the mode by which the books of the Cambray MS. were printed ; but that he considers them to have been manuscripts, bound (gette en molle) or in loose sheets (en papier). If his interpretation were right, the Cambray document would lose all its value with regard to the invention of printing. It would be rather difficult to give another opinion on these terms ; nor is it necessary to do so ; whatever may be their meaning, so long as we do not find early xylographic Doctrinales and Donatuses, it will be necessary to study the typographical ones, not with the avowed object of trying whether we could ascribe them to the Haarlem Coster, but simply in what period we may place them, and whether we could put them so early as 1446 or even before 1440. By this investigation we may safely leave the printer in the back-ground ; for, although his discovery would be of great importance, inasmuch as it would, perhaps, enable us to settle at once the difficult question of the date of the books, yet if the books themselves do really prove to be executed after 1470, or I will rather say, if it cannot be proved (by documentary evidence and not by speculation), that they were printed before 1470, nothing is left to us, now that the man, to whom they have all been ascribed, is removed from the scene of his imaginary labours, but to treat them as we treat all other books of the same kind : that is to say, ascribe them to an unknown printer, and regard all the accounts of the Cologne chronicle, of Junius, &c, about them, as mere stories, which obtained, through certain circumstances, a remarkable air of probability. And if, in the course of time, we should be able to find any evidence of these books having been printed at an earlier date than the Mentz invention, then so many questions are set at rest that that of the printer can only be secondary. For the convenience of those who might wish to interest themselves in this subject, I give here for the first time a : INTEODUCTION. CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE COSTEBIANA. [N.B. — Where a book is described in Mr. Holtrop's Catalogus of the fifteenth century books in the Royal Library at the Hague (Hagae Comitum. 1856, 8vo.), I have given the reference (BEH.), which indicates at the same time that a copy or fragment of the work is preserved in that Library. Where there is a facsimile or a description of any book in the same writer's Monwmens Typographiques des Pays-Bas (La Have, 1868. 4to.), I have referred to the plate or the page (MT.). I have also referred to Meerman {Origines typographical, 2 vols. 4to. Hagae Com. 1765) ; Sotheby (Principia typographic, 3 vols. fol. Lond. 1858) ; Bernard {De tOrigine et des Debuts de Vlmprimene en Europe, 2 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1853) ; Ennen {Katalog der Incnnabeln in der Stadt-Bibliqthek zu Kbln, herausg. von Dr. L. Bnnen) • Wetter {Kritische Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst, 8vo. Mainz, 1836.)] Type I. 1. Speculum Human» Salvationis (unmixed Latin edition). Described BEH. No. 561 ; Sotheby I., p. 145 ; Bernard L, p. 17.— Fac- similes MT. pi. 17 ; Sotheby I. pi. xxix. and xxx. Sixty-four anopisthographic leaves (of which the first is blank). The work is divided into 5 quires, of which a contains 3, b, c and d, each 7, and the last, 8 sheets ; the preface occupies the 5 last leaves of the first quire. • Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen at the Hague (wanting pre- face) ; 2. (John B. Inglis, at present) Mr. B. Quaritch ; 8. Imperial Library at Vienna ; 4. Library in the Palace Pitti at Florence ; 5. Town Hall at Haarlem (wanting preface) ; 6. Library of the King of Hanover (?) (only 44 leaves) ; 7. Boyal Library at Brussels (5 leaves wanting). 2. The same work (mixed Latin edition). Desc. BEH. 560 ; Bernard I. 13 sqq.— Facs. MT. pi. 20, 21 ; Sotheby I. pi. xxxii. This edition contains the same number of anopisthographic leaves, divided in the same way, as No. 1, but 20 of them are printed xylogra- phically, viz. '(in quire b) leaves 6-19, 7-18, 9-16, 10-15, 11-14, 12-13; (inquire c) U. 21-32, 22-31, 26-27 ; (in quire e) 11. 51-60. Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen ; 2. British Museum (Grenville Collection) ; 3. Bodleian Library, Oxford ; 4. and 5. Paris Library (2 copies); 6. Mr. Holford ; 7. Earl Spencer; 8. Pembroke Library at Wilton House. Bernard says: "On commit une dizaine d' exeniplaires de cette edition." But I do not know where they all are. 3. The same work (mixed Dutch edition). Desc. BEH. 562 ; Bernard I. 17.— Facs. MT. pi. 18 ; Sotheby pi. xxxi. and xxxiv. 3 ; Ottley, Inquiry, I. 249. This edition consists of 62 anopisthographic leaves, which are divided as in the Latin editions ; the first quire, however, has only 4 leaves. The 49th and 60th leaf are printed with a different type (see type II., No. 17). These two pages differ, moreover, among themselves in some of the copies (See Meerman, Origg. typogr. I. 121, note cl). Copies: 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen; 2. Earl Spencer; 3. (En- schedé, afterwards bought by Mr. Quaritch, but now in the possession of?). 4. The same work (unmixed Dutch edition). Desc. BEH. 563 ; Bernard I. 17.— Facs. MT. pi. 22 ; Sotheby I. pi. xxxiii. 1. .... This edition contains the same anopisthographic leaves, divided in the same way, as No. 3. Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen (only leaf 42) ; 2. Town Hall INTRODUCTION. at Haarlem ; 3. Public Library at Haarlem ; 4. Library at Lille. (N.B. — This copy has two leaves printed on both sides; namely, on the reverse of pp. 25 and 26, are (re-)printed the pp. 47 and 62 ; they were probably proof-sheets of the printer) ; 5. Pembroke Library at Wilton House. General remark on the Speculum : I cannot tell whether Nos. 1 — 3 are placed in the right order; this much I may say, that it is now pretty certain that No. 4 is the. last edition, and that one of the Latin editions should come first. The work has been copiously described by almost every author on the history of printing; Bernard's description, however, is the best of all. 5. Donatus (JElius) de octo partibus orationis — 28 lines. Desc. BRH. 2.— Facs. MT. pi. 13 d . One leaf, on vellum, which was found pasted in a volume belonging formerly to the Sion Convent at Cologne, containing several treatises of Ulr. Zell, among which was : Augustinus de singularitate clericorum, 1467. 6. Donatus — 28 lines. Desc. MT. p. 18.— Facs. Meerman VI.* One leaf, on vellum, preserved at the Town Hall at Haarlem, and found pasted in the original binding of an account-book of 1474 of the cathedral of the same town, in which an item occurs from which it appears that Cornelis the bookbinder had bound this volume. [N.B. — Five leaves of this Donatus are in the Paris Library (See Van Praet, Velins, IV. Belles Lettres No. 10)]. 7. A Liturgical book — 12 lines. Desc. MT. p. 18.— Facs. MT. 14» b . The Boyal Library at Brussels possesses of this work the leaves 2 and 3 (11. 1 and 4 are wanting), printed on vellum. They were found by M. Buelens in the cover of an old book. 8. A Dutch version of the seven penitential Psalms — 11 lines. Desc. MT. pp. 18 and 19.— No facs. One sheet, on vellum, printed on one side, but containing 4 pages. It was found in the Boyal Library at Brussels, where it is still preserved. 9. Donatus — 30 lines. Desc. BBH. 5 ; MT. p. 19.— Facs. MT. 14". Three leaves, on vellum, found in the old binding of a copy of: Ex- hortationes Noviciorum, Deventer (R. Paffroed), 1491, in 4to. 10. Donatus — 30 lines. Desc. BRH. 564.— No facs. Fragment, on vellum. 11. Donatus — 30 lines. Desc. MT. p. 19.— Facs. Meerman IV. Two leaves (pp. 19 — 22), on vellum; discovered in 1750 by M. Enschedé in a MS. : Handvesten en Privilegiën van Kennemerland, 1330 — 1477. At the sale of his library in 1867, the fragments remained the property of the family Enschedé. There are two leaves of the same edition in the Paris Library (See Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres, No. 8). 12. Donatus — 27 lines. No description ; no facsimile. Two leaves (pp. 3 and 4, and 13 and 14) and a small fragment (of pp. 7 and 8), on vellum, preserved in the British Museum (12932c), stuck in another edition of the same work (Reutlingen, 1495). [N.B. — There are 4 leaves of a Donatus of 27 lines in the Paris Library (See Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres No. 9).] 13. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 32 lines. Desc. BRH. 558"; MT. p. 19.— Facs. MT. 15\ Two leaves, on vellum, 4to. INTRODUCTION. Xlll 14. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale, 32 lines. Desc. BEH. 557 ; MT. p. 19.— Facs. MT. 15". Two leaves, on vellum, 4to. [N.B. — 3 leaves of a Doctrinale, on vellum, of 32 lines, are preserved in the Eoyal Library at the Hague (BEH. 3) ; they were found in the binding of a : Gemma Vocabulorum, printed by Paffroed at Deventer, 1495 (Qy., which edition do they belong to, either No. 13 or 14, or to an edition different from both? — Mr. Campbell answers: "Impossible to find it out, as the pages are not the same.")] 15. Catonis Disticha — 21 lines. Desc. MT. p. 19 ; Dibdin, Bibl. Spenc. IV. 474— 76.— Facs. Cat. Spencer IV. 474 ; Sotheby, I. pi. xxvi. 1 ; MT. 16\ Perfect (?) copy (4 leaves), on vellum, in 8vo., in Earl Spencer's library. 16. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 32 lines in 4to. Desc. BEH. 559 ; MT. p. 20.— Facs. MT. 16* (27 lines). Fragment, on vellum, in 4to. Type II. 17. Two leaves (the 49th and 60th) of the mixed Dutch Speculum (Cf. No. 8). Desc. BRH. 562.— Facs. MT. pi. 19. Mr. Holtrop (Mon. Typ. p. 21) points out that the type of these two leaves resembles that of Laur. Valla [type HI.] (see Mon. Typ. pi. 25). The capitals A and N seem to be nearly the same. No trace of this type has hitherto been found in any other book. Type III. 18. Laur. Vallae Facetiae morales et Franc. Petrarcha de salibus Virorum illustrium ac faceciis Tractatus — 25 lines. BRH. 8 ; MT. pp. 29 and 30.— Facs. MT. pi. 25. Twenty -four leaves. Copies: 1. Eoyal Library at the Hague; 2. Town Library at Haarlem (Enschedé's copy) ; 3. British Museum (Grenville Collection). Mr. Holtrop, describing this book in his Cat. of the Incunabula at the Hague, said that this type was identical with that of the two leaves 49 and 60 of the mixed Dutch Speculum (see No. 17). In his Monuments (p. 29), however, he says it is different. The capitals resemble those of No. 19, while the B and the M of these two founts are identical. Type IV. 19. Ludovici (Pontani) de Eoma Singularia Juris. Pii Secundi Tractatus et Epitaphia. Desc. BEH. 13 ; MT. p. 26 sqq.— Facs. MT. pi. 23 (recto) ; Sotheby I. 181 ; IH. 132 ; Wetter. Sixty leaves (the first blank) divided into three quires (of 8, 14, 8 sheets), in small folio, 26 lines. .The tract of Pius II., with 34 lines to a page, commences on leaf 45* in Type V. Copies : — 1. (Enschedé, at Haarlem) Asher & Co. (?); 2. Earl Spencer; 3. Eoyal Library at the Hague (wanting first leaf [blank] ) ; 4. British Museum (Eoyal Library); 5. Eoyal Library at the Hague (BRH. 13, only 4 leaves) ; 6. British Museum (only leaf 24). N.B. — In No. 1 and 3 the versos of the 55th leaf present some varia- tions (see MT. p. 27). XIV INTRODUCTION. 20. Donatus — 24 lines. Desc. BEH. 11 ; MT. p. 28.— Facs. MT. pi. 18 and 24. One leaf, and part of a second, on vellum, 4to. 21. Donatus — 24 lines. Desc. BEH. 576 ; MT. p. 28.— Facs. MT. pi. 13 and 24. Four leaves, on vellum, 4to. 22. Donatus — 24 lines. Desc. MT. p. 29.— Facs. MT. pi. 13 and 24. Fragment, on vellum, 4to., formerly in the possession of Mr. Fred. Muller, but now in the Town Library at Haarlem. 23. Donatus — 24 lines. Desc. Van Praet, Velins IV. No. 12 ; Bern I., 154 (but he is mistaken in saying that it is an ed. of 27 lines) — Facs. Bernard I. pi. iv. Four leaves, on vellum, 4to., preserved in the Paris Library. [N.B. — There are two leaves and a fragment of a Donatus of 24 lines in this type in the Cologne Town Library (see Ennen, pp. 7 and 8).] Type V. 24. Pii Secundi Tractatus et Epitaphia. Desc. MT. p. 27.— Facs. MT. pi. 23 (verso). This tract commences on the verso of the 45th leaf of Lud. de Eoma (see No. 19). Copies : (see No. 19). 25. Guil. de Saliceto de Salute corporis ; Turrecremata de Salute animae ; Pii II. Tract de Amore, &c. ; Homeri Yliada, &c. in folio. Desc. BEH. 572 ; MT. p. 30 sqq.— Facs. MT. pi. 26 ; Eenouard, Bibl. d'un Amat. H. 152—8 ; Sotheby, I. p. 183 (note). 24 leaves (of which the first is blank), divided into two quires of 6 sheets each ; 34, 35 and 36 lines. Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen (in this copy, the MS. date 1474 occurs, of which I speak below, p. xvii.); 2. Earl Spencer (wanting first [blank] leaf) ; 3. Paris Library ; 4. (M. Libri, perfect — Qy. where now?) ; 5. (the Hibbert [Hebert] Copy — Qy. where now ?). 26. The same work (different edition). Desc. MT. p. 32.— No facs. The two fragments on vellum of this edition, different from the preceding one, were (1858) in the possession of M. Cohn (Asher & Co.) Berlin, but are now in the British Museum. They were found in the binding of a copy of the : Formulae Noviciorum, Haarlem, Joh. Andreae, 1486 (which is also in the British Museum). The side on which at present no printing is found seems to have been scraped, to give it the appearance of a blank page. 27. (Incerti auctoris, vulgo Pindari Thebani), Uiados Homericae Epitome abbreviatum (Metrice), cum praefatione Pii II. in laudem Homeri. (4 + 4 + 2) 10 leaves, 34 and 35 lines. Desc. BEH. 10 ; MT. pp. 33, 34.-^No facs. Copies: 1. Eoyal Library at the Hague (wanting the 10th leaf); 2. British Museum (Grenville Collection). 28. The same work — 17 leaves, 34 and 35 lines. Desc. BEH. 573 ; MT. pp. 33 & 34.— No facs. Copy : Museum Meerman-Westreenen. Mr. Holtrop, in his MT., p. 32 — 34, has given a most minute and clear description of No. 27 and 28, which are great bibliographical curiosities. INTRODUCTION. XV 29. Donatus minor or abbreviates — 26 lines. Desc. BEH. 4 ; MT. p. 34— Facs. MT. pi. 27. Two sheets (4 leaves ; 1, 2, 7, 8 ?), on vellum. Mr. Holtrop, in his Monuments, states that the sheet which contains the first page, commencing with the words " Partes orationis quot sunt," contains also the last page, which ends thus : " Explicit." This edition was therefore composed of a single quire, and must have been a Donatus minor. 30. Donatus— 27 lines. Desc. BEH. 565 ; MT. p. 35.— Facs. MT. pi. 28. Perfect copy (8 + 6), 14 leaves, on vellum. 31. Donatus — 27 lines. Desc. BEH. 6, 566 ; MT. p. 35.— Facs. Wetter, XH. 2. The leaves (3, 6, 9, 14) in the Eoyal Library at the Hague (BEH. 6) and those (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13) in the Museum Meerman -Westreenen (BEH. 566) make together one copy of Donatus of 27 lines, of which only 11. 11 and 12 are wanting. With the leaves in the Eoyal Library are two more fragments. 32. Donatus — 27 lines. Desc. BEH. 568 ; MT. p. 35.— Facs. MT. pi. 28". Leaf 4, on vellum. 33. Donatus — 27 lines. Desc. BEH. 567; MT. p. 35.— Facs. MT. pi. 29. Two leaves and a part of a third (11. 2, 7 and 8), on vellum. [N.B. — There is another fragment, on vellum (BEH. 7), which may belong to another edition of 27 lines.] 34. Donatus — 27 lines. Desc. BEH. 569 ; MT. p. 35— Facs. MT. pi. 29". Three fragments, the lower parts of 11. 1 abd 8, and the upper part of leaf 8, on vellum. [N.B. — There are. 8 leaves of a Donatus of 27 lines in this type in the Paris Library (see Van Praet, "Velins, Belles Lettres, No. 7). There is also a fragment of a leaf, printed on one side, in the Cologne Town Library (see Ennen, p. 7). And several leaves of editions of Donatus of 27 lines in this type are in the Bodleian Library.] 35. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 26 lines. Desc. BEH. 9.— Facs. Wetter xi. 9. Fragment, on vellum. 36. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 28 lines. Desc. BEH. 570.— Facs. MT. pi. 30. Two leaves, on vellum. 37. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 29 lines. Desc. BEH. 571.— Facs. MT. pi. 30. [N.B. — There are two leaves of a Doctrinale of 29 lines in the Cologne Town Library. (See Ennen, page 8.) Also two leaves in the Paris Library (See Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres, No. 16), and some leaves at Oxford.] 38. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 32 lines, Desc. Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres, No. 17. — No facs. Two leaves in the Paris Library, on vellum. [Visser possessed also 2 leaves, and there are 2 leaves of an edition of 32 lines in the Cologne Town Library (See Ennen, p. 8.)] 39. Catonis Disticha — 21 lines. Desc. MT. p. 36.— Facs. Sotheby I. 135, pi. xxiv. 4. Fragment. INTRODUCTION. Type VI. 40. Donatus — 27 lines. Desc. BKH. 556 ; MT. p. 36.— Facs. MT. pi. 31 ; Meerman, pi. H. One leaf (the 11th), on vellum. Fragments are also preserved at Haarlem. Dr. Kloss possessed the 4th and 5th leaves. Weigel also possesses two leaves (See Collectio Weigel. H. 165). Type VII. 41. Donatus — 27 lines. Desc. MT. p. 36— Facs. MT., pi. 32*. Four leaves, on vellum, found in the old binding of a : Durandi Rationale, printed at Strasburg, 1493, belonging to the library of the Convent of the Holy Cross, at Uden, in North Brabant. These 4 leaves (2 sheets) contain the same text, and belong, therefore, to two copies of the same edition. The type resembles much that of the Saliceto. Type op the Enschedé Abecedarium: (See pag. xviii). 42. Abecedarium. Desc. MT. p. 16.— Facs. MT. pi. 12. Two leaves, printed on vellum. They were found in 1751 by M. Enschedé, in a MS. Breviarium of the XVth. century, originating from the family of Berestyn, related to Jan van Zuren, printer at Haarlem in 1561. 43. Donatus — 31 lines. Desc. BRH. 1.; MT. p. 15.— Facs. MT. pi. 11 ; Meerman, Tab. 1. Two leaves, on vellum, printed on one side, found in 1844, by Mr. Campbell, the present Librarian of the Royal Library at the Hague, in a " Getydenboeck" printed at Delft, 1484. [N.B. — There are two leaves of a Donatus of 27 lines, printed on one side, in the Paris Library. (See Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres, No. 11, where he says that they belong " a une edition en caractères mobiles de fonte très-bien graves ; ils ne sont imprimés que d'un seul cóté, et paroissent sortir d'une presse des Pays-Bas.")] I have arranged these books according to the types which were in all probability in the possession of the printer of the Speculum, there being such an unmistakeably close resemblance between the seven several founts of type, which I have enumerated above, and of which facsimiles have been given by Mr. Holtrop on pi. 13 — 32 of his splendid work : Monuments Typographiques des Pays-Bas. La Haye, 1868, that it is impossible to separate them. 1st, the types of the Yliada and of the Ludovicus de Roma are found in the same volume (see No. 19, and 23 & 24), and there can, therefore, be no doubt that they belonged to the same press ; 2nd, Mr. Holtrop points out that some capitals of the Ludovicus type are identical with some which occur in the Facetiie morales, which serves to connect these two ; 3rd, the type of the Facetia? morales resembles so closely that of' the two stray leaves in what is called the mixed Dutch edition of the Speculum, that these two also must be connected ; 4th, the two stray INTRODUCTION. leaves in the Dutch Speculum issued undoubtedly from the same press as the rest of the book, although it may be difficult to assign the true reason for the printer's using a different type for this sheet ; 5th, Mr. Holtrop gives on pi. 31 the facsimile of a Donatus, printed on vellum, with a type which differs from the others by its size and the shape of the capital P ; but it is of Netherland fabrication, and is related, by its final t with the perpendicular bar, to the Donatuses and other books, which offer the same par- ticulars ; 6th and lastly, we find on pi. 32 of Holtrop's Monuments a facsimile of a Donatus discovered in a convent at Uden in South Brabant, the types of which have a great family-likeness with that used for the Saliceto. Whether type 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, are really the printer's first, second, third, &c. type, I am unable to say. , I have, with the exception of the type of the Abecedarium (see next page), merely followed the order in which Mr. Holtrop has given them in his Monuments, and which is also adopted by Mr. Bradshaw in his "List of the Founts of Type and Wood-cut Devices used by Printers in Holland in the 15th Century," just published byMacmillan and Co., and from which he kindly allowed me to borrow some of the above particulars. My only object for the present was to collect materials for further researches, and to arrange them into some shape, which enables any one to see at a glance what there is. The list is no doubt imperfect, but I have done all I could to make it as complete as possible, although I have abstained from all speculations, and simply confined myself to a query where the description from which I got my information was not clear enough. The forty-three works I have enumerated are, therefore, all different editions, except' No. 17, which is the two leaves occurring in the mixed Dutch Speculum (No. 2). I have made no attempt to describe the books, and only given the barest information as to what they are, what has been preserved of them, where the remaining copies or fragments are to be found, 1 where they are described, and where (the best) facsimiles may be found. There are a number of fragments of Donatus in the Paris and Bodleian libraries which I have not yet been able to examine. As to the number of these Costeriana, it has always been under-stated, by Costerians as well as Anti-Costerians. M. Ruelens, the present librarian of the Eoyal Library at Brussels, reached the highest statement in his article in he Bibliophile Beige, mentioned above, yet he speaks only of " une vingtaine d'ouvrages." This under-statement, although never intentional, has often been the cause of the false argumentation with which the books on the subject abound. As to the date — 1470 — which the Anti-Costerians usually ascribed to these works, this was in most cases a mere conventional one, and generally applied to incu- nabula which looked " very old." The history of printing at Strasburg (see page xxi of this Introduction) affords an example of the little confidence we can put in the dates usually assigned to some of the incunabula. The earliest date of printing at Strasburg was given by Panzer (1793) as 1471 ; Hain (1831) put it at 1473; Namur (1834) at 1471, and, of course, every early undated Strasburg book was put about that time. Bernard knew in 1853 already 1466 as the earliest date, and at present that date has to go back till 1460. It is a matter of course that if we have to put one work ten years earlier, the other undated works of the same printer, which follow it in workmanship, must go back at the same rate. Just now as we do with the Strasburg books, so may we proceed with the Costeriana as soon But I have avoided specula- tions in compiling the list, and there is certainly nothing which would justify my making them here. The earliest date we can assign for the present to the Costeriana is 1471—74. Mr. Holtrop tells us on p. 31 of his Monuments that the Hague copy of the Saliceto (see No. 25) contains two MS. annotations : 1st, " Hunc librum emit dominus Conrardus abbas hujus loci XXXIIIL, qui obiit anno MCCCCLXXIIII, in profesto exaltationis sanctae cruris, postquam profuisset annis fere tnbus." Another inscription indicates that this copy had belonged to the convent of St. James, at Lille. ' I have not been able to give a complete list of all the existing copies of the Querent editions of the Speculum. I have some hope that in the course of time I shall be able to find out where tney aie. xv iü INTRODUCTION. Now, the abbat Conrad, who bought this book for his convent, was Conrad du Moulin, who was abbat 'only from 1471 to 1474. „,„•,, i. This is the only date we can use at present. 1 It is, as Mr. Bradshaw observes in his "List," mentioned above, "a singular circumstance that this one tact should compel us to place the printer of the Speculum at the head of the Dutch printers, though it only just allows him to take precedence of Ketelaer and De Leempt," from whom we have the date 1473, found in Peter Comestor, Scholastica yS AUhe end of the list I have put the celebrated Enschedé Abecedarium and the Donatus of 31 lines, both printed in the same type. Although this type, according to Mr. Holtrop (Mon. Typogr., p. 16) betrays its Dutch origin, and the final t, with the perpendicular bar, assigns it a place 'among the so-called Haarlem editions, it was, 1 thought, advisable to separate these two little works, to a certain extent, from the others. The family-hkeness between them, however, is too great, and the con- troversy about this Abecedarium and Donatus has been too much bound up with the other Costeriana (Cf. Holtrop's Mon. Typogr., p. 15—17, and other authors), to omit them from this list. Some, indeed, who are of opinion that this Abecedarium and Donatus are the first productions of the Dutch inventor, would place them at the head of all the Costeriana, as, for instance, Mr. Holtrop does ; but for this there is, I think, hardly any reason, for the even edges of both these little works, and especially the efforts made by the printer to space out the words, so as to make the lines in the Abecedarium even, betray too much skill and progress in workmanship, to place these books before the productions of which we find facsimiles on pi. 13, 14, 27, 28, &c, of Mr. Holtrop's work. The fact of the Donatus fragment being printed only on one side, can be no argument as to its great antiquity, for the fragment may have been a simple proof-sheet. On this head Mr. Bradshaw writes in the above-mentioned brochure, " Many specimens of early printing have been recovered from the bindings of other books, and these sometimes afford a very valuable evidence as to their history. Such fragments in the binder's hands are either sheets of books which have been used up and thrown away, and may be called binder's waste ; or else they are spoilt sheets or unused proofs from a printer's office, and maybe called printer's waste. In early times the printers were frequently their own binders ; many instances can be found to confirm Mr. Holtrop's interesting notice of Yeldener being his own book- binder. It becomes, therefore, a matter of considerable importance to use all endeavours to ascertain where the volume was bound which contains any such fragments. If a fragment is found printed on one side only it has hitherto been described as • a remarkably interesting specimen of anopisthographic typography, probably executed in the infancy of the art, &c. &c.,' instead of which it is simply a proof-sheet of the most commonplace description ; and in no case does it seem to have inspired the discoverer to follow up the scent, or to inform the world of the one single fact which might give his discovery any real value. Surely there must be some trace of the binders who used some of the marry fragments now existing in Holland, such as the Enschedé Abecedarium and the Donatus fragment in the same type, or any of the innumerable fragments of Donatuses and Doctrinales which exist in various col- lections. If it is not thought unreasonable to spend large sums of money upon such specimens, it seems at least reasonable to devote a little trouble towards ascertaining what they really are. This portion of the inquiry, however, seems at present almost wholly unattempted even in Holland." 2 i It will be observed that this date is found in one of the books printed in type T. (see No. 25). But I have said before that I do not know whether the types are arranged in their proper order. For, if that were the case, it would follow that all the books printed in types 1 — 4 had been printed before 1471 ; but such an idea is altogether out of the question. No attempt has hitherto been made to investigate in what order the types of the printer of the Speculum should be put ; or if it has been made, it has been without any result. Let us hope that Mr. Bradshaw will be able, some day, to settle this question. 2 Mr. Campbell writes to me, " I wonder whether there exist in any collection Donatuses, or fragments of Donatuses, minted on one side only. The vellum would not, I believe, allow the leaves INTBODUCTION. XIX Here, then, we have the present state of the Coster-question, which could hardly be called by this name any longer. Its hero, or heroes, have been put on a firm, historical ground ; the mystery which has hitherto surrounded him has been cleared up, and it is very improbable that either Lourens Janszoon, the sheriff, or Lourens Janszoon Coster, the chandler, will ever make their appearance again as inventors of printing. And for the forty-three different so-called productions of the reputed Dutch inventor, we have the date 1471 — 74, found in one of them, which is the earliest we can at present ascribe to them, and which puts a Dutch invention, prior to that of Mentz, entirely out of the question. There is not a single circumstance which would give us a right, at present, to place the Costeriana in an earlier period ; the workmanship of the book on which the date is found, is quite in harmony with the date found in the Saliceto, and the workmanship of the other Costeriana is not materially different from No. 25. At any rate it would be impossible to separate some or all the Donatuses, and put them some thirty years earlier, for the sake of the passage in the Cologne chronicle. And yet this is what Dr. Van Meurs wishes us to do, as I learned from a letter of his, written in answer to an article I wrote on this subject, in July last, in the " Nederlandschen Spectator." And why ? It is here the place to quote the celebrated passage of the Cologne chronicle, and to say a few words about it : — "... Itê dese hoichwyrdige lcüst vursz is vonden aller eyrst in Daytschlant tzo Mentz am Ryne .... Ind dot is geschiet by den iairen uns heren, anno dniMGGCGXL. ind va der zyt an bis men schreue . L. wart undersoicht die kunst ind wat dair zo gehoirt. Ind in den iairë wis heren do men schreyff. MCC'CCL. do was eyn gulden iair, do began men tzo drucken ind was dat eyrste boich dat men druckde die Bybel zo latyn .... Item wiewail die kunst is vonden tzo Mentz, ah vursz vp die wyse, als dan nu gemeynlich gebruicht wirt, so is doch die eyrste vurbyldung vonden in Hollant vyss den Donaten, die dae selffst vur der tzyt gedruckt syn. Ind va ind vyss den is genomen dat begynne der vursz kunst, ind is vill meysterlicher ind subtilicher vonden dan die selue manier was, und ye lenger ye mere kunstlicher warden . . . der eyrste vynder der druckerye is gewest eyn Burger tzo Mentz. ind was geboren va Straiszburch. ind hiesch joncker Johan Gudenburch. ' ' Itê va Mentz is die vursz kust komen aire eyrst tzo Coellë. ■ Dairnae tzo Straisburch , ind dairnae tzo Venedige." (A translation will be found on page 8 of the present publication.) I have divided the passage into two parts ; the first treats of the invention of the art of printing, the second of its spread. With respect to the first part it will be observed that Dr. Van der Linde, having asserted on page 6 that the Doctrinales mentioned in the Cambray MS. were xylo- graphic productions printed in Flanders, points out on page 8 (note 6) and on p. 142 (note), that by the Holland spoken of in the Cologne chronicle, Flanders was meant, and that this error is a "geographical inaccuracy, a confusion between Holland and Flanders, which may not surprise us in an author of the middle ages." Dr. Van Meurs, who sees in the Cologne chronicle, together with the existing typographical Donatuses, the sheet-anchor of the claims of Holland, objects, just as he has done with regard to the Cambray MS., also to this interpretation ; indeed, his being pasted together, as was done in the anopisthographic block-books and Specula Humans Salvationis which are printed on paper. I know there are found fragments supposed to have been printed on one side only, and I myself discovered two leaves (Cf. No. 43 of the List); but the more I think on this point, the more I come to the conclusion that the very imperfect ink, used for the printing of these works, has been washed off from one side by the binder, in order that it might look like new vellum. Mr. Holtrop's facsimile (Mon. Typ. pi. 11) shows that even a part of the printed side of one of the leaves is blank now. No. 26, (the Saliceto) which Mr. Cohn was so kind as to send over for inspection, shows evidently that the not pasted part of the leaf has been scraped. Very likely this has been also the case with the two leaves in the Paris National Library (Van Praet, Belles Lettres, No. 11) and so many more which have been, or will be, found. INTBODTJCTION. whole brochure was written with the intention to oppose it. He says, " the honour of Holland with respect to the invention of printing is founded on the account in the Cologne chronicle." Now, as the truth of that part of the passage in the Cologne chronicle, which refers to Holland, cannot be proved by any authentic document, Dr. Van Meurs throws himself on the credibility of its author. He observes that : the account came from Ulr. Zell, who was probably a disciple of Gutenberg, 1 and still living in 1499, when the chronicle was published ; a man who could know every particular of the event ; who was a German, and gave his account to a German, and had, therefore, no reason whatever to speak of Holland as the country where the "vurbyldung" had been printed, if he had not felt bound to acknowledge the truth, &c. As to the " geogra- phical inaccuracy," of which Dr. Van der Linde speaks, this explanation has, according to him, no foundation at all, and is totally in opposition to the geographical accuracy which the author of the Chronicle observes everywhere, in -a manner really remarkable for his time. " Every man," thus we read on page 4, according to Dr. Van Meurs, "feels, by nature, more inclined to his own country, and everything connected with it, and more especially does he learn the manifold honourable deeds and histories of his ancestors, rather from one who was born in the place where he himself was born and brought up, than from a stranger. On that account, I will describe the principal and most remarkable events of Germany. But I will also write of the Koman emperors, and of the year in which they ascended the throne, in order that the events connected with every one of them, may be in harmony with truth. For, as Hugo of Florens says, those events of which cannot be said in which year or when they happened, will be regarded as fables or stories. And in order that no one may doubt the truth of what we intend to write down, be it known that this book is compiled from truthful historians. Also from the chronicles of the archbishop of Cologne, of the kings of France, of Saxony, of Treves, of Strasburg, Mentz, Brabant, Holland, Flanders, &c. "It is evident from this," Dr. Van Meurs continues, " that we have here to do with a conscientious author, who has regard, in the first place, to patriotism ; but who wishes, at the same time, to be as accurate as possible, and for that reason mentions his sources. " The several countries which are connected with the question of the invention of printing, are specially named by him. And so it is in the whole chro- nicle. He always speaks of Flanders just in the same way as it is done at present ; he speaks of Brwges as Bruges in Flanders, of Antwerp as Antwerp in Brabant. Whenever there is question of Holland, he means the Holland as we still know it ; nay, even the bishopric of Utrecht is accurately defined. It would lead me too far, to quote all these passages, but I should be able to do it, and doubt therefore whether Dr. Van der Linde would be able to point out an example of this pretended geogra- phical inaccuracy. To suppose so little knowledge, or an error in the author of the chronicle, that he would speak of Holland while he meant quite a different province, or to suppose that between him and Ulr. Zell, in their discourse on the 1 In a brochure entitled : Lettres d'un Bibliographe (M. J. P. A Madden), published by Tross, at Paris, in 1868, the author (page 40) says : " Ulr. Zei de Hanau, était un elève non de Gutenberg, mais de SchoefEer . . ., je n'en veux d'autre preuve que la ressemblance des caractères de Schoeffer et de Zei, ressemblance qui a fait attribuer au premier ce qui appartient au demier .... Il y a même plus que la ressemblance, il y a identite' de certains caractères chez 1' imprimeur de Mayence et celui de Cologne .... Kemarquez d'ailleurs que si "ülric Zei eüt appartenu a 1' atelier de Gutenberg et non a celui de SchoefEer, il est peu probable 'qu'il eüt quitte' Mayence pour Cologne, et qu'il eut dit, dans la Chronique de Cologne, que Gutenberg était de Strasbourg." He further argues that Gutenberg printed the bull of Pius II., of 12th Sept. 14C1, in favour of Adolph of Nassau; for at the capture of Mentz, Oct 28, 1462, by the partisans of Adolph, the house of Fust was reduced to ashes, but that of Gutenberg and his workmen were respected. Adolph, moreover, created Gutenberg, in 1465, one of his courtiers, and rewarded his^zeal and talents in divers other ways. Ulric Zel, therefore, belonged to the atelier of Fust and Schoeffer, he escaped from the fire and ruin when he arrived at Cologne and founded there the firBt printing-office, &c, &c. Dr. Ennen, in his " Katalog der Inkunabeln in der Stadt-Bibliolhek zu Kbln," page II., says : " Ulr. Zell . . . learned his art at Mentz, arid was probably the first composer and superintendent in the print- ing-offico of Gutenberg and Fust." INTKODUOTION. XXI origin of Donatuses, a sort of quiproquo had taken place, and that he had heen mis- taken, only on that occasion, in the term Holland — and all this without any evidence, and because it suited his purpose — is somewhat more than a sophism or distorting' of the text. Indeed, it is the system of the anti-Costerians that at every troublesome place in the chronicle, either Zell or the author made an error." After this and many more assertions as to the credibility of the author of the chronicle, Dr. Van Meurs concludes : " I consider the Cologne chronicle to be the strongest historical authority in favour of an invention of printing in Holland." " The account in the Cologne chronicle is the earliest and most important document for the invention of printing in Holland. If we will not accept it, and say : ' the whole is a lie,' be it so ; but then there is henceforth no longer any history but an arbitrary one : let then every one heap the one false argument upon the other, with addition of the most hateful abuses and exclamations of indolence and bad faith, &c." There is, I think, no reason whatever for distrusting Dr. Van Meurs' statement as regards the geographical accuracy of the author of the Cologne chronicle. On the contrary, every one will be grateful to him, for having ascertained it, for it is certainly no agreeable work to go through that old, quaint dialect of the book. Unfortunately, the labour of Dr. Van Meurs cannot benefit us. Eeal evidence (i.e. authentic docu- ments) are required to substantiate the truth of the first part of a passage, of the second part of which we are able to point out the palpable inaccuracy. In the second part of the passage it is said that " from Mentz the art was introduced first of all into Cologne, then into Strasburg, and afterwards into Venice." Suppose now we had to make a chronological catalogue of all the incunabula, then, if we could accept the " historical authority" of the Cologne chronicle as the only valid one, we should have to put the towns in the following order: 1.' Mentz, 2. Cologne, 3. Strasburg, 4. Venice. But every one who has followed until our time the history of the invention and the progress of the art of printing, knows that — even if we adopt Bernard's opinion, and attribute the Calendars of 1455 and 1457, which are generally ascribed to Poster at Bamberg, to a printer at Mentz — there is the date of 1461 (one in MS. on a duplicate copy of the last leaf of the Bible of thirty-six lines, printed by Pfister, in the Paris library ; another, printed, in the colophon of Boner's Edelstein of the same printer), which compels us to put Bamberg before Cologne ; for, the earliest date of Ulr. Zell, which has hitherto come to our knowledge, is 1466. At the time Bernard wrote his book (1853), he placed Strasburg before Cologne, as he was aware of the copy of a Bible printed by Mentelin, preserved at Stuttgard, on which is written : " Explicit liber iste anno Domini Millesimo quadringentesimo sexagesimo sexto &c." And in a note on page 61 of his second vol., he says : "L' Auteur de la Chronique de Cologne, par patriotisme, fait passer sa ville avant Strasbourg," for knowing the Cologne date of 1466, and considering that it occurs in a thin and small work in 4to., he naturally concluded that the printer of a folio Bible, which was ready in 1466, had begun earlier than this year. This circumstance, however, was not yet so prejudicial to the authority of the Cologne chronicle, for we could hardly demand from its author that he would know the progress of the art within a day or two. But a few months ago, Mr. Bradshaw called my attention to a note, added to a copy of the same Bible in the sale catalogue of Culeman's library, where it was said that the copy of the Freiburg library was rubricated 1460. Dr. Van der Linde, who lives at present in Berlin and was so kind as to write for me to Freiburg, received a letter from Dr. Dziatzko, tiie librarian of the university of that place, confirming the contents of the above note. At the end of the first volume he finds written 'In a contemporary hand with red ink : " Explicit Psalterium, 1460;" at the end of the second volume : " Explicit Apocalipsis. Anno dni M°.CCCC.LXj°." And on some sheets of paper of the same manufacture, only a little different in colour, which contain the tables of contents in MS., he finds the dates XXU INTRODUCTION. 1462 and 1464.' There is no doubt that Strasburg should be placed before Cologne, even before Bamberg, as hardly any doubt remains with respect to this date. 2 It is also well-known that in the convent of Subiaco printing went • on already in 1465, at Rome in 1467, at Augsburg and Basle in 1468, and at Venice not before 1469. These facts compel us to place the towns in the following order: 1. Mentz, 2. Strasburg, 3. Bamberg, 4. Subiaco, 5. Cologne, 6. Borne, 7. Augsburg, 8. Basle, 9. Venice ; and the natural inference we may draw from them is, that the author of the Cologne chronicle was very imperfectly informed about the events he recorded. Now, an author who is so palpably inaccurate with respect to one thing, is liable to say something in another place which we may not unconditionally accept as " his- torical authority." For the present, therefore, we may regard the history of the invention and spread of the art of printing in this chronicle as a well-meant account of it ; but which failed, either by the author being misinformed, or by some other circum- stance which has hitherto not come to our knowledge. 3 That the author of the Cologne chronicle wrote anything which he did not impli- citly believe himself, or which he had not heard from Ulr. Zell, no one would think of asserting ; but it happens not unfrequently that utterly wrong statements are made by authors, who by their position and learning find great credence, and thereby spread 1 It wi]l not be superfluous to give a translation of Dr. Dziatzko's letter. " Under the press-mark 17089 (Eeal Cat. vol. 3, p. 57) of our library, I find : Biblia sacra latina. Tomus I. continet Pentateuchum usque ad Psalterium. S. 1. 1460. Tomus II. continet Proverbia Salomonis usque ad librum secundum Machaboeorum novumque testamentum. 2 vols. fol. " The copy itself (not long ago, it seems, rebound, or at least repaired) is labelled on the back with gilt letters : Biblia sacra latina Argent, per Mentelin, 1460. Tom. I., and . . . 1461. Tom. II. — Place and printer are not indicated in either of the volumes, but the description which Panzer (Annal. typogr. vol. I. p. 69) gives of the Strasburg Bible agrees entirely with our copy. " Both volumes are ornamented with beautiful initials (if I am not mistaken, then those of the second volume have another character than those of the first). At the end of the first volume is written by the rubricator (apparently the same who worked the initials in the same volume) : 35xplic.it psaltmü . 1460 1 At the end of the second volume : Explicit apocalipsia anno Unt M"- «cc- Ixj "I see a confirmation of these years in the following facts : In front of the first volume are bound eight leaves of the same size and of the same paper, only a little whiter, which contain tables of contents in MS. On these we find now and then dates (apparently every time when the epitome was finished). For instance, we find on leaf 4, col. 1, line 38, with black ink, the year 1462 (on both sides are dots with red ink) ; on leaf 6, col. 4 (at the end of the continuous table of contents ; the following two leaves contain on the two opposite pages a review of the contents, arranged in the form of a genealogical table) . . . aüo dni 1464. j die Junij, underlined with red, and with a red stroke through the a of anno ... At the end of the second volume are again thirty-two written leaves, containing matters of a religious character. In the second half we find again, at the end of a division, the date 1464 . . . ." 2 It is highly interesting, at present, to read Bernard's chapter on the introduction of printing into Strasburg, in his second volume, page 61 sqq. 3 Dr. Tan Meurs wrote to me : "Granted that it was an inaccuracy of Zell to place Cologne before Strasburg, I think it hypercritical to compare this with the main question of which I speak. If we go as far as that, then there is no reason why we should not reject Mentz and Gutenberg also when that were necessary [Dr. Van Meurs forgets that this is not necessary, as there is abundant evidence for the invention at Mentz, and that we object only to accepting those informations of the Cologne chronicle, which we cannot make agree with facts] . I am, however, not at all disposed to admit that it is an inaccuracy. The towns are at present arranged according to the dates of the works, printed in each of them. At the infancy of the art, however, a great many books were published without date or place. As contemporary, Zell was perfectly capable of knowing where and when these works were printed and' he had no interest whatever in giving wrong information about them. I consider it therefore a'false science and ridiculous pedantry, to exclaim, four centuries later, simply because it suits one's purpose without further evidence, and contrary to his (Zell's) account : ' We have changed all this.' " I need not add one word to this note, as the facts I have given above speak for themselves. The earliest date of Ulr Zell we know of is 1466, but some authors suppose, and it is quite probable, that he arrived at Cologne' already in 1462, after the capture of Mentz. But evtn if this were true, Strasburg and Bamberg would come before Cologne. INTRODUCTION. xxiii opinions which it takes a long time to eradicate. A striking proof of this we find in Bernard, whose book I admire for its charming style and the mode in which the author worked. He was an " experienced typographer," but, notwithstanding this capacity, of which he was perfectly aware himself, he made some errors from which it is clear that this very experience as a modern typographer, had led his judgment on the early printed books astray. One of these errors, I speak of, is his supposition that the earliest printers did not print their works page by page, and required, there- fore, a great quantity of type before they could think of beginning to print. ' We find on page 164 of his first volume, a calculation as to how many thousands of letters Gutenberg required in order to be able to begin the printing of his Bible, and his result was : 120,000 at least. With respect to this calculation he says in a note on the same page : " II y a des personnes qui croient qu'on imprimait les pages une a une dans les premiers temps de l'imprimerie. Gette idee n'a pu venir qu'a des gens tout a. fait étrangers aux travaux de la typographic . Un semblable procédé aurait annulé tous les avantages que l'imprimerie avait sur la xylographie . . . ". Bernard returns to this subject on page 233 of his first, and on page 9 of his second volume, and perhaps in some other places of his work ; but it is not worth while to look them out for — Bernard is here decidedly wrong. Mr. Bradshaw, the Librarian of Cambridge, whose bibliographical talents are too well known than that I should venture to praise them, often pointed facts out to me, during the time that I had the great fortune of seeing my study of incunabula guided by him, which left no doubt but that the earliest printers printed their works page by page. I may also say that Mr. Winter Jones, the Principal Librarian of the British Museum, whose long experience and intrinsic bibliographical knowledge give great weight to his opinion, told me not long ago that he had always been of the same opinion, and that he had met with several proofs which confirmed it. Bernard, when he says : " Un semblable procédé [printing page by page] aurait annulé tous les avantages que l'imprimerie avait sur la xylographie," overlooks the fact tha.t the great advantage of printing with moveable type over xylography is that it allows the same types to be used over and over again. I should wish to give the titles of a great many incunabula in which I have found myself evidence for this mode of printing; but in order not to swell this introduction to an unnecessary length, I must refer for the present those who wish to be enlightened on this subject, to Mr. Blades' excellent work on the life and typography of W. Caxton, where on page 29 Vol. I. and p. 6 Vol. II. the author adduces facts which absolutely settle the matter. It was only natural that Bernard, who spoke with so much authority, should find followers. In the " Lettres d'un Bibliographe " (M. Madden) referred to above, the author, treating of some" incunabula, generally attributed to Ulr. Zell, makes, on page 47, a somewhat similar calculation as Bernard, and, thinking that Ulr. Zell was not rich enough to have cast for him such a great quantity of types, as were necessary for the three quarto volumes, which he argued were printed at one and the same time, he comes to the conclusion that the books in question were issued, not by U. Zell, but by a convent at Cologne. On page 78 (second line from bottom) of the present book, we find an expression in which Bernard's unfortunate theory is visible also. Here it may pass without doing any harm; in M. Madden' s case it may lead to great mischief, however necessary and good his other investigations may be. The task which remains to me is to call attention to the pedigree of Gerrit Thomasz., spoken of on pp. 41—47. As Dr. Van Meurs declared this document to be spurious, and being unable to say anything myself about it, I asked Dr. Van der Linde to explain this point further before this work was published, and I received the following reply : " My dear Sir, — In connexion with the brochure of the new Costerless Costerian, the Haarlem Dr. Van Meurs, you ask me a few words in explanation of Lourens XXIV INTRODUCTION. Jansz. Coster's pedigree, mentioned in my work, which is preserved at Haarlem, and is exhibited to the public as a valuable argument for Haarlem's claim. For the unprejudiced it is sufficient to let the facts speak for themselves: " This vellum document, unique among forgeries of this kind, has been declared to be : ' a pedigree of Lourens, on very old véllum, leaving off about the year 1585,' by Koning, in 1809. ' the original pedigree of L. J. Koster, written before 1560,' by the same, in 1816. ' the original pedigree, written in or about the year 1550, and continued after 1560 by another hand,' by the Haarlem Committee of the Typographical Exhibition of 1823. ' the original pedigree, written on vellum, which has become dark brown by time, and from which eldest part it is sufficiently evident that it was written before 1560,' by the archivist Scheltema, in 1834. 'an old pedigree of L. J. C, written between 1550 and 1560,' by Dr. De Vries, in the official List of Documents in the Town-Hall at Haarlem, in 1862. 