BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 MenvQ m. Sage 
 
 1891 
 
 l^,'2>ai.a^1 ^ ijmI.!^ 
 
 .3777 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 T^W^^t- 7^ /htJ^Ctn^ 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 Z126.3 .H58 
 + 
 Haarlem the birth-place of printing, not 
 
 3 1924 029 495 128 
 olin Overs 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029495128 
 
HAARLEM 
 
 THE ^n^H-PLACE OF "PRINTING, 
 
 NOT MENTZ: 
 
 J. H. HESSELS, 
 
 Af.A. CANTAB. 
 
 Conbort: 
 ELLIOT STOCK & Co., 62, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 Dec, 1887. 
 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, 
 
 S 
 
A.-^^i^t*] 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS, 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I. De. Vai* deb Lindb as an Author on Pbinting ... i 
 
 II. De. Van DEE Ltxde HAS " Masteeed" THE Subject- 5 
 
 III. De. Van DEE LiNDE MAKES "Reseaeches" - - 9 
 
 IV. Manusceipts, Block-Books, and the Fiest Appeabance op 
 
 Pbinting 13 
 V. The Baeliest Peintebs always Manupactueed theib own 
 
 Type 18 
 
 VI. The Habits op the Eabliest Peintebs 21 
 
 VII. The "Costeriana" - 24 
 
 VIII. WEBE the "COSTEEIANA" PRINTED AT UtBECHT? 33 
 
 IX. Uncebtainty AS EBGABDS "Dating" THE Costeriana - 37 
 X. Anopisthosraphic Printing; Peintee's Waste; Bindee's 
 
 Waste - .39 
 
 XI. The "Speculum" - u 
 
 XII. The "Date" op the Costeeiana 44 
 
 XIII. Zell and Junius coeroboeate each othbk 40 
 
 XIV. The Peintee op the Costeeiana did not begin aptbe 
 
 1471 48 
 
 XV. Zell's Statement in the ''Cologne Chronicle" op 1499 52 
 
 XVI. The Haaelem Tradition 50 
 
 XVII. Gutenbbbg was not the Inventob op Peinting .59 
 
 XVIII. SUMMAEY .... . 69 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The folloiving chapters are reprinted, with slight modifications, from the 
 "Academy," where they appeared from April SOth to Ai///ust ISth, 1887. 
 
 The whole is the outcome of researches which I have made since the 
 appearance of my tuorh on Gutenlerg in 1882, hut more especially since 
 last year. For the last four or five years, all those ivho talis cm interest 
 in the history of printing had leen hoping that Mr. Henry Bradshaw, the 
 late Librarian of the Cambridge Uninersity, tvoidd write the article Typo- 
 graphy/or the " Encyclopa3dia Britannica," and no one hoped this more 
 earnestly than I did. I Icneio that the question of the invention was sure 
 to be treated by him luith impartiality, and that his opinion loould be 
 worth having, while I had found the subject attractive, indeed, but so 
 expensive, and absorbing so mu£h time, that I was not sorry to see it in 
 he hands of such a consummate bibliographer as Mr. Bradshaw. But 
 by his sudden death, in February of last year, his task devolved on me. 
 
 Before I could attempt to ivrite anything, some very important points 
 required to be cleared up. For instance : I ivas not prepared to state 
 ivhom I regarded as the inventor of printing, or ivhere the invention had 
 been made. I certainly did not thinh that the honour of the invention 
 could be ascribed to Gutenberg, or to Mentz. But the Haarlem tradition 
 had been so ridiculed, and its advocates so mercilessly abused, since 1870, 
 by Dr. Van der Linde, that it required some nerve even to examine it. 
 
 While I was reading once more his "Haarlem Legend" (1870) and 
 his "Gutenberg " (1878), a new and elaborate icorlc on the Invention of 
 Printing, by the same author, was announcedas about to appear in the course 
 of 1886. According to the prospectus, tvhich Messrs. A. Asher & Co., of 
 
VI. 
 
 Berlin, issued, this new hooTc ivoulcl have unprecedentedly great attractions. 
 The author was declared to 
 
 " lucre proved ly three epoeh-viahhig publications: tlie " Costerlegend " 
 (1870); "Gutenberg" (1878); "Breviarium Moguutmum'YiSS^Jii/ia^/ie is quali- 
 fied to treat of this great subject in a conclusive manner. The aim of the new booh 
 loas to prove, by means of oru/inal (!) docvments (Quellen), and by a historical- 
 critical method, that the invention is 0/ German origin; tliat Gntenlerg, a citizen 
 of Ment:, produced the art of printing ^acts \so says the prospectns'] on which 
 the most confused notions have been disseminated , even in very pretentious German 
 worhs, and which, esx>ecially in foreign countries, are opposed again and again, 
 even (!) lately,* after the appearance of I)r. Van der Zinde's Gutenberg. The 
 author, a Holhuuler by birtli.ioas forced (!) to fight against the claims of his 
 vim emintrymcn loith destructive (!) weapons, not from want, but on account of, 
 patriotism, and in the full sense of his duty (!) to purge (!) the arms of 
 \_Holland'\ from^ a darh spot, i.e., the usurpatio7i of the glory belonging to the 
 [Gevman~\ 7iation, and blind self-glorification. In the new booh, plenty (!) of new 
 (!) material will appear ; the decisive (!) documents arc, for the first (!) time, 
 correctly (!) e.rplained and applied ; entirely neiu ones (!) have been added, and 
 the worh has been made accessible to every one by a translation of all the 
 quotations. The publication of this really German-national (! !) worh has been 
 made 2'ossible by the munificence of the Prussian Ministry of the spiritual, 
 educational, and medicinal affairs, tchich has contributed a considerable (!) 
 part tmoards the crpenses of its pirinting." 
 
 So says the prospectus. As F had realized that Br. Van der Liiide^ 
 ^^ three epoch-maldng publications" on the invention of printing could not 
 he trusted in any way, and certainly did not show that Qutenierg was the 
 inventor, I ivas curious to see whether in his fourth book he icould make 
 his case so clear that his verdict could be accepted. luris especially curious 
 to hnow the decisive (!) documents ivhich Dr. Van der Linde would, for the 
 first time, correctly (!) explain and apply. And I was still more curious 
 to see the " entirely neiv documents " to be added by him. 
 
 Alas ! ivhen the boolc appeared, it was but too clear that it was nothing 
 but a rechauifee t of his two pirevious publications, with such modifications 
 as my own boolc on Guienberg had suggested to him. Dr. Van der Linde 
 indeed, declares that he never read my boolc. But his present treatment 
 (1) of the tSfrassburg Lawsuit of 1439 ; (2) of the Letters of Indulgence 
 of 1454 ; (S) of the 42-line, or Mazarine, Bible ; (4) of the Marieuthal 
 
 * Here Messrs. Asher ,]• Co. specially pointed me out by name, as one loho 
 had had the audacity to oppose Gutenberg's claim, though I had, as yet, not done 
 anything of the hind, and merely ashed : Was he the inventor of printing ? 
 
 f The "entirely neio documents " amount to nothing more than one item from 
 a Strasslnirg rrgisler, which was supplied to him by the Stras.thurg Archivist, and 
 iohich merely shows that Gutenberg resided in that city in 1444, 
 
vn. 
 
 Press ; (5) of the Mentz 'printer Friedripch Hevinann ; (0) oftheEltville 
 Press ; (1) of the eight iooJcs attributed to Gutenberg on the strength of 
 the falsified date in the Darmstadt Prognostication ; (8) of his so-called 
 Gutenberg school which he stretched till far into the 16th century, etc., is 
 so curioushj in accordance with my treatment of these points in my booh on 
 Gutenberg jmblished in 1882, and so utterly at variance xvith his own in 
 his Gutenberg of 1878, that it is jilain, that he must have read my boolc or 
 at least carefully watched all that has been said about it in various publi- 
 cations. That this is recdly the case, he incidentally admits himself on two 
 or three occasions, but, ivith that love for second or third hand information 
 which is so strongly developed in him, he refers to those publications which 
 quote from me rather than to my on:n book. It would, indeed, have been 
 very strange if Br. Van der Lincle had been able to produce some original 
 worlc in his new boolc, tvhereas, in his two previous publications, he had 
 done nothing but copying from others. 
 
 Of course,! do not complain of Dr. Van der Linde having so faithftdly 
 copied me in every important point which regards Gutenberg, as my booh 
 was published on purpose to correct the errors which he had published on 
 the above eight points. But it is a verg curious thing that, cdtliough he is 
 under such great obligations to me, he yet abuses me more than anybody 
 else, and not for anything Ihave uritten or done, but merely on tJie strength 
 of little pieces of gossip and some fabrications of his own, whicli have no 
 connection whatever irith yny boolc or with Guteniery. 
 
 However, the fact that he has considered it necessary notto differ from 
 me in any of the eight points mentioned above, ivhich are the chief subjects 
 ofu-'hich I treat in my boolc, leads me to think that he will, eventuaJlg, also 
 adopt the conclusions of my present book and, in spite of his enormous pub- 
 lications in favour of Gutenberg, repeat, beforelong, ivhat he publicly uttered 
 in 1866, namely : " that it requires a particular exegetic dexterity to 
 extract from the statement of the " Cologne Chronicle " anything but the 
 confession that the art of printing was invented in Holland before 
 Mentz." (See the " Dutch Spectator," 10th Feb., 1866.) 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde's neiv book consists of eleven hundred large 4to 
 pages, but it contains, so far as I can see, not more than one new piece of 
 information, printed in three lines only, and merely telling us that the 
 tradition of Gutenberg being the inventor of printing is a tradition of the St. 
 Victor Ifonasfery, near Mentz, of which Gutenherg himself had been a lay- 
 member (see his " Geschichte," 'pp. 895, 897). But, however insignificant 
 
this information may loolc at first sight, it is of the utmost importance, and 
 Dr. Van cler Linde may justly claim the credit of having teen the first to 
 draw attention to it. Strange to say, he does not do more than mention it, 
 and evidently has not seen that this information, combined with ivhat we 
 may gather from other items, hioclcs the whole Gutenierg tradition on the 
 head (see my pp. 67, 68, 78); otherwise he ivould, prolahly, not have 
 published his " really German-national " ivork in favour of Gutenierg. 
 
 Seeing, then, that Dr. Van der Lirule's new boolc did not establish that 
 Gutenberg teas the inventor of printing, any more than his previous publi- 
 cations, my own course ivas clear. I felt bound to see how far Dr. Van 
 der Linde's treatment of the Haarlem tradition could he relied upon. 
 
 While making researches I felt the want of writing down what I found. 
 My notes expanded into an article, and as I believed that I had treated the 
 subject from an entirely new point of view, tuhich could not be brought 
 before the public in that contracted form which is necessary for a work like 
 the " Encyclopsedia Britannica," the Editor of the " Academy " consented, 
 at my request, to insert my article in weekly numbers of his paper. I had 
 written the ivhole before the printing commenced, because I ivished to ascer- 
 tain beforehand ivhefher there ivould occur any point in my research which 
 ivoidd militate against the opinion, in favour of Haarlem, ivhicJi had 
 gradually forced itself upon me. Nor ivas it my intention to republish my 
 articles so soon after their appearance in the " Academy," as their publica- 
 tion ivas begun with no other object than to invite criticism and to use, at 
 some future time, all remarks that might be made in the ivriting of some 
 more complete work on the subject. Remarks have, indeed, been made on 
 certain of my arguments, but they have all enabled me to strengthen them 
 and to make them more clear and decisive, ivitliout compelling me to modify 
 or omit any of them. I myself had overlooked some very important points 
 in favour of Haarlem and against Gutenberg, which deserved to be known, 
 so that I have no hesitation in publishing my essay in a separate form, at 
 the suggestion of all those with ichom I had an opportunitg of speaking or 
 writing about them. 
 
 In 1882, in my work on Gutenberg, I placed on the title the question: 
 " Gutenberg : "Was lie the Inventor of Printing ? " but I tras not able to 
 ansioer that question further than to say that there was sufficient evidence 
 of Guicnlierg having been a "printer,''' but not of his having been the 
 " inventor of printing." I now endeavour to answer that question in the 
 negative. In 1882, 1 was still under the impression that, in 1468, the 
 
IX. 
 
 people at Ments had lecjun to open their mouths regarding the "invention"'^ 
 of printing and even regardmg its inventor, though there had leen absolute 
 silenre, at Mentz and in Germany, from 1454 to the middle of 1468, on 
 these points, in the midst of great publicity as to the art existing there. I 
 noiv show, on pp. 68-65, that this impression was owing to a wrong 
 interpretation of the colophons of the Grrammatica and Justinianus of 1468, 
 tvhich I had derived from Dr. Van der Linde, M. Madden, etc., without 
 seeing myself the right explanation at the time. There is, therefore, no 
 earlier Mentz testimony as to a Mentz invention of printing than tJuit of 
 1416 (see p. 68, note *), therefore twenty-tivo years after printing had 
 been there in full operation. So far the argumentum e silenfcio.* On 
 pp. 65-66, 1 shotv what value can be attached to the Italian testimony of 
 1468 (the very first that exists) cts to an invention of printing in Germany. 
 On pp. 66-68, I explain not only that the letter of Fichet of 1472 is 
 valueless for the Gutenberg claims, but also that it matericdly assists us 
 in tracing the oi'igin of those claims, as certain circumstances connected 
 ivith that letter, show that it is nothing more than the publication of 
 a rumour, ivhich can be traced to the St. Victor Monastery near Mentz, 
 of ivhich Gutenberg himself had been a lay member, so that in recdity the 
 rumour must have originated in some boasting utterances of Gtctenberg 
 himself. In folio-wing up this clue to the origin of the Gutenberg 
 tradition, I show, on p. 67, that all the further testimonies in favour of 
 Gutenberg, marshalled in such a formidable array., by Br. Van der Linde 
 in his new booJc, really amount to nothing more substantial than (a) a 
 repetition, in 1504 and 1505, of that same rumour of the St. Victor 
 Monastery, by a relative of Gutenberg, Ivo Wittig, one of its chief officers ; 
 (b) some utterances, in verse, in 1494 and 1499, by three Heidelberg 
 professors, all inspired by another relative of Gutenberg. 
 
 In short, I believe I may say that those, ivho ivish to maintain that 
 Gutenberg is the inventor of printing, will be under the necessity of explain- 
 ing, hoiv printing could have beenfidly and openly carried on in its alleged 
 birthplace, 3Ientz, in 1454, by tivo printers, the alleged inventor included, 
 and could have continued to be fully and openly carried on and be adver- 
 tised there, for more than twenfy-tivo years] (1454-76), during fourteen of 
 
 * Exen in 1475 Peter Scliceffer, in 2>icM2sJihiff tJie Codex of Justinianus, does 
 not thlnti it expedient to say more than tliat the art ofprlnthiri had ieen granted to 
 "our time," for tie says tliat lie liad completed tlie Codex in nohili urbe Maguncia 
 non atramenti calamo cannave, sed arte inipressoria (qua quidem etsi antiquitas 
 divino non digna est visa jndicio ; nostra nicWlominus tempestate indulta). 
 
tvTiicli the alleged inventor himself lived and, perhaps, ivorTced there 
 (1454-68), 'without any of those tvho must have Icnown, and ought to and 
 would have spolcen, if printing had been invented there, saying one ivord 
 ahout it, not even the inventor himself, though he was rolied and maltreated 
 ly two men, who contiyiued to reap the ienefit and the glory of "his 
 invention," and to advertise it for more than fourteen years under his 
 very eyes and nose. The ivorshippers of Gutenberg will further have to 
 explain why, from 1468 to 1505, ive do not hear of any more solid 
 testimonies in favour of their hero than that of Paris of 1412 (^ 7-umour 
 of the St. Victor Monastery = Gutenberg'' s boast), that of Heidelberg of 
 1494 and 1499 (= a relative of Gutenberg = Gutenberg^ s boast), and 
 that of Ivo Wittig of 1504 and 1505 (= a relative of Gutenberg = St. 
 Virtor Monastery =J}utenberg'' s boast). 
 
 As regards the Holland and Haarlem claims, its most important 
 features have been so buried by Dr. Van der Linde under all sorts 
 of sophisms, suppositions, gibes and jeers, that I have not been able to touch 
 more than two or three of the most salient points in his attach on the^n, and 
 I confess that I do not thinlc it worth my while to refute him in every 
 particular. I admit that I wish for more information regarding the person 
 of Lourens Janszoon Coster of Haarlem, and his residence and career there. 
 But Dr. Van der Linde, witli all his ridicule and abuse, has not been able 
 to shotv more than that some minor circumstances in Costefs life are 
 incompatible tvith some details of Junius'' account (see p. 58). 'iVhe)2, 
 we consider, however, that nearly all the bibliograp?dcal and typographical 
 details on which Junius, without Imowing anything of bibliography and 
 typography as ve do now, or seem to do, based his account in 1568, have 
 absolutely been substantiated and confirmed by discoveries (see p. 47) 
 extending over more titan tliree centuries cfter Junius'' period, we may tvell 
 forgive him minor inaccuracies, especicdly when we consider that these 
 inaccuracies would be wholly removed by merely reading 145S instead of 
 1442 in Junius'' text (see pp. 58 and 78). 
 
 Those tvho care to read my essay attentively, v:ill see that I do not base 
 my culvocacy of the Haarlem claims upon any single piece of evidence or 
 testimony, unless it be corroborated by various other circumstances, 
 independent testimonies and pieces of evidence, wliich all lead to the 
 same conclusion. For instance, I explain most distinctly on pp. 54, 55, 
 fJi.nt Ulrich ZelVs .statement in the "Cologne Clu-onicle" of 1499, 
 however strong it mny be in itself, would have no value ivhatever 
 
ill mij eyes, if never any Donatnses had hem discovered that roidd, 
 on bibliographical grounds, he said to he those alluded, to hy him. 
 T even imint out, on p. 54, that I would reject ZeWs testimony, if 
 ive had no more than one Donatits to fit into his account, as he sjieaJcs in 
 the plural : of the Donatuses. / may yo further and say that I should 
 reject ZelVs testimony even if he had hased it on Donatuses seen by him, 
 hut never seen again hy anyhody else. Bid we Inxow that the Donatuses 
 on ivMch the claims of Holland are hased and must he hased, were only 
 heyinniny to come to light in the course of last century. Zell, therefore, 
 spohefrom Imowledye, or from recollection of wlutt did hapiien or what was 
 heiny said at Mentz in the earliest days of printing titere. 
 
 I fnrtlier explain, on pp. 46-48, 56, that Ulrich ZelVs testimony, 
 thouyh it is very strong, would have no value in my eyes if it icere not 
 corroborated hy some other independent testimony. This corroboration is 
 undoubtedly found in the account of Hadrianus Junius, tvhicli is, as tee 
 know, written independently of the " Cologne Chronicle," but it bases the 
 Haarlem claims on books which are printed in the identical type (L, see 
 pp. 21, 28) used for the Donatuses wliirh we must fit into ZelVs account. 
 I point out distinctly, on p. 55, that I would reject Junius^ testimony if 
 the books on which he hased the Haarlem claims were not printed in tlie 
 type of those Donatuses. And, as a matter of course, if Junius'' testimony 
 had to he rejected on that yround, that of Zell would have no vcdue either, 
 if the Donatuses, ivhich ive must fit into his account, ivere not printed in 
 the types of the Speculum and the earliest Doctrinales. 
 
 On tlie other hand, spealdny as hiblioyrapliers, the theory or opinion 
 that tlie Butch Donatuses, printed in type i. (see p. 27 sq.J, 'were not 
 printed before 1471-1474, might pass very well, and be even adopted, if 
 there existed no Mentz Donatuses, ivhich, on bibliographical yrounds, must 
 be ascribed to the period 1450-1456. But, having these, I do not see hoiv 
 comparative bibliography, worthy of the name, could pronounce the Mentz 
 Donatuses to be some twenty years earlier than those printed in Holland 
 (see pp. 45, 46, 70, 71, 76 note). And ivhen once we conclude that the 
 Mentz and the Dutch Donatuses must he contemporaries, I do not see how 
 ive could possibly think of rejecting the testitnonies of Zell and Junius, and 
 the entries of the Ahhat of Gamhray. 
 
 From this hibliogra'phical point of view, I suggest (p. 71) to place an 
 interval of eighteen months between each of the twenty editions of the 
 
Gosterian Donatuses that we hnow, ivliereby, rechoning laclcwards from 
 about 14H, leyond which we cannot go, we reach the year 1445, as that 
 in which their printer might have begun his worlc. This interval is, of 
 course, wholly arbitrary. But no one will deny that we must assume 
 some interval between each edition. And as a proposal, to place an 
 interval of one day betiveen each edition, ivould be just as arbitrary as that 
 of one week, or one month, or any other period, I choose that of eighteen 
 months, because such a calculation has the merit, not only of being 
 possible, reasonable and probable, but of bringing all the historical 
 evidence that we have in peifect harmony with the bibliographical 
 condition of the Gosteriana. 
 
 As regards the minor details of Junius'' accoimt, I have alluded to 
 them, on pp. 56-58, 78, teithout discussing them at great length. It seems 
 to me rather hard to demand from an historian of the sixteenth century, 
 even if he had been a printer and bibUographer, strict accuracy in every 
 particular of an account of the invention of printing (which was, after 
 all, only one incident among hundreds contained in his Batavia, occupies 
 no more than three pages in that work, and took, perhaps, no more than 
 an hour to be written doivn), when we consider that an author like 
 Dr. Van der Linde, provided with all the resources of modern civihzation 
 and bibliography, has only succeeded in presenting us with a few correct 
 particulars, after having studied the subject for nearly thirty years, and 
 after having be-printed more than two thousand pages, and that even 
 those correct particulars are, for the most part, copied from another 
 author. There are, indeed, some features in Junius' account which are 
 open to attack. There is first his allegation, or svppiosed allegation, that 
 the Dutch edition of the Speculum is printed with wooden types. It seems 
 that Junius meant to say that that ivorh was so printed. But thejmint is 
 immaterial, as the question of the invention of pirinting does not turn upon 
 the material of the types, but upon their movahility. There is secondly, his 
 cdlegatitin that Gostefs types and tools were stolen by a German, tvho, within 
 a year after that event, printed with tlbcm at Mentz. This point is of some 
 importance to the controversy, and it is contradictory to ZelVs cdJegation 
 that the first Mentz printer conceived the idea of the new art hy merely 
 seeing the Donatuses jwinted in Holland. But I do not see how any one 
 coidd undertake to prove or disprove Junius' allegation, so long as we have 
 not found anything about it. I have already, on more than one occasion, 
 shown that, as the case stands cd present, no researches worthy of the name 
 have as yet been made. And to demonstrate the impracticability of the 
 theft, as Dr. Van der Linde does, by a picture representing Samson carrying 
 
XIU. 
 
 the gates of Gaza on his shoulders, merely letrays his ignorance of the 
 state of the art in its infancy, when the whole apparatus of a printing-oflue, 
 at least its most material portion, could have been carriul off hy a 
 ivelWleveloped lad. All that ive can mg in connection n-ith Junius' 
 allegation on this point is, that hitherto no tract or tracts of Petrus 
 Hispanus, printed in Coster'' s types, have been found. But of the 
 Doctrinale we have no less than four editions printed in these types 
 (see p. 28). 
 
 As to Junius' other allegations : thirdly, that Coster ivas a 
 grandfather when he invented printing ; fourthly, tliat Cornelis the 
 bookbinder ivas an apprentice of Coster, there would be some difficulty 
 if ive had to accept Junius'' year, 1442, as that of the first jrrinting at 
 Blentz witli Costerh types, for in that case we should have to assume tlutt 
 he indicates 1440 as the year of Costefs invention and 1441 as that of the 
 tlieft. The calculation about Coster, ivho does not seem to have been too 
 old, in 1483, to leave Haarlem, is not so ivholly improbable as it 
 appears to Dr. Van der Linde. Nor ivould tlie case of Cornelis the 
 bookbinder be so hopeless as Br. Van der Linde says it is. Cornelis 
 ivas not buried till 1522 ; Junius speaks of him as a man of no 
 less than eiyhty years of age, but Junius does not say that he died as an 
 octogenarian. He describes him as a subminister of Coster at the time of 
 the theft. " Subminister " may mean a " /«rf," an " apprentice^' and 
 Cornelis could have been this in 1441, if tve assume that he ivas over 
 ninety when he died in 1522. But, as I have pointed out on p. 58 and 
 above, Junius'' account will be found far more harmonious in all its details 
 and ivitli all that ive know of the history of printing, if we simply 
 read " 1452 " instead of " 1442 " in his text. I think it deserves to be 
 noticed that just about the time that Lourens Janszoon Coster is said to 
 have terminated his residence at Haarlem (in 1483 : always assuming 
 that Dr. Van der Linde's figures are correct), we find the blocks of the 
 Speculum cut asunder and used (1481, one block ; 1483, the remaining) 
 for other purposes than those for which they had been employed in 
 earlier years. Moreover, in the very same year (1483) that Coster 
 leaves Haarlem, Jacob Bellaert begins his career as printer there. Are 
 these coincidences without any meaning ? 
 
 As regards the so-called frauds of Koning, Be Vries, Noordziek, and 
 " every other Costerian " of which Br. Van der Linde speaks with such 
 pleasure and such wearisome reiteration, I doubt whether he would be able 
 to substantiate any of his charges, even in his most serious moments. I do 
 
XIV. 
 
 not think it worth uiiih to dwell upon these jwints. The authors just 
 mentioned have certrtinhj erred in a good manij jmrticidars. But no one of 
 the Costerian authors, u'hom Dr. Van dm- Linde unceasingly charges with 
 dishmwsty, forgerg, faJsifiration, etc., has as get gone so far as to make the 
 2nMic believe that he had made " researches" and to publish afterwards, 
 as the result of his own researches, the mere blunders of the accused 
 persons (seep. 9 sqq.). Certain it also is, that in the case of Coster and the 
 Haarlem claims no such deliberate forgeries have been perpetrated as those 
 which have come to light in the Outenberg case. Nor is there any necessitg 
 for Costerians to resort to forgeries ; their case is too strong; the bare truth 
 ivill help them on much better. 
 
 J. H. HESSELS. 
 Camlridge, 
 
 89th October, 18S7. 
 
 P.S. — On page 32 I speak of the imjiosition, which, bibliographers have 
 observed in the Abecedarimn attributed to Coster, and I argue that there can be 
 no question of such "imposition," as the little work appeared to have been 
 printed page for page, like all other early printed books. I was led into this 
 contradiction by M. Holtrop's fac-simile, on pi. 12, of his IMiymimcnts Typogr., 
 where the Ahcccdarium is figured as consisting of four learcs. whereas M. Holtrop, 
 in describing (p. 16) the book, speaks also of two sheets (=finif leares'). As I had 
 always found M. Holtrop's work accurate and clear, it seemed to me certain that 
 there could be no question of imposition. But Mr. B. Gordon Duff, of Oxford, to 
 whom I am indebted for other valuable observations, called my attention, a few 
 days ago, to Meerman's Origines Typogr., Vol. i., p. 76, note k, where it is said, 
 that "when Ensohede discovered the Ahecedarimn, it was in one sheet, but it 
 was found impossible to get it off from the boards on which it was pasted, 
 without cutting it in half." This, of course, makes it clear that we really 
 have here a case of impositiun. As I have built no arguments whatever upon 
 the Abecedarmm, the withdrawal of my contradiction on p. 32 does not effect 
 anything in my book. I may, however, say that, in my opinion, the "im- 
 position," observed in the Aheoedarhim, could hardly be an objection to its being 
 regarded as a product of the infancy of printing ; for imposition was probably 
 not unknown to the earliest printers, but merely avoided by them on account of 
 the small quantity of type which they had at their disposal, which compelled 
 them to print their books page for page. But as the text of the eight pages of 
 the Aieocdarium hardly required more type than was necessary for one ordinary 
 quarto page, there was no reason to avoid imposition in this case. 
 
HAARLEM NOT MENTZ. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde as an Author on Printing. 
 
 The third and (let us hope) last volume of Dr. Anton Van der Linde's 
 new work on The Tiirention of Printing appeared a few months ago at 
 Berlin.* When we look at the three large quarto tomes, occupying 
 together more than eleven hundred pages, and remember that the same 
 author published, not so long ago (in 1878), a large octavo volume of 
 eight hundred closely-printed pages on the same subject, and had 
 already issued, in 1870, two editions of a work dealing with only the 
 half of the subject (the Haarlem tradition alone), we are involuntarily 
 reminded of the Arabian flute player of the Greek proverb, who, after 
 he had been hired to play for one drachm, could hardly be persuaded by 
 four such coins to be silent. 
 
 It is an unfortunate feature in Dr. Van der Linde's works on the 
 invention of printing that what should form their most essential part — 
 namely, a libliographical treatment of the subject — ^is singularly 
 unreliable, or altogether wanting. This feature is even more marked in 
 the present than in any of his previous publications. The remainder of 
 the book, that is to say, its polemical part, bears undoubtedly traces of 
 talent ; but it cannot benefit anyone much, as it is nothing but a 
 needlessly discursive repetition, for the fourth time, of the niistakes and 
 errors of judgment of previous authors on the subject ; repetitions 
 which Dr. Van der Linde evidently wi-ites down under the agreeable 
 impression that he himself never makes any mistakes at all. 
 
 Therefore, so far as I can see, his new book, though it is called a 
 History of the Inrention of Printing, merely shows us how that 
 history should not be written. It certainly is not worth reviewing. 
 But, as it appears to be regarded in Germany as a " national " work, 
 and the author openly proclaims that he has settled the question once 
 for all in favour of Gutenberg (which, by the way, he has been 
 proclaiming these last eighteen years, without any appreciable results, 
 except among a few persons who blindly adopt his conclusions), and as 
 there is, in my opinion, still a good deal to be said in favour of a 
 
 * Gescliiclite der Erfindung der BvclidruolAwist. Yon Antonius Von der 
 Linde. 3 Bde. 4»- (Berlin, 1886 : Asher.) 
 
Haarlem invention and against the claims of Gutenberg, I will venture 
 to make a few remarks, which will, I hope, lead those who read them, 
 and who are in no hurry, to suspend at least their judgment. 
 
 I will approach my task, not with that " demoniacal force^ of 
 internal enthusiasm " which drew Dr. Yan der Linde towards the subject 
 {see his OeschkJde, preface), but " sine ira et studio," always weighing 
 and balancing, so far as it is in my power, all that may be said for or 
 against any point that requires to be considered. 
 
 I think it necessary to begin by pointing out the true nature of Dr. 
 Van der Linde's three works on printing, in order to show that books of 
 that kind are httle calculated to settle intricate disputes. 
 
 It is known with what enthusiasm Dr. Yan der Linde's Haarlem 
 Legend was received in 1870. Ugly rumours as to recent discoveries of 
 very serious errors and defects in the genealogy of the reputed Haarlem 
 inventor had led people, during the previous two or three years, either 
 to pour ridicule upon the Haarlem claim, or to ask for a more searching 
 inquiry into the whole matter. At this critical moment Dr. Yan der 
 Linde appeared on the scene, in 1869. Everybody considered him to be 
 the man to. make researches, and everybody thought that he was making 
 them. After a short delay he wrote, in the course of 1870, weekly 
 articles in the Dutch Sjjectator, arguing, to the great satisfaction of 
 himself and a good many others, that there was no foundation for the 
 Haarlem claim, and apparently basing his arguments on " originals," on 
 "documents," and on "registers," and enforcing them by very coarse 
 and scurrilous abuse of every Dutchman and every foreigner who had 
 ever spoken or written a single word about the subject that did not 
 please him. A second (and revised) edition of the Spectator articles was 
 at once called for in Holland, and issued in the same year, under the 
 title, " The Haarlem Legend of the Lnrention of Printing, critically 
 examined by Dr. Anton Yan der Linde." The iDook was immediately 
 translated into German and French. I, myself, was so struck by its 
 apparent excellence that I translated it into English. Mr. Bradshaw 
 was so anxious to see such a translation appear that he contributed £15 
 towards its expenses ; and Mr. Blades, being no less desirous to become 
 fully acquainted with the Haarlem story, printed and published my 
 English version in 1871, and the claims of a Haarlem invention of 
 printing seemed demolished for ever. 
 
 Meantime,. Dr. Yan der Linde had turned his back upon his native 
 country, ]5retending that by his Haarlem Legend he had so mortally 
 offended the Dutch that they made the country too hot for him, and 
 compelled him to go into exile. No one could be surprised if the Dutch 
 had really acted as Dr. Yan der Linde represented them to have done. 
 He had, indeed, abused his country and his countrymen in a manner 
 which every nation would, and should, resent. But it is no secret that 
 the causes of Dr. Yan der Linde's departure from Holland stand in no 
 connexion whatever with his writings on the Haarlem claim, but are to 
 be looked for in himself alone. Nay, the Dutch, so far from showing 
 any iU feeling towards Dr. Yan der Linde, have actually altered their 
 school-books in accordance with his views. But he succeeded in 
 persuading the Germans that his courage in saying that Gutenberg was 
 the inventor of printing had cost him his " home " and his " property." 
 They felt bound to indemnify him, and he was appointed librarian 
 at Wiesbaden. 
 
This brief account of Dr. Van der Linde's presence in G-ermany 
 shows at once that we have no longer to do with a free man, but with 
 one who could not, even if he would, abandon Gutenberg. And so 
 completely is Dr. Van der Linde enchained by this peculiar position, that 
 he always endeavours to ignore, or obscure, or conceal, or shout down 
 whate\er might be said in fai'our of the Haarlem claim. As regards 
 his marvellous activity in pouring forth volume after volume on 
 bibliography, and more especially on the invention of printing, subjects 
 which he seems to labour in vain and in vain to master, even in their 
 most elementary details, it is best explained by a little story which was 
 told me on the Continent last .January by a gentleman of undoubted 
 veracity, who had, in turn, heard it from another person, to whom Dr. 
 Van der Linde had himself told it, namely : The Wiesbaden people live 
 in that happy state of ignorance, or of omniscience, that they do not 
 require a library. And yet Wiesbaden does possess a royal library, 
 which is endowed with an annual income and a regular staff, with an 
 " Oberbibliothekar " at its head. This latter post is now held by Dr. 
 Van der Linde ; and, if he chose to do so, he might spend his life in 
 an " otium cum dignitate " style, in common with the other members of 
 the staff, as no reader ever enters their library. But, feehng that 
 idleness would be demorahsing to his subordinates, Dr. Van der Linde 
 has hit upon the plan of complUiitj books in order to keep his staff 
 employed in supplying him with the necessary works. In this work of 
 compilation he is so successful that, during the decade of his 
 librarianship, he has been able to issue two heavy books on Gutenberg, 
 besides several other works which we need not mention here, but of 
 which each by itself, if done properly, would almost have required a 
 Hfe-time. This result is no doubt gratifying to Dr. Van der Linde 
 himself ; whether it is equally gratifying to the pubhc remains to 
 be seen. 
 
 The above story would have no importance in the ordinary course 
 of life ; but, placed side by side with the account of Dr. Van der Linde's 
 presence in Germany, and some other circumstances which will be stated 
 below, they fully explain the depressing influences which have reduced a. 
 man, who, under favourable conditions, might have become a very fair 
 author, to the level of a very indifferent compiler. Thus we see him, 
 almost before his Haarlem Costerlegencl had had time to become known 
 anywhere, issue a large octavo volume of eight hundred pages, under 
 the title, Oiitenherg : Oescliichte und Erdichtung aus den Quellen 
 nachgewiesen. Stuttgart, 1878. 
 
 He was bold enough to begin the book by stating falsely that 
 " it contained his personal Kidtwhampf, which in its consequences had 
 cost him his home and property," while the abuse of his opponents was, 
 if possible, carried to even greater length than in his Haarlem Legend. 
 Immediately after its appearance the book was described as Dr. Van der 
 Linde's "magnum opus." Again I became mixed up with the work, as 
 I was invited and undertook to give an account of it for the Printing 
 Times and Lithographer. At first sight the learning displayed in the 
 book appeared to me even more stupendous than that which I had 
 found, or thought to have found, in the Haarlem Legend. But I very 
 soon saw that the eight hundred large octavo pages were nothing but a 
 tissue of old stories, statements and opinions, copied and transcribed, at 
 second, third, and fourth hand, from aU sorts of authors, and by 
 
 B 2 
 
preference, as it were, from the most insignificant, without the slightest 
 attempt at verifying even the most important statements. The 
 researches -that I endeavoured to make to supplement Dr. Van der 
 Linde's shortcomings were published in a separate hook in 1882, under 
 the title, Guienienj : ^Yas lie the Inventor of Priating ? I may be 
 pardoned if I quote a few passages from what I then said about his 
 work. I said — 
 
 " It was clear that Dr. Van der Linde had intended, in the first place, 
 to write a book on himself, and that Gutenberg occupied only a secondary 
 place in his work. ... It is singular that Dr. Van der Linde, who 
 complains that people often write books on the principle of ' taking three 
 books and making a fourth of it,' should have compiled his Gutenberg 
 entirely on this principle. ... I cannot believe that he left his study, 
 at any time, for even half a minute, for the purpose of research. . . . 
 To quote from him without verification is out of the question. . . . 
 That he did not feel disposed for the labour through which I have gone, is 
 not surprising. But it is matter for amazement that his book, which I have 
 found wanting in every particular regarding the main question, should have 
 been written in such a tone of authority and decision, and with such 
 remarkable intolerance of everything that Dr. Van der Linde does not 
 approve. His vehemence in speaking of his opponents' mistakes, or errors of 
 judgment, is never agreeable ; but when we consider that he has fallen into 
 as many mistakes as any of his predecessors, and imagined a great deal more 
 than any one of them, and yet had far better opportunities for obtaining 
 trustworthy information, his vehemence becomes a phenomenon which I 
 leave to others to explain. . . . From taking all his documents at second, 
 third, or fourth hand, and rarely telling his readers on what authority he 
 himself prints any single document, and from not investigating a single 
 point in the whole question, his book presents, as it could hardly fail to 
 present, a more complete chaos on the subject than any of its predecessors." 
 
 I further stated that 
 
 " I had avoided aU direct reference to the tradition of a Haarlem 
 invention of printing, because, having no opportunities at present to make 
 researches in this direction, I feel bound to abide by the results which 
 Dr. Van der Linde made known in 1870. I have never made any thorough 
 examination of the Haarlem question ; but such inquiries as I have made 
 have led me to believe that the Haarlem claim cannot be maintained. At the 
 appearance of Dr. Van der Linde's Haarlem Legend in 1870, 1 was so struck by 
 its excellence that I translated the work into English. Now that I have made 
 a thorough examination of his work on Gutenberg, and have found this book 
 so singularly unreliable, I should wish to go over the ground by which he 
 reached his results with respect to the Haarlem question. Dr. Van der 
 Linde appears to be most easily led away by what he reads, if only it 
 coincides with his views. He believes, for instance . . ." 
 
 I cannot lay stress enough upon the last quotation, for Dr. Van 
 der Linde's book on Gutenberg was so poor, so entirely devoid of 
 research or anything that looked like competency in dealing with an 
 intricate historical subject, that it could not but severely shake the 
 confidence placed in his JSaarlem Leijmd. And I believe that now, 
 after the lapse of five years, I shall be able to show that that confidence 
 was wholly misplaced. 
 
 That Dr. Van der Linde himself did not believe in the value of 
 this book on Gutenberg is sufficiently proved by the fact that, almost at 
 the very time of its publication, he wrote to me that he was " re-writing 
 
5 
 
 the subject, and on a grand scale, for ^^•hich Le required State sujDport, 
 and hoped to receive this from the [German] Emperor." This new 
 book, paid for by the German Empire, is at present before ns. It 
 exceeds, if possible, the author's previous pubHcations in its abuse of 
 all persons who happen to disagree with him. One or two examples 
 will suffice to show the scurrilous and inexpressibly childish nature of 
 that abuse. C. A. Schaab, who published in 1880 a work of three 
 octavo volumes on the invention of printing, is called by a pun upon 
 his name " Schaabskopf " (Sheepshead) ; and yet Schaab's book is not 
 worse than Dr. Yan der Linde's own, only the latter's name does not 
 lend itself so readily to a similar pun. Dr. Campbell, the Librarian of 
 the Koyal Library at the Hague, is compared to a " vagabond." The 
 author's love for inserting statements without verifying them seems to 
 have visibly increased. So after having said, in one place, that he 
 never read my book on Gutenberg (an assertion which seems hardly 
 credible, as he could scarcely have arrived at all my bibhographical 
 results in an independent way), he yet represents me, apparently on the 
 strength of some German newspaper article, as having said that Hans 
 Jacob von Sorgenloch was the inventor of printing, which, of course, I 
 never did. So again, in a foot-note, he says that I was led round and 
 feasted at Mentz by a priest for a whole month ; the fact being that I 
 was at Mentz only from one Friday afternoon till the following Sunday 
 evening ; and, as regards the priest, I only saw one for half-an-hour in 
 the Mentz Library. It is, of course, needless to dwell upon these and a 
 multitude of other equally preposterous things which have done service 
 to swell his so-called history of printing. 
 
