It has occurred to me that, as a great deal has been written since the year 1870 upon the Origin of Printing, and that as the whole subject is upon a much more definite foundation than it was twenty years ago, it would not be uninteresting to those, whose profession is to deal scientifically with volumes of all ages, to discuss the latest views as to the genesis of the printed book.

Next to religion, there is perhaps no subject that has excited more personal animosity and hatred than this—Who invented movable types? The seeds of the dispute were sown in 1499, nearly 400 years ago, when the celebrated Cologne Chronicle was published, but did not spring into active life until 300 years ago, when in 1588 Junius’s Batavia was issued, thirteen years after the author’s death. There a definite shape to the claims of Coster, of Haarlem, to the invention of printing was given, and from that period onward the question of Coster or Gutenberg has been fiercely debated by the rival factions among the bibliographers and literary antiquarians of Europe.

Passing over the periods of acute warfare, namely, 1740, when Europe celebrated the tercentenary of the invention; 1823, Holland’s mistaken Coster quarcentenary; 1836 and 1840, Germany’s Gutenberg celebrations; at all of which periods Europe was flooded with books and essays, we will review the state of general opinion in 1870, and then show how the fight was renewed in that year, with more fierceness than ever, upon quite new ground, giving a short notice of every work of any importance issued since then, and concluding with a summing up of the present aspect of the question. Pardon me for introducing so warlike a subject into a meeting with aims so peaceful.

The whole question, however, needs no apology for its discussion. It must always command the attention, even the deep interest, of every person who loves literature, and at the same time realises that in England, as in all civilised countries, a power has arisen mightier than Queen, Lords, and Commons, more potent than the pulpit and stronger than the bar—the fourth estate—The Press.

As already noticed, the rival camps are those of Coster and Gutenberg.

In 1870 the Costerians were never stronger, nor were they at all an ignoble band. On their side were Bernard, a host in himself, Ottley, Holtrop, Campbell, Berjeau, Noel Humphreys, myself, and others. They accepted Junius’s account of the Invention of Printing as veritable tradition, even if in some parts inaccurate, and they sided with the Dutch writers Köning, De Vries, and Noordziek, to the extent of believing that Holland was the birth-place of types. Some years, however, before that period, it was known to a few that certain damaging revelations concerning the entries of Coster’s name in the Haarlem Archives were certain sooner or later to be made public: but the many were in the dark, and when, in 1870, Dr. Van der Linde, himself a native of Haarlem, published a masterly series of letters in the Nederlandsche Spectator, in which the documents in favour of Coster were declared to be false, and the arguments in his favour without any historical or bibliographical support, the consternation among Costerians was great; they threw down their arms, and their rout was considered complete and final. Van der Linde was master of the field; his friends exclaimed, “Exeunt Coster, Haarlem, Holland, and all their followers, never to reappear,” and enter triumphantly, with a full brass band and kettle-drum, the statue of Gutenberg, crowned by Dr. Anthon Van der Linde and surrounded by all Germany, crying “Lou is dood! Lou is dood!” (Coster is dead.)

The real good done by Van der Linde in his Haarlem Legend was to draw attention to the frauds of Köning and Dr. Abr. de Vries, who, wishing to support the story of the invention of types as narrated by Junius, quoted the Haarlem Registers in a thoroughly deceptive manner, extracting only what seemed to favour their purpose, and ignoring most important entries which would upset their theories; while, as side supports, some minor forgeries were unscrupulously perpetrated, and issued to the public in a distorted or garbled fashion as pieces of evidence. Starting with this advantage, Van der Linde brought great acuteness and clever ridicule to bear upon all other evidence in favour of Holland, and it must be confessed that for a few years the current of opinion ran all in his favour.

The real harm done by Van der Linde to history and to bibliographical research is that his unequalled powers of argument and of sarcasm have not been used wisely nor fairly. Had he been satisfied with exposing the frauds of the guilty ones, and re-stating the evidence pro et contra, the question might have been debated without acrimony. Instead of this, he has exhausted his vocabulary of abuse indiscriminately upon all supporters of the claims of Holland, who are, according to him, without exception, rogues and liars. He has no medium place for mistaken writers who honestly believe in their erroneous opinions. Especially is he fierce against his own countrymen: the anathemas, the torrent of abuse, and the biting sarcasm which he, a born Dutchman, although now a naturalised German, delights to throw upon them, creates a suspicion that his invectives proceed from some other motive than his love of truth; at the same time their repetition wearies and annoys the reader, who feels that the subject should be treated from a higher standpoint, and in a graver and more judicial manner.

The only rejoinder to Dr. Van der Linde’s articles in the Nederlandsche Spectator worth noticing was a brochure by Dr. P. Van Meurs, who, taking his stand on the Cologne Chronicle of 1499, claimed that as Holland’s all-sufficient evidence. The defence, however, though well argued and well worked out, fell flat upon the minds of people who had just been deluded by writers on their own side; and so then as now Dutch bibliographers seem afraid: they turn their backs to the smiter and open not their mouths.

Very shortly after the appearance of the articles in the Nederlandsche Spectator, they were reprinted, with additions, in an octavo volume, entitled De Haarlemsche Costerlegende, 1870, which in 1871 was translated by Mr. Hessels into English. So impressed was I with the importance of this work, that, at some expense, I printed it, so that English readers might keep abreast with the new learning. This was issued with the title, The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of Printing critically examined.