'an old and highly interesting document,' by the present archivist of Haarlem, Dr. A. J. Enschedé, in 1870. ' a pedigree certainly not much younger than 1520, although the dates were falsified,' by the Eotterdam archivist, M. Scheffer, in 1870, in presence of me and the Haarlem archivist. " Compare with this the exact description of the document in my book (p. 41 — 47), and you will agree with me, that the only answer Dr. Van Meurs deserves, is, to quote what he says (also in 1870) about the same document, now that I have exposed the shameful abuse made of it, and when evasions can no longer be of any use. " On p. 57, note, he (Dr. Van Meurs) says : ' Tor those who are not living in Haarlem, and yet might feel inclined to study the Coster-question, I think it necessary to say a few words regarding this document, which Dr. Van der Linde uses frequently, and in connexion with which he creates a new witness, who has hitherto been unknown, and who now becomes the whole cause of the deception, namely Gerrit Thomasz., mentioned by Junius, honoris causa. It would appear that this old man has • really been the arch-rascal, but at the same time a biologer. He had a pedigree written for him on vellum, with the words that Laurens Jansz. Coster brought the ' first print into the world anno 1446 ' ; he bribed Van Zuren ; he shewed the pedigree as the ' memorie ' (see page 54, 4th line from bottom) to Guicciardini ; in honour of him Junius wrote the whole Haarlem story, nay, it is even probable that he bribed Coornhert to ignore the names of Bellaert and Andriessen in 1483 — 1486. I answer : that it is by no means certain yet that the pedigree was made for Gerrit Thomasz. One must be totally ignorant of the writing and the peculiar look of old documents, or never have had the document in his hands, not to see that its spuriousness is evident from all sides. I consider this pedigree, which was unknown to Scriverius, of which no one had ever spoken, until it dropt as it were from the sky in 1726, and which, therefore, possesses not the least authenticity — I consider this pedigree hardly of the 17th, much less of the 16th century. So long as practised, impartial antiquarii, acquainted with old manuscripts and similar documents, have not decided this question, so long do I deny Dr. "Van der Linde the right of drawing conclusions re- specting the Coster-question, on the authority of this document.' " Therefore one must not have had this document in his hands not to see that its spuriousness is evident from all sides ! ? My respectful compliments again to Koning, who bought it (already in 1809 !) for a long price ; to the government of Haarlem, who bought it at the sale of Koning's effects ; to the archivist Scheltema, who was so well acquainted with ' the writing and the peculiar look of old documents ' that he made pedigrees to order ; to Dr. De Vries, who had the thing under his care for half-a-century ; to the government of Haarlem, who, till this very day, show this document to strangers as a weapon against the Mentz theft of Haarlem's glory I INTRODUCTION. XXV " The thing is very plain. The ' document,' although it originated in the 16th century, can be of no use any longer, and they would fain disavow the exposed deceiver with one or two ungrateful dicta. . . . Yours sincerely, Berlin, Oct. 1, 1871. Van der Linde." The history of the Coster-legend, and the exposal of all that has been said or written on the subject, is not calculated to inspire any one with a high opinion of the scholarship of those who have written on it ; but we must not forget that the question of the invention of printing (palseotypography) and bibliography in general has hitherto very seldom been a field on which we could hope to encounter brilliant talents. A little theoretical knowledge of the subject was all that was cared for, and all the authors who have written on the question, whether they be Dutch, English, French, or German, always thought that the mere sight of one or two Donatuses, Doctrinales, &c, combined with some notion of modern printing, had given them a sufficient knowledge of palseotypography to enable them to give an opinion on this subject. At present, a happy change for the better has set in, especially with respect to palseotypography ; for some highly important works have been published in Holland, France, Germany, and England during the last few years, which must inevitably make the subject better known and more respected. In Holland Mr. Holtrop, assisted by the present Librarian of the Boyal Library at the Hague, Mr. Campbell, published a " Catalogus librorum Saec. XV impressorum quotquot in Bibl. Regia Hagana asservantur." Hag. Com. 1856; and "Monuments Typographiques des Pays-Bas au 15e siècle," La Haye, 1868, which will be lasting monuments for the author and his country. In England Mr. Blades' Life and Typo- graphy of William Caxton, 2 vols., Lond., 1861, is a monograph which may safely be said to have exhausted the subject, and which may confidently be recommended to all practical students of incunabula. Mr. Bradshaw's "Memoranda," of which No. 1 — 3 have been published, are compiled with his usual consummate skill and accuracy, and contain rules and directions for the study of incunabula, which have called forth already the admiration of those who wish for a more exact study of this subject than exists at present. Their only fault is that they follow each other at such long intervals. The " Coilectio Weigeliana : Die Anfange der Druckerkunst" (written in German), by T. O. Weigel and Dr. A. Zestermann, 2 vols, fol., is written with a knowledge and accuracy which cannot fail to command the respect of all students of the subject. I wish to make some general observations as to the proper names, &c, occurring in this work. As I had to leave some Christian names untranslated, I thought it better to leave them all in their original state. So for John the reader will find Johan and Hans (German), Jan (Dutch) and Johannes. The name of the hero, or rather heroes, Laurens Janszoon Coster (or Koster) and Laurens Janszoon, is spelt in various ways : Lou, Lourens, Laurens, Louwerijs, Louris, Lourijs, &c. Quotations from the Latin, French, and Italian, I have mostly given untranslated, as these languages are suffi- ciently known in this country. Extracts from Dutch account-books, &c, are generally given in their original, with an English translation added to it, as far as the phrase was capable of being translated. I have left untranslated the word "print" in the pedigree (see page 41). It will readily be understood that some impression is meant, although we do not know to what kind of impression allusion is made. With regard to my translation, I hope it will not be found too faulty. I under- took it because I thought it required one who bad some knowledge of the subject, and was thoroughly acquainted with the Dutch language. The subject itself has interested me for many years ; and Haarlem is my birth-place, just as it is that of the author. I have done my best, but cannot avoid the conviction that I have sinned against the idiom of the English language. But those who go through the work and the accom- XXVI INTRODUCTION. panying notes will see that my task has not been one of the easiest. The style of the author himself was striking and terse, but at the same time idiomatic to the last degree. The thousand-and-one quotations, however, from French, German, Italian, and especially Dutch authors of the 17th, 18th, and 19th cen- turies, who all wrote in a different, and very often most tedious and prolix style, were exceedingly trying to me. Their translation required the utmost precaution, as they were full of technical terms and descriptions of different modes of printing, which had to be distinguished carefully one from another, and they demanded an equal amount of patience, in order to be able to read and translate what I could not help regarding as rubbish, but which it was necessary to give for a full understanding of the case. I had wished myself to abridge the work,_as it contained, I thought, many things which are absolutely unknown, and which will even now be imperfectly understood, in this country. And I had more particularly wished to omit that part of the book which refers to the works of Pfister and Gutenberg, as Bernard - has made important researches concerning these works, which differ altogether from those authors from whom Dr. Van der Linde's description is derived. As I was unable, however, to make just now the necessary investigations to see who is right, I have not touched this subject. Moreover, some friends, whose advice I could not disregard, wished to have the book complete. Hence it is that I have given the text intact, except a few expressions which I omitted, as they could only be understood or appre- ciated by a native of Holland. Of the notes I have only omitted those portions which were written exclusively for the Dutch. Every one in this country will therefore be able to study, in his own language, a subject which he could hitherto only have learnt at second hand from translations. Several kind friends have assisted me, either in the revision of the proof-sheets, or in answering my questions with respect to the various difficulties which I now and then experienced in the translation. I am sorry that the conviction that there are still many expressions in the book which are " not English," prevents me from men- tioning their names. But I may be allowed to express my gratitude to the authorities of the British Museum, Mr. J. Winter Jones, the Principal Librarian, and Mr. W. B. Eye, the Keeper of the printed books, for the kind and liberal manner in which they place everything at my disposal which can further my studies of the early printed books, &c. Indeed, they give me so many facilities, that I often think, with some anxiety, that much will be expected from one to whom so much is given. And when I beg to thank Mr. E. Eoy, the Assistant-Keeper, under whose more immediate care I am placed, for the kindness and never-failing accuracy with which he answers my manifold ques- tions, I only wish to add that he is not the only gentleman of the British Museum to whom I am indebted for information. J. H. HESSELS. London, Oct. 5, 1871. ERRATUM. Pag. 35— In Chronological Tabic : 1173, for "Aalst" read " Alost." THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. This book originated from a revision and amalgamation of my article on Gutenberg, inserted in the " Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen" of July, 1870, and my essay on tbe famous Coster-question, published in the " Nederlandschen Spectator," from December, 1869, till May, 1870. It is no mere reprint, but a new work. If I had written for any other public but that of Holland, much of what I have said about Gutenberg could have been omitted, that being better known elsewhere; but the bad faith of the Costerians has obscured and distorted all this for the Netherland public. It ought to be enabled to compare history and fable. The so-called argu- ments for Haarlem, placed by the side of the historical documents for Mentz, would be already a condemnation of the Costerian misleading demagogues. All documents are here together for the first time. Whoever has no leisure to make a study of the subject, let him read the book without the notes; by a simple reading he will be convinced that the Haarlem statues are crumbled down before criticism, like Dagon before the ark of the covenant. Let us watch how long the Haarlem people will remain deaf to the truth ! Sagacious readers will probably come to the conclusion that we could hardly speak of a Haarlem legend, as the inventions of Junius and Scriverius do not satisfy the scientific notions of a legend. Those who think thus are right. But the more exact title, Goster-villany, instead of Coster-legend, is a little hard, not for the case, but — for an advertisement in the newspapers. Posterity, not led astray by all sorts of personal reminiscences and acquaintances, will blame me for the too great forbear- ance of my polemics. For, in the Coster-question, no Costerian ever spoke a true word. Neither does posterity know that I have already been compelled to listen to com- munications from all sides in the interest of the Boscos and Barnums whom I have exposed. Science may now proceed to a more accurate examination of all the secondary questions concerning the history of the invention of typography. It is, for instance, not impossible that some book has wrongly been attributed to Pfister; it even appears to me that the thirty-six line Bible was not printed by him, but by Gutenberg. But all these secondary questions could not be clearly stated and impartially examined, so long as Costerianism clouded our heads with the prejudice of a plurality of the invention. Its removal is, therefore, a revolution in bibliography, which promises a surprisingly plentiful harvest to a renewed, strictly scientific, exclusively historical and typological investigation. VAN DER LINDE. The Hague, Aug. 14, 1870. WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. Every revolution in history is the result of a long preparation, the necessary fruit of time, and has as condition the causes which bring it about. This law of history, observed by every one in the religious revolution of the first centuries of the Christian era, in the ecclesiastical revolution of the 16th century, in the social revo- lution of 1789, is forgotten whenever there is question of the invention of typography. " How is it possible that it was not invented earlier?" is the exclamation of popular surprise, the fact being that it did not appear earlier for the same reason that Christianity did not arise earlier, that America was not discovered earlier, and that the Church was not revolutionized some centuries earlier. No scientific man asks how it is possible that Luther was not born earlier, that the feudal system did not fall to pieces earlier. And yet the invention of typography is something more than all revolutions : an event, therefore, which could only be born from " the fulness of time." It has waited already much too long for a purely scientific treatment. For my present task, however, it will suffice to give a sketch of the event and its cause, and of its connexion with the literary development of the middle ages, in order to enable the reader sufficiently to judge of the value of the fable, which represents typography, only long after, and in opposition to history, as having been invented at Haarlem. This fable, which rests on nothing but an artificially and deceptively-fostered popular belief, deserves to be struck at last by the justice of criticism. But it must be placed immediately in the light of history, in order to make its utter worthlessness manifest. I will, therefore, sum up as many of the facts as will be necessary to test the com- ponent parts of the legend. The researches of our time have already brought to light so much as may assure us of the existence of a kind of book-trade in the thirteenth century. Sworn .scrip- tores, illuminatores, and stationarii librorum, librarii, pergamenarii (transcribers, illuminators, lenders and sellers of books) belonged, at that time in Italy, and soon afterwards in France, to the organization of a university. The supply of books of that period, mostly of a juridical and theological nature, amounts to above one hundred different works. Notwithstanding the abstract contents of this literature, a book was seldom liked without some ornamented title and illuminated initials ; hence the fact that there was no want of illuminators already at that time. 1 The workmen -scriptores developed into calligraphers, the illuminatores into artists. Magnificent manuscripts on vellum became objects of luxury at the courts of princes and among people of distinction, especially in Italy, France, and England. But this development reached its highest point of prosperity in the Burgundy of the 15th century. The chivalrous -romantic element in the literature, the wealth of the towns of the Southern Netherlands, the love for art among the princes, the magnificent rise of the Flemish school of painting, the use of the living language of the country, the liberal reward of artists ; all these beams united made Burgundy the lustre of Europe. The library of Philip the Good, at Brussels, was in 1443 said to be the largest and richest in the world. More than three thousand beautifully illuminated manuscripts were found in the libraries of the dukes of Burgundy at Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent and elsewhere, i Beitrage zur Geschiohte des deutschen Buchhandels, Ton Albrecht Kirchhoff, I. Notizen über eüiige Buchhandler des xv and xvi Jahrhunderts. Leipzig, J. C. Hiarichs, 1851. 8vo, 2 WEITING, XYLOGKAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. By the side of the calligraphers were developed the special transcribers of the universities, especially at Paris, Cologne, Heidelberg, Leipzig and Vienna. A third class, exempt from the privileges, but at the same time from the obstructive rules, of the universities, thronged the populous capitals and commercial towns, and worked, not like the calligraphers, for people of distinction, or, like the university transcribers, for the scholars, but for the people in general. In 1405 the Company of Stationers (Stationarii) existed in London, which supplied transcripts of several kinds of books, also ABC books, paternosters, credos, and similar trifles. Just as the university- quarter of the Paris booksellers and transcribers of the middle ages is still called the pays latin, so London places derive their names from the labours of the said Company — Paternoster Row, Creed Lane, Amen Corner, Ave Maria Lane. Even at present the association of typographers and booksellers in London is called " The Stationers' Company." 1 We find an example of a busy trade in manuscripts in Germany in Dypold Lauber, teacher and transcriber in the free town of Hagenau, whose formal advertise- ments, in the handwriting of the middle of the 15th century, have been discovered with the notification, "Item welcher hande bücher man gerne hat, gross oder clein, geistlich oder weltlich, hiibsch gemolt, die findet man alle by diebold louber, schriber, in der burge zu hagenow." This remarkable earliest stock catalogue commences with, "Das gross buch genannt Gesta Bomanorum mit den viguren gemolt." After this, poetical works appear (Parcival, Tristan, Freidank) ; romances of chivalry (der witfarn ritter, i.e. the knight from afar ; von eime getruwen ritter der sin eigen hertze gab umb einer schonen frowen willen ; der ritter unter dem zuber, i.e. the enchanted knight, &c.) ; biblical and legendary works (ein gerymete bibel ; ein Salter latin und tütsch ; episteln und evangeliën durch das jor ; vita christy ; das gantze passional winterteil und summerteil) ; edifying books (Bellial ; der selen trost ; der rosenkrantz ; die zehn gebot mit glosen ; cleine bette bücher) ; books for the people (gute bewehrte artznien bücher ; gemolte lossbücher, i.e. fortune-telling books ; schachtzabel gemolt), &c. 2 The transcriber of school-books stood lowest in the scale. The education of that time was exclusively in the hands, i.e. in the fetters, of the Church. The lower educational books were the so-called Abeeedaria, which contained the alphabet, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and one or two prayers. In the Netherlands are well known the "little book of the mass," and the "little book for blessing the table." The Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum at the Hague possesses a" manuscript copy of the Abecedarium with alphabet, paternoster, ave-maria and credo. It was still used during the reign of Charles V. , for in an ordinance concerning the schools of Leeu- warden it was enjoined by him that a sworn printer should furnish, without any alteration " the little book commencing with the alphabet ; the little book which directs how to bless the table (graces at meals) ; the little book which directs how to answer at the holy mass." In the list of prohibited books of 1546 the alphabet, paternoster, ave-maria, credo, confiteor, and the seven penitential psalms are exempted for educational purposes. Fragments have been discovered of all of them, except of that which directs how to bless the table. In a school-ordinance of Bautzen, of 1418, we find even the prices of these little manuscript books : — 1 Aelteste Gesch. der Xylographie und der Druckkunst überhaupt ; besonders in Anwendung auf den Bilddruck. Ein Beitrag zur Erfindungs- und Kunst-Geschichte, Ton J. D. E. Sotzmann. (Histor. Taschenbuch . . . herausgeg. Von Fr. von Eaumer. Leipz. E. A. Brockhaus, 1837. Sm. 8vo, pp. 449— 599.) 2 Die Handschriftenhandler des Mittelalters. Ton Albrecht Kirchhoff. Zweite . . . Ausgabe. Leipzig, 1853. 870. , Weitere Beitrage zur Geschichte dea Handschriftenhandels im Mittelalter. Yon. A. Kirchhoff. Halle, H. W. Schmidt, 1855. 8vo. WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. 8 Item vor ein ABC und Pater noster und Corde benedicite iegliches 1 gr. Vor einen guten Donat 10 gr. eine Kegulam moralem und Catonem [Cato's Disticha] 8 gr. Vor ein gantz Doctrinale, das man nennèt einen gantzen Text, eine halbe Marck. Vor primam partem 8 gr. Welch reich kind von seinem Locato nicht kaufet ein Buch, das gebe ihm 2 gr. im Anheben, ein mittelmassiger 1 gr., der arme nichts. In this list other educational books are mentioned, of which we desire to know a little more. From the works of a Boman grammarian of the 4th century, Aelius Donatus, an extract had been compiled to serve as guide to the teaching of Latin, and was used during the middle ages all over Europe, and called "Donatus pro puerulis." A minorite of Brittany, Alexander Gallus or De Villa Dei, wrote in the 13th century a Latin grammar in barbarous (leonine) verses extracted from Priscianus (5th century). This little book, too, was used in schools for centuries. Nay, the Abecedarium and Donatus (how strikingly conservative !) are used in conventual schools in Italy to this very day. I look with melancholy respect at an Abecedarium, a little octavo book of four leaves (II Sillabario), printed in our time, in 1862, at Asti (presso Borgo e Raspi Librai). Beneath the heading Jesus Maria the alphabet follows, and after that the pater noster, ave and credo. But the Ave salus mundi is replaced by the Salve Regina Mater misericordiae. Besides the Sillabario I have a Latin grammar, entitled : Donato ad uso delle scuole secondarie. Nuova edizione accresciuta e riformata. Pinerolo, tipografia Giuseppe Lobetti- Bodoni, 1865. 8vo. The esteem in which these Catholic school-books, those foul springs from which, for instance, Erasmus drew the first elements of Latin, were held, was so great, that the first efforts of the humanists to improve them were regarded as heresy, and heaven and earth were moved against such dangerous destroyers. It is clear at first sight that no books were more likely to be so numerously multiplied than these, either by means of writing, wood-engraving or typography. We know already, besides some xylographic, more than fifty typographical, editions of the 15th century from all the civilized states of Europe at that time. Donatuses were printed in every place where schools were established, and where the art of printing was introduced. For logic and dialectics, the Summula Logica of Petrus Hispanus (perhaps Pope John XXI., elected in 1276), who was styled after this book the Summulator, was used. The chief books for morals were the "Disticha de Moribus " of a certain Dionysius Cato, not to be confounded with Cato the Censor; the " Facetus," a supplement to the preceding book; the " Floretus S. Bernardi," and some others, afterwards all printed under the collective title of " Auctores Octo Morales." Not- withstanding the reforming influence of Reuchlin and Erasmus on philology, it took a considerable time before these barbarous remains of Christian darkness were super- seded for good. 1 The rest of the education of the people was chiefly confined to the addresses of the travelling mendicant friars, who had, since the 13th century, gradually mono- polized preaching and the pastoral work of the settled clergy. Provided with nothing but a little Church Latin, and therefore too ignorant to derive their discourses from original sources, they felt the want of homiletic and catechetical assistance, as a help for their understanding and memory. Picture-books, with a brief explanatory text, were the best means of supplying this want. Hence originated representations of the mystic relation between the Old and New Testament (typology), of which the ' ' Biblia pauperum ' ' is the first fruit. We • Gutenberg und seine Mitbewerber, oder die Briefdrucker und die Buchdracker. Ton J. D. F. Sotzmann. (Histor. Taschenbuch, 1841, pp. 516—676.) 4 WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. find manuscripts of this work, sometimes with beautiful illuminations, as early as the 13th century. A re-modelling and development of this book is the " Speculum humanae salvationis," a work in rhyme of the 14th century in barbarous Latin, which in 45 chapters typologically represents the Bible-history, interwoven with Mariolatry and legend. The commencement gives us title and method : — Incipit speculum humane salvacionis In quo patet casus hominis & modus reparacionis In hoc speculo potest homo considerare Quam ob causam creator omnium decreuit hominem creare. The writer of the preface says at the end, that he has added it to the work for the sake of poor preachers, to enable them to preach even from the table of contents, if the whole work should be too expensive to them : — Predictum prohemium huins libri de contentia compilaui Et propter pauperes predicatores hoc apponere curaui Qui si forte nequierint totum libri sibi comparare Possunt ex ipso prohemio si sciunt historias predicare. The character of the theology of this celebrated book is distinctly laid down in the preface of the Dutch translation of 1464. Especially remarkable is the frank- ness with which the secret of all "biblical theology" is' babbled out. Holy Writ is as wax, which . reflects the figure of every impressed stamp. A genial expulsion indeed ! One may judge from the preface to the first edition. " This is the preface of the ' Spieghel onser behoudenisse,' which will teach many people righteousness, and to shine as the stars in eternal eternities. It is for this reason that I have thought of compiling, as an instruction for many, this book, from which those who read it, will give and receive instruction. I presume that nothing is in this life more useful to mankind than to acknowledge his creator, his condition, his own being. Scholars may learn this from the scriptures, and the layman shall be taught by the books of the laymen, that is by the pictures. Wherefore I have thought fit, with the help of God, to compile this book for laymen to the glory of God, and as an instruction for the unlearned, in order that it may be a lesson both to clerks and to laymen. It will be sufficient to explain the matter briefly. I mean first to shew the fall of Lucifer and the angels. Then the fall of our first parents and their posterity. Thereupon how God delivered us by his assuming flesh, and with what figures he whilom pre- figured this assuming. It is to be observed that many histories are given in this work, which could not be explained from word to word, for a teacher does not want to explain more of the histories than he thinks necessary for their meaning. And in order that this may be seen better and clearer, I give this parable : There was an abbey in which stood a large oak, which, on account of the narrowness and small- ness of the town, they were compelled to cut down. When it was cut down the workmen came together, and each of them chose whatever he thought would suit his trade. The smith cut off the undermost block, which he thought suitable for a forge ; the shoemaker takes the bark for making leather ; the swine-herd the acorns for the pigs ; the carpenter the straight wood for a roof ; the shipwright the crooked wood ; the miller digs the roots up, as they are fit, on account of their solidity, for the mill ; the baker uses the thin twigs for his oven ; the sexton of the church the leaves for decorating the church at festivals ; the butler the branches for barrels and mugs ; the cook the chips for the kitchen." (The German Speculum adds to all this : " Der buchschreiber nam die aychöpflel damit macht er die dintten.") " Just now as here every one chose his liking from the hewn tree, so they do with Holy Writ. The same method was followed as regards the histories which will be explained. Every teacher collects from them what he thinks proper and useful. I shall follow the same way with regard to this work, leaving out altogether some part of the histories, that it may not offend those who will hear and read it. Let us also observe that Holy Writ is like soft wax, which assumes the shape of all forms impressed upon it. Does, for instance, the stamp contain a lion, the soft wax will contain WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. 5 the same, and if it bears an ear, the soft wax will bear the same figure. So one thing signifies sometimes the devil and sometimes Christ. However, we need not be astonished at this manner of the Scriptures, for divers significations may be ascribed to divers performances of a thing or person. When David, the king, committed adultery and manslaughter, he represented not Christ but the devil. And when he loved his enemies, and did them good, he bore within him the figure of Christ and not of the devil." (In the German text : " when David violated his oath, and killed a man, he represented the devil and not God. But when he loved his enemy, he represented God and not the devil." In the same manner follows the prefiguration of Absalom and Sampson.) " This is why I have noticed these remarkable things here, for I thought it useful to those who study the Holy Scriptures, that they should not judge me, if they happened to find such things in this book, for the manner of trans- lation and exposition is so. O good Jesus, give me works and a Christian devotion which may please thee." Equally curious is the explanation of the marriage of the mother of God with Joseph. It appears from this, that it was not thought superfluous to justify a fact somewhat strange in regard to the doctrine of the supernatural incarnation of the second person of the godhead. The author of the Speculum assigns eight reasons for this marriage : The first was that Mary should not be suspected of unchastity ; the second, that she might want the help of a man during her travels as well as elsewhere ; the third, that the devil might not become aware of the incarnation of Christ ; the fourth, that Mary should have a witness of her purity ; the fifth, that God wished that his mother should be married ; the sixth, to prove the sanctity of marriage ; the seventh, to prove that marriage is no impediment to blessing ; the last, that married people should not despair of their salvation, Catholicism had then already brought the world to the possibility of that despair. After this digression on manuscripts, let us look at xylography so far as it stands in connexion with our subject, in so far, namely, as not only pictures, but texts also were made by this process. The researches of this century, which have thrown new light on the history of block- and metal-printing, compel us to look for the practice of xylography as early as the second half of the fourteenth century. Its origin is still enveloped in mist, but we know that it was already busily employed between 1400 and 1450. At that time it was less an art than a trade, and. became a means of communication at a time when there was no book or newspaper. All papers of this nature, generally of the size of one leaf, first drawn or painted, afterwards cut on blocks and printed, were called briefs, from breve (scriptum), as every small docu- ment was named in the Latin of the middle ages, in distinction from a book. In this manner every separate leaf, no matter whether it contained a picture, a text, or both together, was called a brief; and so, at length, all advertisements, records, diplomas, even a pack of cards, were called briefs ; as for instance, vracht brief (bill of freight), kaper brief (letter of marque), the German gült brief (bond), &c. The printers of these leaves (brief malers and printers) may be here and there pointed out, with name and date, e.g. Wilhelm Kegel, Brief Printer, at Nórdlingen, in 1428 ; Henne Cruse, Printer, at Mentz, in 1440 ; Hans von Pfedersheim, at Frankfort, in 1459 ; Peter Schott, at Strasburg, in 1464. 1 With, the sculptors (pyldsnytzer, beeldesniders), engravers (plaet-snyders), and the artificers of other connected trades, these printers (prenters) constituted gilds, as, for instance, at Augsburg already in 1418, at Nórdlingen in 1428, at Ulm in 1441, St. Luke's gild at Antwerp in 1442, and St. John's gild at Bruges in 1451. The celebrated Brussels Mary-engraving, with the date 1418, predecessor of the beautiful engraving, of which the only known copy, in the Museum at Berlin, is figured in the Monumens typographicmes of Holtrop, indicates a fairly well 1 Geschichte der Buchdruckerkrmst in ihrer Entstehung und Ausbildung von Karl Falkenatein Leipzig, Teubner, 1840. 4to. 6 WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. advanced Flemish art of wood-engraving in the first years of the 15th century. 1 The Berlin engraving contains the following dialogue in verses, scattered over several places : — (W)ie es dese comngoinne die hier staet Het es alder werelt toeverlaet Hoe es haer name my dea ghewae(cht) Maria weerde moeder ende maecht. Hoe es sy gheraect aen desen state Bi minnen oetmoet ende karita(te). (Wie) wort met haer meest verheven Die haer beat dient in syn leven. Mr. Holtrop says truly, on the connexion of these two engravings, " Ces deux estampes se complement mutuellement ; celle de Berlin annonce leur origine, celle de Bruxelles indique leur date. On peut admettre qu'elles ont été gravées dans les Pays-Bas, probablement en Flandres, et peut-être a Bruges, au commencement du 15 e siècle." The " Pomerium spirituale," c. 1440, the "Exercitium super Pater noster," the " Alphabet grotesque," are Flemish too. 2 In the Museum at Haarlem, a xylographic work of 16 pages is preserved, containing meditations in Flemish, addressed to the Holy Virgin, on the seven deadly sins. A wood-engraving of the sower, in the Imperial library at Paris, contains five lines xylographic, purely Flemish, text : — Ic saey goet saet suuer enife rene .... cristas vara nasarene Die es dit saet dat ic mene Et valt in dome distelen ende in steue (sic) Oft aen yemant mocht becliuen Die waerheit moet die waer- heit bliuen Daer dit saet an blyft verloren wee hem dat hi noyt was gheboren. The artists of such wood-engravings were, as has been said before, included in the first half of the 15th century, in the South Netherland gilds of St. Luke, together with the painters, illuminators and sculptors, and were called prenters (engravers and printers of picture-books). Hence the first typographical productions were said to have been prented, and Schöffer calls Mentz in 1492, " Eine anefangk der prenterye." Even if there existed no historical evidences, yet from this process of development of xylography, in connexion with the requirements of the time, we might safely presume that the prenters, brief printers, would get at last the idea of engraving the text of school-books on wood as well as prayers. This, in fact, hap- pened, and, of course, in Flanders, where xylography had first of all made progress. In this connexion the well-known discovery of Grhesquière at Cambray (1772) gets its real signification. The Abbat Jean le Kobert wrote in his diary, " Item for a Doctrinale getté en molle, which I sent for from Bruges, by Marquart, the first writer of Valenciennes, in Jan. xlv. (i.e. 1446), for Jacquet, 20 sols tournois. Little Alexander got a similar one, which was paid for' by the Church. Item, I sent a Doctrinale to Arras to instruct Dom Gerard, which was bought at Valenciennes, and was gettez en molle, and cost 24 groots. He returned me the said Doctrinale on All Saints day, in the year 51, saying, that it was of no value and full of mistakes. He had bought one of paper." 3 1 Monumens typographies des Pays-Bays au 15 e siècle. Collection de fac-simile d'apres les originaux conserves a la Bibliotheque Royale de la Haye et ailleurs. Publiés par J W Holtroc La Haye, 1868. Folio. ' " 2 Documents iconographiquës et typographiques de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique. Fac- simile photo-lithogr., avec texte hist, et explicate, par MM. lea conservateurs et emplovés de la Bib'ioth Royale . . . Bruxelles, 1864, Pol. 3 Item pour. i. doctrinal gette en molle anvoiet querre a Brug. par Marq. i. escripvain de Vallen, ou mois de jenvier xlv. pour Jaq. xx. s. t. Sen heult Sandrins. i. pareil q. leglise paiia . . . (Fol. 158 recto). Item envoiet Arras, i. doctrinal pour apprendre ledit d. Girard qui fu accatez a Vallen, et estoit jellez en molle et cousta xxiv. gr. Se me renvoia led. doctrinal le jour de Touss. Ian. li. disan's quil ne falloit rien et estoit tout faulx Sen avoit acca'.e. i. xx. patt. en papier . . , (Fol. 160 recto.) WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. 7 The Abbat of St. Aubert, at Cambray, therefore, had bought for him in 1446 the school-book of Alexander Gallus, in Bruges, which was thirty-six hours distance from his place, and six years later it was to be had at Valenciennes, but useless. These Doctrinales were printed from a (wooden) form, jeté en moule. As had been the case in German and Dutch, so, in the French language, the terminology of xylographic works (drucken, trucken, prenten, printen : to print, printer), was also at first applied to typography. In the privilege granted by Louis XI., in 1474, to the first printers of Paris, it is said that they receive it " pour l'exercise de leur ars et mestiers de faire livres de plusieurs manieres d'escriptures en mosle et autrement." Philippe de Comines wrote in 1498 in his Mémoires on frère Heronyme (Savonarola) : " tous ses sermons premiers, et ceux de present, il les a fait mettre en moule et se vendent," which is changed m the edition of Petitot into "il les a fait imprimer." 1 This question, however simple and plain it may be, has been the cause of much (and often intentional) confusion, for which, however, there is in the present condition of science fortunately no longer any occasion. Therefore Flemish xylography was so far developed as to be applied to the making of school-books towards the end of the first half of the 15th century, i.e. towards the time that typography was invented. According to the earliest polemic and apologetic account of this invention, given in 1499, in the Chronicle of Cologne, 2 it was such xylographic school-books which suggested to the inventor the idea of a new means of multiplying books. This curious account deserves to be read in full. It forms a separate chapter in the chronicle mentioned. " When, where, and by whom was found out the unspeakably useful art of printing books. " Here we have especially to observe that of late the love and ardour of mankind have decreased very much, or have been polluted, at one time by vain glory, at another time by covetousness, idleness, &c, particularly reprehensible in the clergy, who are more watchful and anxious to gather temporal good, and to seek the enjoyments of the flesh than the salvation of the soul ; whereby the common people fall into great error, for they and their leaders seek only temporal good, as if there were no eternal good or eternal life hereafter. In order, therefore, that the negligence of our leaders, and the evil example and corruption of the divine word by all preachers in general, who cause their immoral covetousness to be heard and observed, at the same time might not be too great an impediment and injury to good Christians ; and in order that nobody might excuse himself, the eternal God has produced out of his impenetrable wisdom the present excellent art whereby books are printed and multiplied, so that every person himself is able to read, or to hear read, the way to salvation. How should I attempt to write or to relate the praise, the advantage and the bliss which arise, and have arisen from this art ? for they are inexpressible. Let all who love letters testify it. God gives it to laymen who are able to read German, to the learned who make use of the Latin language, to monks and nuns, in short to all. 0, how many prayers, what unspeakable edification is derived from printed books ! How many precious and wholesome exhortations are given in preaching ! All this arises from this noble art. 0, how great an advantage and blessing proceed, if they choose, from those who either make, or are instrumental in making, printed books. And he who wishes to read about this may peruse the little book, written by the great and celebrated Doctor Joh. Gerson, De laude scriptorum, 3 or .the book of the spiritual ' Collection complete des mémoires relatifs a rhistoire de France . . . par M. Petitot. Tome xiii, Paris, 1820. 8vo. 2 Cronica van der hilliger Stat van Coellen, oder Tzytboich van den geschichten der vergangen jairen in Duytschen landen und sunderlinge der heiliger stat Coellen und yrer Busschove (Coellen, 1499). Folio 312b. 3 Joh. Koelhoff, of Lubeck, who published the Chronicle in 1499, printed at Cologne from 1472 1500. Like Zell, he published works of Gerson, the first collection of whose works was published by him, in four folios, in 1483 and 1484. The treatise of Gerson, De laude scriptorum, was printed at Cologne by an unknown printer. 8 WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. father and abbat of Spanheim, Joh. von Trittenheim. 1 This highly valuable art was discovered first of all in Germany, at Mentz on the Ehine. And it is a great honour to the German nation that such ingenious men are found among them. And it took place about the year of our Lord 1440, and from this time until the year 1450, the art, and what is connected with it, was being investigated. And in the year of our Lord 1450 it was a golden year (jubilee), and they began to print, and the first book they printed was the Bible, in Latin ; it was printed in a large letter, resembling the letter with which at present missals are printed. 2 Although the art (as has been said) was discovered at Mentz, in the manner as it is now generally used, yet the first prefiguration (die erste vurbyldung) was found in Holland (the Nether- lands), in the Donatuses, which were printed there before that time. And from these (Donatuses) the beginning of the said art was taken, and it was invented in a manner much more masterly and subtle than this, and became more and more ingenious. One named Omnibonus, wrote in a preface to the book called Quincti- lianus, and in some other books too, that a Walloon from France, named Nicol. Jenson, discovered first of all this masterly art ; but that is untrue, for there are those still alive, who testify that books were printed at Venice before Nic. Jenson came there and began to cut and make letters. 3 But the first inventor of printing was a citizen of Mentz, born at Strasburg, and named- Junker Johan Gutenberg. From Mentz the art was introduced first of all into Cologne, then into Strasburg, 4 and afterwards into Venice. The origin and progress of the art was told me verbally by the honorable master Ulrich Zell, of Hanau, still printer at Cologne, anno 1499, by whom the said art came to Cologne. 5 There are also some confident persons who say that 1 The treatise of Trithemius alluded to, is entitled : De laude scriptorum pulcherrimus tractatus, and was printed in 1494 in 4to, at Mentz, by Petrus Friedberg. 2 Some inferred from this that Zell did not allude here to the Bible of 42 lines, because its types are not large enough for a comparison with missal-types. The greatest part, however, of the contents of the missals published in the latter part of the 15th century, was printed in a small type. Only the Canon of the Mass and some prayers, which were to be read at a distance, have larger type. Zell printed in 1466 and 1467 at once with a small type, of the size of those in Gutenberg's Catholicon and SchiSffer's Rationale Durandi. Only the types of his Latin Bible and " Gesta Komanorum " are somewhat larger. In contrast with his small type he might, therefore, have called the type of the first Mentz Bible large, and compare it with missal-type, of which it has the form. 3 This mistake of Ognibene de Lonigo (Omnibonus Leonicenus) rectified here, appears in the edition of Quinctilianus of 1471. But Johan de Spira printed already at Venice in 1469. An edition of Jenson (Decor puellarum), with the date 1461, rests on a misprint; the book was only published in 1471. 4 As we know that Gutenberg was about a quarter of a century absent from Mentz, and returned thence from Strasburg, it gave rise afterwards to the error that he was sometimes taken for a Strasburger. 6 Ulrich Zell, a clerk of the diocese of Mentz, published the first dated Cologne work in 1466 (Chrysostomus supra Psalmo quinquagesimo). Panzer supposes (Ann. typogr. i. 274) that Zell brought the art of printing to Cologne as early as 1462 ; at least he published there several books without date. The earliest printed Strasburg date, the Decretum Gratiani of Bggesteyn, is 1471, but Mentelin printed much earlier at Strasburg, although the earliest date on any work of his, 1466, is only written; the earliest printed date is 1472. Taking everything together, the information of the Cologne chronicle seems to be correct in the main, and it was a colossal error in the polemics of the French and German Gutenbergians to deduct anything from its credibility. An earlier imprint of Trechsel will afterwards assist to explain much of this account. The substitution of Dutch for Flemish, of North for South-Netherland Donatuses, may easily, be explained in a Cologne author of the latter part of the 15th century, and this provincial term, moreover, must be explained by him from the geographical and political notion of that time (" Hollandia .... whose capital is called vtrecht in the German tongue, or trajectum inferior in Latin, for it belongs to Germania, i.e. to the German land, and it belongs all to Germany by its situation, habits, government, and language." Haerlem, 1485). Just as the prosperity of the South-Netherland wood-engraving falls into the first half of the 15th century, that of the North-Netherland occurs in the second half, and we know, moreover, that xylography continued to assist in the production of school-books when typography was in full vigour. A xylographic Donatus, for instance, in the Library at Deventer, was published only at the end of the 15th century (according to Meerman, even 1499—1503) ; the letters of a xylographic WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. 9 books had been printed already before, but this is not true, for we find in no country books printed at that time. Moreover many books have been lost, which we can find nowhere, because so little was written, as for instance the large volume of Titus Livius ; the books of the gods, written by Tullius ; the books of the wars of the Germans with the Romans, by Plinius ; of which few or none are found. This useful and divine art has calumniators, as all other things, but this is, as seems to me, too unreasonable, for things which we learn, and which are worthy of being read and reflected upon, should not be prohibited. What is more useful and salutary than to concern ourselves with things which regard God and our salvation ? Not all under- stand the Holy Scriptures, who read them in Latin, neither do those who read the Scriptures translated into German. But if both will be diligent, they will then derive great learning and delight from the Latin as well as from the German (edition), as I often heard from clergymen who discoursed of spiritual things with heartiness and courage. But this disfavour is mostly on the part of the unlearned, who are not able because of their great lukewarmness and ignorance to answer when they are questioned by well-disposed persons about those things, and thus become ashamed. " Others fear that errors arise (from the art of printing). But even if this were the case they would soon be refuted by the scholars. It is seldom seen or heard that heresy springs up from the common people, but generally and most of all from the pedants. There are also who think that the multiplication of books is injurious : I should like to hear why. For those who love art and honour, it is now an agreeable, golden, and blissful time, in which they can plant and sow the field of their under- standing with innumerable wondrous seeds, or enlighten it with many heavenly rays. But of those who love neither the art nor their soul, I say, if they choose, they may learn in a short time, with half the labour, as much as one could do formerly in many years. This arises from the great diligence, in multifarious ways, of those who print books, which are infinitely better than those which were written in former times. But is it of any use to one who will injure himself ? iEsop tells us that a cock found a very precious stone on a dunghill, but did not know it, and threw it away. It is not proper to cast pearls before swine. Blessed be they who use the talents which God has given them, and thereby gain still more." Thus far the chronicle. No one will deny that we have here to do with a clear mind, who is perfectly aware of what he writes, who understands the far-reaching influence of typography, and who is in advance of his time. He not only dares to chastise a corrupted clergy, but he uses arguments valid against censure and newspaper taxes. The author of the chronicle, therefore, knew quite well what he was about, when he asked for informa- tion from Ulric Zell, and the value of his arguments cannot be appreciated too highly. When we take the gist of this account, in order to view with one glance what it contains for us, we see that the art of printing was invented first of all at Mentz ; after experiments they were ready with the invention in 1450, and they began then to print the first book — a Latin Bible ; the art with which this was effected was the block, preserved at Haarlem, have the greatest resemblance to those of Willem Vorsterman, who printed at Antwerp in the beginning of the 16th century. A similar xylographic fragment in the Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum is not much older. A great number of typographic Donatuses were printed in Holland after 1470, and also exported to foreign countries. Add to this the lively oommerce between Holland and Cologne, which belonged to the Hanza; that the art of printing spread itself over the Netherlands, chiefly from Cologne, and the geographical inaccuracy, the confusion between Holland and Flanders, may not surprise us in an author of the middle ages. We may, therefore, read unhesi- tatingly in the chronicle accepted, that also this particular originated from Zell, and not from the compiler (for the author of the chronicle may have been the first who ignored the exact relation between xylography and typography) : Junker Johan Gutenberg- conceived, about the year 1440 (the period expressed in a round number, not exactly in that year), by means of Netherland woodcut- Donatuses. the idea of our present (typographic) mode of printing books. He devoted some years to the working out of this new idea, to experiments, and was ready with his invention in 1450 (repeated purposely hereafter). 10 WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. art of printing, " in the manner as is now generally used " {i.e. typography) ; the model, pattern of this art was got from the Donatuses, printed before in Holland in a manner {i.e. xylography) not so "masterly and subtle " as the Mentz art, which was perfected more and more ; it is an untruth that Jenson, at Venice, should have invented "first of all this masterly art"; no, the first inventor or typography was Johan Gutenberg, at Mentz ; indeed, there are pedants who say that books were printed before, but that is not true, for in no country are found (even) con- temporaneous books. Such are the contents of the celebrated account of Zell, with the addition only of two technical terms. For it is indisputable, that without the contrast of two modes of printing, the account would only be utter nonsense. The author simply tries to explain psychologically the great fact of the invention of which he speaks. The look of a xylographic Donatus suggested to the inventor the idea of typography, i.e. the look of a book not written but printed, kindled the lightning flash of the invention in his mind, the idea of a more easy multiplication of books by means of loose letters. Whenever an invention is made language tries to find words to define it, and it is a very natural phenomenon that the poor style of the middle ages especially, was not very soon ready with this work. To expect in the Cologne chronicle a clear, termino- logically accurate, distinction between typography and xylography, would only betray ignorance. There is question there of two (different) modes of printing ; the one masterly, subtle, now generally used and perfected by degrees, and another by which the first prefiguration (die eyrste vurbyldung), the suggestion (admunitio) had been printed. What is meant by that mode of printing at present in use ? Nothing else but typography proper, printing with moveable, cast types. Guicciardini still used in 1567 a similar definition. He calls typography, " l'arte dello imprimere e stampare lettere e carattere in foglio al modo d'oggi," (according to the present mode) and Eytzinger translates " die kunst der Truckerye auff unser jetzige weiss mit Buchstaben und Caracteribus, auff papir oder sonst zu trucken." We could even give quotations from the 17th century to confirm this mode of expression. So Scriverius wrote in 1628, " The praiseworthy and valuable art of printing arose and came to light, not in the mode and manner as is usual at present with types cast of lead and tin, which are separately taken by the compositors out of a box, and put together on a composing- stick, first a word, afterwards a line or verse, finally a whole form. No, but a book was cut leaf by leaf on wooden blocks." For the " other mode," therefore, for those Dutch (Flemish, Netherland) Donatuses, nothing remains to us but xylography, but the prefiguration of the product of the new art in a little book, printed from engraved wooden blocks. The idea of Gutenberg to multiply books in a manner different from the former (xylographic), more masterly, subtle, ingenious, the means of having always service- able {i.e. moveable, cast, metal) letters, that is his invention. To make any one invent typography by seeing a typographically printed book, is raising him, not to the "very first inventor," as is pleonastically expressed in the style of the middle ages, but to a wholly independent post-inventor. Every one might have seen a thousand times, letters printed on playing cards, pictures of saints, letters of indulgences ; in short, in all the xylographic and chalcographic texts of the (14th and) 15th century. But Gutenberg was the first who arrived at a second idea, after xylo- graphy had begun to omit gradually the pictures, and expand more and more the text of its productions. On the other hand, many little xylographic works appeared after the invention of typography, simply out of a principle of economy ; an engraver could cut more cheaply and easier a few pages in wood, than procure the furniture of a printing-office. Books which were continually used, i.e. bought, were generally selected for such bloek printing. Here is, for instance, the subscription of a xylo- graphic Donatus, in small folio (of 27 lines), printed on paper c. 1475 : " Octo parcium oracionis donatus. || Per Cunradum || dinckmut Vlmensis Oppidi || Ciuem im- pressus finit feliciter." Also that of a German Biblia pauperum : " Friedrich walthern WRITING, XYLOGRAPHY AND TYPOGRAPHY. 11 mauler/ zu Nördlingen und Hans Hiirning habent das buch/ mit einander gemacht 1470." There exists even a xylographic "Ars moriendi," with the date 1504. The block-printing of the latter part of the 15th century may therefore be regarded as_ the stereotype of that .period. It is of no importance whether such block-books originated before 1450 in Holland, in the South-Netherlands, or in Germany, for the maker of xylographic works invented nothing. And those who represent Gutenberg as having not only practised, but even invented xylography, prove that they did not understand the question at all, and had therefore no right to judge. Biassed and ignorant partizans of Mentz have confused xylography and typography, have made Gutenberg cut wooden blocks, and thereupon print with the pieces ; but history, the authentic documents relating to the fact of the invention, know nothing of a xylographer Gutenberg, either at Strasburg or at Mentz. God, art, and typography — these three are one, namely in this respect, that every one pretends to know equally much of them, that every one has a so-called opinion, those too who have not laboured in the sweat of their brow to find the way to the temple of knowledge. The atheism of the philosopher, who has scrutinized the history of human knowledge and thought, is judged in absolute ignorance by the thoughtless and heartless philistine ; the wonderful creations of a genius are reduced to a flat nonentity which stupidity calls "taste." Every noodle is a fellow-creator, a ^osi-inventor in his own way, of the spiritual cosmogony comprised in the invention of printing. Just as Noodle, who hears people talk about printing, knows at once how he would have invented it, so it was no doubt invented. Of course, Noodle ! nothing is more simple than that 'art of printing ; it is printing, you know, and a great quantity has already been printed, and very early too, on this earth. And Noodle nappingly goes on, perplexed with astonishment, that blunt humankind had to wait so many centuries for that simple printing. Had it not been, properly speaking, the duty of Adam to invent it the first time he saw the impressions of Eve's little feet on the ground, after he had been raking Paradise ? Or when Cain and Abel came from school on a snowy day ? At such questions Noodle becomes a perfect misanthrope. 0, those miserable prejudices, quite ready before all investi- gations, and which plunge all questions into a chaos. The most common prejudice is the supposition a priori, legitimated strictly scientifically by nothing, that printing with moveable types was only an improvement on that with wooden blocks in which the letters were cut ; that it originated from wood-engraving ; that it was a development of it, an extension, a fortunate application, the highest step of the ladder, consisting of playing-cards, images of saints, pictures with super- sub- and other scriptions, text without pictures. In short : xylography, in a technical, logical, and reformatorical sense, would be the mother of typography. But it is such only in the sense of an external impulse, of an external push to meditating on quite another means than wood- or metal-engraving, on another mode of obtaining books. Zell finds that push in block-Donatuses, but the inspiration of genius, the first invention of a quite independent art, of a totally new principle, which has nothing in common with wood- and metal-engraving, he ascribes, in accordance with the universal opinion of the 15th century and of all Europe, to Gutenberg. In Gutenberg's mind the grand idea arose that all words, all writing, all language, all human thoughts could be expressed by a small number, a score, of different letters arranged according to the requirements ; that, with a large quantity of those different signs, united to one whole, a whole page of text could be printed at once, and repeating this process continually, large manuscripts could swiftly be multiplied in as great a number as was wanted. This thought, this idea begot the invention of typography. In that moment, it was con- ceived in Gutenberg's mind, and it was born when " the fulness of time " had come. Every other explanation is at once unhistorical and unpsychological. Granted that Zell's explanation of the inspiration of printing by "Dutch" Donatuses is perfectly correct, then these Donatuses stand to the idea which we have described in' the same relation as the traditional falling apple stands to Newton's theory, as the dancing lid of the kettle with boiling water to the discovery of steam. But a statue to 12 Gutenberg's preparation. a gardener who shakes a fruit tree empty, or to an honest girl who brings the tea- kettle into the room, would be, notwithstanding the universal importance of gravi- tation and steam, a somewhat foolish whim. However, not so foolish that it were not capable of being surpassed ! And would this not be the case, when the centripetal and centrifugal force according to imminent laws of nature, were to be glorified on account of tradition by an artificial tree with golden apples, and — there arose then at the same time a lively dispute between kinds of apples mutually, whether the falling apple, which caused the English philosopher to reflect, was a pomegranate, a sweet or a sour one, a grey or a green one ? The Cologne chronicle mentions two things : a fact, the invention of the art of printing, and an explanation of that fact. The objective fact is of importance to us, not the subjective explanation of it which may be true, but also false, without altering the fact a bit. The qualification, Holland Donatus, this innocent geographical limitation which is of no importance, is a provincial mistake ; these Donatuses of the first half of the 15th century, which the chronicle mentions at the end of that century, were no more Dutch, than the Mentz patrician Gutenberg was of Strasburg, and had. been in Mentz in 1440 : all inaccuracies which occur also in that celebrated account. Once more, the short Latin grammar printed from wooden blocks (Donatus de octo partibus orationis) stands with typography in no other but this historical- psychological connexion ; that small books had already been printed with wooden blocks when the inventor, Johan Gutenberg, was devising typography, perhaps ex donato Hollandiae (i.e. Flandriae) prius impresso in tabula incisa (Mariangelo Accorso). 1 As to their value to the invention of typography, they might have been just as well German, French, or English books. II. GUTENBERG'S PREPARATION. The immortal inventor of typography was born at Mentz at the end of the 14th century, as second son of the patrician Frielo zum Gensfleisch, and of Else zu Gudenberg. In consequence of one of those many broils between the nobility and the citizens, his family emigrated in 1420, and went (probably) to their property at Eltvill; at least his elder brother Frielo lived there still in 1434. Ten years later (18th March, 1430) the archbishop of Mentz, Conradj HI., decreed a re- conciliation between the noble families and the gilds, in which document, of which a transcript is preserved in the town library at Frankfort, Henne (Johan) zu Gudenberg, is mentioned for the first time. He made no use, however, of this decree by which his kinsman George Gensfleisch was banished. We meet him for the first time at Strasburg in the year 1434. As his native town had neglected to pay him interests due to him, he had caused the recorder of Mentz, Nicolaus, to be imprisoned. But on the intercession of the great council of Strasburg he released the prisoner by this document : — " I, Johan Gensfleisch the younger, called Gutenberg, declare by this letter, that the worshipful sage burgomaster and the council of the town of Mentz owe me every year a certain interest, according to the contents of letters which contain, among other things, that, if they do not pay me, I am at liberty to seize and imprison them. As I have now to claim much rent in arrears from the said town, which they were hitherto not able to pay me, I caused M. Nicolaus, secretary of Mentz, to be* seized, 1 Angelus Eoccha : Bibliothcoa Yaticaua, Komae, 1591. ita, Appendix. GUTENBERG S PREPARATION. 