 Ohaptbe II. 
 
 De. Van dee Linde has " masteeed " the Subject. 
 
 Of the eleven hundred pages of his book. Dr. Van der Linde has taken 
 more than six hundred and fifty to demonstrate, for the fourth time, 
 how dreadfully wrong former authors have been with respect to the date 
 of the invention, the iiwciitor, and the types used by the early printers. 
 And, after having occasionally assured us that he (Dr. Van der Linde) 
 has by this time inastcred the subject, and now fully understands it 
 (see his preface), he is good enough to tell us that " in 1450 Gutenberg 
 began to invent printing with movable types, and that the Germans 
 should prepare for a grand celebration of the event in 1950." 
 
 As regards Dr. Van der Linde's assurances that he has " mastered 
 the subject," I very much doubt whether any one -ivill beUeve him. At 
 least, to me it appears that he has no more mastered the subject at 
 present than he had in 1870. Let us take, as a typical instance, his 
 interpretation of Hadrianus Junius's famous account of the Haarlem 
 invention, in his Bcdavia, pubhshed at Leiden in 1588. Dr. Van der 
 Linde himself tells us, on p. 88 (note 1, line 7) of his Haarlem Legend, 
 that he has examined that account a hundred times, which, I think, ought 
 to be sufiicient for mastering a few hues of very clear Latin. Well, 
 Junius relates (p. 255) that Lourens Janszoon Coster "coepit fagmos 
 
6 
 
 cortices principio in literarum typos conformare, quibus inversa ratione 
 sigillatim cliartae impressis vcrsiculum unum atque alteram animi 
 gratia ducebat." 
 
 In 1870 Dr. Van der Linde translated this passage thus {Haarlem 
 Legend, p. 61) : — "He began to cut letters in the bark of a beech, 
 and printed these letters reversed (sigillatim) on paper, and thus made, 
 out of amusement, some lines." It is clear that he took sigillatim to 
 mean reversed; but, in order to make his meaning still clearer, he 
 assures us, on p. 79, that " sigillatim indicates only inverted printing," 
 and once more, on p. 110, that "Coster printed his letters reversed 
 (sigillatim) on paper." How he would explain " inversa ratione " he 
 does not say. In 1878, Dr. Van der Linde had read a few more books, 
 and made some progress in interpretation ; he, therefore, treats us (on 
 p. 357 of his Gutenberg) to a note on the word sigillatim, giving us to 
 understand that it was derived from sigillum, and that Junius, by using 
 this word, had been influenced in his narrative by the annul us of 
 Bergellanus's account. "Therefore," says he, "either reversed hke a 
 seal, or singulatim, singly, as is argued by the Costerians. Bark of a 
 tree, however, does not admit such an explanation of separate letters." 
 He returns once more to the word sigillatim in his new book 
 (I., pp. 235, 236) ; and, having now mastered the whole subject, he 
 hesitates no longer, but tells us : " Sigillatim, like a seal, not, as the 
 later Costerians wish that Junius might have ^\Titten, singulatim, one by 
 
 one to form separate letters from the bark of a tree is hardly 
 
 practicable." Thereupon he quotes several Hues of learned, but wholly 
 irrelevant, matter, which we need not repeat here, but which induces 
 him to represent Junius as saying that L. J. Coster cut (not separate 
 letters, but) ivhole lines (rersiculum unum atque alterum) of text from 
 the bark of a tree (see p. 236, note 9). This nonsense deserves no 
 refutation ; he that knows even a little Latin wiU perceive that it is 
 entirely against Junius's accoimt. And, as regards sigillatim, whatever 
 Dr. Van der Linde may like to say, his inexperience of Latin and of 
 the peculiarities of Latin speUing has led him astray ; the word stands 
 for singillatim, one by one, singly, separately. In Junius's time, and 
 centuries before him, this spelling without the n was customary (cf. the 
 dictionaries of Forcellini, Du Cange, Lewis and Short, &c.). It is, 
 moreover, plain from Junius's account that he could only mean 
 singillatim., one by one, singly, separately ; for he is clearly speaking of 
 the element of movability in the new invention (" typis inversa ratione 
 sigillatim, one hy one, chartae impressis versiculum unum atque alterum 
 . . . ducebat ") and sigillatim (by way of a seal) would be an absurdity 
 by the side of " inversa ratione." 
 
 Now, as Dr. Van der Linde tells us in one place that he has 
 examined Junius's account a hundred times,* and in another place 
 (p. 235) tells us that the passage, in which the word sigdlafim occurs, 
 is a decisive one, we can realise how trustworthy his whole book must 
 be if, with respect to such an account and such a passage, he remains 
 
 * It is, I think, curious that in his diitcnhfrg (p. 392) he speaks of a man 
 who confessed to have read Junius's account Ucnity times and never to have 
 mastered it, by which confession he had, says Dr. Van der Linde, erected to 
 himself a "brilliant tc.itimonium stiijuditatis." What "testimonium" does Dr. 
 Van der Linde think he has erected to himself by reading Junius's account a 
 hundred times and never mastering it ? 
 
in the dark for more than eighteen years. Such a state of things 
 must be expected from an author who loves to fill his books with 
 Latin quotations, and yet appears to understand that language so httle 
 that even in his present book, after he has been at the subject for 
 twenty years, there is, I l)elieve, not one Latin quotation without some 
 grievous error, not even among such as consist of two or three words 
 only.* But I need not say that such a state of things is rather fatal to 
 an author who pretends to treat the history of the invention from an 
 exegdical and historical point of view. 
 
 To Dr. Van der Linde's failure in this direction we may add his 
 failure whenever he attempts to describe the productions of the early 
 presses bibliographically. I will only call attention to tivo such attempts 
 found together on two pages. On p. 910, speaking of the Vocaliilarius 
 Ex quo, printed at EltviUle in 14:72, he says — 
 
 "Another novelty concerns the arrangement of the form; the 
 Vocahulwhis of 1472 is no longer printed in quires of 10, but alternately in 
 quires of 8 and 12 (therefore of 2 X 4 and 3x4) leaves." 
 
 This mode of printing is, indeed, a novelty and it stands altogether 
 alone in the annals of printing. But we need not trouble ourselves 
 much about it, for it arises merely from Dr. Van der Linde's in- 
 experience in bibhography. The first quire (a) of the book consists of 
 12 leaves ; but the next twelve quires (b to nj consist each of 10 leaves ; 
 and p of 8 leaves each ; q oi 10, and /• of 8 leaves, making together 
 1G6 leaves. Dr. Van der Linde has evidently missed some leaf when 
 he started on his interesting collation ; for when a book is divided 
 into quires of 10 leaves, such an inattention unavoidably leads an 
 inexperienced bibhographer to think that he has a book of alternate 
 quires of 12 and 8 leaves before him. 
 
 The other instance of Dr. Van der Linde's failure as a bibliographer 
 is found on the same p. 919, where he says that the fourth edition of the 
 Vocahtdarivs Ex quo, printed at Eltville by Nicolaus Bechtermiinze is 
 dated " December 19, 1477." Hitherto we knew only of an edition 
 finished on the day of St. Thomas the Apostle — that is to say, December 
 21, 1477. When we tm'u to the next page (920) to see whether Dr. Van 
 der Linde gives further details, we find him print the colophon and the 
 lines in which the date occm's in this way : " Sub anno Mcccclxxvii. 
 ipso die sancti Thome Apostoh quod fuit .Sabbato die xxix. mensis 
 Decembris." Now, if that were correct, Dr. Van der Linde ought to 
 have said (on p. 919) that the book was dated 29 (not 19) December, 
 1477 ; and he should also have remarked that the colophon was wrong 
 in placing the day of Thomas the Apostle on December 29, as it 
 falls on December 21. But, it will scarcely be beheved, "xxix."is not 
 in the colophon at all, and ought not to be there, and has simply been 
 stuck in by Dr. Van der Linde himself. The printer says that the book 
 " was completed in 1477, on the day of St. Thomas the Apostle 
 
 * In his Gvteiiberg (p. 156) he is quoting from the Colophon of Jnstlnianns 
 of 147(5, where, he says, Mentz is called " Inveutrix Climatrixque prima artis 
 impressorise." He prints the same phrase once more in the same work (p. Ixiv.) 
 as " impressorise ai-tix inventrix: climinatrii-qne," adding the word climatrix 
 between brackets, by way of correction. Of course the word is climatrix. 
 I might fill several pages with examples of this kind. 
 
8 
 
 (therefore December 21), which was a Sabbath* day of the month of 
 December." It is easy to explain how Dr. Yan der Linde came to stick 
 this wrong " xxix." into liis text. In 1878 he was still unacquainted 
 with the mediseval manner of naming and -describing dates, as is clear 
 from all the dates in his Gutenberg being wrong. Since then he has 
 been taking lessons on this point, and in his jjresent book he talks very 
 learnedly on the subject. But we know by this time that it takes 
 Dr. Van der Linde a good many more years than eight to master any 
 subject, and so we see him in 1.S8G raistake the day (xxixth December) 
 of Thomas of Canterbury for that of Thomas the Apostle, and, by a 
 further mistake, insert that day into his quotation from the colophon, 
 forgetting, in the meantime, that on the previous page he had spoken 
 of the day as December 19. 
 
 I am only able to give these tiro illustrations of Dr. Van der 
 Linde's failure in bibliography, as, in his whole book, he has made no 
 more than these two attempts at bibliografihical descriptions. Everyone 
 will probably come to the conclusion that this abstention on his part is 
 rather fortunate. 
 
 I am not the only person who finds fault with Dr. Van der Linde's 
 work. Mr. W. H. .lames "Weale, in his Descrijitive Ceitalogve of Rare 
 emd Printed Boohs, speaking (on p. 30) of Dr. Van der Linde's Essay 
 
 * Dr. Artkur Wyss, AroMvist of Darmstadt, lias raised an important 
 question with, regard to tMs Vocaitilariiis E.e quo in Hartwig's Centrdlhlatt 
 fllr Blhliotliekswissensclmft (1887), p. 412, just in time for its being mentioned 
 here. In commenting, independently of my own remarks, on Dr, Van der Linde's 
 error in printing " xxix " in the colophon, he observes that, as the printer 
 distinctly points out that the day of Thomas the Apostle (21 December) was 
 a Saturday (Sabhato die) and in the year 1177 that day was a Sunday, 1477 in 
 the colophon must be a mistake for 1476, in which year the day of Thomas the 
 Apostle actually fell on a Saturday. Such an explanation, Dr. Wyss reasonably 
 concludes, would throw light on two other circumstances to which I called 
 attention in my work (^iiteiiberg , Was lie the inmitor of printing ? but which I 
 was unable to solve at the time. Namely (1) the types of the Eltville 
 Vocahularhis E.r quo of 21 Dec, 1477 are the same as those with which Peter 
 Drach at Spire completed a Vocahnlarms jnrix vti-iusque on 18 May, 1477. If 
 these two dates were both correct some transfer of types from Peter Drach of 
 Spire to Nioolaus Bechtermiinze of Eltville or rice rersd would have to be 
 presumed ; or the two printers might have received some supply from a common 
 typefounder ; or Drach might have printed the Vocabularivs E.r quo for 
 Becldermilnze. (2) Bodmann, in his Blieingauisclie Altertli. p. 136, note o, says 
 that Nicolaus Bechtermiinze having died in 1476 without male heirs, his goods 
 were inherited by his brother's children " according to a document of 1476." As 
 nothing of this document was known, and Bechtermiinze could not have printed 
 a book in 1477 if he had died in 1476, and Bodmann was known to have forged 
 several documents in behalf of the Gutenberg story — it seemed to me that we 
 had here another Bodmann-forgery (see my Gutenberg, pp. 123, 149). It 
 appeared, indeed, strange to me that the word Sabbat'um should mean here 
 Sunday ; but the colophon was plain and explicit ; the day of Thomas the 
 Apostle (21 December) fell on a " Sunday " in 1477 ; and as all writers on 
 Chronology pointed out that Sabbatum " usually " means " Saturday," I came to 
 the conclusion that here we had the "««usual" but not unknown meaning 
 "Sabbath day" (Sunday) and that there was no mistake in the colophon. 
 Dr. Wyss, however, now suggests : (1) the Eltville Vocabulariux Ei- quo was 
 finished on Saturday, 21 December, 147(i (1477 being a printer's mistake) ; (2) its 
 printer, Nicolaus Bechtermiinze must have died a few days afterwards and his 
 goods divided between his brother's children ; (3) Bodmann must have been 
 truthful in this instance, and the document of 1476 probably perished or is still 
 hidden somewhere ; (4) Bechtermunze's types passed into the hands of Peter 
 Drach of Spire. 
 
on the 3Ienfz Psalter of 1457, which he puWished at "Wiesbaden in 
 1884, says that it is 
 
 " Apparently written from notes, and not revised in presence of the 
 Pxal/er, and abounds with mistakes. Moreover, he has . . . entirely 
 failed to recognise the true character of Fust and Schoffer's work. He calls 
 this Pxalter the editio princeps of the Mentz Breviary [whereas it is only one 
 of the four parts of the Breviary]." 
 
 Mr. "Weale goes on to show how Dr. Van der Linde has 
 misunderstood the whole nature of the Psalter, and has deduced the 
 most erroneous inferences from it. In short Dr. Van der Linde appears 
 to have misunderstood the Psalter as completely as the Coster and 
 Gutenberg questions. 
 
 Here, then, we have a not overdrawn picture of the linguistic, 
 exegetkal, and lihliographical failures of an author who imagines, and 
 loudly proclaims, to have settled once for all an intricate international 
 dispute, for the understanding of which a sound linguistic and 
 biWiographical knowledge is indispensable. The way in which Dr. 
 Van der Linde looks upon his connexion with the controversy regarding 
 the invention of printing is best shown by the place which his own 
 portrait occupies in his new book, just opposite the chapter where he 
 records the downfall of Coster, thereby indicating, I suppose, that on 
 the ruins of Lourens Janszoon Coster he fondly imagines to have built 
 up his own fame. "We cannot doubt but that the Germans, who are 
 perfectly able to distinguish between science and self-laudation, will 
 soon come to realise the nature of Dr. Van der Linde's work. 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 Dr. Van der Linde makes " Kesearches." 
 
 In the two previous chapters I have endeavoured to explain t'liat 
 Dr. Van der Linde's compilations on the History of Printing are 
 wholly untrustworthy from an exeyctical as well as from a hibliographical 
 point of view. I now consider it my duty to show that the so-called 
 researches, which he professes to have made in the Haarlem Coster- 
 question, can no more be relied upon than all his other work, and that 
 they are in consequence altogether inadequate for scientific purposes. 
 
 Until 1816 it had occm-red to no one, it seems, to make researches 
 in the Haarlem archives. Junius and all others only related what they 
 had heard. But in that year a certain Jacobus Koning published a 
 book, in which he professed to have carefully collected from the 
 Haarlem registers, account-books, &c., all the entries that could throw 
 hght on the subject, and also all documentary evidence that could be 
 found at Haarlem and elsewhere. It does not require much practice in 
 the reading of MSS. to reahse that Koning was not the man for such 
 work ; but for a good many years his book was looked upon as beyond 
 reproach and his investigations as quite sufficient. Consequently, all 
 books on the invention of printing published after 1816, were, on 
 
10 
 
 the whole, based on Koning's work, who made his inventor Uve from 
 about 1370 till about 1489. In 1823, the date of the invention was 
 finally decided by tlie Haarlem people to have been 1123 ; and, when 
 an entry in a Haarlem account-book was found, from which it aj^peared 
 that a certain "Laurens Janszoon" had actually died in 1439, everything 
 seemed settled. After some time, however, fresh researches brought out 
 the fact that there had lived at Haarlem a " Laurens Janszoon Coster," 
 whose name agreed better with the account of Junius. But this man 
 had lived much longer than 1439, even later than 1483, and could, 
 therefore, not possibly be the same man as the " Laurens Janszoon " 
 who had been traced back in history to the end of the fourteenth 
 century, and who had been regarded as the inventor. So that the whole 
 history of the Haarlem invention was thrown into confusion. We 
 then see Dr. Van der Linde appear, making researches in archives, 
 churches, &c. He found it no difficult task to persuade people that 
 Koning's work was valueless ; and, as he mercilessly abused Koning 
 and all other authors who had beUeved in a Haarlem invention, it was 
 concluded that what Dr. Van der Linde produced as his own researches 
 was sound and correct. We find him demonstrating the worthlessness 
 of Koning's work at great length in the Haarlem Legend (1870), in the 
 Outenbery (1878), and, once again, in his new book. 
 
 Last December, when I was invited to write the article " Typo- 
 graphy " for the Encycloj](e(lia Britannica, I felt bound to ascertain 
 whether my doubts as regards Dr. Van der Linde's own work were 
 justified ; and I went to Haarlem to verify his extracts from the original 
 MS. registers preserved in the archives there. It seemed to me best to 
 begin with his extracts relating to the life of Lourens Janszoon, which 
 he commences to print at great length on p. 342. As his first two 
 entries were taken from MSS. at the Hague, I had to begin at Haarlem 
 with his third entry on p. 344, under the year 1418, which records 
 (according to him) that several men were sent from Haarlem on a 
 mission to Gouda. Among these men we find the name of Laurens 
 Janssoen printed in very distinct type in Dr. Van der Linde's book. 
 But when I looked into the original register, I found not " Laurens 
 Janssoen," but plainly lottiin (i.e., Lottijn) Janssoen, therefore quite a 
 different man. I referred to Koning's work (p. 66), puMished, as I have 
 said, in 1816. Yes, he, too, had " Lauriis Janssoen." I noticed at the 
 same time that both Koning and Dr. Van der Linde printed in the same 
 entry Walter Hnjsen, whereas the MS. has clearly Walter i?uysen. 
 Therefore, at the very first touch, the natm-e of Dr. Van der Linde's 
 "researches " are revealed to us. The original MSS. had evidently been 
 too difficult for him, and so he simply reproduces the "researches" of 
 1816. 
 
 But I have to relate worse things. A few days afterwards, I saw 
 at the Hague Koning's MS. note-book, in which he had made most 
 elaborate extracts from the Haarlem registers for his work published in 
 1816. This MS. note-book had come into the possession of Dr. Van 
 der Linde, who, after the comj)letion of his Haarlem. Legend, presented it 
 to the Royal Library at the Hague. In this note-book. Dr. Van der 
 Linde has written NB. (nota bene) by the side of every entry that 
 related to L. Janssoen ; but, strange to say, no such NB. is found by 
 the side of the entry of 1418. This entry Koning himself wrote as 
 " (laokiin) janssoen," which makes it clear that he had seen, at the 
 
11 
 
 moment that he copied it, that the name in the register was not Lauriis. 
 Bat somehow or other he seems to have got over his diificulty, and 
 printed Lauriis. We can forgive Koning, who Uundered in this way in 
 1816. But what are we to think of Dr. Van der Linde, who never 
 neglects to abuse Koning in the most unrelenting manner, calling him a 
 " literary rascal " and other names which I need not repeat here ; and 
 yet, in his o\mi incapacity of dealing with MS8., is driven to reprint, 
 verbatim, the poor blunders of his poor victim, and to dish them up to 
 us as the fruits of his own " research ".? 
 
 Does not this instance alone condemn the whole of Dr. Van der 
 Linde's Haarlnn Legend? But I must give a still more glaring example 
 of his pitiful dependence upon others in his " researches." 
 
 We know that it is said that Louwerys Janssoen, the man who some 
 regarded as the inventor of printing, died in 1439, according to an entry 
 in the burial-register of that year in the Cathedral Church at Haarlem. 
 In 1870, in his Haarlem Leijeiul (p. 197, Dutch edition, p. 119, 
 English translation). Dr. Van der Linde records this entry as follows: 
 "Item lou Jams, breet ii. gra. cloc en graf "; and he adds distinctly 
 that a former reading (gul instead of gra), published in 1821, falls to the 
 ground as there is question of 2 graves, not of two guilders. In 1878, in 
 his Gutenherg (p. 391:"), the same Dr. Van der Linde records the same 
 entry in a German dress as follows : " Item lou janss. breit 2 gulden 
 (der archivar Bnschedo liest graher) glooke und grab 1439." And at 
 the end of 1886, when he assures us that he has mastered at last the 
 whole subject, the very same Dr. Van der Linde records the very same 
 entry as follows (p. 351) : " Item lou janss. breet ii gra. cloc en 
 graf." And for the benefit of the German reader he adds a German 
 translation of the entry : that is to say, " Item Laurens Janszoon, hroad 
 two graves, for the sounding of the clock \_i.e., bell] and burial." He 
 then goes on to fill nearly six of his quarto pages with quotations on 
 this entry. 
 
 Now, long before I had an opportunity of making researches at 
 Haarlem, I wondered whether Dr. Van der Linde had ever tried to 
 master the entry, or to account for the fact that there was question (as 
 he, or his informant, says) of tivo graves. Surely the lou Janssoen, to 
 whom the entry refers, could not possibly have been such a giant as to 
 require two graves ? But as I had already realised that Dr. Van der 
 Linde never cares about, or thinks of, what he prints, I thought it better 
 to ask no questions, and to wait till I could see the MS. myself. On 
 Friday, January 7, 1887, I saw it, and read (on folio 20b) : 
 
 Abrect ii gut 
 Item lou ianssn Acloo ende graf 
 
 The whole line: "Item . . . graf" is written by the same hand 
 that wrote the greatest part of the register, but a different, though 
 certainly contemporary, hand added the A, as a mark of reference, by 
 the left side of the word cloc, and also " A breet ii gut " above the line. 
 
 There can be no hesitation about the reading of the entry as given 
 above by me, and the meaning becomes clear when we examine the register 
 a little further. The receipts for the soundings of the bell and for the 
 graves commence on fol. 18a. At first the costs of bell and grave are 
 recorded at each entry, always fifteen scilds for bell and grave together ; 
 one scild for a child ; five scilds for the bell alone. But the writer, 
 
1-2 
 
 seeing that nearly all the entries would have to be the same, began to omit 
 the amounts of the money on fol. 20a and 20b ; and so we find on 
 p. 20b, which concerns us, fourteen names of buried persons with the 
 addition of " cloc ende graf," but without the payments ; further, four 
 names with " cloc " alone, and one name with neither " cloc " nor 
 "graf." Among the fourteen names with ^" cloc ende graf" is that of 
 our Lou Janssn. There can be no doubt that the expenses for his bell 
 and grave were, as on the previous pages, fifteen scilds. But somehow or 
 other the relatives of the buried man seem to have been short of money, 
 and did not pay the whole of the fifteen scilds. Consequently, another 
 hand added above the line, but with a distinct mark of reference A, to this 
 entry, that tivo guilders had been left mipaid : " brect [not lreet'\ ii 
 gut." The word hrect (partic. of hrelcen), in the sense of ivanting, short 
 of, is neither unknown nor uncommon (see Verwys and Verdam, Middel- 
 nederl. WoordenboeJc, col. 1434). It occurs in the same sense, four 
 times over, on leaf 37b of the same register, written by the same hand. 
 
 No one need be surprised that Dr. Yan der Linde never mastered this 
 simple entry. That he published it three times over (in 1870, in 1878, 
 and in 1886), each time in a different way, and each time with 
 comments and notes, and yet never saw the palpable absurdity of his 
 readings, is quite in harmony with all that we see of his work. Nor 
 must we be surprised that he never took the trouble to examine the 
 original entry himself, though he is a native of Haarlem, resided there 
 for some time, and could have had easy access to the register ; for he 
 prefers to copy from others, knowing full well that the deciphering of 
 MSS. is not his strong point. But we may well ask, was there no Dutch 
 archivist, or librarian, or ordinary scholar, all the time from 1823, when 
 the entry was first discovered and misread, till 1886, when it was 
 pubhshed again, perhaps, for the twentieth time, to discover the absurdity 
 of the various readings ? This entry certainly shows what is still possible 
 in the nineteenth century. 
 
 If anyone asks whether the detection of these erroneous readings 
 alters, materially, the biography of the Haarlem inventor, as it has been 
 presented to us by Dr. Van der Linde, I must answer A^o. The 
 genealogy of the two men (Laurens Janszoon and Laurens Janszoon 
 Coster), whom Dr. Van der Linde declares to have been mixed up by 
 all later authors on the Haarlem claims, still calls for fm-ther investi- 
 gation, though there is nothing particularly obscure about it. But I 
 soon saw that even a cursory reading and copying of the manuscript 
 registers at Haarlem by myself was out of the question, as such a work 
 would have required several months, if not years, and I had only a few 
 days at my disposal. But I believe that what I found at the first touch 
 of Dr. Van der Linde's work shows conclusively that he has either made 
 no " researches " at aU, or has made them without being properly trained 
 for the work ; and, under these circumstances, we cannot, I think, but 
 dismiss the case which he has presented to us. "When persons are 
 unable to decipher MSS., and yet compile genealogies from MS8., the 
 chances are not only that they take hold of the wrong persons, as we see 
 Koning and his copyist. Dr. Van der Linde, do, but the true persons 
 may escape them. I beheve it will be clear to everybody, from what I 
 have said abo\'e, that science must require something more trustworthy 
 than Dr. Van der Linde's unreliable compilations from equally un- 
 reliable authors before it can decide that the tradition of the invention 
 
13 
 
 of _ printing at Haarlem is a myth. I hope presently to show that 
 
 I, in common with a good many others, still believe in that tradition, 
 
 and I will state my reasons for that belief. Should these reasons be 
 
 fonnd acceptable, it will be the duty of those who take an interest in the 
 
 matter to see that j)roper researches are made with respect to the 
 
 inventor. 'Who is to make them "i It is clearly the duty of the Dutch to 
 
 make an effort to place this matter upon a more satisfactory footing. 
 
 They have, hitherto, conducted the controversy in a manner which does 
 
 not do them any great credit. And it seems almost incredible that the 
 
 wrong readings which I have pointed out above could have been before 
 
 their eyes for many years without being noticed, especially as the 
 
 reading of the burial-entry, as gi^'en by Dr. Yan der Linda, is such a 
 
 palpable absurdity. Persons like myself, living far away from the 
 
 documents, can only make spasmodic efforts ; and researches at Haarlem 
 
 are not so very easy, nor do they seem to be greatly favoured by the 
 
 Haarlem authorities ; at least, that was my impression last January. 
 
 When MSS. and documents which require careful and anxious 
 
 examination have to be examined while their official custodian sits at 
 
 your elbow, and considers it his duty to hand you every document and 
 
 take it from you whenever you think it necessary to lay it aside for a 
 
 moment in order to look at another, a serious and thorough examination 
 
 is out of the question. Yet this was the condition under which I had to 
 
 conduct my inquiries at Haarlem. It made me remember with what 
 
 comfort and ease one can do a long day's work in the British Museum 
 
 without ever having to struggle with a fussy interference on the part of 
 
 authorities who yet manage to guard their treasures carefully. Let us 
 
 hope that what I have said above will awaken the Dutch to a sense of 
 
 their duty, and induce them to publish forthwith all that can in any 
 
 way lead to the clearing up of a subject which has already waited too 
 
 long for a scientific treatment, and the confusion of which is manifestly 
 
 used by Dr. Van der Linde to serve his own personal ends. 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 
 jMaNURCEIPTS, BlOCKBOOKS, AXl) THE FiRST APPEARANCE OE PRINTING. 
 
 I BELIEVE I have shown conclusively that Dr. Van der Linde's books on 
 the invention of printing are wholly unrehable ; and I think that, for 
 this reason alone, we are bound to reject his contention of having 
 demolished the tradition of a Haarlem invention by Lom-ens Janszoon 
 Coster, even if nothing could be said to support that tradition. I will 
 now endeavour to demonstrate (1) that, before we can accept G-utenberg 
 as the inventor of printing, we must first shut our eyes to a good many 
 things which, in my opinion, clearly show that the Cologne Chronicle of 
 1499 was not wrong in saying that ih.t first prefiyuration, the beginning of 
 the art of printing was taken from the Donatuses, printed in Holland 
 before there was any printing at Mentz ; and (2) that Hadrianus Junius 
 camaot yet be convicted of being wrong in ascribing the honour of the 
 invention of printing with movable types to L. J. Coster, of Haarlem. 
 
14 
 
 I will ask the reader to take first a cursory glance at the literary 
 development of the two centuries immediately preceding the invention 
 of printing with movable metal types. 
 
 Before that invention, and before the practice of wood-block 
 printing (xylography), therefore, as late as the second half of the 
 fourteenth century, every book, including school and prayer books ; every 
 public and private document, proclamation, bull, letter, &c., was written 
 by hand. All figures and pictures, even playing cards and images of 
 saints were drawn with the pen, or painted with a brush. Sufficient 
 evidence has come to light to enable us to say that in the thirteenth 
 century there existed already a kind of book trade. The organisation of 
 universities and of large ecclesiastical establishments was at that time 
 incomplete, especially in Italy, France, and Germany, without a staff of 
 scribes and transcribers fscrijjtores), illuminators, lenders, sellers, and 
 custodians of books (stationarii Ubrorum, Ubrarii), and pergamenarii, 
 i.e., persons who prepared and sold the veUum or parchment required for 
 books and documents. 
 
 The books supplied at that time were for the most part of a legal, 
 theological, and educational nature, and are calculated to have amounted to 
 about one hundred different works. No book or document was approved 
 without some ornamented and illuminated initials or capital letters, and 
 hence there was no want of illuminators at that time. The 
 workmen-scribes and transcribers were, perhaps without an exception, 
 caligraphers, and the illuminators for the most part artists. Beautifully 
 written, and richly illuminated, MSS. on vellum became objects of 
 luxury, which were eagerly bought and treasured up by princes 
 and people of distinction. Burgundy in the fifteenth century (with its 
 rich literature, wealthy towns, love for art, and the Flemish school of 
 painting) was, in this respect, the centre and lustre of Europe ; and 
 the libraries of its dukes at Brussels, Bruges, Antwerp, Ghent, &c., 
 contained more than three thousand illuminated MSS. 
 
 In speaking of the writing of the various MSS. of the fifteenth and 
 two previous centuries, it is essential that we should distinguish between, 
 at least, four different classes of writing, two of which must be again 
 sub-divided each into two classes ; and as nearly all the dift'erent kinds of 
 writing were afterwards taken as models for the types used in the 
 printing of books and documents, a knowledge and classification of 
 writings will make us more readily understand the first history of 
 printing. 
 
 We find, then, (1) the look-liand, i.e., the ordinary writing of legal, 
 theological, and devotional books (commentaries on the laws, and on 
 Holy Scripture, fives of saints, legends, &c.), intended for the use of 
 lectures at the universities, for private instruction or devotion, and the 
 supply of libraries. A good many of such books were written by men 
 whom wc may call the official transcribers of the universities and 
 churches. They had received a more or less learned education, and 
 consequently wrote, or transcribed books with a certain pretence of 
 understanding them, and of being able to write with greater rapidity 
 than the ordinary caligrapher. Hence their writing may be called {a) 
 the nirrent or cursive book-hand, of which a good many illustrations may 
 be found in Wilh. Schum {E.iempla Codicum Amnion. Erfurtensiiou). 
 Quite distinct from this current "writing, and much clearer and more 
 distinct, is (&) the vprigiit or set booJc-haiuI, employed by writers of whom 
 
15 
 
 some also worked for universities and churches, while others may be 
 presumed to hmv worked in large cities and commercial towns for the 
 people in general, and to have been exempt from the privileges, but at the 
 same time from the rules, of the universities. 
 
 This book-hand produced, among other books, the lower educational 
 books : as the Aliereclari'i ; the Doiiatus, a short Latin grammar extracted 
 from the work of Aehua Donatus, a Eoman grammarian of the fourth 
 century ; the Dodriaale, a Latin grammar in Leonine verses, compiled 
 by Alexander Gallus (or De ViUa Dei), a minorite of Brittany of 
 the thirteenth century; the Summula logic/c of Petrus Hispanus 
 ( = Pope John XXL, elected in 1276), used in the teaching of logic and 
 dialectics ; Dionysius Cato's DistirJia de morilnis, and its supplement 
 called FcifduH, with the Floretus S. Jlenutnli used in the teaching of 
 morals. So we find the Company of Stationers (stationani) existing in 
 London as early as 1403, and supplying transcripts of various books, 
 also ABC books, paternosters, credos, &c. From the labours of this 
 Company arose the names Paternoster Eow, Creed Lane, Amen Corner, 
 Ave Maria Lane, while the association of typographers and booksellers 
 in London is still called the Stationers' Company. 
 
 (-2) The churcli-linnd, which produced transcripts of the Bible, 
 missals, psalters, and other works intended for the use in churches and 
 private places of worship. This writing we may again sub-divide into 
 two classes : (ci) the orimmenied or caligrcqjhic writing, found exclusively 
 in books (Bibles, missals, psalters, breviaries, &c.) intended for the use in 
 churches, or for the private use of wealthy and distinguished persons ; 
 (Jb) the ordinary upriijlif or set church-liand, used for less ornamental or 
 less expensive books, and, in some cases, identical or very similar to the 
 set book-hand. (3) The letter -hand, which may be said to intervene 
 between the set literary book-hand (1, V) and the set literary church-hand 
 (2, 6). It was employed in all public documents of the nature of a 
 letter. (4) The roiiii or chart er-hand used for charters, title-deeds, papal 
 bulls, &c. 
 
 What I have said here in general about these classes of writings 
 apf)lies, of course, to each country of Europe in particular ; and though 
 each had its own national character, yet the different handwritings of 
 each country may all be arranged with more or less certainty, under 
 some such classes as I have mentioned above. For instance : in 
 Holland the book-hand was chiefly Oothic, or, as it is called in this 
 country, black-letter ; in Germany bastard-Italian ; in Italy the ordinary 
 Caroline Minuscle, and the same somewhat more rounded prevailed. 
 
 At the time that writing, transcribing, illuminating, &c., were in 
 their period of greatest development, the art of printing from tcooden 
 blocks (block-printing, xylographg) made its appearance in Europe, or, 
 more strictly speaking, in Germany and the Netherlands. It is considered 
 to have been derived from the Chinese, and seems to have been practised 
 as early as the second half of th.^ fourteenth century. It certainly was 
 busily employed between 1400 and 1450, and even so late as 1475, in 
 the production (1) of separate leaves (called briefs, from breve, 
 scripture), containing either a picture (print, pre7it), or a piece of text, 
 or both together ; (2) whole books, usually called block-books, sometimes 
 half picture and half text, or consisting wholly of text or wholly of picture. 
 
16 
 
 Of single sheets (briefs) of German origin we have about thirty, of 
 Netherlandish origin about half-a-dozen, preserved in various libraries of 
 the Continent, and some in the British Museum. Of block-books of 
 German origin we know about eighteen different works (of some of 
 which several editions are known to exist), ex. gi: the Apocalypse, or 
 History of St. John the Evangelist (of which six or seven editions 
 are said to exist), the Ars memorandi ; the EnndcJorist (the Antichrist) ; 
 the Ars moriendi ; BiUia Pavperum, with dates 1470, 1471, 1475 (not 
 to be confused with the editions of the Biblia Pauperum of Netherlandish 
 origin) ; the Dotendantz, &c. Block-books of Netherlandish origin are 
 the Biblia Pauperum; Ars moriendi; Ganticum Ganticoriim ; Potnerium 
 Spirituale ; Alphabet in figures, &c. 
 
 The manner in which these leaves and books were printed seems to 
 admit of easy explanation. The block, says Mr. W. M. Conway (in his 
 Woodcutters of the Netherlands, p. 2), after the picture or the text had 
 been engraved upon it, was first thoroughly wetted with a thin watery 
 ink, then a sheet of damp paper was laid upon it, and the back of the 
 paper was carefully rubbed with some kind of dabber or burnisher, till 
 an impression from the ridges of the carved block had been transferred 
 to the paper. In this fashion a sheet could only be printed on one side 
 (anopisthographic), and the only block-book which does not possess this 
 characteristic is the Legend of S. Servatius, in the royal library of 
 Brussels.* Therefore, if a man wanted to set up as a printer of briefs 
 or boolcs, he had simply to buy a set of wood-blocks and a rubber, and 
 his apparatus was complete. It seems probable that wealthy persons and 
 religions institutions were wont to possess such sets of blocks; and 
 when occasion arose, they printed a set of sheets for presentation to a 
 friend, or, in the case of convents, for sale to the passing pilgrim. A 
 printer of briefs or block-books had no need to serve an apprenticeship : 
 any neat-handed man could print for himself. So we find that the 
 sister of Jean de Hinsberg (Bishop of Liege, 1419-1455), a nun in the 
 convent of Bethany, near Mechlin, from 1455 till the day of her 
 death, 3 March, 1465, possessed "unum instrumeiitum ad imprimendas 
 scripturas et ymagines," and "novem printe lii/iiee ad imprimendas 
 ymagines cum quatuordecim aliis lapideis j'riiitis." As she retired into 
 the convent in the same year that her brother died, it may be presumed 
 that she had inherited these wooden and stone blocks from her 
 brother the Bishop, in which case a much earlier existence of these 
 instruments may be presumed.! Though there is evidence that there 
 existed in those days of briefs and block-books a class of workmen 
 or traders called Imet-maleis (Priffmcder) and printers or prentm'S 
 (evidently, as Prof. Skeat says, from print, prent shortened from the 
 French cmprint, empreinte, and already used by Chaucer, C. T. 6186, 
 six-text, D. 6U4, printe, prctite, preente, and in other early English 
 documents) ; yet the above two entries, found in the inventory of 
 the possessions of the Bishop and his sister, seem to indicate that 
 people purchased engraved blocks (of wood or of stone) from the 
 woodcutter (Formschneider) rather than books from a printer; while 
 
 * Passavaut, Le Pcintce-tfrarrtir {i. 57) mentions other block-books printed 
 on both sides. 
 
 t Sec B. Van Even, L'ancicnnc cculc de Pciiituri' dc Loiivaiti (Brussels, 1870, 
 s") pag. 101. The author remarks that these instruments prove not only the 
 existence of wood-block printing, but also stone-block printing;. 
 
17 
 
 the easy and unceremonious way in which briefs and block-books 
 could be produced, goes far to explain why they are in every way inferior 
 in workmanship, colours, &c., to the M.S8. of the same period. 
 
