The celebrated cause of “Mayence v. Haarlem,” which has occupied more or less the attention of all the literary courts in Europe for the last three centuries, has still to wait for anything like a unanimous verdict. German writers listen with contempt to any argument in favour of Coster’s claims; and, shutting their ears, keep shouting, like the Ephesians of old, “Great is Gutenberg of the Germans.” On the other hand, our Dutch friends hold fast to their “beloved” but shadowy Coster, and, while admitting that Gutenberg’s efforts were successful, raise after him the cry of “Stop thief!” Let me, then, as one who claims neither nationality, suggest that it may be just possible—nay, probable—that the invention was truly but independently made in both countries.

With regard to the claims of Haarlem, it appears to me that Dutch bibliographers place too much reliance upon the external testimony, such as the historical evidence of Junius and the old bookbinder, the occurrence of the name of Coster in old records, old portraits, et hoc genus omne. All these are open to doubt, or even to denial. It is possible that the story of Junius is entirely fictitious: there is certainly no evidence to establish the identity of the Coster who figures in certain contemporary documents with Coster, the asserted inventor of movable types. In fact, the denial of Coster’s very existence may be accepted, even by his friends without any real damage to the claims of Holland, because the internal evidence, as it seems to me, is unassailable. Some one printed those early specimens of the Speculum and Donatus, and printed them with Dutch-cut letters, in the Dutch language, and with a rudeness which no one who had learnt in the far superior school of Gutenberg would have adopted. Whatever his name may have been, the relics of his workmanship remain; so, if only for the sake of precision, let us call him Coster.

One of the earliest towns in the Low Countries to receive the printing-press was Bruges; there is strong evidence that Colard Mansion was at work there so early as 1471-72, and there are so many evidences (slight in themselves, but very convincing to a practical eye) in his earlier books of customs more primitive and technical practices more rude than can be found in any of the productions of the German school of printing, that the careful observer is driven to one of two conclusions. Either the Bruges printer learnt the art in an advanced school, such as that at Cologne, and then, returning to his own town, adopted purposely primitive customs which he had never been taught, returning in after years, by slow degrees, to the advanced stage of his original tuition; or he found the art established already in his own country by the successors of Coster, just emerging from its rude infancy, and ripe for any improvements that might be suggested by the far superior productions of the German school, which by that time had become scattered throughout Europe. I need not state what must be the conclusion, and will here only describe one of the internal evidences which to a practical man will amount to a demonstration that they were two distinct centres from which the art originally spread.

The flat piece of brass called by compositors a “setting-rule” appears to have been unknown to the first printers in both schools, and up to the time of its adoption the lines of type (except in the case of large letters) varied in length like the lines of MSS., because the workman was unable, without frequently breaking the line, to shift the words in order to increase or decrease the normal space between them. But when the “setting-rule” was devised, it so eased the operations of the compositor, and, by making all the lines of an even length, so improved the symmetrical appearance of the pages, that no printer after once trying it ever recurred to the old plan. In 1467 Ulric Zell, of Cologne, was unacquainted with this improvement; but as, out of the numberless works which issued from his press, it is a great rarity to find one with lines of an uneven length, we may safely conclude that he adopted it about 1468-69. Of course all who learnt the art in the Mayence school would adopt it also, as in fact we know they did by their works. But Colard Mansion at Bruges did not until 1478, ten years later; while it took nearly two years more for the improvement to cross the sea to Westminster, where our Caxton⁠[10] adopted it in 1480.

Other peculiarities tending to the same conclusion have convinced me that the school of typography, as shown in the works issued from the Bruges and Westminster presses, was more archaic than, and entirely distinct from, the German school. Whence, then, did Mansion obtain his knowledge of the art? I know not, unless it were from the successors of Coster, who had struggled on through the intervening period, until the superior school of Germany by degrees raised them up to its own level.

Before concluding I will draw attention to a fact which I believe has hitherto received no notice. The type-moulds of Holland, Flanders, and England are alike, but very dissimilar to, and not so complicated as, the moulds used in Germany and France. Here, again, the existence of two schools is suggested to the mind. It would also be well worth noting, before they die out, the various names of tools, trade terms, and customs used by typefounders in the above countries;⁠[11] as I have little doubt that the division into two distinct schools would here be plainly seen, even after the lapse of four centuries.