18 whereupon he promised me and swore to give me 310 valid Rguilders, to be paid at Oppenheim, before the following Whitsuntide. I acknowledge, by this letter, that the burgomaster and council of Strasburg have induced me to relieve of my own free will, in honour and love of them, the said M. Nicolaus from his imprisonment, and from the payment of the 310 florins. Given on Sunday (12th of March), 1434." The ease with which Gutenberg relinquishes his monetary claim, and which at once shews him to be a better knight than financier, exhibits a trait of character which explains much in his later fate. Lady Ennelin (Anna) zu der isern thüre accused him in 1437 before the episcopal judge at Strasburg of breach of promise of marriage — an infidelity which was afterwards expiated by marriage. Of more importance is a law-suit of George Dritzehn against Gutenberg in 1439, at Strasburg, the protocol of which was discovered in that town by Professor Schöpflin in 1745, and published in 1760. 1 It is written in the Elzas dialect, and has, as all the other documents relating to the life of Gutenberg, so little attraction for those who do not wish to make a careful study of the origin of printing, that but a few know it, and people generally content themselves with reading partial accounts of that process. However, the knowledge of it is indispensable to form an in- dependent judgment. I have, therefore, taken the trouble to translate it, trusting that the diminished difficulty of reading it will deter no one from becoming acquainted with it. The document preserved in the "Dicta testium magni consilii, Anno dni. MCCCC, Tricesimo nono," runs thus : — Barbel von Zabem, the " trading woman," also called " the little woman," said, that she, on a certain night, spoke about several things with Andreas Dritzehn ; she said, for instance, to him, " Won't you go and sleep now ? " to which he replied, " I have to finish this first." Thereupon said this witness, "But good gracious! you squander much money; that thing must have cost you more than 10 guilders." To this he answered, " You are a fool ; do you think it has cost me only 10 guilders ; look here, if you had what it has cost me more than 500 guilders ready money, you would have enough for your life ; and what it has cost less than 500 guilders is very little, except what it will cost me besides ; I have, therefore, mortgaged my house and my ground." Then this witness said to him, " Holy passion ! what will you do if you fail ? " He answered, " We cannot fail ; before we are one year further, we have back all our capital and are all safe then, unless God be against us." Ennel (Annie) Dritzehn, wife of Hans Schultheiss, wood merchant, said, that Lorenz Beildeck called once at her house for Glaus Dritzehn, her cousin, and said to him, "Dear Claus Dritzehn, the late Andreas Dritzehn has Jour pieces lying in a press; now, Gutenberg has requested that you will take them out of the press and separate tliem, that no one may know what it is, for he would not like anybody to see it." This witness also said, " when she stayed with Andreas Dritzehn, her cousin, she had often assisted him in the same work day and night." She also said, " that she knew quite well that Andreas Dritzehn, her late cousin, had, at one time or other, mortgaged his income ; she knew not whether he had used this for the work." Hans Sidenneger declares, that the late Andreas Dritzehn had often told him, " that he had spent a great deal of money on the said work, and that it cost him much money, and that he did not know how to act in it." Whereupon this witness answered him: "Andreas, if you have been caught, it is necessary that you should get out again." Then Andreas said that he ought to pawn his goods. Witness then advised him to do it, and to tell nobody anything about it, which Andreas did ; he did not know, however, whether the sum and the time were great or small. Hans Schultheiss said, that Lorenz Beildeck came once at his house to Claus Dritzehn, when this witness had seen him home, after Andreas had died, at which occasion Lorenz said to Claus : " Andreas Dritzehn, your late brother has four pieces 1 Jo. Dan. Schoepflini Vindiciae typographicae. Argent, 1760. 4to. 14 gutenbebg's preparation. lying underneath a press ; now, Hans Gutenberg has requested you to remove them, and to put them separated on the press : no one is able to see then what it is." Thereupon Claus Dritzehn went and looked for the pieces, but found nothing. This witness, too, heard a long time ago from Andreas Dritzehn that the work had cost him more than 300 guilders. Conrad Sahspach said, that Andreas Heilmann came once to him in the Kremer Street, and said, "Dear Conrad, Andreas Dritzehn has died, and you have made the press and know of the business ; go there, take the pieces out of the press and separate them: nobody knows then what it is." Now, when this witness went to do so, and looked for the work, on St. Stephen's day last, the thing was gone. This witness said also, that Andreas Dritzehn had once borrowed money from him, which he used for the work. He knew also that he had mortgaged his income. Werner Smalriem says, that he made three or four purchases, but he knew not whom they concerned. One purchase was to the amount of about 113 'guilders, for which money three of them remained securities ; Andreas Dritzehn for 20 guilders. Afterwards a sum had been paid at the house of Anton Heilmann, and the rest by Fridel von Seckingen. Mydehart Stocker said, that Andreas Dritzehn, on St. John's day, at the time of Christmas, when they made the procession, got ill and was laid up in witness's room. Witness came to him and said, "Andreas, how are you?" Whereupon he answered, " I am dangerously ill ; if I were to die, I should wish never to have joined the partnership." "Why?" "Because I know that my brothers never agree with Gutenberg." Witness asked him, "Is then the partnership not put on paper, or have no people been present ? " Andreas — " Yes, it is written down." Witness asked further how the partnership was made, whereupon he told him that Andreas Heilmann, Hans Kiffe, Gutenberg and he (Andreas Dritzehn) had made a partnership, to which Andreas Heilmann and he had contributed each 80 guilders. While they were in partnership Andreas Heilmann and he went to Gutenberg, at St. Arbogast, where the last concealed many arts from them, which he was not compelled to show them. They did not like this, so they had broken up the partnership, and concluded a new one on condition that Andreas Heilmann and he should each supply, besides the first 80 guilders, so much that the sum would amount to 500 guilders, and they together would be counted in the partnership as one man. Gutenberg would then conceal from them none of the arts he knew. A contract had been made on this point. If one of them died, the remaining partners would pay his .heirs 100 guilders, while the rest of the money should remain in the partnership. This witness, too, knew of Dritzehn!s pawn. M. Peter Eckhart, pastor of St. Martin's, said, that the late Andreas Dritzehn sent for him during the Christmas days to hear his confession. When he came to him he confessed freely, and witness asked him whether he was in debt to somebody, or others to him. Andreas answered, that he entered into a partnership with some, with Andreas Heilmann and others, and that he had paid more than two or three hundred guilders, and possessed at present not a penny. Thomas Steinbach said, that he named to the commissioner Hesse, at his asking him whether he knew something for him to buy, Johan Gutenberg, Andreas Dritzehn, and a certain Heilmann, as they were sure to want money. Lorenz Beildeck said, that Johan Gutenberg sent him once to Claus Dritzehn, after the death of his brother Andreas, to say that he should not show to any one the press which he had under his care; witness did so, and added, that Claus should go to the press, and open the two little buttons, whereby the pieces should fall asunder. He should then put those pieces in or on the press, that nobody should afterwards make out anything of it. And if he happened to go out, he should call on Gutenberg, as he had something to talk with him. This witness knew that Johan Gutenberg owed nothing to Andreas, but that Andreas was indebted to Gutenberg, and was to pay him by instalments, but that he died before he had paid the debt. Witness had often seen Andreas Dritzehn dine with Johan Gutenberg, but never seen him pay a penny. gutenbeeg's peepaeation. 15 Reimbolt, of Ehenheim, said, that he came at Andreas's before Christmas, and asked him what on earth he did with those nice things with which he was busy ? Andreas answered, that it had cost him more than 500 guilders, but he hoped, if he succeeded, to get a good quantity of money, with which he should pay witness, and see all his trouble rewarded. Witness then lent him eight guilders, and spoke also of presents of wine, made by the partners to Gutenberg. Hans Niger, of Bishofsheim, said, that Andreas came to him, and told him he wanted money, for he was working at something, for which he could not collect too much money. Witness asked him what he was working at ? Andreas answered that he was a manufacture}' of looking-glasses. Fritz von Seckingen had been a surety for Gutenberg, Heilmann, and Dritzehn, to an amount of 101 guilders, for which he held a sealed bond. Andreas, however, had kept this to himself and not sealed, but Gutenberg had afterwards paid every- thing. M. Anton Heilmann said, when he saw that Gutenberg was willing to accept Andreas Dritzehn for a third part in the journey to Aix-la-Ghapelle (die Ochevart) with looking-glasses, he urgently requested him to accept his brother Andreas, too, as a partner. Gutenberg, however, intimated his apprehension that the friends of Andreas should take it to be a deception (witchcraft), and could therefore not well give his consent. Anton thereupon prayed again Gutenberg, and made out a contract which he could show to both the partners, that they might think about it. The consent was given. On this occasion Andreas Dritzehn begged this witness to assist him with money, whereupon he helped him, on security, with 90 lbs., which money he brought to him at St. Arbogast. Witness asked him, " What do you ask so much money for, as you don't want more than eighty guilders ? " Andreas said that he wanted money, as he had to pay Gutenberg eighty guilders two or three days after the beginning of Lent, before Lady-day (25th March) ; witness had to pay the same sum, as each of them had, according to their agreement, to pay eighty guilders for the other third part in the profits which was still at Gutenberg's disposal. This money was given to Gutenberg for his share in the undertaking and instruction in the art, but was not paid into the common purse. Thereupon Gutenberg said to witness,, that he had to make him another proposition, namely, that there should be equality in everything, because he (Anton) had done so much for him ; nobody should conceal anything from the other, whereby the progress of the other arts would be expedited. According to this promise, Gutenberg made a record of it, and said to Anton, " Tell the others that they should think well about it, whether it pleases them as it is." This he did, and thereupon they had a long conference ; at last he said, "Although there is at present so much in store, and we are still making more, that your share in the work comes very near the amount of the money you advanced, yet the art will be communicated to you." So they agreed with him on two points, the one of which was to be quite settled, the other to be explained well. The matter which was to be regarded as settled, was that they wished to be under no obligations whatever to Hans Rifle, as they had nothing from him, but everything from Gutenberg. The matter which was to be explained, was that if one of them happened to die, exact explanation should be given, and they decided that they should, at the end of the five years, pay to the heirs of deceased for all things made or still to be made, for the money advanced which every partner had to pay in the expenses, and for the forms, and for all tools, nothing excepted, 100 guilders. This was stipulated in order that, if any one died, they should not be under the necessity of showing, telling, or revealing the art to all the heirs. Thereupon the two Andreases told witness (Anton Heilmann) that they had come to an understanding with Gutenberg upon the document. Andreas Dritzehn had given to Gutenberg forty, Andreas Heilmann fifty, guilders, as the agreement was, for this term, fifty guilders, before next Christmas, twenty guilders, and afterwards, in March, as much as was stipulated by the record, signed also by witness. Witness 16 Gutenberg's preparation. acknowledges the contract, and that the money had not been paid into the common purse, but should be for Gutenberg. Neither had Andreas Dritzehn paid any money into their partnership, and had never paid for the meals they had taken (in the neighbourhood of the town at St. Arbogast, where Gutenberg lived). This witness knew also very well that Gutenberg, shortly before Christmas, sent his servant to the two Andreases, to fetch all the farms ; these were melted before his eyes, which he regretted on account of several forms. Witness knew that when Andreas died, they should have liked to see the press, and that Gutenberg said, that they should send for the press, for he feared that any one should see it. Thereupon he sent his man to take the press to pieces. He had also asked his brother, when they did begin to learn, whereupon he answered, that Gutenberg still claimed 10 guilders from Andreas Dritzehn of the 50 which he had to pay on the day of St. Henry. Hans Dunne, the goldsmith, said that he had earned some three years ago about 100 guilders from Gutenberg, only for that which belonged to printing. JUDGMENT. We, Cune Nope, burgomaster and councillor of Strasburg, make known to all who will see this letter, or hear it read, that Jerge (George) Dritzehn, our citizen, appeared before us for himself, and with authorization of Claus Dritzehn, his brother, and made a claim against Hans Gensfleisch, of Mentz, called Gutenberg, our townsman, thus : Andreas Dritzehn, his late brother, had put a large amount of his paternal inheritance into a partnership with Hans Gutenberg and others ; they had also exercised their trade with each other for a long time. Andreas Dritzehn, too, had been security in many places, where they had bought lead and other things wanted, and had redeemed his bail. Now, after Andreas had died, George and his brother Claus had often demanded of Gutenberg that he would accept them, instead of their brother, into partnership, or else repay the money advanced, which he declined. To this Hans Gutenberg answered, that the demand was unreasonable, and not in accordance with the schedules which George and Claus Dritzehn found after the death of their brother. For Andreas applied to him some years ago to learn some arts ; at his request Gutenberg taught him to polish stones. A considerable time afterwards Gutenberg and Hans Eifle came to an understanding about an art, which was to be used at the occasion of a pilgrimage to Aix-la-Chapelle, on condition that Gutenberg should get two, and Eiffe a third part of the profits. Andreas Dritzehn became aware of this fact, and asked him to be allowed to learn this art also. M. Anton Heilmann made the same request on the part of his brother Andreas, whereupon Gutenberg promised them both to instruct them, and to yield the half of such an art and undertaking, namely, that these two should have one share among them, Hans Eiffe the other part, and Gutenberg the half. They were to pay him 160 guilders for the instruction. He received, indeed, 80 guilders from each of them, as the pilgrimage would take place that year, and they had learned their art. When the pilgrimage was put off for one year, they urgently begged him to instruct them in all his arts and undertaking of which he knew, and to conceal nothing from them. Thus they persuaded him, and came to an understanding, on condition that they should pay him, besides the amount mentioned already, 250 guilders, 410 guilders in all. Of this Gutenberg was to receive 100 guilders in ready money, of which he got 50 guilders from Andreas Heilmann, and 40 from Andreas Dritzehn, so that the last owed him still 10 guilders. They would, moreover, pay him each 75 guilders in three instalments. Andreas Dritzehn, however, died within this time, and the partner- ship was made for five years, and if it happened that one of the four died within that time, then all their art, tools, and work made already, should remain with the others, and after the expiration of five years the heirs of deceased should receive 100 guilders. All this was put on paper, whereupon Gutenberg instructed them in this art and undertaking, which Dritzehn had acknowledged on his death bed. Therefore he wished that George and Claus Dritzehn should deduct from the 100 guilders the 85 guilders which he had still to claim from their brother; he then would pay them gtjtenbkrg's preparation. 17 the remaining 15 guilders, although he was in no hurry about them for some years. If Andreas Dritzehn borrowed, as his brother said, much money on his father's goods, or pawned or sold of them, that did not concern Gutenberg, for he received nothing but what has been mentioned before. Nor had Andreas been his security for lead, or for anything else, except once by Fritz von Seckingen, of which, however, he had relieved him after his death. On account, therefore, of claim, answer, assertion, &c, George and Claus Dritzehn are denied their claim ; to Gutenberg his contra-claim is adjudicated. Dated (12 Dec.) Anno XXXIX. Later, but also in 1439, Lorenz Beildeck, Gutenberg's servant, instituted, in consequence of this process, a law-suit against the petitioner, George Dritzehn, who, after the process, accused him of perjury. The accusation is as follows : — " I, Lorenz Beildeck, accuse, before the lords of the high council, Master Jórg Dritzehn, who had summoned me before you, my gracious lords, to tell you the truth, while I have said on my oath what I knew of the business. Thereupon the said Jórg Dritzehn has summoned me again before you to give evidence, and by doing so he had given to understand that I had not told the truth before. Moreover he had said to me in public : ' Thou witness, thou shalt tell the truth for me, even if we should go together to the gallows ; ' thereby maliciously accusing me of being a perjured criminal ; whereby he has, by God's grace, done me wrong," &c. It appears from the list of witnesses that the protocol has not come down to us perfect. Both the parties had summoned Lorenz Beildeck, Werner Smalriem, Fridel von Seckingen, Ennel Dritzehn, Conrad Sahspach, Hans Dunne, and Master Hirtz (whose evidence is wanting). Dritzehn moreover had caused to be summoned the pastor of St. Martin, Hans Sydenneger, Hans Schultheiss the wood-merchant, Thomas Steinbach, Reimbolt von Ehenheim, Berbel das clein frówel, whose evidence has been given ; Jacob Imerle, Midhart Honöwe, Heinrich Bisinger, Wilhelm von Schutter, the wife of Lorenz Beildeck,. Stosser Nese von Ehenheim, M. Jerge Saltzmütter, Heinrich Siden- neger, Hans Ross the goldsmith and his wife, M. Gosse Sturm, at St. Arbogast, and Martin Verwer, whose evidences are wanting. It is especially a pity that the evidence of the second goldsmith is wanting. Gutenberg's witnesses a décharge, besides the above mentioned, with M. Anton Heilmann and Mydehart Stocker, are wanting in the protocol ; they were Andreas and Claus Heilmann, Heinrich Olse, Hans Riffe, and Johan Dritzehn. I doubt, however, whether if complete, the evidence would have enabled us to draw decisive inferences as regards the technical work mentioned in the partnerships discussed. The council of Strasburg looked exclusively on the judicial side of the question which it had to solve ; to us the industrial question is of import- ance, and we will see how far it may be explained. After the development of the towns, all members of the nobility did not seek their occupation exclusively in deeds of knighthood. Industry, art, and the Refinement of town-life gradually superseded the warlike spirit of the nobility, to whom the town offered distinguished dignities and situations, while enterprises of commerce and industry gave them distinction and riches. The privilege of coming money, especially, was often farmed out to an association of ancient families. At Mentz this association consisted of twelve families (Münzer-Hausgenossen), among whom was also the family of Gens- fleisch. They possessed, moreover, the privileges of the valuation of coin, of the assize of weights and measures, of offices for the exchange of money and of the sale of gold and silver staves to the mint. Such employment brought them chiefly in connexion with the goldsmiths, whose work consisted, at that time, of one of the most consider- able trades, which comprised mechanics and chemistry, nay, the whole dominion of plastic and graphic art, in its application to metals, whether separate or in conjunction with, diamonds and other precious materials. With the mint, bank money and commerce-affairs were connected, which were transacted at Nuremberg, Augsburg, and elsewhere, by similar associations. From the fourteenth century they were even mostly patricians who established powder-mills, paper-mills, and similar new manu- factories. It is as such a noble worker that the law-suit of the heirs of Dritzehn reveals 18 gtjtenbbbg's preparation. Gutenberg to us. 'Without making conjectures on the financial question, we will endea- vour, with strict self- constraint against every wish to help exegesis by imagination, from the standpoint of absolute impartiality, to get some notion of the nature of the work done by Gutenberg at Strasburg. In the first place, as to the facts, it is plain that Gutenberg is in everything the chief person, the teacher, requested by others to com- municate to them his knowledge, for payment. Some years before the law-suit he entered into partnership with Andreas Dritzehn to instruct him in the polishing of stones. " Under polishing of stones we could not yet understand the cutting of jewels ; it is most probable that ornamental stones are meant, as the Hundsrück, and the so-called Westrich, in the neighbourhood of Mentz, produced. According to Seb. Munster, chalcedony was broken in the river S. Wendel ; and Oberstein on the Nahe, where agate, onyx, and other similar ornamental stones are found, is still the place where they are cut on a great many mills, and polished by means of tripoli or tin-ashes." 1 This industry was exercised to the mutual profit of the partners. About the same time the goldsmith Hans Dunne earns much money from Gutenberg for what belongs " to printing." As this expression is not explained more fully, we have no right to infer more from it, than that the work of Gutenberg stood also in connexion with the working of metal. While the partnership with Andreas Dritzehn had existed for a considerable time, Gutenberg made, in 1438, another agreement with the judge, Hans Eiffe, to instruct him also in some art. As soon as Dritzehn became aware of this, he asked to be admitted into this new partnership. The same request was made by Anton Heilmann, a friend of Gutenberg, in behalf of his brother Andreas. He was persuaded by them ; and thereupon Gutenberg, Eiffe, Dritzehn, and Heilmann entered into a partnership for the manufacture of looking-glasses, destined to be sent to Aix-la- Chapelle at the time of the pilgrimage, which was to be expected in 1439. The looking-glasses of the 15 th century were silvered by means of pouring melted lead or tin on the heated glass. The frames were broad, gilt, and richly adorned with carving- work, "en bas-relief;" such a looking-glass frame of the 15th century is described in Eeinaerd de Vos of Hendrik of Alkmaar : — Dat holt, dar dat glas inne st6d, Was brêd anderdhalven mannes f 6t Buten umme gande alle rund, Dar mannige fromde historiën uppe stand, Under itliker historiën de worde Mit golde dorgwragt, so sik dat behórde Siet dese historiën end noch mêr Stunden nppen spegel umhêr Gewragt, gesneden en gegraven Mit bylden end guldenen bökstaven. We find lead (which is also mentioned in the law-suit) spoken of already, as used for the manufacturing of looking-glasses, in the 13th century. In the " Speculum naturale" of Vincentius Bellovacensis (c. 1240) it is said: "Inter omnia melius est speculum ex vitro et plumbo. . . Quando superfunditur plumbum vitro calido, efficitur altera parte terminatum valde radiosum." And in the "Perspectiva com- munis" of Peckham : " Specula consueta vitrea sunt plumbo obducta." The pilgrimage to ancient Aix-la -Chapelle took place every seventh year, and, commencing on the 10th of July, lasted fourteen days, during which time the ordinary service in the church did not take place, but a free market was held. The concourse of people was uncommonly great on that occasion, so that, for instance, in the year 1496, 142,000 pilgrims were counted in the town and 80,000 guilders in the offering- boxes on one day. Aix-la-Chapelle possessed relics of the first rank, as the swaddling-clothes of Christ, his body-cloth at the Crucifixion, the dress worn by Mary at his birth, and the cloth on which St. John the Baptist was beheaded. The Strasburg partnership, therefore, was looking forward to an advantageous speculation, when it resolved to manufacture looking-glasses for the pilgrimage of 1439. The 1 K. Falkenstein, G-esch. der Buchdruckerkunst, Ac. Gutenberg's peepabation. 19 festival, however, was put off for one year, which seems to have involved the partners in pecuniary embarrassment. Meantime this delay afforded their enterprising genius an opportunity for entering into a third partnership for a period of five years, Gutenberg binding himself to reserve nothing of his industrial skill to himself, but teach the partners everything he knew. This contract, therefore, would last till 1443. As decisively as we learn from the law-suit the object of the first agreement (Gutenberg-Dritzehn), and that of the second (Gutenberg-Riffe-Dritzehn-Heil- mann), so uncertain is it which art is meant in the third quinquennial contract. The verdict, which has, of course, only regard to the judicial, that is, to the monetary question, describes it in general as " art and enterprise " (kunst und afentur). Schopflin has translated the word " afentur" incorrectly by " secret art," ars secreta et mirabilis. The word signifies nothing but an enterprise in general, a risk, a com- mercial business which is undertaken, i.e. risked. In a judicial compact of 1477, between Peter Schóffer and his brother-in-law, Johan Fust, it is stipulated: "Dieselben Bücher sal der genannte Peter in Zyt und die wyle er den Handel mit Biicher trybet, dem obgenannten Johannes sinem schwager zu Fruntschaft und zum Besten uff sinen kosten und uff Johannes abentur und wagnisse synen eygen büchern, als feme er verwag, vertryben und verkauffen." The printer, Friedricb Pfister, at Regensburg, complained in 1494 to the bishop that Joh. Pfeyl, and not he, had been entrusted with the printing of prayer-books ; whereupon he was answered, " Man mag niemand drucken wehren, es drucke der auf sein eigen abentuer." It is clear from the evidences of the witnesses, 1. that Sahspach made a press for the partners ; 2. that this press was placed, not at Gutenberg's, in the convent of St. Ar- bogast, in the neighbourhood of the town, but at Dritzehn's, who lived with Mydehart Stocker ; 3. that this press could be opened by means of two buttons ; 4. that under- neath the press were four pieces, which would come down when the buttons were unfastened ; 5. that the secret of this press (which Gutenberg and Heilmann wished to have kept after the death of Dritzehn) consisted in the manner in which the whole machinery was put together, not in its contents : separating the thing was sufficient to keep the secret. Now what did this press mean ; what were these four pieces ? Schopflin translates them by "four pages" (quatuor paginas), and sees through this prism of an arbitrary translation the beginnings of the art of printing. Meerman even, copying him, says : " Every one sees that there is question here of the art of printing." Every one namely to whom the sound of the word is sufficient, but nobody who attaches more value to meaning than to sound. The character of typography is not pressing and printing, but mobilisation ; the winged A is its symbol. The elements unchained ; the letters freed from every bond in which the pen or chisel of calligrapher or xylographer held them entangled ; the cut character risen from the tomb of the solitary tablet into the substantive life of the cast typos — that is the invention of printing. But the sound of the word 'printing fosters the current misunderstanding as regards typography. The uninitiated, misled by the sound, thinks that every kind of printing — all that is connected with the impressing of some figure (be it an image or a word) from some form upon some one or other material — belongs to it. And especially a book, even if the text is only an impression from engraved wooden blocks, and, therefore, only a specimen of wood-engraving and figure-printing, is not doubted for a moment to be a production of the art of printing. And yet such a book is altogether out of the question. I cannot repeat often enough that, when we speak of typography and its invention, nothing is meant, or rather nothing must be meant, but printing with loose (separate, moveable) types (be they letters, musical notes, or other figures), which, therefore, in distinction from letters cut on wooden or metal plates, may be put together or separated, according to inclination. Even if we discovered a folio, printed from engraved plates, it would signify nothing with respect to typography, but would belong to the history of metallo- or xylography. One thing, therefore, is certain : he who did not invent printing with moveable types, did, as far as typography goes, invent nothing. What material was used first of all in this invention ; of what metal the first letters, the 20 gutenbeeg's preparation. patrioes (engraved punches) and matrices were made ; by whom and when the leaden matrices and brass patrices were replaced by brass matrices and steel patrices ; by what process the printing-ink, the press, the chases, and other tools were improved — all this belongs to the secondary question of the technical execution of the principal idea : multiplication of books by means of multiplication of letters, multiplication of letters by means of their durability, and repeated use of the same letters, i.e. by means of the independence (looseness) of each individual letter (moveableness). 1 It is necessary to repeat these elementary notions, until they at last are regarded as axioms, for there are still some who pretend, with genial impudence, that printing did not require to be invented, because — it had always existed. Certainly, printing has existed always (immemorably long) ; for the brands, stamps, tiles, the coins of the ancients, and some illuminated manuscripts of the middle ages, exhibit artificially impressed letters. But no book was printed with loose (i.e. cast) types before the second half of the 15th century. To return again to Gutenberg. We understand now that he would not have con- cealed from the uninitiated the real contents of the press by taking it out and putting it upon it, but, on the contrary, by doing so, would have revealed the matter. Neither do we find here the least connexion with xylography. The press did not replace the frotton by xylography before the 16th century. An important evidence, moreover, of one of the witnesses proves, beyond contradiction, that our Strasburg mechanics worked in metal, and not in wood. I mean this clause: " Dirre gezuge hat ouch geseit das er wol wisse das Gutenberg unlage vor wihnahten sinen kneht santé zu den beden Andresen, alle formen zu holen, und würdent zurlossen das er ess sehe, und in joch ettliche formen ruwete."* Wetter, the most learned writer on the Strasburg process, and who applies it to " Tafeldruck" (block-printing), says of it, and gives, at the same moment, the lie to his own words : " Diese Worte sind viel zu dunkel, als dass sich etwas Bestimmtes daraus folgern lassen kónnte. Unter dem wort Formen aber sind in keinem Falle einzelne Buchstaben zu verstenen, sondern ganze Tafeln. Daher hiessen die Holzschneider schon früher in ganz Deutschland Formschneider. Die folgenden Worte der Aussage sind so dunkel, dass sie schwerlich je befriedigend werden erklart werden können." 3 A German ought not to give it up so soon, especially not in this case, for the words are plain. They stopped at the words zurlossen and ruwete, which have been martyred already many times. Zurlossen — zerlassen, means melting, and ruwete is still (in Alsace, in Switzerland, and elsewhere) dialect for reuete, repented. Anton Heilmann, therefore, declares that Gutenberg, shortly before Christmas, sent for all forms at Dritzehn's and Andreas Heilmann's, and had them melted in his presence, which he (Gutenberg or witness) regretted, on account of some of them. There is, therefore, no question at all of ivooden printing-forms ; nor do the four pieces of the press, each of which make one whole by themselves, refer to typography. We do not know what these forms, these pieces (metal-plates ?), this press, really were. In scientific, objective investigation, we have no right to ask whether an uncertain thing 1 Some idea of typography is already found in Cicero's De natura deorum, II. 20, where he makes the stoic Balbus reply to the epicure Vellejus : " He who fancies that a number of solid and indivisible bodies could be kept together by gravitation, and a world full of order and beauty formed from their accidental meeting together, from such a man I cannot understand why he should not believe also that, if we threw a surprising number of the 21 letters, either of gold or some other material, pell-mell, the annals of Ennius could be legibly put together from these forms scattered on the ground." Here we have indeed the loose metal letters to oppose atomism ; but the idea of printing is wanting, and as many thousands of letters are supposed as a whole book contains. 2 This witness knew also very well that Gutenberg, shortly before Christmas, sent his servant to the two Andreases, to fetch all the forms ; these were melted before his eyes, which he regretted, on account of several forms. 3 These words are too obscure, for us to infer anything definite from them. We are, however, in no case to understand by the word Formen, separate letters, but whole blocks. Hence, the wood-engravers were formerly called in Germany Formschneider. The following words of the evidence are so obscure, that we shall hardly ever be able to explain them satisfactorily.— Kritische Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst durch Johann Gutenberg zu Maintz, mit einer . . . Prilfung und . . . Beseitigung der von Schöpflin und seinen Anhangern verfochtenen Ansprüche der Stadt Strasshurg, &c. Von J. Wetter. Mainz. 1836. 8vo. GUTENBEEG AT MENTZ. 21 may be this or that, but what it really is. The Strasburg law-suit, however, is, even without positive technical result, important enough for an historical investigation ; it reveals the future inventor of typography to us as a nobleman, who is, at the same time, an industrial genius ; as one who psychologically and technically satisfies the condition, the individual predisposition of the invention. He is no inventor by accident, or by a whim of fate, but by serious study, by technical reflection. This single fact is of more value to science than a whole ship-load of paper, filled with tiresome suppositions, which advance knowledge not one step further. Let us follow G-utenberg by the help of positive documents. Evidences of pecuniary embarrassment present themselves afterwards also at Strasburg. The 2nd of January, 1441, Gutenberg and the Knight Luthold von Kamstein gave security for an annual rent of 5 lb., which Johan Karle had sold to the chapter of St. Thomas', at Strasburg, for the sum of 1001b. On the 15th of December, 1442, he and Marten Brether, citizen of Strasburg, sold to the same bishopric an annual rent of 41b. from the revenues of the town of Mentz, which he had inherited from his uncle Johan Lehheimer, judge in that town. Both acknowledge to have received the price in ready money, and to have employed it to the sole use of Johan Gutenberg (quam pecuniam ipsi venditores confessi fuerunt se a Dominis Decano et . Capitulo plene recepisse, sibique numeratam, traditam et solutam fore, ac in usus praefati Joannis Gutenberg totahter convertisse.) The records of these bonds are pre- served at Strasburg, in the church of St. Thomas. Gutenberg is described in them thus : Johannes dictus Gensefleisch alias nuncupatus Gutenberg de Moguntia. Finally, the following annotations have regard to his residence in that town : In the Helbeling- Zollbuch (register of the receipts of the helbeling, or penny-tax, raised from every measure of wine), which is still preserved at Strasburg, we find in the volume, con- taining the years 1436 — 40 : " Item Hans Gutenberg i voer and iiii aam. Settled with him on Thursday before St. Margaret A. 1439 ; still due xii s. and when he pays these, he has paid till St. John's till St. Agnes last. Item has given xii s. on the same day." In the volume of 1442 and following years we find : " Item Hans Gutenberg. . . . on St. Matthias A. 1443. Has given 1 guilder on St. Gregorius A. 44." In another place it is said that this tax was paid by " Ennel Gutenbergen ; " but as this annotation has no date, we are unable to infer from it since when Ennel resided alone at Strasburg. III. GUTENBEEG AT MENTZ. It is not before 1448 that we know for a certainty that Gutenberg was again living in his native town. On the 6th of October of that year he borrows 150 guilders, which his relative, Arnold Gelthuss, borrows for him from Eynhard Brómser and Henchin Bodenstein on security of the rent of some houses, which Gelthuss possessed at Mentz. 1 It is very probable that this continual pecuniary embarrassment had some- thing to do with Gutenberg's indefatigable industrial experiments. Without knowing of course the exact moment in which the first idea of typography enlightened his mind, without knowing his first efforts, of more importance to curiosity than to science, we have approached however the year in which the celebrated invention was an accomplished fact. Gutenberg was ready in the year 1450 with the invention of i Die Geschichte der Erfind. der BuchdruckerkunBt durch. Johann Gensfleisch genannt Gutenberg zu Mainz ... von C. A. Schaab. Mainz, 1830—31. 8vo. III. 22 GUTENBERG AT MENTZ. the art of printing, according to Luther, " Das letzte Auflodern vor dem Erlöschen der Welt," but in reality the first glimmer of a new creation. The vellum documents which prove this are still preserved at Frankfurt and at Mentz. They prove that Gutenberg, instead of having any longer recourse to small pecuniary loans, could make the rich Mentz citizen, Johan Fust (dialect for Faust), understand the importance of his invention so clearly, that he supplied him, in August, 1450, first with the funds necessary to the establishment of a printing-office, and afterwards with a sum of money to make it work. For the first amount the established printing-office remained security ; for the second Gutenberg^gave the value of his discovery and his labour, of which the profit and the loss would be divided. There was therefore a twofold (simply financial) connexion between Fust and Gutenberg. -Fust was 1. holder of the mortgage on the printing-ofiiee and its appur- tenances, 2. partner in the projected business. The second sum therefore could have been supplied just as well by another than Fust. All this will soon be evident. The first work to which the new art was applied, was the Bible in the language of the Church, a gigantic labour, worthy the genius which discovered it. Some years were spent on the two folios, 324 and 317 leaves, of which it consists, but they were decidedly completed in 1455, for the copy of the Library at Paris contains the follow- ing inscriptions of the rubricator : "Et sic est finis prim» partis biblise, scilicet veteris testamenti, illuminata seu rubricata et ligata per Henricum Albech alias Cremer Anno Dni. MCCCCLVI. festo Bartholomei Apli . . . [24 August] Deo gratias .... Alleluja." And at the end of the second vol. : " Iste liber illuminatus,ligatus et com- pletus est per Henricum Cremer Vicarium ecclesia? collegiatse Sancti Stephani Magun- tina sub Anno Dni. Millesimo quadringentesimo quinquagesimo sexto, festo assum- tionis gloriosas Virginis MarisB, deo Gratias Alleluja." These authentic dates, in con- nexion with the time absolutely necessary for such a work, bring us to the year 1455 as the positive date of its completion. Every page, printed in 2 columns, contains, except the ten first, 42 lines, whereby it is known among the bibliographers as the Bible of 42 lines. The ink, probably soot and gum, is dissoluble by water. Of this admirable monument there exist, as far as I am aware of, still sixteen copies in the public libraries of Europe, of which seven are on vellum and nine on paper. While Gutenberg was occupied with this bible, he executed also smaller works, of which the most however have been lost. This appears from the still existing letters of indulgence on vellum. Pope Nicolas V. decreed an indulgence, in order to support with the produce John II., king of Cyprus, against the Turks. He sent the agent of the king, Paulinus Zappe, to the Archbishop of Mentz, with an authority dated 6th January, 1452. The name of this deputy appears on the printed letters of indulgence, whereby it is beyond doubt that they were printed at Mentz. These letters consist of three parts : the first commences with the words : " Universis Christi fidelibus presentes litteras inspecturis Paulinus Chappe consiliarius ambasciator et procurator generalis Serenissimi Begis Cypri," and concludes with the date, which shows the place, year and day of the delivery of the letter ; the second part contains a form of absolution for life (Forma plenissime absolutionis et remissionis in vita) ; the third at the point of death (Forma plenissime remissionis in articulo mortis). The headings of these forms and the words Universis and Paulinus in the first part, are printed with missal-types, but all the rest with a smaller type. Space is left for the name of the receivers, their place, and the exact day. The year, however, was printed. The Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum at the Hague possesses a copy with the year Mccccliiii, the earliest typographically printed year in existence. Lord Spencer possesses a copy of another edition, as well as a second with the year 1455. It lies in the nature of the case that since the erection of this printing-office, work- men were engaged, i.e. apprentices were educated. Among them, we know in the first place, Peter Schöffer, an excellent calligrapher, born at Gernsheim, a small town on the right bank of the Bhine, between Worms and Oppenheim, and which at that time belonged to the archbishopric of Mentz. In the year 1449 this Schöffer lived as a scriptor at Paris. The town-press at Strasburg possesses a work written by him, with GUTENBERG AT MENTZ. 23 the calligraphic inscription, " Hie est finis omnium librorum tam veteris quam nove loice completi per me Petrum de Gernsheim, alias de Moguntia, anno MCCCCXLIX., in gloriosissima universitate Parisiensi." In the illumination of this inscription the future artist of the beautiful initials in the Psalter of 1457 is already visible. Another disciple of Gutenberg was Albert Pfister, originally a xylographer, and the first who established a printing-office outside Mentz ; he settled, perhaps already in 1453, at Bamberg, and published at that place, a year later, the first book with a year, it being at the same time the first book in German. The only copy known of this work, 6 leaves, in 4to., of which 9 pages have been printed upon, is preserved in the Royal Library at Munich. The text, divided into the twelve months of the year, contains : Eyn manuwg der cristenheit widder die durken (an appeal to Chris- tendom against the Turks, who had conquered Constantinople on the l'8th of May, 1453.) At the end we find the year: "Als maw zelet noch dni geburt offenbar MCCCC.LV. jar." The following year he printed with the same types a kalendar on one sheet in folio, printed on one side, but with the year for which it was destined, namely, 1457. About the year 1460, Pfister also completed a great typographical work, a Latin bible, a vellum and paper folio of 881 leaves, each of 36 lines, hence its name among bibliographers of the bible of 36 lines. In the rubricated copy of the Library at Paris the year 1461 is written with the same red ink with which all the rubrics of the whole work have been done. This bible has been ascribed to the press of Pfister on account of its identity with the types of the " Fabelbuch," printed at Bamberg in 1461, and known to bibliographers under the name of Boners Edelstein. This work consists of 88 leaves in 4to, with 85 woodcuts and (continuous) rhymed text. The imprint of this first book in German, with indication of the place where it was printed, runs thus, as taken from the only copy known, in the library at Wolfenbuttel :— Zu Bamberg diss püchley?» geendet ist Nach der gepurt unsers herrew ihesu crist Do man zalt tausent unde vierhundert jar Und ym ein und seehzigsten das 1st war. An sant valenteins tag Got behut uns vor seiner plag. Amen. The name of the printer at Bamberg is revealed last of all in the imprint of the so-called " Buch der vier Historiën," with the year 1462. This work, consisting of 58 leaves, small folio, with 61 woodcuts, contains the histories of Joseph, Daniel, Esther and Judith. It concludes with the (continuous) lines : — Tzu bambergk in der selbere stat. Das albrecht pfister gedrucket hat. Do man zalt tausent und vierhtmdert jar. In zweiund sechzigsterc das ist war. Nit lang nach sand walpurgen tag. Die vns wol gnad erverben mag. Frid wad das ewig lebem. Das wolle uns got allem gebera. Amen. Printed with the types of the bible of 36 lines, but without a date, appeared also a German translation of the Belial of Jacobus de Theramo, 90 leaves in small folio, on the last Of which we find the name of the printer : Albrecht Pfister zu Bamberg. According to the types, the following undated editions should also be ascribed to the press of Pfister: 1. Die sieben Freuden Maria, 9 leaves in 12mo. with 8 woodcuts; 2. Das Leiden Jesu, 21 leaves with 20 woodcuts (if they were printed before 1460, then these are the first typographical books with woodcuts) ; 3. Klagen gegen den Tod, 24 leaves, small folio, with 5 woodcuts; 4. Rechstreit des Menschen mit dem Tode, 23 leaves, small folio ; 5. Die Armenbibel, 17 leaves, folio, with 170 woodcuts; and 6. the Biblia Pauperum, the same work as No. 5, but with Latin text and printed ab. 1462. While history knows nothing about it, the librarian J. H. Jack, at Bamberg, has been so good as to raise Albrecht Pfister almost to the inventor of the art of printing, and has caught indeed, in his tissue of conjectures, a few weak minds (as for 24 GUTENBERG AT MENTZ. instance Dr. Karl Falkenstein), 1 who, not being able to ignore the documents regarding Gutenberg, have begun to acknowledge Pfister as an independent inventor of typo- graphy, contemporary with Gutenberg. Not a single date however exists which compels us to this arbitrary supposition. Science has nothing' to do with the psycho- logical possibility of a simultaneous invention of two geniuses unknown to each other. The question is not what could have happened, but what really did happen. Now, a simultaneous invention of typography at Mentz and at Bamberg, situated not far from the first place, is even psychologically improbable. Inventions of this importance are not epidemic. Lessing has truly said : " It is perhaps possible to show more or less of all inventions, that somewhere somebody must have been very near to it. To prove of any one, whichever it may be, that it could or should have been invented long ago, is nothing but chicane; we are to prove incontrovertibly that it was really invented, or to be silent." Let us return to Gutenberg. Genius and talent for pecuniary administration, which are seldom found together in one man, do not seem to have combined in Guten- berg. At least in the year 1455, Fust seemB to have felt it necessary to force him judicially to produce an account of the money advanced. The very important act of the Mentz notary, Ulrich Helmasperger, dated 6 Nov. 1455 and preserved on vellum at Frankfort and at Mentz, the first record which treats of the art of printing, deserves to be known by every one who takes an interest in the history of the most important of inventions. 2 I have tried to facilitate this by giving an intelligible translation of it. "Instrument of a certain day, when Fust produced an account and confirmed it by an oath. "In the name of God. Amen. Be it known to all who shall see this public document or hear it read, that, in the year of our Lord, 1455, on Thursday the 6th of November, between eleven and twelve at noon, at Mentz, in the large dining hall (refectorium) of the convent of barefooted friars, appeared before me notary, and the witnesses to be mentioned hereafter, the honorable and prudent man Jacob Fust, citizen of Mentz, and has, in behalf of Johan Fust his brother, also present, shewn, said and'exposed, that to the said Johan Fust on one side and Johan Gutenberg on the other, should be administered the oath, according to judgment passed on both the parties, and for which this day and this hour had been fixed and the hall of the convent assigned. In order that the friars of the said convent, who were still assembled in the hall, should not be disturbed, the said Jacob Fust did ask through his messenger, whether Johan Gutenberg or any one for him were present in the convent, in order to finish the matter. At this message came into the said refectorium the reverend Heinrich Gunther, pastor of St. Christopher's at Mentz, Heinrich Keffer [one of the first printers at Nuremberg] and Bertolf von Hanau [one of the first printers at Basle] servant of Johan Gutenberg, and when they had been asked by Johan Fust whether they had been authorized by Johan Gutenberg, they answered that they had been sent by Junker Johan Gutenberg to hear and to see what should happen in this case. There- upon Johan Fust begged leave to conform to the stipulations of the verdict, after he had waited for Johan Gutenberg till twelve o'clock, and was still waiting for him. He reads the sentence passed on the first article of his claim, from word to word, with its pretension and response, which runs as follows : first, that he, according to their written agreement, 'should lend Johan Gutenberg about 800 florins in gold, 'with which 1 In the work quoted already before, and which is only valuable on account of the beautiful facsimiles. The critical part is very uncritical, as we might expect from the natural disposition of the author to insanity, which does not go hand in hand with acute criticism. The work of Sotzmann suffers from the same confusion. The heads of these authors were clouded by dark, wandering, undeter- mined ideas of transitions from xylography to typography, so that the invention, repeated more than once, took, properly speaking, place unwittingly, and the fictitious inventors must have discovered, years afterwards, with surprise, that: — they had invented typography. 2 Hoohverdiente und aus bewahrten Urkunden wohlbeglaubte Ehren-Rettung Johann Guttenbergs . . . wegen der ersten Erfindung der . . . Buchdrucker-Kunst in . . . Mayntz . . . von Johann David Kohier. Leipz. 1741. 4to. GUTENBERG AT MENTZ. 25 he was to finish the work, and whether it would cost more or less was no matter to Fust ; and that Johan Gutenberg was to pay six per cent interest for this money. He had indeed lent him these 800 guilders on a bond, but Gutenberg was not satisfied, but complained that he had not yet received the 800 guilders. For that reason, Fust, being desirous of doing him some service, lent him 800 guilders more than he was bound by his contract to do, for which 800 guilders Fust had to pay forty guilders as interest. And, although Gutenberg had bound himself by contract to pay six per cent interest on the first 800 guilders, yet he had not done so for a single year, but Fust had to pay this interest himself to the amount of 250 guilders. For, at present, Gutenberg having never paid interest and Fust having been obliged to borrow this interest from Christians and Jews, for which he had paid about thirty-six florins, his payments, together with the capital, amount to about 2,020 guilders, of which he demands reim- bursement. Thereupon, Johan Gutenberg answered that Johan Fust had agreed to lend him 800 guilders, with which money he was to arrange and make his tools, and that these tools should remain a security for Fust. But Fust had moreover agreed to give him every year 300 guilders for expenses, and to advance also wages, house-rent, vellum, paper, ink, &c. If, afterwards, they did not agree, Gutenberg should then pay the 800 guilders back and the tools should be free from mortgage ; it should be understood, that with the 800 guilders he had to make the machine, which was to be a pledge. He hopes not (that any one shall pretend) that he was obliged to spend these 800 guilders on the ivork of the books (i.e. on vellum, paper, &c.) ■ And, although in the contract it is said that Gutenberg was to pay six per cent interest,- Fust had told him that he had no intention of accepting this interest from him. Moreover, he had not received the 800 guilders in full and at once according to agreement, as Fust had pretended in the first article of his claim, and as for the second 800 guilders, he is ready to give an account of them, but declines to give him interest or usury for them, and hopes that he is not bound by law to pay them. We pass therefore sentence according to pretension and response : — When Johan Gutenberg has submitted an account of all receipts and disbursements spent on the work to their common profit (i.e. printing), this work shall be added to the 800 guilders ; if he has spent more than the 800 guilders, which did not belong to their common profit, he should pay it back ; if Fust is able to prove on oath or by witnesses, that he has borrowed the money on interest and did not lend it out of his own resources, then Gutenberg is bound by con- tract to pay it. " Now, after this sentence had been read in'presence of the aforesaid witnesses, Johan Fust has, with raised fingers, in the hands of me, public notary, taken the oath by all the saints, that everything was comprised according to truth and sentence, in an act which he placed in my hands. He confirmed it (the act) on oath, as truly as God and the saints may help him ; and the contents of this document was as follows : — 'I, Johan Fust, have borrowed 1,550 guilders, which have been received by Johan Gutenberg, and spent on our common work, for which I have paid an annual interest, and still owe a part of it. Therefore, I count for every hundred guilders which I have borrowed in this way, six guilders per annum ; and for the money spent on our common work, I demand the interest according to judgment passed.' "The said Johan Fust demands from me, public notary, one or more public acts of this matter, as many and as often he should want them ; and all these matters recorded here, happened in the year, indiction, day, hour, papacy, month, and town aforesaid, in the presence of the honest men, Peter Grauss, Johan Kist, Johan Knoff, Johan Yseneck, Jacob Fust, citizens of Mentz ; Peter Gernsheim and Johan Bone, clerks of the city and diocese of Mentz, asked and summoned as witnesses. And I, Ulrich Helmasperger, clerk of the diocese of Bamberg, by imperial authority, public clerk of the Holy See at Mentz, sworn notary, have been present at all the aforesaid transactions and articles with the witnesses mentioned. Therefore, being requested to do so, I have signed with my hand, and sealed with my common seal, this public act, written by another, as testimony and true record of all the aforesaid matters. " Uleicus Helmasperger, Notary." 2Q GÜTENBËBG AT MENTZ. After this law-suit, Gutenberg's printing-office came into the possession of his money-lender, who found in the talented Peter Schöffer, instructed by the inventor, and surpassing him in the particulars of the execution, the most proper person to carry it on. Their interests were afterwards bound up together, when Fust gave him, c, 1465, his only daughter, Dyna (Christina), as wife. There is material in this event for an affecting drama : a genial inventor, inde- fatigably occupied in realizing an idea, an usurious and crafty money-lender, abusing the financial carelessness of a genius, to get him more and more into his power ; a clever servant, courting the daughter of the usurer, and conspiring with him against the great master; the inventor robbed of all the fruit of his exertions during many years, at the moment that it was ripe to be gathered ! . But history has to submit to the oath of Fust. Free from Gutenberg, he published with Schöffer, in 1457, the magnificent Psalter (properly an officium divinum), the first printed book with a complete date. The translation of its curious imprint, in red ink, is as follows : — " The present codex of the psalms, adorned by the beauty of the capitals and sufficiently rubricated, has thus been made by the masterly invention of printing and the forming of characters (types) (adinventione artificiosa imprimendi ac caracterizandi) without any writing of the pen, and, with much labour and industry/ completed to the honor and service of God, by Johan Fust, citizen of Mentz, and Peter Schöffer, of Gernsheim, in the year of the Lord thousand CCCCLVIL, on the eve of the assump- tion of Mary" (14 Aug.). (With that prefix "ad," the bad latinity of the 15th century meant to strengthen the substantive, inventio. So in the pandects, adinventio means simply invention, not additional invention. When Gebwiler in the 16th century was desirous of ascribing to the Strasburg printer, Mentelin, the invention of typography, he expressed himself (Panegir. Carolin. Edit. Argent. 