 While xylography and the art of writing were at their greatest 
 height of develoiDment, the art of printityj ivith movable metal tijpes 
 made its appearance. When we leave for the moment out of sight the 
 controversy as to when, Avhere, and by whom the latter art was invented, 
 and only take notice of the well-authenticated dates which appear in the 
 incunaljula which have been preserved to us, we see the first printed date, 
 14.5i, make its appearance twice over in two different editions of one 
 and the same Letters of Indulgence issued by Pope Nicolas V., in behalf 
 of the Kingdom of Cyprus. These two editions are usually called the 
 thirty-one-line and the thirty-liuu Indulgence. The dates on which the 
 copies that have been preserved to us were sold, run from November 15, 
 1454, to April 30, 1455. And as in recent years four wrilten copies of 
 the same Indulgence ha^-e been discovered, wluch, respectively, bear the 
 dates : Frankfurt, April 10, 1454; Frankfurt, April 11, 1454 ; July 11, 
 1454 (place not known) ; Llibeck, Octobei- fi, 1454 — we may almost fix the 
 exact time when printing with movable metal types made its appearance 
 in Germany. But the moment that it appears there it is already in a 
 perfect condition, and practised at the same time in two different printing 
 offices, apparently established at Mentz, the one perhaps belonging to .lohan 
 Gutenberg, the other, mthout doubt, to Peter Schoeffer of Gernsheim. 
 The next date, 1 455, is established («) by the same Letters of Indulgence, 
 the year 1 454 being merely altered into 1455 ; {b) by a " Manung 
 widder die Durke " or almanack for 1455, therefore, probably, printed 
 at the end of 1454. The next date — August 15, 1456 — is established 
 by a MS. note of the binder of a paper-copy of the forty-two-line (or 
 Mazarine) Bible, printed by Peter Schoeffer, preserved in the Paris 
 Library. Then follows the Kalendar for the year 1457, most probably 
 printed at the end of 1456. Then again the printed dates, August 14, 
 1457 and 14511, \\\\h. place (Mentz) in the colophons of the Psalter issued by 
 Fust and Schoeffer ; the printed year 1460 (with Mentz added) in the 
 Oatholicon, &c., &c. So that, with the exception of 1468, there is no in- 
 terruption in Mentz printing from the moment that we see it begin there. 
 As regards the printed psalter, its printers are mentioned distinctly in the 
 book itself ; but the other books just mentioned are assumed to have been 
 issued by the same two Mentz printing-offices, which are supposed to be 
 already at work there in 1454, though the 1460 CathoUcon and some of the 
 other works are ascribed by some to other printers. By the side of these 
 dates, we find already a Bible completed in 1460 by Mentelin at 
 Strassburg, according to a MS. note in the copy preserved at Freiburg. 
 And in 1461 Pfister completed at Bamberg the printing of Boner's 
 Edelstein, Avhile the same date 1461 is written on the last leaf of a copy 
 (in the Paris Library) of the thirty-six-hne Bible, which is ascribed by 
 some to the same Pfister, by others to Gutenberg. 
 
 Assuming then, for a moment, that Mentz is the starting-point, we 
 see printing spread to Strassburg in 1460 ; to Bamberg in 1461 ; to 
 Subiaco in 1465 ; in 1466 (perhaps already in 1463) it is estabhshed at 
 Cologne ; in 1467 at Eltville, Rome ; in 1468 at Augsburg, Basle, 
 Marienthal ; in 1469 at Venice ; 1470 at Nuremberg, Verona, Foligno, 
 Trevi, Savigliano, Paris; 1471 at Spire, Bologna, Ferrara, Florence, 
 Milan, Naples, Pavia, Treviso; 1472 at Esslingen, Cremona, Mantua, 
 
18 
 
 Padua, Parma, Monreale, Fivizano, Verona ; 1473 at Laugingen, Ulm 
 (perhaps here earlier), Merseburg, Alost, Utrecht, Lyons, Brescia, 
 Messina ; 1474 at Louvain, Genoa, Como, Savona, Turin, Vicenza ; 
 1475 at Lubeck, Breslau, Blaubeuren, Burgdorf, Modena, Eeggio, Cagli, 
 Caselle or Casale, Saragossa ; 147C at Eostock, Bruges (here earlier?), 
 Brussels ; 1477 at Eeichenstein, Beventer, Gouda, Delft, Westminster ; 
 1478 at Oxford, St. Maartensdyk, Colle, Schussenried, Eichstadt ; 1479 
 at Erfurt, A\'urzburg, Nymegen, ZwoUe, Poitiers ; 1480 at London, 
 Oudenaarde, Hasselt, Eeggio ; 1481 at Passau, Leipzig, Magdeburg, 
 Treves, Urach ; 1482 at Eeuthngen, Memmingen, Metz, Antwerp ; 
 1483 at Leiden, Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem ; 1484 at Bois-le-Duc , 
 Siena ; 1485 at Heidelberg, Eegensburg ; 1486 at Munster, Stuttgart ; 
 1487 at Ingolstadt ; 1488 at Stendal ; 1489 at Hagenau, &c. 
 
 Chaptek- V. 
 
 The Earliest Printers always Manufactured their oayn Type. 
 
 Most authors on the invention and spread of printing assert, with more 
 or less emphasis, that there is, so to speak, a continuity of type, or model 
 of type, from 1454 down to — yes, perhaps, down to our own period. 
 
 Speculations are always hazarded as to where the first printers of 
 Strassburg, Bamberg, Subiaco, Cologne, Augsburg, Basle, Venice, Paris, 
 Alost, Utrecht, Louvain, Bruges, Westminster, Oxford, &c., learnt the 
 art of printing, or, rather, the art of casting type. Some assume that 
 Johan Gutenberg and Peter Schoeffer either sup^Dlied their pupils, on the 
 latter setting up a business of their own, with a quantity of the types 
 which they themselves employed, or transferred to them their own 
 cast-off types ; or the pupils themselves cut and cast their own types, but 
 always, more or lesS, imitating the types which they had seen employed 
 in their master's printing-office. Some even assume that the great 
 difference observable between the types with wMch Gutenberg and 
 Schoeflfer are said to have started printing, and those which, for instance, 
 Caxton used at Westminster, or Veldenaer at Utrecht, only arose from 
 the Gutenberg and Schoeffer types having been successively imitated 
 (closely, it is true, but always with a shade of difference) by the printers 
 who wandered away from their masters, and cast a tyjie of their own. 
 Already in 1884, when writing on Palaeography in the Acaclem/j of 
 October 11, I took the opportunity of calling attention to these 
 erroneous views, in quoting a well-known author on writing who 
 said that 
 
 " The first printers, being Germans, they naturally imitated the black- 
 letter of the monkish missals then locally in fashion. . . . When the art of 
 printing was carried south of the Alps by the German monks of Subiaco, thei/ 
 took v/th them their hhtrl--htter l//pr-i, but soon found it desirable to conform 
 to the requirements of the Italian book-market by an imitation of the finer 
 forms of the elder minuscule which had come into fashion among the Italian 
 
19 
 
 scribes. The Lactantius, printed at Subiaco in 1465, for which the types 
 were cut by Sweinheira, is the first book in which an approach to the rounded 
 Roman forms is seen. Two years later, in 1407, >Sweinheim printed at Rome, 
 with greatly improved types, the epistles of Cicero. In 1470 these Roman 
 types, as they were called from the place where they were first adopted, 
 were brought to Paris, and used at the Sorbonne for the first book printed in 
 France." 
 
 This is exactly the contrary of what we do find. 
 
 When we examine tlie first printed book or documents of the 
 different places enumerated abo\-e, whether of Mentz or of Strassburg, 
 Subiaco, Cologne, Rome, Augsburg, Basle, Venice, Paris, Spire, Alost, 
 Utrecht, Saragossa, Westminster, Oxford, London, &c., till the moment 
 (say, 1480) that printing has spread to almost all the chief to^vns of 
 Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Spain, England, we 
 see that not a single printer carried away with him, as it is erroneously 
 asserted, a set of types or a set of punches or moulds, from his master ; 
 but we find every printer adopt the same measure in establishing his 
 printing-oifice, namely, he cast a set of types as closely as possible after 
 the model of a particular MS. which he or his patron desired to pubhsh. 
 With the types mth which a printer starts he prints a second, a third, 
 a fourth work, or more ; or, as we see in some eases, he discards his first 
 type after having employed it in the printing of one book or a single 
 document. But there is never any doubt as to the first step which a 
 printer took in procuring his first or his new set of type. It is simply 
 imitating the handwriting of some MS. provided for him in the place 
 where he settles. 
 
 So when we compare the thirty-line Indulgence printed by Schoeffer 
 in 14.54, with the MS. copy of the same Indulgence dated April 10, 14;") 4, 
 which has recently come to light, we perceive 'at once that the types 
 used in priatiiuj that document were specially cast for the p)urpose after 
 the model of the handwriting employed for the written copies, and Avliich 
 is clearly the letter-hand of which I have spoken above. We know that 
 the types of the thirty-six line and forty-two line Bibles, and those of the 
 Psalter of 1457, arc the closest imitations of the church handwriting 
 customary at the time of their production. And as the text, or brief- 
 type, of the thirty-one line Indulgence closely resembles that of the 
 thirty-line Indulgence, we may be quite sure that the types for that 
 document were also cast in close imitation of some written copy. So, at 
 Subiaco, Sweynheym and Pannarts cut, no doubt, their types after the 
 handwriting of some MS. of Cicero or Lactantius preserved in the 
 convent there, regardless of any types that they had seen at Mentz or 
 elsewhere. They abandoned their Sul)iaco type when they settled at 
 Rome, and cast a new one after the model of some Roman MS. The 
 first Venice printers did the same. And when, in 1470, three German 
 printers estalilished a printing-press at Paris, we find them start, not 
 with types brought from Rome, or elsewhere, but with types cast after 
 the written characters then in vogue at Paris, which was, indeed, if we 
 like to call it so, Roman in its character ; but it was only Roman in this 
 sense, that the latter was what in earlier centuries would have been 
 called the Caroline llimisnile, which was also the French writing. 
 
 I think it unnecessary to elaborate this point further, as anyone 
 may verify it for himself by comparing any book of the first Paris 
 printers preserved in the Paris Hbrary, with the writing found in a good 
 
 C 2 
 
20 
 
 many of them— e.^., (a) the Guil. Fiehehifi Rlwtorica (paper copy), of 
 wliich work the British Museum also possesses a copy on vellum, having 
 a prefatory letter addressed to Pope Sixtus IV., the first page of which 
 is written ; (I) the Besscirion Epistolae, and especially (c) the Cicero 
 Offlcia of 147-', in which the headings have laeen added in a handwriting 
 which hardly differs from the printed text at all. 
 
 Mr. Wilham Blades, the well-known author of the Lifr of WiUiam 
 Caxton, gave, some years ago, an account of the types of the first 
 printers which substantially agrees with my own. His remarks passed 
 under my eyes in 1870 ; but their bearing escaped me at the time, and 
 it was only a few days ago, long after I had written the above remarks, 
 that I read them accidentally again. As Mr. Blades has shown himself 
 to be such a careful and accurate observer of types and printers' habits, 
 I consider it useful to quote him here. 
 
 " The first printer, when he set about forming his alphabet, was never 
 troubled as to the shape he should give his letters. The form which would 
 naturally present itself to him would be that to which he and the people to 
 whom he hoped to sell his productions, had been accustomed. It is not at 
 all wonderful, therefore, that the types used in the first printed books closely 
 resemble the written characters of the period ; nor that this imitation should 
 be extended to all those combinations of letters which were then in use by 
 the scribes. Thus the Psalters and Bibles which appeared in G-ermany. 
 among the first productions of the press, were printed iu the characters used 
 by the scribes for ecclesiastical service-books, while more general literature 
 was printed iu the common bastard-roman. When Sweynheym and 
 Pannarts, emigrating from G-ermany, took up their abode at the famous 
 monastery of Subiaco, near Rome, they cut the punches for their new types 
 in imitation of the Roman letters indigenous to the country, although the 
 G-othic tendency still shows itself. In the dominions of the Duke of 
 Burgundy, where the vocation of the scribes had been so extensively en- 
 couraged, we find the same plan pursued. Colard Mansion, the first printer 
 at Bruges, was also a celebrated caligrapher, and the resemblance between 
 his printed books and the best written MSS. of his time, is very marked. 
 The same character of writing was also in use in England ; and Caxton's 
 types bear the closest resemblance to the handwriting in the Mercers' books, 
 and to the volumes of that era in the Archives of Guildhall." 
 
 Nothing could be clearer and more to the point. I only wish to 
 make one observation with respect to the " Gothic tendency " in the 
 Subiaco type, of which Mr. Blades speaks, and of which Mr. T. B. 
 Eeed speaks also in his excellent work on OJd English Letter Fonnderfi 
 (p. 41). I must say that I do not myself see any "Gothic tendency " 
 in it ; but if there be any, it was not imported by Sweynheym and 
 Pannarts from Germany or elsewhere, but was " indigenous " to Italy, as 
 Gothic wi-iting was by no means unknown in that country. 
 
 In fact, if any types or models of types had been imported by 
 Sweynheym and Pannarts from Germany into Italy, they would ha^'e 
 looked more like Italian than German ; for the types used by the 
 first printers of Germany resemble the Italian writing of the time to 
 such an extent that the brief-types of the two Indulgences of 1454 
 might easily be declared to be imitations of Italian handwritings, if we 
 had no other except Italian handwritings to compare them with. It is 
 only when we place them side by side with undoubtedly German 
 products, such as the block-book called the EiidfrJirlxt (of which a 
 fac-simile is given in Sotheby's Primijiia Tijpographira, II., pi. Ixiii.), 
 
L>1 
 
 that we realise that the types of the Indulgences are formed after 
 German writing-. So again, the types of the CathoUcon of 1460 
 (Mentz) look Italian, without any mixture of the G-erman element, 
 as may be seen by comxjaring them with the writing of the Dante 
 figured on plate I'J'J of the first series of the London PalEeographical 
 Society, a MS. Dochiaalc. preserved in the British Museum (Harl. 
 ^577) and Schum's J'J.rcinjila Codd. Amploii., Faix. 21. But, on the other 
 hand, when we compare the Cathohcon types with MSS., undoubtedly 
 written by Germans,* we see that Italian hardly differed from German 
 writing. So that we cannot be too cautious in such matters, all the 
 more so, as we have very few materials for investigations of this kind.f 
 
 Ohaptbb VI. 
 
 The Habits of the Earliest Printers. 
 
 In the midst of the universal system of printer after printer setting up 
 business, with a new type modelled after some handwriting fldthin his 
 reach, there would be, if the conjectures of a good many bibliographers 
 have any value, only two exceptions. The one would be Albrecht 
 Pfister, who began, as it is asserted, his career in 1401 as printer at 
 Bamberg with types transferred to him, it is said, by his master, Johan 
 Gutenlierg, after the latter had already printed with them (1) the thirty- 
 six line Bible, (2) the rubrics of the thirty-one line Indulgence of 1454 
 and 1455, (3) the Manung of (1454) 1455, (4) the Conjunctiones solis et 
 luiuip, or Kalendar of (1450) 1457, (5) the undated Cisianus, and two 
 or three or more editions of Donatus. It must be plain that this 
 transfer from Gutenberg to Pfister looks suspicious in regard to the 
 universal law of a separate and independent beginning of every other 
 early printer. There can be no doubt that Pfister printed in 1461 an 
 edition of Boner's Edelstein at Bamberg, to all appearances, with the 
 identical types of the thirty-six line Bible ; nor can there be any doubt 
 that from 1461 till about 147iJ he printed at least eight other works 
 of considerable size with the same types. "We also know that a good 
 many bibliographers ascribe or have ascribed the thirty-six line Bible, 
 and the four otlaer works mentioned above, to Albrecht Pfister ; and I 
 see certainly no reason why we should not do so, all the more as this 
 would be in perfect harmony with the custom of aU the early printers of 
 starting independently, and with other circumstances connected with the 
 history of the thirty-six line Bible. But I hesitate to take these works 
 away from Gutenberg. I have already rolhed him of the forty-two hne 
 
 * See, for infstanoe, tlie handwriting on pi. 6 and 7 in Willi. Solimidt, die 
 Iiihiuiahdn il. Kiijifi-rxtii-lis im Kon. Kuhhiii zii Jliinclicii. (4to., Miinchen, 1887.) 
 
 f If Dr. Van dcr Linde had spent the money, furnished him by the Germans 
 for the publication of his book, in providing us with reliable fao-similes of 
 German products of writing, xylography, and printing, he would have done 
 something creditable to himself and his employers. Instead of that, he has 
 squandered German money on a totally unnecessary book, illustrated by a 
 number of foolish plates and portraits which cannot be of the slightest use to 
 anybody. 
 
22 
 
 Bible {see my Outenhenj, pp. 166, 171), and of seven other works {see 
 my Gictenherrj, p. 107, sqq.) which bibliographers, and notably Dr. Van 
 der Linde, had ascribed to him on the strength of a forged inscription 
 and a falsified date. And if we ascribed the thirty-six hne Bible and the 
 four other works printed in the same type to Pfister — because a transfer 
 of types from Gutenberg to Pfister is diametrically opposed to all that 
 we see happen in the first twenty-five years of the art of printing — ^we 
 should, for the same reason, have to rob G-utenberg of aU the other 
 works which his worshippers attribute to him. Namely, the types with 
 which (1) the Gatholicon of 1460 ; (2) Matth. de Cracovia, Tradatus 
 rationis ; (3 and 4) Thomas de Aquino Summa de articulis fidei (two 
 editions) ; and (5) an Indulgence of llGl are printed, are said to be 
 Gutenberg's types ; but they are unquestionably in the possession of the 
 two brothers Bechtermiincze at Eltville in 1467. And as a transfer of 
 types from Gutenberg to the Bechtermiinczes is as diametrically opposed 
 to all that we see happen in the first twenty -five years of the art of print- 
 ing, as a transfer of types from Gutenberg to Pfister, it would seem more 
 consonant to reason if we allowed Henry Bechtermiincze to begin his 
 career independently, as the printer of the Gatholicon at Mentz, in 1460, 
 and afterwards himself transfer his own types to Eltville. This becomes 
 all the more probable as recent researches have made it certain, says Dr. 
 Van der Linde, that Gutenberg did not go to EltviUe as has hitherto 
 been supposed, but remained in Mentz, till his death in 1468. But I 
 do not know what to advise. If we took all these books away from 
 Gutenberg, he would no longer have a leg to stand upon, as nothing 
 would be left to us to attribute to him, not even the thirty-one hne 
 Indulgence of 1454. Perhaps we had better leave this matter for the 
 present to Dr. Van der Linde. He may probably be able to tell us 
 something about it in his maximum opus, which, I suppose, he is prepar- 
 ing by this time. And as he invariably teUs us something that is •svrong, 
 unless he can copy from others, we shall perhaps know, when he gives us 
 liis opinion, how we are not to deal with these books. 
 
 Another most important feature in the earliest books is that the 
 printers endeavoured to imitate, not only the handwriting, with all 
 its signs of contractions, combined letters, &c., but aU the other 
 peculiarities, of their manuscripts. There is, in the first place, the 
 unevenness of the lines, which could be avoided neither in MSS. nor in 
 the block-books, but wbich in the earhest printed books has hitherto, 
 erroneously as I think, been attributed to the inability of the printers 
 to space out their lines. This unevenness is, in my opinion, simply 
 part and parcel of the system of imitating manuscripts. Secondly, 
 blanks were left, as in the MSS., for the initial at the beginning of the 
 book, and for all further initials of the chapters into which a work was 
 divided, to be fiUed up afterwards by the rubricator or illuminator. 
 Where a book or its chapters had one or two lines as title, these were 
 usuaUy not printed in, but added by hand, either because the printing of 
 them in red (as in the MSS.) was not yet understood, or regarded as 
 inconvenient, or because this manipulation gave the book still more the 
 appearance of a close imitation of the manuscript. In fact everything 
 was done to make the books as faithful copies of the original manu- 
 script as could be done by the new mechanical process, which at its rise 
 was merely looked upon as a more speedy mode of producing books than 
 by hand, and the term typoscript would be, I think, very appropriate to 
 
23 
 
 tlie new product. This system of imitating the MSS. was sometimes 
 carried out to a very great extent. In the Paris Library, for instance, 
 there are two copies of the Liher Epistolm-icm of Gasparinus 
 Pcrgamensis (Paris, 1470), from which we may see how the initial G- 
 of the first line, and the initial M of the fourth line had been 
 accidentally printed in ; and how in one copy these printed initials have 
 been allowed to remain as they are, but in the other copy were 
 considered to be a mistake, and scratched out and replaced by a 
 rubricated G and M. 
 
 This idea of simply imitating and reproducing MSS. is not 
 abandoned till many years after the first printed date (1454:) made its 
 appearance ; and looking at the books printed, say from 1454 to 1477, 
 from om- present standpoint of daily improvement and alteration, the 
 printing of that period may be almost said to have been stagnant. It is 
 true, some printers (as for instance Sweynheym and Pannarts at Subiaco 
 and Kome, and Nic. Jenson at Venice) produced handsomer books than, 
 for instance, MenteUn at Strassburg, Pfister at Bamberg, Zell at 
 Cologne, Martens at Alost, Ketelaer and De Leempt at Utrecht, Caxton 
 at Westminster ; but this is to be attributed to the beauty of the MSS. 
 which the former imitated, and the paper which they used, rather than 
 to any superior skill on their part. It is also true that with respect to 
 the initials some novelties become gradually visible ; hyphens become 
 more generally used, or more uniform in their shape ; signatures are 
 here and there printed together with the text ; catchwords are 
 introduced, &c., but all this is again to be ascribed, in the first instance, 
 to the influence and example of the MSS. which the printers had before 
 them, and it is only long afterwards that these peculiarities are worked 
 off as a matter of course. Generally speaking, therefore, we shall not 
 be very far wrong in saying that the workmanship of Ketelaer and De 
 Leempt's first book published at Utrecht {circa 1473), and that of 
 Oaxton's first book issued at Westminster in 1477, exhibit the very 
 same stage of the art of printing as the Letters of Indulgence of 1454. 
 
 So that, if to-morrow wc found any evidence that Ketelaer and De 
 Leempt had really printed their first book in 1454, or that Caxton had 
 actually printed his first book in 1450, there would be nothing in the 
 workmanship of the first books of these printers to prevent us from 
 placing them in the years 1454 or 1450, and reversely, if there were no 
 date in the 1454 Indulgences or any of the other early books of Mentz, 
 no one would dream of placing them so early but ascribe them to 
 1470-1475. I can do no better than refer the reader to fac-similes in 
 Mr. Blades's Gaxton (pi. ii.) of a Colard Mansion book printed about 
 147G, and of Caxton's Chess-book (pi. v.), printed before 1477, and one 
 which I have given (in my Gutenberg, p. 180) of an Eltville book, 
 printed {circa 1472) in the very brief -type (or a very close imitation of 
 it) used in 1454 in the thirty-one Hne Indulgence. From a comparison 
 of these fac-similes with the Indulgence it must be clear that no progress 
 can be detected from 1454 to 1477. The 1454 Indulgences are 
 printed on one side only ; but merely because its nature required it 
 to be so printed, not because the printers of Germany of that date were 
 unable to print on both sides. 
 
i4 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 The " Costbbiana." 
 
 Having explained the peculiar, but consistently stationary or unaltered, 
 workmanship of the books printed from 1454 to (say) 1477, and 
 the spread of typography to the chief places of Europe, we may 
 now divert our attention to a group of early printed books which have, 
 until recently, been always ascribed to Laurens Janszoon Coster, the 
 reputed Haarlem inventor of printing, and which, for want of a better 
 and more significant name, I will continue to call Costeriana. In my 
 translation of the "Haarlem Legend," published by Mr. Blades in 1871, 
 I gave a classified list of these books, which I repeat here, with such 
 additions or alterations as have come to my knowledge during the 
 interval. 
 
 It is necessary to point out that there is no positive evidence that the 
 eight types, which I mention, have all been in the office which published 
 the editions of the Speculum (in type i.). Type ii. (used for the printing of 
 two leaves of that work) is inseparably connected with type i. ; and, as the 
 former is so much like type iii. that some consider these two types 
 identical, nothing would be gained by separating them. Type iv. and 
 V. occur in one and the same book ; and as- certain letters of type v. 
 are identical with some of type iii., they may all be linked together. 
 Type vi. is identical with type v., except the P, which is larger and of a 
 different form {see Campbell, Annales, No. 631). Types vii. and viii. are 
 linked on to the types i.-vi., on account of the great family-likeness 
 between them ; they all having that peculiar perpendicular stroke to the 
 cross-bar of the t, and a down stroke or curl attached to the r, which is 
 found in no other types of the Netherlands. 
 
 I exclude from my list the Donatus which Dr. Campbell (in his 
 Annales de la Typographie Neerlamlaise, under No. G38) wrongly ascribes 
 to the same printer who issued the incunabula mentioned below, as there 
 is not the least family-hkeness between the type of that Bonatus and 
 those of the other Costeriana. It has, moreover, signatures ; for which 
 reason alone it must be placed much later, and separated from the 
 Costeriana, in none of which signatures are found.* Nor do I include 
 in my list Dr. Campbell's Nos. 621 and 622 (fragments of Bonatus of 
 27 lines, in type v.) ; nor his Nos. 107, 108, 109 (fragments of the 
 Bodrinale of 29 lines, also in type v.), as they are perhaps merely 
 fragments of editions already mentioned in my list. 
 
 * I do not wish to refer any reader, who still has to leam something in 
 bibliography, to the list of the Costeriana which Dr. Van der Linde prints on 
 p. 299. of his last work, for it is grossly misleading. But those who are able to 
 peruse buffoonery applied to a serious subject, without any danger to themselves, 
 would do well to glance over his list, which seems to have been drawn up for the 
 sole purpose of mystifying everybody with respect to the Costeriana. Taking 
 advantage of Dr. Campbell's mistake mentioned above, Dr. Van der Linde goes 
 further, and attributes to the printer of the Spcciilwiii all the books printed 
 in Holland which cannot be ascribed as yet to any definite printer. 
 
25 
 
 CLASSIFIED LIST OF THE COSTERIANA. 
 
 [N.B. — ^Where a book in described in Holtrop's ('iif-iilnf/vn of the fifteenth 
 century books in the Royal Library at the Hague (Hagae Comitum, 1851!, 8to.), 
 I have given the reference (BRH.), which indicates at the same time that a copy 
 or fragment of the work is preserved in that Library. Where there is a f ao-simile 
 or ii description of any book in the same writer's Moiiuwrnx TiipiHiiuipliiiiiifx drs 
 I'll i/.s- /lux (La Ilayo, 18()H, Ito.), I have referred to the plate or the page (MT.). 
 T have also referred to Ca(= M.F.A.CJ. Campbell's Antuili'x ilr hi Tl|]>l<l|ra2>hil^' 
 Si^rrliinihiixr, La Haye, l.STI, 8vo.) ; Meerman (^Orii/hirx tj/jioijrapliira', 2 vols. 4to. 
 Ilagiu Com. l?!).".) ; Sotheby QJ'riiirijiiii, /ijjwr/rajiJiira, 3 vols. fol. Lond., 1858) ; 
 Bernard (^Hc VOi'iij'nir I'f i/rx Di'hiilx ilr PI/iij}r/nin'ir I'H /'Ji/rnjir, 2 vols. 8vo, 
 Paris, IHa!!); Ennen t^k'nfitJoi/ iJrr JiiiMintihi'] n hi, drr Stndt-Blhliuflwh zio Koln. 
 horausg. von Dr. L. Ennen) ; Wetter (^Krithclie (,'i'sokirlit.f dei- Mrfindung fhr 
 Jliir/idnivJirrJtunxl, 8vo. Mainz, 1836).] 
 
 Tvi'ic I. (also called the Sprcuhiin type). 
 
 1. Speciilniii, JfiiiiiKiiic KiilriiHiiiiiK (mixed Latin edition). Small folio. 
 
 Described BRH. 5G0 ; MT. p. L'L' ; Bernard J. 13 sqq.— Facs. MT 
 pi. '.^0, 21 ; Sotheby I. pi. xxxii. 
 
 It consists of thirty-two sheets or sixty-four iniop/slhof/riipli/i- leaves 
 (iif which the first is blank), each printed page having on the top a 
 woodcut divided into two compartments, separated by a pillar, with a 
 lino in Latin indicating the subject of the engraving, and below a text 
 divided into two columns, corresponding to the two compartments of 
 the engraving on the top. 
 
 Collatimi : a-' bed' e''-^'.V2 sheets ; the preface (which is in verse 
 and not divided into two columns) occupies the leaves '2 to 5 of 
 quire <i. Twenty of the leaves are wholly (figures as well as text) 
 printed xylographically (/'.(., from wooden blocks), namely (in quire b) 
 leaves (Mil, 7-18, 'J-Ki, 10-15, 11-14, 12-13 ; (in quire c) leaves '21-32, 
 22-.'U, 2('i-27 ; (in quire e.) leaves 61 (iO. 
 
 Copies : 1. Museum Meerman- Westreenen (the Hague) ; 2. British 
 Museum (Orenville collection) ; 3. Bodleian Library, Oxford ; 4. and 
 5. Paris Library (2 copies ; one perfect, the other wanting the blank 
 leaf) ; G. Mr. Holf ord ; 7. Earl Spencer (Dibdin, vii. 180, No. 309) ; 
 8. Pembroke Library at Wilton Hon.se ; 9. Library at Haarlem ; 
 10. Royal I'nblic Library at Hanover, wanting the leaves 19 and 24, 
 whereas it has the leaves 15 and 28 double (xee Bodemann, Iiirunaheln, 
 p. 20) ; 11. Royal Library at Berlin (formerly in the collection of 
 Frid. Jao. RoLilV) ; for other copies aee Bernard L IG, note. 
 
 N.B. — It is to lie noticed that 'Uv. Campbell, in his An miles, says 
 (No. l.^uO) that the two Paris copies belong to the unmixed Latin 
 edition {xir 2), and his statement has evidently been copied by Mr. W. 
 M. Conway {'J'/ir ]Voi>ilriilti'rx of the Niilicrhnitlx, p. 11) and Dr. Van 
 der Lindo {(li'xcliiclite, p. 307). But it is a mistake, as the two copies 
 undoubtedly belong to the Latin edition, which has twenty pages of 
 woodeut text. 
 2 The same work (unmixed Latin edition). Small folio. 
 
 Described BRH. 561 ; Sotheby I., 145 ; Bernard I., 17.— Facs. MT. 
 pi. 17 (19) ; Sotheby L pi. xxix. and xxx. 
 
26 
 
 This edition contains the same number of anopisthographic leaves, 
 divided in the same way as in No. 1, but the text of all the pages is 
 printed typographically. 
 
 Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen, the Hague (wanting 
 preface) ; 2. (John B. Inglis, bought by) Mr. B. Quaritch ; 3. Inipe- 
 rial Library at Vienna (perfect) ; 4. Library in the Palace Pitti at 
 Florence (perfect ; see Bernard, I., 23, note) ; 5. Town HaU at 
 Haarlem (wanting preface) ; 6. Royal Public Library at Hanover 
 (46 leaves only ; see Bodemann, Incunabeln, p. 18) ; 7. Royal Library 
 at Brussels (wanting 5 leaves). 
 
 [N.B. — In the Meerman-Westreenen copy, leaf 42 (46) offers this 
 peculiarity, that it consists of two slips of paper adjusted together, 
 one containing the woodcut, the other the text. It would seem that 
 after the printing of the engraving and the text, the upper part of the 
 leaf containing the engraving was damaged, and that the printer, in 
 order to remedy the defect, and at the same time to preserve the text, 
 cut away the greatest part of the engraving, leaving only a margin 
 large enough for another impression of the same engraving to be 
 pasted upon it. In copy 4, the circumstances here described are just 
 reversed, the impression of the text having failed, the lower portion 
 of the leaf is replaced by another pasted on the upper part of the 
 leaf. In the copy at LiUe (which belongs to the unmixed Dutch 
 edition, see below. No. 4) the pages 8-15 (the fourth sheet of the 
 second quire) and 23-28 (the fifth sheet of the third quire) offer the 
 same peculiarities.] 
 
 3. The same work (mixed Dutch edition). Small folio. 
 
 Described BRH. 662 ; Bernard, I. 17.— Pacs. MT. pi. 18 ; Sotheby 
 pi. xxxi. and xxxiv. 3 ; Ottley, Inquiry, I. 249. 
 
 This edition (which is a translation of the work into Dutch prose) 
 consists of 62 anopisthographic leaves, which are divided as in the 
 Latin editions, the first quire, however, having only four leaves (three 
 for the preface and one for the table of contents). The 49th and 
 60th leaf are printed with a different type (type II., see below. No. 19). 
 These two pages differ, moreover, among themselves in some of the 
 copies {see Meerman, I., 121, note cl.). On page 40, the last line is 
 printed upside down. 
 
 Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen, the Hague ; 2. Earl 
 Spencer ; 3. Ensohed^ (having first been bound up with a work 
 printed at ZwoUe in 1489 ; it was at the Ensched^ sale bought by 
 Mr. Quaritch, and is now in the possession of ?) ; 4. (Marcus, at 
 Amsterdam in 1761, now at) Geneva, in the Public Library. 
 
 4. The same work (unmixed Dutch edition). Small folio. 
 
 Described BRH. 563 ; Bernard I. 19.— Facs. MT. pi. 22 ; Sotheby 
 I. pi. xxxiii. 1. 
 
 This edition contains the same anopisthographic leaves, divided in 
 the same way as No. 3, but they are all printed in one and the same 
 type, which Bernard wrongly describes as differing altogether from 
 that of the other editions. 
 
 Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen (only leaf 42, which is 
 wanting in the Lille copy) ; 2. Town Hall at Haarlem {see Bernard, 
 I., 23, note) ; 3. Public Library at Haarlem ; 4. Library at Lille, 
 wanting the pages 33 and 46 (the first sheet of the fourth quire), 
 which are replaced by the pages 25 and 26 (the seventh or centre sheet 
 of the third quire), on the versos of which are printed the pages (but not 
 the engravings) 47 and 62 (the first sheet of the fifth quire), which 
 latter are found also in their proper places. These sheets are, there- 
 fore, printed on hoth sides (opisthographic), and are, perhaps, 
 proof-sheets of the printer. {See a description of the copy in detail 
 by Bernard, I. 20 sqq.) ; 5. Pembroke Library at Wilton House ; 
 6. Lord Spencer's Library (Dibdin IV. 551, No. 997). 
 
27 
 
 5. A Dutch Version of the Seven Penitential Pmliiix, 11 lines on a page. 
 
 Described MT. pp. 18 and 19.— No fac-simile. 
 
 One sheet, on vellum, printed on one side, but containing 4 pages 
 iu IGmo. 
 
 It was found in the Royal Library at Brussels, but is now preserved 
 in the Royal Library at the Hague. See Campbell, No. 1459. 
 
 6. Donatus (yEUim) cle octo jxirtihua orationis, of 27 lines. 8vo. 
 
 No description ; no fac-simile. 
 
 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 (pressmark 
 12932 c 21), stuck in another edition of the same work printed at 
 Reutlingen, 1495. 
 
 [N.B. — There are two leaves of a Donatnx of 27 lines, printed on 
 oiie side, in the Paris Library ; see Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres, 
 Vol. IV. No. 11, where he says that they belong "a une iSdition en 
 caracteres mobiles de f onte tres-bien grav6s ; ils ne sont imprimfe que 
 d'un seul cot^, et paroissent sortir d'une presse des Pays-Bas."] 
 
 [N.B. — There are four other leaves of a Donatus of 27 lines in the 
 Paris Library ; see Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres, Vol. IV. No. 9.] 
 
 7. Donatus — 28 lines 8vo. 
 
 Described BRH. 2 ; MT. p. 18 ; Ca. 612.— Facs. MT. pi. 13". 
 
 One leaf, on vellum, which was found pasted in a volume belonging 
 formerly to the Sion Convent at Cologne, containing several treatises 
 printed by Ulr. Zell, among which was : Augustinus de singularitate 
 clericorum, 1467. See Van Praet, Vel. priv. n. 9. 
 
 8. Donatus — 28 lines. 8vo. 
 
 Described MT. p. 18 ; Ca. 613.— Facs. Meerman VI.- 
 One leaf, on vellum, preserved in 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 entry occurs from which 
 it appears that the famous " Cornells the bookbinder," whom Junius 
 asserts to have been the servant of Laurens Janszoon Coster, had 
 bound that volume. See A. de Vries, Lyst cler Stuhhen letrelclcelyh de 
 Geschiedenis van de Uitcind'mg der Boelcdruhlcunst berustende op het 
 Raadhuis te Haarlem (Haarlem, 1862), p. 7, No. 1. — Two other leaves, 
 preserved in the same Town-Hall, were found in an account-book of 
 the same cathedral, of 1476, also bound by the same Cornells the 
 bookbinder. See A. de Vries, Lyst, &c., p. 9, No. 2, where the date 
 is wrongly given as 1489. And, finally, several fragments preserved 
 in the same Town-Hall found in account-books (one fragment in a 
 register of 1614) of the same cathedral, all bound by the same 
 * Cornells, the servant of Laurens Janszoon Coster. (See A. de Vries, 
 Lyst, &c., p. 11, Nos. 8 and 9.) 
 
 [N.B. — Five leaves (of which the first and third are double) of this 
 Donatus are preserved in the Paris Library ; see Van Praet, Velins, 
 Belles Lettres, IV., No. 10. 
 
 9. A Liturgical book in 16mo, of 12 lines. 
 
 Described MT. p. 18.— Facs. MT. U"!". 
 
 Leaves 2 (pp. 3 and 4) and 3 (pp. 5 and 6), printed on vellum, dis- 
 covered by M. Ruelens in the cover of an old book and now preserved 
 in the Eoyal Library at Brussels. The leaves 1 and 4 are wanting. 
 
 10. Donatus — 30 lines. 8vo. 
 
 Described BRH. 5 ; Ca. 614 ; MT. p. 19.— Facs. MT. 14". 
 Three leaves, on vellum, found in the old binding of a copy of 
 Exhortationes Noviciorum, Deventer (R. PafEroed), 1491, in 4to. 
 
 11. Donalux — 30 lines. 8vo. 
 
 Described BRH. 564 ; Ca. 615.— No Facs. 
 Fragment, on vellum. 
 
 12. Donatus — 30 lines. 8vo. 
 
 Described MT. p. 19 ; Ca. 616 (?).— Facs. Meerman IV. 
 
 Two leaves (pp. 19-22), on vellum; discovered in 1750 by M. 
 
Enschedd in a MS. : Handvesten en Privilegien van Kennemerland, 
 1330-1477. At the sale of his library in 1867, the fragments 
 remained in the possession of the family Enschede. There are two 
 leaves of the same edition in the Paris Library (see Van Praet, Velins, 
 BeUes Lettres, IV. No. 8). 
 
 13. Donatus ; a French translation, 29 and 30 lines to a page. 8vo. 
 
 No f ac-simile. 
 
 Four leaves (pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, li, now in the Utrecht Uni- 
 versity Library), on vellum, found by Dr. Sam. Muller, the archivist 
 of Utrecht, in the binding of a MS. Cartulary of the first half of the 
 16th century, preserved in the Utrecht Archives. 
 
 14. Alexandri Galli (or De Villa Dei) Doctrinale puerorum. — 32 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 668 ; MT. p. 19 ; Ca. No. 102.— Facs. MT. lo\ 
 Two leaves, on vellum, 4to., containing the verses 191-320. 
 
 15. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale. — 32 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 567 ; MT. p. 19 ; Ca. No. 101.— Facs. MT. 15". 
 
 Two leaves, on vellum, 4to. 
 
 [N.B. — There are 3 leaves of a Doctrinale of 32 lines, on vellum, 
 preserved in the Royal Library at the Hague (BRH. 3 ; Campbell, 99), 
 which were found in the binding of a "Gemma Vocabulorum," 
 printed by Paffroed at Deventer, 1495. Two leaves, moreover, in the 
 Archives at Cologne (Campbell, No. 100) ; but it is impossible to 
 ascertain to which edition they belong. 
 
 16. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale. — 32 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 559; MT. p. 20; Ca. 103.— Facs. MT. 16'> (27 
 lines). 
 Fragment, on vellum, in 4to. 
 
 17. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale. — 32 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described Campbell Annales, No. 98. 
 
 Fragment of two leaves, on vellum, in the Royal Library at the 
 Hague, and containing the verses 1659-1723, and 1974-2041. It 
 differs from the three preceding editions in the setting up of the text. 
 
 18. C'atonis Disticha. — 21 lines. 
 
 Described MT. p. 19 ; Dibdin, Bibl. Spenc. IV., 474-76.— Facs. Cat. 
 Spencer IV. 474; Sotheby, L pi. xxvi. 1 ; MT. 16"-. 
 
 Perfect (?) copy of 4 leaves, on vellum, in 8vo., in Lord Spencer's 
 Library. 
 
 Type II. 
 
 19. Speculum Humance Salrationis. — Two leaves only (the 49th and 60th) of 
 the mixed Dutch edition (see above, No. 3). 
 
 Described BRH. 562.— Facs. MT. pi. 19. 
 
 Holtrop points out (Mon. Typ. p. 21) that the type of these two 
 leaves resembles that of Laur. VaUa (type III, see Mon. Typ. pi. 25). 
 The capitals A and N seem to be ?iearbj the same. No trace of this 
 type has hitherto been found in any other book. 
 
 Type III (also called the Valla type). 
 