1521, 19) thus : "Primus autemante 64 annos in hac urbe — adinvenit." If, however, deep philosophy must be concealed in this " ad," it was then a measure against the inventor, whose printing-office they had succeeded in securing. The inventor, Gutenberg, at least has never made use of the term adinventio. He says inventio.) The Psalter is a masterpiece of typography, difficult, even at present, to be imitated, hardly to be surpassed. It is a folio of 175 leaves, on vellum, printed with five kinds of letters, large choral types, for church use, 228 beautiful initials in colours (blue, red, and purple), of which the first capital, the B (Beatus vir) is a real work of art. The copy of Count Mac-Carthy, of Toulouse, was sold, in 1807, for 12,000 francs; but it is worth much more now. The Psalter was reprinted, with the same types, in 1459, 1490, 1502, and 1506. In 1502 it was the last publication of Peter Schöffer, just as in 1457 he had opened his typographical career with it. About a month after the second edition of the Psalter, a folio of 169 leaves appeared, printed with a new and much smaller type, on vellum and on paper, the Eationale divinorum officiorum, a liturgical work of the most flourishing period of Catholicism, by bishop Durandus (Durant, + 1294), on the origin and signification of ecclesiastical ceremonies. The imprint (6 Oct. 1459) is almost the same as that of the two Psalters. In 1460 (25 June) Fust and Schöffer published their fourth book with a complete date, 51 leaves in folio, again printed with new types, the Constitutiones of Clement V. The inventor meanwhile, assisted with money by Dr. Humery, had bought new typographical furniture. He completed a gigantic work, a folio of 373 leaves, printed on vellum and paper, namely, the celebrated Catholicon, an elaborate Latin grammar and etymological dictionary in five divisions, by Joh. de Janua de Balbis. The Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum possesses two copies of this splendid monument of the grand invention, where the inventor himself speaks in the imprint. A law-suit may have been the reason why he does not call himself the printer, but he speaks of the invention in the most unequivocal, dignified manner. In the theological language of his age, he speaks of himself as of the chosen instrument of God, by whom the glory of His people is raised. Gutenberg concluded his work with the following prophetic GUTENBERG AT MENTZ. 27 lines, alluding at the same time to the contents of the book, a grammar : — " By the assistance of the Most High, at whose will the tongues of the children become eloquent, and who often reveals to babes what he conceals from the wise, this excellent book, Catholicon, has been printed and completed, in the year of the Incarnation 1460, in the town of Mentz (which belongs to the glorious German nation, and which God has consented to prefer and to raise with such an exalted light of the mind and free grace, above the other nations of the earth), not by means of reed or pencil, or pen, but by the admirable harmony, connexion and regularity of the punchee (patrices) and forms (matrices). Therefore, to thee, Holy Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, threefold and only God, be given praise and honour. Let those who never cease to praisft Mary, accord also by this book, with the universal anthem of the Church. God be praised!" With these thanks the typographical career of the inventor nearly concluded ; at least we know nothing more of him but a letter of indulgence, printed in 1461 with the types of the Catholicon, and described by Van Praet (Cat. des livres imprimés sur vélin, I. 218). The same cause which put a temporary stop to the work of Fust and Schöffer, prevented also Gutenberg's press from working. Meanwhile the year of the general spread of the art had arrived. Aeneas Sylvius, who ascended the Papal throne on the 27th of August, 1458, as Pius H., removed, in 1461, the Mentz elector-archbishop Diether von Isenberg, from his office, whereupon the canons elected Adolph von Nassau, although the town maintained the authority of Diether. This event was the cause of the first papers printed of a controversial, political nature, of which the researches of the 19th century have discovered the following : — I. A German "Brieff" of the emperor Frederick HI. (8 Aug. 1461), whereby the archbishop Diether von Isenberg is removed, and Adolph von Nassau elected in his stead ; 28 lines on one sheet. H. A Latin bull of Pius H. (21 Aug. 1461), on the removal of Count Diether ; 87 lines on one sheet of paper, in which is found the well-known water-mark, repre- senting a bull's head, with the bar and the cross of St. Andrew ( x ). TTT - A Latin bull in favour of the new archbishop Adolph (12 Sept. 1461) ; two editions, each of 27 lines on one sheet, containing the aforesaid water-mark. TV. A Latin bull to the chapter of Mentz, about Diether and Adolph (12 Sept. 1461) ; 24 lines on one sheet. V. A Latin bull to the chapter, provosts, &c. of the church and diocese of Mentz on the removal of Diether (12 Sept. 1461) ; 18 lines on one sheet, with the bull's head. VI. A German proclamation of Adolph against Diether ; 58 lines on one sheet. It appears from the beginning that Diether, too, had written polemic papers. " (W)yr haben vernuwmem. das Diether von Isenberg der sich etzliche zyt des stiffts czu Mentz underwunden hait fast mancherley schrift habe laszen vszgeen die auch etzlich an uch gelangt mugere," &c. We know of those "mancherley schrifft" of Diether hitherto only : VH. A German proclamation of 6 April, 1462 ; 106 long lines on one sheet, with the bull's head with a short bar as water-mark. The texts of No. I. — VI. have been reprinted in full in the Collectio Weigeliana. 1 No. H. — VH. are printed with the types of the Bationale Durandi (1459), as also an epistle of Pius H. to all prelates, princes, &c. concerning the mission of cardinal Bessarion, and the Turks' tithe (28 lines on one sheet, dated 1st Sept. 1461). All these documents therefore originate incontestably from the press of Fust and Schöffer. Only the types of No. I. were new and appeared soon in a large work. They printed on the 14th of August, 1462, namely, with these types the first Bible with a date, two i Die Anfange der Druckerkunst in Bild und Schrift. An deren frühesten Erzeugnissen in der Weigel' schen Sammlnng erlautert von T. 0. Weigel und Dr. A. Zestermann. Mit 145 Facsimiles und vielen in den Text gedruckten Hofachnitten. Leipzig, T. 0. Weigel, 1866. Fol. II. 28 GUTENBERG AT MENTZ. folios in Latin, of 481 (242 and 239) leaves, on vellum and paper, again a typographical masterpiece. The imprint is, with a trifling alteration, the same as before. Strangely enough, the publishers call their work in this imprint, somewhat humorously, " opuseulum " ; in the second edition, however, of 1472, this word was changed into " opus." Meanwhile the archiepiscopal quarrel was not to be decided by the pen or press. Both the parties took up arms. Schaab describes the consequences of this contest thus : " This enmity between two archbishops was the cause of one of the most terrible days to the town of Mentz. It was the 28th of October, 1462, the day on which Christianity celebrated the anniversary of the apostles Simon and Judas. Mentz had remained faithful to the archbishop Diether. Adolph therefore tried to conquer it by stratagem and treason. Traitors were gained over in the town, who entailed upon a half thousand of their fellow-citizens death, and endless misery on many more. By this treachery of some wicked persons the town was assaulted during the night between the 27th and 28th of October 1462, by the followers of Adolph ; its noblest 'citizens were murdered, the most of them robbed of their possessions, and driven from the town. All kinds of mischief was committed towards those who remained behind. Neither age, rank, nor sex was exempted. The booty was sold publicly in the cattle-market, and the money divided between the soldiers. Of the expelled citizens only a few gradually returned in secret to their relations. But the town, so populous before, remained empty, and all industry was destroyed. The elector Adolph II. found it necessary, on the Saturday after St. Thomas' day of the same year, to issue a proclamation whereby he promised to all who wished to trade or to exercise a profession in Mentz, protection for their persons and possessions, to induce a few to return. A town, a short time before flourishing with commerce and industry, had been robbed in a few days of its privileges and utterly destroyed. It remained long in this miserable condition, and even the elector Diether, when he had been restored, after the death of Adolph, if we except the university which he esta- blished at Mentz, did nothing for the restoration of its liberties, which it had lost in his cause ; he even abandoned it to the rule of the cathedral chapter, and when the citizens declined to acknowledge its authority, he did all he could for their oppression, and caused even a fortified castle to be erected within its walls. It could not fail but that in these days of misery and anxiety the work-places of the two printers of Mentz should be abandoned, that all workmen should leave the town and bring their art to countries where it was yet unknown." Indeed, from this moment we see everywhere presses established under the direction of Germans. The Mentz presses, however, remained inactive for nearly three years on account of the expulsion and flight of the workmen. We know at least only a bull of the year 1464 against the Turks. Two Mentz typographers, Conrad Schweynheym and Arnold Pannartz, had already brought the new art into Italy, and published, 29th] of October, 1465, the celebrated edition of Lactantius Firmianus, printed in the convent of Subiaco, near Borne, after which date, on the 17th of De- cember of the same year, Fust and Schöffer produced again a folio : Bonifacius VIII., Liber sextus Decretalium. In some copies of this work we find the ordinary imprint mixed up with the panegyric on Mentz of Gutenberg's imprint of the Catholicon. Schöffer did this regularly after the death of Fust, until, in 1472, he began to call Mentz unreservedly the inventress of the art of printing (impressorise- artis inven- tricem eliminatricemque primam). In the same year, 1465, the father and his son- in-law published their first edition of a Latin author, Cicero de Ofiiciis, reprinted on the 24th of February, 1466. The imprint of both these editions indicates for the first time a close relation between Fust and Schöffer ; Fust calls him for the first time " puerum suum." (Presens Marci Tuly clarissimum Opus. Johannes Fust Mogun- tinus civis, non atramento plumali cana neque aerea. Sed arte quadam perpulcra. Petri manu pueri mei feliciter effeci finitum.). Formerly Schöffer was called clericus (writer, clerk). The last work published during the lifetime of Fust, was the Gram- matica vetas rhythmica, 11 leaves small folio, in the year 1466. THE MEMORY OP GUTENBERG. 29 IV. THE MEMORY OF GUTENBERG. Meanwhile the inventor himself was no longer at Mentz. On the 17th of January, 1464, he was admitted by the elector Adolph II. among his courtiers or chamberlains. The act of appointment has been preserved :. "We, Adolph, elected and confirmed archbishop of Mentz, acknowledge that we have considered the agreeable and voluntary service which our dear and faithful Johan Gutenberg has rendered to us and our bishopric, and have appointed and accepted him as our servant and courtier. Nor shall we remove him from our service as long as he lives ; and in order that he may enjoy it the more, we will clothe him every year, when we clothe our ordinary suite (unsern gemeinen hoffgesind), always like our noblemen, and give him our court dress ; also every year twenty mout of corn and two voer of wine for the use of his house, free of duty, as long as he lives, but on condition that he shall not sell it or give it away. Which has been promised us in good faith by Johan Gutenberg. Eltvill, Thursday after St. Antony, 1465." "An aristocratic appointment at the court," says Schaab, " procured this nobleman a comfortable life. Voluntarily he followed the princely court, where he had a free table and fodder for his horses. Even for his dress he received cloth in the court colours, and generally wore a kind of mantle, called Tabafd. It was in accordance with the morals of that time to carouse at court. They went there with empty cups and returned with full ones. The princes tried not before the sixteenth century to put a check to this excess by special orders. The elector Johan Schweikard von Kronen- berg ordered, even in the year 1605, to leave the ' grossen Saumagen ' — this was the name of the cups then used — for the future at home." However comfortable and German-like all this may look, miserable were these court- wages, this dress, these alms presented to the inventor of typography. But no, it is perfectly in harmony with the general course of earthly things. As Gutenberg stood in relation to the municipal syndicus, Dr. Conrad Humery, one of the principal followers of the expelled archbishop (while the Fusts on the other hand had belonged to the adherents of Adolph), the distinction of the conqueror can have had no connexion with Gutenberg's partizanship during the archiepiscopal rupture. The service, therefore, rendered to the bishopric, to which the act of appoint- ment alludes, must have been the grand invention. At least the interest of Adolph in the exercise of typography will be evident presently from another particular. Adolph H. had established his court at Eltvill on the Rhine, three hours distance from Mentz. The greatest part of Gutenberg's printing-office was removed thither. At Eltvill lived the brothers Heinrich and Nicolaus Bechtermiintz, who belonged to the ancient nobility of Mentz, and were related by marriage to Gutenberg. They were instructed by him in the new art, and he gave them, at least the use of, his press. When the eldest brother, Heinrich, died in July, 1467, another patrician, Wiegand Spies von Ostenberg, succeeded him. On the 4th of November of the said year, therefore during the lifetime of Gutenberg, these noble typographers published an extract of the large Catholicon, of 165 leaves, in small 4to., printed with the same types and known among bibliographers as Vocabularium ex quo. It is the first dated book of Gutenberg's press with a plain statement of the printer. The late Heinrich Bechtermiintz, according to the imprint, began to print the work at Eltvill, but it was completed on St. Leonard's day by Nicolaus Bechtermiintz and Wiegand Spies von Ostenberg. Refreshing sight! Three noble, distinguished, rich men, every 'one of whom had been sheriffs of Hechtsheim, situated in the neighbourhood of Mentz, call 30 THE MEMORY OF GUTENBERG. themselves here publicly printers. And the nature of their work was so clear to the minds of these noble disciples of the noble inventor that they unequivocally called their art a nova artificiosaque inventio. N. Bechtermüntz alone, reprinted the book in 1469. The publication of this work (the only copy known of the first edition is pre- served in the Library at Paris) was the last joy of Gutenberg. He died before the 24th February, 1468, for his second money-lender, the aforesaid Dr. Humery, bound himself by an act of that date, to print only in Mentz with the typographical instru- ments which by the death of Gutenberg devolved upon him. The contents of the said act run thus : — " I, Conrad Homery, Doctor, acknowledge by this letter that . . . Adolph, archbishop of Mentz, had given me a great many formes, types, instruments, tools, and other things connected with printing, which Johan Gutenberg left when he died, and which have been my property and still are ; that I have bound and bind myself by this letter to use those forms and instruments only for printing within Mentz, and nowhere else ; if I had occasion to sell them, and a citizen were willing to give me as much for them as a stranger, I shall give the preference to an inhabitant of Mentz. Given in the year 1468, the Friday after St. Matthew." Johan Gutenberg, the last descendant of a branch of the family of Gensfleisch, the discoverer of gold mines, died, burdened with debts, unmarried and childless, and was soon forgotten. Without the epitaph, made not long after his death by his kins- man Adam Gelthuss, and fortunately printed in 1499 at Heidelberg, we should not even have known that he was buried in the church of the Minorites at Mentz. The epitaph alludes to an unexecuted plan of erecting a monument in honour of him, and runs thus : — " To Johan Gensfleisch, inventor of the art of printing, deserving well of all nations and languages, Adam Gelthuss has erected this monument to the immortal memory of his name. His remains rest peaceably in the church of St. Franciscus at Mentz." , While Gutenberg was alive, Fust and Schóffer appropriated nothing of the glory of the invention to themselves. After the death of the inventor in 1468 (Fust had. died already before) Peter Schóffer was free to indulge his vanity. Characteristic is the elaborate imprint of the Institutiones of Justinianus, published (24th May) 1468 : his first work after Gutenberg's death. With an allusion to the historjj of the resurrection in the Gospels (John xx. 2 — 6) he says, that " God has sent the excelled masters in the art of cutting letters, both Johanneses (Gutenberg and Fust), born at Mentz, the celebrated first printers; he, Petrus (Schóffer), came indeed later than they to the grave, but he entered it first, as he is their master in the art of cutting letters." As however his great taste and the technical improvement introduced by Schóffer after Gutenberg's invention have altered nothing of the real nature of things, we observe here, for the first time, the intention of raising those improvements in the execution of the discovery at the cost of Gutenberg's immortal invention. The imprint, consisting of twenty-four verses in barbarous Latin, is too curious not to be translated : — " Moses completed not the plan of the tabernacle, nor Solomon the building of the magnificent temple, without skilful artists. More exalted than Solomon the glory of the Church came renewing and calling forth also Bezaleël and Hyram. He who is pleased to gird mighty men with wisdom, sent those two excellent in the art of engraving, the first celebrated printers of books ; both called Johannes, born by Moguncia. Petrus came with them to the long wished-for grave, reaching it later, but entering it first, surpassing them in the art of cutting letters, through Him, who gives us light and knowledge. Every nation may now make its own character, for the art prevails every- where with all-creating pencil. The labours of the scholars to prepare writings and to make them ready for the press, are many; just as Franciscus, whpse work ■enlightens the earth, has prepared this. I, too, am attached to him, not by vile profit, but by the love of the common weal and the glory of my paternal country. That they who prepare the work and read the proofs may distinguish the false from the true (things). The friends of letters will undoubtedly gratify them with a laurel, for with their books they instruct thousands of cathedras." THE MEMORY OP GUTENBEEG. 31 The gist of the poetical envelopment is of great importance. While Fust's son-in-law calls him protocaragmaticus, it is historically true, as we know from the process of 1455, that he was exclusively the money-lender, and Gutenberg the soul of the undertaking. Here therefore we detect family pride in the very fact, and are able to reject at once, on incontestable authority, the first effort of making an original typographer of Fust. And as for Schöffer himself, his own confession (repeated in 1472), that he entered, later than Johannes, the sanctuary of the art, and improved it after him in the application (the designing of letters) ; — this involuntary homage to truth triumphantly maintains Gutenberg's priority. In striking harmony with this is Schöffer's verbal account to Trithemius, between 1480 and 1490 : — " About this time (1450), the admirable, and formerly unheard-of, art of composing and printing books by means of letters was conceived and invented at Mentz by a Mentz citizen, Johan Gutenberg." All that Trithemius says more than this is nonsense, for which he is responsible, and with which a serious investigation needs not trouble itself. Schöffer has not said any more about Gutenberg, nor appropriated to himself the invention, but in the imprints of his numerous works glorified distinctly, and perfectly in accordance with truth, Mentz as the town of the invention. This he did in plain words, before the whole of civilized Europe, and, of course, contradicted by no one, in the year 1468 (Grammatica rhythmica), 1469 (Thomas de Aquino, Expositio quarti lib. Sent.), 1470 (Bonifacius VOL Lib. VI. Decretal.), 1471 (Clemens V. Constitutiones and in the first edition of Thomas de Aquino, Prima pars secundae partis summae), 1472 (Biblia sacra, and in the Decretum of Gratianus), 1473 (Gregorius IX., Nova compilatio Decretal.), 1474 (Herp, Speculum aureum decern preceptorum Dei) and so on. In accordance with all this, Matthias Palmer (born at Pisa as early as 1423) said, in 1474, that Johan Gutenberg zum Jungen, a knight of Mentz, had invented the art of printing books ; confirmed (not copied) in 1499, by the Mentz disciple Ulrich Zell, in 1504 by Sabellicus, in 1517 by Vergilius. The account of the last-named is important, because Vergilius in the first edition of his work (De inventoribus rerum, Ven. 1499), mentioned, on the authority of a verbal information of another German, " a German, a certain Peter, " as the inventor of printing; but hè corrected the mistake in the coition of 1517, at a time when the legend of Faust began already to shlW itself. The correction of Vergilius therefore rests on investigation, and on investigation in a good quarter. The memory of Johan Gensfleisch Gutenberg was preserved during the fifteenth century, although he left no heirs who could maintain his reputation; although his invention had got into the hands of the antagonistic firm of Fust and Schöffer ; although the true documents of his right existed only in manuscript. In 1494, two professors at Heidelberg wrote each a Latin panegyric on Johan Gutenberg, the inventor of typography. The first consists of thirteen distichs, with the heading: Ada Wernheri Temarensis Panegyris ad Joannem Gensfleisch primum librorum impressorem. The commencement travesties the Latin name Ansicaro (Gensfleisch) : — Ansicaro vigili praeatantior ansere : Bomam Qui monuit gallos limine iriesse canens. Arcem is servabat. Tasto tu consulis orbi Qui se f elicem non negat arte tua. The eighth distich raises Gutenberg above all geniuses of antiquity : — Tanti eet, te literia aculpta excudisse metalla quae effundant fidas-tam cito pressa notas. Hinc tua si poscit dignus moguntia grates solveret, ante alia, quam colis ipse, loca Terraque jam multe germana volumine dives te colit, üivento dioto beata tuo. The subscription runs: Ex Heidelbergo III. Kalendas decembris 1494. The second panegyric has six distichs, under the title : " Ad Joannem Gensfleisch impres- 32 THE MEMORY OF GUTENBERG. soriae artis inventorem primum Joannis Herbst Lutherburgensis Panegyris/' Here also the inventor is called Ansicaro, and in the third and fourth distich it is said of him, that the vine which is watered by the waters of Bhine and Main, had caused a new shoot to sprout, had produced an excellent goose, whose flesh served all men as food : — Vitem que Mogano Rhenique liquore rigatur te (puto te) gemmam parturiisse novam, Anserem et egregium, qui camera protulit illam quae laute exultana se cibat omnia homo. Invento palmam meruisti, nee negat ullus. germanum ingenium quid valet ecce patet Tu nostrae gentis decus admirabile quamvis Italia invideat emula vive vale. The document is dated : Ex Heidelbergo III. nonas decembris 1494. Wimpfeling does homage to the inventor in the same spirit, in his epigram in honour of Guten- berg (Heidelberg, 1499): "Blessed Gensfleisch ! Through you Germany reaps glory everywhere: for you, Johannes, supported by divine knowledge, printed first of all with letters of metal. Beligion, the wisdom of Greece, the language of the Latins, is much indebted to you." ' Without name of the inventor, Mentz was praised everywhere as the cradle of the invention : in 1478 in the Fasciculus temporum of Werner Bolevinck van Laar ; 2 in 1482 by William Caxton, at Westminster ; in 1486 in the first censure-edict of the archbishop Berthold of Mentz, and in the same year by the abbot Trithemius, in a work printed at Strasburg ; in 1494 by the Mentz typographer, Meydenbaeh (Hortus s,anitatis) ; in 1497 by a typographer at Vienna ; and afterwards by a cloud of witnesses, harmonizing with the song of Celtes : " You wind yourself already, O broad-waved Bhine! to the town of Mentz, which printed first of all with metal letters." The century of the invention did not uncertainly grope in the dark, did not ask bashfully, nor answer whisperingly, but trumpeted Mentz about as the town where typography was bom. But when Johan Schoffer, in 1503, succeeded his father in his printing-office, and published his first work (Mercurius Trismegistus), he could not resist the temptation to descend, not from the money-lender of the inventor, but from the inventor himself. He is, however, cautious enough to mention no name, and he only says : " The finishing hand has been put to this work by the venerable man Johan, called Schoffer, one of the principal citizens of the archiepiscopal town of Mentz, descended from the 1 It is the writer of these beautiful lines who laid the foundation for the tradition of the invention at Strasburg. If he, in 1499, represents, perfectly in accordance with history, Johan Gensfleisch (Gutenberg) as having invented typography, printing with metal types, at Mentz, in 1501 it seems (videtur) that it had taken place already at Strasburg, but the art was perfected at Mentz ; in 1502 he repre- sents the art of printing as having been positively invented at Strasburg in 1440, by the Strasburg Johan Gutenberg ; in 1505 he writes that it was invented under bishop Robertus, by a Strasburger, who went to Mentz, where he perfected the art with the help of a certain Joh. Gensfleisch (I) who lived in the house aim Gutenberg, and became blind in consequence of his old age. Where remained now the Fcelix Ansicare, by which Germania omnibus in terris prcemia laudis habet? Wimpfeling was copied in 1537 by the Strasburg theologian Caspar Hedion, who then said the art was invented in 1446 ; but in 1549 he mentioned Gutenberg, Mentz, and the year 1450. Daniël Specklin at last solved the question, c. 1580, in his chronicle. He said the art of printing was invented in 1440 by — Johan Mentelin (the first printer of Strasburg). Peter Schoffer is Mentelin's brother-in-law. His servant, Johan Gensfleisch, robs him of the art, goes to Mentz, and is assisted by the wealthy Gutenberg I Mentelin dies of a broken heart on account of this theft, but Gensfleisch is punished with blindness. 2 In the edition of Cologne, published by H. Quentell in 1478 and 1481, it is said : " Impressores librorum multiplicantur in terra, orlvm sum artis habentes in Mogimtia." The last words are still wanting in the edition of Arnold ter Hoerne, Cologne 1474, which was imitated by Johan Teldener in his Latin edition, Louvain 1476, and in the Dutch translation, Utrecht 1480, so that we find there only : " Ende die boeckprinters worden seer vermenicht in allen landen." (The printers of books are increasing in all countries). By a trick of Koning this shorter reading was forged, in 1816, into an argument against Mentz. According to him, namely, it proved that Teldener knew better than that the art of printing had been invented at Mentz. As if Veldener could have reprinted in 1476, at Louvain, a Cologne text of 1478. As for the rest, the silence also, in the Dutch edition of 1480, of the man who at that time used the engravings of the Speculum, is no instructive way of knowing the invention of typography "better" than Rolevinck or his continuator. THE MEMORY OP GUTENBERG. 33 fortunate race of those who, favoured by fate, invented the almost divine art of printing." In 1509 (Breviarium Moguntinum) he goes already a step further, and says : " Printed at Maintz by Johan Schöffer, whose grandfather was the first inventor of the art of printing." Again, six years later, the liar completes his dishonest attack against Gutenberg's glory, in the elaborate inscription of the work of Trithemius: Breviarium historiae francorum. From this foul spring all later fables concerning the invention of printing were got. It deserves, therefore, to be well known ; it runs as follows : " The present chronicle was printed and made in the year 1515 . . . in the noble and celebrated town of Mentz, the first inventress of this art, by Johan Schöffer, grandson of the venerable man, Johan Fust, citizen of Mentz, the first inventor of the said art, who began to conceive it by his own knowledge in 1450 ... In the year 1452 only, he perfected it, with the help of God, and made it serviceable to the printing of books, but with the assistance, and many necessary inventions, of Peter Schöffer, of Gernsheim, his servant and adopted son, to whom he gave his daughter Christina as wife, as a reward of his labour and inventions. Both, Johan Fust and Peter Schöffer, kept this art secret, and bound all their workmen, and members of their house, by an oath not to make it known in any way. Which art, however, was spread, in 1462, by these workmen, in divers countries, and increased." We see that Gutenberg, with despicable impudence, is completely ignored, and his merit wholly ascribed to the money-man. Even the story about the oaths of the workmen is invented. There is no trace of it in history — -the printing-office of Pfister at Bamberg, the public law-suit of 1455, the great pecuniary difficulties of the erection of a printing-office, the corporations, the very rapid spread of typography over Europe, the want of any valid evidence, all this condemns this oath — emerging only in 1515 from the mouth of a wilful har — to the empire of fiction. The best punishment of Johan Schöffer is the homage which he was compelled, in 1505, to do to the truth. In that year he published the first German translation of Livy, by Ivo Wittig, with a dedication to Maximilian I. In this dedication he was obliged to say to the emperor : " May your Majesty be pleased to accept gracefully this work, which was printed in- the town of Mentz ; in which town also the wonderful art of printing was first invented by the genial Johan Gutenberg, in the year 1450, and afterwards improved and perfected with the industry, expenses, and labour of Johan Fust and Peter Schöffer." This dedication was reprinted unchanged in 1514, 1523, 1531, 1533, and 1551. Alas! the sixteenth and seventeenth century left this excellent antidote unused ; they began to corrupt, to intricate, to mutilate the clear and indisputable history, and to make it serviceable to all local by-objects. Supposi- tions took the place of facts, the subterfuges and sophisms of the pleas that of investigation, unscientific prejudice that of scientific conception. But in the 18th century, the light of truth has begun to shine again, and the 19th buries all the fables of the 16th. Before its close, it will generally subscribe the artless words of the memorial-stone of the year 1507, consecrated to the memory of Gutenberg of Maintz, the inventor of typography : — JO. GUTENBERGENSI MOGUNTINO QUI PRIMUS OMNIUM LITTERAS AERE IMPRIMENDAS INVENIT HAC ARTE DE ORBE TOTO BENE MERENTI IVO WITTIGÜS HOC SAXUM MONUMENTO POSUIT MDVII. 34 SPREAD OF TYPOGRAPHY IN THE NETHERLANDS. SPEEAD OF TYPOGEAPHY IN THE NETHEELANDS. The general spread of typography was brought about, as was only possible and perfectly natural, on account of its origin, exclusively by Germans. Germans (we mentioned them already) bring it, in? 1465, to Eome (Subiaco) ; Ulrich Gering, Martin Crantz, and Michael Friburger transfer it, in 1470, to Paris ; in 1473, Andreas Hess establishes it at Ofen ; in 1474, a German was the first printer at Valencia ; in 1483, at Stockholm. The first English book was, indeed, printed by an Englishman, named William Caxton, but at Cologne, where he had learned the new art, and whence he returned to his native country to establish, at Westminster, the first English printing- office. There, in 1474, his English translation of De Cessolis' " Meditations on the Game of Chess " was published. Finally, in 1478, Theod. Eudt (Eood), from Cologne, printed at Oxford. The introduction and spread of typography in the Netherlands presents an image, each trait of which accurately agrees with what we have hitherto sketched in outlines from the sources of the 15th century. In- the first place, the existing Dutch manu- scripts, in so far they are dated and have connexion with the earliest printed books, present an historical line, which admirably agrees with all that is historically certain about the origin and era of typography. The most important which I have met with, and which are well known as incunabula, are : 1434. De LXV artikelen van der passie ons heren. 4to. 1437. Summe Ie Eoy ofte die Coninx Summe. 4to. 1449. Die tafel van den kersten geloue. Folio. 1450. Passionael Somerstuck. Folio. 1451. Devote contemplacie op dz heren pr. nr. 12mo. 1461. Boeck van der natueren der Byen. Folio. » 1463. Dat eerste stuc van der vaderen Collacie. 1464. Dat boeck van den Spiegel onser behoudenisse. 8vo. 1467. Cantica canticorum Salomonis, gescreven &c. 4to. 1469. Die tafel van den kersten geloue. Folio. 1469. Der Byenboeck. 14. meye en 20 juny. 4to. 1470. Passionael Winterstuck. Folio. 1472. Ons liefs heren leven. Folio. Typography did not at once annihilate the trade in manuscripts in the Nether- lands, but we see it soon decay and disappear. Only the missals and legends, books of private devotion, and to the reproduction of which the monks had especially applied themselves, which, moreover, could not be made as handsomely as the printed ones in so short a time, maintained longest of all the competition. The printing-press, however, secured everywhere, in a short time, the large folios. The curious manuscript of the " Spiegel der behoudenis," on vellum, of 290 leaves in 8vo., is preserved at Haarlem. The register of the chapters and the Prologhe of six pages is followed by the text. The first page"ïs surrounded by an illuminated border, adorned with foliage in colours and 'gold, and has a beautiful initial in which Mary is represented as instructing the child Jesus in the Scriptures. At the end of the forty- five chapters we find: "Dit boec behoert toe Cayman Janszoen van Zerickzee, wonende met die Carthusers butew Vtrecht. God si gheloeft nu ends ind' SPBEAD OF TYPOGRAPHY IN THE NETHEBLANDS. 35 eeuwicheit. Amen." 1 After this two other books follow: "Een goede oefening voor sieke mensehen, die in hun uterste legen" (with the same subscription), and " Goede leeringhen ende ghebedera voor sieke» die menen te sterven." At the end of the volume we find: "Dit boec is gheeyndet int jaer ons herera MCCCC ende IIII ende tsestich optew XVI dach in jul. Een ave Maria om God voer die scrijver." 2 Therefore, the Speculum was written, and finished in the Dutch language on vellum, at Utrecht, in 1464, in the days before the introduction of the art of printing. This circumstance harmonizes exceedingly well with the fact, that the general, spread of typography over Europe dates only from the capture and plun- dering of Mentz in 1462. It took its way to North-Netherland through Cologne. Even Colard Mansion of Bruges learned it there, just as William Caxton, of Westminster. Johan Veldener printed earlier at Cologne than in the Netherlands. At Deventer the art of printing was introduced (1477) by Eichard Paffroed of Cologne. On the other hand, a Dutch- man, Ter Hoorne, printed at Cologne, while his types were imitated again by the brethren of common life at Brussels. The types of Jacob de Breda, at Deventer, have the greatest resemblance with those of Zell, so that he also must have learned the art at Cologne, or from Paffroed of Cologne. This historical line points to the year 1470, or thereabouts, as the earliest period for the introduction of typography into the Netherlands. A chronology of the dated incunabula affords the following table : 1473. Utrecht, Aalst. 1474. Louvain. 1476. Bruges, Brussels. 1477. Deventer, Gouda, Delft. 1478. "St. Maartensdijk. 1479. Nijmegen, Zwolle. 1480. Audenaarde, Hasselt in Overijssel. 1482. Antwerp. 1483. Leiden, Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem. 1484. 's Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-Duc). 1495. Schoonhoven. 1498. Schiedam. We see that we are behind Italy and France, and that, even at the commence- ment of the 16th century, there were still many Netherland towns destitute of a printing-office. For instance the earliest work printed at the Hague is dated 1518, and at Middleburg there was no printing before 1577. After the profound inquiries of Mr. Holtrop, 3 it may be considered certain that the so-called first printer in the Southern Netherlands, Thierry Martens, was a disciple of Johannes de Westphalia, born at Paderborn or Aix-la-Chapelle, who established himself at Louvain ia 1474. From 1473—77, Johan Veldener, from the diocese of Würtzburg, printed there also ; in 1475, Conradus Braem of Cologne ; in 1476, Conradus de Westphalia, from Pader- born ; in 1483, Herman of Nassau. The only possible way of coming to an accurate notion of the signification of German typographers for the Netherlands, is the study of Holtrop's Monumens Typographiques, for here especially it is a case of autopsy. This magnificent work of the librarians of the Boyal library at the Hague (for the dedication assigns also to Mr. Campbell his share in this meritorious work) is a brilliant example of what may be done in this branch of science. Here the results of infallible researches are laid down with accuracy. This book is a library in which we are at the same time taken round by the proprietor, who is intimately acquainted with all its treasures, and who is not only bibliophile, but also bibliologer. Without a serious study, therefore, of the Monumens Typographiques, there can henceforth be no question for any one of pronouncing an opinion on this subject. They have raised the history of the Netherland typography of the 15th century to the rank of a science, and have, as a fruit 1 This book "belongs to Cayman Janszoen of Zierickzee, living with the Carthusians near Utrecht, &c. 2 This book was finished in the year of our Lord 1464, on the 16 day of July. An Ave Maria to God for the writer. 3 Thierry Martens d' Alost. 1867. 8vo. Étude bibliographique par J. W. Holtrop. La Haye. Nyhoffi. 8(5 SPREAD OF TYPOGRAPHY IN THE NETHERLANDS. of a lifelong, accurate study, chased away, for good and all, the fantastic dUettanteism from this dominion of our knowledge. The road to the only good system of treating and classifying incunabula, geographic-chronologically and typologically, namely, is paved now. We do not want, as a student of exact bibliography has very justly remarked,' the opinion or dictum of any bibliographer, however experienced. We have to study the types and habits of each printer of the 15th century, to scrutinize and to point out the characteristics of his work. Each press must be looked upon as a genus, each book as a species ; and it is our business to trace the connexion of the different members of the typographical family. The study of palaeotypography has hitherto been abandoned to dilettanteism ; it is time to apply to it also the method of natural history. Though this only true method was not applied in all its rigour, and adopted with all its consequences by Holtrop and Campbell, even Bradshaw acknowledges that the catalogue of our incunabula, compiled and published, in 1856, by the above-named gentlemen, is far the most valuable contribution to this class of literature which we have. And " except Mr. Blades' monograph of Caxton's press, the Hague Catalogus and Monumens typographiques are the only books existing in any literature, which render the study of palaeotypography possible on a proper basis." It is of great importance to notice, besides the results of exact typological investigation, how the North-Netherland xylography also corresponds with the era, which the scientific method affords. It appears to belong to the second half of the fifteenth century. Holtrop has proved from Church history that the North-Nether- land engraving of indulgence (in Weigel's collection), with eight lines of engraved ext, originated between the years 1455 and 1470. The North-Netherland incuna- bula since 1470, especially those of Leeu at Gouda, Veldener at Utrecht and Kuilen- burg, Van Os at Zwolle, Barmentlo at Hasselt, show the presence in Holland of xylographers, artistically less developed, however, than the Flemish. While the purely xylographic illustrated books (Biblia pauperum, Canticum, Temptationes demonis, Ars moriendi, Historia Virginis in the North-Netherlands ; Apocalypsis, Entkrist, Acht Schalckheiten, Dr. Hartlieb's Ciromantia, Ars memorandi, Salve Begina, Todtentanz, &c, in Germany; l'Art au morier, le Calendaire, in France; the Moral play in England), must be left to. the history of wood-engraving, our subject is yet of great importance to it, because their connexion with typography assists us in determining then- dates. Van Os, at Zwolle, for instance, used in nine different books of 1488, 1490, and 1491, original blocks of the Biblia pauperum, and in 1494, a block of the Can- ticum ; Peregrinus Barmentlo, at Hasselt, a block of the Biblia pauperum in 1488. The original blocks of the Speculum are, in 1481, in the hands of Johan Veldener at Utrecht, who cut them afterwards into two, and, added to a number of other engrav- ings, used them in 1483 for a quarto edition of the Dutch Spiegel, and sold them at last to Van Os, at Zwolle, in whose incunabula of 1487, 1488, and 1494, they appear. He who can place himself in the enormous activity of that time in the dominion of typography, must see that the dates in which the wooden blocks were used by the typographers in their original or reduced size, cannot be far from the moment the North-Netherland xylographers engraved them. Neither are there great distances of time between the undated and dated editions of the same works. To our most celebrated, but not most known, undated incunabula, belongs the Speculum, mentioned already before, one of the earliest, but not the very earliest, North-Netherland incunabula. In this study we should not forget that the earliest typographers had to make everything themselves, so that much more depended at that time upon individual sagacity and good direction than at present. Disciples', more- over, do not always become masters, and disciples of disciples are often a degree worse. At least the first Netherland incunabula are bad, and the work gets only better by slow degrees. Let us examine, for instance, the Dutch folio of Jan de Mandeville, 1 A classified index of the 15th century books in the collection of the late M. J. de Meyer, which were sold at Ghent in November, 1869. By Henry Bradshaw, librarian of the University of Cambridge. London. Macimllan and Co, 1870. 8vo. SPREAD OF TYPOGRAPHY IN THE NETHERLANDS. 87 put by Holtrop circa 1470 ; as a work of printing it is so bad that the earliest editions of the Speculum are masterpieces by the side of it. A " schoon spieghel der simpelre menschen," probably printed at Louvain, is almost equally primitive,, but yet already of later date ; the line, " Ons daghelycxs broot gbeeft ons heeden," is divided in the middle of the word gheeft (ghe-eft). A work of an unknown Schiedam printer of the latter part of the fifteenth century, is equally bad. And so we find here, as everywhere else, a good number of works which betray want of sufficient preparation, and inability, while we can only trace dexterity in typography by degrees. Bad work- manship in itself does not yet prove great antiquity. The Brussels incunabula of the Fratres communis vitae are bad ; those of Arnold ter Hoorne at Cologne (1471 — 83) sometimes barbarous. Heinecke mentions a book : " Passional des bitteren Leiden und Sterben unsers Herrn, getruckt zu Augspurg durch David Neckern, Form- schneider, 1557," and says : " Si Ie nom du graveur en bois et l'année ne s'y trou- vaient pas, on le prendrait pour le plus ancien livre du monde." Some time ago I opened a book, in which the word " Grieksz " was divided after the k and the sz put in the following line. That ought to be very old ! Oh no, the work was printed in 1700 at Antwerp. In a German Speculum I found in a moment the following' divisions : sch-einen, sch-miden, me(n)-sch, gesch-lecht, tra-ckheit, ansy-cht, wa-rd, spr-icht, spry-chst, na-ch, br-acht, mi-ch ; and yet this book was printed long after the invention, in 1492. And any one who considers what letter-writers dare to do in this respect even in our time, will not be surprised at the mastery which the compositors of the fifteenth century possessed over the language. In the series now of the different Dutch incunabula of this kind, the Speculum presents itself very favourably ; it is not badly, but well printed ; it is not a first experiment, but the fruit of practice. There exist of the Speculum four typographical editions in folio, two with Latin, two with Dutch text. The engravings have served for the four editions, but they were cut for the Latin ones, for they have all a line as subscription in Latin. To this first undeniable criterium we may add as a second one the worn look of the type, to that of the blocks, the breakages in the lines. From these criteria together it follows that the first edition consists of the Latin one with an entire typographic text ; the second is the Latin edition with twenty xylographic leaves ; the third the Dutch one with two types ; the fourth the Dutch edition, printed with very much used, worn types. The work is anopisthographic, because the engravings were printed after the method of the prenters, i.e. with the frotton, which prevented the paper being printed upon also on the back, for the printed page would have been completely damaged by the printing of the other side. In the same manner, illustrated books were printed with dates, in 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473. Anopisthography and opisthography is not a chrono- logical, but a purely technical question, which, in its turn, is related to the corporations, to the connexion between prenters and typographers. So also the light-brown colour, with which in the sixteenth century the engravings were printed, in order to impede the colouring, which was so much in favour at that time, as little as possible by sharp black lines and grease. The edition of the Speculum is an abridgment of the text of the Utrecht MS. of 1464, mentioned already before, and which was of course not made after the book had been printed already some times. In 1481 the original woodcuts are there in the hands of the German typographer and xylographer, Johan Veldener. Com- pared with the folios, of which reprints followed each other at that time, within one, two, at most three years, the Spiegel (62 or 63 leaves) was only a brochure. Ketelaer and De Leempt printed probably already at Utrecht about 1470. At least the earliest Dutch date, 1473, originates from them; their type is already, in 1475, in the hands of the Utrecht printer Hees, and yet they printed at least thirty works without name, place, or date. All these works, among which the Opera of Thomas a Kempis, not long after his death {without the Imitatio), were published after the manuscripts, and, as Holtrop says " donnent une idéé avantageuse de l'état des Bibliothèques dans l'Évêché d'Utrecht a cette époque, et de l'encouragement que David de Bourgogne accorda aux sciences et aux belles-lettres, qui permit aux imprimeurs d'entreprendre la 88 SPREAD OF TYPOGRAPHY IN THE NETHERLANDS. publication d'ouvrages semblables." The types of the Speculum are related to those of Ketelaer and De Leempt (Meerman even attributed, on account of this resem- blance, Utrecht incunabula to his fictitious Haarlem sub-sexton); at Utrecht the Dutch translation was written ; Utrecht had an episcopal see, a gymnasium, a Burgundian prince, — indeed, if hypotheses are allowed, then is that of an Utrecht origin of the Specula provisionally the only reasonable one. However this may be, as far as regards science, the well-known quackery with the Spiegels is finished for ever. In the types of the Speculum are also printed : — 1. a Donatus of 28 lines, a frag- ment of which was used at Haarlem as cover for a service-book of 1474 ; another fragment, exhibiting difference of text, but not of tjrpes, was discovered at Cologne, in a volume of tracts printed by Ulric Zell, among which one of 1467 ; 2. the little book of the Mass, and 3. a Dutch translation of the seven penitential Psalms ; frag- ments of both were discovered at Brussels. 4. a Donatus of 30 lines, discovered in an edition of Paffroed at Deventer, of 1491. 5. and 6. two editions of Alexander Gallus' Doctrinale, of 32 lines, found in a book printed by Paffroed in 1495. 7. The Disticha of Cato. This gives us, with the four editions of the Speculum, already eleven well- known works in these types, of which seven are on vellum. Of the Abecedarium (wrongly called Horarium) also, a little schoolbook which, as we have seen before, was a link in the literature of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, one copy has come down to us and is figured in extenso in the work of Holtrop. In the same type is printed a Donatus of 31 lines, discovered by M. Campbell in the binding of a Delft prayer-book of 1484. In the third place comes the type of Ludovici (Pontani) de Eoma Singularia juris, in which moreover three editions of Donatus of 24 lines were printed. Fourthly, the type of Laur. Vallae (t 1458) Facetiae morales and witty sayings of great men, collected by Petrarca. Finally, the type of Pii H. Tractatus et Epitaphia, resembling that of the Speculum. The cardinal Piccolomini (^Jneas Sylvius) was elected pope in 1458, as Pius H. Before that year of his elevation to the papacy, therefore, this edition is totally im- possible. In this type we have several editions of Donatus and Doctrinale, an edition of Cato, the Latin translation of a fragment of the Iliad. Lastly, to this family of type the type of Saliceto, De salute corporis, belongs, in which were printed Turrecremata (Torquemada f 1468), a letter of Pius II. De amore, in the edition of his works (Basle, 1551) put at 1464. A fragment on vellum of the Saliceto was found in a volume of Jan Andrieszoon, Haarlem, 1486. We have in the same type : — 1. a complete Donatus of 27 lines, 14 leaves ; 2. a Donatus minor (Partes orationis quot sunt), 4 leaves ; 3. an edition of the Disticha of 21 lines ; finally, two Doctrinales of 28 and 29 lines. By the side of this bibliographical review of some of our undated incunabula, which is necessary to test the town legend by history, a skeich also of the earliest typography at Haarlem is indispensable. We have already seen that Haarlem does not belong to the towns where printing was introduced very early. The earliest Haarlem date is of 1483. The 10th of December of that year a book was published there on " dat liden " of Jesus, with 32 woodcuts, used, the year before, by Gerard Leeu at Gouda in the same work. It is distinctly said in this edition that it was printed " tot haerlem in hollant." The same press produced successively, 15 Feb. 1484, Der sonderen troost; 31 May, Summe le roy ; 9 Aug., Der Sielen troest ; on sinte Crispyn, het Boek des gulden throens ; in 1485 de Historiën van Troyen and de Historie van Jason. At the end of this year we find for the first time the name of the printer in this imprint : " Hier eyndet dat boeck welck ghehieten is bartholomeus van de proprieteyten der dinghen inden iaer ons heren 1485 opten heylighen kersauont Ende is gheprint ende oeck mede voleyndt te haerlem in hollant ter eren godes ende om leringhe der menschen van mi Meester Jacop Bellaert gheboren van zerixzee." This Jakob Bellaert of Zierikzee, published, moreover, the following year, 8 April, Epistelen ende euangelien ; 24 July, Doctrinael des tij ds ; 20 Aug., het Boeck van den pelgherijm, after which we lose sight of him for ever. During the last year of SPREAD OF TYPOGRAPHY IN THE NETHERLANDS. 89 his activity at Haarlem the second printer appeared there, namely Jan Andrieszoon, who published, besides three undated, four other works, 1 May, 31 May, 15 June, and 10 Aug. 1486, so that both seem to have printed for the last time in August of the same year. The only thing which is especially connected with Haarlem in their books are two family arms on a woodcut by Bellaert : the arms of Van Euyven and of the knight Jakob van Cats, from 1484 — 89, bailiff at Haarlem. As for their types, Bellaert printed with types of Gerard Leeu at Gouda, and Andrieszoon with types which were already very much worn. They were therefore simply Netherland printers who came from elsewhere to try whether they could settle at Haarlem. How naturally therefore appears the earliest Haarlem date in a chronological series of imprints in the earliest Netherland incunabula : 1473. Impressa in traiecto inferiori per magistros . . . 1473. Impressum. Alosti. In Flandria. Anno. 1474. Imprime en la noble ville de Bruges en flandres. 1475. Louanii impressa. — te louen gheprint. 1476. Arte impressoria . . . bruxelle op. in brabancie. 1477. Dit boec is voleyndet ter goude in hollant. 1478. gheeyndt in die printe te delf in hollant. 1478. gheprint . . . tsentemertensdyck in zeelant. 1479. volmaket ende gheeynt in die stad van vtrecht. 1481. gheprent in die eerw. universiteyt van louen. 1483. geprent te leyden in hollant. 1483. Dit bouck is voleyndet tot haerlem in hollant. 1483. volmaect in die goede stede van culenburch. 1484. Gheprent tots hartogenbosch. 1485. Gheprendt tot Gendt. 1487. in die seer vermaerde coopstadt Tantwerpen. 1493. Gheprent te Deuenter inden stichte van Vtrecht. 1493. geprent te zwolle inden stichte van vtrecht. 1499. Ghedruct buten scoenhouen inden Hem. ? Imprime en la ville de Schiedam en hollande. The first book printed at Haarlem, after Bellaert and Andrieszoon, places us in the 16th century. There exist, namely, two rare books, in small 8vo., with a crucifix in woodcut on the title, the one entitled " Een soete meditacie hoe dat die verloren siel van den sone Gods gevonden is met synre heiliger passien;" the other, "Een boecxken van verduldich lijden dat sinte Bernardus bescrijft," &c. " Gheprint tot Haerlem." It was printed shortly after 1506, and by the same typographer, who published, in 1506, at Amsterdam, the " Wandelinghe in den hof der bloemen," in 8vo. The initial 0, which occurs in this work, is also found in the others, only in a little more worn condition. The Amsterdam printer, who lived " bi der heiliger stede," departed probably very soon from Amsterdam, and made an equally fruitless effort to establish himself at Haarlem. The history of typography produces a number of such itinerant printers. We find, for instance, Veldener at Utrecht from 1478 — 81, at Kuilenburg in 1483 ; De Leempt in 1473 and '74 at Utrecht, in 1479 at Nymegen(?), from 1484 — 90 at 's Hertogenbosch ; Govert van Ghemen (Van Os), since 1486 at Gouda, afterwards at Leiden, and we see him, c. 1490, introduce typography at Copenhagen. Our unknown printer lived probably already before at Haarlem. In that case we would be able to discover his name. At least the registers of the cathedral at Haarlem contain the following entry : — 1502. Item de Hasback besteet hondert brieven te printen van onsse offelaet om de priesters die biecht hoeren over hoer hoeft te setten, dat hondert voor vi. st. etc. Between his residence in 1502 and that in 1506, we may suppose a temporary residence at Amsterdam ; at least, in 1504, the church at Haarlem had its letters of indulgence printed at Leiden : " Item Meester Hugo die printer te Leiden gegheven xx st. van de Vic copyen die hy geprint het uut de bullen." This Leiden printer is 40 (ÏERRIT THOMASZOON. Hugo Janszoon, of Woerden, since 1494 printer at Leiden, in 1517 at Delft, in 1518 at the Hague. After the first years of the 16th century follows again a long-continued cessation in the exercise of printing at Haarlem. All that we have found in the existing sources is confined to the following items in the treasury accounts : — 1546. De tresorier heeft betaelt . . . Birch Volckertz [Coornhert] figuer-snyder . . . xvi lb. by hem verdient ende bedongen voor 't snyden van de figuere en chaerte van de lootherye . . . 1546. Symon Claesz. Bybel bet. de somme van thien ponde . . . van dat hy zekere chaerten van de looterye voors. gedruct heeft . . . 1557. Claes Symonsz bouckverkooper ende prenter betaelt de somme van zes ponden pryse als voren voir hondert vyftigh charten . . . roerende de contagieuse siecte der pestilencie . . . 1576. Claes Jansz, of Alkmaar, bookseller at Haarlem. 1578. Betaelt Louis Laeckeman om te betaelen in handen van den drucker tot Leyen over . . . duysent exemplaren van ossemarct . . . Between the years in which the government of the town could have their printing executed at Haarlem and those in which they were obliged to have it done at Leiden — 1557 and 1578 — we find the printing-office, established in 1561, with other partners, by the burgomaster Jan van Zuren, " sworn bookprinter at Haarlem; " but which does not seem to have worked much longer than the following year. Only in 1581 we find again a printer at Haarlem, Anthonis Ketel, and, since 1587, Gillis Eooman, who was succeeded, in 1611, by Adriaen Booman. The harvest of history on the field of typography concerning Haarlem may be scanty ; it does not yield anything, as far as xylography goes. There existed there already very early a Lucasgild, like that at Antwerp, and like the Johannesgild at Bruges ; but, however rich in painters, sculptors, and goldsmiths, the Haarlem corpo- ration may have been, it produces, notwithstanding the most patient researches, not a single prenter (briefprenter) or xylographer. 1 The manufacture, therefore, of a whole series of blockbooks of the 15th century, ascribed, two, three, and four centuries afterwards, without any shadow of evidence, to a Haarlem innkeeper, has to be referred to the empire of fiction. VI. GEBBIT THOMASZOON. There died about the year 1563 or '64, at Haarlem, a certain Gerrit Thomaszoon (son of Thomas), who occurs as sheriff of the town in 1545, and who was churchwarden from 1547 — 52. He had lived in the market-place and kept an inn. My researches in the archives at Haarlem, in order to know more of him, were in vain. The fol- lowing lines are the only thing I found in the sheriff registers, but they are of no importance : — " Van Geryt thomas cum sosijs van alle die achterghelaten goeden van wijlen Mr. Jacob Deyman, Licenciaet, die gestorven is anno 1541 . . . alst blijct bij een Inventaris ... die de selve Geryt thomasz bij eede verclaert heeft goet ende deuchdelijcke te zijn, Bonder dair inne yet achterhouden oft verzwhegen te hebben, welcke eedt hem afgenomen heeft Jan van Zuyren, burgemeester." 