 20. Luiir. Vallae Facetiae morales et Franc. Petrarcha de Sal/bus Virorum 
 illustrium acfaceciis Tractidus. — 25 lines. 8vo. 
 
 Described BRH. 8 ; MT. pp. 29 and 30.— Facs. MT. pi. 25. 
 
 Twenty-four leaves, on paper. 
 
 Copies: 1. Royal Library at the Hague; 2. Town Library at 
 Haarlem (Ensched(5 copy) ; 3. British Museum (Grenville Collection) ; 
 4. Pf arrer Jaquerc?. at Mentz. 
 
 Holtrop, describing this book in his Oat. of Fifteenth century books at 
 the Hague, said that this type was identical with that of the two 
 leaves 49 and 60 of the mixed Dutch Speculum (see above. No. 19). 
 In his Monuments (p. 29), however, he says that it is different, and 
 
29 
 
 this type seems, indeed, a trifle larger. The capitals resemble those 
 of type IV., while one form of the B and the H and M of these two 
 founts are identical. 
 
 Type IV. (also called the Povtamis type). 
 
 21. Donalus. — 24 lines. 
 
 Described BRH. 11 ; Ca. 635 ; MT. p. 28.— Faos. MT. pi. 13 and 24. 
 One leaf, and part of another, on vellum, 4to. 
 
 22. Donahis. — 24 lines. 
 
 Described BRH. 676 ; Ca. 632 ; MT. p. 28.— Facs. MT. pi. 13 
 and 24. 
 
 Four leaves, 3, 4, 5, 6, on vellum, 4to. 
 
 23. Donatus. — 24 lines. 
 
 Described MT. p. 29.— Faos. MT. pi. 13 and 24. 
 
 Fragment, on vellum, 4to., formerly in the possession of Mr. Fred. 
 MuUer, the Amsterdam bookseller, but now in the Town Library at 
 Haarlem. 
 
 24. Donatus. — 24 lines. 
 
 Described Van Praet, Velins, IV, No. 12 ; Bernard I., 154 (who is 
 mistalien in saying that it is an edition of 27 lines). Facs. Bernard, 
 I. pi. iv. 
 
 Four leaves, on vellum, 4to., preserved in the Paris National 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 ; and also in the Hague Library ; see Campbell, 634.] 
 
 25. Ludovici (Pontani) de Roma Singularia Juris. Pit Secundi Tractatus el 
 
 Epitaphia. — 26 lines. 
 
 Described BEH. 13 ; MT. p. 26 sqq.— Facs. MT. pi. 23 (recto) ; 
 Sotheby L 181, IIL 132 ; Wetter. 
 
 Sixty leaves (the first blank) divided into three quires (of 8, 14, 
 8 sheets), in small folio. The Tractatus and Epitaphia of Pius II., with 
 34 lines to a page, commence on leaf 45'' in Type V. {see below. No. 39). 
 
 Copies: 1. (Enscheddi, at Haarlem), Asher and Co. (?) ; 2. Earl 
 Spencer ; 3. Royal Library at the Hague, wanting first (blank) leaf ; 
 4. British Museum, Royal Library (167, h. 13) ; 5. Royal Library at 
 the Hague (BRH. 13, only 4 leaves) ; 6. British Museum, only leaf 24 
 (pressmark: C. 18, e 2, No. 47), the recto of which presents some 
 variations when compared with the other copy. 
 
 [N.B. — In No. 1 and 3 the versos of the 55th leaf present some 
 variations {see MT. p. 27).] 
 
 26. Liidoricus (Pontanus) de Roma (f), a Treatise on Canonical Law (f). — 
 
 Described Campbell, 2nd Suppl., No. 1186". 
 
 A fragment of one paper leaf, discovered by Dr. P. A. Tiele, the 
 Librarian of the University of Utrecht, in the binding of a volume 
 (pressmark : Theologia, folio. No. 213), which contained two incuna- 
 bula, printed about 1480. In the volume is found the MS. note : 
 pertinet regularibus in iraieoto. 
 
 Type V. (also called the Suliceto type). 
 
 27. Gu.iJ. de Saliceto de Salute corporis. 
 
 Described MT. p. 32.— No faos. 
 
 Two fragments, on vellum, which were in 1868 in the possession of 
 M. Cohn (Asher & Co.), Berlin, but are now in the British Museum, 
 pasted (as No. 37) in a volume (lettered on the back Fragmenta 
 Antiqua, &c.) with other fragments of early printing. The largest 
 fragment contains the last 21 lines (entire) of leaf 2fi (counting a 
 blank leaf at the beginning) which contain that portion of the work 
 which begins in the other edition {see below No. 40) on leaf S' line 
 18 ; circufe||rencia & excitat in toto corpore , . , , and ends 
 
30 
 
 with the word siout of 4"' li. 3. — The smaller fragment contains the 
 beginnings, or left side, of the last 21 lines of leaf 5^, containing that 
 portion of the work which begins in the other edition on leaf 5' line 4 
 from foot) : calidis et a nimia . . . and ends on 6^ line 17 : 
 iobedie f3 sue. 
 
 The fragments were found in the binding of a copy of the Formulae 
 Novioiorum, printed at Haarlem, Joh. Andreae, 1486 (which is also in 
 the British Museum). They are printed anopisihographicalli/, that is, 
 on one side only. Both Mr. Holtrop and Mr. Campbell asserted " that 
 the sides on which at present no printing is found seem to have been 
 scraped to give them the appearance of a blank page." But there is 
 no reason for such a supposition. Nor are the fragments " printer's 
 waste " or " spoiled sheets," for both the fragments have unmis- 
 takably been ruhricated, and are, therefore, the remains of a copy 
 that was duly prepared for use and for sale. 
 
 [N.B. — I do not add here the other treatises printed together with 
 the Saliceto enumerated below, No. 40, because it is not certain that 
 they were printed with this edition.] 
 
 28. Donatus minor or ahhreciatus — 26 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BEH. 4 ; Ca. 630 ; MT. p. 34.— Facs. MT. pi. 27. 
 
 Two sheets (4 leaves, 1, 2, 7, 8 ?), on vellum. 
 
 Holtrop, in his Monuments, states that the sheet which contains the 
 first page, commencing with the words " Partes orationis qnot sunt," 
 contains also the last page ending : " Explicit." This edition, there- 
 fore, was composed of a single quire, and must have been a Donatus 
 minor. 
 
 29. Donatus — 27 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 565 ; Ca. 617 ; MT. p. 35.— Facs. MT. pi. 28, 32". 
 Perfect copy. (8 -f- 6), 14 leaves, on vellum. 
 
 30. Donatus — 27 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 6, 566 ; Ca. 618, 619 ; MT. p. 35.— Faos. Wetter, 
 XII. 2. 
 
 The leaves (3, 6, 9, 14) in the Royal Library at the Hague (BRH. 
 6) and those (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13) in the Museum Meerman- 
 Westreenen (BRH. 566), all on vellum, make together one copy of 
 this edition, of which only the leaves 11 and 12 are wanting. There 
 are two more fragments in the Royal Library at the Hague. 
 
 31. Donatus — 27 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 568 ; MT. p. 35.— Facs. MT. pi. 28". 
 Leaf 4, on vellum. 
 
 32. Donatus — 27 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 567 ; Ca. 620 ; MT. p. 35.— Faos. MT. pi. 29. 
 Two leaves and part of a third (leaves 2, 7 and 8), on vellum. 
 [N.B. There is another fragment, on vellum (BRH. 7), which may 
 belong to another edition of 27 lines.] 
 
 33. Donatus — 27 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 509 ; Ca. 628 ; MT. p. 35.— Facs. MT. pi. 29". 
 
 Three fragments, namely, the lower parts of leaves 1 and 8, and the 
 upper part of leaf 8, on vellum. 
 
 [N.B. There are eight leaves (one of which is double) of a Donatus 
 of 27 lines in this type in the Paris Library (see Van Praet, Velins, 
 BeUes Lettres, IV. No. 7). There is also a fragment of a leaf, printed 
 on one side, in the Cologne Town Library (see Ennen, p. 7). At 
 Cologne are, moreover, two leaves (3 and 6) on vellum in the archives 
 (Campbell, 621), and two leaves (also 3 and 0) on vellum in the 
 Library of the Catholic Gymnasium (Campbell, 022). And several 
 leaves of editions of Donatus of 27 lines in this type are in the 
 Bodleian Library ; one centre sheet in Brit. Mus., Tab. xi. b. 11.] 
 
 34. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 26 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 9.— Facs. Wetter, xi. 9, 
 Fragment, on vellum. 
 
.81 
 
 35. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 28 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BEH. 570 ; Ca. 105.— Facs. MT. pi. .30. 
 Two leaves, on vellum. 
 
 36. Alexandri Gull/ Doiirinale — 29 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BEH. 571 ; Ca. IOC— Facs. MT. pi. 30. 
 
 Seven leaves, on vellum, which contain the verses 2144-2321, 
 2440-2614. 
 
 [N.B. — There are two leaves of a Doctrinale of 29 lines in the Cologne 
 Library (see Ennen, p. 8 ; Campbell, 109) ; further other fragments 
 of a Doctrinale of 29 lines, in the Library of the Catholic Gymnasium, 
 and in the archives (.see Campbell, 107 and 108). Also two leaves in the 
 Paris Library (see Van Praet, Velins, Belles Lettres, No. IC) ; five leaves 
 in the possession of M. Renouard, and some leaves at Oxford.] 
 
 37. Alexandri Galli Doctrinale — 32 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described Van Praet, Velins, IV. No. 17. — No facs. 
 Two leaves in the Paris Library, on vellum. 
 
 Visser possessed also two leaves, and there are two leaves of an 
 edition of 32 lines in the Cologne Town Library (see Ennen, p. 8). 
 
 38. Catonis DisticJia — 21 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described MT. p. 36.— Facs. Sotheby I. 135, pi. xxiv. 4. Two 
 fragments which were in the possession of Sotheby. 
 
 39. Pii SecimcU TractaMs et Epitaphia. Small folio. 
 
 Described MT. p. 27.— Facs. MT. pi. 23 (verso). 
 This tract commences on the verso of the 45th leaf of Lud. de Roma, 
 printed in type iv. (see above. No. 25). 
 Copies : See above, No. 25. 
 
 40. Guil. de Saliceto de Salute corporis ; Turrecremata de Sahde animae ; 
 
 Pii II. Tractatus de Aviore, &c. ; Homeri Yliada, &o., in folio. 
 
 Described BRH. 572 ; MT. p. 3 ; 30 sqq.— Facs. MT. pi. 26 ; 
 Renouard, Bibl. d'un Amat. II. 152-8 ; Sotheby I. p. 183 (note). 
 
 Twenty-four leaves (the first of which is blank) divided into two 
 quires of six sheets each ; 34, 35 and 36 lines. 
 
 Copies : 1. Museum Meerman-Westreenen, at the Hague, containing 
 the MS. note : "Hunc liHrum emit dominus Conrardus abbas hujus 
 loci XXXIIIL, qui obiit anno MCCCCLXXIIII, in profesto exalta- 
 tionis sanctae crucis, postquam prof uisset annis fere tribus." Another 
 MS. note indicates that this copy had belonged to the convent of St. 
 James, at Lille. This abbat was Conrad du Moulin, who was abbat 
 only from 1471 to 1474. 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 ?) 
 
 41. (Incertl auctoris, vulgo Pindari Thehani), lUados Homericae Epitome 
 ahhreviatum (Metrice), cum praefatione Pii II. in laudem Homeri. 
 
 Described BRH. 10 ; MT. pp. 33, 34.— No facs. 
 Ten leaves (in quires of 4, 4, 2 leaves), 34 and 35 lines. Folio. 
 Copies : 1. Royal Library at the Hague, wanting the 10th leaf ; 
 2. British Museum, Grenville Collection. p^lCf, C / C^ Ir f" ^ 
 
 42. The mme worh. — 34 and 35 lines. 
 
 Described BRH. 573 ; MT. pp. 33 and 34.— No facs. 
 Seventeen leaves. Folio. 
 Copy : Museum Meerman-Westreenen. 
 
 Holtrop, in his Mon. Typ., pp. 32-34, has given a minute and clear 
 description of Nos. 41 and 42, which are great bibliographical 
 
 curiosities. 
 
 Type VI. 
 
 43. Donatus. — 26 lines. 4to. * 
 
 Describsd Ca. G29. 
 
 Four leaves, on vellum, in the Library of the Catholic Gymnasium 
 at Cologne. 
 
44. Donatus. — 27 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 556 ; Ca. 631 ; where it is said that this type is 
 the same as type V., except the P which is larger and of a diflerent 
 form ; MT. p. 36.— Facs. MT. pi. SI"" ; Meerman, pi. II. 
 
 One leaf (the 11th), on vellum. 
 
 Fragments are also preserved at Haarlem. Dr. Kloss possessed the 
 4th and 6th leaves. Weigel also had two leaves. See Collectio 
 Weigel. II. 165. 
 
 Type VII. 
 
 45. Donatus. — 27 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described MT. p. 36.— Facs. MT., pi. 32». 
 
 Four leaves on vellum , found in the old binding of a : Durandi Ration- 
 ale, printed at Strassburg, 1493, belonging to the Library of the Convent 
 of the Holy Cross, at Uden, in North Brabant. These four leaves 
 (2 sheets) contain the same text, and belong, therefore, to two 
 copies of the same edition. The type resembles much that of the 
 Salioeto. 
 
 Type VIII. (also called the Ahecedarium type). 
 
 46. Ahecedarium. 
 
 Described MT. p. 16 ; Ca. 1.— Facs. MT. pi. 12. 
 
 Four leaves, 16mo, printed on vellum. They were found in 1751 by 
 M, Enschede, at Haarlem, in a MS. Breviarium of the Fifteenth 
 Century, originating from the family of Berestyn, related to Jan van 
 Zuren, printer at Haarlem, in 1561. At the sale of Fmsohede's Library 
 they were bought by Teyler's Museum, at Haarlem, and afterwards 
 presented by the authorities of this Institution to the town of Haarlem, 
 where they are now preserved in the Town Hall. 
 
 [N.B. — This little work has been regarded as the first Essay of 
 Laurens Coster. But Bernard (^Origine, I. 91) said that it could not 
 be the first tj^ographical essay, as the difiiculty of iinpoxition had not 
 been surmounted, he argued, at the commencement of the art. He 
 added that we may be certain that the first size used was folio, and that 
 only later on printers became familiar with 4to. size, afterwards with 
 8vo., and finally 16mo. Mr. Holtrop says that he had, independently, 
 come to the same conclusion. But I really do not see that there is any 
 difiiculty whatever. The A hecedarhim consists of two sheets, or four 
 leaves, or eight pages ; and, of course, the printer printed its eight 
 pages one after the other, and, naturally, the pages 1 and 8 fall on 
 the same side of the first sheet, and pages 2 and 7 on the other side, 
 and so on. There is, therefore, no question of imposilioi^, as it is now- 
 a-days understood by printers. We might just as well say that MSS. 
 had been imposed, for in MSS., too, the pages 1 and 8, and 2 and 7, &c., 
 would come on the same sides of the sheets.] 
 
 47. Donatus of 31 lines. 4to. 
 
 Described BRH. 1 ; Campbell 611 (where it is wrongly described as 
 an edition of 32 lines); MT. p. 15. — Facs. MT. pi. 11; Meerman, 
 Tab. 1. 
 
 Two leaves, on telltim, printed on one side only, found, in 1844, in 
 the Royal Library at the Hague, in a " Getydenboeck," printed at 
 Delft, 1484. 
 
 [N.B. — It must be distinctly stated that the leaves are anopistho- 
 graphic ; there never has been any printing on the versos, consequentlv 
 the idea of any printing on the versos having been scraped off, as 
 suggested by Messrs. Holtrop !ind Campbell, cannot be entertained.] 
 
33 
 
 On comparing the above list witli that of 1871, it will be observed 
 that to the forty-three works enumerated in the latter hst four have now 
 been added. Of one of these additions (No. 26), printed in type iv., no 
 title can as yet be given ; but it is evidently a treatise on Canonical Law, 
 presumably written by the same Ludovicus de Eoma who wrote the 
 SingiiJariK in cavsis criminalihus (No. 25), also printed in type iv. Of this 
 new work no more than a fragment of one leaf was recently discovered 
 by Dr. P. A, Tiele, the librarian of the University of Utrecht. Another 
 fragment printed in the same type iv. and found in the same library at 
 Utrecht, cannot yet be identified. It does not belong to the Singularia, 
 but it may belong to the other work. 
 
 The second addition (No. 13), also discovered at Utrecht, is still 
 more curious and important, as being a Frenrh edition of the Grammar 
 of Adii/s Donatiis, printed with the same types as the Speculum (type i.). 
 Four leaves (eight pages, namely 1, 2, 8, 4 and 9, 10, 11, 12) of it were 
 found last year by Dr. Samuel MuUer, the archivist of Utrecht, in the 
 binding of a MS. Cartulary of the first half of the sixteenth century. 
 It seems probable that the edition originally consisted of six leaves, of 
 which the third and fourth (or the pages 5, 6, 7, Kj are wanting. The 
 two pages (4 and 9), which are now the centre pages, ha\'e both thirty 
 lines; the other six (outer) pages (1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12) have all 
 twenty-nine lines. 
 
 The third addition (an edition of the Dodrinale ; No. 17), printed 
 in the Sjjec.iilum type (i.) and the fourth addition (an edition of the 
 Donatus; No. 43), printed in type vi. are taken from Campbell's Annales 
 published in 1874.* 
 
 We have, therefore, to deal Avith the rather large number of 
 forty-seven different works. 
 
 Chapter YIII. 
 
 Were the " Costeeiana " Feinted at Utrecht ? 
 
 Not one of the forty-seven Costeriana bears a date, nor the place where 
 they were printed nor the name of the printer. Authors who beheved 
 in a Haarlem Invention of Frinting have always ascribed them to 
 Laurens Janszoon Coster (said to be the inventor of printing at 
 Haarlem), and to a period varying, according to their confidence or 
 ignorance, from 1423 to 1439, or from 1420 to 1439, or to 1470; 
 or circa 1440 ; or from 1440 to 1460. Those who had no confidence 
 in the tradition of a Haarlem invention, nor in the person of the 
 Haarlem inventor, attributed, but always somewhat tentatively, these 
 books to an unknown Dutch printer, and their execution to the 
 period circa 1470 and later. 
 
 * The tMrd and fourth addition had not yet been noticed by me when I 
 prepared my articles for the Academy, so that I speak there of forty-five, here of 
 forty-seven, works. 
 
Since 1870, howerei', fresh and altogether novel attempts have been 
 made to assign a place and a date to the Costeriana. At the very moment 
 that Dr. "Van der Linde was sui^posed to have sho-ivn that there was no 
 foundation for the Haarlem story, and that two men had been paraded 
 before our eyes, neither of whom would fit into the story as related by 
 Junius, and whose career did not suggest that they could have been 
 printers, Mr. Bradshaw suggested Utrecht as the place where the 
 Costeriana had been printed, and the period 1471-1474 as the 
 approximate date of their origin. Later on, when people considered that 
 the story of a Haarlem invention of printing had entirely been exploded, 
 the convent Weidenbach near Cologne, and the convent Den Hem, 
 near Schoonhoven in Holland, were also suggested as places where the 
 Costeriana might have been printed. The latter two places, however, 
 were only suggested, and for a time seriously thought of, by those two 
 fanciful writers on Bibliography, M. Madden and Dr. Van der Linde. 
 But Utrecht has found, and still finds, favom* with a good many authors. 
 Mr. Bradshaw suggested or fixed upon that city, because we find the 
 engraved blocks, or at least one of them, which had been employed 
 before in the printing of the four editions of the Speculum, cut up into 
 two portions and used there in 1481 by the printer Johan Veldener in 
 the printing of one of his books {Epistelen ende Evantjelien, in Dutch). 
 Mr. Bradshaw explained why he adopted Utrecht : 
 
 " The method," he said (on p. 5 of his Lht of Types used by Printers in 
 Holland in the Fifteenth. Century') "which he adopted, prevented him from 
 accepting any testimony at all except such printed or written documentary- 
 evidence as is found in the volumes themselves, or failing this, such evidence 
 as is afflorded by an unmistakable family-likeness between two or more founts 
 of type . . . He was compelled to leave the Specidum at Utrecht until he 
 knew anything positive to the contrary, because it is at Utrecht that the cuts 
 first appear, cut up into pieces, in a book printed by Veldener at that place in 
 1481." 
 
 The opinion of Mr. Bradshaw carried great weight with me and 
 others who knew his eminence in bibliography. Mr. Campbell, the 
 librarian of the Hague library, was so convinced of the soundness of 
 Mr. Bradshaw's suggestion and Dr. Van der Linde's researches in the 
 Coster question, that, in his Annates de la typographie Keertandaise au 
 XV. Steele, published in 1874 (a book that will last for ages, and should 
 only have adopted established facts), he ascribed the Costeriana not to the 
 discredited Laurens Janszoon Coster of Haarlem, and not to an unknown 
 place, but, much against Mr. Bradshaw's own wish, to a purely imaginary 
 Prototypographie Neerlandciise, Utrecht, merely indicating his doubts on 
 the subject by a sign of interrogation. 
 
 I myself adopted Mr. Bradshaw's suggestion publicly with equally 
 great zeal and confidence, as may be seen in my introduction to the 
 Haarlem Legend published in 1871. But I admit that my researches at 
 that time hardly enabled me to form an independent opinion ; and what 
 I am going to say will show that, unless more evidence be found, I can 
 no longer accept Utrecht, nor the date 1471-1474 as applicable to the 
 Costeriana. 
 
 Mr. Bradshaw, in suggesting Utrecht as the place where the 
 Costeriana were most likely printed, was, of course, free from aU party 
 bias. He favoured neither Haarlem nor Mentz. He merely suggested 
 what he considered a scientific method of dealing with the Costeriana. 
 
But it stands to reason that his method, if apphed to the Costeriana, 
 should also be applied to other groups of incunabula, in which case the 
 thirty-one-line Indulgence of 1454, the thirty-six-line Bible, and all the 
 other works printed in the same type, which we at present ascribe, or feel 
 inclined to ascribe, to Gutenberg and to ilentz, should be assigned to 
 Albrecht Pfister of Bamberg, for the latter had unquestionably those types 
 in his possession in 14G1, whereas there is not a scrap of evidence that 
 they were at any time in the possession of Gutenberg. Or, secondly, 
 Mr. Bradshaw's method would compel us to place the first appearance of 
 printing in Germany at Fmnhfurf, or at LiibecJc, or at Erfurt, instead of 
 at Mentz, as we find that Paidinus C'happe, who was commissioned by 
 John II., King of Cyprus, for the sale of the lioi Indulgence, issued 
 written copies in the first two places a short time before we find printed 
 copies of that document circulating, while the earliest of the printed 
 copies of the Indulgence is dated from Erfurt. Or, thirdly, 
 Mr. Bradshaw's method would compel us to assign the thirty-one-line 
 Indulgence to Brunswick or Halberstadt, for it is there that we find the 
 first two editions (eyidently printed by way of experiment) used as 
 binder's waste, which in this case may also be called printer's waste. 
 But I suppose Gutenberg's worshippers would rather object to any such 
 applications of Mr. Bradshaw's method, as it would entirely destroy the 
 claims of their idol. But a method which they would consider unsound 
 in the case of Gutenberg, they could hardly be allowed to apply in other 
 cases. Mr. Bradshaw's death prevents us from ascertaining his views on 
 such a scientific and general application of his method. But to me it 
 seems certain that, when he suggested it, he never contemplated the 
 consequences that would follow. 
 
 After Mr. Bradshaw had thrown out the hint as to Utrecht, other 
 people found, or thought they found, confirmatory evidence of the 
 Costeriana ha^'ing been printed in that place. First of all. 
 Dr. Van der Linde called attention to a MS. of the Speculum having 
 been Aviitten, or, having belonged at least, to a person residing at Utrecht 
 in 14G4. Of this MS., the printed Dutch Speculum, he said, was an 
 abridgment; talking just as if there had been no other MSS. of the 
 SjKcuhnn on earth. Secondly, the fragments of the two works, which I 
 mentioned above as having been discovered within the last five years, were 
 discovered at Utrecht, having evidently been used as binder's waste in 
 that city. This circumstance especially was regarded by Dr. Campbell, 
 the librarian of the Hague, as finally setthng the question in favour of 
 Utrecht, and itmce over he expressly went out of his way to inform the 
 Dutch people of his opinion. Why, I do not in the least know. If the 
 fragments were printer's waste, that is to say, if they were discarded 
 proof-sheets, there would be strong prima facie evidence for Utrecht, 
 as the books and the MS. in which they were found were apparently 
 bound at Utrecht. But the fragments in question are not printer's 
 waste. Therefore, though they may have been used by a Under in the 
 strengthening or guarding of his books, they can never be a rehable 
 clue to thdi: printer, nor to the place where they were printed; least of 
 all, when we consider that copies or fragments of these Costeriana 
 have been found in various places: at Cologne, Brussels, Haarlem, 
 Utrecht, &c., and in all sorts of bindings of incunabula printed at 
 various places and in different years as— Delft (14«4), Haarlem (1486), 
 Deveutcr (1491, 1495), Strassburg (1493), Keuthngen (1495), and no 
 
 n 2 
 
86 
 
 one would assert, that these fragments were printed in all' the places 
 where they have been found. But, if the finding of fragments is to 
 be taken as evidence, then certainly the evidence that -we have in 
 this respect is overwhelmingly in favour of Haarlem: (1) a fragment 
 of one of the Costerian Donatuses (in type i., see above, p. 27, No. 8) was 
 found in the original binding of an account-book of 1474: of the 
 Cathedral at Haarlem, in which an entry occurs showing that the 
 account-book had been bound by Cornelis the bookbinder, the very man 
 who is alleged by Junius to have been the servant of the printer of the 
 Oosteriana, and who, therefore, plays an important part in the controversy 
 regarding the invention. (2) This very same Cornehs the bookbinder, 
 the servant of the reputed Haarlem inventor, is known to have continued 
 to bind the account-books of the Haarlem Cathedral, and in several of 
 them (one of 1470, another of 1514, &c.) he used fragments of the 
 same Donatus of which he used fragments in 1473 {see A. De Vries, 
 Lyst der Stulcken hetrelclcelyli de Geschiedenis van de IJ it rinding der 
 BoeMrulchunst, leriistende op het Raadhnis te Haarlem. Haarlem, 
 1862, pp. 7, 9 *, 11). In fact, this Cornelis seems to have had a 
 perfect store of these Donatuses.^ (8) Two leaves of another edition 
 of the Donatus (but in the same type i.) were found at Haarlem in a 
 MS. Cartulary, ranging from 1380-1467 ; (4) Two vellum leaves of 
 an Ahecedarium (in type viii.), presumably belonging to the same 
 group of books, were found in a fifteenth-century MS. pertaining 
 to a Haarlem family ; and (5) Fragments of the Saliceto (in type v.) 
 were found in the binding of a book printed at Haarlem in 1486. 
 Therefore the discovery at Utrecht, twice or three times only, of 
 fragments of the Costeriana cannot yet be accepted as evidence that 
 these books were printed at that place, when we look at the much 
 stronger evidence in favour of Haarlem ; least of aU when we consider 
 that one portion of them was found by the hbrarian, and another 
 by the archivist, of Utrecht, both men who have had for a considerable 
 number of years the question of the invention before their eyes and 
 their minds, and who are in consequence constantly on the look out 
 for things of this kind. Eemove these two men to other places, 
 where they would have similar opportunities for examining MSS. and 
 printed books, and the chances are that copies or fragments of 
 Costeriana will turn up wherever they go. 
 
 ■* At No. 2, on p. 9, the Lyst wrongly gives 14S9 instead of 1476. 
 
 f All these fragments discovered at ITaarlem have been quietly overlooked 
 by Dr. Campbell ; at least he does not say a word about them, whereas he is very 
 profuse about the discovery of fragments at Z'trcclit. And as regards Dr. Van 
 der Linde, nothing is so deplorable in his books as his attempts to distort or 
 explain away evidence of this kind. In his Gutenberg (p. 562) he first svijgestK 
 or pn'xiimi'x that the Costrriiina may have been printed at Cologne, and then, 
 on the following page, speaking of the Cornelis fragments, he asks "Did the 
 Haarlem bookbinder and bookseller Cornelis stand in any business-relations with 
 the Cologne manufactory of Donatuses?" just as if, by merely suggest hit/ it, he 
 had /irared the existence of the Cologne manufactory. In this same manner 
 Dr. Van der Linde has j>iorri! all his points. 
 
37 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 Uncertainty as regards "Dating" the Costeriana. 
 
 As regards tlie approximate date which, those who do not believe in 
 tlie Haarlem claims assign to the Costeriana, namely, 1471-1^:74:, they 
 base it first upon the appearance and workmanship of the books which they 
 assert to be of that period. Secondly, upon the circumstance that one of 
 the fragments of a Donatns, printed with the same types as the Hiwculu 
 and eleven other works, was found, as I have said above, in the original 
 binding of an account-book of 1474 of the Cathedral of Haarlem. But 
 as that fragment belongs to a copy that has been rubricated, and 
 in circulation, it stands to reason that the date of its printing must be 
 placed at least before that year. Thirdly, one of the Costericnia was 
 bought by a certain Conrad, the abbat of St. James, at Lille, and as he 
 was abbat from the end of 1471 to 13th Sept., 1474 only, the printing 
 of the book must have been finished at least before the latter date {see 
 the List above. No. 40). 
 
 This latter work is one of the four Costeriana which are printed 
 in type v., and which cannot be dated earlier than August 19, 1458, 
 as they bear the name of Pope Pius II. who was not elected till 
 that day. Therefore, we are provided with at least two dates (1458 and 
 1471-1474) on which to base ourselves. Now, when we have a number 
 of undated incunabula,' presumably all printed in the same printing-office 
 like the Costeriana, and have also one or two dates to base ourselves 
 upon, there is in some cases a chance of our being able to group them all 
 with more or less certainty round those dates. In the present case, 
 having to deal with a number of forty-seven incunabula, four of which 
 cannot be placed earlier than 1458, we should have to see whether we 
 must group the remaining forty-three after or before or ietween the dates 
 in our possession, or some of them after, or some before, or some between 
 those dates. This grouping is usually done by taking into account the 
 more or less progressive workmanship, or the more or less sharpness of 
 the types, which is nearly always observable in the early printed books 
 emanating from one and the same office. But such grouping is seldom 
 very easy, and in a good many cases it can only be guess-work. For 
 instance, it would be hopeless to try to date the earher productions of the 
 first Paris press by their workmanship or the look of their types, as the 
 books are all so like each other that they would ahnost seem to be 
 printed at one and the same time, without any alteration in the look of 
 the types or any alterations in the mode of printing. Moreover, we 
 observe now and then how very little difference the space of ten or eleven, 
 or even more years, makes to bibliographers in assigning dates to 
 incunabula. For instance, in 1783, the earliest date of printing at 
 Strassburg was given by Panzer as 1471 ,■ Hain (1831) put it at 1473 ; 
 Namur (1834) at 1471 ; in 1853 Bernard knew already the year 1466 as 
 the earliest date ; and in 1871 the date 1460 came to light, and, of 
 course, the Bible in which the latter date was found, and which formerly 
 
38 
 
 had been attributed to Ul'd or thereabouts, was at once put thirteeen 
 years back. 
 
 So, again, recent bibliographers profess to have discovered evidence, 
 which would compel us to date the books of the R printer seven or 
 eight years earlier than they have hitherto been placed. On the 
 other hand, for nearly eighty years a group of seven books have been 
 ascribed to Gutenberg, on the strength of the printed date of a 
 Prognostication preserved at Darmstadt, which was alleged to be 1460 
 (see my Girtenherg, p. 107, sqq.) ; wherefore the book, with six other 
 works printed in the same type, were assigned to the year 1459, or 
 thereabouts. And as long as this date remained undisputed, the 
 appearance of the books never suggested to Gutenberg's worshippers 
 that they were of a considerably later date, and could not be ascribed 
 to him. But when I found in 1881 that the date of the Prognos- 
 tication had been falsified, and was not 1460, but 1482 (therefore 
 printed in 1481), all the books were at once comfortably dated twenty- 
 one years later, and removed for ever from the list of Gutenberg pro- 
 ductions. 
 
 Bibliographers deal with the block-books in the same way. "Weigel, 
 who did not believe in a Haarlem invention of printing, placed the 
 Biblia Pawperum (a Dutch block-book) circa 1460-1476. Berjeau, 
 who believed in such a Haarlem invention, argued that it could not be 
 dated later than 1410-1420. And when we think of the Oosteriana 
 themselves, we see with what ease and comfort bibhographers take those 
 books fifty, forty, or thirty years backwards or forwards, according to the 
 fancy of the one or other "authority." In 1568 the Speculum, and 
 some other works of Coster, were declared to have been printed circa 
 1440. Later on, their date was said to go back, as far as 1423, and as 
 long as the Germans maintained that Gutenberg had invented printing 
 in 1440, the behevers in a Haarlem invention never hesitated to put 
 most of the Oosteriana between 1423 and 1440. And in tliis century 
 their antique and primitive appearance had convinced nearly every 
 bibliographer, who laid claim to impartiality and independence of 
 judgment, that those latter dates could not be wrong. To mention only 
 a few : Bernard, Blades, Humphrey, whose impartiahty could not be 
 questioned, believed in a Haarlem invention (therefore) before 1440 ; 
 and Holtrop, the late hbrarian of the Hague, did not hesitate to begin 
 his list of the printers in the Netherlands (2Iomim. Typogr.) with 
 " Laurent Ooster, 1423-1440 ; Successeurs de L. Ooster, 1441-1472." 
 But when in 1870 Dr. Van der Linde told us, with an unmistakable shout 
 of authority, that Laurens Ooster had been a chandler and innkeeper and 
 not a printer, and that the Oosteriana had not been printed before 1471- 
 1474 ; and that the Speculum, instead of being a first-fruit of the art of 
 printing, was a very late product of it, we all bowed our heads and said, 
 "Yes, they were printed about 1471-1474." So there was a clear jump, 
 all at once, from 1423 (in some cases), or from 1439 (in other cases), to 
 1474 ; and no one (I myself not excepted) who adopted Dr. Van der 
 Linde's pronunciamento seemed troubled about this tremendous salto 
 face. 
 
 Therefore, in endeavouring to assign dates to incunabula, we need 
 not hiU'c any very great scruples about placing them one or two decades 
 earlier or later, if any real or circumstantial evidence should require 
 us to do so. In fact, I have explained before, that the earliest presses, up 
 
39 
 
 to at least 1480, were established with no other object and plan than to 
 reproduce, by a mechanical and more speedy process than handwriting, 
 the MSS. of the period ; and that, therefore, as long as that object and 
 plan were not abandoned, no material alteration in the look of printed 
 books could be expected. Nor do we see such an alteration. He that 
 will compare the Letters of Indulgence of li.'i-J: with the Gatholicon of 
 14G0, or with the earliest productions of the Paris press (1470), or with 
 the first book of Ketelaer and de Leempt of Utrecht (1473), or with the 
 first book of Johannes de Westphalia and Thierry Martens at Alost 
 (1478), or with the first book of Caxton printed in England (1477), will 
 see that printing remains, during all those years, stationary or stagnant ; 
 but that, if we observe any movement going on, it is in the direction of 
 improvement, not retroyression. 
 
 Chapter X. 
 
 Anopisthographic Printing ; Printer's Waste ; Binder's Waste. 
 
 Yet such a retrogression, which is observed in no other early printer, 
 would have to be assumed if we place all the Costeriana about 1471- 
 1474. We should have to assume that their printer printed with 
 movable metal types ; but, some of his books anopisthographicaUy, that 
 is to say, in a most awkward manner, on one side only of his paper or 
 vellum, many years after every other printer had been able to overcome 
 this difficulty, which was unavoidable in block-printing. It is well 
 known that the four editions of the Speculum have all been printed 
 anopisthographically ; but it is altogether unknown or ignored that we 
 have anopisthographic fragments not only of three editions of the 
 Donatus {see the List above. No. 6, 33, 47) and a Dutch version of the 
 seven Penitential Psalms (List, No. 5), but even of an edition of the Oul. 
 de Saliceto de Salute corporis, &c. (List, No. 27). This circumstance has 
 hitherto remained obscured from our view, because the hbrarians at the 
 Hague, who described these fragments, asserted that the letterpress of 
 one side of the fragments has been scraped or rubbed away, so as to give 
 the leaves the appearance of being printed on one side only. But such 
 attempts, which, if they were made at all, must have been made before 
 the end of the fifteenth century, could not possibly have been so 
 successfully carried out, even with one fragment, as to leave no traces 
 whatever of the printing. But it would certainly, be a miracle if such 
 attempts had been made, and had all been successful, with the five or six 
 fragments which have been discovered, not in one place, but in different 
 places, without any connexion whatever with each other ; and yet, 
 nothing can be seen on the Yerso of the two leaves of the Donatus preserved 
 at the Hague, nor on the two fragments of the Saliceto preserved in the 
 
40 
 
 British Museum.* And, no doubt, the same may be affirmed of the other 
 leaves preserved at Paris, Cologne and Brussels, though I have not seen 
 them. I am aware that no less a man than Mr. Bradshaw said in 1871 
 {List of Founts of Types, p. 7) : 
 
 " If a fragment is found printed only on one side it has hitherto been 
 described as ' a remarkably interesting specimen of anopisthographio typo- 
 graphy, probably executed in the infancy of the art, &c., &c.,' instead of 
 which it is simply a proof-sheet of the most commonplace description." 
 
 But, assuming that the anopisthographically printed vellum fragments, 
 which have hitherto come to light, were "proof-sheets," or "spoiled 
 sheets " of the printer, even then the printer of the Costeriana would 
 stand alone among all the other early printers ; for, as far as I know, no 
 such anopisthographio vellum fragments of any other printer have ever 
 been discovered, and yet a good deal of vellum printing was executed 
 during the fifteenth century. He alone would have been so luxurious in 
 his habits as to use, hy preference, vellum for his proof-sheets, which, 
 according to our notions, he would rather have pulled on far more 
 inexpensive paper.f 
 
 Besides the theory of the fragments having been scraped or washed, 
 the librarians at the Hague have suggested another solution, namely, the 
 vellum used for these works might have been so delicate and transparent 
 as to be unfit for being printed on both sides. But then, again, the 
 printer of the Costeriana would stand alone among all the other early 
 printers ; for whereas every other printer managed to get properly pre- 
 pared vellum for the few copies that he issued on such material, this 
 printer of the Costeriana alone would have been so badly circumstanced 
 that he had to be content with vellum, too deHcate and too transparent 
 for the ordinary purposes of printing, as it was customary in 1471-1474:. 
 And yet this printer of the Costeriana must be supposed to have 
 
 * In 1871, speaking, in my list of the Costeriana, of tlie two Saliccto 
 fragments in the British Museum, I followed M. Holtrop {Mon. typogv. des Pays- 
 Sas, p. 32) in saying that " the side on which at present no printing is found seems 
 to have heen scraped, to give it the appearance of a blank page." But a few weeks 
 ago (March 31) the authorities of the British Museum kindly loosened the frag- 
 ments from their binding and so enabled me to examine the versos of them. It is 
 quite clear that there is no printing on them, nor ever has been, and that, con- 
 sequently, no scraping or washing has taken place. At iirst sight I fancied that I 
 saw traces of printing on the back ; but on examining the letters which I imagined 
 to see, they proved to be the traces of letters printed on the recto of the vellum, 
 which is very transparent. As regards the two anopisthographio leaves of the 
 Donatns (List, No. 47) preserved at the Hague, I had occasion to examine them 
 carefully last January ; and it was perfectly clear to me that there is »o printing on 
 the reverse, nor ever has been, and that, consequently, no scraping or washing has 
 taken place, in spite of what M. Campbell says to the contrary (_Annales, No. 611 ). 
 Moreover, M. Holtrop, when he described these fragments in his Mon. typogr. (p. 15) 
 described them as being printed on one side, without saying anything about the 
 versos, so that the idea of scraping or washing does not seem to have occurred to 
 him, and is merely an after-thought of M. Campbell. M, Holtrop tells us, indeed 
 (p. 15), that the iirst six top lines of the recto of one of the leaves have been effaced 
 by contact with water ; but he adds, at the same time, that here and there some 
 letters are still visible, which confirms my argument that printing may get effaced, 
 but never so completely as to leave no traces whatever. 
 
 f Paper proof-sheets or spoiled sheets are found. There is, for instance, such 
 an anopisthographio sheet of a (late) paper Donatus in the British Museum (Tab. 
 xi. b. 14), which had formerly been in the possession of M. Weigel. 
 
41 
 
 understood the art of printing on vellum better than anybody else, for of 
 the forty-seven works published by him no less than thirty -four are entire 
 editions of vellum. But we need not discuss the point further, as a 
 renewed examination of the two Saliceto fragments, preserved in the British 
 Museum, enables me to remove for ever all doubts as to the nature of 
 these anopisthographic fragments. They have most undoubtedly been 
 rubricated, as may be seen from the capitals in both fragments. 
 Consequently they are the remains of a copy that was sold and has 
 circulated. Ergo, they are neither " proof-sheets " nor " spoile'd sheets," 
 nor have they been scraped on the verso. And as one of the fragments 
 is a piece of very strong and thick vellum, it stands to reason that the 
 printer could not have been prevented by the delicacy of the vellum 
 from printing on both sides. They are simply and truly the remains of 
 a work printed, anopisthographically, by the same printer who printed, 
 in the same manner, the four other works (besides the editions of the 
 Sjieeulwii) referred to above. 
 
 Another solution has been suggested to me. Namely, these leaves, 
 printed on one side only, are perhaps corrected reprints of the corre- 
 sponding leaves in the book, in which case the side of the leaf which 
 was left blank was most probably intended to be pasted on the page or 
 pages which they, for some reason or another, were destined to replace. 
 I confess I do not see how, for instance, the Saliceto fragments could be 
 "cancels," as the edition which we know of this work is on paper 
 (List No. 40), and, of course, no corrected page or pages would have 
 been reprinted on vellum. Nor would it be easy to explain, if the 
 fragments belonged to a different edition, as they certainly seem to do, 
 how this printer could have required so many "cancels," as these 
 fragments are evidently the third and fifth page of the work ; of the 
 Donatus (No. 47) there are also two pages, and of the Penitential 
 Psalms (No. 5) four pages, printed on one side. But I record the 
 suggestion, as I have no wish to conceal anything that might throw 
 light on the subject. One thing is certain, the fragments in question 
 are not " printer's waste " or discarded "proof-sheets," for, in such a case, 
 they would not have been rubricated. 
 
 Chaptbe XI. 
 
 The "Speculum." 
 
 When we now turn to the four editions of the Siwculum, and observe 
 that they are all entirely anopisthographic (figures and text), and that, 
 moreover, the text of one of them is partly xijlographic and partly 
 typographic, we meet again with difficulties when we assign them to & 
 period beginning with the year 1471. We must then assume that their 
 printer continued to print, perhaps for a good many years, his books 
 partly from wooden blocks (xylographically and anopisthographically) 
 and partly with movable metal types (typographically), many years 
 after the former mode of printing had been practically abandoned on 
 account of the perfection to which the latter mode of printing had been 
 brought. It is true that in Germany block-books were printed 
 
42 
 
 anopisthographically even so late as 1475, but not by printers who 
 practised the art of printing with movable metal types. 
 
 To bibliographers like Dr. Van der Linde the peculiar and 
 primitive condition of the four editions of the SpecnJum is no difficulty. 
 As to their anopisthographic condition, they argue that that was natural 
 and necessary, as the mode by which woodcuts w'ere printed rendered the 
 versos unfit for further operations. Very well ! But the art of printing 
 woodcuts, together with text set up in movable metal types, on both 
 sides of the paper, was already understood in Germany so early as 1461, 
 and it would be very strange indeed if this first Dutch printer (who, if 
 he were not the inventor of printing, must have learned his craft in the 
 perfect schools of printing of Germany, France, or Italy) should have 
 been unacquainted with that art. Moreover, the pages of the preface 
 consist, in all the four editions, wholly of text, without any woodcut 
 at all ; and as this preface required in the Latin editions no more than 
 five pages, it is difficult to see why the printer, if at the time that he 
 printed the Spec^ilum he understood the art of i^rinting on loth sides, 
 should have printed this preface on three sheets or six leaves ( = twelve 
 pages), whereas, if he had printed on both sides, two sheets or four 
 leaves ( = eight pages) would have been amply sufficient for his purpose. 
 Even then he would have been able to leave (as he has done now) a 
 blank leaf (two pages) at the beginning, and one blank page at the end 
 of the quire to agree with and to meet the blank page with which the next 
 quire would begin. And the way in which the preface of the Dutch 
 editions of the Speculum is printed, proves that their printer knew 
 how to be economical with his paper, because for that preface, requiring 
 four pages only, he dispensed with the entire blank leaf at the beginning, 
 which we find in the Latin editions, and simply left one blank page (the 
 first) at the beginning, printing the four pages of text on the second 
 and seventh, third and sixth pages of the quire. I believe we may infer 
 from this peculiarity that the printer of the Specula did not understand 
 the art of printing on both sides at the time that he produced the four 
 editions. 
 
 And as regards the other peculiarity of one of the Latin editions 
 being printed partly from wooden blocks (text and all) and partly with 
 movable types, it does not trouble some bibliographers in the least. 
 They say that either their original printer must have run short of types, 
 or must have had an accident with certain sheets, and so decided to 
 reprint the wanting sheets xylographically rather than go to the trouble 
 of casting new types ; or their original printer transferred his stock of 
 printed sheets to another person, with some sheets missing, which 
 the new proprietor supplied by printing them from blocks cut for 
 the occasion. These explanations may do service (for one moment 
 of argumentation) for the mixed Latin edition which has twenty 
 xylographically printed leaves. But they are hardly applicable to the 
 Dutch edition, which has two leaves (49 and 60) printed with types 
 differing little, but still materially, not only from those of the other 
 leaves of the book and the other editions of the Speciihim, but from all 
 the other types of the Costeriana. Surely, neither an old nor a new 
 proprietor, if he did not think it worth his while to cast new types for 
 twenty leaves wanting in one edition (and now supplied by block- 
 printing), would have been so foolish as to undertake such a labour for 
 no more than two leaves in another edition. Moreover, the argument 
 
u 
 
 that a uew proprietor would have considered it a more simple process to 
 eut blocks (which would he useless for any other purpose) for the text of 
 no less than twenty folio leaves (= forty columns), than to cast a new 
 type (which could he used for a hundred other purposes) for the printing 
 of these pages, might impcise very well on persons who are still under 
 the erroneous impression that the early printers required as large a 
 quantity of type as those of the present day ; but it will hardly pass 
 muster with those who have realised that the early printers really worked 
 with a very small quantity of type, and only needed a small quantity, as 
 they all printed their books page by page. 
 
 All that has been said on these twenty sylographic leaves, and on 
 the relative position in which the edition, in whicb. they occur, stands to 
 the edition whoUy printed from movable types, as well as on the order 
 in which the four editions of the Speculum have probably been pubhshed, 
 appears to me very unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, the copies of the 
 four editions are so scattered up and down different places of Europe 
 (and America ?) that it is well nigh impossible to make an adequate 
 examination of them. Some authors assm'C us that the Latin edition 
 with twenty xylographic leaves (which I shall call A) is really later than 
 the Latin edition, which is wholly typographically printed (and which I 
 shall call B). Ottley, who took considerable pains in examining the two 
 editions, concluded from tlie breakages and cracks observable in the 
 impressions of the woodcuts, that A is later than B, and he considered 
 his opinion confirmed by the fact that he saw, or thought he saw, that 
 the twenty xylographic leaves of A, vreve facsimiles of the corresponding 
 (typographic) leaves in B. Ottley's opinion, however, about the 
 breakages and cracks, was declared untenable by Bernard and Berjeau, 
 who both took as much pains as Ottley to examine the two editions ; 
 but it was endorsed and adopted by Sotheby and Holtrop. "When we 
 examine the fac-similes of two identical pages of A and B which M. 
 Holtrop has given in his Jlon. ti/poffi: (pi. 17 and 20), it seems clear 
 that either of the two texts served as a model for the other ; for in the 
 first line we find millc printed as nuUe in both editions, and in the 
 second column we have in 1. 10 tupiter without a contraction for the fu-st 
 r, and in 1. 21 milei for iudei ; so that we shall perhaps not be wrong in 
 saying that substantially A followed B, or that the latter followed A, and 
 that the two editions have not been set up from two different MSS. 
 "When we fm-ther examine the differences between the two texts, it 
 would seem that the compositor of B has endeavoured to produce a more 
 contracted text than the compositor of A, and in one or two cases 
 improved upon the latter, as, for instance, col. 2, 1. 1, daud. (for dauid) 
 against dad. in A ; and in 1. 21 aqua, against aq, -with two contractions 
 in A. il. Holtrop {Mon. tiji}. p. 22 and 23) has collected twenty-four 
 variations between the two texts, which prove, according to him, that 
 the differences between them are not faults of the copyist. But it does 
 not seem to have struck ;M. Holtrop that, in col. 2, 1. 2, A has wi-ongly : 
 '• Augeli occidiss3 (occidisset) derisores Clu'isti . . . ," whereas B has 
 correctly : " AngeU occidisset (occidissent)," ic. This conection 
 of B seems to prove that it is later than A ; for the compositor of 
 the latter text seems to have been able to read and understand Latin, 
 so that if he had copied B, he would hardly have dehberately altered 
 the contracted but correct occidisset, into a stiU more contracted and 
 wrong ocddissj. 
 
u 
 
 I believe a further comparison of the various readings of the two 
 texts would yield a more trustworthy criterion as to the relative position 
 of the two editions, than an examination of the cracks and breakages in 
 the engravings ; for the latter have been printed by a very imperfect 
 process, and are, therefore, liable to show defects where the blocks 
 themselves might have been perfect. But I am unable for the present 
 to make such a comparison myself, as there is only one edition (A) within 
 my reach in the British Museum. And as the question of the priority 
 of the two editions does not affect my view as regards the priority of 
 Haarlem printing, I leave it alone for the present. 
 
 Therefore, in dealing with the peculiar conditions of the Costeriana 
 described above, and trying to account for them, we must not forget that 
 if we place them all in a period beffinnini/ with 1471, and ending, 
 perhaps, 1480, and consequently decline to accept their printer as the 
 inventor of printing— that is to say, as a man who had never learned the 
 art of printing from anybody else, and had no other specimens of 
 printing before him — we must inevitably come to the conclusion that he 
 wandered either from Prance or from Italy or from Germany into the 
 Netherlands, and that he, a disciple of one of the perfect schools of 
 printing then existing in those countries, would, alone among the 
 numerous other pupils of the same schools, have so badly learned his 
 craft that he alone prints as none other of his feUow pupils. How could 
 we believe, for one moment, in such a state of things ? It seems to me 
 that we are driven to the conclusion that the printer of the Costeriana 
 was a self-taugM printer, who had never learned the art from anybody 
 else, and, consequently, that he was the, inventor of printing with 
 movable types. 
 
 Chaptbe XII. 
 
 The "Date" of the Costeriana. 
 
 But it will be asked how we could separate the dates 1458 and 1471- 
 1474, afforded us by four of the Costeriana (the works of Pius II., 
 printed in type v.), from the remaining forty-thi-ee Costeriana in such a 
 way as to reconcile the latter group not only with the year 1454, when 
 printing makes its appearance in a perfect condition at Mentz, but with 
 a still earlier date, so as to establish the priority of those forty-three 
 Costeriana over Mentz printing. Here I must first remark, what" every- 
 body else would remark also, that the four Costeriana which cannot be 
 placed earlier than 1458, on account of their bearing the name of Pope 
 Pius II., need not necessarily be placed so late as 1471-1474 ; for the 
 fact that one of them was bought during the latter period is no evidence 
 of their being printed during that period. The date of this bought copy, 
 however, is of the utmost value, inasmuch as it shows us that the 
 printing had been accomplished at least before 1471. 
 
 My second remark is that these four Costeriana (which we cannot 
 date later than 1474, and may have to date, perhaps, so early as 1471, if 
 not earUer) show a kind of superiority in type and workmanship over 
 the forty-three other Costeriana, which compels us to place the latter group 
 
45 
 
 in an earlwr stage than the former. This fact is, I believe, admitted by 
 every bibliographer who has paid any attention to these books. It is 
 true. Dr. Van der Linde is not of this opinion. He even places (p. i!99 
 of his last work) the group of four (Josteriana at the head of his list, and 
 so makes the printer of these incunabula begin his career not before 
 1474. But the mere fact of his placing the various Donatiises (among 
 which is one, edition, fragments of which were used as binder's waste so 
 early as the end of 1473), and Bodrinales and Specula, in type i., later 
 than the four works of Pius II., in type v., condemns his list as a piece 
 of bnffoonery to which we need not pay any attention. Therefore, I 
 believe, I shall not be blamed by any fair-minded opponent of the 
 Haarlem claims, if I say that 1474 is the very latest year that we shall 
 have to consider for four of the Costeriana, and that we are at liberty 
 to date the remaining forty-three works iefore that year. Perhaps it is 
 unnecessary to add that the printing of forty-three different works was 
 not accomplished in a day or two, and that, therefore, we shall be at 
 liberty to work our way back with them a considerable number of years 
 lefore 1474. 
 
 Now, as there is no direct evidence (if the testimony of Zell and 
 Junius is not accepted) as to the Costeriana being printed earlier than 
 1474, an argument as to their really being printed earlier would, 
 practically, be impossible if we had no books whatever to compare them 
 with. But we have such books in the early products of Mentz printing, 
 and tliPi/, therefore, shall be our f/uide in determining the approximate 
 date of the Costeriana. 
 
 Eemembering then how, in the case of Strassburg printing, the 
 workmanship of books, said to have been printed circa 1471 to 1474, 
 does not forbid us to place them eleven, twelve or thirteen years earlier, 
 when any evidence is discovered that they have really been printed 
 so much earlier, we may begin by repeating that, in the case of the 
 earliest incunabula, when one party assert that they were printed circa 
 1471 or even 1474, we may just as well look upon them as having 
 been printed about 1460, when we consider that the condition under 
 which printing was carried on during that period made it wholly 
 stagnant, and does not afford us any sure criterion as to dates. And, 
 certainly, when we place the forty-three Costeriana (leaving the four works 
 of Pius II. out of the question) in point of workmanship side by side 
 Avith the CdtJiolicon printed in 1460 at Mentz, the latter work shows pro- 
 gress compared with the Costeriana. But again, the year 1460, round which 
 we may group several of the forty-three Costeriana, with as much certainty 
 as the Gathulicon and other works printed at Mentz, does not mean more 
 than 1454, when we look at the wholly stagnant condition nnder which 
 printing is carried on during that period. And certainly, when we place 
 some of the forty-three Costeriana in point of workmanship side by side 
 with the Letters of Indulgence printed in 1454, the latter show progress 
 compared with the Costeriana. I therefore do not hesitate to remove 
 the latter still further back than 1454. But before I do so I wish to 
 warn the reader that I am not speculating in the least. We have 
 fragments of at least three editions of the Donatus, printed in the well- 
 known thirty-six line Bible type, which no worshipper of Gutenberg 
 would hesitate for a single moment to put down to him as early as 1450 
 to 1454. I, myself, have described these editions in my work on 
 (rutenberg (pp. 158 and 159) from fragments preserved in the British 
 
46 
 
 Museum (press mark 0. 18, e. i, Nos. 2 and 5) and in the Town Library 
 at Mentz ; and I have no objection to their being attributed to the year 
 1450-1454, or even to 1448, as Dr. Van der Linde feels inclined to do. 
 But when we allow Dr. Van der Linde and all other Gutenberg- 
 enthusiasts to place these DonatiiKPR as Gutenberg's experiments and 
 products about or before the year 1454, I do not see how they could 
 possibly argue that none of the twenty-one editions of the Donatio, 
 printed in Holland, could be dated so early, for a comparison between the 
 Gutenberg Donatuses, preserved in the British Museum and at Mentz, 
 with (some at least of) the Dutch Donatuses preserved in the British 
 Museum, at the Hague, Haarlem and elsewhere, makes it clear as day- 
 light that, in point of workmanship, those Donatuses stand on the very 
 same stage, but that, if there is any difference betAveen them, the Dutch 
 Donatuses are the more primitive. We have also at least four editions 
 of the Donatus printed by Peter Schoeffer in the forty-two line Bible 
 type. I have described them in my work on Gutenberg (pp. 1G8-171) 
 from fragments preserved at Mentz, Hanover and Paris, and explained 
 that, on bibliographical grounds, we should ascribe them to about the 
 same time as the forty-two Hue Bible, that is to say, about 1456. But 
 when we allow Gutenberg enthusiasts to regard those Dona/uses as 
 printed before 1456, I do not see how they could possibly argue that 
 none of the twenty-one editions of the Donafiis printed in Holland 
 could be dated so early ; for a comparison between the two kinds of 
 Donatus makes it clear as daylight that in point of workmanship the 
 Schoeffer Dunntimes stand on the very same stage as (some at least of) 
 the Dutch Donatuses, but that, if there is any difference between them, 
 the Dutch Donatuses are the more primitive. And when once we see, 
 that there is no difference in point of time betv\'een the Gutenberg and 
 the Schoeffer Donatuses and those printed in Holland, and that we may 
 group the latter round the years 1450 to 1456 as certainly as the former, 
 we could not possibly violate any bibliographical conscience in taking 
 some of the Dutch Donatuses, together with some of the Doctrinales, &c., 
 l)ack to the year 1446, when we consider that the condition under which 
 printing is carried on during the period of its greatest glory (1454-1480) 
 is almost wholly stagnant, and especially when we consider that this 
 stagnant condition is due not to the inahiUty of the printers or their 
 inferior tools, but to a fixed method and plan which they all followed, 
 and from which they only began to deviate, slowly and almost 
 imperceptibly, a quarter of a century after they themselves had 
 publicly and loudly proclaimed to the whole earth the divine nature 
 of their ai-t. 
 
 Ghapter XIII. 
 
 ZeT-L and JlTNTUS f'ORROBORATE EAr][ OTHER. 
 
 And when, by comparing the Dutrh Donatuses and Doctrinales with the 
 early Mentz Donatuses (of 1450-1456), we realise that some of the Dutch 
 Donatuses and Dortrinales may be placed as early as ]451 and 1446, we 
 are reminded, in the iirst ])lace, of the entries in tlic Diary of the jVbbat 
 of Oambray (liernard, Oriyine I. 117), who says that in 1441') and 1451 
 he had bought for him, at Bruges and Valenciennes, co])ies of tlie 
 
47 
 
 Doctrinalc of Alexander Gallus whicli were " jet6 en molle "—a term 
 which can only mean (printed with types) cast in a mould, if we have 
 regard to the way in which that very term was, in several instances (not 
 two, as Dr. Van der Linde loves to tell iis), applied to printed books for 
 many years afterwards. And, in the second place, we are reminded of 
 the testimony of the f'uloijne Chronlde which (in 1499) tells us (on the 
 authority of Ulrich Zell, a printer of Cologne, and a pupil of the early 
 ilentz school) that " the art of printing was firet found at Mentz, but [so 
 it adds distinctly] in the manner as it was then [in 1499] practised : the 
 first ijrcfiiiiiration, however, the lecjinnintj of that ilentz art was found in 
 Holhnul [not from one Donafvs, or some Dnnatuses, but] from the Dona- 
 tiises, which had been printed in that country before." And — seeing 
 that we can actually point to several editions of typographically 
 printed Doitrinales and Bonaftise.i, which (by comparison with the 
 existing Jlentz Donatuses of 14.50-14r)(;) may be presumed to have been 
 printed so early as 1440, and, Ijeyond the shadow of a doabt, by a printer 
 in Holland, who printed, at least some of them, in a manner which Avas 
 not customary in Zell's time, and which had never been customary in 
 Germany since the year (1454), when printing made its appearance in a 
 perfect state at ilentz — we should be going out of our way if we, in the 
 first place, discarded these Doctrlnuha and Donatuses, and, in the second 
 place, distorted plain language and historical testimony by arguing, that 
 the Abbat of Cambray and Ulrich Zell referred to xylographicaUy 
 printed Dndrinnles and Donatuses. Zell could hardly have referred to 
 Donatuses printed .rijloiirapldralhj, as it would have been worse than 
 childish for a man of Zell's experience and knowledge of printing mth 
 metal types and, no doubt, of block-printing, to represent an inhabitant 
 of ]\[entz as being inspired by xijloyraphic Donatuses printed in Holland, 
 rather than Ijy (Jerman xylogTaphic products, which he must have had at 
 his elbow every day of his life. Or why should Zell have referred to 
 Donatuses in particular, when he could have made everything more clear 
 by saying, that the art of jjrinting, us done in his time, originated 
 simply from printing from wooden blocks ': 
 
 And when once we see that there is truth in Zell's account, and 
 inquire in what tomi of Holland the Donatuses might have been printed, 
 we could hardly avoid, I think, directing our eyes to Haarlem. The 
 assertion that the invention took place there was made by Hadrianus 
 .Junius (not to mention others), more than three centuries ago, at a time 
 when he had only one book before him to refer to as a proof for his 
 assertion. This assertion, therefore, rested almost entirely on hearsay 
 and on tradition. We know, moreover, that Junius did not profess to 
 be a bibliographer, so that his account is not based on any bibliographical 
 considerations or investigations. It is also wholly independent from all 
 other traditions ; for instance, it has no connexion whatever with Ulrich 
 Zell's account, and it is based on two books not mentioned by Ulricli 
 Zell in any way whatever, and one of the two Junius himself seems to 
 have known by tradition only. Junius's account, therefore, if it had 
 been based on a fiction, or on a falsehood, was peculiarly liable to be 
 upset by the subsequent investigations of bibliographers ; or still more 
 by a possible discovery of books that would not have harmonised with 
 his narrative. But the tradition of that Haarlem invention, as nan-ated 
 by Junius, has lived on for more than three centuries, and during that 
 period book after book, fragment after fragment, have gradually and 
 
48 
 
 unexpectedly come to light, all printed in the very same types as the 
 Speculum and Doctrinale on which Junius based his account, and none 
 of them showing, either by their type or their workmanship, that they 
 could not have been produced by that same primitive printing office from 
 \\-hich Junius asserted that the art of printing had gone forth. And as 
 those books and fragments discovered since Junius's time include no less 
 than sir editions of the Donatus — which are all printed in the same types 
 as the Speculum and the Doctrinale mentioned by Junius, and which may, 
 with the utmost propriety, be said to be the Doiiatuses referred to by 
 Zell — the accounts of Junius and Zell have been linked together in no 
 casual way, but by an identity of types which proves that the Donatuses, 
 which we may say were, according to Zell, the models, the leginninii of the 
 Mentz printing, were printed by the same printer who printed the 
 Speculum, and who, according to Junius, was the Haarlem inventor of 
 printing. We know, moreover, that no other town in Holland has ever 
 put forth any claim in opposition to that of Haarlem. Nor has it at 
 any time appeared that there ever was the smallest probability of 
 ascribing the Gosteriana to any other town in Holland, while on the 
 other hand the repeated discovery of fragments of these books at 
 Haarlem point to this town as their original home. It is only owing to 
 the suggestions of a great bibliographer (whom circumstances have 
 prevented from testing the strict and general application of his own 
 method), and the fanciful, but wholly untutored, writings of such 
 authors as M. Madden and Dr. Van der Linde that, within the last 
 sixteen years, public opinion has gone astray, and Utrecht has been 
 placed before our eyes as the town where the Gosteriana might have been 
 printed. But it never seems to have occurred to those who suggested 
 Utrecht, to examine Utrecht handwritings, to see whether the types of 
 the incunabula which they wished to ascribe to that town were imita- 
 tions of them ; probably, because these authors laboured more or less 
 under the idea that printers set up business with types wholly or partly 
 imitated from their master's types. "We still see that Dr. Van der Linde 
 continually argues, from a resemblance of types, that such and such a 
 printer must have learned his craft in such and such a town from such 
 and such a master ; that Ulrich Zell must have been a pupil of Peter 
 Schoeffer, as the former's types resemble those of the latter ; and that 
 the types of Ketelaar and De Leempt, of Utrecht, remind us of those of 
 Cologne and Louvain. He even asserts that G-utenberg must have cut 
 the types of the 1457 Psalter, because he finds on leaf 142 a capital N 
 and a crijssed Z which resemble the same characters in the thirty-six line 
 Bible. As if this resemblance were not found in the MSS. also ! 
 
 Chapter XIV. 
 
 The Printer of the Gosteriana did not begin after 1471. 
 
 It is admitted by every one that the Gosteriana are the work of a 
 Dutch printer, more particularly of a printer who was settled in Holland 
 proper. 
 
 I have pointed out before, and it is moreover very well known, 
 that the pecuUarity of the eight types of tlie Gosteriana consists in a 
 
40 
 
 perpendicular stroke attached to the horizontal cross-stroke through the 
 t, and an upward curl or a down stroke attached to the r. I am aware 
 that the same peculiarities are noticed more or less in German 
 block-books, and in German and Italian writings. But as two editions 
 of the Specitlum (Spieghel) are in the Dutch language, this fact alone 
 proves the Dutch nationality of the Costeriana beyond the shadow of a 
 doubt. Now, among all the fac-si miles of Dutch typography (including 
 the whole of the Netherlands, or, as we should say now, Holland and 
 Belgium), pubUshed in Holtrop's Momnnents typogr., and ranging (if 
 we exclude the Costeriana) from rirca 1470 (or say 1473) to 1500, no 
 trace whatever of these pecuKarities is found, except in three cases only, 
 namely, on Holtrop's plates r.7, 58, and 111, where they appear in three 
 woodcuts, and are clearly intended as imitations of antique models, as a 
 kind of fancy, just as we see now-a-days Caxton's types imitated. But 
 the peculiarities of which I speak are found (not as imitations, but in a 
 very natural way) in the Dutch block-books, and in Dutch manuscripts — 
 a circumstance which shows, I think, that the eight types of the 
 Costeriana stand next to the time of the block-books and manuscripts. 
 Indeed, the resemblance between the eight types of the Costeriana (which 
 we must regard as having belonged to one and the same office, until 
 evidence to the contrary is forthcoming) and the character figured in the 
 texts of those block-books, of which we know that they are unquestionably 
 Dutch, is very striking. If we compare the inscriptions of the Dutch 
 Mary engraving, preserved in the Berlin Museum, and figured in Holtrop's 
 Monuments (first plate), and the texts of the two Dutch editions of the 
 Ars moriendi (British Museum, pressmarks C. 48. 1, and C. 17. b. 21), 
 and that of the Dutch editions of the Bihlia Favpermn, and that of the 
 Dutch Cantica Canticoriim, one feels almost inclined to say that the man 
 who cast the types of the Costeriana engraved also the blocks for those 
 lilock-books. 
 
 I have already pointed out before that those, who suggested Utrecht 
 as the place where the Costeriana might have been printed, never thought 
 of examining Utrecht MSS. to see whether the types of the Costeriana, 
 which have such a peculiarly national form, and could not very well have 
 been imported from Germany, nor from France or Italy, resembled in any 
 way Utrecht MSS. I have made some enquiries on this point myself, and 
 I have been (provisionally) informed, that the MSS. written at Utrecht do 
 not bear any resemblance to the types of the Costeriana. But I do not wish 
 to lay any stress on this information, as I do not know whether my 
 informant quite understood what I had in view. But this kind of 
 negative is not without some importance, in connexion with one or two 
 facts which I have accidentally found myself, and which, most decidedly, 
 point to Haarlem as the place where the Costeriana may have been 
 printed. Namely, in the binding of a MS. Eegister of (strange to say) 
 1446, preserved in the Haarlem Archives, I found, last January, a vellum 
 fragment, the writing of which made me think for a moment that I had 
 one of the Costerian printed Donatiises before me. I would also 
 recommend the inspection of the writing of slips boiind in the MS. 
 Eegister of 1440, and that in the Eegister for 1444. A comparison of 
 the writings found on these slips will not, I think, be favourable to the 
 Utrecht theory. 
 
 There is, as far as we know at present, a total absence of colophons 
 (if we except such words as e.rplicif) in the Costeriana. This circumstance 
 
50 
 
 also tends to sliow, that the printer of these works must be placed next to 
 the period of the manuscripts and early block-books, and not after or during 
 the time when colophons (in verse and in prose) may be said to ha-^-e become 
 customary. I will, however, not dwell upon this absence, in confirmation 
 of my opinion that the printer of the Costeriana was the first printer, 
 because of most of the Costeriana we possess fragments only, and there 
 are, besides, a good many otha- works, printed by other printers, without 
 place, name of printer, and d*e. But I wish to point out that we ha^-e 
 at least ten complete Costeriana, besides the last leaves of some others, 
 and I do not know that there exists, after 1471, any other group of so 
 many books issued by one and the same printer, without having in one 
 of them either a place, or the printer's name, or a date. And even in the 
 late block-books, pubUshed (in Germany) after 1470, we do find initials 
 of the printer, or his full name, or a date. 
 
 There is another circumstance to which I must call attention in 
 particular. Of the forty-seven Costeriana which have been preserved to 
 us, no less than thirty-five (counting among this number the edition of 
 Saliceto, of which only vellum fragments are found) are printed on veJhim. 
 And, from the fact, that hitherto never any paper copies or fragments of 
 these works have come to hght, it is, I think, not unreasonable to 
 conclude that never any paper copies have been printed.* Of the 
 remaining Costeriana, five (namely, the four editions of the !^}eculmn, 
 and the two leaves of one of the Dutch editions of the Speculum, which 
 have been printed in a different type, counting them as one work) are 
 partly or wholly dlocJc-prinfinf/, and were, therefore, necessarily, or as 
 usually printed on paper. And only seven of them are printed on paper 
 in the ordinary way, as we see it done, say, from 1455 to 1470. Among 
 the latter happen to be just those works which, as I have said before, 
 cannot be placed earlier than 1458. When we now look at the printing 
 in Germany from 1454 to 1475, we see that the first two dates (1454 and 
 1455) appear in two editions of Indulgences, of wliich no paper copies 
 have ever been found, and probably never have been printed. Besides 
 these two vellum Indulgences (one of which we may ascribe to Gutenberg, 
 the other to Schoeffer), we have also on vellum three editions of the 
 Donatus in the thirty-six hue Bible type (which I will ascribe to 
 Gutenberg) ; four editions of the Donatus in the forty-two line Bible 
 type; and an edition of the Psalter of 1457 (all done by Schoeffer). 
 But in the year 1454 we find, already, printing done in Germany on 
 paper and, with the exceptions just mentioned, I do not think that any 
 more early printers issued entire editions on vellum after 1457. If, 
 therefore, we tabulate the early printers according to the entire vellum 
 editions known to have been issued by them, we are compelled to assign 
 the first place to the printer of the Costeriana, with thirty-five works out 
 of forty-seven published by him ; the secorid place to Peter Schoeffer, 
 with only six (or seven, including the forty-two line Cantica) works out 
 of I don't know how many ; while Gutenberg comes in the third place 
 with fom- entire editions on vellum out of eight printed by him, or at 
 least ascribed to 'him. I know of no printer to be put fourth, as I know 
 of no other early printer ever having printed entire editions of any of 
 his works on vellum, though nearly every printer of any significance 
 
 * The Abbat of Cambray, however, bought paper copies of the Doctnnale, 
 
51 
 
 printed a few vellum copies of his most important works by the side of 
 his paper copies. 
 
 I have to point out that the thirty-five vellum editions of the 
 printer of the Costeriana include twenty-one editions of the Donatus, 
 eio'ht editions of the Doctrinale, two of Oato, one Abecedarium, one 
 litnvi;-ical work, one Dutch edition of the Penitential Psalms, and one 
 edition of Gnil. de Balircto. Leaving the latter work out of account, it 
 is just of these school books and books of devotion that other and later 
 printers issued also apparently entire vellum editions, as no paper copies 
 have as yet been found by the side of the vellum cojiies. For instance. 
 Dr. Campbell, after having described the Costerian Donatuses, 
 enumerates in his Aniialfs (under numbers 6i2, 643, 648, 640, 050, 651, 
 652) seven other editions of the Donatus printed by various printers on 
 vellum, till close upon 1500. And of the Doctrinale of Alexander Gallus 
 he mentions (No. 110 and 111) two editions besides those which concern 
 us. Mr. Holtrop {Momiments, p. 18) says that there exists an edition of 
 the liturgical work, printed also on vellum at Leiden about 1500. So it 
 is possible that there was, as it is alleged, an idea among printers and the 
 public in general, that books of this kind required to be printed on 
 stronger material than those which were not used in schools. But just 
 about the period, 1471-1474, when the printer of the Costeriana is said 
 to begin, or to be printing, paper editions of the Donatus had already 
 appeared, for which reason his entire vellum printing at that date begins 
 to look strange. 
 
 But if we assume that he commenced his work before 1454 — that is 
 to say, if we assume him to be the inventor of printing — then he was a 
 man who was more accustomed to MS. vellum books and his position at 
 the head of the vellum printers becomes a natural one. We can 
 then understand that he prints, and continues to print, on vellum 
 because, except for block-printing, he hardly knows of any other 
 material for the production of books, and also because he started with 
 the idea of imitating, as closely as possible, his MSS. "We can then also 
 see that, after printing is brought to Mentz, nothing but vellum is used 
 for a little while. But there, under fresh eyes, who see that another 
 mode of printing could be devised, the printing on less expensive 
 paper gradually, though slowly, takes the place of that on vellum, the 
 latter material being only reserved, as a kind of luxury, for the production 
 of a few copies of certain works of importance, and perhaps also, by 
 way of tradition, for the Domituses and a few other school-books. 
 
 As to the question, that the manner in which the engravings of the 
 Speculum have been executed, and the dresses, hats, &c., figm-ed on tliem, 
 all point, as some say, to a period after 1471, 1 believe it may be met by 
 the opinion of others who think that everything points to a much 
 earlier period. The subject is too extensive than that I should feel 
 competent to deal with it at this moment and in this series of articles. 
 Suffice it to say that, so far as I have investigated the matter, I see 
 certainly nothing in the style of the engravings of the Sjm-uh/m which 
 is incompatible with the much earlier period, in which the four editions of 
 the Speculum must, in my opinion, be placed, on account of the 
 anopisthographic and altogether primitiie manner in which they have 
 been printed. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 Ohaptee XV. 
 
 Zell's Statement in the " Cologne Cheonicle " of 1499. 
 
 I HAVE now endeavoured to demonstrate, that, if we place the 
 printer of the Costeriana and his products in a period commencing with 
 the year 1471 and ending several years afterwards, we find him and them 
 cut a very strange figure indeed among the other printers and the other 
 products of that period. But when we place him and, at least, some of 
 his works about and before 1454, that is to say, if we acknowledge him 
 as the inventor of printing, and some of his works as the firstfruits of the 
 art of printing, we are able, forthwith, to reconcile a variety of 
 circumstances, traditions, and accounts, which wiU otherwise remain 
 hopelessly at variance with each other, and with a period of 1471 to 
 1474, and later. 
 
 If we place some of the Costeriana about and before 1454, we make 
 them (in accordance with the statement of the Cologne Chronicle) the 
 first prefiguration, the beginning of Mentz printing, and have the key to 
 the perfection of the Mentz products, which we observe already at the 
 moment that the art of printing makes its appearance there. 
 
 If, however, we refuse to date the Costeriana so early, and to accept 
 them as the models of Mentz printing, this perfection of Mentz printing 
 will always be regarded as an inexplicable fact. Moreover, in such 
 a case, we are compelled to act in the most extraordinary manner. In 
 the first place, we should have to say that (though bibliographicaUy 
 speaking some of the Dutch Donatuses cannot be said to differ in point 
 of time from those printed by G-utenberg and Schoeffer, yet in order to 
 satisfy some theory) we declare the Dutch Donatuses to have been printed 
 circa 1471-74, therefore about twenty or thirty years later than the 
 Mentz Donatuses. Our next step would be, of course, to declare that the 
 Specula and the Doctrinales, and all the other Costeriana, which cannot be 
 separated from the Donatuses, were likewise not printed before 1471-47. 
 And when once we have satisfied ourselves that, though these arguments 
 are not usual and rather militate against our bibliographical conscience and 
 ah. the rules of science, yet are extorted from us by the exigencies of the 
 Gutenberg theory, and have, accordingly, brushed the Dutch Donatuses, 
 and the Specula, and the Doctrinales completely out of our sight, we 
 smilingly say to anyone who dares to call our attention to Ulrich Zell's 
 testimony in the Cologne Clt.ronicle of 1499 : 
 
 " But, my dear Sir, there are no Donatuses printed in Holland, that Zell 
 could possibly refer to as having been the ' prefiguration ' or the ' beginning ' of 
 Mentz printing, for those that you are thinking of were printed long after the 
 invention of printing had been made at Mentz. Zell has been mistaken in 
 every one of his particulars ; he meant Donatuses printed from wooden blocks, 
 not from movable types, and when he spoke of Holland he meant Flanders !" 
 
 And if anyone should have tlie courage to refer to -Junius's account of 
 the Haarlem invention, we simply declare that his whole account is a 
 fable, a legend, a myth from beginning to end. And if anyone should 
 hesitate and murmur that, though some of Junius's particulars 
 
53 
 
 appear doubtful, and even wrong, yet a good many of the genealogical 
 and bibliographical particulars mentioned by him have absolutely turned 
 out to be true, and that this could not have been the case if everything had 
 been a falsehood, we reply that Junius also related particulars about a 
 mermaid, and tells us that a woman had given birth to 865 babies at one 
 and the same time, and that, therefore, everytliing else mentioned in his 
 Batavia must be a fable also. 
 
 In other words, if we refuse to date (some at least of) the Costeriaua 
 before Mentz printing, we are compelled to deal with Zell's account in 
 the Cologne Chronicle in a manner which would not be allowed in any 
 other case. We should have to say that this man, whose utterances 
 as regards Gutenberg and Mentz printing are regarded as Gospel-truths, 
 went completely off his head the moment he spoke of Dutch Donatuses, 
 and said something quite different from what he meant, or, rather, 
 referred to something that he omitted to say. 
 
 In fact, desperate attempts to distort and discredit Zell's account 
 have been made at all times, and l)y various authors. As long as no 
 typographically printed Donatuses had been discovered, the opponents of 
 the Haarlem claims pointed exultingly to this want of evidence in proof 
 of Zell's allegation, who, therefore, so they said, could only have meant 
 xylographically printed Donatuses. Now that we have the very 
 Donatuses, which were formerly (when people fancied that they did not 
 exist) emphatically demanded as the only means of substantiating Zell's 
 assertion, the opponents of the Haarlem claims turn round and say : (1) 
 that Zell must have meant Flanders when he sp(jke of Holland ; {t) that 
 he could only have meant xylographic Donatuses, as otherwise his 
 account would be contradictory in itself, ascribing the invention of 
 l^rinting to two persons and to two different places ; (3) that he was a 
 pupil of Peter Schoeffer, the rival of Johan Gutenberg, and, therefore, 
 Avished to detract from the latter's glory ; and (4) lastly, some ingenious 
 editor of the Cologne Chronicle professes to have discovered that Zell, 
 though he is expressly named as the author of the substantial part 
 (the beginning and progress of printing) of the passage in the Cologne 
 Clironicle, did not suggest it after all. Explanations and applications of 
 this astounding feat of interpretation may be read in Dr. Van .der Linde's 
 last two works on printing, and his explanations and interpretations are 
 echoed by all those who wish to acknowledge Gutenberg as the inventor 
 of printing. 
 