1 Gresohiedk. aanteeken. over haarlemsche schilders voorafgegaan door eene korte geschiedenis van het St. Lucasgild te Haarlem. Door A. van der Willigen Pz. Med. Doctor. Haarlem. Erven F. Bohn. 1866. 8vo. A French translation of this work was published (?) at Haarlem in 1870.' GF.RKIT THOMASZOON. 41 Now, we could safely let him rest, had he not had, some years before his death, the strange fancy of having a pedigree made for him. This not uncommon and innocent amusement Iras had, in his case, such curious consequences, that we have to subject this family document to an accurate scrutiny. We are enabled to do so, as the document has not only not been lost, but — Gerrit Thomaszoon could not possibly have imagined it— was bought, as late as this century, by the town of Haarlem, and is exhibited in its museum as a very important document. While the text of the document is printed herewith, it ought to be described somewhat in detail. The pedigree seems to have been written by the same hand down to, and including, the fifth child of Gerrit Thomasz. This original part is calligraphic, and has, to all appearances, served as a picture on the wall. The whole is surrounded by embroidery, blackened by age. The centre is occupied by Gerrit Thomasz., the man who had the pedigree made. Underneath we observe three hills. Above the two lowest are two escutcheons : the one on the left has two quarters (the first quarter, on the left, is blank, as also the shields of the Thomases on the document have been left blank ; the second has a dove) ; that on the right a lion rampant (arms of Ermin- gaerd, the wife of Gerrit Thomasz.). The middle (highest) hill, or mountain, encloses an oval crest of some woman, probably with the dove of Lucye Coster. Bound the mountain a knotted riband is wound, on which there was originally an inscription with golden letters. Arms and inscription, however, have been artificially erased. But thus much is plain also here, that the whole was made for Gerrit Thomasz. and Ermingaerd, and that Lucye Coster formed the lustre of the document. In the last circle, after 1568, something was written in very fine letters, of which the word "baamsteel" seems to be still legible; but this emendation was erased afterwards. By the side of the name Gerrit Thomasz., on the left, and above, by the name of Thomas Pietersz., are two blank scutcheons ; by Ermingaerd Jans a scutcheon with a Hon rampant. Further on, to the left, by the side of the scutcheons of the Thomases, an ornament is found. Above, in the border in the middle of the docu- ment, were the arms of Haarlem, but they have also been effaced. Entirely intact is the representation of Lou Coster's arms, a dove, on an heraldic chart of Amsterdam, said to have been the arms of Mr. Marten Jansz. Coster, burgo- master in 1578. The first, fourth, and seventh division of the writing on the top, is written with beautiful Koman letters, the rest in italics. Only the year, on the top, by the name of Lucye L. J. Costersdochter (daughter of L. J. Coster), is in the handwriting of the maker. The numbers, by Baertoutsdochter and Margriet Jan Florisdochter, are written with different ink. In order, therefore, to avoid the possibility of making any mistake with regard to the determination of the time of the origin of the document, after the marriage of Gerrit Thomasz., and after he had had some children, we shall take the very liberal period of between 1520 and 1560. We were already able to observe that the document is no longer in its original condition, but that it has been in the hands of later explainers, who effaced some inconvenient things, especially in the inscription around Lucye, which, among other things (ni fallor) contained a year in Boman numbers. The last figure of the date 1446 has been falsified ; they have not only removed the inscription from the pedestal, but an original 6 changed into a 0, so that the careless visitor of the Haarlem town- hall reads at present 1440. The record therefore of the famous Coster legend, which we shall have to speak of presently, runs, critically corrected, thus : — Zyn tweede wijffi was Louris Janssoens Cos ters dochter die deerste print in de werlt br ocht Anno 1446. 1 1 His second wife was the daughter of Louris Janssoens Coster, who brought the first print into the world Anno 1446. a 42 GEKRIT THOMASZOON. My knowledge of this falsification dates only from the 28th February, 1870, but the falsification itself may be fixed, at least morally, in the sixteenth century already. We see here a fable arise before our very eyes. A Haarlem citizen has a pedigree made for him, probably to put it up in his inn ; at least he occupies the house in the Market-place, which seems to have always been an inn. But the frame wants lustre, and so the pedigree is linked by the probably totally fictitious Lucye (the second wife, " tweede wyff") to a Haarlemer ; to a Haarlemer who (the awkwardness and naivete of the expression may not surprise us at all in such a product of family vanity) " deerste print in die werlt brocht." Such fabricators of pedigrees exist in multitude to this very day. What was Gerrit Thomaszoon thinking about, in the middle of the sixteenth cen- tury, by that " eerste print " of a hundred years ago ? What may have presented itself to his mind ? An engraving ? A drawing ? Had his ancestor done something by way of pastime, which was preserved for a long time in the family as a relic of great- grandfather or grandfather ? It can no Jonger be decided, for an authentic interpre- tation of that singular word "print" can nowhere be found. We have therefore to try and find light in, the year 1446, in which, according to the descendant of Coster, " deerste print in die werlt " came. According to the bad construction of the expres- sion, it was really Lucye Coster who brought "deerste print in die werlt" (and she is on the vellum document genealogically more the chief person than her father), but we will assume that Lourens Coster is the person meant, and therefore look for him in the archives of the fifteenth century. With a zeal and patience, worthy of a better cause and of a better reward, this investigation took place, and has brought to light that there really lived at Haarlem a citizen in the fifteenth century whose name was Lourens Coster, son of Jan Coster, who died in 1436. All that we find in the archives of the town and church of Haarlem about this Laurens Janszoon [son of Jan] Coster is contained in the following chronologically arranged items — 1441. Item opten 13 auont gherekent met lou koster van 15 pont en 12 pont oly, elc pont een ouden buddrager en 34 stuvers van seep en van smeerkaersen te somme 22 guld. 3 stuvers (Item on the evening of the 13th settled with lou koster for 15 pounds and 12 pounds of oil, each pound an ancient buddrager, and 34 pence for soap and tallow candles, together 22 guilders 3 pence.) (In the registers of the church.) 1441. Item Louwerijs Janssoen geg. van lxxij pond kaersen die jn dit jegen- woerdige jaer opter stede Huys voir die wakers verbornt sijn van elc pont enen ouden butdrager fac. v lb. xij. (Item Louwerijs Janssoen for 72 pounds of candles which have been burnt by the guards in the town-hall during this year, for each pound an ancient butdrager . . .) 1441. Item Louwerijs Jans voirscr. van den kaersen die jn dit jegenwoerdige , jaer jnden thoorn voir onser lieuer zoeter vrouwen verbarnt sijn so dat mit hem verdinct is iij gouden philippus scilde fac. iij lb. (Item Louwerijs Jans, aforesaid, for the candles burnt in the tower in honour of Our Lady during this year, as was agreed with him . . . ) 1442. It. Lourijs Coster van dat hy die lantaern voir onser liever Vrouwen in den toern van nieuws opgemaect heeft geg. f. iii lb. (Item Lourijs Coster, paid for having repaired the lantern of Our Lady in the tower . . . ) 1442. It. Lourijs Coster van xl lb. smeerkeersen die die wakers opter stede huyse gehadt ende verbarnt hebben coste ellic lb. een oude butdrager f. v lb. 2 st. viii d. (Item Lourijs Coster for 40 pounds of tallow candles which the guards in the town-hall burnt, cost each pound an ancient butdrager . . .) 1442. Tot lou coster betaelt 8 guld. van oely ende seep. (Paid to lou coster 8 guilders for oil and soap.) 1442. It. Van lou coster van seep en van keersen en van ander dine 15 st. (Item to lou coster for soap and candles and other things 15 pence.) (Church of Haarlem.) 1447. It. opte xiiii dach in Maerte Louwerijs Coster betaelt en geg. van vijf GEKEIT THOMASZOON. 43 pont kaersen die in den thoorn voir onser liever soeter vrouwen verbarnt waren van elc pont een stuver f. vi st. viii d. (Item on the 14th day of March, paid to Louwerijs Coster for five pounds of candles which have been burnt in the tower in honour of Our Lady . . . ) The thing is plain : Lourens Janszoon Coster, to whom a hundred years afterwards an unintelligible "eerste print" is ascribed at Haarlem, was, between the years 1440 and 1450, a tallow-chandler, and kept a shop for oil, soap, and similar articles connected with his -trade. This business was afterwards continued by his sister Ghertruit Jan Costersdochter, who sells candles in 1452 and 1453 and died in 1456. Her brother had chosen another trade. At least we see Lourens Janszoon Coster make his appearance since 1451 as innkeeper, according to the following items in the treasury accounts at Haarlem : — ■ 1451. Item betaelt lou' coster ii menghelen wijn, die ou' (voor) een jair die burg'meister ghesedt werden. (Item lou' coster paid for 2 menghelen of wine which were sent to the burgomaster a year ago.) 1454. Item den grave van Oostervant viii daighe in Octobri anno Liii tot lou costers een maeltyt gheschenct wert, so bleef men den selven lou coster dair af sculdich xvii guld. (Item as a dinner was offered to the count of Oostervant on the 8th of Oct. '53 at lou coster's ; indebted to him for it xvii guilders.) 1468. Louris Coster and other citizens are summoned to the Hague. 1474. Louris Janszoon Coster pays war taxes. 1475. Louris Jansz. Coster pays a fine for " buyten drincken" (to drink beyond the premises). 1483. (Before September). Item van Louris Janszoon Coster van pondgelden van synen goeden dat hy wter stede mitter wone gevaren is viii. Rgl. (Item received of Louris Janszoon Coster for ferry-toll for his goods when he left the town 8 Rgl.) As soon as Lourens Coster has paid his ferry- toll, duty of departure (exue, issue in Flanders), he disappears for ever from our sight. As the towns of Amsterdam, Delft, Gouda, and Dordrecht, had exempted the citizens of Haarlem from the payment of this duty, on condition of reciprocity, we can only infer from this item to which town he did not go. We have now to prove that the innkeeper of 1483 is still one and the same with the chandler of 1447, and marked by Gerrit Thomasz. with the year 1446. We are able to do this from another source, as authentic as the archives. At Haarlem the "heilige kerstgilde" {Holy Christmas corporation) still exists, one of those fraternities which had, according to Van Oosten de Bruyn (De Stad Haarlem, p. 107) the lofty aim of " eating and drinking." This corporation is already very old, for it celebrated its third jubilee 1 in 1606. Its 54 brethren and sisters possessed each a chair for their meetings. According to their statutes, these chairs, if they were not disposed of by a last will, were inherited by the eldest and nearest blood-relation in the branch from which they came, with the understanding that a younger son should always have the preference to the eldest daughter, and a younger man to an elder woman, if they were heirs in the same degree (Art. 10). The corporation remained in existence, the right of property in the chairs continued, by uninterrupted transmission, until our time. M. G. P. van Roermund, at the Hague, possesses a manuscript, in folio, entitled: H. I Karsemis Gilts | Register Stoel Boeck | van de | Broeders en Susters | Namen | Zoo die van tijt tot tijt sijn verboeckt | volgens de drie registers noch in wesen | voor soo veel by leesbaar schrift of sin te sien is | geschreven ende vereert ten dienste van't | H. | Karsemis Gilde | Bymyn | 1669 | (21 Januari) J sen - van Alckemade | van Berckenrode. (Chair-Register of the names of the Brethren and Sisters of the Holy Christmas corporation, as they have been transmitted from time to time, according to the three registers still existing, &c). 1 Bescïryvinge ende lof der stad Haerlem in Holland Door Samuel Ampzing. Haeilem. 1628. 4to., p. 434. 44 GEERIT THOMASZOON. One leaf of this chair-book contains the following entries : — 29. Stoel A° 1421 (lib. 1, fol. 47 verso) Jan Coster, by ... . 1436 (lib. 1, fol. 74 „ ) Lourijs Coster, by erfnis (by inheritance). 1484 (lib. 1, fol. 149 „ ) Frans Thomas Thomasz., by ... . 1497 (lib. 1, fol. 156) Gerret Thomas Pietersz., by erfnis van zyn vader (by in- heritance from his father). 1564 (lib. 2, fol. 140) Cornells Gerritsz., by erfnis van zyn vader (by inheritance from his father). 1589 (lib. 2, fol. 206 verso) Anna Gerrits 41 ', by koop van haer neef (by purchase from her cousin). 1620 (lib. 3, fol. 20 verso) Mr. Jan Hendriksz. Spoorwater, by erfenis van zyn oude Moeije (by inheritance from his old aunt). 1625 (Kb. 3, fol. 45 verso) Mr. Thomas Spoorwater, by erfenis van zyn broeder (by inheritance from his brother). 1649 (lib. 3, fol. 157 verso) Mr. Henrick Spoorwater, by erfenis van zyn vader (by inheritance from his father). 1651 (lib. 3, fol. 164) Joh. Maria Spoorwater, by giffe van haar broeder (by gift from her brother). 1692 (lib. 4, fol. 12 verso) Mr. Hendrik Soutman, by erfenis van zyn moeder (by inheritance from his mother). 1738 (lib. 4, fol 52) Paulus a Eoy, by testament van Mr. H, Soutman (by last will from M. H. Soutman). 1770 (Kb. 4, fol. 62) Laurens a Koy, by versterf van zyn E. vader voorsz (by inheritance from his father aforesaid). 1806 (lib. 4, fol. 78) Mejuff. Antoinette Wilhelmina Coninx, huisvr. van den Heer Joan Paulus a Roy, by erf van voorsz (Mrs. A. W. Coninx, wife of M. J. P. a Roy, by inheritance from aforesaid (L. a Roy). 1820 Deze Stoel door de weduwe a Roy aan den Heer Cornells Henricus a Roy present gedaan, die dezelve weder aan't Gild heeft afgestaan. (This chair presented to M. Corn. Henr. a Roy, by the widow of a Roy, who conceded it in his turn to the corporation again). At present the chair No. 29 is the property of the family of Dommer van Poldersveld. A comparison of the names in the pedigree with the proprietors of the 29th chair of the Christmas -corporation proves that we have here the same family before us r without our being able, or thinking it necessary, to disentangle the family-cle.w entirely. Lourens Coster inherits the chair in 1436 from his father, and leaves it, in 1484, i.e. after his departure from Haarlem in 1483, to Frans Thomas Thomasz., who gave mortgage to (his uncle ?) Pieter Janszoon Coster, in 1492. As we have no right, without a valid reason, to assume a gap in this official gild-register, and the dates moreover perfectly tally with those of the town-archives, it is historically certain that the chandler-innkeeper, Lourens Janszoon Coster, was one and the same man until 1483, and was at that time not yet too old to leave Haarlem in order to settle else- where. What "print" that man now, according to the opinion of his descendant, Gerrit Thomasz., brought into the world in 1446 is of no importance to us in regard to science. As for the other persons of the pedigree, a certain Thomas Pietersz. died, in 1492, as sheriff; 1 a Pieter Thomasz. was innkeeper and burgomaster at Haarlem in 1472 and 1489 ; and an Andries Thomas supplies, in 1457, a " banner, which has a lion underneath, in the new room " (die de leeu in die voet heeft op die nuwe earner) for a rynschen gulden (Rhenish guilder), iiis. iiid., — and was burgomaster in 1473/74, and '81. According to the " Diviziekroniek " of 1517 both were murdered in 1492. Finally, a 1 Naamregister van de Heeren van de Regeering der Stad Haarlem. Haarlem. 1733. 4to. GEBRIT THOMASZOON. 45 Thomas Thomasz. became burgomaster in 1482. We are, at present, no longer able to decide whether they were all relations. The archives of the 15th century- contain such a multitude of similar names, that no safe guide presents itself anywhere. The murdered Thomases may have been related to Gerrit Thomasz., but we may just as well suppose them to have been derived from the traditions of the " Diviziekro- niek," and that they were placed on the pedigree for the sake of ornament. 1 A synopsis of the sources, whose authority is so weighty that that of the pedigree is, even genealogically, nothing compared to it, allows us only to assume some or other relation between : Lourens Janszoon Coster, chandler-innkeeper, departed from Haarlem in 1483 ; Thomas Pieterszoon, sheriff, who died in 1492 ; Gerrit Thomaszoon, sheriff-innkeeper, who died circa 1564. The synopsis would be thus : — Archives of Haarlem. 1441—83. Lourens Jansz. Cos- TEK. 1492. Frans Thomasz. 1492. Thomas Pietersz. died. 1545. Gerrit Thomasz., sheriff. Chair-book. 1436. Lourens (Jansz.) Coster. 1484. Frans Thomas Thomasz. 1497. Gerrit Thomas Pie- tersz., father of 1564. Cornelis Gerritsz., cousin of 1589. Anna Gerrits. Vellum Pedigree. 1146. Lourens Jansz. Coster, father-in-law of Thomas Pietersz., father of five children : Pieter, Andries f 1492, Thomas, Katryn, and Margriet. Eldest son : Pieter Thomasz. ; f 1492, father of Thomas Pietersz,, father of GerritThomas( Pietersz.), great-great-grandson of L. J. Coster. 1560. Cornelis Gerritsz., brother of Anna Gerrits. Let us see, before we take leave of the piece of vellum — which has now been explained enough, and which would not deserve our attention had it not been the cause of the Haarlem Coster-legend, and an imposition upon the people for centuries — what have been its external adventures since its fabrication. It remained unknown to the public during the 17th and 18th century ; but, in 1724, a pedigree of Laurens Koster, going down to Cornelis Willemsz. Kroon, who died unmarried, 24th March, 1724, was published at Haarlem, by W. van Kessel, on one folio leaf, and afterwards in the " Laurierkrans " of 1726, in 4to. Meerman (1765) translated it into Latin. 2 No one, however, gave any account whatever of the source from which it was derived. But, in 1809, at an auction at Haak's, at Leiden, suddenly the original document appeared. It came into the possession of Jacobus Koning, who described it in the " Konst en Letterbode" of the same year, thus : " Pedigree, written on very old vellum, but perfectly legible, of Laurens [?]. It commences with Louris Coster's daughter, who brought the first print into the world (die d'eerste print in die werlt brocht) anno 1441 [?], and concludes with his descendants, about the year 1585." The names, therefore, of the 17th and 18th century, occurring in the aforesaid editions of van Kessel, in the Laurierkrans, and by Meerman, are not derived from it. It was said that it had been preserved, together with a xylographic block (of the end of the 15th or beginning of the 16th century) which contained a part of an horarium, for about two centuries, by Haarlem families. As far as they could ascertain, it was, at the beginning of the 17th century, in the possession of Adriaan Eooman, town-printer of Haarlem, who had got it from one of the descendants of Coster (read : Gerrit Thomasz.), a man of great age. Dr. Johan Vlasveld, of Haarlem, got it from him, after whose death it came into the hands of his children ; and, on the 19th July, 1734, it was bought by Jan Maas, whose son-in-law, the Eev. Jacobus Mandt of Gorinchem, inherited it from him. After his death, it was bought, together with the 1 At least, I found, in the archives at Haarlem, a Thomas Thomasz., Feb. 1493, while an invasion of one of the parties of the civil war took place 3 May, 1492. I find Thomas Thomas Thomasz. in 1497. 2 Origines typographies. Ger. Meerman auctore. Hag. Com. 1765. 4to. II. 46 GEEEIT THOMASZOON. block, for 400 guilders, by Jacobus Koning, 1 who said something further about jiï in his prize-essay, published 1816 : 2 " On a certain original pedigree of Laurens Jansz. Koster, written before 1560, we find a dove on his coat of arms. Meerman is, indeed, of opinion that this shield was put afterwards on this pedigree by some ignorant person, but that is not at all apparent to me." Well, neither is it the case at all. In 1823, the docu- ment was exhibited at Haarlem, and described again differently : "This original pedigree, written on vellum, in or about the year 1550 [again ten years older!], commences with Louris Janssoens Coster, who brought the first print into the world [when ?], and is continued, after 1560, by another ' hand. " 3 Scheltema said, in 1834 : " Thomas Pieters and his family. All that may have been in the dark with respect to this subject, is cleared up at present, by the discovery of the original pedigree or genealogy, which belonged formerly to M. Koning, and is now the property of the town of Haarlem. It is written on vellum, which has become dark brown by time, but the writing is perfectly legible. It commences with Thomas Pieters, whose wife, Lucie, was the daughter of Lauris Coster, who brought the first print into the world [when ? !] . The succession of the members of the family is, more- over, very accurately mentioned ; and as it is sufficiently evident, from the document, that its eldest or upper part was written before 1560, and that, after that, a new series was begun with another hand, I have more than once represented this document in my letters to Koning, as of the greatest importance to the cause." 4 We shall very soon become acquainted with the bad " cause " which is here alluded to. But why did neither the verbose Koning, nor Scheltema — more verbose still — publish this genealogy ? One page of printing alone was required. At last, in 1862, an official list of documents, 6 preserved at the town-hall at Haarlem, was published by Dr. A. de Vries : "Old pedigree of Lourens Janszoon Coster, written on vellum, between 1550 and 1560, continued after 1660 (read 1560) by another hand, until the death of the last of Coster's descendants, Willem Cornelisz. Croon, who died 24 March, 1724." This last assertion is totally contradictory to the description of 1809, and — to the truth : the original does not go further than the sixteenth century. After the enumeration of all these descriptions, every one will ask with surprise, why this highly important document — even according to the assertions of Koning, Scheltema, and De Vries, the eldest evidence of the fable which they propa- gated — was systematically kept back and only exhibited at a distance ? While search was made in all corners of the earth for supports of the Haarlem Costerianism ; while they quarrelled with bitterness when any one objected that the historian Hadrianus Junius was the first who mentions the name of a Haarlem inventor of typography ; while it was in their power to show triumphantly a vellum document, anterior to 1560, with the name of Coster on it ; — they doggedly concealed this first leaf of his laurel, and covered him patiently with the dust of later chronicles, which prove nothing. Indeed, this circumstance is a matter for reflection. Sotzmann wrote already, in 1841 : " We know (he speaks of the wrong representation, by Faust von Aschaffenburg, of the history of the invention of typography) what confusion at that time was put into genealogies, and how nothing was too fabulous or incredible, when there was a question of finding ancestors or to procure them some dignity. The genealogy of the Costerian family at Haarlem will afford another example. A distinguished family of Haarlem citizens, namely, has linked its pedigree already to the legendary Koster, ' die deerste i Algem. Konst-en Letterbode voor 1809. Haarlem. 8vo. II. Wederlegging van het Geschrift van Jac. Koning over de Aanmerkingen wegens den Houten Drukvorm verkocht, 29 Apr. 1809, door Mr. G. van Lennep. 8vo. 2 Verhandel, over den oorsprong, uitvindingj verbetering en volmaking der Boekdrukkunst. Door Jao. Koning. Haarlem. 1816. 8vo. There exists a French translation of this work. 3 Gedenkschriften wegens het vierde eeuwgetijde van de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst door Lourens Janszoon Koster, gevierd te Haarlem, 10 en 11 July, 1823; byeenverzameld door Vincent Loosjes. Haarlem. 1824. 8vo. 4 Geschied-en letterkundig mengelwerk van Mr. Jacobus Scheltema. 1816 — 36. 8vo. VI. 5 Lijst der stukken betrekkelijk de geschiedenis van de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst, berustende op het raadhuis te Haarlem. Opgemaakt door Dr. A. de Vries. Haarlem. 1862. 8vo. GERRIT THOMASZOON. 47 print in die werlt brocht,' and made him their ancestor. We see here, all at once, the source whence Junius derived the descendants of Koster, as well as his informations about them, and whence the confusion with the authentic sheriff, financier, and coun- cillor,' Laurens Janszoon, who lived from 1870 — 1439, arose. Scheltema is surprised that Koning mentions this pedigree only by the way, and attaches so little importance to it ; but Koning was clever enough to conceal that only such a weak authority had been the cause of swelling the myth to the elaborate Coster-fable." I said before that this suspicion dated already from 1841 ; and now, of course, the champion of the foolish pretension of Haarlem, the librarian of the town, De Vries, who has read this, will put at once an end to such a suspicion by the publication of the important document ? No, for — the Coster-document upsets his mendacious system. Faithful to the principle of letting every one see with his own eyes, I have, as the fairest way, published, for the first time, number 13 of the Costeriana preserved at the town-hall of Haarlem. The reader may compare the document with the descriptions of Koning, Scheltema, and De Vries, given above. In the first place, it is evident that in the editions of the pedigree published in 1724 and 1726, and not earlier, they supplied Lourens Coster with a wife, Catarina Anflriesdochter ; but on the other hand deprived him of the year of "the print." Meerman was polite enough, in 1765, to put on his genealogical table, " Laurentius Jo. fil. Aedituus [?] Haslemi, primus inventor Typographiae A° - 1440." Did he not discover the apparent falsification of the 6 ? He could not bring himself to dissolving that marriage of the eighteenth century, and he wrote calmly: "Uxor Catharina Andrese filia." And what did Koning do, who had been for many years possessor of the vellum document ? In his work he speaks of the difficulty that the wife of his sheriff Louwerijs Janszoon (who had nothing in common with Coster but the Christian name) was called in the archives Ymme Lourens Janszoon's widow; but, undauntedly, he answers : "I know very well [!] that our Louwerens Janszoon was married to Catharina Andriesdochter .... but this does not prevent that this Catharina may have been also called Ymme, or that Lourens Janszoon may have afterwards married this Ymme." This is said by Koning, who had in his hands the vellum document of the sixteenth century, on which Lourens Janszoon Coster has no wife. Yet he knows "very well," and gives in one breath not only two wives to the sheriff Louiverijs Janszoon, but at the same time two husbands to the fictitious Catrina : the sheriff, and his fellow-townsman of later date, Lourens Janszoon Coster. In the second place we see how little right Scheltema ha;d to say, " the succes- sion of the members of this family has been accurately described." Yes, particularly accurate ; so accurate, that even Scheltema, who was of opinion that Koning attached too little value to the document, dared not to show this excellent " genealogy " to the public. He himself was too willing to procure ordered pedigrees, not to know what was the value of the thing. On the contrary, the document has not the least genealo- gical value ; but notwithstanding this worthlessness, it is of great use to remove a town-gossip, which has grown into a popular belief: it tells us the origin of the Haarlem legend at the time of Van Zuren, Coornhert, and Junius. "Lourens Jans- zoon Coster brings in 1446 the first ' print ' into the world," that is the main ques- tion. In 1809, when Koning bought that patient piece of old vellum, he was either not yet contaminated strongly enough with the moral disease of wilful lying, or still so ignorant as to communicate in an unguarded moment of naivete in the " Konst- en Letterbode " a dangerous date (1441 !) Afterwards, however, the people resolutely concealed it. So the original legend decidedly takes Lourens Janszoon Coster to be the author of " deerste print," for it does not only call him so, but it assigns to him distinctly the arms of the family of that name. 48 VAN ZUEBN AND COORNHEET. VII. VAN ZUEEN AND COOENHEET. Jan van Zuren, who was born at Haarlem in 1517 and died there in 1591, Coornhert (born at Amsterdam in 1522, died at Gouda in 1590), and other partners, established a printing-office at Haarlem in 1561 ; and it is this association which, with full know- ledge that the German invention of the art of printing was generally acknowledged, makes the first attack on Mentz, and endeavours in indefinite terms to transfer the honour of this invention to the town of Haarlem. Van Zuren made the first step. When we read later authors who are in favour of Haarlem, we get the impression that he explained in an elaborate work the history of the Haarlem invention, but which, alas I was lost during, or in consequence of, the siege of this town. Let us see what is the case. The only author who mentions that so-called book is Scriverius, in 1628.' He declares that he finds only the title, the preface, and the introduction, but the history itself and the evidences of his modest and clever explanation are not there ; and we know not by what circumstances it is concealed or has been lost. And after having described the fragment he possessed, he says " that he found no more of it in the original papers, which were handed over to him by a good friend ; neither does he see that the copy he used has been continued or finished." In these circumstances it is hopeless for us to discover the truth. If we now consider that Van Zuren in 1561, therefore after the time in which his book is put, had his own printing-office at his service, but did not publish his work, which was of course destined as a first undertaking of the new association f that he printed the vague evidence of Coornhert [in his edition of Cicero, to be mentioned hereafter] , without making it more positive ; that he was a contemporary of Junius, and lived even after the publication of the Batavia (1588), without Junius referring to his fellow-townsman, Van Zuren, an author on the question ! — we have no right then but to take that " lost book respecting the Haar- lem printing-office" as a first bashful, but abandoned effort, of depriving Mentz of the honour of the invention of typography. This is incontestably confirmed by the contents of the fragment described by Scriverius. 2 Van Zuren tried to write a 1 Petri Scriverii Lavre-Crans yoor Lavrens Coster van Haerlem, Eerste Tinder Vande Boeck-druckery. Haerlem, Adr. Rooman, 1628. 4to. 100 pp. First ed. increased the same year with 24 pp., and added to' Ampzing's Beschrij vinge der stad Haarlem. 2 "Zvrenus Jvnior,.sive De prima, & inaudita hactenus vulgo & veriore tamen Artis Typographicae inventione, Dialogus, Nunc primum conscriptus, & in lucem editus, autore Joanne Zvreno Harlemeo Ad ampliss. virum N. N. It appears from this title, and from what follows, that M. Zurenus treated this matter in the form of a dialogue between Zurenus, the father, and Zurenus, the son. In the preface he complains, and is surprised, that this so highly necessary and invaluable science came so late into light and to the knowledge of mankind. Declaring further that he took this treatise, " de subtili, ingenioso solertiq. invento, non ita multis abhinc annis mortalibus divino consilio prodito, ac in banc lucem ac hominum usum producto," to hand " turn ipsius veritatis amore, turn Patriae quoque studio, &c." Adding to it : " Quo ego protectb meo scripto, et si id facile contemni potest, nihil tamen Maguntimensi quicquam Reipublicas unquam detractum volo, aut de illius etiam hujus invent! gloria dimiuutum tantillum cuius ego quoque nomini faveo prse ca3teris_ multum. Pruantur illi certè, idq. me nee invito nee reluctante quidem, laude sua prseclara certè, qua jam annos multos, in hominum sermone ac scripti's, nee immeritb gaudent. Sit haac ipsis quoque quieta & justa longissimi temporis prsescriptione posses'sio : qua ipsos turbare, profectb nee justum, nee etiam humanum (arbitror) foret. Hoc tantum (precor) animo ferant sequo, ut liceat mihi hanc Patriae fidem, ne an pietatem dicam ? prsestare, quae mihi certè hujus oppose emphatically the conclusion expressed at the end of your last article on the invention of printing. Namely, in the year 1856, no metal statue was erected in honour of the sheriff Lourens Janszoon. The case stands thus : My uncle,^ M. Joh. Enschedé, had already, some twenty years after the Koster-fêtes of 1823, come to the conviction that the inventor of the art of printing was not the sheriff Lourens Janszoon, who died in 1439, but a Lourens Janszoon Coster, who was still alive in 1447. He was desirous of communicating this conviction to M. de Vries, but the violent emotion which mastered him [De Tries] at the mere thought of doubt of what he thought he had so incontestably proved (of which emotion you had some experience yourself), made my uncle resolve not to publish what led him to his conviction, as long as his friend, M. de Tries, was alive. When it was, however, intended to erect a new statue in honour of the inventor at Haarlem, he thought it to be his duty to prevent, if possible, its erection in honour of the sheriff, and he succeeded in averting any mention being made on the pedestal of his office and his arms. As the description of the Costerian documents [at Haarlem] was made by M. de Tries (1862), it was impossible to omit those which only concerned the sheriff and not the chandler. I only got the knowledge of a statue having been erected here for the chandler, when I occupied myself with making notes from the Haarlem archives about Haarlem painters, and made at the same time a note of all I found respecting Lourens Janszoon and Lourens Janszoon Coster. As soon as I had communicated to my uncle what I had found about the chandler, he told me that he had known it already for a long time, and at the same time the reason why he had kept the secret. At present, this reason for secrecy no longer existing, I only wish to state that in 1856 a statue was erected not for the sheriff, but for a man who was really called Louweriis Janssoen Coster. I have the honour, &c. Haarlem, March 14, 1870. A. J. ENSCHEDÉ. To Dr. A. J. Enschedé, Archivist of Haarlem : Although I appreciate the consideration which induced M. Joh. Enschede' to spare Dr. de Tries, I cannot help thinking that it would have been better this time to let one man die for the people. For — before scientific Europe the new statue of the Haarlem inventor is based on : — Meerman's Origines typographicae, The French translation of Koning's work, Scheltema's German review of Schaab, The Eclaircissements and Arguments of De Tries j and all these works refer to the sheriff Louweriis Janssoen, who died in 1439. Before the public of Holland the new statue is based on : Tan Oosten de Bruyn's Description of Haarlem, Gockinga's abridged translation of Meerman, Koning's Prize Essay, The Memorials of the Coster-fêtes of 1823, The Dutch works of Dr. A. de Tries, The "Geschilstuk" of Noordziek, all works which also move round the sheriff. Before 1867 the public had never heard anything of the Haarlem chandler Lourens Janszoon Coster. But I may not reproach you with the, according to my opinion, too great indulgence of M. Joh. Enschedé. Meanwhile your information confirms the correct- ness of my explanation of the account of Junius by a strictly scientific method, «fee. Tak der Linde. 126 COSTERIANISM. xvin. COSTERIANISM. All men of scientific education and honesty are at present able to judge of the value of the foundations of the Haarlem tradition. A fiction of the 16th century, formu- lated and finished -by Junius, published in 1588 in his Batavia ; a second fiction of Scriverius in the Lavrecrans of 1628 ; they prove nothing, they contain neither substance nor shadow of fact ; they annihilate each other, and each comes to de- struction by internal contradiction and untruth. But although they constitute no historical evidence, yet, or perhaps just by reason of this circumstance, they have brought a sect into existence, and have been the cause of an unhistorical tenet, which, on account of the myth of its creed, ought to be baptized as Costerianism. The task which remains to me after my criticism of the origin of the fable, is to give a sketch of the progress of the sect until it succeeded in making its error national and canonizing its hero. Dogmatic belief sets up simply a supernatural world, a metacosmos, which transcends the categories of thought and knowledge, is inaccessible to all criticism, and unaware itself whether there exists a metaphysical reality or not, which corresponds with this phantasy. The purely subjective, chimerical character of this belief, makes it inaccessible to objective argumentation, averse from science and inves- tigation. Every one is undoubtedly free to people the ghost-world of his imagina- tion as he likes, whether he feeds his imagination from Schuking, Veda, Zend- Avesta, Thora, Bible, decrees of a council, Koran, Book of Mormon, or Medium. But as soon as any believer wishes to realize his dream, science has a right, and it is its duty, to oppose. I may prohibit no one from dreaming, or attaching value to his dream ; but no one may command me to dream with him, to acknowledge with Viini a chimera as a fact. As belief is sentimental in its nature, it is, like every visionary condition, peevish, troublesome, intolerant, touchy. It makes up for the want of proofs by dicta, sophisms, sentiment. It looks for no connexion between belief and proof, between facts and argument, but — because it excludes all argument and proof itself — between belief and character, between vision and condition of the mind. And how will it be when this condition makes itself master of history ? As long as belief has only to do with the gods and goddesses, sub-gods, and other inferior deities of its own creation, it may remain, as individual opinion, within the limits of its dominion ; the measure of luxuriance of every one's fancy cannot be regulated. But when the belief throws itself upon purely historical questions, it goes beyond its legitimate bounds, and the abuse of imagination becomes, scientifically, a crime. Nobody has a right to believe when and where Erasmus was born ; when, where, and by whom the naval battle of four days was fought. We know, or we do not know it. And yet, Costerianism has sinned against this simple truth for three centuries ; that, which is, and ought to be, nothing but a purely historical question — an inquiry into the invention of typography — has been treated by Costerianism as a dogma, an article of faith, to be accepted under forfeiture of national salvation. And the phenomena which have characterised the existence of all sects, ever since our history exists, have not been wanting among this sect, so long as it found adherents : to derive facts from the imagination, instead of reality; to falsify the questions in the very formula in which they are proposed; never to ask for truth, but for the appearance of truth; to conceal the want of real strength in verbosity ; to spare no means for the sake of the sacred object; to repeat apparent evidences and to give no heed to refutation; in short, applying the conservative, theological method. COSTEEIANISM. 127 Our eye is now prepared for the diagnosis ; we are able to discriminate the disease of Costerianism. Facts were drawn from the imagination, and not from reality. I have given, in the course of my. work, so many examples of this forging and inventing that further proofs are almost superfluous; but in order to show the deception, which public opinion has been driven into, they require to be augmented. To the category of the pedigree described before, belong in the first place the MS. notes, mostly of Haarlem origin, found in xylographic and typographic incuna- bula, fathered, after the example of Junius and Scriverius, upon Coster. I. Koning says of the (German) Apocalypse : " It is remarkable, that in front of the copy at Berlin, just as in that of Haarlem, the inscription and portrait of Koster is bound." II. De Vries says, in his description of a copy of the same work at Haarlem : " To the work was afterwards added the beautiful engraving representing Coster at full length, in the ordinary dress of a Dutch magistrate of the 15th [read 16th] century, with a letter in his hand, engraved after the model of P. Saenredam, by A. Rooman." III. In the 17th century the following title was printed for the copy of the Canticum preserved at Haarlem : Liber tabularum ligno incisarum a Laurentio Costero Harlemensi circa annum salutis humanse MCCCCXXX. — It is followed by the wood-cut representing Coster at full length, holding a board with the inscription : " Figures and blocks cut in wood, printed by Lourens Jansz. Coster of Haarlem about the year MCCCCXXX." (Figuren ende Taeffelen in hout gesneden, by Lourens Jansz. Coster van Haarlem ghedruckt omtrent den jaere MCCCCXXX.) IV. In front of the Ars moriendi at Haarlem is bound the same printed title, but representing in the middle the arms of the town instead of Coster's likeness. At the foot of the first page of the preface is written, in an old hand : " This is a work of the first printer, at the time when the first press was invented or commenced at Haarlem." V. In a copy of an edition of Ketelaer and De Leempt of Utrecht (Liber Alexandri Magni), preserved at Haarlem, is written above the title : Heindrick Dirricx Mes has given this book to Willem Janss. Verwer as a remembrancer, 1586£. In dextera virtus." (H. D. Mes heeft dit boeck W. J. Verwer ghegeve(n) tot een memorie 1586|-.) And on the fly-leaf: "He who gave me this book told me that it was printed at Haarlem, for such was the manner of printing formerly." (Die my dit boeck gheschoncken heeft, heeft my geseyt, dat het binnen Haerlem ghedruckt is, want dus plach men van ouds te drucken). In front of this work a copy of the " Spieghel onser behoudenisse " had been bound up formerly. VI. The Speculum at Haarlem has, besides a portrait of Coster engraved by J. Visser after J. van Campen, a modern printed title : " Liber cujus nomen est, Speculum humans salutis Harlemi ex officina Laurentii Joannis Costeri Ao. 1440." Underneath are the arms of Haarlem. VII. On a separate leaf of the Spiegel, in the museum Meermanno-West- renianum at the Hague, is written in the latter part of the 16th century : " This belongs to the first rare incunabula printed in Holland, by Laurens Coster at Haarlem ' ' (dit is van de eerste drucken die in Holland gedruckt syn, en raer van Laurens Coster te Haerlem). VIII. The copy of the first edition of the Speculum preserved at Haarlem bears the following title on the binding : Dat Spiegel | onser behoudenisse | gedrukt | te Haerlem | bij Lourens Coster | Mcoocxliii. (The " Spiegel onser behoudenisse " printed at Haerlem by L. C. 1443.) This title was to harmonize with the words : Uyt de | bibliotheek | van | Mr. Gr. Meerman | advocaat | Mdocxliii. (From the library of M. G. Meerman, barrister, 1743.) On the other hand, we find written on the binding of the copy of the last Dutch edition at Lille, in a hand of the 16th century : " The Spieghel der behoudenis, being the first book of Louris Coster, inventor of printing, printed at Haarlem about 1440." (De Spieghel der behoudenis, sijnde het eerste boeck van L. C, vinder der druckerij gedruckt binnen Haerlem omtrent Ao. 1440). 128 OOSTERIANISM. In this copy is also put the portrait of Coster, which occurs in the " Laure-crans." The original inscription of the 16th century (Item dit boec hoert toe den susteren van Sinte marien Convent woenende tot hoern) was in the 17th century crossed out and renewed, in order to be able to change Hoorn into Haerlem. IX. Dibdin mentions a Missal in 8vo., of which the types, he says, belong to those of the Speculum, with the written date : "Geprent tot Haerlem bij mij Laurens Janszoon Coster, 1450." (Printed at Haarlem by me, L. J. C, 1450). X. Finally, in 1768, a fac-simile of the Abecedarium was made by Joh. Enschedé, with the inscription : " Eepresentation of the A.B.C., Pater Noster, &c, printed with moveable letters by Laurens Janszoon at Haarlem, for the use of his daughter's children, certainly the earliest remains of the first press." It clears our view to look over this propaganda all at once. None of these super- and sub-scriptions are any better than the deceptions concerning the fictitious Haarlemer Frederick Corsellis, printer at Oxford. By the side of the fictitious first Haarlem xylographer-typographer, Laurens Janszoon Coster, a second fictitious Haarlem printing-office was opened gradually under the firm : Heirs of Coster, and it was said to have existed till 1470. Did no one conceive that the second printing-office destroyed the first, and buried, with the heirs of Coster, the founder of the firm ? For, a Haarlem invention of typography, and that followed by a Haarlem printing-office from 1440—1470, therefore together from 1420 — 70, without a single human being having ever heard about them, is more impossible than impossible. Now and then, in moments when the inexorable logic startled them, the Costerians shut that shop of the heirs of Coster ; but then those books, with their equally impudent dates, made their appearance again, and the shop had to be re-opened. Is there a more biting satire on the Coster-fable conceivable ? In order not to appear more cruel than I really am, I prefer to have it written by Costerians. Seiz, in 1740. "Koster had hardly finished the first edition of his ' Spiegel der Behoudenis,' when one of his servants, a German by birth .... went, on Christmas night of the year 1440, when all the people had finished working and gone to church, to the printing-office, put some tools and some types in a bag, and absconded .... Koster was not a little perplexed and annoyed that his servant had played him such a trick, had robbed and ruined his press, andhad transferred his art to somewhere else, where he practised it now himself, as his own invention. But he could do nothing but re-establish his press. He again cast other types, not of lead, but of tin, which succeeded better than the first, and printed with them a second edition of the Spiegel, and afterwards an edition of the same book in Latin. We have no information as to what happened further with Laurens Koster and his printing- office." Gockinga, in 1767. ( ' M. Meerman has clearly shown that this Dona- tus {i.e. the Cornelis-fragment of 1474 !) was printed with moveable types, but he reasonably remarks that we are not indebted for it to Laurens but to his heirs, which is evident from the fact that we find here not only the full-stop (punctum), but also the semicolon (duo puncta). The accurate author is of opinion that this book was published a little later than the second (Dutch) Spiegel, be- tween the years 1460 and 1470." Meerman, in 1765. " We cannot think that the heirs of Lourens, after he had died, and the theft had been committed shortly afterwards (!), would have lost courage and no longer exercised such a profitable art. For his three sons Pieter, Andries, and Thomas were still alive .... Besides that Cornelis and other clever servants, whom Lourens had employed, were still at hand, after Gutenberg had escaped. We might wish that Scriverius and others had not erred so greatly as to assert that Lourens was so perplexed by the theft that he ex- ercised the art no longer, because it is certain that it was continued after his death. The in- dustrious heirs published two editions of the 'Spiegel.' Since they printed the Spiegels, they published, in other type : Historia Alexandri Magni, Regis Macedonia? de Pra?liis ; Tegetii Epitoma ; B. Hieronymi de viris illustribus ; Thomse a Kem- pis Opera varia." (N.B. — All these incunabula are editions of Ketelaer and De Leempt at Utrecht.) Koning, in 1816. "Nothing, forsooth, has tended more to lessen the value of the work of M. Meerman in the opinion of foreigners, than that part of it in which books are ascribed to the descendants of Koster, which were never printed by them." After Koning in his turn had fathered the "Facecie morales Laur. Valla?," and the " Singularia juris," upon them, he says : " All this ought to confirm us in our opinion, that the first Haarlem printing- office was continued for some time after the death of the first inventor, till about the year 1470, by his descendants or successors." COSTERIANISM. 129 De Vries, in 1823. It will be remembered that G. Braun, in his map of Haarlem, inserted a translation of the words of Guicciardini ; and that this proves nothing but copy- ing, is evident from what he writes under Mentz : Huic urbi typographical artis debetur inventio. In Guicciardini (= Braun) we read at the end of the popular story, which was simply related as a curiosity : " But, before the inventor could perfect his art and bring it to light himself, it is said that he died, and that for that reason his servant went to Mentz and practised there the art for the use of the general public," &c. With this quotation from Braun, "confirming (read, copying), the evidence of Guicciardini " was linked, in 1823, the following : " The surviving relatives of our Koster took, directly after the discovery of the theft (of which G. does not speak), all necessary measures to overtake the thief, but were not successful in their efforts. They resolved, nevertheless, to heep the robbed press a- going, and to recover the loss as soon as possible : not so much on account of the profit, as out of interest in the art (?) and esteem for the de- ceased, by whom the whole work, from the first beginning, had been devised and executed, and whose favoured doll it had been for many years. The son-in-law of Koster, Thomas Pieterszoon, who, as successor of his father-in-law, would manage the business, was a man of wealth and distinction, whom no direct aim at profit, and a more moderate ambition (where is the just this moment invented "interest in the art" gone to?) than the father, moved to feel concerned for the art. The simultaneous loss of the talented and industrious man, who had been the inventor and manager of everything, of the most practised servant, and of a great part of the most important tools, was not so easily to be replaced." De Tries, in 18-14. "Coster's son-in-law can have' had neither much inclination nor occasion to continue his secret art energetically, nor to inveut and make new and bet- ter tools, but made, no doubt, a shift with what was still serviceable. And when at last, by the import of foreign books which were provided with im- prints, the secret of the existence of the art, so long concealed, became known also in our country, and as that foreign work surpassed his in beauty, he lost, no doubt, all inclination to' go on any longer with a trade which would have to contend with so much emulation, and promised so very little profit for the future. Wherefore he at last resolved to get rid of his printing-office and book trade : sold his printing tools and all what belonged to them, and had only one or two pots (which De Vries, in 1850, provided even with an " appropriate inscrip- tion !") made of a quantity of worn and useless tin types, as a remembrancer of the paternal invention, to be preserved among his posterity. That such indeed must have been the case ; that there was, after Coster's death until about 1470, an uninter- rupted, carefully concealed, practice of printing; and that there existed in oar country for many y'ears an entire seminary of practisers of the art, is confirmed by many and strong evidences (!)" " The son-in-law and heir of Coster, Thomasz., although wealthy, had a numerous family, of at least seven children, four sons and three daughters. He cannot have slighted and neglected the press which his father-in-law had left behind, and which had been so dear to the beloved deceased, and had cost him so much. A prudent Dutchman does not so easily neglect things which yield good profits." Let us now see what follows! "We are not at liberty to decide positively which remains of early printing are the productions of Coster's press, except those distinctly mentioned by Zeil (Zell on Coster !) and Junius, .... nor may we build reasonings and conclusions on vague suppositions as to the condition, the time of working, and the productions of Coster's press after his death, about which history has said nothing at all." Who says this? De Yries, in 1841 ! Three years after- wards, however, he thought proper to re-open the printing-office about which history had said "nothing at all," in order not to leave Eenouard in embarrassment with his copy of the Saliceto. For the sake of this work it was again " very probable that the successor of Coster, on a familiar footing (!) with one of the Haarlem knights of St. John, had seen with him a manuscript (of the Saliceto), and had been enabled, through his intervention, to print (this work), and to sell the copies for manuscripts." This last trick especially is invaluable : to sell the Saliceto for manuscript ; and such a trick of the wealthy Thomas Pietersz., who had more regard for the art than for the profit ; and all this could be done by a firm of which history has told us "nothing at all." Certainly a St. John's knight, with whom Thomas was on " a familiar footing," was necessary in this novel. Just as there is no longer any excuse for this bungling, so the days have also passed that we could skirmish with one or two Donatuses and one Doctrinale and one Abecedarium, as experiments of one printer. This was possible in former times ; but since we have found not one fragment, but an every-day increasing literature of Donatuses and Doctrinales, this obscure Haarlem manufactory of Donatuses of the inventor becomes a childish play. Moreover, the dates, all after 1474, fit in history, but not in the fable. For, a small, cheap vellum school-book may safely be supposed to have fallen very soon, by a hundred accidents, into the bands of a bookbinder. This is more natural than that Cornelis preserves a piece of vellum 130 COSTERIANISM. printed before his birth, and deposits it after 1474, as a kind of providence, in the church of St. Bavo, in order to make its appearance as "witness" when the German boldness has got to a vexatious height. A "providence" which plays the Mentzers a trick in such a rascally manner, and which is so " clever," is a providence which is suitable to Coster, but not to the seriousness of truth. _ Cornelis is an octogenarian, according to Junius. Well, that octogenarian died in 1522, so that he was at least not born before 1440. Besides, therefore, that he could not have had a hand in the Speculum nostne salutis of Junius, he could, infinitely less, have had anything to do with the Donatuses, which are fancied in 1420, 1430, &c. But at the age of thirty-five, in 1475, he could be a bookbinder for the cathedral, and also use Donatuses of 1470 and later. As the Donatus question has continually moved in a circle, and the Costerians have also in this case indefatigably heaped the one logical sin upon the other, espe- cially the sin which is called subreptio, it ought to be settled at once. The Costerians of the 17th century confused, from misunderstanding, xylography with the earliest typography. They did not, therefore, _ distort the words of the Cologne chronicle, but explained them just as Accursius. A fragment of a xylographic Donatus would have appeared to them a sufficient evidence against the pretensions of Mentz. Scriverius " sang " — Where are you hidden in a corner, Donatus ? whither Do you command me to go ? Where shall anybody find me Such a wished-for book : to Haarlem the dearest pledge, Which may help you in your honor, and be a shame to Mentz ? What means are there ? If I knew where to find it, I would travel to the farthest Indies : I would bear with patience the hottest sun, If I found there the desired Donatus. They might take me to the North Pole, If it were to be found there. What should I not stir ? Heaven and Hell. If Scriverius had got his wish, if at that time already one or other fragment of a typographic Donatus had been found, he would not have regarded it as the admonitio to the Mentz invention, alluded to in the Cologne chronicle. He would have reasoned thus : the chronicle speaks, just as Accursius, of Donatuses cut on blocks ; this Donatus has been printed with cast types, like the Spiegel, — ergo, "this is not the right Peter." Later, when they began to define the invention in question better, the reasoning was reversed thus : this discovered fragment of Donatus (although printed c. 1490 in the convent Den Hem, near Schoonhoven!) is typographic, con- sequently the chronicle could not mean xylographic Donatuses. The origin of this mad logic is frankly described by Seiz, and I quote his description, because, by tracing the beginnings of false reasoning we save ourselves the fruitless reading of books which are based on them. " Johannes Enschedé bought at a sale in Haarlem, July 16, 1740, a Duitse Psalter in small 8vo., printed at Delft, in Holland, by Heinrich Eckert van Homberch, anno 1498, bound in leather, as was the custom formerly ; and he, observing two slips of vellum inserted in the binding of the book, printed in old-fashioned type, he loosened them, and found, to his great surprise, that they were the remains of Grammatica Donati ; and after we had carefully examined and compared the types, it was obvious that they were of the same make, and had the same defects, as those of the first (read second) Dutch Speculum of L. Koster. There we have, we said, a proof of what the Cologne chronicle and Mariangelus Accursius have said of a Donatus printed in Holland [in tabula incisal], before books were printed at Mentz. Any one may now see the aforesaid slips at Johannes Enschedé's, and compare them with the types of the Spiegel, and he will be convinced that they are really of one and the same making, and that consequently these slips are really the remainders of the Donatus printed by Koster at Haarlem between 1440 and '50. Viciimis causa! We have triumphed over Mentz .' " COSTEBIANISM. 131 It was possible in 1740 to amuse oneself with such cheap victories ; but he who would wish to celebrate them at present, would make himself ridiculous. While Junius had confined himself to the mere name of the inventor, without knowing anything of his social sphere and position, Scriverius made him (by mistake) a sheriff, and (from misunderstanding) a practiser, even an inventor, of xylography. An unnamed biographer of the fictitious Haarlem printer, however, knew already in 1730 much more of him. He tells us in a : Life of Lourens Jansz. Koster, Haarlemer, first inventor of the art of printing: "Lourens Koster often used to take a waïk after dinner in the Hout. From his infancy he had been an amateur of the art of engraving, and he went often to the house of such an artist, to spy from him the art in silence. "While walking in the Hout he took now and then a piece of the bark of a tree, either a beech, an oak, or a lime-tree, cut some letters out of it with a knife, and put them, after having wrapped them in paper, in his pocket." And further : " We need not think that, whoever (at that time) looked' for a written book, had to go to the convents, to fetch it from the priests ; but we may reasonably suppose that there were at that time shops in the town, where the priests brought the books which they had written, in order to sell them, and we do not hesitate to say that Lourens Koster had such a book-shop, where one could obtain pens, paper, and ink for money and kind words, as well as written books, just as we have known, and even at present, councillors and assessors, in some towns of Holland, who were not ashamed of keeping a shop, of which they derived great profits. Koster could sell his printed books much cheaper than those written by hand. And although he had to keep up the price, to avoid suspicion of the invented art, he seems to have sold them at a much lower price than the written ones, whereby he got many purchasers, whom he did not want to send empty away, or to wait, while he had an abundance of copies. But the multitude of buyers increasing from day to day, outside and inside Haarlem, the work so increased that Koster could not do it alone with his brother-in-law, Thomas Pietersz. He engaged amongst others a certain Jan Paustus, or Fust, by birth a German, of Mentz," &c.' We know that Van Mander (born in 1548 in Flanders, but who had been a citizen of Haarlem for twenty years) published in 1604 a book on painters (Haerlem, 4to.). On page 200 we find the following words : " The very useful art of printing books, of which Haarlem claims, with sufficient evidence, the honour of the invention " (die seer nutte Const van Boeck-drucken, daer Haerlem met ghenoech bescheyt haer vermeet den roem van d'eerste vindinghe te hebben). In the edition of 1764 (Amster- dam, 8vo. I. p. 16), Jacobus de Jongh, who supplied the indefinite words of Van Mander (for the last wrote before the Batavia had been printed !), was obliged, by the name of " L. J. Koster, at Haarlem, member of the government, and several times sheriff," to acknowledge: " although people in Holland also disputed him and his native town the honour of this invention, trying even to argue that, according to all. appearance there never was a Laurens Koster . . . ." This alarming fact, however, did not prevent the annotator continuing : " It would only be just to place and esteem Koster among the painters, at least among the engravers, because the amateurs of the prent-printing owe to him their amusement, as he was as well, nay rather, an inventor of the art of prenting than of the art of printing, and he cut and printed the first prents." Let no one fancy that such fictions were forged only in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century. The Costerians went indefatigably on. Let us listen attentively for one moment to Dr. Abraham De Vries. (Junius, when relating the theft, draws two big lines between Haarlem and Mentz ; he says that Johan (Faust) went to Mentz via Amsterdam and Cologne, without saying whether Johan kept up correspondence from those places with his former little bed- fellow, Cornells ; without giving any reason why he did not take some rest also at Bonn and Coblentz ; without saying whether Faust had embarked already at Cologne, with the stolen printing-office, and rowed straight on to his native place. Junius mentions 1 Levensbeschrijving van beroemde en geleerde mannen. Second Part. No. TI. Amsteldam. 1730. 8vo. pp. 9 — 82 : Leven van Lourens Jansz. Koster Haarlemmer, eerste vinder der Drukkunst. 132 COSTERIANISM. only Amsterdam and Cologne, in his time the commercial route between Holland and Germany. But let us now hear what De Vries contrives to prepare out of these two names, according to the homiletic art of cooking words : — Beloved brethren in Lourens ! your religious attention will find my text in the Batavia of the holy prophet Junius, which I will read from the inspired original, trickling with spiritual richness and historical bliss. It runs thus : Amstelodamum principio adit, inde Coloniam Agrippinam.) " After he had committed the theft, says Junius, the thief went first to Amsterdam, afterwards to Cologne. This does not mean, as some, with inconceivable neglect of all sound exegesis, have understood the words, that the thief travelled by Amsterdam and Cologne ; for what could be more indifferent to the reader than to know the route the thief took, and why only these two places were named ? No, Junius would have us understand : that they traced the thief twice, — twice, first at Amsterdam, and afterwards at Cologne, they were on the point of catching him ; but every time he perceived in time that he was] watched, and succeeded in making his escape. That this must be the meaning is perfectly clear from the nature of the case, the whole connexion and the studied brevity and concise- ness of the style of Junius, and is incontrovertibly proved by what immediately follows : that the thief, arriving at last at Mentz, found himself in safety, ceu ad asyli aram, ubi quasi extra telorum jactum (quod dicitur) positus, tuto degeret; that is to say, now for the first time sitting, as it were, by the altar of an inviolable asylum, where, shot- free from the arrows of his pursuers, he could live in safety for the future. The pursuit of a criminal who had once contrived to escape from the jurisdiction where the crime had been committed, was at that time a very difficult work, because every town, every village, every manor, possessing its own jurisdiction, formed a sort of separate state, where judicial inquiries in behalf of a neighbouring place could be made only after very troublesome negotiations. The thief, relying upon this circumstance, did not hesitate to stop for a considerable time at Amsterdam, and had probably already tried to establish himself there under another name. But Koster's relatives did not sit quietly down. M. Koning discovered in the treasury accounts notices of an extra- ordinary busy negotiation of the constabulary of Haarlem with that of Amsterdam. (Here follows the already exposed deception of Koning respecting the unusual mortality of 1439.) From this fact we may with much probability infer, that serious efforts were made at once to discover and pursue the thief, and that the inquiries at Amsterdam, where they had learned he had stopped for a considerable time, were continued for a long time before they discovered the place where he was concealed, whence, however, he had made his escape before they came to look for him. " The fugitive understood, of course, that after this pursuit at Amsterdam, he could not be safe in the whole dominion of the Netherland State. He retreated therefore to Cologne, where he could not expect to be any longer in danger. But the son-in-law and other relations of Koster went on with their inquiries, and learned at last that the criminal had started for Cologne and now resided there. Between that town and Haarlem there existed at that time a busy trade, and an amicable relation between the magistracies of both these towns. It was therefore not difficult for the magistracy of Haarlem to persuade that of Cologne to give orders that the criminal who had fled .thither should be traced' and captured, but his cleverness threw them off the scent. Only after two fruitless efforts to conceal himself elsewhere, the thief arrived at Mentz. Departed from Haarlem in the very last- days of 1439 (!), he has no doubt been staying in the beginning of the following year, 1440, for a consi- derable time at Amsterdam." It would not be difficult, with such exegetic bungling, to publish the diary kept by the thief during his romantic tour. All the arguments of Dr. A. de Vries are of the same bad alloy. 1 Koning, on the other hand, was in the habit of first making one i Eclaircissemens sur 1'hist. de l'iuvention de l'imprimerie, cont. : Lettre a M. D. Schinkel, ou réponse a la notice de M. Guichard sur le Speculum humane salvationis ;— dissert, sur le nom de Coster et sur sa COSTERIAiaSM. 133 hypothesis, then a second, and proving this by the unproved first one. We advance much with such proceedings. I have said already that the Coster-question has never been treated as an prétendue charge de sacristaiu ; recherches faites a l'occasion de la quatrième féte seculaire a Haarlem en 1823. Par A. de Tries. Trad, du Hollandais par J. J. F. Noordziek. La Haye. 18-13. 8vo. Bewijsgronden der duitschers voor hunne aanspraak op de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst, of beoor- deeling van het werk van A. E. Umbreit : die Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst. Door Abraham de Tries, s' G-ravenhage. 1844. 8vo. Argumens des Allemande en faveur de leur pretention a l'invention de l'lmprimerie, ou examen critique de l'ouvrage de Mr. TJmbreit . . . par A. de Tries. Traduit du Hollandais par J. J. F. Noordziek. La Haye. 1845. 8vo. [Dr. A. de Tries :] Catalogus Bibliothecae Publicae Harlemensis. Harlemi. 1848. 8vo. Supple- menten 1852. [Dr. A. de Tries :] Hedendaagsche voorstelling van Coster en de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst, in Frankrijk, 's Gravenhage. 1853. 8vo. All these works teem with those mistakes of method which had been overcome already in every other branch of scientific inquiries. Their chief fault is a reasoning a priori, which, arising from a shrewd system of suppositions, possibilities, prejudices, does not allow history to speak with incorrupti- ble exactness, but makes of it a simple ornamentation, and a means of denying every one else a voice in the matter. Just as we have theological and philosophical dogmas, so we have also an historical dogma, that seeks to withdraw the most " critical " things from criticism, that monopolizes a sacred, unassailable doctrine (in our question the infallibility of Junius), and, in the worship of that dogma, bids farewell to strict impartiality, to logic, and all unwelcome facts. In this way the evidence of the authors of the 16th century on the origin of typography gradually degenerated into inspired texts, of which every syllable is capable of being expanded into a sermon, provided the text speaks in favour of, and not against, the favoured dogma. In this last case people fondle and distort the text, until, buried under a mountain of sophisms, it says just the contrary of what a sincere exegesis requires to read in it. We should have, for instance, abundant materials for a striking article on the martyrdom of the well- known words of Accursius (c. 1530, but only "printed 1591) on xylographic Donatuses in Holland, the im- portance of which has been just as much extolled as their utter worthlessness was exposed, according to the way in which they vs ere interpreted. Partiality is by such a method unavoidable, and De Tries metes in this respect freely with two measures ; evidences for this opinion are to be found in plenty. I will give a few examples : — 1st. The character of the authors is extolled or abused, according to their relation to the claims of Haarlem. Erasmus, for instance, knows, notwithstanding his relation to Talesius, nothing about a Haarlem invention of printing, but ascribes it twice to Mentz. And in order to explain this troublesome fact, it is simply insinuated that Erasmus (the greatest scholar of his time, loaded with honour even of princes) was induced to give this evidence (i.e. if it has any signification against better knowledge) by a silver cup, which he received as a present from the elector of Mentz, and — out of respect for the printer Frobenius ! (This insinuation concludes with changing the words of Erasmus into a " pretty clear evidence in favour of Haarlem.") The counter-arguments are repeatedly called " miserable cavillings," the argument of a G-utenbergian is always " sly," " crafty," " impudent," founded on a "pia fraus " ; but on the other side the most insignificant author obtains by the most simple (welcome) observation the most honourable epithetB (the learned, the judicious, the greatest judge, the honest, frank, truthful a;). Now, all these vices and all these virtues are psychologically possible, but — only not all the last exclusively among the Costerians. Is Schoepflin in his defence for Strasburg capable of a pia fraus ? the fanatical enthusiast for Haarlem is none the less guaranteed against it ; is Erasmus liable to be influenced by a present? — Junius, the physician and curator of the Latin school at Haarlem, married there with a Haarlem woman, and, paid by government for being the historian of his country, is not accessible to any other but sacred influences ; if the authority of Trithemius may be rejected because he shares the super- stition of his time and class, — the same canon has to be applied also to Junius. The man who thinks himself mentally minor enough to ask the permission of a theologian for reading prohibited medical books ; who in the spirit of his time makes mention of the Edam mermaid, and says that he will not reject the story, because the remembrance of it is still so fresh and — is handed down to posterity by the matrons (a mulierculis de manu ad manum tradita) ; who does not spare his readers the mawkish miracle of the " little woman of Loosduinen " (who produced. 364 children alive at a birth, who were baptized by Bishop Guido, for the sake of convenience, all under the name of John and Betsy, whose little souls, with their mother, were with God, and whose little bodies " Sub hoc saxo requiescunt ") — when he relates something, this Hadrianus Junius stands as little above criticism as his fellow-believer Trithemius. One and the same man got sometimes two different characters, if he, with regard to Coster, — no, with regard to the invented portraits of Coster — became contaminated with heresy. Doubts had arisen in foreign countries whether M. van Westreenen really " believed " in Coster. The reply to this answer was : " M. Y. W., who in his Essay (of 1809) has confessed a belief (!) so reverential and agreeing in every respect with the opinion of his relative (Meerman), he, the celebrated possessor of so many incunabula, the scholar, presented with many decorations, should secretly be an unbeliever (!)... Who can believe anything so unchivalrous of the manifold knight, anything so contradictory to the Dutch character of the ancient-noble Hollander, who obtained so much honour by his writings in behalf of the honour of Holland ? " Why ? The decorated scholar, not only nobleman but a noble man, has written a good book and deserves respect. But— the baron, that awful radical, questions, years afterwards, not the Haarlem invention, but simply the genuineness of the representations which passed as portraits of Coster, and we may hear how now the same decorations tend to destroy 134 COSTEEIANISM. historical question, but as a dogma, as a question of faith. This also we are able to prove as clearly as the day. Coornhert is the first who tells us what was believed at Haaflem, and what he believed himself. Junius commences his story with a solemn oath as to his credibility, while afterwards the gist of every Coster-argument consisted of a verbose plea for the " credibility of Junius." In the arguments of Koning, Scheltema, and De Vries, we meet every moment with clerical terms of faith. And when at last Noordziek began to beat the drum to awaken the public, he made use of language, as if he were recruiting 'for the papal infallibility or for the corporeal assumption of Mary. I give one or two proofs of his drum-beating :' " The tone of contempt and ridicule with which foreigners (after the work of M. Meerman) spoke of our claims, became louder and louder, so that the Dutch themselves, who visited Germany, or read much German, were silenced, by it. Faith was made to waver." " We might reasonably have expected that the book of Koning ought to have brought the unbelievers among foreigners also to a better insight." " The additions published afterwards by M. Koning remained unknown in foreign countries. Hence the tone of unbelief, ridicule, and abuse, in which the Germans and French indulged with respect to the claims of Haarlem, continued as impudent as before." " M. Mortillaro was converted by reading the treatise of M. Tonelli, and the opinion that the honour of the invention is due to our countryman, is now common in Sicily." The Sicilians, that highly developed people, including the Princess of Belgiojosa, monks", fishermen, and bandits, are therefore all converted to the Coster-gospel. How refreshing is such an information to our patriotic heart ! Betsy of Scheveningue also him. " If M. Yan Westreenen had not used tricks, to make himself, during his travels through foreign countries, agreeable to influential foreigners, how comes it, that he, who never has produced anything but little papers of very small value and signification, who never rendered any excellent service of public notoriety to his country or to science, sees himself nevertheless presented, in a manner wholly unprecedented, with thirteen decorations, and with such a great number of titles of honour from foreign courts and scientific societies ? " And in another place the man " who obtained so much honour by his writings in behalf of the honour of Holland " is spoken of thus : " How foreigners think of the man and take him for a ridiculous fool is evident, amongst other things, from Heiffenberg's Bulletin du Bibliophile Beige." What on earth does " the ridiculous fool " want to obj ect against Coster-engravings^ of which it lias been proved that they were spurious. What has a " believer " to do with the genuineness or spuriousness of a relic ? 2nd. The citations in favour of Haarlem were mutilated (clipped), those in favour of Mentz concealed, and the two kinds of citations weighed with false weight. Since Scriverius (1628), the important evidence of TJlric Zell was quoted, out always torn to pieces in a way which no ecclesiastical council could improve upon. The same took place with the quotation from Guicciardini. If we, like Dibdin, count for nothing the literary evidences in favour of Mentz, more than seventy in number, and reduce them to — two, then it may be permitted to take off a little from the Haarlem provision. Was Guicciardini, copied by others without investigation, for instance, an authority to whom we could refer conscientiously? His communication only proves that he, during the decisive decennium of the tradition, 1560 — 1570 (Van Zuren, Coornhert, Junius), learned something at Antwerp concerning the popular belief at Haarlem, perhaps by correspondence with Junius, who had been entrusted, on the part of the States of Holland, with a work of the same nature as that which Guicciardini finished in 1566. If we further observe that Guicciardini, while very briefly describing Hoorn, speaks with much praise of Junius (Dottere in medicina, ma dottissimo aDCora in tutte Ie altre scienza, gran' Poeta, & veramente Philosopho chiaro & celebre), — then is Junius the most probable source from which Guicciardini derived his indefinite information. But I have no intention to buckle on the harness in defence of this supposition. (Some evidences of a correspondence between Guicciardini and Junius could perhaps be found in the letters of Junius, which are preserved in the Library of the University of "Utrecht and belonged formerly to Burman. An exact comparison also of the Batavia with the Descrittione would perhaps explain their relations. But it would not reward the trouble.) The true reason of Mentz being mentioned on the earliest incunabula was discovered by De Vries in 1823 : it arose from a desire of the typographers for customers : an explanation which is as simple as we can wish for. But considering the silent typographers at Haarlem in 1483, '84, '85 and '86, and the silent Haarlemers who printed already since 1476 in Italy, a peculiar courage is required to be able to ask : Is there a stronger evidence for [for ? I] a Haarlem origin of the art ? De Vries, however, tried one effort to fill up the menacing gap. He commented on the inscription : "Nlcolaus Petri de Harlemo de Hollandia Almanus (although of the same kind as that of Theodoricus de "Rhijnsburg et Reinaldus de Noviomago Alamanni, Johannes Alamannus de Medemblik) thus: This circumstantial mention |of Haarlem as birthplace seems to serve as recommendation or as a, desire of making a show with the name of Haarlem. i Het geschilstuk betrekkelijk de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst, geschiedkundig uiteengezet door J. J. F. Noordziek. Haarlem. 1848. 8vo. b COSTBKIANISM. 135 believes strongly, unshakeably, and devoutly, "in our countryman." At the inaugura- tion of the statue, Pauwel Foreestier (Pseudonyme of M, Alberdingk Thijm) (Dietsche Warande, 1856, p. 454) gave vent to the following overstrained monkish ecstasy : — "Forgive me, ghost of the virtuous Coster! forgive the offensive shudder! you have, you have existed indeed, a man of flesh and bone, in spite of me — of every one, of the most pronounced idealist. I believe in you ; I am convinced that you lived and worked in the year 1420 or 30 ; I press, with emotion, your pale, bony, and delicate right hand. I believe that you are the man of the Donatus, of the Spieghel onser behoudenisse . . . Why should I not believe in you ? There is the spot in the Hout, where you found [picked up] the noble art ; there, near that handsome monument. Yonder is the house, the Coster's house, on the market-place, where your cradle was rocked whitom. Noble sheriff, dilettante printer, you have been the dupe of that thief Guytenberg ; the dupe of those same Mentzers, who were known of old as great traitors. And why should we not believe in you ? Is there anything obscure in your history ? Have we not the grave-register, in which your name is inserted among those who mingled their ashes with our dear paternal ground ? Here are the letters of your name, one after another — it is not Laurens, but Lourens ; here are your arms, with the honourable ordinary bar through the lion. No, that bar is no emblem of the bar which runs through your history. No bar runs through it ; but that corrupted race, that brood of vipers, the reviewers, would make any one doubt everything. But in full earnest — if the man who was celebrated there at Haarlem, the 15th, 16th, and 17th of July, must be a myth, a shadow, an idea, a poësy, a painted curtain, where nothing is behind ; then I declare De Euyter and Prince William I. and Rembrandt, nay, Prince Frederick, and all other admirals, painters, princes, and inventors of arts and sciences, to be myths as well. He who has been at Haarlem, and really has been there, ought to be convinced. Scholars and believers do not agree so, words here and silence there do not so harmonize, numerous corpora delicti do not come together in such striking order — when we have to do with a national prejudice, with an amusement, with the identity of a pot-sherd." Wittily argued, if it were to prove the Conceptio Immaculata. But such an exclamation would be impossible by the statues of De Ruyter, Cats, Rembrandt, Vondel, Tollens, Van Hogendorp. And we must not forget that Foreestier addressed so enthusiastically the s7ien//-dilettante- printer, while another stood there, and the tallow-chandler gave a significant glance at M. Joh. Enschedé ! Fanaticism and heretic-hunting, inseparable from every creed, because the calm- ness of objectivity is wanting, betrayed themselves very soon among the Costerian sect. Scriverius was bold enough to add to his "Laurecrans" the portrait of some hypochondriac, which, without a word about its origin, had to pass as a likeness of L. J. Coster. He wrote under it : " Tana quid archetypos et prasla Mogvntia jactas ? Harlemi archetypos prselaque nata scias. Extulit hie, monstrante Deo, Lavrentivs artem. Dissimulare virum hunc, dissimulare Deum est." Coster-denial was atheism. This magnificent beginning was a prelude to things which were yet to come. But because it is impossible to out-do this logic of Pieter Scriverius, we had better consider at once the evidences of the sectarian falsification of the question. We have only to represent clearly to ourselves the course of the polemics. The attack was not made before the end of the 16th century by Haarlem, by the publication of the Batavia. In tlie year 1600 Bertius gave some notoriety to the (modified) fable of Junius, in consequence of which Nic. Serrarius defended, in 1604, the right of Mentz. In 1630, Junius was refuted by Naudé ; in 1639 by MaUinckrodt, who was, in his turn, opposed byBoxhorn in 1640. The quarrel had begun. This historical beginning, however, was immediately falsified by the Costerians. Instead of acknowledging that the Haarlem claims were made, after Mentz had been for more than a century in undis- 136 GERARDU9 MEERMAN. puted possession of the glory of the invention, the parts were reversed : the people at Haarlem hypocritically feigned to be attacked, while they represented Mentz as the attacking party, endeavouring to rob Haarlem of an old and generally acknowledged right. In this way they proceeded until our time, with all the obstinacy and rage of a bad conscience. Let us only hear what the first disputant asserts, what Scriverius dared to write against those whose attention had been first drawn to the pretension of Haarlem by Junius and Bertius. " Printing was invented at Haarlem, according to the explanation of Junius, Coornhert, Zurenus, and others. The Mentzers and others who conspire with them object to this, and I will give a brief sketch of what has been bragged and written lately, wide and far, in behalf of their defence. Serrarius denies, with immoveable countenance, that printing was first invented elsewhere but in Mentz." What " immoveable countenance " was necessary to doubt a story published in 1588, and concerning the year 1440, and which nobody outside Haarlem, nor even inside the town, for a whole century had ever heard of? Scriverius argues, with in- tolerable bluntness, that people ought simply to have complied with the story of Junius. " Although Hadrianus Junius — relating what old, respectable, and dis- tinguished magistrates had heard from mouth to mouth from their forefathers, and which they confirmed with strong protests — ought to have been believed by every one, as he was no relation to the dead Laurens Jansz. Koster . . . Yet it pleased, henceforth, the Germans and others, having often lost their reason either by mis- understanding or anger, to ascribe the invention of printing to the town of Mentz, which was the highest injury to our dear town of Haarlem." And, addressing Serrarius, he says : — " As you have read the book of Junius, who has proved his good faith sufficiently, who was a blameless man and free from deceit, why do you talk any more ? In vain you wish to rob the art from the Haarlemers ; in vain do the people of Mentz try to divide this honour. I pray you read my work, and, if you have any sense of shame, forbear, and abandon your false work." While on the Spiegel he wrote this beautiful line : — " You have now caused Mentz to stink everywhere." The second apologist proceeded in the same way. Boxhorn wrote in 1644 : "As Lam-ens Coster sold the printed books for manuscripts, he has prejudiced himself and his honour. For that reason ignorant people ascribed the invention of printing to Mentz. I had given this opinion after M. Scriverius had wreathed that brilliant laurel round the head of our talented Haarlemer, thinking that this would have been sufficient, and would have shut the mouths of the Mentzers and the Germans who spoke in her favour. However, the Munster deacon, Bernard Mallinckrodt, opposed, some time ago, the truth. But we have shown, in an especial treatise, how faint and lame his pretended arguments were." XIX. GERARDUS MEERMAN. In 1760, the celebrated work of the Strasburg professor, Daniel Schoepfiin, Vindicice typographical, was published. Although Meerman had formerly, in opposition to Wagenaar, declared the Coster-story to be a novel, and that he was convinced, for good reasons, of the priority of the Latin to the Dutch editions of the Speculum, yet his vanity urged him to publish also a book like that of Schoepfiin. It should also be a quarto, and be provided with facsimilia, but it should be executed in a still GEBAEDUS MEEBMAN. 137 more magnificent style. Without believing honestly in the Haarlem invention; without submitting to the text of Junius, and seeing no chance of attacking the right of Mentz, he devised a loophole, by dividing the claims of the towns Mentz, Strasburg, and Haarlem, which were at that time vieing with one another. To give it an appear- ance, he imagined two unknown and totally impossible modes of printing books with moveable wooden, and with brass types, each letter cut separately. Coster obtained as his part the invention of the wooden, Johan Gensfieisch (whom he distinguishes from Gutenberg) that of the cut metal, Schöffer that of the cast, types. This nonsense has so often been exposed already that it is superfluous to do it again. The worst of all is, that Meerman was repeatedly and urgently cautioned by the experienced typographer Joh. Enschedé, that he was devising an impossible system. The learned fool was too conceited and too dishonest to listen to the Haarlem citizen, who far surpassed him in sagacity afld competence with respect to the question. He com- menced his work in 1760, and the following year he hastily published a "Conspectus originum typographicaruni," ' while the work itself did not appear before 1765. I have to justify my disrespectful tone towards Meerman and his work. The perusal of forty autograph letters concerning the publication of the monument, which he intended to erect to himself, not to the sheriff Louwerijs, perfectly enables me to do so. In the summer of 1760, immediately after having read the work of Schoepflin, and without a thorough study of the subject, he addressed Joh. Enschedé at Haarlem, proposing the publication of a "work on Typography," which was to be a quarto of c. 18 sheets, printed as handsomely as possible, at the expense of the author, with the promise of placing the name of Enschedé on the title when the work turned out well. It would take, however, " some two or three months before he could begin to print it." Meanwhile they could make a sketch of the first leaf of the Spiegel and Donatus ; "but it would be better to do the Spiegel first, because then the vellum leaf of the Donatus could be stretched, in order that the lines should agree exactly with those of the Spiegel ; else Fournier would criticize me terribly." Meerman often and anxiously alludes to this trick. For instance, in a letter of 23rd Feb. 1761 : " I take Van Noorden to be a very clever man, and the drawing of the page of Donatus may safely be entrusted to him ; but he ought to soak and stretch the vellum, that the length of the lines may agree with the leaf of the Spiegel drawn by him. Else we must expect remarks." Ex ungue leonem ! But I find other, equally distinct, traits. With respect to the fable of Atkyns, defended in Meerman's book, he writes: "I have found a good expedient (!) to defend it, by saying (!) that Corsellis was the first printer in England with wooden letters, as Laurens Jansz. has been (which I will prove to be quite possible), and Caxton the first in metal letters, as in that sense Thierry Martens was the first printer in Holland." Exactly: Meerman found "expedients," and this is the whole secret of this plea of his vanity. On 8 Oct. 1760 he requested to have about ten lines figured of the first leaf of the Historia Alexandri Magni (printed at Utrecht); "for," he writes, "I think I shall be able to show that this was printed by the heirs of Laurens Jansz." And although afterwards (14 Jan. 1761) he feels obliged to acknowledge : " I begin to doubt very much whether the Thomas a Kempis, and consequently also the Hist. Alex. Magni, were really by the heirs of Laurens, for at the beginning of the work of Kempis it was said that he was already dead, and he died in 1471 : ergo, not printed before A. 1472 ; at that time Thierry Martens had already arrived in the Netherlands, and who says . . . that the descendants of Laurens were still printing at that time?" — yet, notwithstanding this opinion of 1761, he told us in 1765 that the Historia Alex. Magni was printed at Haarlem by the heirs of Laurens ! The honest doubts, however, of 14 Jan. 1761, were accompanied again by the remark: " I hope 1 Conspectus originum typographicaram, a Meermanno proxime in lucem edendarum. In usum amicorum typis desoriptus. 1761. (Hag. Comit.) 8vo. Plan dn traite des origines typographiques, par M. Meerman. Traduit du latin en francais. Amsterdam (Paris) 1762. 8vo. By Claude Pierre Goujet. T 188 GERAKDUS MEERMAN. that the engraver of the Donatus has soaked the vellum leaf ; else the lines of this book would not agree with those of the first edition of the Speculum." He asked to borrow the edition of the Spiegel by Veldener, giving as his motive : "As I hope to draw a new argument, from the comparison of the different spelling of this and the two former editions, for the priority of the first edition, about which I shall consult competent people." I see that among the competent people consulted was even Fournier, who gave at that time the only true explanation, that the types of the so-called earliest Spiegel " were very worn." But the truth was no corn in Meerman's mill of expedients. Finally, as to the person of the fictitious inventor, Meerman, in a letter of 29 Aug. 1760, asks for a copy of the sheriff-arms of Louwerijs Janszoen, in order "to send it' to some connoisseurs to investigate to what family he be- longed. For I feel sure that he was not called Coster, but that he derived that name only from the office he held. And it is a mistake of Scriverius [Junius] to say that this office was hereditary in his family, the contrary of which appeared to me from an old charter." Thus speaks the publisher of the old pedigree, and thereupon, falsifying the text, calls his hobby-horse JEdituus. Eeturning afterwards to the arms, he says : " On the ground of these arms I will try, on very probable reasons, to link Laurens with the family of Van der Duyn." Because, according to the arms, he was "evidently a nobleman." The poor nobleman-sheriff-innkeeper, martyr of probabilism, changed into a sexton-sheriff- woodengraver-printer ! Enough has been said on the value of Meerman's beautiful book. It cost him a great deal of money, for it was to surpass that of Schoepflin in everything. (" Fournier has- ridiculed Schoepflin on account of the inexactness of his plates. I should not wish, for hundred ducats, that such remarks could be made on my plates.") The paper was to be of the finest, even if it cost 15 florins the ream ; a number of engravers, " the greatest artists," were entrusted with the work, and afterwards dismissed as bunglers (Folkema, Lyonet, Van der Spijk). While Houbraken was good enough to engrave the portrait of Laurens Jansz., the chief person, the author had his own made in France. " My portrait is being engraved by Daullé at Paris, he being an artist of the first rank, in comparison with whom Houbraken is nothing. He makes the whole portrait himself, while Houbraken does only the head. I pay him 3,000 French livres, and I should have had it from Houbraken perhaps for 400 or less. But there is master above master. This will come in the beginning of my work." Now, you really look very satisfied, in the beginning of your work, oh advocate-apostle ; while the Enkhuizen divine looks somewhat doubtful, because he does not know with what right he is exhibited there. The mistakes of Meerman are, I repeat it, the more inexcusable, because he knew better. The able and frank Johannes Enschedé omitted no opportunity for many years to correct him. What was his reward ? He tells it in a letter to M. J. Visser. " I have lent M. Meerman all my early editions, all what was rare, and all he asked was at his service ; but when I asked him to lend me a book, I received not even an answer to my polite request, because I did not like to call white black and black white. It is a pity his laborious work is based on such false grounds. Gockinga, the echo of Meerman, has, by his translation, augmentation, and, as he thinks, explanation, obscured the truth still more." The warning Joh. Enschedé fared no better than his warning descendant and namesake. Meerman was not inclined to give up his wooden types, his " expedient," for in that case he would not be able to do anything against the rights of Mentz. De Vries did not wish to abandon the sheriff, for with the chandler the Haarlem structure of lies falls immediately to pieces. In such falsifications of history people not only obstinately persevered, but behaved as if the claims of Haarlem were gradually winning, those of Mentz losing, ground. I cite again Abraham De Vries. "Not impudent enough to declare an account, so elaborate and circumstantial, and confirmed by such unexceptionable witnesses and evidences as that of Junius, as a mere fiction, and yet seeing no chance to contradict it with sufficient reason,' GEBARDUS MEERMAN. 139 the partisans of Mentz tried to save themselves through a loophole, and to enforce it as well on themselves as on others, namely : that Junius, however learned he may have been, had not the least knowledge of the proper nature of the art of printing. " It is well known that for some time several German and French authors, not able^ to refute conclusively the evidences advanced for Haarlem's claim, and not willing to cede to foreigners the honour which they had hitherto appropriated entirely or partly to their country, have not hesitated to play the ungenerous trick of confusing, by a haughty, imperious, and sarcastic tone, the antagonists of their pretended rights, which they could not maintain any longer in a legitimate way ; to represent them in the eyes of ignorant people as worthy of no attention, and so to silence them." 1 Of Meerman's work De Vries says (we are now in 1823) truly: "The work of the learned, but not very judicious Meerman, has done more injury to Haarlem's cause than all its antagonists together. ' ' Very well ! But what follows a few pages further ? " The foreigners attacked the heavily-armed defender of Haarlem by airy assaults, and having, with great ease, beaten out of his hands and smashed a single weak piece of an unsuitable weapon, with which he in an evil moment had provided himself, they mocked at the rest of the real and uninjured armour of the unconquered — nay, not even in any tender part wounded — adversary, ventured themselves no further in such a combat, but tried, by setting up a loud - shout of triumph, to give themselves the appearance of acknowledged victors . . . This vain tattle of thoughtless super- ficiality, accepted and echoed by numerous credulous people as the living language of well-founded conviction, had gradually perplexed and confused a great deal of the civilized world outside old Netherland . . . but — at last the ' Holland Society of Sciences ' bestirred themselves for the violated honour of their meritorious country- man," and — allowed themselves to be taken in by the literary rascal Jacobus Koning. Further: "The claims of Strasburg, beyond doubt, have even more appearance of truth than those of Mentz ! " "How would an author, who had dared to take such a liberty (the spinning of a legend), among a people so earnest and truth-loving as the Dutch, especially in Junius' time, necessarily have entailed upon himself the general hissing and ridicule, nay, the deepest contempt and detestation (!)" Especially in Junius' time! Here the expression of Lessing is of force: "He, who under certain circumstances does not loose his wits, has none." Further : "It was by no means certain unknown old men. . . ., as the antagonists of Haarlem repeatedly echo one after another, from whose mouths Junius got his infor- mation." "The so-called evidences (of the Germans) are : First, some passages from 1 Theae bombastic sentences contain, in reality, everything advanced by the Costerians against the troublesome objections in : — (Karl Heinrich von Heinecken :) Nachrichten von Künstlern und Kunst-Sachen. Leipzig, 1769. 8vo. pp. 241 — 314 : Anmerkungen ilber die Beweisthiimer, welche die hollandischen Scribenten anführen, dass Laurenz Janson Coster die Buchdruckerkunst erfunden habe. And from the same : Idee générale d'une collection complete d'estampes. Avec une dissertation sur l'origine de la gravnre et sur les premiers livres d'images. Leipzic et Vienne. 1771. 8vo. Girolamo Tiraboschi : Dell' inventione della stampa (Prodromo della nuova Enciclopedia). Siena, Pazzini e Bindi. 1779. 4to. — Is a confutation of Meerman. Dictionaire bibliographique choisi du XVe siècle, . . . precede' d'un essai historique sur l'origine de rimprimerie par 0. A. De La Serna Santander. Bruxelles, an XIII. 1805. 8vo. Origine de rimprimerie, d'après les titres authentiques, &c. Paris, 1810, 8vo. II. And since Koning : A. A. Eenouard : Note sur Laurent Coster a l'occasion d'un ancien livre imprimé dans les Pays-Bas (Catalogue de la BibUotheque d'un amateur. II. pp. 152 — 58). Paria, 1819. 8vo. Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst zur Bhrenrettung Strasburgs und vollstandiger Widerlegung der Sagen von Harlem dargestellt von J. P. Lichtenberger. Strassburg und Leipzig, 1825. 8vo. Also in French : Strasbourg, J. H. Heitz. 1825. Notice sur le Speculum Humanse Salvationis, par J. Marie Guichard. Paris, 1840. 8vo. Kurzgefasste kritische Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst . . . nebst Widerlegung der • Ansprüche der Stadte Strassburg und Harlem auf die Erfindung, und Abfertigung der neuesten Behauptung Gutenberg sey ein Böhme und geborener Kuttenberger. Wien, 1841. 8vo. The best refutations, however, are those of Schaab and "Wetter. 140 GERARDUS MEERMAN. authors of the latter part of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th century. . . Secondly, some bragging imprints of printers anxious for customers . . . Thirdly, a very great number of passages from old chronicles and other books also of the latter part of the 15th century. . . ." (Let us watch for a moment the dexterous fingers of this Costerian juggler 1) ... " The greatest part of those informations are nothing but verbal repetitions of gome predecessor, so that this apparently formidable army, by which the student is as it were confused at first sight, shrinks, after a closer consideration and a more careful scrutiny, to a very small number of evidences of very little value." These words give an exact representation of the so-called evidence for Haarlem, quotations from Guicciardini (1567) as regards foreign countries, quotations from Junius (1588) as regards Holland. According to the measure applied by De Vries in bad faith (for he knew more than he wished to tell) to the Mentz evidences, he had no right to ascribe an atom of reality to his Haarlem non-evidences, nothing, nothing at all. And yet, even an oratorical diversion of Schiller in his ' Abfall der Niederlande,' even a failure of Henmann's memory, are good enough for him to throw dust in the eyes of the people. "Finally, in the fourth place : Some juridical documents, belonging to law-suits of the first printers, and from which it is clearly and incontrovertibly evident that these pretended inventors of printing, regarded from a moral side, "signified very little." No Costerian is a competent judge of morality ! " The well-deserved praise, which the talented Mentz and Strasburg artists had earned by the fortunate improvements they devised, by which they carried the imperfect art of printing to a high degree of perfection, would have come down to posterity more unsullied, if the obstinate desire of maintaining a false pretence had not been the cause of discovering juridical evidences of shameful law-suits, which are now everlasting monuments of their mutual discord, avarice, unreasonableness, and in- delicacy in morals." Further : " The account of Trithemius is the sheet-anchor on which, properly speaking, the whole cause of Mentz depends." M. Noordziek put the crown on this work of public fraud, when the long- continued deception had triumphed. " The attention has at last been called to the fact, that Holland, outvoiced by wild shouts, kept silent for a long time, but re-appeared always with dignity, declaring at the same time with energy, that it had been wronged, and was prepared to produce the most convincing evidences of the fact." "By bringing this point clearly before the world (by putting before the Germans undated Donatuses of the years 1470, 1480, 1490, and later !) the claim of Gutenberg to the invention of moveable letters (between 1440 and 1450 !) falls entirely to the ground." " The dispute as to the question, in what country and by whom the invention was made, has been violent. That point is now, after great efforts (of De Vries,_ Schinkel, and Noordziek), and according to the opinion of experts (De Vries, Schinkel, and Noordziek) settled, and Holland has, without injuring in the least the honour of Gutenberg (for, Noordziek tells us, the man was merely assisted by a thief, by his uncle, Johan Gensfleisch !), revindicated, in the most energetic and convincing manner, the honour of the invention for L. J. Coster." " The invention, celebrated over all the civilized world, originated, as was so satisfactorily proved and acknowledged, in Holland; the inventor was almost everywhere believed to be a Hollander." 1 No wonder that Noordziek always speaks of the " conquered enemy." I am perfectly willing to enable him, if he chooses, to rejoice at the convulsions of that " conquered enemy." By the inauguration of the statue it was thought necessary that M. L. Metman should humbug the deceived people a little : " Ignorance and prejudice alone are able to pronounce against Holland. Be my witness, you who have examined what the acute and learned De Vries, assisted by his artist friend Schinkel, and by the untiring and persevering zeal of our Noordziek, has submitted to the judgment of his countrymen and the foreigner ! The truth may remain concealed in darkness for a long 1 Gedenkboek der Costers-feesten van 15, 16 en 17 Julij 1856. Door J. J. F. Noordziek. Haarlem. 1858. 8vo. GERARDUS MEERMAN. 141 time ; when it appears in the light it may be ignored and violently attacked : nay, its sacred cause may for a moment appear desperate ; but its splendour breaks more and more through the clouds. . . and shines every time more clearly and irresistibly. . . The hordes of its enemies become thinner every day ; the number of its followers becomes greater and more powerful, until even the last contradiction of impudence is silenced and the victory is accomplished." When such bombast began to be accepted as current coin, nobody was restrained from doing what he liked. In the Arnhem Gazette, No. 108 of 1823, Alethophilus (M. G. van Lennep) took the liberty to make some objections to the year 1423, fixed upon at Haarlem on a sandy ground as the year of the invention. One of his remarks was, that "without the account of Junius, there was no safety for the cause of Haarlem, especially with regard to its citizen Laurens Janszoon Koster, who — we could not repeat it often enough — was mentioned only by Junius as the inventor of printing." The " Konst and Letterbode " of the same year inserted these remarks also, and added some malicious notes to it by way of apparent refutation. The note to the above- quoted remark runs : " This ridiculous and disgusting repetition has been answered before, remark c." Curious to know which author has mentioned L. J. Coster oef ore Junius, we look for "remark c," and lo ! — in that refutation of Alethophilus' "dis- gusting and ridiculous " argument we read : " Junius was the first who mentions the name of the inventor " ; but this expression is immediately followed by the lie : " And many contemporaneous authors, who were able to draw also from other sources, have soon afterwards further explained and confirmed his accounts concerning the person of the inventor." This untruth explains the mean tactics of the Costerians, by which they put into the hands of ignorant people the three accounts of Zell, Guicciardini, and Junius, which mutually destroy each other, as a completion of that Haarlem legend, which they have composed from them. He who wishes to make of these accounts one history is a noodle, or an unscrupulous bungler. Yet the sect exhibited this pitiful spectacle. And here again the exegetic tricks of De Vries are most cha- racteristic. "We have a. right," he says, "on the authority of Braunius and Guicciardini (of whom the first copied the second !), to refer, concerning the principal facts of Junius' account, to witnesses, who must have lived very close to the time of the invention (!) And these so much older witnesses (who, at most two years before Junius, put an indefinite town-gossip on paper, without mentioning the inventor, -without naming the time of the invention, without saying a single word of what had been printed!) deserve our particular attention and belief, because they not only perfectly agree with the account of Junius; but also mention, according to Braunius and Guicciardini, one very important fact, omitted by Junius, and whereby an obscurity in his account is fully explained. Namely, one of the greatest objections which the Germans and French made with so much fuss, is, that it was hardly conceivable how the theft of some stamps, matrices, and other printing tools could deprive the inventor of the art, at once of the fruits of his invention. If the inventor, who naturally must have felt a great interest in his own invention, and have taken great care to keep his art and the furniture belonging to it secret, — if he had suffered himself to be robbed and deceived, yet he would certainly have spared no pains to pursue the thief, and to get back all that had been stolen from him; and, if he had not succeeded in it, he would have repaired at once with the utmost zeal all he had lost —told the world of what infidelity he had been the dupe — published directly some work, signed with his name — thereby averted the danger of being deprived of the honour and profit of his invention — and, at the publication of the first product of the press of the fraudulous supplanter, have exposed, accused, and prosecuted him. Braunius (who ascribes the invention of typography to Mentz ! !), confirming (read: copying) in this respect the evidence (!) of Guicciardini, makes this exaggerated objec- tion totally disappear as a castle in the air. He tells us of these old, now lost memoirs (! Gerrit Thomasz., Van Zuren, Coornhert) what Junius had forgotten (?) to notice, and which was, however, necessary to a perfect understanding of the case, namely, that the departure of the servant of the inventor for Mentz, and the trans- 142 GEEABDUS MEERMAN. mission of the art by him to that town, was caused by the death of the inventor, before he had been able to bring his invention to the desired perfection, and to appear with it in public. (Where remains the new merchandize of the fable of Junius, never before seen, which attracted purchasers from everywhere ? !) And this circumstance, not recorded by Junius, but mentioned by much earlier (!) authors, clears up all that is obscure. The unfaithful servant was tempted by the favourable opportunity which the confusion, caused by his master's death, offered him. (Oh, holy church-going of Christ- mas, 1441, your violation is avenged I) The great profits produced in later times by the sale of work, which had turned out better and resembled as much as possible the handwriting of that time, and was therefore sold for manuscript, had animated for a long time the foreign adventurer with the wish of enriching himself by such a profitable trade. By his master's death the press had to be left to his care and super- vision for a long time. On a certain (!) Christmas night (for 1441 does not suit the sheriff who died in 1439), when all the people of the house were gone to church to celebrate that high festival, and he alone was to watch over the house and printing-office, the temptation was too strong for him. He bundled a good deal (not everything, as Junius has revealed ?) of the matrices and stamps (how imperfect was that invention !) and some types and printed sheets, which should serve as a guide (!) and example, together, and took to his heels." De Vries knew quite well what he was about when he objected to the discovery of the chandler Lourens Janszoon Coster, of the years 1440 and 1450 ! He knew perfectly well that the Haarlem nonsense could only obtain an appearance of sense by tampering with a man who was dead before the German invention, before the fictitious robbery. He was too well acquainted with the polemic literature on the subject not to know that the Haarlem bubble would burst at once when the chandler was to hold a candle to the account of Junius. On the other hand, however, the hero of De Vries died before the year of the invention fixed upon by Junius, and therefore equally useless for an honest explanation of the account of the Batavia. The cause is irretrievably and irrevocably lost ! Or do I count, perhaps, too much without the " laymen in the question," who, concealed under the scientific rags of their " authorities", are bold enough to soil the question, which is no longer a question, with some lawyer's tricks ? ' No one is able to argue with such people, who are half-a-century behind in real development of ' While my first essays on this subject were being published in the " Nederl. Spectator," M. D. van Eck, lawyer at the Hague, without being competent to form an opinion in the matter, but like a second Meerman, coming forward with expedients, tried to divert attention from the main question, and to confuse the public anew, by inserting in the newspapers an : " Explanation of TJlr. Zell's account, by Dr. van der Linde." " Zeil states," thus Dr. v. d. Linde reasons, " that Johan Gutenberg at Mentz was the first inventor of printing. If, therefore, he also said, according to the partizans of Haarlem, that the first inventor was found in Holland, he would have committed a great folly. Perfectly true, but the premise is inexact ; for Zell never said that the art of printing was invented at Haarlem : the contrary is true ; but (but ?) he relates facts ( !) which happened in Holland, and from those facts the partisans of Haarlem, argue that he who has a right notion of the word inrention must acknowledge that it took place in Holland. And if the argument of the friends of Laurens Janszoon (Coster) [sic] is well founded, it is a matter of course that Zell has given an improper (I) signification to the word invention, but not that he has committed a great folly." His further sophisms may be found in my answer, which was inserted in one of the Dutch newspapers: " While my article on TJlr. Zell had made a deep impression on the most competent critics, the " layman " Van Eck declares that this was " not " the case with him, and he is open-hearted enough to tell us that his being so totally " a layman " in the matter of printing is the reason for this non-conviction. He pretends, even without knowing the question superficially, that the chronicle of Cologne speaks of typographically printed Donatuses ; that the impulse to the devising of typography, of which it speaks, had already been given by moveable cast types ; that, therefore, the invention of typography had' been made before 1440, in Holland. And he has the courage to maintain this, although the Costerians, Bertius, Scriverins, Boxhorn, of earlier times, Berjeau, and others of later'time "all whose arguments he ignores, have found in the chronicle nothing but xylographic Donatuses: although I had pointed out the difference between xylography and typography which the whole context of the account indicated : and although finally those xylographic school-books nowise historically originated from Holland, but from Flanders. That " new manner," that " present manner," that " now-a-days manner " was, in the 15th and 16th century, a definition of typography, in contrast, not with a less beautiful typography, but with an impression from engraved forms. As Van Eck goes on struggling against this the only rational explanation, I will give a 17th century quotation of an unsuspected author— Scriverius GEBARDUS MEERMAN. 