 There is, of course, contradiction in the account of the Cologne 
 Chronicle, if we were to take it as a whole, because it apparently tells us in 
 the first instance (1) that the art of printing was invented at Mentz in 
 1440 ; and it then goes on to say (2) that from 1440 to 1450 the art and 
 all that belonged to it was investigated ; and it continues to say (3) that 
 in 1450 people began to pirint ; the first book that was printed being the 
 Bible in Latin ; then follows the important contradiction (4) that, 
 although the art was discovered at Mentz, as is said before, in the manner 
 as it is now [1499] customary ; yet the first ineflgiuration was found in 
 Holland out of the Donatuses, which had been printed there before that 
 time [1450], and from and out of them was taken the leginning of the 
 aforesaid art, and it has been found much more masterly and more exact 
 (suMilis) than that [other = in Holland] manner was, and has become 
 more "and more artistic ; then follows (5) a contradiction of Nic. Jenson 
 being the inventor of printing ; then, again (6), an assertion that the 
 
5i 
 
 first discoverer (vinder) of printing was a citizen of Mentz, who was 
 born at Strassburg and named " jonker Johan Gudenburch"; then (7) 
 an assertion that the art of printing spread from Mentz to Cologne, 
 Strassburg and Venice ; finally (8), the information of the compiler that 
 the beginning and progress of the aforesaid art had been verbally related 
 to him by the upright man, master Ulrich Zell of Hanau, still a printer 
 at Cologne in 1499. 
 
 Now, it is admitted, even by Dr. Van der Linde (in fact, it is clear 
 from the wording), that statement No. 1 was copied by the compiler of 
 the Cologne Chronicle from Hartmann Schedel's Chronicle, published in 
 1493 ; that statement No. 2 was written by the same compiler as a 
 transition from statement 1 to 3 ; that statement No. 3 was made by 
 Ulrich Zell. And rational people would come to the conclusion that 
 statement No. 4 was also made by him. But no ; statement No. 4 is 
 declared to have been written down by the compiler of the Cologne 
 Chronicle, just as if the latter himself did not distinctly say that the 
 beginning and progress of the art had been told him by Ulrich Zell. 
 
 I think it must be plain to everybody that if we remove statement 
 No. 1, which is admitted to have been copied from Schedel's Chronicle, 
 the whole passage in the Cologne Chronicle becomes quite clear ; in fact, 
 it is not in the least obscure, unless we shut our eyes and decline to have 
 anything to do with the Haarlem tradition. We see that the compiler 
 of the Cologne Chronicle, took counsel with Ulrich Zell as to the art of 
 printing, and that Zell told him certain things about those Bonatuses 
 which he would not, or could not, reconcile with the statements which 
 he found printed in the historical books at his disposal. So he copied 
 first Hartmann Schedel's statement (1), and inserted No. 2 in order to 
 reconcile statements Nos. 1 and 3. But when we remove Nos. 1 and 2, 
 and also regard Nos. 6, 7 and 8, as the compiler's statements, as they 
 certainly appear (even to Dr. Van der Linde) to be, what is there to 
 prevent us from accepting statements 3 and 4 as Zell 's utterances ? 
 They actually relate the beginning and progress of the art of printing, 
 which the compiler, as he says, had heard from Zell. 
 
 We should, of course, have to reject or to doubt ZeU's statements, if 
 we had no Bonatuses which could be said to have been printed in 
 Holland before people printed at Mentz. I, for one, should even 
 feel inclined to reject ZeU's statement, if, after nearly four hundred 
 years, we had found only one Bonatus printed in Holland, because Zell 
 speaks in the plural, of the Bonatuses. But we have several editions of the 
 Bonatus, which have undoubtedly been printed in Holland. These tivo 
 circumstances (the plurality of the Bonatuses and the fact that they were 
 printed in Holland) agree, therefore, with ZeU's statements. But those 
 who wish to reject his testimony tell us, that the Bonatuses printed in 
 Holland have not been printed before people printed in Mentz. I have 
 endeavoured to demonstrate, that some of the Bonatuses, printed in Hol- 
 land (and exactly those which are printed in the same types as tlieSpecidiim, 
 on which Junius based the Haarlem tradition), maybe said to be at least as 
 old as the Gutenberg and Schoeffer Bonatuses and that, if we grant so 
 much, the Dutch Bonatuses may then be said to be older than the Mentz 
 Bonatuses, for no difference can be detected between the printed 
 books of the period 1454 to 1477. It is clearly the duty of the 
 opponents of ZeU's testimony to say why the Dutch Bonatuses should be 
 dated later than the Mentz Bonatuses. 
 
55 
 
 We sliould, of course, have also to reject Zell's statements, if the 
 Donatuses, which we may iit into his accomit, differed, even in the 
 minutest particular, from the books on which the claims of Holland 
 ( = Haarlem) are based by a tradition handed do^\n to us by Junius, and 
 which cannot be said to have derived, in any sense of the word, its 
 particulars from ZeU or from the Coloijne Chronicle. If, for instance, the 
 Sjoeculum and the Doctrinale, on which Junius based the Haarlem 
 ( = Holland) claims, could be declared, with any degree of certainty, to 
 have been printed not earlier than 1480-1490, 1, for one, should certainly 
 abstain from saying one word more. But when we see the opponents of 
 the Haarlem claims themselves admit that the printing of those works 
 could not very well be placed later than 1471-1474, then we may be 
 allowed to ask them, what difference they can point out between the 
 printing and workmanship of these Dutch and the German incunabula 
 produced between 1454 and 1474, which would compel us to date those 
 printed in Holland later than those printed in Germany. Or I for one 
 should abstain also from saying one word more, if the types of the S^Kculwn 
 and the Doctrinale, on which Junius based the Haarlem ( = Holland) 
 claims, differed, in the minutest particular, from the types of the Donatuses 
 which we may fit into Zell's account. But we know that the types of 
 the three works mentioned, independently, by Zell and Junius, are 
 identical, and, therefore, forbid us to separate Zell's account from that 
 of Junius. 
 
 But, really, the opponents of the Haarlem claims have realised 
 themselves the difficulties of rejecting Zell's account, or of not ascribing 
 it to him ; otherwise they would not suggest, at the very moment that 
 they deny that Zell wrote the statements, that ZeU meant xylographically 
 printed Donatuses. Least of all would they have, suggested that Zell had 
 been a pupil of Peter Schoeffer, the rival of Johan Gutenberg, and 
 therefore, wished to detract from the latter's glory. Here I really feel 
 inclined to agree most heartily with Dr. Van der Linde and all other 
 opponents of the Haarlem claims ; for if Zell had actually been animated 
 with such an animus against Gutenberg, he really could not have chosen 
 a surer basis for his opposition to his enemy's glory, than the Donatuses 
 printed in Holland before people printed at Mentz. They surely not 
 only detract from Gutenberg's glory, but they destroy his claims to the 
 invention altogether. Dr. Van der Linde and other opponents of the 
 Haarlem claims, in suggesting this enmity on Zell's part, forget to tell us 
 why Zell, the so-caUed pupil of Peter Schoeffer, in wishing to injure 
 Gutenberg's reputation, should have ascribed the first prefiguration of 
 Mentz printing to non-German Donatuses, or to any Donatuses at all, or 
 to xylographic Donatuses in particular. "Why should he not have said 
 (if he meant xylographic Donatuses) that Gutenberg took his inspiration 
 from block printing ? Or, when he set about making a false statement, 
 and wished to injure Gutenberg, why should he not have said that 
 Schoeffer's Donatuses were the first prefiguration ? I beheve there is 
 only one answer to all these questions, and a good many others that may 
 be asked : ZeU was speaking the truth to the compiler of the Cologne 
 Chronicle, and the truth of his account is proved by the Donatuses which 
 we possess, and which were printed in HoUand before people printed at 
 Mentz. 
 
56 
 
 Chapter XVI. 
 
 The Haaelem Tradition. 
 
 It will have been observed that, in trying to assign a date to the 
 Costeriana, I have not placed them earlier than 1446. This I have done 
 on account of the Doctrinales, mentioned by the Abbat of Cambray as 
 having been bought by him in that year and in 1451. And as I am 
 not aware of any of the titles of the Costeriana being mentioned earlier, 
 in any document, with some additions which might suggest to us that 
 there was question of printed works, I do not think it necessary to enquire 
 whether the Costeriana (or some of them) might not be earlier. We 
 read, indeed, of a MS. Catalogue that belonged to Jean des Eoches, who 
 wrote an essay on the origin of printing in Memoires de VAcademie de 
 Bruxelles, i., pp. 536 and 540, and who regarded this catalogue as of 
 the fifteenth century. Among its titles was " Item Dominicalia in 
 parvo libro stampato in papyro, non scripto," while at the end of the 
 MS. Des Eoches read : " Anno Domini 1340 viguit qui fecit stampare 
 Donates." Bernard, who quoted these entries (i. 91), thinks that we 
 must read 1440 instead of 1340, as the catalogue is said to be of the 
 fifteenth centmy, which is, moreover, plain from the use of Arabic 
 numerals. But not having access to this MS. catalogue, and being 
 unable to examine it, I merely draw attention to these entries, in order 
 that they may not be forgotten, and be verified if the MS. is still in 
 existence. 
 
 It is a singular thing, which deserves to be noticed, that when we 
 work our way back to 1446, we touch not only the year in which the 
 Abbat of Cambray bought printed Doctrinales ; but, what is still more 
 remarkable, the very year in which Laurens Janszoon Coster is asserted 
 to have " brought the first print into the world." This assertion and 
 the year are found on an old pedigree* of Coster and his family preserved 
 at Haarlem. It was made for an inhabitant of Haarlem (G-errit 
 Thomaszoon), who asserted to be a descendant of L. J. Coster, and who 
 died in 1563 or 1564. Dr. Yan der Linde professes not to understand 
 the phrase on the pedigree, though it is plain to anybody who desires to 
 understand it. Nor does he attach any weight to the dociunent ; and 
 at one time says that it was forged in the nineteenth century, at another 
 time that it originated late in the sixteenth century, while in his last 
 book he asserts that it could not have been written later than 1520. It 
 is to be remarked that this last assertion is made by the same Dr. Yan 
 der Linde who invariably tells us that the Haarlem tradition is not older 
 
 * The original year, li46, inscribed on the pedigree, has been altered, by 
 some person unknown, into 1410. Dr. Van der Linde has commented upon this 
 alteration at great length and with great severity. But I do not see that this 
 circumstance is of any consequence, for, even if the alteration had been 
 effected by the original writer of the pedigree, it would only show the uncertainty 
 which prevailed then, and even now, with respect to the exact date of the 
 invention of printing. And if the alteration has been made long after the 
 compilation of the document, by persons who thought that 1446 was a mistake for 
 1440, it is hard to see how this circumstance could detract from the value of the 
 pedigree. 
 
57 
 
 than 1561. It is, moreo\ei', curious to notice with what learning 
 Dr. Van der Linde discusses the jiedigrec, notwithstanding the enormous 
 difference in the dates, which he assigns to the document, shows that he 
 has no knowledge of such things. And it is an open secret that what 
 he says about it has all heen suggested to him by others, and he changes 
 his dates just as it suits his purpose. However, the date 1520 seems to 
 have been suggested to him by persons who ought to know, and, what 
 is of still greater value, it seems to agree with the internal and 
 external circumstances connected with the document. Therefore, the 
 Haarlem authorities will do well to preserve the document carefully, 
 and we ought to bear its date and statement in mind, whenever we deal 
 with the tradition of the Haarlem invention of printing. 
 
 In working our way back to 1446, we touch, moreover, the year 
 which we obtain by deducting the one hundred and twenty-eight years, 
 which Junius mentions in his text (habitavit ante annos centum 
 duodetriginta Harlemi Laurentius Joannes cognomento Aedituus 
 Custosue), from the date (1575) of his prefaces to the Batavia. But on 
 this circumstance I can lay no stress for the present, because those who 
 have examined the two transcripts of Jnnius's original draft of the 
 Batavia, which still exist at Haarlem and the Hague, say that the account 
 of the Haarlem invention must have been written in 1568, and that the 
 prefaces dated 1575 are a later addition. 
 
 It behoves me to say a few words as to the man (or men) who have 
 been regarded as the Haarlem inventor of printing. Since 1870, 
 Dr. Van der Linde has endeavoured, in three different works, to create 
 the impression that Laurens Janszoon Coster, mentioned by Junius as 
 the inventor, was altogether a myth ; and he has succeeded so well, that 
 I am constantly asked by otherwise well-informed persons (1) how I 
 could think of setting up a person who was entirely legendary; (2) could 
 I show, from any genuine document, that such a person had ever existed ? 
 &c. In fact, Dr. Van der Linde has even succeeded in persuading 
 himself that this Coster was a myth, as he always uses this word in 
 speaking of Coster. But, if he can be said to have proved anything, he 
 has proved that Coster was certainly not a myth. It is true that, if his 
 figures are correct, the Haarlem people and the authors who have written 
 on the subject before 1870, have dealt with the tradition of the invention 
 and the reputed inventor in a very reckless manner, by mixing up two 
 totally different men. On the other hand, it would be worse than 
 useless to base any arguments or speculations upon such works as that of 
 Koning of 1816, and least of all upon those of Dr. Van der Linde 
 published from 1870 to 1SS6, which latter I have shown to be simply a 
 reproduction of the old errors of 1816, with some new ones of his own 
 added. But if we accept so much of Dr. Van der Linde's figures as have 
 been corroborated to some extent by other writers, it would seem that 
 there lived at Haarlem a " Lourens Janszoon " from about 1380 to 1439, 
 who is duly authenticated by entries in the original Haarlem Eegisters 
 and other documents. This man began to be regarded by the Dutch as 
 the man indicated by Junius as the inventor of printing, when they con- 
 sidered, against the account of Junius, that the invention had taken place 
 so early as 1423. This man is, moreover, regarded as the " lou janssn " 
 whose burial is recorded in a Haarlem Burial Register of 1439. But 
 " Lourens Janszoon " was a very important personage in Haarlem 
 history; and I have shown in my third chapter (p. 11) that the burial 
 
58 
 
 entry of 1439 has hitherto been misunderstood, and points to a man 
 whose relatives were imable to pay the costs of his burial, which makes 
 it doubtful \Thether the man, who v^^as bm'ied in 1439, is the same as the 
 Lourens Janszoon who has been traced back as far as 13S0. 
 
 But, however this may be, it seems certain that this man was 
 merely called^ " Lourens Janszoon," and never " Lourens Janszoon 
 Coster," and Junius says that this latter name was that of the Haarlem 
 inventor. That there was such a man living at Haarlem, from 1436 to 
 1483, therefore, exactly at the time that printing must have been invented 
 there, is established by Dr. Van der Linde himself, if he can be said to 
 have established anything. He professes, moreover, to have established, 
 that the genealogy of this L. J. Coster perfectly agrees and tallies with 
 the chief person (Gerrit Thomaszn), mentioned by Junius as a descendant 
 of Coster. Under these circumstances one feels inclined to ask what 
 objection Dr. Yan der Linde can have against this man, especially as all 
 the other genealogical particulars mentioned by Junius are correct? 
 
 Ah, says Dr. Van der Linde, though all this is in perfect historical 
 and genealogical order, yet this Coster could not have been an inventor 
 of printing or a printer, because he was a chandler and an innkeeper. I 
 do not see that we need trouble ourselves much about such an argument, 
 because the inventor of printing had necessarily to be something different 
 from a printer. We could scarcely begin to argue that printing could 
 only have been invented by a printer ? We have seen in Chapter IV. 
 (p. 16), that a Bishop of Liege and his sister, a nun, possessed, in the 
 first half of the fifteenth century, instruments for printing images and pieces 
 of texts, from which we may infer that " printing " (that is, in this case, 
 block-printing) at that time was done more by private persons than by 
 ordinary mechanics (printers, 2}>'eiifers). And if a bishop and a nun 
 possessed instruments for 2»"MtiiiiJ (though it was block printing), I do 
 not see why a chandler should not have been in possession of some 
 apparatus for printing with movable types, an apparatus which, no 
 doubt, was more developed than that required for block printing, but at 
 the same time only needed to be very small to satisfy the wants of that 
 time. 
 
 It would be a more serious objection to Junius's account, supipose 
 that we were absolutely bound to pin him to all his dates and biographical 
 particulars, that this Lourens Janszoon Coster resided (I can only quote 
 Dr. Van der Linde) at Haarlem from 1436 (when he occurs as inheriting 
 a chair in a club) till 1483, when he was not yet too old to depart from 
 Haarlem. Such a man could hardly have been a grandfather already in 
 1440, when he invented printing, according to Junius, by attempting to 
 instruct his grandchildren. And it seems that Junius had really the 
 year 1440 in his mind; because he asserts that the thief who stole Coster's 
 types printed with them in 1442 (a year after the theft) at Mentz. If 
 Junius had said " 1452," and if we could date the invention of printing 
 according to the date of his preface, there would be nothini/ against his 
 account. But, without a further investigation as to the circumstances 
 under which Junius wrote and the transcriiits of his Avork were made, I 
 scruple to make any suggestions. I only wish to remark that we shall, 
 perhaps, have to deal with Junius's dates and statements very much in 
 the same way as with those in the Cologne Chronicle ; that is to say, 
 those which have been derived from Chronicles and printed sources will 
 have to be sifted from those derived from more trustworthy sources. 
 
Chapter XVII. 
 
 GUTENBERa WAS NOT THE INVENTOR OF PRINTING. 
 
 Let us now see whether — (1) the assertion of the Cologne Chronicle 
 " that the Donatiises printed in Holland were printed before there was 
 any printing in Mentz [consequently, that the invention of printing was 
 made in Holland, not at Mentz]," and (2) the assertion of Junius, " that 
 it was made at Haarlem," and (3) my own contention (based on what I 
 venture to call the very strong circumstantial evidence which I have 
 detailed above) that both the Cologne Chronicle {== Ulrich Zell) and 
 Junius arc in the main correct, and that printing was invented at 
 Haarlem, — are contradictory, in any sense of the word, to the so-called 
 documentary evidence that we have regarding GutenlDerg, and to the 
 assertion that he invented printing at Mentz in Germany. 
 
 Those who believe in an invention of printing by Gutenberg, always 
 point out to us that up to 1561 the whole world was unanimous on that 
 point. So it was, if we except such a trifle (!) as the contradiction 
 in the Cologtie Chronicle of 1499. But when we trace this unanimity to 
 its origin and its source, it begins to assume quite a curious aspect. The 
 earliest document which allows us to connect Germany, Gutenberg, and 
 Mentz with the art of printing, is the Notarial document of November 6, 
 1455, recording the decision in the lawsuit between Johan Gutenberg 
 and Johan Fust. By the mouth of Johan Fust it speaks of " the work " 
 and of " our common work " ; by the mouth of Johan Gutenberg it 
 speaks of " tools " in preparation, of " servants' wages, house-rent, 
 vellum, paper, ink, &c.," and of " such work," and of " the work of the 
 books " ; while by the mouth of the judges it speaks of " the work to the 
 profit of both of them " and of " their common use " ; but none of the 
 persons concerned in the affair say a single word about an "invention," 
 or about a " new mode " of printing. And yet the -occasion was such 
 as to make it almost imperative on Gutenberg to say at least one word 
 about his " invention," if he had made any, for he had spent one 
 thousand six hundred guilders (no trifle in his days) of another man's 
 money, apparently without having printed anything, and was on the 
 point of being robbed and having taken away from him all that he had 
 made and done to give effect to his " grand idea." And Fust, would he 
 not have considered it necessary to explain, that he had trusted Gutenberg 
 with so much money in order to give effect to an entirely new " invention," 
 if Gutenberg had made any ? "Would it not have been considered very 
 creditable to Fust, if he were known to have assisted an "inventor" with 
 money, all the more as there was already another man (Peter Schoeffer) 
 printing at Mentz, who might arrogate the honour of the invention to 
 himself ? 
 
 Before we consider the next document, a few more words may be 
 devoted to this lawsuit and Dr. Van der Linde's latest utterances about 
 it. In his last book he argues that Fust, the shrewd and calculating 
 Fust, could not be supposed to have advanced even the first eight 
 hundred guilders to Gutenberg, unless the latter had produced something 
 tangible, some product of his " invention," to show its reality. Dr. Van 
 der Linde sees this product, this first fruit of the " invention," in a 
 
60 
 
 Donatus of twenty-seven lines, printed in the well-known thirty -six line 
 Bible type, two leaves of which were discovered at Mentz, and are now 
 preserved in the Paris library. He gives a full -page fac-simile of it 
 {Geschiehte, III. 813), and informs us, with great simplicity, that the first 
 nine lines are printed with too soft types of lead and show the rapid 
 wearing out of the types by printing ; in the next nine lines the types 
 are less worn out, while in the hues 19-2i the types are quite new, 
 while the types of the last three lines are manufactured with the same 
 punches, but cast of better metal. His fac-simile actually shows some- 
 thing resembhng this description, but Dr. Van der Linde, who evidently 
 dislikes any original research, has taken his fac-simile, not from the 
 original page, but from a fac-simile pubhshed in 1840 by Duverger. 
 
 To ordinary bibliographers such a page must appear a veritable 
 wonder. We have always been taught that types produce a very sharp 
 and new impression, when they are used for the first time ; that they 
 get gradually blunter by use, and look at last quite worn out. We may 
 observe these three stages, when we examine the books of any printer 
 from the time of the invention down to the present day. But these three 
 stages are usually observed in different books of one and the same 
 printer, and they sometimes enable us to date the books accordingly. 
 Or if a book is very large, we may observe the three stages, or at least 
 the first two, in one and the same book. But here we are told that the 
 three stages of the type occur in one page. How are we to explain this ? 
 Dr. Van der Linde does not think it necessary to do so. Did Gutenberg 
 cast first some types to print the lines 19-24, leaving space for the three 
 bottom lines (25-27), and did he use those afterwards for the lines 
 10-18, then for the nine top lines, and finally added the three bottom lines 
 in types of better metal ? Such a proceeding, odd as it may seem, would 
 effectively account for the three stages of the type being found on one 
 and the same page. It would also show us how weak and soft 
 Gutenberg's types must have been, in the first instance, to get used up 
 by printing a few lines. And, of course, if we assume all this, there 
 can be no earthly , doubt about this Donatus, or this page of a Donatus, 
 being the first specimen of Gutenberg's "invention," which he probably 
 deposited, in 1448, in the Mentz library, to enable Dr. Van der Linde to 
 prove, in 1886, that he, Gutenberg, invented the art of printing. But 
 the process of beginning to print a page with the bottom lines and 
 ascending gradually higher, is so strange that one feels inclined to look 
 for another explanation. Gutenberg could not have begun with the 
 top lines, as they are printed, says Dr. Van der Linde, with worn-out 
 types, or were they worn out by the printing of the previous pages, and 
 did Gutenberg renew his types while composing this page ? I confess that 
 I am puzzled, and as Dr. Van der Linde does not think it necessary to speak 
 of the other three pages, not even of the one which must be on the back of 
 this marvellous page, we shall have to wait for further information. Dr. 
 Van der Linde has just raised or tried to raise Gutenberg to the rank of a 
 god ; Gutenberg>=Wotanberg(see his last work, vol. iii., p. 748), and it 
 is just possible that this god commenced his Donatus in the ordinary way, 
 with the top lines, and that the types became, miraculously, sharper and 
 sharper as he went on . . . 
 
 But let us be serious. Dr. Van der Linde asks us to assume that 
 Gutenberg showed this Donatus as a specimen of his art to Fust, to induce 
 the latter to lend him money for carrying his " invention " into effect. 
 
61 
 
 He also asks us to assume that the Donatus was printed circa 1448, and 
 Fust, it is calculated, began to advance money (eight hundred guilders) to 
 Gutenberg about 1449. We know from the Notarial document of the 
 1455 lawsuit that Fust advanced the first eight hundred guilders to enable 
 Gutenberg to, "prepare tools," and that he further undertook to pay 
 annualJij, three hundred guilders to defray "costs," and would also find 
 " servants' wages, house rent, vellum, paper, ink, &c." Now, come ! If 
 we assume that Gutenberg bewitched Fust to provide all this money by 
 showing him this Donatus, this wonderful Donatus, it stands to reason 
 that we must first of all suppose that Gutenberg had actually printed it, 
 otherwise I do not see how he could shoic it to anybody. But he could 
 not have piinted it without having had the types and a press, inJc, &c., &c. 
 And, of course, if he had the types for the Donatus, he must also have had 
 the punches and the matrices, or whatever tools he employed for making 
 his types. In short, in order to produce this Donatus, this " specimen " 
 of his "invention," he must have been in possession of everything 
 necessary for the printing of his thirty-six line Bible ; only for the 
 latter work he required a somewhat larger quantity of type, for the 
 setting up of a foho page in double columns. But the matrices or 
 other tools, which he had used for the Donatus, would have enabled 
 him to cast or prepare this larger quantity of type at once, without 
 borrowing more than a few guilders. 
 
 What tools, then, did Gutenberg want to prepare with Fust's money ? 
 I leave Dr. Van der Linde to answer this question. To me it seems clear 
 that when Gutenberg contracted, in 1449 or 1450, with Fust for 
 money for the purpose of "preparing tools," he had an " idea " of printing, 
 but had not yet printed anything ; for if he had, he would not have 
 been under the necessity of making tools. And that he had not pro- 
 duced any " books " in 1452, seems to me also clear from his saying at 
 the trial (Hue 4i!), that " he hoped he was under no obhgation to Fust 
 to devote the first eight hundred guilders to the work of the books." 
 And that he had not produced any " books " in 1454,* after he had 
 received a second eight hundred guilders, seems also pretty clear from 
 the very fact that the lawsuit did take place, which Fust brought 
 against Gutenberg, not to recover " books," but to recover money. 
 
 In the document, which comes next after that of the 1455 
 lawsuit, the colophon of the Psalter of 1457,t published by Fust 
 and Schoeffer, the art of printing is plainly indicated and its im- 
 portance fully realised ; for it is said that the Codex was " venus- 
 tate capitalium decoratus, rubricationibusque sufficienter distinctus, 
 adinventione artificiosa im.primendi ac caracterizaadi absque uUa calami 
 exaratione sic efSgiatus," but not a word is said of an inventor, nor of 
 the place where it was invented. On the other hand, the colophon speaks, 
 
 * As Dr. Van der Linde, by a calculation to wMcIl I do not object, makes 
 the transaction between Gutenberg- and Fust hegin in 1449 (that is to say, a year 
 earlier than was hitherto supposed), it stands to reason that, by the same calcula- 
 tion, we must make it come to an end a year earlier, so that the date 6 Nov., 1455, 
 of the Notarial instrument, would be simply that of the long protracted decision 
 in a lawsuit which commenced in 1454. 
 
 f An earlier document would be the Donatus published by Schoeffer with 
 the colophon, " arte nora imprimendi seu caracterizandi per Petrum de Gernssheym 
 in urbe Moguntina cum suis capitalibiis absque calami exaratione effigiatus," for 
 it may be presumed to have been issued about, or before, 1450. But it has no date, 
 and can, therefore, not be placed in a strictly chronological sequence. 
 
62 
 
 not of an " inrcntio," but of an " adinventio," which may be taken to 
 mean that the " invention " itself had already been made ; but that now 
 something additional, some " new mode " of printing, had been effected. 
 The same colophon is repeated by the same printers in 1459 twice 
 (Psalter and Durandus), in 14G0 (Glementinae), in 1462 (Bible), and in 
 several later publications. In 1465 we find a variation introduced and 
 used in some books : " non atramento [communi, added in 1408] 
 plumali canna neque aerea, sed artificiosa quadam adinventione impri- 
 mendi seu caracterizandi [or, after sed, simply : arte quadam per- 
 pulcra] " ; but, whatever variation is made, and however much the 
 printers may endeavour to make the nature of their art clear and under- 
 stood, there never is one word about an inventor or a place of invention. 
 In 1460 there comes a new testimony, namely, the colophon of 
 the Catholicon, in which the new mode of printing is still more fully 
 indicated, and its importance still more fully realised, for it says that 
 the book in 1460 
 
 " Tmpressus atque coiifectus est alma in urbe maguntina nationis indite 
 Germanioe. Quam [the German nation] dei olemencia tarn alto ingenij lumine 
 donoque gratuito ceteris terrarum uacionibus preferre illustrareque dignatus 
 [dignata] est. Non calami, stili aut peunae sufEragio sed mira patronarum 
 formarumque Concordia proporcione et modulo," 
 
 Here Gutenberg himself speaks according to the advocates of his 
 claims. He had been robbed and wronged in 1455 by his former 
 partner Fust, in conjunction with Peter Schoeffer. He had, it is 
 alleged, succeeded in obtaining fresh money from a certain Dr. Homery, 
 a Syndic of Mentz, to establish a new printing office, and now, in 1460 — • 
 after he had seen his two cruel rivals publish book after book with 
 colophons loudly proclaiming the importance of the new art " invented 
 and perfected," it is said, by himself — he (Gutenberg) issues a grand 
 product of his own, with a long-winded and verbose colophon about 
 the new mode of printing and the blessed German nation, without 
 mentioning his own name or his " invention " with one single word. 
 Nay, even the word adinventio, found in Fust and Schoeffer's imprints, 
 is altogether omitted here. Dr. Van der Linde and others have 
 considered it necessary to explain this silence, this extraordinary silence, 
 which indeed has struck everybody. This silence was necessary, it is 
 argued, otherwise Gutenberg's creditors would have seized the copies 
 and his printing-office into the bargain. This explanation is, indeed, 
 as extraordinary as Gutenberg's silence itself. It may be supposed that 
 the publication of such a book as the Catholicon — a large folio volume 
 of nearly four hundred leaves — would excite attention even at the 
 present time, among the ocean of large and small publications that are 
 daily issued. But in 1460 such works did not appear every hour of 
 the day. And as the colophon says distinctly, that it was printed and 
 perfected at Ment?: (the very city where Gutenberg's chief creditor 
 resided), in the year 1460, by an art which is described with most 
 remarkable details, I do not see how its printer could possibly have 
 expected to escape being found out. Fust and Schoeffer, who printed in 
 that very same city of Mentz, at the very same time, could hardly have 
 lost sight, since 1455, of their former interesting, but impecunious, col- 
 league. They must have known it, if there had been another printing- 
 office established at Mentz besides their own, as printers were far from 
 
63 
 
 numerous at the time ; only one other at Strassburg, leaving the Haarlem 
 office out of the question. They must have known, moreover, who was 
 the owner of that third office. But even if they did not know, the 
 appearance, under their very eyes, of such a work printed on vellum 
 and on paper, and provided with a colophon in which every detail 
 connected with the book, except the printer's name, is trumpeted about 
 with great minuteness, could not have escaped their attention. And 
 it is incredible that Fust and Schoeffer, or any other person, if Gutenberg 
 owed them any money, would have been so guileless as to leave him 
 alone, simply because he did not publish his name in the colophon. 
 
 Therefore, we shaU. have to look for another, a more satisfactory 
 explanation of this silence on the part of Gutenberg, while his rivals 
 were proclaiming aloud that they produced books by some " by- 
 invention," and even copied afterwards expressions from his own 
 colophon. I think if we examine further documents we shall find 
 that explanation. In 1465 (17 January), eleven years after printing 
 had been going on at ]\Ientz, the Archbishop of Mentz issues a decree 
 whereby he rewards Gutenberg for "his services"; but not a word 
 is said about his "invention," nay, not even of his career as a "printer." 
 On February 26, 1468, Dr. Homery (the man who had helped Gutenberg, 
 it is said, to a new printing office) writes a letter of obligation to the 
 same Archbishop of Mentz, acknowledging to have received from the 
 archbishop " several forms, letters, instruments, implements and other 
 things belonging to the work of printing, which Johau Gutenberg 
 had left after his death, and which had and still belonged to him 
 [Dr. Homery], and undertaking to use them, but in no other town than 
 Mentz, nor to sell them to any person but a citizen of Mentz, even 
 if a stranger should offer him a higher price for the things." Here, 
 indeed, we see that Gutenberg had been in possession of things 
 " belonging to the work of printing," but there is, again, nothing about 
 him as an " inventor." 
 
 At last, in this same year, 1468 — therefore, fully fourteen years 
 after printing had made its public appearance at Mentz, and at a 
 time when its existence there and its character had already been 
 advertised and explained, during a period of fuUy eleven years, before 
 the eyes of the whole world, in the most public manner and in the most 
 precise terms, but always without any, even the slightest hint as to its 
 being invented at Mentz or anywhere else in Germany — we enter 
 on a somewhat new phase in the history of the invention. Namely, in 
 that year we have, or think that we hear, something resembling an 
 alhii^ion, made at Mentz itself, regarding a Mentz origin of the 
 type. That is to say, in the fifth distich of the colophon of the 
 Orainmatira, published by Peter Schoeffer, we read : " At moguntina 
 sum fusus in iirie libellus / Mcque domus genuit viule caragma venit." 
 The whole colophon, which contains also the date, is written, not in 
 the sober prose of the earlier Fust and Schoeffer colophons of 14.57 
 to 1468, but in six distichs. 
 
 Now, the second line of the fifth distich literally says : "the house 
 whence the caragma (type) comes has begotten (or produced) me 
 {i.e., the book)." Does this mean " the house where the type is * 
 
 * Veyiit is short (venit, present tense, not venit, perfect) and can only mean 
 " comes " not " came." 
 
64 
 
 invented ? In former years the verse was usually understood to have 
 this meaning. M. Madden (Lettres ffun UUiograjjhe, 111° serie, p. 04) 
 translated in 1874, " C'est Mayence qui me voit renaitre {sic) et sortir 
 de la maison de Vinventeur de Vimprimerie.'" Dr. Van der Linde (Ge- 
 schichte, p. 48) translates in 1886, " from the house whence typography 
 has gone forth." I myself did not think of any better translation in 1 882, 
 as may be seen in my Outmlerg, p. 190. But suppose the line could have 
 such a meaning, then we should have here a wrong statement, because 
 the house which produced the book (=where the book was printed) was 
 undoubtedly that of Peter Schoeffer, and we know that Gutenberg 
 never occupied that, house and that, consequently, the type was not 
 invented there. Domus has also been taken in a general sense as 
 meaning " the home {i.e., Mentz)," in which case the second line would 
 be expletive and stand in apposition to the first, meaning " the home 
 {i.e., Mentz), where the type was invented, produced me." 
 
 But in recent years we have learned something from M. Madden (the 
 same bibliographer who has given us the free translation of the distich 
 quoted above), that we did not know before, or overlooked when we ven- 
 tured on the above interpretations. Namely, the Grammutica was written 
 by John Tons, or Brunnen, who was Peter Schoeffer's press-corrector. 
 Now, it is not unreasonable, I think, to assume that Schoeffer's press- 
 corrector lived in his house, and if the author of the book did live in 
 Schoeffer's house, he must have written the Grammatica there. Hence 
 we may translate the two lines quoted above : " Forsooth, I am a little 
 book cast (a reference to the casting of the type) in the Mentz city / 
 And I was written (produced or begotten) in the (very same) house 
 whence the type comes {i.e., where I am printed)." By this interpreta- 
 tion the supposed allusion to an invention of type falls to the ground. 
 But I believe it will commend itself better than all other interpretations. 
 
 Lest there should remain any doubt on the point, I will quote the 
 six distichs of the colophon entire : — 
 
 « • f Codioulum qui me f undis fons es rationum 
 
 ^ ^ \ Cannam qui fontis fons bone nosse velis. 
 
 Q . ■] i Si non de concha sed fonte est nomen et omen 
 
 ^ i Me fontis mactam tingite gramaticam. 
 
 p • ^ Atque maturino tibi dedicor indite magni 
 
 j Nunc logothecarum patris in arce comes. 
 
 p ( Me fieri cogunt redeuntia f amina ioseph 
 
 \ Conche fors leua seuaque fata simul. 
 
 Yv,- S At moguntina sum fusus in vrbe libellus 
 
 ( Meque domus genuit vnde caragma venit. 
 
 Q ■] ^ Terseno sed in anno terdeni iubilei. 
 
 ^ X Mundi post oolumen qui es benedictus Amen. 
 
 It will be seen that the words prefixed to each distich are meant to 
 summarise their contents : Quis, who wrote the book ; Quid, what it is ; 
 Giii, to whom it is dedicated ; Cur, why it was written ; 17;/, where it 
 was written and printed ; Quundo, when it was written and printed. It 
 will be clear, I think, that Vl)i of the fifth distich does not and could 
 not cnrnjirelicnd the important statement that printing was invented in 
 
that particular house. And it will also be clear, I think, that if John 
 Fons had intended to state that typography had beeii invented in the 
 house of his master or anywhere else in Mentz, his poetical talent would 
 have been quite equal to the occasion, and would have supphed him 
 with another distich, to convey this important information in the 
 same precise and unambiguous terms in which he stated his six other 
 points. 
 
 In the same year 1-4G8, on May 24, the same Peter Schoeffer 
 pubhshed an edition of the Justinianus, in which, besides the ordi- 
 nary colophon which he used from 14.j7 to 1468, we find also some verses 
 written by Job. Brunnen mentioned above, in which two "Johannes" 
 are spoken of as "Librorum insignes prothocaragmatici quos genuit 
 ambos urbs maguntina." This is said to mean " the distinguished/rs/- 
 printers of books both of whom the jMentz city begot," or, in other 
 words, "the two first-printers of books were born at Mentz." But 
 at the time that these verses were written the prefix protho- (or proto) 
 usually meant first (in point of rank or dignity), chief (princeps), the 
 same as Archi-; e. g.-.pivto-notarius, piroto-ajmstularius; proto-vestiarius; 
 proto-canceJlarius, &c., &c. {see Du Cange), but seldom, if ever, first, in 
 point of time. So, for instance, Christopher Plantin, the celebrated 
 printer of Antwerp, was called Prototypographer of the King ; but no 
 one would say that he was the y^rs^printer of the King. But suppose 
 we iv^Q prothocaragmatici as meaning : " first-printers," even then " quos 
 genuit ambos urbs maguntina " may mean " both of whom the Mentz 
 city produced," that is to say, it does not necessarily mean that they were 
 lorn at Mentz, but Mentz produced them, not as human beings, but as 
 printers ; they began their career there as printers. By this interpreta- 
 tion John Gutenberg and John Fust (suppose they are the two Johannes 
 referred to, which has not yet been proved) would appear as the first 
 printers of Mentz, but the verses would lose all their importance with 
 regard to the tradition of an invention of printing. It is, I think, 
 necessary to look at these verses in the Justinianus from as many 
 points of view as we possibly can, for they are written by a person who 
 was not an actor in the first period of the art at Mentz ; they appear, 
 moreover, fourteen, or rather eighteen years after the invention of 
 printing must have been accomplished at Mentz, if it was made there 
 at aU, and after a deep and profound silence of as many years, not on 
 the art of printing, but on its invention and its author. And though I 
 do not think that, on the poetical and highly-coloured phrases in the 
 Justinianus, we could possibly base a claim to the honour of an invention 
 of printing at Mentz, still, if they bear the meaning which is usually 
 given to them, they would at least mark the starting-point of the tradition 
 of a Mentz invention. 
 
 But in whatever way we may feel inclined to interpret the two 
 lines in the Justinianus of 1468, the long speU of silence about an 
 "invention" of printing in Germany is at last broken, in this same year, 
 14C8. But it is not broken by Germany, nor by Mentz, nor by Schoeffer, 
 nor by any other German printer, but by Italy, by an Italian bishop. I 
 allude to Johannes Audi'cas, Bishop of Aleria, who says in the dedication 
 of his edition of St. Jerome's Epistles, published in that year (on 18th 
 December) at Eome, to Pope Paul II. (1464-1471), that " Germany is 
 to be honoured of all generations as the inventress of the greatest utilities. 
 The glorious mind of Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa [who died 11th August, 
 
66 
 
 1464], greatly desired that this sacred art [of priuting], which then 
 appeared to arise in Germany, should be brought to Rome."* 
 
 The preface is not dated. The colophon has : " Eusebii Hieronyrai 
 doctoris eximii secundum epistolaram exphcit uolumen. anno christi. 
 M.CCCC. LXVIII. Indictione prima, die uero. XIII. mensis decembris. 
 Pontifice maximo Paulo regnante secundo. anno eius quinto. Eome in 
 domo magnifici uiri Petri de Maximo." This preface is reprinted in the 
 edition of 1470 by the same printers. 
 
 But this Italian testimony is silent about Mentz and about an " in- 
 ventor." It does not even speak with any remarkable certainty of the 
 invention having been made in Germany. And as Sweynheym and 
 Pannarts, the two first printers of Italy (who are supposed to have 
 inspired this testimony), were Germans who may be, or are presumed to 
 have learnt their art at Mentz, under the very eyes and presence of the 
 so-called inventor, it looks as if this Itahan testimony, as regards this 
 German invention, is simply derived from the colophons of the Mentz 
 books, without the bishop and his informants knowing anything, or feeling 
 justified in saying anything, of an " inventor," or of the place where the 
 invention had been made. In fact it speaks of Sweynheym and Pannarts 
 as the " authors " of printing types. 
 
 At last, in 1472, this long speU of silence about the " inventor " 
 is broken ; but, again, not by Mentz, not by Germany, not by^ any 
 German printer, but by France. I allude to the letter of Gul. Fichet 
 
 * Dabis ueniam pater 1361118311116 ... at promptam uoluntatem pro maiori 
 mnner6 computabis : cum uid6ris me digniora uoluisse. Trade enim tibi quicquid 
 habeo : & duo minuta in gazophylaoium mitto . . . Tuis oerte temporibus ad reliquas 
 dei gratiaa : boo etiam felioitatis orbi cbristiauo munus acoessit : ut pauperrimi 
 quique parua pecunia bibliotheoas possint redimere. An parua est hec tue 
 sanctitatis gloria : ut que uolumina uix centum aureis emi poterant aliis tem- 
 poribus : uiginti bodie ao miuoris bene exarata : et non mendooissime facta 
 redimantur ? que uix uiginti aureis lecturi mercabantur : quatuor et uilius 
 etiam nunc emantur 2 Adde quod quicquid ingeniorum olim fuit ; latebatque 
 pene in puluere et tineis propter immensos labores : ao nimia describentium 
 preoia : sub tuo prinoipatu ceptum est scaturire : et per omnem orbem uberrimo 
 fonte diffluere. Biusmodi est enim impressoruni nostrorum' : et charactcrcs 
 effing eiitium artijic'mmi .- ut uix inter hominum inuenta : non modo noua -. sed ne 
 uetera quidem quicquam excellentioris inuenti possit referri. JDlrine Tionuramla 
 seculisque omnibus magnifarinula profeeto gcnnania est : utilitatum inuentrix 
 maximarum. Hoc est quod semper gloriosa ilia: et celo digna anima Xifulai 
 I'usensls [died 11 Aug., 1464] cardhialis Saneti Petri ad wincula perojitahat : tit 
 hi'r sanota avs qve oriri tunc uiilcliatnr in gcrmania : romam cleducerctur. lam 
 uota illius qui te beatissime pater : ut pupillam oouli sui dilexit : coluit ; 
 admiratus est : credo ipso ad genua domini nostri Jesu Cbristi bee eiflagitante : 
 tuo tempore impleta sunt. Tuus pontificatus : ceteris ex partibus gloriosissimus : 
 bac arte ad tuos sanctos pedes aduecta obliuionem in bominum memoria nunquam 
 accipiet ; nisi si quando esse dcsinet mentio litterarum . . . Verum hoc quoque 
 magnum est pater beatissime ... quod tiia tempore non minus valet pene papyrus 
 uneua et niida pergamenaue : quam odie [^ bodie] optatissimi lihri einaiitnr ... 
 Ego posteris in his scriptis constanter : semper admiration! futurum : trado : 
 prextnntissimos charaoterum imprimendorum, uutores : sub Pauli Secundi ueneti 
 pontificatu rome artem ea-ereuisse eepisse tanto artijieio : et industria bominum : 
 gratia nobis bac celitus per diuinum pastorem importata : ut minoris libri emi 
 f erre possint : quam alias soleret redimi ligatura. Nunc igitur sume pontificum 
 mansuetissime . . . Saneti Hieronymi primum uolumen : habiturus deinceps : 
 statutis temporibus : semper noua tue felicitatis indicia ; quasi frugum te 
 dignissimarum primicias : et foiie artis huius utili.^sime suh tua protectione 
 Conriidiim ; et Arnoldiim germamos Jiomines : arte imprimendi prestniite.i 
 udueetores. 
 
to Eob. G-aguin, which was discovered at Basel, by Dr. Sieber, the 
 librarian of the Basel University, in a copy of Ga-yxtrini Orthocjraphia, 
 printed at Paris circa 1472, in which Fichet speaks of "Johannes 
 Bonemontanus " as the inventor of printing. This testimony has 
 attracted a good deal of attention during the last two or three years. 
 Some people have gone so far as to say that this early testimony finally 
 settles the dispute in favour of G-utenberg. Dr. Van der Linde prints 
 it with a shout of triumph. But, as the letter \\-a% apparently written 
 and printed in 1472,* it comes only two years before the publication of 
 the Chronicle of Philippus de Lignamine (Rome, 1-174), which speaks 
 of G-ufcenberg as printing in 1459, Imt not as the inventor of printing. 
 And as this latter testimony has ne\'er been considered conclusive, it 
 is hard to see how a difference of two years could make the Gutenberg 
 tradition more weighty. Fichet, moreover, tells us that his stoiy is 
 a rumour current in Germany Q'fenint enim illic "). 
 
 But Fichet 's letter, though it is useless to those who wish to 
 regard Gutenberg as the inventor of printing, is of considerable 
 importance to those who, hke myself, feel forced to deny that he was 
 the inventor. For, instead of affirming, at this hour of the day, his 
 claims as the inventor, it only helps us to demonstrate the hollowness 
 of the whole Gutenberg tradition. Let me explain. It is, perhaps, not 
 unreasonable to say, in fact everybody admits, that Fichet must have 
 heard the rumour about Gutenberg from the first three Paris printers, 
 who settled there about 1470. Two of them are known to have resided 
 at Basel, and most likely learned their craft there, before they settled 
 at Paris. We may, therefore, trace at once Fiohet's " rumour " about 
 Gutenberg to Berthold von Hanau, who was printing at Basel in 1468, 
 and who is presumed to be the " Bertolff von Hanauwe," who appears 
 in the Mentz lawsuit of 14.5.5 as Gutenberg's servant. Therefore, 
 Gutenberg's own servant speaks of his being "the inventor" byway 
 of rumour only. To this chain we may link on the facts told us by 
 Dr. Van der Linde {Gesch. der Erfinclmg, iii. 805, on the authority 
 of the Liber fraternitatiH) : (1) that Gutenberg was a lay member of 
 the ecclesiastical fraternity established in the collegiate church of St. 
 Victor, near Mentz ; (2) that of this church Gutenberg's relative, 
 Ivo Wittig, who in 1504 erected a memorial stone to him, was a canon 
 and the custodian of its seal. These two facts we may link on, in 
 their turn, to the fact that this same relative of Gutenberg, Ivo Wittig, 
 wrote, or at least is presumed to have written, the dedication to the 
 Emperor Maximilian of the German translation of the Livy, published 
 in 1505, by Johan Schoeffer (the son of Peter Schoeffer, and grandson 
 of Johan Fust), in which the honour of the invention is ascribed to 
 Johan Gutenberg, whereas the printer of the work, Johan Schoeffer, 
 when he is left to himself, and is not under the influence of Ivo Wittig, 
 Gutenlaerg's relative, invariably inscribes that honour to his father 
 (Peter Schoeffer), or to his grandfather (Jolian Fust). And when we 
 further remember (1) that the two Heidelberg prof essors (Adam Wernher 
 and Joh. Herbst), who wrote epigrams in 1494,1 in honour of Johan 
 
 * Not 1470, as some Writers say. 
 
 t These epigrams were never published at the time, but in this century, 
 by F. J. Mone, Qucllensammlunq der had. Lande.igescU., III. 163, from the MS. of 
 Adarn Wernher, preserved in the Archives of Carlsruhe. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 Gensfleiscli (=Ansicaras), and Jacobus "Wimpheling, who, when residing 
 at Heidelberg, wrote an epigram (on leaf 22" of an Oratio in memoriam 
 Marsilii ab Inghen, published at Mentz, in 1499, by P. Friedberg) in 
 praise of the same "Ansicarus," were, to all appearances, inspired by 
 Adam Gelthus, another relative of Gutenberg, who also resided at Hei- 
 delberg, and himself added a Latin epitaph on Joh. Gensfleisch " artis 
 impressorise inventor," and " repertor," to Wimpheling's epigram ; (2) 
 that Franz Behem was established in the collegiate church of St. Victor 
 (mentioned above), as a printer, and in 1541, printed in that place the 
 well-known poem ("de Chalcographiae inventione") of his press reader, 
 Arnold BergeUanus, in which the invention is ascribed to Gutenberg — 
 we cannot fail to see that the assertion, that Gutenberg was the inventor 
 of printing, was made and propagated, in an off-hand and unofficial way, 
 by no other persons than those who either were related to him, or had 
 been in his service, or connected with the St. Victor Church near Mentz. 
 Hence, we may say, perhaps without the possibility of a doubt, that 
 the tradition of Gutenberg being the inventor of printing originated 
 from no other person but Gutenberg himself. No doubt, during the 
 hours which he spent among his convivial fellow-members of the 
 St. Victor fraternity, he indulged in some talk about his "invention," 
 or about his new mode of printing, perhaps in order to obtain a fresh 
 loan, for he was always either quarrelling or borrowing money ; or, 
 perhaps, in order to account for the total disappearance of the 1,600 
 guilders lent him by Johan Fust, without his having published any 
 books. But, however loquacious he and his friends may have been 
 within the safe precincts of the monastery, they have, apparently, been 
 very careful not to say anything about their "invention" in public, at 
 the time that such an assertion could have been contradicted or 
 affirmed, for there is, as we have seen, a deadly silence at Mentz and in 
 Germany from 1451 till 1468.* His servant Berthold seems to have 
 spoken of it (about 1468-1470 ?) at Basel as a rumour ;t the two 
 earliest German printers of Subiaco and Eome seem to have known 
 nothing of Gutenberg, perhaps not even of an " invention " ; the 
 Archbishop of Mentz seems to know nothing about an "invention," 
 he does not even seem to know that Gutenberg had been a printer. 
 And Dr. Homery — one of the founders of a merry, gastronomical 
 fraternity at Mentz (Van der Linde, p. 897), therefore, one not 
 likely to be silent if he knew anything about it — is silent on the 
 point, though he had to speak of Gutenberg in connexion with almost 
 
 * This silence at Mentz is actually not broken till 23 May, llTfi, when Peter 
 Schoeffer issued the third edition of /?/.■.■?/«/«»?/« (Institutiones),inwhichhe omittfd 
 the verses of 1468 (repeated in the Jiixtlnimms of li72, and in the DecrctaT.t of 
 1473), which spoke of the two Johannes, the prothocaragmatici of Mentz, but 
 said that Mentz is the •' impressoriaj artis inventrix elimatrixque prima." 
 
 t It deserves to be noticed (a) that the collegiate Church of St. Victor, of 
 which Gutenberg was a lay member, and his relative, Ivo Wittig, a Canon, and 
 Keeper of the Seals, was situated near Mentz ; and (h) that Fichet speaks of 
 " Johannes Bonemontanus " as inventing printing, not at, but ni-ar, Mentz : 
 "I'erunt enim illic, limit pi-nful a civitate Maguncia, Joanuem queudam 
 fuisse, cui cognomen bouemontano, qui primus omnium impressoriam artem 
 exoogitaverit." Would it be, after all, possible that even Fiohet's rumour has to 
 be traced to the St. Victor Church? In such a case the crti-nt of the rumour 
 would be considerably narrowed, and certainly not to the benefit of Gutenberg's 
 claims. 
 
69 
 
 everything (!) "that belonged to printing" ! Sui-ely, such testimonies 
 regarding a " German invention" of printing, and Gutenberg being the 
 inventor of it, as we have explained aljove, would be instantly rejected 
 if they came before a court of justice and were confronted, on the one 
 hand with the profound silence at Mentz and in Germany from 1454: to 
 147G, and on the other hand with «hat has been said in favour of 
 another party. 
 
 Chapter XVIII. 
 
 SUSDURY. 
 
 After having explained what I desire to say for the present on the 
 invention of printing, I will endeavour to sum up the results, so far as I 
 am at liberty to call them results, in somewhat modified form. While 
 proceeding, I will concentrate into a few words most of the arguments 
 which I have ventured to advance at greater length before, always 
 quoting in brackets (chaps, i., ii., &c., as the case may be) the nmnber 
 of the chapter or chapters where my views may be found. In this way 
 I shall be able to state a few points more clearly than I was able to do 
 when I had to surround them with aU sorts of explanations. 
 
 Let us suppose that circumstances lead us to study the books 
 printed before 1500, not in a haphazard fashion, but thoroughly, and 
 animated with a sincere desire to know aU about them. "We start with 
 the idea of making catalogues of such incunabula as wiU come under our 
 obser\'ation from time to time, not only by visiting European Ubraries 
 and private collections, but by studying and examining the fac-similes 
 and catalogues of early printed books pubUshed by bibliographers. We 
 arrange and describe the books, not alphabetically, but under their 
 respective countries, towns, and printers, as the only method by which 
 we can learn ourselves and be instructive to others. 
 
 After having studied, described, and arranged a large number of 
 incunabula, we have gradually separated from all other books a group of 
 forty-seven different works (chap, vii.), some of which we only know 
 from fragments, and which we cannot ascribe to any other country 
 but Holland, first, because certain peculiarities of their types 
 (chaps, vii., xiv.) are known to be indicative of a Dutch, rather than of a 
 German or Itahan, or any other nationaUty (chap, xiv.), and, secondly, 
 because one of the works (the Spiet/Jiel), printed in the same types as a 
 good many of the others, is written in the Dutch language (chaps, vii., xi.). 
 As none of them bear a date, place of printing, or printer's name, we 
 cannot assign them forthwith to any particular town of Holland, nor to 
 any printer, nor to any definite year or period. 
 
 Our books are printed in eight different (Gothic) types * 
 (chap, vii.), of which i. and ii. belong together, because they are found 
 in one and the same book ; iii., iv., v. and vi. also belong together, but we 
 cannot as yet prove that these are inseparably connected with i. and ii., 
 
 * Fao-similes of them all are found in Holtrop's Monuments ty;pogr. des 
 Pays-Bas. 
 
70 
 
 though the family-likeness between them is so striking that we could 
 not separate them without further evidence ; and vii. and viii. we 
 link on to the types i.-vi., for the same reason that we link the latter 
 types together. 
 
 As regards the date to be assigned to the books, when we take them 
 up one after the other, without comparing them together, or with any of 
 the other incunabula, we feel, at first sight, inclined to assign some of 
 them provisionally to the rather conventional date 1470, and some to 
 the rather conventional dates cinrt 1472 or 1473. But it strikes us that 
 we cannot place any one of them later than the year 1474, as they are 
 all, not one excepted, without signatm'es, without initial directors, 
 without hyphens, without catchwords ; in short, without any of those 
 characteristics which we see gradually, one after the other, come into 
 almost general use from 1473 (if not earlier) to 1480. We even find 
 (chap. X., xi.) that four editions of one and the same book (the Speculum) 
 are wholly printed on one side (anopisthographic) only, partly as a 
 blockbook, and partly with movable metal types, which is a unique 
 feature in the whole annals of printing, and certainly not easily 
 explainable after 1470. And as regards the lines — the even or unevenness 
 of which is, in many cases, a sure guide in the dating of books — we find 
 that in some of our works in types iv., v., vii., they show a tendency to 
 be even (though not always), whereas in the others they are uneven. So 
 that, if we sub-divide the books into groups, according to their types 
 and workmanship, the books in types iv., v., vii., show a certain advance 
 over those in types i., ii., iii., vi., viii., which compels us to put the 
 latter group in an earlier period than the former. 
 
 Examining further, we notice that 4 of the books in types iv. 
 and V. (the later group) must have been printed after 1458, as' they 
 bear the name of Pope Pius II. (chap. xii.). On the other hand, type v. 
 must have existed before September 13, 1474, as a copy of one of the 
 books in that type was bought by an abbat who was abbat only from 
 (the end of) 1471 till September 13, 1474 (chap. xii.). We observe, 
 moreover, that one of the works in type v. commences on the verso of 
 the last leaf of another book (Ludovkus Fontanvs) in type iv. (chap, 
 vii.), which not only connects these two types, but seems to prove (1) 
 that type iv. existed before v. was used (before September 13, 1474) ; 
 (•2) that, when it was used in this connexion, it was on the point of 
 being discarded. That we have correctly placed type i. earlier than iv. 
 and v., is clear from the fact that fragments of a Doiuitus printed in 
 type i. are used, towards the end of 1473, as binder's waste, in the 
 binding of a Haarlem register or account-book for 1474 (chap, viii.) — - 
 a fact which naturally suggests a much earher existence of that type 
 than 1473. 
 
 Well, then, seeing that, on bibhographical grounds, we cannot place 
 any of the books later than 1474 (or, if any, only a few in types v. and 
 vii.), and that certain circumstances suggest an earlier existence of, at 
 least, two of the types (i. and iv.), we are at once confronted with the 
 fact that we have to deal, not witli forty-seven different works, but only 
 with tivelve different works, and that our number of forty-seven books, 
 or volumes, consists of several different editions of four or five of these 
 works. For instance, we have four editions of the Speculum, twenty 
 editions of the Donatus, eight of the Doctrinale, &c. (chap. vii.). Now, 
 if our group or groups of books consisted of forty-seven different works, 
 
71 
 
 we might suppose them to have been set up the one immediately after 
 the other, so that an active printer might have issued them all in two 
 or three, or four years, as the books are not voluminous. But editions 
 of one and the same work, totally different (not in text, but in the 
 setting up), suggest intervals between each successive edition ; intervals 
 of tcaitinfi till the copies of the previous edition are sold. We have 
 tirentij (!) editions of the Donatvs. How long an interval shall we 
 place between each of them .^ Half a year ? We then get ten years for 
 the successive issue of our twenty editions, that is to say, a period from 
 about 1464 to 1474-. Even such a period (based on a too modest 
 calculation) would entirely alter the history of the introduction of 
 printing into the Xetherlands, as it is propounded to us by the opponents 
 of the Haarlem claims. But an interval of half a year between each 
 edition seems rather short for that period. The Donatus was, indeed, a 
 popular school book, and may, therefore, be considered to have been 
 much in demand ; but, on the other hand, the students of the Latin 
 language could not have been numerous, and, no doubt, a good many 
 manuscript copies were still being prepared by the side of the printed 
 copies. So, for instance, the three hundred copies of the Donatus, 
 which Sweynheym and Pannarts printed at Subiaco, though they 
 all apjjear to have been used up, seem to have been quite sufficient for 
 the printers' purpose, as we do not find that they printed any more. 
 Of the Donatus in the thirty-six line Bible type, attributed to 
 Gutenberg, three editions seem to have been sufficient. Of the 
 Schoeffer Doncifuscs we know no more than four editions. Would it, 
 then, be um-easonable to suppose that om' Dutch printer printed a small 
 number of copies of his first and second, but gradually more of his later 
 editions, and that, in this way, we might, on an average, allow an 
 interval of about eighteen months between each edition ? This would 
 give us about thirty years for the successive issue of the nineteen 
 editions, that is from circa 1445 to 1474. 
 
 It is, of com'se, possible to argue that, although types i. and ii. 
 belong together, and also types iii., iv., v. and vi., it is as yet not proved 
 that those two groups of types were both used in the same office, and that 
 a similar objection may be made as regards types vii. and viii., between 
 neither of which any connexion, except that of a family -likeness, has ever 
 been established. So that, if we spHt up the one group of eight types 
 into four groups, and suppose that each group belonged to a different 
 printer, the twenty editions of the Donatus might all be supposed to have 
 been printed in the space of a few years. It might even be supposed 
 that the founders of the different types transferred some of their stock 
 to other persons to enable them to print Donatuses. This last supposition 
 may be met at once by the fact that the earUest printers only manufac- 
 tured a small quantity of type, and that there is no trace anywhere, so 
 far as we know, of the existence, at such an early period, of any large 
 stock of type from which portions could be transferred. Nor do we hear 
 of such transfers before about 1480, except the two supposed transfers of 
 Gutenberg to Pfister and Bechtermiincze ; and these are both so doubt- 
 ful, that we had better build no speculations upon them. And, as regards 
 disconnecting types i. and ii. from iii., iv., v., and vi., and the latter in 
 their turn from vii. and viii., and the latter again from each other, it is 
 possible. It would even be quite in accordance with what I have said 
 myself in my work Gutenlerg: Was he the Inventor of Printing? (p. 166) 
 
namely, that " in dealing with anonymously printed books we must 
 arrange them according to their type, and if two books are printed in 
 different types, and we have no evidence to show that they are printed 
 by one and the same printer, it becomes necessary to ascribe them to 
 different printers." But when I said this I was specially referring to 
 the types of the thirty-line and thirty-one line Indulgences of 1454, 
 between which there is no such family-likeness as we observe in those of 
 the Costeriana. This likeness and similarity is so great that Jlr. Holtrop 
 at one time actuaUy thought that types ii. and iii. were identical, in 
 which case types i. to vi. would actuaUy be inseparable ; but later on 
 (in his Monuments, p. 29) he considered them to be different. And 
 Mr. Bradshaw found this hkeness so striking that he, too, was of opinion 
 that the eight types should be kept together. But even if we assume 
 four different printers instead of one, we should still retain six editions 
 of the Donatus in type i., and of one of them fragments were used 
 as binder's waste at the end of 147;), while in type v. (which was in 
 existence before September 13, 1474) we have also six editions of the 
 same work, while there are four editions in type iv., which must be 
 assumed to have existed and perhaps to have been used up before type v. 
 began to be employed. So that the net result of all these speculations 
 would be the establishment of at least four new early printers in the 
 Netherlands, all working a considerable time before 1474, and none 
 of them leaving a trace of their existence behind. Such a supposition 
 is possible of one, perhaps of two, but hardly of four or more printers. 
 So that after all it seems better to keep the eight types together and see 
 how the dates 1446 to 1474 will work. 
 
 At this point we think it useful to compare our forty-seven 
 incunal)ula with some of the earhest books printed in the Low 
 Countries, at Utrecht, Louvain, &c. (circa 147o-14.so), and wo find 
 that the latter have nothing in common with them, either in workman- 
 ship or in type, but, on the other hand, the types of our forty-seven 
 books remind us, in every respect, of the earlier period of the Dutch 
 blockbooks and manuscripts (chap. xiv.). 
 
 We also find that they are all, so far as we know, without any colo- 
 jihon, which would be incompatible with a period after 1471, but not 
 Mith the earher period of the blockbooks and JMSS. (chap. xiv.). 
 
 We see, moreover, that out of the forty-seven books, no less than 
 thirty-five are printed on vellum, which is incompatible with a period 
 after 1471, but not with the earlier period of the blockbooks and MSS. 
 (chap. xiv.). It is true we hesitate for a moment to turn this vellum 
 printing into evidence for an early period, because A\'e observe that 
 nearly all the later editions of the Bonatuf; are hkewise printed on 
 vellum, even so late as 1500, and perhaps later, so that it loolcs as if 
 there existed an idea of having this and similar schoolbooks printed 
 on stronger material than paper. This idea, however, seems to have 
 already existed before or about 1456, as the six or seven early Mentz 
 Donah/sen that we know of are also printed on vellum. But, of course, 
 the idea, if it did exist before or about 14 5G, m&j just as well be sup- 
 posed to have entered the mind of another, of a still earlier printer, who 
 commenced, perhaps, in 1445 and left off in 1471. In such a case we 
 may assume, not only that this earlier printer commenced to print on 
 vellum, because he was more acciistomed to it than to paper, but that 
 he continued to print on it by way of custom or tradition, and that 
 
73 
 
 other iirintf TH can^lit dia bahit or casl/jm from him, or from seeing his 
 [lioducts. But if wc place this printer with all his vellum Domi.tiiHcs, 
 /Jorliiri.ulea, and other products, say, in the quinquennium 1470-1475, 
 tlje-re would e^'idently he a break in the vellum printin;^ from 14oG to 
 1 170, as during that period printing on ^x'/y^v was v.irijyuml. whereser 
 priritirjj.^ had been introduced, and even hoiiatvMH hiegan to appear 
 printed on paper. Arid wha.t is still more remarkable, there would 
 actually Ije an almost complete break in iha jirodudioa of these school- 
 books from 1450 to 1(70. For, wher<:a^, from about 1450 C^) till about 
 ] I5(; we see at least seven editions of the JJonaius appear at Mentz, 
 tbere are very few editions of that schoolbook which we could place 
 between 1 foO and 1470, if we assigned all the Dutch DoaniamH to the 
 years 1471-1 171. On the otlier hand, if we jjlace the Dutch editions 
 in the latter period, we should witness, from 1471 to 11-74, a perfect 
 inundation of hhnaluv-j-i and Dodrinalcs. »So that, after all, this almost 
 exclusive vellum jjrinting of schoolbooks seems more compatible with a 
 gradual production during a reasonable period before 1474, than with a 
 hurried and overloaded production between 1471 and 1474. 
 
 Xor do we find anything in the woodcuts of the Speculum 
 inconsistent with the early period in which these books mu.st be placed on 
 afxxjunt of the anopisthographic mode of their printing (chap, x., xi., xiv.). 
 
 l''inally, we compare our forty-seven Dutch with some early 
 'nn'inan ineunabula, by preference the earliest of Mentz, to ascertain 
 whether the workmanship in the two groups of books forbids us to place 
 the former in the same or in an earlier period than the Oerjnan books. 
 But we can see no reason (chap, xii.) why, for instance, the LuvrfntiiiH 
 Vull/i, in type iii., should not be placed in point of time by the side of 
 the Callwlifon of 1 100, or why the four editions of the Sjiecuhrni should 
 not be pkced a few years earlier than 1454-1460 (the sexennium of the 
 Mentz Indulgences of 1451, the Psalters of 1457 and 145!) and the 
 (JiiJIiolicoii, of 14 (JO J ; nor why some of the Dutch JJonatuMH should not 
 he placed a few years earlier than the Gutenberg and Schoeffer JJouaivHea. 
 Vov, Wit only have we learned that from at least 1454, when the first 
 jirliikil Asia makes its appearance, till about 1177, all printers followed 
 one universal jilan of jirinting, that is, they simply imitated the ilSS. of 
 their time, so tliat there is scarcely any difference in the mode of 
 printing books, and, therefore, hardly any difference in their look (chap, 
 vi.) ; hut we have seen that through this unaltered, and therefore 
 uncertain and deceptive look, books have often been placed fifty, forty, 
 thirty, twenty, or ten years backwards or forwards, in accordance with 
 fresh evidence oi- new opinions (chap, vi., ix.j. 
 
 i laving now examined and weighed, as bibliogi-ajihers, all the 
 internal and external features of our Dutch incunabula, and every 
 positive and negative argument that we can advance ourselves, or find 
 advanced by others, for or against the period 1440 to 1474, and finding 
 nothing against, hut everything in favour of it, we turn to history in 
 order to ascei'tain what has been said about the invention of printing. 
 Here we are at once reminded (1) of the testimony in the Golofjm 
 (!li,ioiii.rlf; of ^\'y^ (=^Ulrich Zell) which declares, ■ not only that the 
 boiinliiHf.H printed in Ifollaml were printed before there was any printing 
 at Mentz, where it did not commence till 1450, but also that these 
 JJowitutifiH served as models {\h(i first firefujuraVmii, the heijiiinimj) for the 
 printing at Mentz (chap, xiii., xv.) — a testimony which is all the stronger 
 
74 
 
 because it is evidently a contradiction of the tradition or rumour tliat 
 Gutenberg invented printing at Mentz. (2) Of the passage in the 
 Batavia of Hadrianus Junius, claiming, very circumstantially, and 
 independently of the Cologne Chronicle, the honour of the invention of 
 printing for Laurens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem (chap, ii., xiii., xv., 
 xvi.), and basing this claim not merely upon the tradition which lived 
 in Junius's time (1568) among the inhabitants of the town, but upon 
 the Speculum (the four editions of which we could not possibly place in 
 the decennium 1470-1480) and the DoctrinaJe, both printed in the 
 identical types which were employed for at least six of our earliest 
 Donatuses which we may fit into Zell's accomit (chap. xv.). This 
 account of Junius we find indirectly confirmed by the finding at 
 Haarlem, five times over, and oftener, of fragments of our books (ch. viii.), 
 and even several leaves and smaller fragments, which had been used as 
 Ijinder's waste by Cornelis, the bookbinder {see p. 27, No. 8), the very man 
 whom Junius alleges to have been the servant of the inventor. We find 
 it also indirectly confirmed by the similarity between the writing which 
 we find in the Haarlem Registers of the period 1440 to 1446 (chap. xiv.). 
 And though we cannot as yet accept Junius's year, 1440, as that in which 
 the invention of printing was made, much less his year (1442) as that of 
 the transference of printing to Mentz (through Coster's types), we must 
 not pin an author of the sixteenth century strictly to all his dates, even 
 if we were sure that the text of the Batavia were correct as it stands. 
 But we find that we cannot be so sure of this point. On the contrary, the 
 date of Junius's preface (1575) and the 128 years of his text suggest 
 144() as the date of the invention, and 1442 in the text might be an 
 error for 1452 (ch. xvi.). Knowing, however, that most of his genea- 
 logical and bibliographical particulars are correct, we are content to leave 
 some doubtful points till we have a trustworthy account of all that bears 
 on the subject. We are further reminded (3) of the assertions of Van 
 Zuren and Coornhert, both living at Haarlem about 1561, and speaking 
 publicly of the prevalence at Haarlem of the traditions of the Haarlem 
 invention. (4) Of a pedigree, said to be of about 1520, of the reputed 
 Haarlem inventor's family, on which it is asserted that " Coster brought 
 the first print into the world in 1446 " (chap. x^-i.). (5) Of two MS. 
 entries of an Abbat of Cambray that in 1446 (therefore, before there was 
 admittedly any printing at Mentz) and 1451, he bought printed * copies 
 of the Doctrinale, of which we have also eight editions (the interval 
 between each being no doubt greater than that between the BonatuscK, 
 as it was neither such a small, nor such a popular, book) printed in 
 Holland, threef of them printed in the identical types of the earliest 
 Bonatuses (which we may fit into Zell's account), and of the Speculum 
 on which Junius bases his assertion. 
 
 * The term ia, as we know, f/rfte en molle, or jrttc: en mollr, and the phrase 
 is, as Bernard (Or/f/Zwr i. 97 sqq.) shows, by at'least eight examples, applied 
 from 1474 to 1593 to typographically printed books ; while he adds that he could 
 multiply his examples without end, the term being used in the north and south 
 of France till the present time. It seems quite plain that the abbat is speaking 
 of a new, not generally known, mode of manufacturing books. But in 1446 or 
 1451 neither mannsoript books nor blockbooks were unknown or new ; therefore, 
 it seems natural to apply the abbat's term to the new mode of printing. 
 
 t If Junius is correct, one, at least, of these editions must have been printed 
 at Mentz, but with the types stolen from Coster. 
 
75 
 
 At ttis point we examine the claims of Gutenberg and of Mentz 
 (chap, xvii.), and find that the assertion of an invention of printing 
 there about 1450 is rather contradicted by the perfection in which the 
 art makes its appearance there all at once in 1454-. ^Ye see further that 
 none of the testimonies which speak of such an invention at Mentz are 
 earher than 1468, that is to say, the tradition of an invention of 
 printing, in Germany or at Mentz, does not spring into life till fourteen 
 years after the greatest pubhcity had been given to the existence of the 
 art of printing at Mentz. These testimonies, moreover, are mere pieces 
 of gossip or rumours, all of which we can trace to Gutenberg 
 himself (or to the St. Victor monastery, of which he was a lay- 
 member), and to two of his relatives, and in no case are they based, 
 like the Holland and Haarlem claims, on distinctly and especially 
 named books. They come to us, in the first instance, not from Mentz, 
 nor from Germany, but in an offhand and suspicious way from Italy 
 and France, and only much later do we find definite statements 
 made in Germany itself ; whereas, on the other hand, Gutenberg 
 himself and all those at Mentz or in its neighbourhood — who ought to 
 have known, and ought to and would have spoken, if an invention had 
 taken place there — preserve, during the first fourteen years of printing 
 at Mentz, the strictest silence in public, and seem to know nothing about 
 it, though some of those men (even Gutenberg himself) speak of the art 
 of printing with consummate minuteness, and mention everything except 
 the one thing needful, namely that the art of printing had been invented 
 by Gutenberg or at Mentz. Under these circumstances we could hardly 
 infer from this silence at Mentz and in Germany anything but that the 
 invention was not made there. 
 
 Seeing then that there is absolutely no foundation for the claims of 
 Gutenberg and Mentz to the honour of the invention, except such a one 
 as would have to be rejected, even if we had never heard of any other 
 claims, we turn again to the Dutch books. We make a last inquiry to 
 see whether they might not, for some reason or another, be ascribed to 
 another town of Holland than Haarlem, or to another printer. For we 
 have during the last fifty* years heard of Utrecht (ch. viii.) as the place 
 where they might have Ijeen printed. But the fact, that twice or three 
 times fragments of Costeriana have lately been found there, is certainly 
 out-weighed by the finding several times over of fragments at Haarlem. 
 And the circumstance that the blocks of the Speculum were used, cut 
 asunder, at Utrecht in 1481 and 1483, is hardly evidence for the 
 printer of the Speculum having resided in that place. But if, for this 
 reason, we were to place the printer there, we should have to re-arrange 
 a good many other incunabula, among others those^ ascribed to Guten- 
 berg, which would all have to be taken away from him (p. 35). 
 
 Therefore, finding that the testimonies — the independent testimo- 
 nies — of the Cologne Chronicle, Junius, &c., point to the Donatuses, 
 tSpecvla, DoctrinciJes, which we have examined above, as the first books 
 ever printed, and that these books in their turn bibliographically 
 agree with the testimonies and the dates mentioned in them, and that 
 no other town nor any other printer ever laid claim to these books — ■ 
 we have hardly any choice but to ascribe, till the contrary has been 
 
 * Wetter already suggested tJtreolit as the place wliere the Coster iaria might 
 have been printed in his Gescliichte der Erfindung. 
 
76 
 
 proved, the honour of the invention of printing, with movable types, 
 to Lourens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem, fixing the date provisionally 
 not later than 1446 (the end of 1445). 
 
 Suppose now that we, for one reason or another, assume that 
 G-utenberg invented priuting with movable types at Mentz, we should at 
 once feel puzzled what books to ascribe to him, for none bear his name ; 
 and those that are usually attributed to him (as the thirty-one hue 
 Indulgence of 1454, the thirty-six hne Bible, &c., and three or four 
 Donatiises) we should, in grouping the German incunabula, place 
 with those of Albreoht Pfister at Bamberg, who printed with these types 
 in 1461 (chap. vi.). But on further consideration, seeing that the date 
 (1454) of the Indulgence is rather early for Bamberg printing, and 
 that the small brief type in the Indulgence was never used by Pfister, 
 we feel inclined to think that perhaps Gutenberg may have printed the 
 earliest works ascribed to him, and have afterwards transferred his type 
 to Albrecht Pfister. And though this would be entirely against all that 
 we see happen from 1454 till 1477 (chap, vi.), we assume its possibility, 
 otherwise there would be no books at all that could be apportioned to 
 Gutenberg, for the thirty-line Indulgence of 1454, and the forty-two 
 line Bible (Mazarine Bible), must be put down to Peter Schoeffer,* 
 while all the other books, as the Oatholicon of 1460, &c., ascribed to 
 Gutenberg, are too late to serve as a basis for a claim to the honour of 
 the invention of printing. 
 
 Suppose, then, that the early Mentz books must be arranged as in 
 my work on Gutenberg (p. 150 sqq.), we are again puzzled at the perfec- 
 tion in which printing appears at Mentz the moment that we hear of it 
 (chap. XV.). "Well, it is said, the experiments of the inventor may not 
 have resulted in anything worth preserving, or, if they had any pi-actical 
 results, these may not have come down to us. Or it is said that the 
 Donatuses known to be printed in the thirty-six line Bible type (chap. xii. ; 
 see also pp. 59 to 61) are Gutenberg's first-fruits. t 
 
 When these answers have removed to some extent our doubts, we 
 are again at our wit's end how to explain the profound silence preserved, 
 for at least fourteen years (1454-1468), by every one at Mentz and in 
 Germany about an inventor, the invention itself, and the place of 
 invention, though elaborate attempts were made during that very same 
 period to proclaim loudly and publicly that some new mode of printing, 
 some by-invention, had come into existence and was actually employed 
 at Mentz to produce books. There is not, therefore, as we are so often 
 told-, any secrecy about the art of printing itself, but that it was 
 invented at Mentz, and that a German invented it, is carefully concealed. 
 And even Gutenberg himself preserves this inexplicable silence on two 
 occasions (the lawsuit of 1455, and the CathoUcon of 1460), when he, 
 
 * /SVy! my work : (futenberij : Was he the Inventor of Prititinrj ? \>. VM xqq. 
 
 f It is rather dangerous to base Gutenberg's claim, as Dr. Van der Linde 
 does {(fesohielite, 813), on one or two Doniitiixcx in the thirty-six line Bible type, 
 and to place these about 1418-1J:50, and at the very same time to relegate another 
 set of the same sohoolbools printed in Holland, and showing decidedly the same 
 primitive workmanship as the Mentz Thuiiituscs, to the decennium 1-17()-1180. It 
 is true, the Dimatus fao-similed in Dr. Van der Linde's last book has, if possible, 
 more uneven lines than any of the Dutch Donatvsvs ; but everyone must see 
 that this merely arises from the largei' and broader size of the tiipra of the Mentz 
 Donain.i, and is not due to any greater degree of skill or incompetence on the 
 part of the printer. 
 
77 
 
 if he had been an inventor, ought to have spoken (chap. xvii.). Well, it 
 is said, Gutenberg was robbed of all that he had made and done to put 
 his new art into execution, and remained, moreover, heavily indebted to 
 those who had so robbed him ; so that his own interest forbade him to 
 say anything not only in 1455, but when he published a large folio 
 volume (in 1460), mth all the details of the new art carefully described; 
 for, if he had said anything his copies would at once have been seized, 
 and his printing office too. We are told, moreover, that all those loud 
 and public proclamations about the new art, omitting all details about 
 the inventor, &c., were issued by the inventor's enemies, whose interest 
 it was to omit such details ; and that, at any rate, Schoeffer (Gutenberg's 
 enemy) speaks (in 14(]8) of Johan (Gutenberg) as one of the pvtho- 
 caragmatici librorum of Mentz. 
 
 These explanations, however, are lame and unsatisfactory in every 
 respect (chap, xvii.) ; and so we ask whether this silence is not much 
 better accounted for by what the Cologne. Ghronide of 1499 says, liy the 
 mouth of Ulrich Zell (the famous Cologne printer, and a disciple of the 
 early Mentz school) : namely, that the Donatuses, printed in Holland 
 before there was any printing done in Mentz, were the models, the 
 lieglnning of the Mentz printing, and that all that the latter town could 
 lay claim to was that it had 2)erfeded the art of printing ? Oh no, it is 
 said, ZeU has altogether been mistaken ; he meant xylogrcqiliicaUg printed 
 Donatuses (chap, xiii., xv.), and even these were not printed in Holland, 
 but in Flanders (chap. xv.). Or, if Zell meant typofirajiliiralU/ printed 
 Donatuses, and if he did mean Holland, he was an enemy of Gutenberg 
 (chap. XV.), and, therefore, invented this story in order to injure his 
 reputation. 
 
 We now begin to smile, for the very persons who charge Zell, in 
 this particular case, with gross inaccuracy or ignorance, and even with 
 dehberate falsehood, simply for the sake of venting his supposed spite 
 against Gutenberg, tell us, in another place, that Zell is such a high 
 authority on all matters connected with printing that, for instance, his 
 testimony as to the date of Mentz printing (1450) must be accepted as 
 Gospel-truth. Thereupon people tell us that Zell did not suggest the 
 passage about the Dutch Donatuses, forgetting at the same time that if 
 Zell did not suggest it, somebody else must have done it, for it is printed 
 in the Cologne Chronicle, and it could hardly be fathered on the compiler 
 of the Chronicle, as he himself says that he had his account from ZeU. 
 