143 judgment. It does not seem to enter their head that, even if we found in the Cologne chronicle what there is not, but what their unreasonable dexterity puts into it; they would not advance a single step nearer their aim. They don't seem to have the faintest idea that the history of the years 1440 — 50 cannot be re-construed in 1499 by mere talk, but by proofs unknown till that time. Even if a chronicle of 1499 had said that typography was invented in Holland before 1440, that assertion alone would not be an infallible oracle, but we should have to see whether it agreed with the well-proved documental history. And would any one desire at present, in 1870, nearly four centuries later, to put between the four lines of the Cologne chronicle, a hitherto unknown Haarlem chandler-innkeeper ? ! The fancy of all orthodoxies, that they submit to the authority of sacred books, while they always explain that authority according to their own arbitrariness, is curiously evident among the Costerians. Just as many believing Christians abandon, piece by piece, every dogma of the Bible, from the Hebrew myth of the creation in Genesis down to the millennium of the Apocalypse, and yet pretend to be believers, so the Costerians play with their gospel according to the requirements of the moment. I have quoted already enough of these incongruities to consider myself free from producing other examples, although there would be material enough for a big volume. Only one or two more proofs from the warm but poor plea of Paeile. In a totally deceptive explanation of the account of Junius, in which he heaps the one untruth upon the other, Paeile swears also by Hans, Cornelis, Galius ; that theft ought to be true. Very well. But here we have two explanations of this orthodox Costerian by the side of each other : — Pag. 83. "The circumstance of the theft is too Pag. 103. " It is true, Matthias Quadus.makesno curious that Cornelis, from whom Junius had his thief of the servant of Coster ; but the eircum- account directly ( !) could have been mistaken ; we stance of the theft is in reality an indifferent cir- must therefore assume that Guicciardini, Braun, cumstance. It is indeed not necessary that the and Eytzinger [3 times 1=1], who consider Coster's secret of the art should have been stolen; that workman to have been no thief, but say that he the Mentzers are not the inventors of it (!) is brought the art to Mentz after the death of his sufficient to justify the claims of Holland ; it is master, were imperfectly informed with respect to sufficient to know that this art was communicated this point." » to them, and Quadus increases the number of authors to settle the fact incontrovertibly (!) " And here the sophist is in full strength on one and the same page (106) : Pag. 106. " "We had at first no intention to quote ' Van Mander had lived for a long time at Haar- the evidence of Van Mander (Haarl. 1604), or lem. He was able to collect in that town the himself. This Costerian enthusiast, says : " The . . . art of printing came to light, not in the manner as is usual at present, with letters cast of lead and tin , . . but a book was cut leaf for leaf on wooden blocks." But let us assume for a moment that there is reference in the Cologne chronicle to typographic Donatuses, then the famous account of 1499 runs thus : 1st. Typography was invented first of all at Mentz between 1440 and '50. 2nd. Before that time, however, before that very first invention, typography was invented in Holland. 3rd. The first inventor was Johan Gutenberg at Mentz Who feels inclined to quarrel about such talk of miserable Costerianism ? and to argue with Van Eck, who says, " that word yet is of importance as a contrast," is too ludicrous. Van Eck'8 other " expedient " about the signification of the words inventor and primus inventor is also for ignorant people. Apart from the old pleonastic style, which Van Eck does not seem to know, he ignores the question altogether. Trithemius, indeed, wrote nonsense, a*ad it has been pointed out what made him do it ; this point, too, has been settled more than a century ago. All that the 16th century accounts have asserted regarding primi inventores must not lead us to a distortion of their language, but ought to be historically explained from the well-known facts, which I need not repeat here for the 100th time for those who do not desire to learn. Only this : if people would have the courage to assert, after my translation of the Cologne account in extenso, that Zell indicates Gutenberg as the improver of typography, I then pity such logic. M. van Eck has never seen Donatuses, else he would know that only a connoisseur is able to distinguish the xylographic from the typographic ones, and that it would be psychological nonsense to make any one invent independently typography by seeing a typographic copy. Mo one," who does not know the case beforehand, sees anything in a typographic Donatus which distinguishes it from a xylographic one. But who, with a clear conception, has a xylographic text, a book (for that is the main point) before him, may thereby, by comprehending the impracticability of xylography, the waste of time, and the unfitness of the wood-engravings to other purposes, come to meditate on another mode of printing. This, as Zell informs U3, happened with Gutenberg. 144 GEEABDUS MEERMAN. rather his simple assertion, not confirmed "by a materials from which Junius wrote, and to know single proof, but we wished to show how the the antiquity, correctness, and generality of the Flemish idiom is understood by most people, who Dutch tradition. On that account he declares take the trouble to explain it." himself without hesitation for the right of Haar- lem." To my sorrow I have to be brief, but I trust that the required proofs have been produced. In general, the method of the Haarlem apologists may be thus defined : just as the ignorant layman promiscuously quotes from all the books of the Bible, and from all periods, as if he had to do with one work without the least gradation of credibility, so the Costerians cite all authors and all chronicles indiscriminately, even if centuries lie between them, without an atom of critical sifting, without any appre- hension of the necessity of scientific preparation. And just as the believers respect- fully make way for Strauss and Baur, and do as if they never existed, so none of the Costerians ever had the courage to venture upon the works of Schaab and Wetter. For the miserable scribbling of Scheltema against the first, and the two pedantic raids of Noordziek against the latter, are too far beneath criticism to deserve the least attention. The one essential point ever made by De Vries against them is confined to his witty refutation of the assertion that the sheriff Louwerijs Janszoen had been an innkeeper : the more funny now we know that the opinion was perfectly right. " Nothing can, undoubtedly, be a more convincing evidence of the exorbitant ignorance of the Germans of our paternal morals and usages, than the silly inference, which a Schaab, Lehne, and Wetter have drawn from the annotations in the registers of the church and the treasury accounts, that our Lourens Janszoon was a wine- merchant or an innkeeper ; wherefore they gave him the nice names of landlord, tavernman, &c. But such' ludicrous assertions, inspired by the desire of representing as ridiculous an account against which they are, to their sorrow, not able to advance any reasonable argument, deserve no serious refutation." But what to do with the items of wine supplied to the church ? This question is capable of being very musically solved thus : " From the notification : Item for Singers' -wine, we might suppose that Coster, who was perhaps a good singer and an adept in music, had the direction of the music on occasion of one of the high festivals, where the most talented and distinguished amateurs of the art of singing assisted in the solemn choral song, and had for that reason been treated to wine by the church." While the sheriff-innkeeper is singing in the cathedral, let us skip over the Costerian bungling with the portraits of the chimerical inventor. I called already attention with a few words to the first Coster-portrait, as such imported in 1628 by Scriverius, the projector of the year 1428, and of the innocent sheriff Louwerijs Janszoen. This portrait, engraved by a contemporary of Scriverius after some family-portrait, perhaps of Gerrit Thomaszoon, in any case not older than the 16th century, is not, as was incorrectly asserted, invented; it is no "ideal" composed by Costerians, but, just as the undated Utrecht incunabula, baptized, after it existed already, with the name of L. J. Coster, and in order to make it suitable to the Laure- crans, armed in its right hand with the Roman (and not Gothic) letter A. The Costerians were content with putting under the engraving : "J. Van Campen, pinxit ; J. Van de - Velde, sculpsit." Soon after, in 1630, a portrait followed of Laurens Coster, at full length, by P. Saenredam, and published by A. Booman (" excited by Scriverius' enthusiasm "), with the same Latin and Dutch verses as on the portrait in the Lavre- crans of 1628, and really an imitation of it. Boxhorn was so kind as to describe the publication of this engraving in his Theatrum Hollandiae (1632) thus : " Laudabile Magistratiis exemplum secutus est Civium nonnemo, qui publicam Laurentio Costero statuam cum honorifica inscriptione erexit." Foreigners were therefore led to believe that a statue had already been erected at that time at Haarlem in honour of Coster. Later copies of this paper statue bear the address of P. Casteleyn. The portrait was afterwards painted again by Jacob Van Campen, after whose drawing it was engraved by Cornclis Koning, who published it at Haarlem again with the well- GERARDUS MEERMAN. 145 known Latin verses of Scriverius, and the Dutch translation of Ampzing. To later editions the words, " Hugo Allardt," were added. All the numerous Coster-portraits are more or less good, more or less free imitations of the ugly face in front of the Lavre- crans of 1628, besides the other substituted pieces of the 18th century. The most amusing imitation was that of an amateur-artist of the last century, C. van den Berg, who wished to play the collector J. Marcus a trick. He engraved a small wood-cut, after the portrait of Van Campen, with the name Laur' Ja(n)ssoe(n), in old-fashioned style, underneath, gave the copies, with a little soot and dirt, an antique appearance, and made Marcus happy for a few weeks. The poet Langendijk, the typefounder Joh. Enschedé, and other amateurs, got each a copy, but Van den Berg was too honest to mean anything more than fun; he told afterwards Marcus himself the value of that antique wood-cut. Although every investigator could and ought to have known these things, yet Jac. Koning was bold enough, in the second nomenclature of his collection of rare books and manuscripts, to describe a copy of this portrait as : " printed by, or at the time of, Lourens Janszoon Koster ' ' ! In the sale catalogue of his books (1833) his sons inserted this childish and deceptive description literally. And even after all these circumstances were known and as- certained by the controversy between Van Westreenen and De Vries, the latter, echoed by Noordziek, was obstinate in maintaining the genuineness of some of the copies of this engraving ! The Haarlem painter, L. van der Vinne, in his youth, painted, in the beginning of the former century, a study, after the drawing of Van Campen. But, lo ! in 1762 this picture is offered for sale by Van Damme at Amsterdam — the same who produced the false inscriptions respecting the imaginary Corsellis of Oxford — provided at the back with a very old inscription: Lours Jans to Harlm. MCCCCXXXIII. , and a monogram A 0, which was explained to mean "Albert van Ouwater." Excellent discovery! Here was a genuine, contemporaneous portrait by a painter of the fifteenth century ! A trifle, however, was wanted to make the joy perfect. Albert van Oudewater, who had painted the "celebrated" inventor of printing in 1433, was born in 1444! — This history is full of despairing irony from beginning to end. Just as the sheriff Lourens Janszoon invents the art of printing after his death/ just as Cornells works at Donatuses before his birth; just as the chandler Lourens Janszoon Koster entirely forgets his invention during his lifetime, so the painter Albert van Oudewater becomes already a zealous Costerian long before he tvas bom. 1 It is, therefore, no wonder that in an imaginary conversation between Koster, Seneca, and Huss, the inventor himself says to the Roman philosopher: "In the year 1400, or about the end of the 14th, or the beginning of the 15th century, for I am not able to give the precise year, I was born at Haarlem, in Holland." And of the invention he knows only: "At one of my walks, sitting on a bench, I saw at my feet some branches and pieces of beech bark, which had been blown down. I took some of them up, and cut, by way of pastime, without having any particular object, some letters, which pleased me so that I wrapped them in a piece of paper. This pleasant occupation, my great delight, the beauty and calmness of the spot, the fatigue caused by the walk, and the soothing rustling of the trees, made me insensibly fall asleep. The paper containing the letters which I had cut fell on the wet ground before me, and the porous paper sucked the moisture like a sponge, making the sap of the beech-wood, which was brown by nature, more fluid. I cannot say to a certainty 1 lets over de afbeeldingen van Laurens Jansz. Koster, door den Baron Van "Westreenen van Tiel- landt. 's Gravenhage, Gebr. Tan Cleef. 1847. 8vo. [Dr. A. de Vries :] Bewijzen voor de echtheid en gelijkenis der oude afbeeldingen Coster. Ter weder- legging Tan het Iets Tan den heer Van Westreenen. Haarlem, A. C. Kruseman. 1847. 8to. De zoogenaamde " Bewijzen Toor de echtheid en gelijkenis der oude afbeeldingen van Koster," ■wederlegd door den Baron Van "Westreenen Tan Tiellandt. 's Gravenhage, J. L. van der Vliet. 1848. 8vo. [Dr. A. de Vries:] Eenige losse aanmerkingen op de voorgaande zoogenaamde wederlegging van den Heer van Westreenen, of zijn Iets gebragt tot Niets. 8vo, Unpublished MS. at present in the Royal library at the Hague. V 146 GEEABDUS MBBBMAN. whether I put my foot unwittingly, in my sleep, on this paper with the letters, and thereby impressed them on the soaked paper, but it is probable. When I awoke and did not find my letters, I saw the paper lying at my feet. I took it up to see whether my letters were still there, but how great was my surprise to find them impressed but reversely, on the paper!" 1 How attentively must this poor inventor of 1758 have listened afterwards, in the underworld, to Meerman, Koning, Scheltema, and De Vries, who, rather contradictorily, tried to make him understand what he had, unconsciously, done during his lifetime ! The poor man seemed to have no idea whatever oi the nature of typography. In this respect he was really painted " after life." Oh result when the ghost of M. Johannes Enschedé appeared, and, assisted by the chandler, delivered him from his quarrelling promoters ! - In 1765, Van Oosten De Bruyn and Meerman produced another portrait. lJiat of the former, who had also a sheriff-letter of Louwerijs Janszoen of 1422 en- graved, had underneath the arms of the sheriff, and these words: "Laurens Janszoon, sheriff of the town of Haarlem, inventor of the noble art of printing. After an old picture, at present belonging to M. Joannes Enschedé, Jz., and bought by him from Willem Cornelisz. Croon, the last descendant of Laurens Janszoon, who died, unmar- ried, at Haarlem, in 1724." This was therefore the same Croon for whom the vellum pedigree was continued— a man who, just as Gerrit Thomaszoon, wished to descend from the inventor of the art of printing, no matter whether the sheriff-legend of his time killed his fictitious ancestor, Coster. The unnamed portrait in the possession of this Haarlemer, curiously resembles that of the inquisitor Euard Tapper of Enkhuizen (t 1559, cf. J. F. Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica, 1739. II. 1084 and 807 ; Historie van Enkhuizen, by Geeraerdt Brandt, 1747, p. 196) ; according to Gockinga, it re- sembles that of Sir Thomas More. They tried to explain the great difference between this well-executed portrait and that of the misanthrope in Scriverius, by some talk about the difference of age and about ' ' marks of death" in the face of the earliest portrait. De Vries made a dexterous use of this loophole. " It was justly remarked by the acute and judicious Enschedé the elder, that the portrait of Van Campen exhibits something obviously cadaverous, from which the talented man inferred that the original piece, after which Van Campen painted his, must have been the work of a contemporary of Coster, who painted the face of the remarkable man while he was laid on his death-bed. Who could look carefully at the engraving before the Laurecrans, without acknowledging this observation to be well-founded? To whom would the distorted features not appear as something gloomy, like that of a corpse ? Who is able to represent to himself that well-known face in the numerous ordinary portraits of Coster, after Van Campen, or the features of the statue which disgraced the market-place at Haarlem, and which was made after that portrait, without calling to his mind at once a painfully distorted face, in which, although less than in the engraving, yet something death-like, some- thing sad is visible ? And a man of such a delicate taste as Scriverius (!), and artists like Van Campen and Van de Velde, would have imagined such a sad and painful face, such unpleasant and inexpressive features, to be the face of the lively, energetic, and able inventor of the most admirable art ! No — there must have existed a peculiar, very important, all-prevailing reason why Scriverius — a man who was able to find all the existing portraits of Coster, among his descendants who were still alive, to trace the time and the occasion of their making, to compare and value them — choose such an unpleasant portrait, and had it so exquisitely painted, and engraved with so much care by such celebrated artists. Now what may have been the reason for this ? Indeed, no other than that he, after careful examination, had come to the conviction that this portrait was faithfully painted after the man's own face, although already pale, discom- posed, and distorted by death. No portrait, however beautiful and however well an- swering to the representation of an inventive genius, unless a true and genuine likeness, 1 Maandelijksche berichten uit de andere waereld, of de spreekende dooden . . . Zeeven en dertigste Samenkomst, tueschen Laurens Janz. Koster, eerste uitvinder der Boekdrukkunst ; L. A. Seneoa ... en Johannes Hns. VII. i. Jan. 1758. Amst. 8vo. A HEKALD OF LIES. 147 could satisfy the truth-loving (I) Scriverius. The truth was to be well-founded, if he endorsed it (I). That cadaverous hue, and those marks of death, therefore, in Van Campen's picture, are strong evidences for the genuineness and faithfulness both of the original representation, and of Van Campen's copy." Baron Van Westreenen answered, very cleverly : " It is a pity that the learned author does not seem to have known the treatises Vritten to show the resemblance of the Byzantine Madonna with that painted, as it is said, by the Evangelist Luke ! The arguments found in them would have, perhaps, been of some use to him to demonstrate exegetically the likeness of a portrait of a person who died two centuries ago." This correct remark explains the true character of the Costerian apologies ; a Costerian should present himself only with the tonsure and monastic gown, for his creed is ultramontane in origin and history. M. Thijm, who wishes to dedicate the Haarlem statue to philosophy, means with this abused euphemism, nothing but the legend. Philosophy is the doctrine of science, of truth, and has nothing to do with all the frauds comprised in Cos- terianism. De Vries wrote against the incontrovertible remarks of his antagonist : " M. Westreenen contents himself with impudently calling the unmistakeable marks of death in the portrait of the Laurecrans a story, and calumniously ascribing its invention to mean motives of selfishness." How natural is this indignation in the theologist of Costerianism, who explains, always and everywhere, and in every one, every anti-Costerian opinion or doubt from by-designs, from other reasons than con- viction ! Umbreit was perfectly right when he remarked, in 1843: "Beally, the last Dutch defendants of Haarlem (Koning, Scheltema, De Vries) do not write as if they had a respectable public before them, but just as if it consisted of ignorant children, whom they, barefacedly, could make believe anything they wished. ' Alas ! they made the public believe everything ! So soundly did it fall asleep by the Haarlem lullaby, that the second class of the Boyal Institute, in their report on the ' ' Eclaircissements" (De Vries— Noordziek) , dared to declare, with unsurpassed stupidity, that " they could not help remarking how much more sensible and dignified the attitude of Mentz and Germany would have been if they — not envying Haarlem the feeble firstlings, or leaving, at all events, the question about them undecided — had made of the celebration of a jubilee by Germans, a solemn remembrancer of the time in which the first printed bible, that invaluable monument of the art, issued forth from their printing-offices. XX. A HEBALD OF LIES. In the "Diary of the Coster-fêtes," M. Noordziek says: "In May 1846 I made a plan of having a monument erected at Haarlem in honour of Lourens Janszoon Coster." In the preface to this Diary, dated 1857, he reflects with natural satisfaction on his Costerian career. "When I have finished this work I may consider I have contributed enough to a lasting maintenance of the fame of our ancestor. Since 1840, I have energetically co-operated, and neglected no occasion to establish his claims as the inventor of the art of printing ; since 1846 I have, in fulfilment of a vow made to myself, unceasingly strived for the realization of my favourite idea, crowned last year with such a brilliant success. In those sixteen years, the best part of my life, I have collected an "Archive" of the facts connected 1 Die Erfindimg der Buchdruckerkirast. Kritische Abhandlungen zur Orientirung auf dem jetzigeii Standpunkte der Eorschung von August Ernst Umbreit. Leipzig, Wiln. Engelmann. 1843. 8vo. 148 A HEBALD OF LIES. with Coster, which contains a great number of documents, printed as well as written : a collection of immeasurable value to me, as comprising the history of all that has been done in this respect for the maintenance of the glory of the Netherlands during a long period." It is difficult to me, after having copied these words, to remain master of my feelings. There is so much cruelty in the irony of events, the destruction of illusions is so painful, and especially the idea that M. Noordziek's life-long perseverance was devoted to a chimera is dreadfully tragic ! I know by experience what it means to waste the best energies of the mind on a nothing, and should I not have sympathy with a fellow-sufferer ? But no ! no weakness. M. Noordziek is so fortunate as to be able to make good the wrong he has done. Thinking to work for our honour, he has laboured for our shame. Let him now manfully oppose his own creation. Or is this asking too much of human self-denial ? For common minds, yes. But not for the man who wrote himself about " a sort of antagonists, who, like M. Weigel, could and ought to know better ; but who, once having declared themselves in another sense, are not to be persuaded to confess publicly their error, as they fear in that case to be considered no longer worthy of the high place which they occupy in the literary or scientific world. A narrow-minded idea," Noordziek exclaims, "which ought to be opposed with energy. The student of history, especially, ought to feel himself above this. The ideas and opinions on a subject ought to be modified as soon as the discovery of earlier data demands. A refusal to alter one's conviction is equal to a denial of the truth." This motto gives me courage. I will describe in outline how the bronze statue was erected. In May, 1846, M. Noordziek sent to the government of Haarlem a "report" in which "the present state of the quarrel (also called " dispute" and "law-suit") was explained." He wished to wreathe a new laurel among the hairs of Haarlem's symbolic virgin, as a lasting remembrance of the fact, of which the world had resounded (well ! ?) and as a national homage to the man, who, by the wisdom (or craft) of Providence, had been destined to produce an art which was to lead humanity, by a securer way of development, to the state in which it is at present." Thereupon he gives the Government to understand, that the Koyal Netherland Institute had declared, with respect to the " Eclaircissements" and the "Arguments," that the question, therein treated, was incontrovertibly decided ; that the loopholes and tricks of Haarlem's and Coster's antagonists were destroyed; that the credibility of the advanced evidences was maintained to the utmost; that the denial of the decisive' value of our evidences "was judged, convinced, and made powerless, in a manner satisfying in every respect the demands of a sound criticism." Oh, Mr. burgomaster, they are such beautiful works! "People agreed so willingly with the tone of earnestness and energy of these two works— a tone only acquired by him who defends a good cause, and seeks the truth, and nothing but the truth ; a tone which must command authority, and, supported by profound knowledge and thorough learning, was remarkably distinguished from that thoughtless noise and reckless writing too often found on the other side." Many more pages are filled with this bombast. What could the magistracy of Haarlem answer to this drumming ? As is generally the case with regard to intrusion, they were also here too polite. The civic government was authorized on the 12th August by the totally incompetent council, to inform Noordziek " that the government (of Haarlem) gratefully appreciated the untiring efforts which he and others successfully had made to maintain the honour of the Haarlem Coster, and to see it respected both at home and abroad ; that they were equally thankful for the renewed proof of interest evinced by the offer of enriching the town with a statue, more adequate to the demands of the art than that erected more than a century ago, and that they would willingly accept and appreciate such a statue as an evidence of patriotic homage to the merits of the great inventor." The die was cast. In July, 1847, Noordziek published an : " Address to the A HEEALD OP LIES. 149 Netherland people to maintain the honour of their country," followed a year after- wards by the publication of " The Dispute, respecting the invention of printing, historically explained." This book clearly betrays Noordziek's ignorance of the question for which he laboured. Only the following decision in 1848, in the mouth of one who was said to have made a study of the subject, proved his incom- petency. '"The principal German candidates, who try to conquer the laurel, are Faust, Gensfleisch, Guttenberg, Jenson, Mentelin, Regiomontanus, Schöffer ; the towns which appropriate that honour, Strasburg, Basle, Cologne, Mentz, Prague, Ulm." He, who dares to write this in 1848 (when he could have read in a most superficial article of Prof. H. W. Tydeman, Mnemosyne, 1815 : " It is well known that only the towns of Haarlem, Mentz, and Strasburg can be admitted to the dispute"), who, in 1848, takes Gensfleisch and Gutenberg to be two different persons, who thinks that at that time there could still be any question of Mentelin, Jenson, and Regiomontanus, he knows nothing of the "dispute." Noordziek's opinion on the literature of the question confirms this assertion abundantly, and it is on that account that we will take a rapid view of it : — "Junius was the first of our countrymen who took the question seriously to heart, investigated it thoroughly, and came openly forward as proclaimer and defender of Haarlem's right to the honour of the invention. He wrote an account of that event, with an indication of the sources from which he derived it, and the evidence (old wine-pots and a totally misunderstood old book) which confirmed it." On the contrary, Junius was the first who composed a fable from impure ingredients. " Sixty years afterwards Scriverius thought it his duty to investigate the whole question more closely, and to come forward as the second defender. He published his Laurecrans, and confirmed therein the honour of Coster and the credibility of Junius with many and powerful proofs. In this respect the cause could not but gain in solidity and clearness" .... Noordziek has never read the Laurecrans. "Induced by Scriverius' book, the Germans tried to get a little beyond the ques- tion, as they could not invalidate the powerful proofs of the Cologne chronicle, of Coornhert, Van Zuren, Guicciardini, &c." Oh ! ! " In the year 1740, even a foreigner, J. C. Seiz, a German by birth, undertook the defence of Haarlem, and performed his task with energy and produced solid proofs, in a meritorious work, which deserves to be consulted, even now." I quoted already the wretched chronology of this book. " However, M. Meerman' s meritorious, and — with regard to bibliographic and xylographic history — classical work, had a totally different effect with foreigners." How was that? Well— " M. Meerman deviated from the original text, the sheet-anchor of the history, by making the inventor Koster (sacristan) of the cathedral at Haarlem. Junius, on the contrary, had distinctly said that the family name Coster originated from an hereditary family-sacristanship. This interpretation of M. Meerman made the identity of Coster and the Laurens Janszoon — about whom so many particulars are found in the old archives (namely his going to a diet as councillor, his supplies to the cathedral, as a wine-merchant, the expenses made in his inn !) which explain (!), confirm (! !), and strengthen (!!!) the account of Junius — very improbable to the foreigner, to whom it afforded an opportunity of declaring the account to be a fable." Meerman, therefore, deviated from the original text, the sheet-anchor of this history? Now, we can understand that this deviation must annoy M. Noordziek, who in his " Eclaircissements " copied his master regarding this sheet-anchor: " Plus que jamais on est convaincu a présent que Junius, auquel on avait accordé pendant des siècles une confiance sans borne, et qu' on savait avoir été de bonne fois dans la composition de la Batavia reste en definitive digne de conserver cette confiance, et que pas une seule lettre ne doit être retranchée ni modifiée dans son récit." And further : " II n'existe done aucune particularity du récit de Junius, qui ne se soit trouvée exacte par suite de recherches postérieures." 150 A HBBALD OP LIES. Let us now, in the face of Meerman' s Koster-heresy, make up the account of the totally heretical profession of De Vries and Noordziek; for the same persons who wrote thus on Meerman and the original text, in which not a " single letter" should be altered, of which " every particular " was confirmed by inquiries, — those same heretic- hunters believe (without knowing it themselves ?) not a word of the original text. I shall put the doctrine of the commentator by the side of the text — the doctrine of De Vries (Noordziek) by the side of that of Junius. Junius. 1. The art of printing was invented a. in 1440 ; b. by Lourens Janszoon Coster (whom we meet in the archives down to 1483), e. member of the family Coster, who here- ditarily possessed the then very profitable and honourable office of sacristan (Meerman was there- fore punctiliously orthodox with his sacristanship. 2. The first book of Coster, the "Spiegel der behoudenis," was printed a. with wooden letters or forms (faginas formas) ; b. anopisthographic, as a firstling. 3. Coster printed whole figures, with a text (inde etiam pinaces totas figuratas additis cha- racteribus «xpressit). Indeed, the fathers of the Church, of the " fourth jubilee," Bertius, Scriverius, Boxhorn, Seiz, De Bruyn, Meerman,' Koning, Scheltema, and De Vries, have always seen a xylographer in Coster ; nay, with the same facility with which Junius made the first typo- grapher of him, they appointed him, most ridicul- ously, inventor of wood-engraving. In 1862 De Tries added a wooden block and block-books to the Costeriana, which were henceforth exhibited at Haarlem and — whereby he would be exposed him- self. 4. The new merchandise (of the printed books), hitherto unknown, caused a lively demand and yielded great profits. On that account the busi- ness was to be extended, and Coster took more men in his service. (The Coster of Junius' fiction was therefore an honest printer and bookseller, who gave his goods for what they really were : something new and extraordinary.) 5. The inventor, however, was robbed of every- thing in 1441. The thief, Johan (Faust), prints within a year after at Mentz, in 1442. 6. The witness of this fact, Cornelis the book- binder, reached at least eighty years. De Tries and Noordziek. 1. The art of printing was invented o. in 1423 ; b. by Louwerijs Janszoen, who died in 1439 ; v. no sacristan, but sheriff. 2. The "Spiegel der behoudenis" is printed a. with cast, metal letters ; b, preceded by an Horarium and by Donatuses, which were opisthographic. 3. Louwerijs Janszoen had nothing to do with those figures. " Qu'on ne lui attribue pas ce dont l'histoire (I) ne fait aucune mention, qu'on n'en fasse ni un artiste dans Vart de dessiner ou de graver, ni Vinventeur de la xylographie, ni Vauteur de ces gravures en bois qu'il pourvut d*un text ; car il n'en est fait mention dans aucun écrivain." But 100 pages further : "La vieille tradition connue de Harlem, qui s'est toujours conservée la même, nous apprend que Coater, amateur et practicien habile de la xylographie se promenant un jour, &c. he rècit de Junius est Men conforme a cette tradition." 4. Louwerijs Janszoen printed for amusement, not for any profit. But yet — he begun a formal swindler's speculation, for his agents (charges d'affaires) sold his goods for manuscripts (certainly no uncommon things at that time !). This was done by " l'habile et riche inventeur," and was imi- tated in this work by Thomas Pietersz., " un homme riche et considéré." 5. The inventor was robbed after his death in 1439. The thief, Joh. Gensfleisch, prints, some- what more than two years after, at Mentz in 1442. 6. Cornelis the bookbinder reached at least a hundred years. In this pitiable way M. Noordziek goes on forging words. His ignorance was only surpassed by his boldness. lie dared, for instance, to say of the work of Schaab, which remained hitherto unrefuted : "His work was elaborately refuted (read: chattered over) by M. Scheltema, and the author severely censured for his offensive invectives. But this censure (this prattle) however disgraceful (to Scheltema) could not prevent others (as De Vries and Noordziek) coming forward and assuming the same tone. A German (Wetter) ventured — but with greater appearance of moderation, with more crafty argumentation (than Schaab), and with greater show of learning upon a so-called "critical history of the art of printing," no less offensive to Junius, than humiliating to the honour of our country." M. Noordziek knows of that "crafty" book of Wetter, nothing but the title. And as for " show of learning," no more miserable example of this than his " Geschilstuk" which work, full of bombastic nonsense, contains a couple of hundred of titles of A HEKALD Or LIES. 151 unread books, which were ready-made for him in the blue boxes of the Koyal library at the Hague. How obsequiously Noordziek trod the path of his great master is evident from two other passages in his "Geschilstuk." On page 89, we find this tirade: "There is no doubt that a worthy statue ought to be erected in honour of L. J. Coster, at the expense of the nation ; it should represent the inventor in all his grandeur, and be superior in every respect to that of his antagonist Guttenberg, to whom, according to an ingenious remark, a statue is erected by a foreign artist, who, doubting, as it seemed, the claims of that pretended inventor, represented him at Mentz in a manner which clearly shows, that Guttenberg does not wish to put himself in the foreground regarding the great question of the invention of printing, and for that reason is afraid of showing to the world the loose letters he holds in his outstretched hand, but holds them as it were concealed, that nobody can see them." What, now, follows on page 91, on that very same worthless statue of Gutenberg ? " More than one statue was erected in Germany in honour of Guttenberg, and even the most able judge admires the hand of the artist, who was able to sketch and finish the last erected one at Mentz." No wonder, that tbe tone of M. Noordziek became intolerable, after he had obtained his purpose regarding "the hairs of Haarlem's symbolic virgin." Tbe victory of ignorance intoxicated the victor. In his "Memorial" he dared, with incompre- hensible confidence, to give an attestation of orthodoxy in doctrine 'and life to M. Frederik Muller, who, by a discussion with M. H. J. Koenen (in Felix Mentis, 1855, printed 1856), advanced incontrovertible objections against the tradition, which were answered by Koenen with nothing but evasions. Moreover, Frederik Muller gave evidence of his purely historical intuition, by his never-answered questions as to the identity of the sheriff Lourens Janszoon with Lourens Coster, in the " Navorscher " of 1856. Yet Noordziek incorporated the learned bookseller among the life-guards of the new statue. Were there still heathens elsewhere on the earth who did not believe in Coster, after Noordziek had put his name on the title of a French translation of the works of De Vries ? " Indeed, a voice was raised here and there," says M. Noordziek, with crushing superiority, " which objected to any honour being given to our countryman ;' but, by a mere perusal of the writings of such an author, we saw directly that he was not well informed regarding the question. These insignificant and ignorant antago- nists have only been thought worthy of being referred to the sources, where the whole truth was to be found. What else could we do with respect to them but compas- sionately shrug the shoulders about such childish opposers, who ventured to declare for one or other party without thoroughly knowing the matter in question. I (Noordziek) mentioned those unscientific and superficial authors already, in so far they were known to me till 1848, and do not wish to point them out again." We see that this tissue of fantastic conjectures of those who do not even know over whom they throw them, is called already science. From the standpoint of this " science," M. Noordziek now begins to chastise the unbelieving " Bulletin du Bibliophile Beige," in which M. Helbig has been so bold as to write : " On voit sur la place de Haarlem celui (le monument) du problématique personnage Lourens Coster faisant une triste figure. Derrière cette statue se dresse en' ricanant un autre monument colossal, qui la domine et l'écrase, visible pour tous, a, eux seuls (les Hollandais) invisible : la statue du ridicule ! " Let every one read the learned attack, with which Noordziek answers this deserved ridicule in his ' : Diary," which he concludes by saying : " M. Helbig has brought down this rebuke upon himself by his own fault." Has the evil since this rebuke become better ? After this it is the turn of the Belgian bibliographer Buelens. " I am compelled," says Noordziek, " to deny, provisionally, this author the right of giving his opinion in this question. I will grant thi$ as soon as he has given me (!) a proof of understanding it." This is strong, a little too strong. Noordziek, armed with the jus promovendi with respect to bibliographers like Buelens ; it is about the same as if I allowed Kern and Hoffmann to occupy 152 A HERALD OP LIES. themselves with Sanscrit and Japanese. The Nestor of the bibliographers, Brunet, also,, who had said with perfect truth of M. De Vries, " qui toutefois, il faut bien le connaitre, a donné souvent de simples conjectures pour des faits positifs" — Brunet supplied Noordziek with " a proof that little judgment was required to get a great name as bibliographer." In opposition to such ignoramuses, Noordziek agrees " willingly and absolutely " with the opinion of M. Vander Meersch, " that the larger towns of Italy, France, England, Spain, and Germany, owe to us the settlement of their first or principal printers, whereby the force of the argument — so often brought against us by the partisans of Guttenberg, that Mentz workmen had introduced the art of printing in most of the towns of Europe — falls entirely to the ground." He who dares to print such expres- sions in 1858, betrays either a disposition to renounce all feelings of shame, or such an absolute ignorance, that the author has to be treated, not as an antagonist, but as a patient. However, his voice was too strong for an invalid. Of the same nature is the following: "We have referred to the opinions given in favour of the Netherlands by Mariangelus Accursius, a Neapolitan (who knew nothing about the question, but who, at any rate, spoke only of xylographic Confessionalia !), Guicciardini of Florence (who only recorded an " on dit" in 1567!), Van Zuren, burgomaster, and Coornhert, pensionary of Haarlem, Ortels of Antwerp (all of the same value as Guicciardini !), Braun of Cologne, (who simply translates Guicciardini as far as the " fania " of Haarlem is concerned, but who says of Mentz : To this town ice owe the invention of typography .'), Von Eytzing of Austria (who also copies Guicciardini in 1583 !), Quadus of Germany (who also copies Guicciardini in 1600), Atkyns of England (a reference in 1858 to the ridiculous Corsellis -fiction of Atkyns of the year 1664 !), Conti of Milan (who copies, in 1572, his countryman, Guicciardini, but with addition of the year 1453, and the name of — Gutenberg !), Badius of Paris (who said nothing about Haarlem !), Mirtius, of the convent of Subiaco in Italy (who copies, in 1629, the foolish account of Conti !), &c. (&c. ??) all written before Junius' time, some even a century earlier." Does M. Noordziek really believe this ? Does he believe indeed that of all these so-called proofs — of which not even one falls in the first half of the 16th century, of which the earliest was printed in 1561, — some were " written " a century before Junius, who wrote in 1568, and whose work was printed in 1588 ? ! " And which evidences," Noordziek goes on, " are naturally linked with those given above ? " He does not hesitate to answer : " Those of authors, contem- poraries of Junius, who evidently drew from other sources, and finally those on whom Junius rests his account, and who never contradicted the historian, namely Gerard (?) Thomaszoon, M. Claes Lottijnszoon Gael, often sheriff of Haarlem, Quirinus Talesius, or M. Quirijn Dirkszoon." M. Noordziek! — one or two modest questions : which of those gentlemen you mention wrote on the Coster-legend ? Who had to contradict Junius, whose book was printed after the death of all of them ? Or was Gerrit Thomasz. to do it, who brought the first story into the world ? To commit such literary decep- tions, is that maintaining the honour of Holland ? From the herald who lied through ignorance or vanity, we turn for a moment to the result of his cry. We know from my correspondence with the Haarlem archivist, that the intended erection of a metal statue in honour of the sheriff Lourens Janszoon at Haarlem was the cause of a curious event, without the public having had any suspicion of it. After 1840, M. Joh. Enschedé (not aware that Koning himself had already made the discovery, but had dishonestly concealed it, and that De Vries had a copy of the documents at home) discovered the name of the chandler Lourens Janszoon Coster in the archives at Haarlem. As he was convinced that this name only answered to the vellum pedigree and the account of Junius, but nowise to the sheriff- innkeeper Lourens Janszoon, who died in 1439, he took the chandler to be the inventor of printing. Although by this, at least honest, interpretation of the tradition, he did not succeed in sweeping away the awful blundering (from Scriverius down to De Vries) with the sheriff— who never bore the family name Coster because De Vries had entangled himself before the eyes of all Europe into a fable yet M. Joh. A HERALD OF LIES. 163 Enschedé prevented by his energy the statue being erected to the sheriff, and the words Vir consularis and the well-known arms being placed on the pedestal. ' When the archivist M. A. J. Enschedé rediscovered the Lourens Janszoon Coster, who posi- tively lived in 1447, he also learned, a few years after the inauguration of the new sheriff, that in 1856 a statue u-as erected at Haarlem (in secret!) to the chandler L. J. Coster. Since the preface of Thijm to the work of Paeile (1867) the public also knows the chandler; since March, 1870, all Holland knows who they now say really figures in metal at Haarlem. But after this revelation a most important question presents itself: Bid M: Noordziek know, or did he not know, anything of this secret change of persons ? According to his public acts, he did not. After the political events of 1848 had for a few years impeded his efforts on behalf of the new statue, he resumed the task in 1852 with fresh vigour. Among the means of filling the purse was also the publication of a work written expressly on the subject, illustrated with wood-cuts, and of which copies would be distributed among those who should contribute a certain sum to the undertaking, as an acknowledgment of their assistance. By the kindness of M. Steengracht van Duivenvoorde, the Head Committee (of the Coster -Committees) was put in possession, free of expense, of drawings by M. Bakker Korff, Jr., engraved in wood by M. Ball, and the text written by M. W. F. Otten. This original manuscript was accidentally missed for a long time ; but found, after a new treatise had been compiled (by M. Noordziek) from the notes which had been preserved. This new treatise included all the interesting things which had happened since, and was published by Messrs. Enschedé and Sons at Haarlem, under the title of " Invention of the art of Printing." The con- sequence was that of this work more than 2,500 copies were sent in 1854 and 1855 by the permanent committee to the persons interested in it (Diary, pp. 80 and 81). Now, this work, so universally distributed, this really handsomely executed souvenir of the contributions of the Dutch to the Haarlem statue, 1 regards exclusively the sheriff Louwerys Janszoon, '~who was continually confused with the much later L. J. Coster. His crest, a pretty little dog, with his tongue hanging out, is repre- sented on page 15; and on page 41 Johan Gansfieisch, a Mentz knight, who never knew that there existed a town of Haarlem, is occupied with emptying, by candle- light, a type-case into a modern trunk. On page 54 the magisterial citizen is seated on a bench in the Hout, dressed in an ermine mantle, fumbling with a pocket-knife in his barky typography. This book of 1854 was followed by the solemn inau- guration of the metal statue, July 16, 1856. A typographical exhibition was held on that occasion. The catalogue mentions, under No. 7: "Original pedigree of Lourens Jansz. Coster," the document which concerns a L. J. Coster, who in 1446 brought the first "print" into the world, and which, therefore, could be fathered on the chandler of that name and time. But it is followed by: "8. Beceipt given and sealed by L. J. Coster, 1431." So the innkeeper Lourens Janszoon, who was never called Coster, was re-baptized. "9. Begister of the graves (of 1439), in which the burial of L. J. Coster is noticed;" (read: in which the burial of the sheriff-innkeeper, Lourens Janszoon, is noticed). We may now compare the numbers 7 and 9 of this Barnum-museum. At last, in 1858, the "Diary of the Coster-fêtes" was published. However curious the silence may be which prevails in this book regarding the imaginary inventor, yet the above-quoted numbers are mentioned on page 106, and therefore the sheriff, whose name is not Coster, figures also here. A passage in this last work has attracted my attention very much since I received M. A. J. Enschedé's letter. " In the beginning of 1856 the inscriptions were chiselled on the pedestal. As to how they should run, many negotiations, written as well as verbal, took place between the members of the Head Committee, and later, with regard to their form, with M. Tetar van Elven, and lasted for more than three months. In order to satisfy all opinions, it was 1 Uitvinding der Boekdrukkunst. Haarlem, Joh. Enschede en Zonen. 1854. 4to. [By Noordziek.] X 154 A HERALD OF LIES. decided, in Sept., 1855 (the chiseller of '56 therefore served only to cover the long period of the negociation about the most simple matter of the whole undertaking) that the contents should state what Holland demanded should be ascribed to Coster ;— whom the statue represented ;— and who had paid for the erection. These inscriptions now run :- Lourens Janszoon COSTER of the Netherland Nation MDCCOLVI / Lourens Janszoon COSTER Hulde van het Nederlandsche Volk MDCCOLVI Inventor / uitvinder of the j van de Art of Printing I Boehdrukhmst with I met moveable beweegbare Letters ( uit metaal gegoten cast of metal. \ Letters. So, without giving any reasons, without saying anything about those "opinions" which were to be " satisfied," M. Noordziek skips over the important question of the inscriptions. Curious ! Why was the year 1423, chiselled already at Haarlem and officially fixed at the time of the fourth jubilee, omitted here ? For the same reason, of course, why the title Vir consularis, and the lion rampant, with label, were omitted : because M. Joh. Enschedé objected to the sanction of the sheriff-humbug. But again ; did M. Noordziek know nothing of all this ! ? Without clear evidence, charity compels me to regard him as one of the dupes, and not as one of the deceivers. If he had been initiated into the ridiculous quid-pro-quo of the legend, then the heading of this chapter should be altered. But did Noordziek not know the secret of this comedy — he, who had promulgated proclamations to the Dutch, who had written an entire Coster-archive for erecting a statue, who had buried himself under a mountain of scientific crimes to reach his aim — who, for the sake of the sheriff- innkeeper Louwerijs Janszoen, trampled upon logic, common-sense, and the reputation of scholars and dilet- tanti — did he not know who was put in 1856 into the place of the phantasm of his enthusiasm, his labour and toil ? if not, then this cruel fact should awaken him from his dream, should convince him that he has laboured for a chimera and not for truth. Or are we allowed to speak of history, when people can be mistaken for three centuries long in the person who is said to have invented typography at Haarlem ? ! Can we imagine for a single minute that we could burn all apologies for the Haarlem pretence, from Scriverius down to the Arguments of De Vries, in order to put in 1870 another hero in the story of 1588 ?! It is a supposition that would make any one giddy. But whatever some people may be able to put up with, it is certain that the history of civilization is without example of such a NATIONAL MYSTIFI- CATION as took place at Haarlem in 1856. The inscription on the pedestal should have been : ' ' Homage of the deceived Netherland nation. ' ' Homage to whom ? Just as it falls : those who allow themselves to be deceived by the botching of Junius' account, may think that the sheriff Lourens Janszoon, who died in 1439, stands there ; but those who understand the account well, can only think that it is the chandler Lourens Janszoon Coster, who still lived in 1483. M. Noordziek, at any rate, cuts the saddest figure with regard to this monumental smuggling; he wrote in his "Diary": " Junius mentions such particular circumstances respecting the inventor (!) that they leave not the least doubt about the identity of his person, and all have been con- firmed in a remarkably curious way (! !) by renewed investigations in old archives (!). The number of these particulars shows that Junius pointed out the right person as the inventor, and that he added so many explanations (!) to prevent his being confused with any other of the same name. So much has been already published and discovered about this our ancestor, that, if we collected and explained it, a very circumstantial and important history of the meritorious and curious man, completer than the one existing, might be compiled." Is this not dreadfully tragic ? Did not the chandler sing himself the hymn of his promotion, which was preserved in the " Diary " ? It runs (p. 298) :— METAMORPHOSIS OF THE LEGEND. 155 " I sit in a metal garb, They say I look very handsome and gallant ; All Holland shouts round my statue, No German is able to rob me of my glory." M. Noordziek ! assist us in removing the shame, as a penalty of your senseless zeal ! Just as my criticism is a propitiation to Netherland science for the shameful dishonouring of Gutenberg and the abusing of truth, so is it your sacred duty to repair before your death the wrong you have done at the cost of our true reputation in other countries. If the stone man erected in 172Ü, in an uncritical time, were still standing on the Market-place, the difficulty would be very small. He could have been removed without much trouble, and we could have given him an everlasting bath in the river ; but the bronze statue, inaugurated as sheriff-woodengraver-prototypographer in 1856, exposed as chandler-typographer in 1870, is a matter which ought to be seriously taken in hand, for in the face of these dates we are not allowed to refer to what our uncritical forefathers have done in their good-hearted innocence. In the stone statue we have to do with a. fable, in the metal one with a lie. XXI. METAMOKPHOSIS OP THE LEGEND. Before summing up the investigation, we ought to notice the gyrations whereby the flake became a snow-heap, which buried truth and honesty for three centuries long. I solicit urgently no superficial, but a calm and repeated reading for this apparently dry review, which may save many the perusal of a great number of books. There lies an overpowering eloquence in the chronology of the Haarlem fictions. I place the dates, the authors, and their opinions together, adding only the general observation, that all these authors have never proved anything, but always said something. No wonder that they have said much ! Let us pay attention to the metamorphosis of every separate part of the fable, of the curious growth of every seed sown by a Haarlem innkeeper in the 16th century in his pedigree. The fictitious year 1446 retrograded to 1420, and Lourens Coster's metempsychosis moves also, not very philosophically, backwards instead of forwards ; the first print ! of which nobody knows anything — dear me! what a library has sprung from this "first print" ! how liberally has it been translated on the pedestal of 1856 ! The innkeeper, however, does not seem to have been guilty of the robbery of the honour of foreigners ; it was Junius who formed a school of thoughtless slanderers — so unpardonably thoughtless, that Koning, who acknowledges that the story of Junius is entirely based on the story of the bookbinder Cornelis, knows, even better than this bed-fellow of the thief, his christian name, and changes Jan into Frielo (a Mentz knight, by the way, who was dead at the time of the invented theft). All these metamorphoses not only destroy the " changeling " of the Haarlemers, but they contain their mutual process of destruction and falsification. 1546. 1 Gerrit Thomasz. : Lourens Janszoon Coster brings the first "print" into the world, anno 1446. i This 1546 is my conjecture, in explanation of the 1446 of the pedigree, for I am unable to find any other reason why Gerrit Thomasz. pitched upon that year for the first print, but that he, while devising his pedigree, thought a round century would be very appropriate to begin with. The supposition of the year 1446 having been placed there afterwards, after the document had existed for some time, just as other tampering? had taken place, is excluded— 1st, by the voyA Anno, of the same hand with what goes before : what is said about Lourens Janszoon Coster is one whole ; 2nd, if Junius had been followed, they would have stuck to the year 1440, maintained so long at Haarlem ; 3rd, if an ignorant person had deducted the 128 years from the story of Junius or from the date of the preface, written 1570. changed into 1575, or from the year of the publication 1588, we would have got 1442, 1447 or 1460. The whole character of the document, however, answers to my supposition. 156 METAMOKPHOSIS OF THE LEGEND. 1560 (?).- Jan Van Zuren: some person practises for many years, during the period x + y, the art of printing at Haarlem, until it was brought by a foreigner to Mentz. 1561. Dirk Volkertsz, Coornhert : The art of printing is, it is said, invented at Haarlem in a very crude manner in the year x, and afterwards carried off to Mentz by an unfaithful servant. 1567. Luigi Guicciardini : The Haarlemers assert that the art of printing was invented in their town, and brought, after the death of the inventor who left the art unfinished, to Mentz by a servant, who was received there with open arms. I don't know, however, whether this is true. 1568 ('88). Hadrianus Junius : A certain Lourens Janszoon Coster invented, on occasion of a walk in the Hout in 1440, the xylographic art of printing ; he printed with it the Dutch " Spiegel der behoudenis," used afterwards also metal letters, i.e. practised typography, but was robbed on Christmas-night of the year 1441, of his invention and printing-office by Johan, probably Faust, who, together with all the materials, irreparably transported also the invention to Mentz. 1600. Petrus Bertius : L. J. Coster invented the art of printing by means of fixed wood-cuts (i.e. xylography), but the threefold villain (trifurcifer), Johan Faust, stole the art from him. 1609. Joseph Scaliger : The art of printing commenced with wood-cuts. My grandmother, Veronica Lodronia, possessed a small xylographic primer, much older than the earliest printed book known. This book, however, was destroyed thirty-six years after her death by a hunting-dog. (That grandmother died in 1512 or 1513, and Scaliger was born in 1540, so that he was a boy of eight or nine years of age when the bibliophagus-huntingdog, probably " bribed by Fust," tore the curious book to pieces. " This account, declared by many to be a mere effusion of Scaligerian family pride, afterwards almost generally rejected as a very improbable tradition of no historical value, met at the time ivith implicit belief from most of the scholars of our country." — De Vries.) 