 We then ask further what is to be done with the genuine entries in 
 the Diary of the Abbat of Cambray, from which it appears that he, in 
 144G and 1451, bought copies of the Doctrinale which were printed 
 ti/pographicallg (jette en moJle)? Are we not to apply those entries to 
 the Doctrinales printed in Holland ? There was admittedly no printing 
 at Mentz so early as 1446, and there exist admittedly no Doctrinales to 
 which the entries could refer, except those printed in Holland in the 
 same types as the Donatuses of which we have spoken before. Oh, it is 
 answered, the Doctrinales which the Abbat of Cambray bought were 
 not printed typographically but from wooden blocks (xylographically). 
 But, we rejoin, the phrase " jette en molle " is exclusively applied, from 
 1474 till the present day, to typographically printed books. The reply is 
 that in the one case of the Abbat of Cambray it must refer to xylography, 
 and that afterwards this technical plirase was transferred to the language 
 of typography. We ask again whether xylographic Doctrinales have ever 
 
78 
 
 been heard of, and whether any such Doctrinales or fragments of them 
 are known to exist. The answer is, No. 
 
 It begins to be clear that these answers are not calculated to establish 
 Gutenberg's case. But we have a few more questions to ask : (1) What 
 is to be done with the account of Hadrianus Junius with respect to 
 the Haarlem claims to the honour of the invention (chap, xiii.-xvi.), 
 which is an independent and a very circumstantial account, every parti- 
 cular of which has been found to be accurate, except the wooden types of 
 the Speculum, the theft of Coster's types and the precise date of the 
 invention, three points as to which we have for the present no adequate 
 information, but which have, as yet, not been proved to be inaccurate. 
 This account, moreover, remarkably agrees with that of Zell, in that it 
 bases the Haarlem claims on two boofa printed in the same types as the 
 Donatuses which we may fit into Zell's account. The answer that we 
 receive is : all that Junius relates is a falsehood, a fiction, a fable, a 
 myth. (2) "What is to be done with the earher allusions of Van Zuren 
 and Coornhert to an invention of printing at Haarlem ? All this is 
 again a fiction, a falsehood. (8) What is to be done with the pedigree 
 of 1520 (chap, xvi.), made for an inhabitant of Haarlem who gloried in 
 being a descendant of Lourens Janszoon Coster, the Haarlem inventor of 
 printing, on which we find inscribed, not bombastic phrases of family 
 pride, but the simple and homely assertion that Lourens Janszoon Coster 
 " brought the first print into the world " ? The answer is : the pedigree 
 is a fabrication, or if it is genuine (and most of its particulars are correct, 
 though one or two we cannot as yet explain), the assertion inscribed on 
 it is a fabrication, a falsehood invented for the sake of exalting the 
 family of Gerrit Thomaszoon for whom it was made. 
 
 We might here again ask why any man should deem it a source of 
 pride to descend from a person " who brought the first print into the 
 world," more especiaUy if the assertion were not true and might easily 
 have been replaced by some more ambitious phrase. But we now know 
 enough. We see that the tradition of Gutenberg being the inventor of 
 printing is not based on any book nor on any trustworthy testimony ; 
 that it can be traced (chap, xvii.), in the first instance, to himself only, 
 or to the talk he, indulged in in the St. Victor Monastery, near Meutz, 
 and to two of his relatives, one of whom does not speak of it before the 
 end of the fifteenth century, nearly thirty years after Gutenberg's death, 
 whereas the other relative (Ivo Wittig) does not say a word about it 
 until 1504. We see also that before 1408 neither Gutenberg himself, 
 nor any of his German or Mentz contemporaries, when they speak 
 in public, seem to know anything about it ; that the earliest assertion 
 (14G8) of an invention of printing in Germany comes to us, not from 
 Germany, but from Italy, and the earliest mention of Gutenberg's name 
 (1472) from France : that the claims of Germany and Gutenberg are 
 contradicted so early as 1499 by a German printer, in a work of consider- 
 able authority, especially in a matter of this kind ; and finally we realise 
 that if the tradition, in spite of all these damaging drawbacks, is to be 
 maintained, it can only be done (1) by applying extraordinary and alto- 
 gether illogical modes of interpretation to the Cologne Chronide, and to 
 the entries of the Abbat of Cambray ; (2) by the violation of all rules 
 of fair and reasonable bibhography, asserting that a set of German 
 books are jirinted about 1454 and earlier, and that another, an entirely 
 similar, or rather more primitive, set of Dutch books are printed about 
 
79 
 
 1471 and later ; (3) by casting wholesale imputations of falsehood, 
 deceit, and bad faith on those who assert or believe that the invention 
 of printing took place at Haarlem. 
 
 On the other hand, the believers in the Haarlem claims need not 
 cast the slightest imputation on those who were the first to think 
 or assert that the invention was made in Germany, or at Mentz, or 
 by Gutenberg ; they need not explain away anything in that tradition ; 
 they need not exert their ingenuity to find plausible explanations for it ; 
 they merely have to trace the Gutenberg tradition or rumour to its 
 origin, and its hoUowness is exposed. At this point they need but gather 
 up all the testimonies in Dutch and German (the Cologne Chronicle) 
 history as to an invention of printing in Holland, and place these testi- 
 monies side by side with the books (the Costeriana) on which these 
 testimonies are based, and they will find that these books perfectly agree, 
 both as regards their internal and external appearance, with the assertion 
 that they are the first fruits of the art of 'priiitimj with movable metal 
 types, and should be dated not later than 144G-]471:. 
 
 It is, of course, quite reasonable to remark how it could be possible 
 that, if the invention of printing had taken place at Haarlem, no one 
 should have heard anything about it. It would be still more reasonable 
 to remark how a printer could have lived at Haarlem, or anywhere else, 
 for nearly forty years, without his becoming known or being mentioned 
 in history, as a printer, in some more authentic way than the reputed 
 Haarlem inventor Laurens Janszoon Coster. But I think that any 
 observation of this kind might first be met by a reference to the absolute 
 silence not only in Germany, but at Mentz itself, as to an invention and 
 an inventor, though there is not only no secrecy there about the art of 
 printing, but the new art is publicly and distinctly advertised. Some 
 bibliographers and authors on the invention of printing, sometimes speak 
 of a desire of the Mentz printers to sell their products as manuscripts. 
 Nothing could be more hopeless than such a suggestion. We know^, in the 
 first place, that printing, or let me say the publication of printed docu- 
 ments and books, could not have commenced at Mentz earlier than 1454, 
 and already so early as 1456, or at least so early as 14 August, 1457, 
 Fust and Schoefifer openly and plainly proclaimed, that thej printed by a 
 "nova ars" and an "adinventio artificiosa imprimendi ac caraderizandi 
 absque calami ulla exaratione." Could a j)lainer statement as to the 
 new books not being manuscripts be made or desired ? But it is just 
 the silence which reigned and continued to reign at Haarlem, that should 
 be regarded as the strongest argument in favom* of this j)lace. In 
 notes, found among Mr. Bradshaw's papers after his death, we read : 
 
 " The anonymous character of the art was not in consequence of any 
 desire for secrecy, but merely a continuation of the habit observable in 
 copying written books — it was thought of greater importance to supply the 
 book than to glorify the producer of it, until the printer's name itself came 
 to have a market value." 
 
 This utterance is remarkable ; it coincides with what I myself have said 
 above (on p. 49 sq.) on the absence of colophons in the Costeriana, without 
 my knowing anything of Mr. Bradshaw's remarks. I do not think that 
 he believed in the Haarlem claims, but there would be no point in the 
 clear words which I ha^-e quoted above, unless ac assiune that printing 
 was done somewhere before it reached Mentz, as we could not, by any 
 possibility, speak of the art being anoni/moi/s at Mentz, 
 
80 
 
 I NDEX. 
 
 Abecedarium (MSS.), 15. 
 
 (Costerian), 32, 36, 51, xiv. 
 
 Academy (Loudon serial), 18, 33. 
 Adinventio, 02. 
 
 Alost, 18. 
 
 Alphabet in figures (block-book), 16. 
 
 Amen Comer, 15. 
 
 Andreas, Johannes, 65. 
 
 Anopistbographio printing, 16, 26, 39 
 
 sqq., 41, 70, 73. 
 Ansicarus (= Gensfleisob), 68. 
 Apocalypse (block-wood), l(i. 
 Aquino, Thomas de, Summa de arti- 
 
 culis fidei, 23. 
 Arabic numerals, 56. 
 Archbishop of Mentz. Scr Mcnfz. 
 Ars memorandi (block-book), 16. 
 Ars moriendi (block-book), 16, 411. 
 Asher & Co., 29. 
 Augsburg, press at, 17. 
 Are Maria Lane, 15. 
 
 Bamberg, press at, 17. 
 
 Basle, press at, 17 ; printers at, 67. 
 
 Batavia by Junius, possible errors in. 
 
 74. 
 Bechtermiinze,N., atEltTille,7, 8; (and 
 
 Henry) 22, 71. 
 Behem, Franz, 68. 
 Berestyn, family of, 32. 
 Bergellanus, Arnold, 6, 68. 
 Berjeau, I., on Biblia Pauperum, 38; 
 
 on Speculum, 43. 
 Berlin, Speculum in Royal Library, 
 
 '2'i ; Mary engraving in Museum 
 
 at, 49. 
 Bernard, Aug., 38, 43, 56, 74. 
 
 De rOrigine de I'lmprimerie, 25, 
 
 32. 
 
 Bernardus, S., Floretus (MSS. of), 15. 
 
 Berona, press at, 17. 
 
 Berthold von Hanau, servant of Gu- 
 tenberg, 67, 68. 
 
 Bessarion, Epistolfe, 2(). 
 
 Bethany, convent of, 16. 
 
 Bible, 36-line, 17, 19, 21, 22, 35, 45, IS, 
 5(1, 00, 01, 7(;. 
 
 (Mazarine) 42-line, 17, 19, 22, 46, 
 
 50, 76. 
 
 of 1400, by Mentelin, 17, 37. 
 
 Biblia Pauperum (block-book), 16, 38, 
 
 49. 
 Binder's waste, at Utrecht, 35 ; 39. 
 Black-letter writing, 15. 
 Blades, William, 2 ; quoted 20, 23, 24, 
 
 38. 
 Block-books, 14, 41, 50, 70, 72 ; often 
 
 printed by private persons, 16, 58 ; 
 
 German and Netherlandish, 16 ; 
 
 various opinions as to their date. 
 
 38 : their peculiarities, 49. 
 Block printing, 15. 
 Bodemann, Incunabeln, 25, 26. 
 Bodmann, his forgeries, 8 {Xote'). 
 Bologna, press at, 17. 
 Bonemontanus, Job., 07, 68. Sec also 
 
 (iiitciiberq. 
 Boner's Edelstein, 17, 21. 
 Book-hand of loth century, 14. 
 Books before 1500, thorough study of, 
 
 69. 
 Bradshaw, Henry, 34, 40, 72. 
 
 and Haarlem Legend, 2. 
 
 on anopisthographic printing, 
 
 40 ; on silence of early printers, 79. 
 
 on Utrecht as birth-place of Oos- 
 
 teriana, 34. 
 
 Briefmalers, 16. 
 
 Briefs, or single sheets, 16. 
 
 British Museum Library, 13, 16, 20 ; 
 Speculum in, 25, 44 ; Douatus in, 
 27, 40 ; Laur. Vallfe FacetiiE, 28 ; 
 Lud. de Koma, 29 ; Saliceto, 29, 
 39, 40 ; Pindarus, 31 ; Donatuses 
 in 36-line Bible type, 45, 46. 
 
 Bruges, Doctrinale bought at, in 1446, 
 46. 
 
 Brunnen, (or Fens) Job., 64, 65. 
 
 Brunswick, 35. 
 
 Brussels, Legend of S. Servatius, in 
 Royal Library , 16; Speculum in do., 
 26 ; a (Costerian) Liturgical book, 
 27, 35, 40. 
 
 Cambray, Abbat of. .sVc Robert (Jean 
 
 le). 
 Campbell, M. F. A. 6., 5, 32, ,34, 51. 
 
 Annales de la Typ. Neerl., 24, 
 
 25, &c., 30, 83, 34, 35, 30 (XotvS, 40, 
 51. 
 
SI 
 
 Cancels, 41. 
 
 Cantioa (Mentz), of 42 lines, 50. 
 
 Canticum Canticorum, 16, 4',). 
 
 Carlsruhe, books at, 67. 
 
 Caroline Minusole, 15, 19. 
 
 Catchwords, 23, 70. 
 
 Catholicon of 1460, 17, 21, 22, 39, 45, 
 
 62, 73, 76, 77 ; Colophon, 62. 
 Cato's Disticha (Costerian), 28, 31. 51. 
 
 Distiohs, MSS. of, 15. 
 
 Caxtou, William, 18, 20, 23, 39 ; his 
 Chess-book, 23. 
 
 Chappe, Paulinus, 35. 
 
 Chaucer quoted for "printe," 16. 
 
 Church-hand of 15th century, 15. 
 
 Cicero's Epistles, 19. 
 
 Cicero Oflfioia of 1472, 20. 
 
 Cisianua, 21. 
 
 Cohn, M., vellum Costeriana, 29. 
 
 Cologne, press at, 17, 54; Costerian 
 Doetrinales at. 28, 31; do. Donatuses, 
 29, 30, 31, 35, 40 ; regarded by Van 
 der Liude as the home of the Cos- 
 teriana, 36 (^Note); Chronicle 1499, 
 testimony of, 13, 47, 52 sqq., 54, 
 55, 59, 73, 75, 77, 78 ; contradictions 
 in, 53. 
 
 Colophons of first printed books, 62. 
 
 absent in Costeriana, 49, 50, 72, 79. 
 
 Conjunctiones soils et luuas of 1457, 21. 
 Conrad du Moulin. See Moulin. 
 Conway, W. M., Woodcutters of the 
 
 Netherlands, 16, 25. 
 
 Coornhert, 74, 78. 
 
 Cornells the bookbinder, waste leaves of, 
 27, 36, 74. 
 
 Coster, Laur Janszoon, 5, 13, 24, 27, 
 33, 34, 38, 51, 56 sqq. ; confused with 
 a person called Laurens Janszoon, 
 12, 58 ; not a, " myth," 57 ; his 
 name in the Haarlem Archives, 
 10 ; his genealogy, 56, 74, 7§ ; as 
 Chandler and Innkeeper, 58 ; his 
 story still believed in, 13 ; argu- 
 ments in favour of his claim, 74 ; 
 his types made in imitation of 
 MSS., 49 ; his claim, 74, 76, 79 ; his 
 types stolen, 74, 78. 
 
 Costeriana, 24 sqq.; dates when printed, 
 37 sqq. ; 44 sqq. ; 70 sqq. ; numerous 
 editions on vellum, 51, 72; were 
 printed not earlier than circa 1446, 
 52-56; but not later than 1474, 
 44 sqq., 48 ; said to be not printed 
 before 1471, 38 ; vellum copy 
 scraped, 30; difficulties in dating 
 them, 44 ; may be ranked with 
 German Incunabula, 52 ; not printed 
 at Utrecht, 33, 34, 49 ; can only be 
 ascribed to Haarlem, 47, 48 ; the 
 peculiarity of their types, 49 ; 
 certainly Dutch, 49 ; without 
 colophons, 49, 50 ; how to be 
 grouped 69 sqq. ; could they be 
 attributed to four different prin- 
 ters, 71 sqq. 
 
 Court hand, 15. 
 
 Cracovia, Matth. de, Traotatus rationis, 
 
 22. 
 Creed Lane, 15. 
 Cremona, press at, 17. 
 Cusa. See Nicnlus. 
 . Cyprus, 17. 
 
 Darmstadt Prognostication, 38. 
 
 Date, first printed date 1454, 17, 73 ; of 
 Costeriana, 44 sqq., 48, 58, 70; 
 assigned to Incunabula, 38. 
 
 Dating books which bear no date, 37. 
 
 Decretals of 1473, 68. 
 
 Delft, 35. 
 
 Deventer, 35. 
 
 Doctrinale, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55, 56, 
 70; bought at Bruges in 1445, 46, 
 47, 56, 74; at Valenciennes in 1451, 
 46, 47, 56, 74 ; jett^ en molle, 77 ; 
 MSS. of, 15 ; early copies (Costerian) 
 of, 28, 30, 31, 33, 74 ; on vellum, 51 ; 
 xylographic, 47, 77. 
 
 Dominicalia, 56. 
 
 Donatus, MSS. of, 15; of 1340 (?), 56; 
 editions printed in Holland, 1.3, 27- 
 33, 36, 37, 39 sqq., 45, 46, 47; (the 
 Coloqne Chronicle on Donatus 
 printed in Holland), 48, 54, 55, 59, 
 60, 61, 70, 72, 73, 74 ; in French, 33 ; 
 twenty editions attributed to Coster, 
 27-33, 70, 71 ; to Gutenberg, 21, 45, 
 50, 52, 54, 71, 72, 76; printed by 
 SchoefEer, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 61, 71, 
 72; on vellum, 51, 72; on paper 
 and vellum, 73 ; at Utrecht, 28 ; 
 xylographic, 53, 55 ; anopistho- 
 graphio, 39, 40, 41 ; a miraculous 
 Donatus, attributed to Gutenberg, 
 60 sq. ; of S weynheym and Pannarts, 
 71. 
 
 Dotendantz (block-book), 16. 
 
 Draoh, Peter, of Spire, 8 {Note"). 
 
 Dutch Spectator, 2 ; typography, 
 block-books and MSS., 49. 
 
 Duverger, — , 60. 
 
 Bltville, press at, 7, 17, 22, 23. 
 BncyclopEedia Britannica, 10. 
 Bnndohrist (block-book), 16, 20. 
 Ennen, L., Katalog der Incunab. zu 
 
 Koln, 25. 
 Bnschede (Costeriana), 27, 28, 32. 
 
 Speculum belonging to, 26. 
 
 Bpistelen ende Bvangelien, in Dutch, 
 
 of 1481, 34. 
 Erfurt, 35. 
 Bsslingen, press at, 17. 
 
 Bacetus, supplement to Cato's Distichs, 
 
 15, 
 Berrara, press at, 1 7. 
 Fichet, Gul., his Ehetorica, 20; his 
 
 letter of 1472, 66, 67. 68. 
 Flanders, 52. 
 
82 
 
 Florence, Pitti Library, Speculum in, 
 
 26 ; press at 17. 
 Poligno, press at, 17. 
 Fons, Jolm. See Brunnen. 
 Formsclineider, 16. 
 Fragments of Costeriana from old 
 
 bindings, 36. 
 Frankfurt, 17, 35. 
 Freiburg, Mentelin's Bible of 1460 at, 
 
 17. 
 Frenob. writing, 19 ; testimony about 
 
 the invention, 66, 75, 78. 
 Friedberg, P., 68. 
 Fust, Johann, 65, 67, 68; Ms lawsuit 
 
 with. Gutenberg, 59-61; lends 
 
 money to Gutenberg, 60, 61. 
 and SohoefEer, 17 ; their colophons, 
 
 61, 62. 
 
 Gaguin, Eob., 67. 
 
 Gallus, Alex. See Boetrinale. 
 
 Gasparinus Pergamensis, Liber Epis- 
 tolarum of li70, 23 ; Orthographia, 
 67. 
 
 Gelthus, Adam, 68, 78. 
 
 Geneva, Speculum in Public Library, 26. 
 
 Geusfleisoh, Joh., 68. 
 
 German writing, 20, 21, 49 ; printers, 23. 
 
 Gette (or jete) en molle, 47, 74, 77. 
 
 Gothic writing, 15, 20; Gothic type, 
 18,20,69. 
 
 Grammatica of 1468 by SchoefEer, 63; 
 its colophon, 64. 
 
 Gutenberg, 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, 21, 53-55, 60, 
 65, 68, 74, 76; a god, 60. 
 
 always quarrelling or borrowing, 
 
 68 ; as a vellum printer, 50 ; Bible 
 and other books attributed to, 21, 
 35, 50; did not reside at Eltville, 
 20; said to have cut the types of 
 the Psalter, 48 ; borrows money 
 from Fust, 61 ; his claims as an 
 inventor, 59-69, 75 ; claims contra- 
 dicted in 1499, 59, 78; never pub- 
 licly claimed to be the inventor, 
 75, 77; Donatus printed by, 45, 46, 
 76 ; consequences of assuming him 
 to be the inventor, 76 ; his lawsuit 
 with Fust, 59, 77; the Darmstadt 
 Prognostication, &c., wrongly attri- 
 buted to, 38 ; his invention a 
 tradition, 75 ; his silence about 
 the invention, (J2 ; mentioned for 
 the first time as " inventor " in 
 1472, 66 sq. ; his invention merely 
 a rumour, 67, and a tradition of the 
 St. Victor Monastery, 67, 68, 78 ; 
 can be traced to Gutenberg himself, 
 " 68, 78 ; is a lay-member of the St. 
 Victor Monastery, near Mentz, 67. 
 
 Haarlem, the tradition of the invention 
 of printing at, 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 33, 
 37 sqq.. 45, 47. 54, 56 sqq., 59, 74, 
 75, 79, 
 
 Haarlem Archives, researches in, 9, 12, 
 13, 49, 57. 
 
 Burial Registers, 11, 57. 
 
 Costeriana found there, 35, 36, 
 
 37, 74, 75. 
 
 supposed Coster forgeries at, 2. 
 
 MSS. just like Coster's types, 49. 
 
 silence about claims of, 79. 
 
 Speculum at, 25, 26; Donatuses 
 
 at, 27, 29, 32 ; Laur. Valise Facetise, 
 28; Abecedarium, 32. 
 
 Town Library at, 28. 
 
 Legend (Dr. Van der Linde's), 2 
 
 sqq., 34. 
 
 Hague, Royal Library at, 10; Dutch 
 version of Penitential Psalms in, 
 27; Donatuses in, 27 sqq. ; Lud. 
 de Roma, 29 ; Pindarus, 31. 
 
 Speculum in the Museum Meer- 
 
 man-Westreenen, 25, 26 ; Pindarus, 
 31. 
 
 Dootrinale ; Laur. Valise Facetise 
 
 (Costerian) at, 28 ; Salioeto, 31. 
 
 Halbergtadt, 35. 
 
 Hanau, Berthold von, 67. 
 
 Hanover, Speculum in Public Library, 
 25, 26 ; Donatuses at, 46. 
 
 Hartwig's Centralblatt, 8 (iVbte). 
 
 Heidelberg Professors, 68. 
 
 Hem, Den, Convent, and the Costeri- 
 ana, 34. 
 
 Herbst, Joh., 67. 
 
 Hessels, J. H., translates " Haarlem 
 Legend," 2 ; reviews Van der Linde's 
 " Gutenberg," 3 ; publishes a reply to 
 ditto, 4 ; references to his " Guten- 
 berg," 22, 23, 38, 45, 46, 64, 71, 76. 
 
 writes for BncyclopEedia Britan- 
 
 nica, 10. 
 
 Hibbert copy of Saliceto, 31. 
 ■Hieronymus. See St. Jerome. 
 Hinsberg, Jean de, 16, 58. 
 Hispanus, Petrus, Summula Logioa 
 
 (MSS. of), 15. 
 Holford,'Mr., 25, 
 Holland, Donatuses &c., printed in, 47, 
 
 59. See also Haarlem. 
 Holtrop, 30, 32, 38, 40, 43, 51, 69. 
 
 catalogue of books at the Hague, 
 
 25 sqq. 
 
 Monuments Typographiques, 25, 
 
 38, 40, 49, 51, 69, 72. 
 
 on types of Costeriana, 72. 
 
 Homeri Yliada, 31. 
 
 Homery, Dr., 62, 63, 68. 
 Humphrey, Noel, 38. 
 Hyphens, 23, 70, 
 
 niados Homerica3 Epitome (Costerian), 
 
 31. 
 Illuminators, 14. 
 
 " Imposition " of Abecedarium, 32, xiv. 
 Incunabula, compared with dated 
 
 books, 72. 
 Dutch and German compared, 73. 
 
 methods of dating, 37, 38, 
 
83 
 
 Indulgence of li54. 30 & 31 line, 
 letters of, 17, 23, 3,"). 39, i5, 50, 72, 
 76; types of, 19, 20. 
 
 of 1461. 22. 
 
 Inglis, J. B., 26. 
 
 Initials, 22, 23 ; initial directors, 70. 
 
 Italian -writing, 20, 21, 49 ; testimony 
 about the invention, 65, 75, 78. 
 
 Janszoon, Laurens, Lourens. Si-e 
 
 Laurens Janszoon. 
 Jaquere, Pfarrer, 28. 
 Jenson, Nic, 23. 
 
 Jerome's. St., BpistolEe of 1468, 65. 
 Jette en molle. Sec gdte. 
 Joannes (two), the prothocaragmatici 
 
 of Mentz, 65, 68, 77. 
 Joannes de Westphalia, 39. 
 John II, King of Cyprus, 85. 
 Junius, Hadxianus, 13, 34, 36, 45, 46, 
 
 47, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 74, 75, 78 ; 
 
 supported by TJlrich Zell, 46, 55 ; 
 
 his account of Coster, 58 ; his 
 
 " Batavia," 5, 9, 57, 74 ; a truthful 
 
 story, 47, 48 ; his supposed errors, 
 
 52, 53, 74. 
 Justinianus (Institutiones) of 24th May 
 
 1468, 65, 68 ; of 23rd May, 1476, 
 
 68; of 1472, 68. 
 Justinianus (Codex), 7 (^Xote). 
 
 Kalendar for 1457, 17. 
 
 Ketelaer and De Leempt, 23, 39, 48. 
 
 Koning (Jacobus), his work on the 
 Haarlem invention of printing, 9, 
 10 ; his MS. note-book at the 
 Hague, 10 ; his books worthless, 57. 
 
 Lactantius of 1465, 19. 
 
 Laurens Janszoon (not to be confused 
 with Laurens Janszoon Custer, q.r.}, 
 10, 11, 12, 57, 58. 
 
 Laurentius V'alla Facetise (Costerian), 
 28, 73. 
 
 Lawsuit, Fust r. Gutenberg, 59. 
 
 Letter-hand in 15th century, 15. 
 
 Letters of Indulgence. See Indulgence. 
 
 Libri Copy of Saliceto, 31. 
 
 Liege, Bishop of. See Hinsherg, 
 Jean de. 
 
 Lille, Conrad du Moulin, Abbat at, 31, 
 37. 
 
 • Convent of St. James at, 31. 
 
 Speculum at, 26. 
 
 Linde, Dr. Van der, 21 (A'ote), 22, 34, 38. 
 42, 45, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56-62, 64^ 
 67 ; his blunders, 6, 7, 8 ; the " two 
 graves," 11 ; repeats Koning's mis- 
 readings, 10 ; ignorance and want 
 of research, 4, 5 ; a poor "pun," 5 ; 
 his status as an author and biblio- 
 grapher, 1-5; his portrait, 9 ; his 
 list of Costeriana, 24 (Xofe), 45 ; 
 Essay on Mentz Psalter, 9 ; turns 
 his own "suggestions" into facts, 
 36 (Xtrfc) ; is very easy about the 
 
 Speculum, 42 ; his peculiar opinion 
 about the date of the Costeriana, 
 45 ; a fanciful author, 48, 
 
 "Gesohichte der Erfindung," 1 ; 
 
 his "Haarlem Legend," 2; his book 
 on "Gutenberg," 3; on a MS. of 
 Speculum, 35 ; on types, 48 ; cause 
 of his expatriation, 2 ; appointed 
 Librarian at "Wiesbaden, 2. 3. 
 
 Lines, unevenuess of spacing, 22, 70. 
 Liturgical Book (Costerian), 27, 51. 
 Livy, German translation of, of 15U5, 
 
 67. 
 Lottijn, Janszoon (mistaken for Lourijs 
 
 Janszoon), 10. 
 Lourens Janszoon, 10, 11, 58. 
 Ludovicus Pontanus (Costeriana), 29, 
 
 7U. 
 Liibeok, 17, 35. 
 
 Madden, M., 34, 48; his free trans- 
 lation of the Colophon of the 
 Grammatica of 1468, 64. 
 
 Mansion, Colard, 20, 23. 
 
 Mantua, press at, 17. 
 
 " Manung " or Almanac of 1455, 17, 21. 
 
 Manuscripts, various styles of writing 
 in 15th century, 14, 72 ; the hand- 
 writings imitated, 19 sq., 22. 39, 
 49, 72 sq. 
 
 Marienthal, press at, 17. 
 
 Marsilius ab Inghen, 68. 
 
 Martens, Thierry, 23, 39. 
 
 Mary engraving, 49. 
 
 Maturinus, 64. 
 
 Maximilian, Emperor, 67. 
 
 Mazarine Bible, 17. See also Bible of 
 42 lines. 
 
 Meerman's Origines typographioje, 25 
 sqq. 
 
 Mentelin, 23 ; his Bible of 1460, 17. 
 
 Mentz, appearance of printing at, 17, 
 35, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 
 60, 62, 63, 73, 74, 77. 
 
 Archbishop of (Adolf II), 63, 68. 
 
 ■ claims of, 47, 69, 75. 
 
 Incunabula and their date, 44, 45. 
 
 46, 73 ; their workmanship, 73. 
 
 Library, Donatuses in, 46. 
 
 Donatuses, 45, 46, 47. 
 
 lawsuit said to have begun in 
 
 1449, to have ended in 1454, 61. 
 
 merry fraternity, 68. 
 
 printers at, 17. 
 
 Psalter, 9, 61. 
 
 assumed first mention of, in con- 
 nection with the invention of 
 printing, 63. 
 
 silence at, concerning the inven- 
 tion, 59 sqq., 69, 75. 
 
 Mercers' books, 20. 
 Milan, press at, 17. 
 Mone, F. J., Quellensammlung, 67. 
 Monreale, press at, 18. 
 Moulin, Conrad du, Abbat of St. James 
 at Lille, 31, 37. 
 
84 
 
 Movable types, first appearance, 17. 
 Muller, Dr. Sam., 28, 33. 
 
 Naples, press at, 17. 
 
 Netherlands printers before 1474, 72. 
 
 Nicolas V, Pope, 17. 
 
 Nicolas of Cusa, Card., 65. 
 
 Nuremberg, press at, 17. 
 
 Ottley, 26, 43. 
 
 Oxford Library, Speculum in, 25 ; 
 Donatuses in, 30 ; Dootrinale in, 31. 
 
 Padua, press at, 18. 
 
 Paris National Library, books in, 17, 
 
 19, 23. 60 ; Speculum in, 25 ; 
 
 Donatus in do., 27, 28, 29, 30, 40 ; 
 
 Doctrinales, 81 ; Saliceto, 31 ; 
 
 Soboeffer Donatus at, 46. 
 
 first press at, 17, 19, 39. 
 
 Parma, press at, 17. 
 
 Passavant, Le Peintre-Graveur, 16 
 
 Paternoster Row, 15. 
 
 Pavia. press at, 17. 
 
 Pedigree of Coster, 74, 78. 
 
 Pembroke, Library at Wilton, Specu- 
 lum in, 26. 
 
 Petraroha, Franc, de Salibus Virorum 
 illustrium, 28. 
 
 Petrus de Maximo, 66. 
 
 Pfister, Albreoht, at Bamberg, 17, 23, 
 31, 71. 
 
 books attributed to, 21, 22, 35, 76. 
 
 Phil, de Lignamine, Chronicle of, 67. 
 Pindari Thebani Iliados Homerica3 
 
 Epitome, 31. 
 Pius II, Traotatus (Costerian), 29, 31, 
 
 37, 44, 45, 70. 
 Plautin, Christopher, 65. 
 Pomerium Spirituale (Block-book), 16. 
 Pope John XXI, 15. 
 Pope Paul II, 65, 66. 
 Press, first appearance in many towns, 
 
 16, 17. 
 
 Printers, their use of waste sheets, 35, 
 39 ; the habits of first printers, 21 ; 
 types cut to imitate MSS., 18, 78, 
 
 Printing at Mentz, 75; its slow pro- 
 gress, 23, 39 ; used on one side only, 
 41, 42. 
 
 Printing Times and Litlioijraf'her, 34. 
 
 Prognostication of (1460, really) 
 1482, 38. 
 
 "Proto," meaning of, 65. 
 
 Psalter of Mentz, 50 ; colophon to, 
 
 17, 61 ; types of the, 19, 62. 
 
 Quantity of type used by early 
 
 printers, 43. 
 Quires, books printed in, 7. 
 
 R. printer (the), at Strassburg, 38. 
 Reed, J. B., "Old English Letter- 
 founders," 20. 
 Reutlingen, 35. 
 
 Robert, Jean le, Abbat of Cambray, 
 46, 47, 50 iNote), 56, 74, 77, 78. ' 
 
 Roches, Jean des, 56. 
 
 Roma, Ludov. de, Singularia Juris, 
 29 ; a treatise on Canonical Law, 
 29, 33. 
 
 Roman types, 19. 
 
 Rome, press at, 17, 65 sq., 68. 
 
 Ruelens, M., discovery by, 27. 
 
 Saliceto, Guil. de, de Salute corporis, 
 31 ; fragments in the British 
 Museum, 29, 30, 31, 36, 39-41, 50, 
 51. 
 
 Savigliano, press at, 17. 
 
 Schaab, C. A., 5. 
 
 Schedel's (Hartmann) Chronicle, 54. 
 
 Schmidt, Wilh,. 21 (Jfote). 
 
 Schoefeer, Peter, 17, 18, 48, 50, 53, 55. 
 59, 64, 65, 68, 77; the colophons of 
 his " G-rammatica " and other early 
 works, 63 sqq. ; printer of the 
 Mazarine Bible, .46, 76; Donatuses 
 printed by him, 46; his claims to 
 the invention, 67. 
 
 Johan, 67. 
 
 Schum, Wilh., on MSS. of the fifteenth 
 century, 14, 21. 
 
 Scraped Costeriana, 40. 
 
 Seven Penitential Psalms in Dutch, 27, 
 39, 41, 51. 
 
 Servatius, Legend of, 16. 
 
 Sieber, Dr., of Basle, 67. 
 
 Sigillatim, misconception of the word, 
 6. 
 
 Signatures, 23, 70. 
 
 Singularia de causis, 33. 
 
 Sixtus IV, Pope, 20. 
 
 Sorgenloch, Hans Jacob von, 5. 
 
 Sotheby, S., Principia Typogr., 20, 25, 
 43. 
 
 Speculum Humanae Salvationis, 24, 28, 
 33, 34, 37, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 69, 70, 
 73, 74, 78; four editions described, 
 25, 41, 43, 45, 50 ; woodcuts in, 34, 
 51, 73, 75; blocks at Utrecht, 34, 
 75; MS. of, at Utrecht, 35; when 
 printed, 38, 51 ; printed on one side 
 only, S'.l, 41 sqq.; a Dutch work, 49. 
 
 Spencer, Earl, Speculum at Althorp, 
 25, 26; Cato, 28; Ludovicus de 
 Roma, 29 ; Saliceto, 31. 
 
 Spieghel, the Dutch, 69, Sec also 
 8])ecv.lnm. 
 
 Spire, press at, 17. 
 
 Stationarii, 15. 
 
 Strassburg, 35 ; press at, 17 ; earliest 
 date of printing there, 37, 45, 54, 
 63. 
 
 St. Jerome's Epistles of 1468, its 
 colophon, 65 sq. 
 
 St. Victor Monastery near Mentz, 67, 
 75, 78 ; Church of, 68. 
 
 Subiaco, press at, 17, 18, 19, 68. 
 Sweynheym and Pannarts, 19, 20, 23. 
 66, 68. ' > . . 
 
85 
 
 Tcyler's Museum, Haarlem, 32. 
 Thomaszoou, Gerrit, 56, 58, 78. 
 Tiele, Dr. P. A., 29, 33. 
 Trevi, press at, 17. 
 Treviso, press at, 17. 
 Turreoremata de Salute animje, 31. 
 Types, books dealt witli according to 
 their, 72. 
 
 similarity of, 72. 
 
 succession of, as used by earliest 
 
 printers, 19. 
 
 connection of, 70. 
 
 cut by tlie iirst printers in imita- 
 tion of liaudwritings, 18, 19, 20, 73. 
 
 comparison of, 49. 
 
 of tbe Costeriana, 24 sqq., 49, 69 
 
 sq. 
 
 of the Indulgences, 20, 21. 
 
 of Sweynlieym and Pannarts, 18. 
 
 Uden (Costeriana at), 32. 
 
 Unevenness of lines, 22, 70. 
 
 Upriglit book-hand of loth century, 
 
 14. 
 Utrecht Donatus (Costerian), 28. 
 
 character of writing at, 48. 
 
 blocks of Speculum at, 75. 
 
 MSS. not the patterns for Coster's 
 
 types, 49, 
 
 University Library, Costerian In- 
 cunabula in, 29, 33. 
 
 press at, 18 ; not the birth-place 
 
 of the Costeriana, 33-36, 72, 75, 76. 
 
 Valenciennes, Doctrinale bought at, 
 
 in 1451, 46. 
 Van Even, quoted, Ifi. 
 Van der Linde. See Linde. 
 Van Praet, 30, 31. 
 Van Zuren, 74, 78. 
 Veldener uses Speculum cuts, 34. 
 Vellum Costeriana, 30, 31, 32, 40, 50, 
 
 72 sq. 
 
 Vellum Costeriana scraped, 32, 39 sqq. 
 Vellum used also for Mentz Donatuses, 
 
 the Psalter &c., 72. 
 Venice, press at, 17, 54. 
 Verona, press at, 17. 
 Victor, St. See St. Victor. 
 Vienna, Imperial Library at. Speculum 
 
 in, 26. 
 Vooabularius Ex quo, collation of, by 
 
 Van der Linde, 7. 
 Vries, A. de, Lijst der Stnkken, &c., 27, 
 
 36. 
 
 Weale, "W. H. J., on Van der Linde, 8. 
 
 Weidenbach, Convent of, and Costeri- 
 ana, 34. 
 
 Weigel on BibUa Pauperum 38 ; a 
 Donatus in his possession, 40. 
 
 Wernher, Adam, 67. 
 
 Wetter, Kritische Geschiohte, &o., 25. 
 
 Wiesbaden, Library of, 3. 
 
 Wimpheling, Jac, 68. 
 
 Wittig, Ivo, Canon of St. Victor, 67. 
 68, 78. 
 
 Woodcuts printed with text, 42. 
 
 Wooden types of Speculum, 78. 
 
 Wotanberg ^ Gutenberg, 60. 
 
 Wyss, Dr. A., 8 (jYoic)- 
 
 Xylography in 15th century, 14, 15, 17. 
 Xylographic Donatuses, 47, 53, 55, 77. 
 Sylographic Doctrinales, 47, 77 ; 
 
 unknown, 78. 
 Xylographic Speculum, 41. 
 
 Zell, Ulrich, 23, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 
 54, 55, 59, 73, 74, 77, 78; his 
 testimony, 46, 52, 73 ; the Donatuses 
 referred to by him, are said to be 
 xylographic, 77 ; he meant Flanders 
 instead of Holland, 52, 53 ; an 
 enemy of Gutenberg, 53, 55, 77. 
 
BY THE AUTHOR: 
 
 THE HAARLEM LEGEND OF THE INVENTION OF 
 PRINTING BY LOURENS JANSZOON COSTER, critically 
 examined by De. A. Yan dee Linde. Translated from the 
 Dutch by J. H. HESSELS, with an Introduction, and a Classified 
 List of the Costerian Incunabula. London (Blades), 1871. xx^i ; 
 170 pages, 8vo, price 7s. 6d. 
 
 LEX SALICA ; the ten texts with the glosses, and the Lex Emendata. 
 Synoptically edited by J. H. HESSELS. With Notes on the 
 Frankish Words in the Lex SaUca, by Prof. H. Keen, of Leiden. 
 London (John Murray), 1880. xxviii ; 224 pages, 4to, price 42s. 
 
 GUTENBERG: WAS HE THE INVENTOR OF PRINTING? An 
 Historical Investigation by J. H. HESSELS. London (Bern. 
 Quaritch), 1882. xxviii ; 204 pages, 8vo, price 21s. 
 
 ABRAHAMI ORTELII et Virorum eruditorum ad eundem et ad 
 JACOBUM COLIUM ORTELIANUM Epistulse. Ex auto- 
 graphis Ecclesise Londino - Batavae edidit JOANNES HEN- 
 RICUS HESSELS. Cantabrigige, Typis Academise (Sumptibus 
 Ecclesise Londino-Batavse), 1887. Ixxvi ; 966 pages, 4to, price 70s. 
 
'^^%-\^ 
 
 
 HSS^N 
 
 
 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 
 * %?!