1628. Petrus Scriverius : Laurens Janszoon, sheriff of Haarlem in 1431, in- vented, on occasion of a walk, xylography, and printed the Biblia pauperum in 1428. He was, after the invention of typography, robbed in 1440 by Johan Gutenberg. " Junius has . . . his faults, and cannot be held free from inadvertence. According to what he says, the letters of the ' Spieghel onser behoudenisse,' were cut in wood, or every single letter was made of wood. Lourens, it is Baid, cut a sufficient quantity of these letters of the bark of beeches and put them together. But whether the Spieghel be the right Peter I doubt very much, and believe (that it was the Biblia pauperum). The types of the Spieghel were not made of wood, but of lead or tin. That these letters were cast and not cut is as evident and clear as the sun at mid-day. So that if we wished to say more about it, we should seem to light a candle by daylight. I omit even that it is totally incredible, on such a small scale, that each single letter should have been of wood, and, moreover, of the bark of trees : which are too weak and soft to bear the force of printing. No, printing was done at first in this way : a whole leaf was cut on a separate block and printed . . . As, for instance, Grammatica Donati. But to think that every letter was separately cut on wood . . . that is not so. And Junius ought to have paid more attention to this point, if he has seen the Spieghel himself ; and if not, he has been misinformed." While Scriverius thus by his own invention destroys that of Junius, he unwittingly fabricates at the same time a monster xylographer at Haarlem. For inquiries in the Haarlem archives have shown that Lourens Janszoon Coster was chandler and inn- keeper at Haarlem from 1436, and left the place in 1483 ; but that the sheriff- innkeeper Lourens Janszoon died there in 1439. The fictitious Haarlem Lourens Janszoon Coster since Scriverius is, therefore, not only unhistorical, but also a full-grown and two-headed monster. 1630. The Haarlem printer, Adriaan Kooman, publishes a wood-cut in honour of Coster, with the inscription : M. S. Viro Consulari Laurentio Costero, Harlemensi, METAMORPHOSIS OF THE LEGEND. 157 Alteri Cadmo, & artis typographic», circa Annum Domini 1430, Inventori primo, bene de Uteris ac toto orbe merenti hanc Q. L. C. Q. statuam, quia seream non habuit pro monumento posuit civis gratiss. Adrianus Romanus Typoeraphus. A. 1630. 1639. Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn : Laurens Coster began to print block-books in 1420. 1654. The 5th of Oet. the town of Haarlem buys at the Hague, for three hundred guilders, a small box containing the Ars moriendi, the Canticum, the Speculum, the Apocalypse (all gradually fathered on the mythic xylographer L. J. Coster, and provided with false new titles and the engraving of Rooman), three incunabula of Mentz, the Cologne chronicle, and a copy of " De proprieteyten der dingen, Haerlem, 1485. ' ' Misson invented afterwards the fable that the Dutch Spiegel, -wrapped in silk, was preserved in a silver box, of which each member of the government had a key. But in 1706 the book was shown to John Bagford, Ballard, and Murray, in the summer-house of the head-master of the Latin grammar-school ; it was in a wooden box, of which the servant had the key, in order to show the relique in the absence of the master. (Van Oosten de Bruyn said in 1765 that this copy was preserved in the town-library, in a glass case, of which the school directors, trustees of the library, and the head- master, had each a key.) 1722. 18 Aug. a stone statue was inaugurated in the Hortus Medicus at Haarlem, with the inscription : M. M. S. | Laurentio Costero | Harlemensi | Viro Consulari, | typographic | inventori vero, [ monumentum hoc | erigi curavit | Collegium Medicum | Anno 1722. (This statue was removed in 1801 to the Market-place, but stands at present again in its old place.) ' 1733. P. Vlaming : " Laurens Koster, inventor of printing, which fact is disputed by many, but may be confirmed by new proofs, in addition to those of Junius and Scriverius ; because some years ago (1654 !) a trunk was sold at the Hague, containing many things which had been concealed (!) a long time among the family of Koster, without Junius, Douza, Scriverius, or other partisans of Koster's invention, knowing anything about it (!) This box was bought for the town of Haarlem, and is at present preserved by the burgomasters of that town. This information may some day afford an opportunity for a more elaborate treatise on the subject." 1740. Seiz : The Haarlem sheriff, Laurens Jansen, invented in 1428, on a walk in the Hout, xylography, and printed with this art in 1431 the Temptationes Daemonis, the ^Biblia pauperum in 1432, the Canticum Canticorum in 1433, the Apocalypse in 1434, a Dönatus in 1435. He printed in 1436, with moveable letters cut in lead, and. in 1439, a Donatus and the Spiegel der behoudenis with letters cast of lead. The report of the Haarlem invention attracted Gutenberg that year to Haarlem : he learns there to cut, but not to cast, letters, packs himself off in 1440 with " some of the most important tools of Kdster," and carries them to Mentz. In 1442 Koster cast better letters of tin, and prints in 1443 the Spiegel again, in 1444 the Speculum, in 1450 the Historia Alexandri Magni. Until 1456 Koster was "busily engaged in printing books," so that the report of it came to the ears of Henry VI., King of England, in consequence of which the English also pilfered the art of printing from Haarlem. After the death of Laurens Koster, c. 1467, his printing-office ceased to exist, and his workmen began to establish printing-offices here and there in the 1 Gothof redus Claramontius : De statua laureata, quam collegium medicum Laurentio Costero, typographic inventori primo erexit. Amstelaed. 1723. 4to. Laurier-krans, gevlogten om 't hoofd van Laurens Koster, eerste uitvinder der boekdrukkunst binnen Haarlem. Haarlem, 1726, 4to., with the twice falsified pedigree of Coster. Willem Hessen : Parnasvreugde over het derde eeuwjaar van de geboorte der drukkunst door Laurens Koster. Haarlem, 1731. 4to. Arnold Hoogvliet placed, however, the year of the invention some years afterwards again " about 1440." The statue of 1722 had, however, nothing to do with a " jubilee," as is evident from the following brochure : — Bomeyn de Hooge en de Hortus Medicus met het standbeeld van L. Jsz. Coster door Dr. C. Ekama. Haarlem, 1869. 8vo. 158 METAMOEPHOSIS OP THE LEGEND. Netherland towns. " I wished and felt obliged to relate all this so circumstantially and accurately, in order to correct, to stop, and to do away with the many different, cripple, confused, and contradictory accounts of Junius, Bertius, Boxhorn, Van Meteren, Scriverius, and those who copy them, and whereby the world has been for more than 200 years led to think that these first Haarlem books were wood-cuts, or printed from wooden blocks, or with wooden letters, and therefore not belonging to the proper art of printing. In 1740 a silver medal was struck in honour of " Laur. Jansz. Koster, Harl. Typ. Inv. 1428 " ; a second in honour of " Laur. Costerus Jan. f. Sen. Harl. Typ. Inv. 1428"; a third in honour of " Laurentivs Costervs Harlemensis, primus artis typo- graphicae inv. circa A. 1440" ; a fourth with the inscription : " M. S. Harlemvm, 1740. Tvpographia hie primvm inventa circa ann. 1440." We got therefore in 1740 a choice between an invention in 1428 (Scriverius' fable) and in 1440 (Junius' fable). But no one knew who was meant by the impossible Consul and Senator L. J. Coster. 1 1743. Gerardus Meerman : L. J. Coster prints in 1443 the second [first] Dutch Spiegel. 1757. Gerardus Meerman : " The pretentions assertion of the invention of the art of printing by Laur. Coster begins to lose credit more and more. And all that has been told us about it by Seiz, and incorporated in Wagenaar's Hist, of Holland, are mere suppositions, and the chronology of Coster's inventions and enterprises is a romantic fiction. I think that the matter is sufficiently settled, and that the laurel ' ought to be torn from Coster's head." 2 1761 (1765). Gerardus Meerman: Louwerijs Janszoen, sheriff in 1422, 1423, 1431, treasurer in 1426, 1430, 1434, sexton of the cathedral at Haarlem, born a noble- man, as bastard of one of the Brederodes, c. 1370 (because he seems to have had in 1440 a great grand-daughter, Grietje Peters, according to the supplemented pedigree of Gerrit Thomasz., who speaks of quite another person), who died between 1434 and 1440,— invented and practised in 1428 or 1430 the art of printing with moveable wooden letters. What Junius writes of Coster's invention of leaden and tin letters is devoid of all truth. Neither ought the firstlings of printing to be classed with xylography, which nowise deserves the name of printing. Laurens was robbed on Christmas night, 1440, by Johan Gensfleisch the elder. The nobleman-sheriff-sexton-woodengraver-printer, Louwerijs Janszoen, printed only the first [read, last] Dutch undated edition of the Spiegel, with moveable wooden letters. The other (earlier !) editions, with metal letters, are of his heirs. 1765. Van Oosten de Bruyn : The sheriff, Lourens Janszoon, surnamed Koster (as he was employed as sacristan [Koster] of the cathedral, and not because his family possessed the sacristanship hereditarily, as Junius says of L. J. Coster), according to a new discovery (namely, his arms) of " distinguished birth," invented the art of printing between 1420 and 1430. "It is impossible to know either the exact year or the day of the invention, and we had therefore better leave it undecided, in order not to provoke the ridicule of some persons at such an unproved accuracy." I don't know precisely whether the invention consisted of wooden or metal letters, neither is it of any conse- quence, but the Spiegel has been printed with cast types. The block-books, which are preserved at Haarlem, have also been printed by Laurens Janszoon. His servant N. N. robbed him, assisted by a second thief, "who carried off the stolen tools." " Laurens Janszoon, walking on a certain afternoon in the Hout, accidentally cut some letters of the bark of a beech, which he arranged reversely into lines and 1 Some years before two (vroedschap) medals had been struck in reference to two Haarlem legends. " The remembrance, both of the capture of Damiate and of the invention of the art of printing, we find preserved on the two (following) medals, which it is customary to present to the members of the town- council at their meeting." They bear the words : Typographia. Harlemum. S. C— Cf . Beschryving der nederlandsche historiepenningen ... door Mr. Gerard van Loon, 's Hage. 1723. Fol. I., 160. The invention of " Laurens Jansz. Koster " is there put at 1440. 2 Het leeven van Jan Wagenaar. Benevens eenige brieven van en aan denzelven. Amsterdam. 1776. 8vo. METAMORPHOSIS OF THE LEGEND. 159 pressed upon paper ; he found that the figures of those letters were impressed on the paper : be it that the hardness of the wood had only made a blank impression on the paper, or that by some sap of the wood, some colour had come upon it. For — that Laurens should have wrapped those letters in, or put them on a piece of paper, and fallen asleep afterwards ; whereupon he, awakening, found that the paper, by the damp air or rain, had got wet, and the letters were impressed reversely, with some dye from the wood, on the paper, as Scriverius' imagination was pleased to invent, and in which he was seriously followed by Chr. Seiz — that is not to be found in Junius. Laurens," however, proceeding from this simple accident, cut in a similar way whole lines in wood." . . . Perfectly understood ! Laurens, therefore, discovered printing on a walk, after it had been known already for centuries. 1768. The Haarlem type-founder and printer, Johannes Enschedé, got made for him at Antwerp two statues, and placed them at the back of his house ; the one with the inscription : " Lourentio Joannis f. Scab. Harlem. Artis typogr. inventori, Jo. Enschedius, typographus, et typorum fusor, hanc statuam prototypographo grati animi monumentum, posuit Harl. 1768" ; the other: "Viro immortali, Hadr. Junio, ob servatam de inventione artis typogr. historise veritatem, Jo. Enschedius, typographus statuam hanc L. M. Q. P. 1768." About the legend he writes : " Lourens Jansen Koster was the first letter- and figure-cutter in wooden blocks, and also, in a defective way, the first founder of types of tin. But he used no wooden moveable letters, as [Junius and] later, and some still living scholars [Meerman] , who know nothing of the mechanism of type-founding, assert, and who therefore greatly swerve from the path of simple truth. Experienced stamp-cutters and type-founders could judge better of the firstlings of printing than such scholars." 1809. Van Westreenen : "A Dutch citizen discovers, before 1436, the art of printing books with moveable wooden letters, and prints with them a school-book, called Donatus. It is indisputable that the efforts of the Dutch citizen extended no further than the wooden moveable letters." " The theft at Haarlem is a mere guess." 1 1815. H. W. Tydeman : The Haarlem sheriff Laurens Janszoon, surnamed Koster, born in 1364, married Katrijn Andriesdochter, and died in 1434 ; he invented between 1420 and 1430 the art of printing with moveable wooden letters. No connexion between Haarlem and Mentz can be shewn, for it appears from a docu- ment of 1441 that Johan G-ensfleisch the elder made payments from property managed by him : a " strong evidence" that Meerman's supposition, that he had been the thief, "is totally inconsistent." But could not one of the typographers Jan Meydenbach or Jan Petersheim have been the man ? 2 — What a jurist that professor was ! The monster " L. J. Koster," is, according to this account, already 119 years old at his departure from Haarlem in 1483. 1816. Jacobus Koning : Lourens Janszoon, sacristan of the cathedral, in 1417 officer of the Haarlem National Guard, member of the council in the same year and in 1418, 1423, 1429, 1432, sheriff in 1422, 1423, 1428, 1429 and 1431, treasurer in 1421, 1426, 1430, 1434, great-grandfather in 1440, and therefore born cc. 1370, died c. 1439, invented xylography and typography, and printed in 1430 the first [last] Dutch Spiegel with cast types. All this I am able to prove a priori by undated early printed books. The thief was Frielo Gensfleisch. 1817. G-. van Lennep : The Essay of Koning has done more harm than benefit to the cause of Haarlem. 1822. Dr. Abraham De Vries : Lourens Janszoon (Koster) did not invent xylo- graphy, but in any case typography c. 1423. " The time of Roster's first experiment, or the birth-year of the invention, hitheeto totally dnceetain, can now be fixed 1 Verhandeling over de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst ; in Holland oorspronkelijk uitgedacht, te Straatsburg verbeterd en te Mentz voltooid ; door W. H. J. van Westreenen. 's Hage. 1809. 8vo. 2 Mnemosyne. Mengelingen voor wetenschappen en fraaije letteren ; verzameld door Mr. H. "W. Tydeman en K. G. van Kampen. I. Dord. 1815. 8vo. (pp. 123 — 216 : Verhandeling over de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst door Laurens Jansz. Koster te Haarlem). 160 METAMOKPHOSIS OF THE LEGEND. pretty accurately with perfect historical certainty. It cannot be put earlier than 1420, as Koster was at that time already grandfather; and not later than 1425, because already in the beginning of 1426, no such walk as Junius (by the year 144U ! !) mentions, could any longer take place in the Hout. It is now a perfectly proved case, that the first experiments in printing of our ingenious and meritorious country- man must have taken place before the year 1426 (when the Hout was cut down, and not even chips were left to afford an ingenious innkeeper an opportunity for inventing the art of printing), and that they date, therefore, from a considerably earlier time than the first experiments of the Germans." How " historical "I "We have at last succeeded in discovering the original notice of Roster's death in the church registers. On the list of the dead, for whom payments were made in 1439 to the church for tolling the bells and digging graves, we find the following item : 'Item Lou Jans soon breet II. gul. cloc en graf.' Hereby, 'our Koster' is meant." Anathema ! who doubts it. " The work of the learned, but not very judicious, Meerman, has done more harm to the cause of Haarlem than all its antagonists." 1823. On the spot in the Hout where this Koster in 1423 cut the first letters in the bark of a beech, a memorial stone is erected. On the sides we find, among other things, the arms of "L. J. Koster, accurately copied from his seal, as it occurs on divers documents sealed by him as sheriff." The Dutch inscription runs : In honour of Lourens Jansz. Koster, inventor of the art of printing, (erected) by Burgomasters and Councillors of the town of Haarlem. On the IV. Jubilee 1823. Moreover, three medals were struck in silver and bronze, of which one gives the period of the invention as 1420 — 1425. Holland celebrates a ridiculous jubilee, and Costerianism its first orgies, to the surprise of the ghosts of Thomasz., Junius, Lourens Coster, and Louwerijs Janszoon ! 1824. In the month of June a memorial stone is erected at the expense of King William I., in the cathedral at Haarlem, against the chief pillar of the south tower, consisting of a black marble slab, with an inscription in gilt letters : Honori. et. meritis. | Laurentii. Jani. Costeri. | Harlemensis. | festo. saeculari. | quarto. | in- ventee. typographic. | celebrata. Harlemi. | A. D. X. Julii. Anni CIOIOCCCXXIH. | Augustissimo. Belgii. Kege. | Guilielmo. Primo. | 1824. G. van Lennep : "In the ' Memorials of the fourth jubilee of the invention of the art of printing,' the first and chief duty of an historian (to be accurate and impartial ; to tell simply what has happened , without concealing, distorting, or mutilating the truth with the view of pleasing the party to which he belongs, has been miserably violated." " The so-called new evidences of M. de Vries prove nothing, or at least very little." " The compiler of the Memorials says : ' We had expected that the anticipated celebration at Haarlem should rouse the jealousy of the Germans ; meanwhile they remained silent at the announcement, approach, and celebration of the jubilee.' Yet we read in the Neue Maintzer Zeitung of 26th June, 1823, a fort- night before the celebration : The Letterbode contains the following article : The government of Haarlem has resolved that on the 10th of the following month, the fourth jubilee of the invention of the art of printing shall be celebrated in that town, &c. But a fable, when it is celebrated by a puppet-show, can thereby be made more ridiculous, but never true. We are of the opinion of the French scholars, that it is fortunate for Mentz that M. Koning exposed, by his work, the superficiality (Seichtheit) of the basis on which Haarlem tries to claim the honour of the invention. This work, which contains arguments of which a schoolboy would feel ashamed, &c. We (Van Lennep) have pointed out the untruths of the Memorials to the Dutch nation, whom we could not tolerate to be taken in so shamefully." 1 1 [Mr. G-. van Lennep :] Aanmerkingen op de Gedenkschriften wegens het vierde eeuwgetiide van de uitvinding der Boekdrukkunst, door Lourens Janszoon Koster, 's Gravenhage. 1824. 8vo Essai d'une liste chronologique des ouvrages et dissertations concernant l'histoire 'de l'imprimerie en Belgique et en Hollande. Par L. E. Hoffmann. Bruxelles. 1859. 8vo. Cf Neuer Anzeiger für Bibliographie und Btbliothekwissenschaft. Herausgegeben von Dr. J. Petzholdt. 1865 (pp. 273—89 lob/ pp» oli^~££,j METAMOKPHOSIS OF THE LEGEND. 161 1833. Jac. Scheltema : The sheriff Lourens Janszoon, not at all an innkeeper (as the Germans had inoontrovertibly proved from the supplement of Koning) but sacristan of the cathedral (what Scheltema felt bound to acknowledge himself was not proved) invented and exercised typography from 1420 — 1439. He commenced, however, with xylography. Is perhaps the brief-prenter Henne Cruse, whom we find at Mentz in 1440, the thief who robbed us of the invention ? The Germans have to prove that it was not he (!). 1841. Dr. Abr. De Vries : The sheriff L. J. Coster has been no sacristan at all. His "cause" has nothing to fear but from those "who, unprepared, without any preliminary, thorough investigation, and incompetent, venture to come forward as its defenders, and in their ignorance not knowing how to distinguish the true from the false, the suitable from the useless, deny what ought to be acknowledged, grant what should be disputed. And senselessly sticking to arguments incapable of proof, deciding nothing in the question, give an appearance of doubt, intricacy, and obscurity to a subject which is in itself simple, clear, and evident, but, in the long contest between its numerous assailants and defenders, has been buried under so much dust of useless learning and misunderstanding, cavillings and untruths, that it is impossible to recognise it without removing that confused ballast. Once free, however, from that which does not belong to, but confuses it, there is needed only a clear and accurate indication of the real and well-proved facts of the history. We have to consider before all, that the question concerns no object of speculation, which can be settled by guesses and reasonings a priori (hear, hear !), but an event that happened, a factum historicum, which can be decided only by historical proofs (bravo !). Let us confine ourselves strictly to the real point of the question, to the proper case, which is to be proved ; to the maintenance of that honour of our worthy countryman to which the verdict of history (!) evidently entitles him, laying himself no claims to anything but the acknow- ledgment of the merit, which the most credible historians (? since Gerrit Thomaszoon !) positively adjudge to him : That he is the inventor of typography, of the proper ART OF PRINTING J THE FIRST WHO INVENTED AND PRACTISED THE ART OF PRINTING WITH MOVEABLE AND CAST LETTERS, AND SO GAVE THE EXAMPLE TO MENTZ. We OUght not to ascribe to him what history (!) does not sanction. We ought not to make him an artist in drawing and engraving, an inventor and the first pract.iser of xylography or printing with wooden blocks, or an engraver of wood-cuts under which he also printed the text — for which (just as little as for the other fables which De Vries goes on to serve up) not a single evidence can be found in any historian. Let no one attach too much value to guesses and probabilities, founded on speculations and comparisons of early printed books of uncertain date and origin [as Koning has done], nor forget that those can lead to nothing but fallible and questionable inferences (hear !), and that the opinion of the most esteemed judge on this point, is, as experience teaches us, very uncertain and .different. Let no one indulge loo positive decisions as to which incunabula are the productions of Coster's press, but those which have been distinctly mentioned by Zell (!) and Junius ; nor must we build arguments and conclusions on vague suppositions (bravo !) as to the condition, the time of the continuance of, and the works issued from, Coster's press after his death, about which history contains not a single notice ; but (observe !) let every one assert with force and energy what no thorough and impartial judgment could deny in good faith, that of all accounts concerning the history of the invention of the art of printing, there is none, decidedly none, which may in any way be compared in authority (!), simplicity (! !), completeness (!!!), and well-proved accuracy (!!!!), with that of Zell (who in 1499 purely historically says that typography was invented at Mentz 1440 — 50 by Johan Gutenberg !), and Junius (who asserts in 1568 that a certain art of wood-printing was invented at Haarlem in 1440, and not, as De Vries said, in 1423, by Lourens Janszoon Coster!), who declare for Holland, Haarlem, and Coster." 1843. Noordziek : " The whole pretension of attributing to Coster the greatest part of the xylographic works which are found at Haarlem is an error. The supposi- tion (of Koning) that Coster had only got through them the idea of typography is again 162 METAMORPHOSIS OF THE LEGEND. a deviation from history ; and it is stated nowhere that the descendants of Laurens -Janszoon continued, with success, printing, which had yielded profits to its inventor." The same man, in the same book: "Coster returned every time to the ordinary manner of the printers of cards and images, to the impression with fixed letters, without ceasing, however, to occupy himself with perfecting his first discovery, which had appeared preferable to him in every respect." Of all imaginable nonsense the most nonsensical nonsense ! 1845. Dr. A. De "Vries : The sheriff Lourens Janszoon was really a xylographer, and his heirs have really printed. 1847. Noordziek: Oh land, land, land, listen! "Before the whole world (before the whole world !), we should, according to my opinion, bring down upon ourselves a well-deserved blame of lukewarmness and indifference, if we calmly tolerated the Germans continuing to make a show with such a magnificent statue in honour of the imitator of the inventor, without the erection among us — a nation financially so powerful — of a proportionate mark of honour to the real inventor ! " Oh ! all ye ends of the earth, listen to the word of Balaam, the son of Beor ! M. Joh. Enschedé, meanwhile, has learned that in no case can there be any question of the sheriff-innkeeper, Lourens Janszoon (who had been bandied about for two centuries and a-quarter), but that the only Haarlem pretender-inventor of typo- graphy, who could be taken into consideration, is the later (non-sheriff) chandler, Lourens Janszoon Coster. Seeing the danger approach of the erection of a metal statue, he opposes the repetition of the sheriff-crowing of 1823. The result of this honest, but, alas ! too compassionate opposition, has been that Dr. De Vries should make no mention of the sheriff on the pedestal, and that M. Enschedé should not reveal the chandler as long as De Vries lived. In public the Coster-community, deceived by their priests, went on sacrificing to the sheriff. 1 M. Enschedé was weak enough to look silently on this imposture, so that it was only disclosed in 1870, in consequence of my criticism. 1848. J. J. F. Noordziek : " To this man ought undoubtedly a worthy statue to be erected, at the expense of the nation, which should represent the inventor in all his grandeur, and be superior in every respect to that of his antagonist, Gutenberg." " Coster, who was sheriff of his native town, ought to be represented in the dress of a magistrate of the 15th century." 1851. A club (Kamer der Wyngaardranken) at Haarlem place a memorial stone in front of the rebuilt Coster-house, with the inscription : " Costeri Aedes typographic natales." The picture which has been there until the rebuilding had as inscription :' " M. S. | Viro Consulari | Laurentio Costero, | Harlemensi, | Typographic | Inventori . | circa annum | MCCCCXXX." The committee entrusted with the business of the memorial stone put for the first time a stop to the bandying about of the fictitious year of the fictitious invention. 1851. Dr. A. De Vries : " In the beginning the art of printing was, as we know (!), secretly practised for a long time, not only during the lifetime of the inventor, but also many years after his death (!), as a trade, it is said, in manuscripts (!), the only 1 " The Netherland people," Noordziek wrote, " prepared themselves (July, 1856) to raise shouts of j Oy, which would resound far and wide, without mixing with them any bitterness against the conquered foreign countries, but acknowledging in conciliating spirit what was in accordance with truth and justice." What was that " shouting " people taken in ! They danced round the new statue, which came instead of the old sheriff-statue, which it was " to replace " (these are the official words). I give also some proofs, derived from Noordziek's own description of " the illuminations of the town " at the occasion of the inauguration. The decorations of the railway station contained, " in a laurel of immortals, and underneath a crown, the year of' the invention of printing, 1423," and "the arms of Lourens Janszoon Coster," i.e. the lion of the innkeeper Lourens Janszoon, but NOT the dove of the chandler Lourens Janszoon Coster. On the memorial-stone in the wood were the words : " From Haarlem's flower-garden the light arose over the earth," with the year 1423, " adopted as that in which CoEter made the invaluable invention of printing with loose, cast metal letters." Very bad 1 In 1823 the year 1423 was adopted, because the trees in the wood had been cut down in 1426, and Coster could there- fore not have taken his inventor's-walk later : there was not enough beech-wood. But in 1856 this whole history is muffled, and the invention of metal letters in 1423 put instead ! METAMORPHOSIS OP THE LEGEND. 163 trade which was known at that time. They (the innkeeper Louwerijs Janszoen!) made all they printed as much like the handwriting of those days as possible, and sold the impressions at great profit as manuscript (!). The law-suit at Mentz, between Faust and Gutenberg, revealed (!) the secret of the (Haarlem !) art. From that time the printers in Germany and elsewhere began to advertise (!) publicly the productions of their press, and the printers disclosed their name, the place, and the time of printing. Books, provided with such inscriptions, were soon brought and spread into Holland, and the secret which had hitherto been so carefully kept con- cealed became very soon known (!). All reasons for further secrecy were now re- moved (!). The whole history of the invention was disclosed (! !). The busy trade in so-called manuscripts, which had so long (!) been carried on at Haarlem with such great profits, now appeared to have been a secret printing-office (!). People saw that the pretended MSS., sold there, were printed books (!). The man who began this secret trade, now (when ?) discovered, had been very well known and esteemed during his hfetime. He had been an active and influential (!) member of the municipal government, had deserved well in important political matters, and was still alive in the grateful remembrance of his fellow-townsmen (on account of- the imputed swindler' s-secret, his inn, or his delegation with other members of the council?!). He was assisted and succeeded in this trade (swindling) by his son-in-law Thomas Pieterszoon, who, being from the beginning a partner of the secret, had been zealously labouring in behalf of the success of the business ; he lived, and continued the paternal business (of innkeeper?), in the paternal house by inheritance." Has there 'ever been bungling like this since the creation ? 1854. Noordziek : The sheriff Lourens Janszoon, whose seal "proves most incontrovertibly that Coster (!) belonged to the greatly-distinguished family of Brede- rode, descended from our ancient Dutch Counts, invented the art of printing in the year x, but he was robbed by (the dead) Johan Gensfleisch the elder, also in the year x." " The circumstantial indication of the man whom Junius meant, makes a supposition of confusion and mistake as to the person, the most obvious absurdity." 1856. The metal statue at Haarlem is inaugurated ; it is decorated with the name Lourens Janszoon Coster, but without the least indication of the time of his invention. At the typographical exhibition, however, are found the documents of the insane Costerian dualism : 1st, the falsified pedigree of Coster ; 2nd, a receipt, sealed by the sheriff Lourens Janszoon; 3rd, the register of the graves, containing the notice of his burial in 1439. All Holland is feasting in honour of the sheriff-innkeeper Louwerijs Janszoen, quasi-inventor at Haarlem in 1423. 1862. Dr. A. De Vries : The sheriff Lourens Janszoon invented the art of print- ing, and practised xylography. 1867. J. A. Alberdingk Thijm : The Haarlem City-chandler, Lourens Janszoon Coster, who occurs in the municipal accounts of 1441 — 1447, invented the art of printing. He is identical with the sheriff Lourens Janszoon, who died in 1439 ! — ! — ! . I ! ! I ! I I I ! This insane self-ridiculing of Costerianism was a well-merited beginning of the end. The Haarlem monster was now concocted as sheriff-innkeeper-chandler-sexton- sacristan - engraver - shopkeeper - xylographer - typographer - swindler in manuscripts — grandfather in 1420 — dead in 1439 — alive in 1447 — departed from Haarlem in 1483. 1870. M. A. J. Enschedé, archivist of Haarlem, states that the statue erected in 1856 in honour of the SHERiFF-innkeeper Lourens Janszoon does not concern him, but the chandler (-innkeeper) Lourens Janszoon Coster, of later date. The Coster-deception is exposed in the " Nederlandschen Spectator" from Dec, 1869, till May, 1870 ; but it is, even after this disclosure, calmly maintained by the town of Haarlem, as if nothing had happened ! 164 A MUNICIPAL SHOW-BOOTH. XXII. A MUNICIPAL SHOW-BOOTH. Let us review, in conclusion, what is shewn in the town-hall at Haarlem to natives and foreigners. I shall observe in this enumeration the order of the official " List of documents regarding the history of the invention of printing, preserved at the town- hall at Haarlem; compiled by Dr. A. De Vries, librarian of the Town-library. 1862." No. 1. Historia Sancti Johannis Evangelistae ejusque visionis Apocalypticse. A block-book of the 15th century, of German origin, but provided with the portrait of an unknown person of the 17th century, which is meant to represent a Haarlem sheriff of the 15th century, named Lourens Janszoon, but 189 years after his death baptized as Coster, and represented, entirely without his fault, as a xylographer. No. 2. Historia seu providentia virginis Marise ex Cantico Canticorum. Nine wood-engravings of the 15th century, of Dutch origin, fathered, in the 17th century, on the aforesaid sheriff, as having been executed by him in 1430. No. 3. Ars moriendi sive de tentationibus morientium vel tentationes daemonis. Seven wood-engravings, ascribed in 1628 to the same " great unknown." No. 4. Donatus-fragments, typographically printed after the year 1470, fathered on the same innkeeper, imaginary wood-cut printer, who was, in the 17th century, created a book-printer, to the detriment of another legendary book-printer, in reality a chandler, but whose name was at least Lourens Janszoon Coster. No. 5. Fragment of a Doctrinale, printed in the 15th century with Dutch tj-pes, and discovered in Holland, but ascribed in 1568, by Dr. Hadrianus Junius, to a Mehtz press of Johan Fust in 1442, which never existed. No. 6. Spieghel onser behoudenisse. Second Dutch, undated, edition of a typo- graphic work of about the last quarter of the 15th century, printed with worn types, fathered in 1568, by Doctor Junius, on a certain L. J. Coster at Haarlem, as a work printed in the year 1440, with wooden letters, but converted in the 18th and 19th century into first edition. In the same volume is bound an undated work printed c. 1470, at Utrecht by Ketelaer and De Leempt, but claimed at the end of the 16th century as a Haarlem product. No. 7. Spieghel onser behoudenisse. Second copy of the same edition, the fifth and eleventh leaf of which consist of two half-leaves pasted together, and are a palpable evidence that this kind of books could not possibly have ever been sold as manuscripts, as the Costerians pretended. It is untrue that this copy "was bought at the sale of the effects of one of the descendants of Coster." No. 8. Speculum humanas salutis. Latin, and at the same time earliest, edition of this work, but with modern title, which fathers it on L. J. Coster, under the year 1440, contrary to the Haarlem legend (1446) and to historical truth. No. 9. Spieghel der menscheliker behoudenisse. Manuscript on vellum of the year 1464, anterior to the printed editions, but naively put after them.. No. 10. Spieghel onser behoudenisse. Printed at Culemborg, by Johan Veldener, in the year 1483, with the original wood-cuts of the four undated editions, now cut in two : a palpable evidence that these editions originate not from the first, but from the second half of the 16th century. Documents concerning a certain Haarlem sheriff-innkeeper Louicerijs Janszoen, who died in 1439 ; but they are here collectively fathered on a later Haarlemer, named Lourens Janszoon Coster. For instance : — No. 11. Eeceipt on vellum, of a gift of four almshouses, passed and sealed by the A MUNICIPAL SHOW-BOOTH. 165 Haarlem sheriff Louwenis Janszoen and Gherrit van Adrichem, dated Whitsun-eve, 1431. Eight more sheriff-documents, of the same kind, follow; besides autographs of the same sheriff, who is called Coster on the list, but never had that name. No. 12. Autographs and facsimile signatures of descendants of a certain Haarlem chandler-innkeeper, called L. J. Coster (here confused, however, with the sheriff-inn- keeper Lourens Janszoon), but on whom are fathered, in 1862 only, a grandson, Wouter Thomaszoon, and a great-grandson, Thomas Thomaszoon. No. 13. Pedigree of Lourens Janszoon Coster, on vellum, made in the 16th century, on which the earliest reading of the Haarlem Coster-fiction is mentioned, but was afterwards falsified. The falsification, very easily to be done on vellum, is obvious eveu to the naked eye. The vellum document is not continued, as the official descrip- tion of Dr. De Vries tells us, till 1724, for it leaves off in the 16th century. But another pedigree is added to it, fabricated in the 18th century, and copied on paper by Jacobus Koning. And just as with the two fables of the Haarlem invention, so these two documents are mixed up together in one description. No. 14. Wooden block, containing a part of a Horarium, of the beginning of the 16th century, but fathered on the Haarlem sheriff-innkeeper of the 15th century. No. 15. Wood-cut, representing the sheriff Laurens Janszoon, executed, as is historically certain, in the 18th century, out of mere fun, by Cornelis van den Berg at Haarlem, but put here as of doubtful, therefore not as of positively certain, spuriousness. No. 16. Painted portrait of Erasmus, but "which has always been thought to be a likeness of Lourens Janszoon Coster" ! Underneath : Painted portrait of Ruard Tapper, in the former century said to be the sheriff Lourens Janszoon. No. 18. Copper engraving of the portrait of L. J. Coster, engraved by Jan Ladmiraal after a picture, sketched in the beginning of the last century by Laur. van der Vinne, but which was attributed afterwards to a painter of the 15th century, Albert van Oudewater. No. 19. Cronica van der Hilliger Stat van Coellen, printed at Cologne by Johan Koelhoff, in 1499. In this work an account is given of the invention of typography, in which it is, according to history, positively ascribed to Johan Gutbnbeeg of Mentz. But the author, however well he may have been informed about the principal matter by Ulric Zeil, ar disciple of the earliest Mentz press, is mistaken in some details, especially when he endeavours to explain the derivation of typography from xylo- graphy. Namely, just as the prosperity of South Netherland wood-engraving falls in the first half of the 15th century, so that of North Netherland falls in the second half, and we know that xylography continued to supply school-books by the side of the flourishing typography. A^ xylographic Donatus preserved at Deventer, for instance, dates from the latter part of the 15th century (according to Meerman, even 1499 — 1503) ; the letters of the wooden block at Haarlem have the greatest resemblance to those of Willem "Vorsterman, who printed at Antwerp in the beginning of the 16th century. Moreover, typographic Donatuses were printed afterwards in great numbers in the North Netherlands and exported also to foreign countries. Add to this the lively trade between Holland and Cologne, which belonged to the Hanse-towns ; that, chiefly from Cologne, typography spread over the Nether- lands ; and the geographical inaccuracy, the confusion of Holland with Flanders, of the North with the South Netherlands, is nowise surprising in an author of the middle ages. We may, therefore, "read in' the chronicle, accepting that this parti- cular originated also from Zell, and not from the author of the chronicle (for that must still remain a question, and the author of the chronicle may be the first who had no longer a clear technical idea of the connexion between typography and xylo- graphy, and began to mix up the two, modes of printing), thus : — Junker Johan Gutenberg got, about the year 1440, (a period expressed by a round number, not exactly a year), by means of Netherland block-Donatuses, the idea of our present mode of printing books. He spent some years in developing this new idea, in experiments, and was ready with his invention in 1450. 166 A MUNICIPAL SHOW-BOOTH. The very natural error of the author of the chronicle in the history of xylography, has been, since the 17th century, taken advantage of by the Costerians, to cover the pretence of an invention of typography at Haarlem, and the book in which it is found is exhibited there in all sincerity. Their argument, however, was of the same kind as that which, by dividing the first verse of Psalm 14 or 53, tries to prove atheism from the Bible. And not only that, but it was supplied (fortunately not yet, as Mr. Humphreys wishes, in a foreign language !) with a Costerian exegesis, which converts this clear account to nonsense. For granting, for a moment, that the chronicle speaks of typo- graphical Donatuses, of a Butch invention, therefore, of the proper art of printing, this stronghold of Haarlem would then consist of the following labyrinth : " Typography was fi rst of all invented at Mentz, between 1440 and '50. No, typography was not invented at Mentz, but it was, before that time (i.e. before the first invention !) invented in Holland. No, typography has really been invented in Germany, for the first inventor was Gutenberg, at Mentz." Fine reasoning ! People may be amused, feel annoyed or sad, according to one's disposition or opinion, at the capers to which such logic leads. Let us again hear what De Vries says : — " There is in this account of Zell something remarkable and naive, which most clearly proves, that he must have been not only a grateful disciple, but even an enthu- siastic admirer of Guttenberg. He is so delighted with him, that he tries to exalt him as much as possible, and considers it a great honour for his German countrymen, that such an ingenious man had been among them ; nay, in the enthusiasm and rapture of his passionate admiration, he suffers himself to be carried away so far (?) as to ascribe to him the honour of the invention (hear !) ; an assertion, however, he, after further consideration (!), thinks bound, from conscientious veracity, to retract (eh?) and to modify; yet he could not make up his mind (oh!) to moderate the excessive praise (not nice !), but by expressly telling that this admired master, although not in the proper sense of the word the first inventor (where is that ? he dis- tinctly calls him the first inventor !), had invented this art in a much more masterly and subtile mode than the other one, and made it more and more perfect (vill meysterlicher ind subtilicher is vonden dae die selue manier was, vnd (ye lenger ye mere) kunstlicher wurden.)" Enthusiasm, rapture, passionate admiration, carrying away, conscientious veracity — these are the same exegetic tricks, by which the rabbis have proved that the pit of Joseph was, according to the Bible-text, " empty, without water," yet — full of serpents. Such an explanation is condemned simply by quoting it. What on earth was there to be invented for that " first inventor," for that enthusiastically-admired Gutenberg, whom Zell tries to exalt as much as possible, when typography proper was invented already. For there is no question of the improver of type-casting, Peter Schóffer, but of the "first inventor" before 1450, whose claim is even defended by a violent assault upon the error about Jenson, against those confident persons who assert that there had been printing already before. Eeally the author of the chronicle, whose " evidence is beyond all doubt, and cannot be untrue," places his Haarlem interpreter, by anticipation, among the "confident persons." Here, therefore, citizens and countrymen ! here you have a museum,, with precious documents to prove that typography was invented at Haarlem, about 1423, by a certain Lourens Janszoon Coster. In order to prove this, we show you first an "old pedigree of that inventor, of a chandler, and on which you may read that he brought the. first print into the world — in 1423, you think? No, in 1446; secondly, we let you see sheriff-documents, about the sale of houses and other typographical particulars, signed by a certain innkeeper Lourens Janszoon, who died — the evidence is here in a case — in 1439 ; then we have even the books, printed by our two-headed Haarlem inventor ; look here : it is true, you would not find anything upon them CONCLUSION. 167 about Haarlem or the innkeeper Lourens, or the chandler Coster, neither are they earlier than 1470 — 80, but — out of respect for our museum, you ought to believe that they are Haarlem books, of between 1420 — 40 ; finally — for such a complete museum, citizens and countrymen, has never been seen before — you have here even the portraits of this celebrated Haarlem inventor ; as a child, he strikingly resembled this old Erasmus ; when his printing-office flourished he was so good-looking that no one could distinguish him from this Euard Tapper, also a practiser of the art of printing (pressing), but of the clerical printing; but when his servant ran away in 1441, with press and invention, he assumed that sour face which you may behold in this third representation. You see, therefore, distinctly, that, in reality, he has had more heads than two, at least three. He is our worshipped Brahma, our highly honoured Cerberus, our thousand- headed monster ; and that he allowed himself to be cheated by a miserable German, was only the consequence of his superhuman tolerance and our national forbearance. Yes, citizens and countrymen, such a booth as here is nowhere to be found on earth : the first wood-cut print came here into the world, anno 1446 ; typography was stolen here in 1441 ; the man who invented it in 1423, died in 1439, hut left this town in 1483 ; he himself was invented only in 1568, shuffled away in 1628, was brought to light again in 1870. Certainly, this official fair-booth is unique on this earth. Would it not be high time to close it ? XXIII. CONCLUSION. The genuine documents of the fifteenth century, the imprints of the earliest incuna- bula, all (even the Netherland) chronicles, prove that typography was invented at Mentz before 1450 by Johan Gensfleisch Gutenberg. Vanity and family pride, how- ever, brought the Faust-legend, and, assisted by narrow-minded localism, the Stras- burg and Haarlem fictions, into existence, of which history is now freed for good. The Haarlem pretence, especially, exhibited an uninterrupted series of trickery and smuggling. The sheriff-innkeeper, Gerrit Thomasz., based his (great-) grand- father Lourens Janszoon Coster, upon a dim recollection of the first typo- grapher at Haarlem, Jacob of Zierikzee ; — Junius the year 1440 upon the fictitious date of Thomaszoon's pedigree, and an undated book upon " deerste print;" — Scriverius, a second imaginary inventor, the sheriff Lourens Janszoon, upon Coster ; — Meerman, an impossible sexton, upon that sheriff, and so on. So they went on till they perpetrated the gross deception of the public in 1856, by the inauguration of a spurious statue. Hadrianus Junius was the first who, in 1568, in order to earn the thanks of the town in which he lived, compiled a story, which would give, in a time full of super- stition, an appearance of credibility to a town-gossip. Every effort to save this fiction, made public only in 1588, by evasions, is henceforth impossible, now we have disclosed the falsification of the year in the original document of Gerrit Thomas- zoon's vanity. We should not forget that in bygone centuries people had a more elastic conscience with regard to literary fraud, when it could serve to increase the glory of one's country, father, or grandfather, than at present. Apia fraus is to us, who have fortunately stricter notions of morality, nonsense ; but it was a legitimate means with our fathers. Since scientific criticism has begun, this chapter also of the history of morals has been enriched with so many examples, that surprise can only be 168 CONCLUSION. the part of the ignorant. Untrue is the year in Junius.' fable, for the document of his legend does not give 1440 but 1446; untrue is it that by " deerste print" the "Spiegel der behoudenis" could have been meant, for this work is a typographical figure-book, and the invention of typography was only ready in 1450 ; untrue are all Junius' descriptions of this book which he, on his own authority, fathers upon L. J. Coster ; invented is the theft (fabricated to establish a connexion between Haarlem and Mentz, in a manner which leaves the priority to Haarlem), for in 1442 they could not print at Mentz with the tools of a prenter, whose first work appeared in 1446 ; imaginary is the person of the thief, Johan (Faust), for no press was established in Mentz before 1450 ; imaginary the evidence of the bookbinder Cornelis, for the man who dies as an octogenarian in 1522 was no servant in the year 1440, and would, moreover, have made, by his long-continued raving against the Mentz theft, the secret of a Haarlem invention of typography for more than a century impossible. . Although Junius remained in his story correct — with respect to the name at least of the chimerical inventor L. J. Coster — to the great-grandfather of his friend, Gerrit Thomasz. ; and with his year, 1440, within the limits at least of Coster's life (now known as having extended from 1436 — 83) — in the 17th century the legend cut the only two threads which connected it with its origin. Scriverius invented the year 1428, deviated entirely from the account of Junius, also, with regard to the Spiegel, and, taken in by the similarity of the christian names, he fancied he had discovered the Haarlem inventor in a certain Haarlem sheriff, Louwerijs Janszoon, not of the second, but of the first half of the 15th century, and who died in 1439, one year before the invention in Junius, two years before the theft, seven years before the "first print" of Gerrit Thomaszoon' s ancestor Lourens Janszoon Coster. The superstition of the Costerians went on building on this mistake of Scriverius, unaware that they had no longer to do with the man to whom their original worship was devoted. Since that time everything of which untruth, deception, sophism and impudence, superstition and narrow-mindedness, is capable, has been done, to give an appearance of truth to the colossal error, that typography had been invented by the Haarlem sheriff-innkeeper Louwerijs Janszoen, of the first half of the 15th century, while the original legend claimed nothing but the first (xylographic) prent for Lourens Janszoon Coster, chandler-innkeeper of the second half of the 15th century. On this confusion of persons are based the works of Scriverius, Boxhorn, Meerman, Koning, Scheltema, De Vries, Noordziek, and Paeile, which, therefore, from the moment of the discovery of the mistake, disappear in smoke. The public thought that the new statue of 1856 was also for the sheriff, who had already, in the former century, two stone statues at Haarlem. But my exegesis of the story of Junius, disclosing the mistake of the interchange of persons, even before I discovered the falsification of the pedigree, lifted up the veil : the chandler stands on the Market-place, the sheriff stands in the Hortus Medicus and in the Hout, and inscribed on several medals. And now also the true reading of the earliest docu- ment of the Coster-legend is brought to light; now the year 1446, which was falsified and partly erased, is recovered : "the whole fable lies exposed. For it is at present certain, that Junius, who knew this year, meant, with his story of the theft, not only the removal of the art of printing, but of the invention itself, from Haarlem to Mentz, during the lifetime of Coster, i.e. he meant absolute nonsense. It is no longer a guess, but a scientific result, what the most competent critics of other countries have always thought of our pretended invention at Haarlem — what Fournier, for instance, wrote, in his Observations (Paris, 1760) : " Les prémices de l'Art sont dus, suivant M. Schoepflin, a, Coster, & ont été faits a Haarlem. J'ai fait voir que cet opinion est dépourvüe de fondement, de preuveSj méme de vraisemblance, & que Coster n'est qu'un être idéal dans l'histoire de l'ïmprimerie ; aucune production Typographique ne dépose en sa faveur ; il n'est connu que par des' préjugés nationaux, and par' des recits accompagnés de contradictions et de fables ridicules." CONCLUSION. 169 At Haarlem, therefore, -we have to do away with the following monuments : 1. The statue on the Market-place; 2. The memorial-stone in front of the Coster- house; 8. The slab in the cathedral, in remembrance of the "fourth jubilee" of 1823 (although the celebration of a first, second and third was never thought of !) ; 4. The memorial-stone in the Hout, with the arms of the sheriff and the year 1423; Finally, the deceptive Coster-museum ought to be abolished and the books themselves incorporated with the town library. Let the votaries of dead conservatism, which would leave the things in being, not because they are good and true, but because they exist, make no illusions of their cynicism of characterless indifference. "That statue looks well there I" so the ' ' ostriches ' ' of the solved question console themselves. But they forget that henceforth there can be no longer any pretence of a Coster-question, but of a Cosier-scandal, which our national honour demands should be stopped as soon as possible ; they forget that henceforth not only every scientific, but also every honest man, will disavow the exposed fraud ; they forget that in our time of telegraphs and railways, inter- national intercourse and reading, there is no longer place for shuffling tactics ; they forget that this criticism has found its way already beyond our borders, and that in our own country the number of radical favourers of truth increases, who would not feel inclined, for the sake of ease and spiritual bluntness, to help us to bear the ridicule of the Coster-bunglings ; they forget that the bronze statue of 1856 is henceforth impossible, on account of the cause which it represents ; that it is a shame to our nation, on account of the immorality of its origin ; they forget that we could say with erect head to the foreigner : We were deceived, but the deception has no hold on us ; for we ourselves have torn with strong hand the tissue of hes, and thrown the rags at the feet of the blockheads and deceivers. It is now the duty of those who are convinced of the truth, to raise it by public courage to a moral power, removing what has made us ridiculous for two centuries already. Although there are persons who, immorally indifferent, will not take cognizance of the verdicts of science — it ought to be made plain that the honour of our country is not entrusted to them. I have received many paternal exhortations about the " sharpness," and heard many expressions of sympathy for the victims of, my criticism. But the opinion of those who have no notion whatever of the "fecit indignatio versum," is of no im- portance. It would be grander, if there were less offence in a destructive criticism and more offence in the unparalleled deception of which the people of Holland have been the dupes for many years. I have had to put up also with the thousand-and-one observations about the " good faith " with which A had done this, B that, and C something else in behalf of Cos- terianism, i.e. in the interest of a bad cause. I should wish such observers to re-consider their elastic notion of "good faith," for I am afraid that our friend Mephistopheles has hitherto been satisfied with it. In our small country, especially, science ought to rend the chains of local eye-service. For that Holland is, properly speaking, nothing but a club of petty clubs, arises from that childish fear of plainly telling the truth. It is for that reason that the disclosure of the Coster-deceptions has not so much a literary, as a moral, signification, for they are the fruit of popular delusion. Indeed, the Coster-question is " national." And that it is so, is a sad sign. National ! One of those miserable words which corrupt the minds of the people! Anthropophagy, lepra, impurity, laziness, thievishness, all these may be " national," if we only know of what "nation," Battaks, Icelanders, Arabs, Lazzaroni, or Caffres, we speak. National by itself means nothing; the question is whether we mean national vices or virtues. Our "moderation" (euphemism for lukewarmness and apathy) is very national, but on that account no less detestable. And our national gin is a national plague. On the other hand— for our national perseverance (although it is too slow), spirit of independence (although it is somewhat grocer-like), cleanliness (although it is somewhat partial), language (although -it is too meagre 170 CONCLUSION. for song), for our national vegetables and cows — all respect! But not, for instance .... Not, for instance, for our national Coster, for " our" Coster. He expresses our ridiculous self-adoration, and it is a national interest to destroy him. METAMOEPHOSIS. ORIGIN. AUTHORITY. SCAPE-GOAT. ACCUSATION. WHEN. THIEVES. 1546 ' Gerrit Thomasz. L. J. Coster Deerste print 1446 1560 Van Zuren N.N. Poor art X . Foreigner 1561 Coornhert N.N. Crude manner of printing X Unfaithful servant 1568 Junius L. J. Coster Xylographic Spieghel der Behoudenis 1440 Johan Faust 1628 Scriverius Lourens Jansz., Sheriff Printed the xylographic Ars moriendi & typogr. Spieghel 1428 Johan Gutenberg 1639 Boxhorn » Swindler in imitated manuscripts 1420 Johan Faust 1740 Seiz tt Printed 10 xylogr. and typogr. books 1428-1467 Johan Gutenberg 1765 Meerman Sheriff-sexton Prints with moveable wooden types 1430 Johan Gensfleisch the Elder . 1809 Westreenen N.N. » before 1436 Nobody 1816 Koning Lourens Jansz., Sheriff -sacristan Invented xylography and typography. Prints 17 books 1420-1436 Frielo Gensfleisch 1822 De Tries ,, t 1439 ( Inventor of move- ] ] able types, cast of I < metal, i.e. of Typo- > ) graphy proper. ( [ cf. 1546 ) 1423 Johan Gensfleisch 1867 Alb. Thijm L. J., t 1439, is Sheriff-chandler 1441-47 and called L. J. Coster. » Hans- THE KND. LONDON: Painted nr Jas. Truscott and Son, Suffolk Lane, City. 'Jmt^ft 3£S '#U V W4®%, " ' Sri - ^ , k«S« •■^ L'^l y,-,,: . Ea£ 3. SM I •1^5 >£^ ':-P. mt^i _^m &Q -t'ri ■•'l* m S&Ö ■£>* & '■mt WÊ m ..Ms% 'WrM m 1