In 1876 Theodore de Vinne, the well-known printer of New York, published an excellent and comprehensive work, called The Invention of Printing; a collection of facts and opinions, etc. In this book, which has had a large circulation, he adopts all the conclusions of Van der Linde, and, of course, condemns the Costerians and all their works. American writers, however, unless they visit Europe for the purpose, are under a serious disadvantage, as they must depend upon fac-simile plates instead of a personal inspection of the originals.

About this time Mr. Madden, of Versailles, in a series of contributions to the trade organ of the Parisian printers (La Typologie Tucker), wrote some interesting articles on Gutenberg and his successors, which should be read in evidence, and which were reprinted in the volumes entitled Lettres d’un Bibliophile, 1868-1878.

In 1878 Dr. Van der Linde produced a companion volume to his Haarlem Legend. Its title is Gutenberg; Geschichte und Erdichtung aus den Quellen nachgewiesen. There is little that is new in this work except its increased bulk. The story of the legend is retold, and, if possible, with more bad taste than before. Great ability is shown in his treatment of the subject, and the author argues throughout like a clever barrister whose fame and future depended upon success. This book, indeed, may be described as rewarded by the German government, who, impressed with the service rendered by him to the national pride in Gutenberg, appointed Dr. Van der Linde “Oberbibliothekar” of the Royal Library, Wiesbaden. After this we know him no more as Van der Linde, but as Dr. Antonius Von der Linde, more German than the Germans.

We must now enter upon another and the reverse side of the subject. Mr. Hessels, also a native of Haarlem, and equally at home in the English, French, and German languages, is well-known as the author of a remarkable work upon the Lex Salica, for which, in combination with his work on Gutenberg, to be mentioned presently, the University of Cambridge conferred upon him the honorary degree of M.A. His long apprenticeship in palæotypography under the late Mr. Bradshaw, and his studies of the incunabula in the chief libraries of Europe, made him well acquainted with the subject of early printing, and, as already mentioned, he translated the Haarlem Legend into English. In 1879 he undertook to review critically the Gutenberg of Dr. Van der Linde, which had appeared the previous year. He had not read far into the work before he found strong grounds for doubting the good faith of the author, and the result of his labours was not a mere criticism, but a re-statement of the whole Gutenberg question in a work called Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing? 1882. Mr. Hessels declares that Van der Linde is not at all trustworthy; but I had better quote from his preface:—“He takes all his documents at second, third, or fourth hand, rarely telling his readers upon what authority he himself prints any single document; and from not investigating a single point in the whole question, his book presents a more complete chaos on the subject than any of its predecessors” (p. 99).

Mr. Hessels took nearly three years to examine, at their sources in the various cities and towns of Germany, all the documents connected with the history of Gutenberg. It was known already that several falsifications and forgeries had been made by Schœpflin and Bodmann in the Gutenberg interest, and Mr. Hessels goes so far as to say, “In the case of Gutenberg far more forgeries have been perpetrated than in that of the Haarlem inventor.” For instance, the letter of March, 1424, is a forgery; the celebrated breach of promise case between Gutenberg and Anna zu der Iserin Thüre, about which so much romantic nonsense has been written, is a forgery; the relic of Gutenberg’s press, accepted by a good many Germans, is a palpable forgery; the Notarial Act of July, 1453, is a forgery, as is the letter of 1459; so is the MS. rubric of 1463 which mentions Gutenberg, and which Van der Linde accepted. But why go further? The scorn with which these forgeries, and they are now admitted as such by Van der Linde himself, would have been treated had they been made by a Costerian is altogether wanting in Van der Linde’s narrative; and why? because the forgers are Germans, and the forgeries made in the cause of Gutenberg.

The result of Mr. Hessels’ researches was more negative than positive. He says: “I have not found anything which enables me to answer the question, Was Gutenberg the Inventor of Printing? with either a Yes or a No. Of the three principal documents, one is lost entirely, and the other two only preserved in transcripts. In ordinary cases transcripts may be safely relied on, but, considering the extraordinary forgeries and frauds perpetrated on this subject, caution is more than ever necessary. But even if we accept these transcripts, and base ourselves on what we have, I can only see that these documents point to Gutenberg as a printer, but not as the inventor of printing, and that is the main question. The Incunabula, which are usually ascribed to Gutenberg, tell us nothing about him; and what is still more remarkable, they may, with the utmost facility, be ascribed to other printers, and have actually been so ascribed.”

Following the list of books chronologically, it is quite a relief to take up Mr. Conway’s book The Wood-cutters of the Netherlands, issued in 1884. This book has a direct bearing on the early history of printing, not in any way on account of the author’s opinions, for he advances none, but because of the numerous personal observations and facts about the block-books and the earliest typographical wood-cuts, all taken from actual inspection. The work is a storehouse of useful information arranged on a scientific basis for the use of students.

Again we must devote some space to Dr. Van der Linde, who, the German government having consented to bear the cost, issued last year (1886) an enormous work entitled Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst. It is in three large volumes, and is a notable piece of book-making, sheet after sheet being occupied with mere padding. There is nothing except luxurious printing and a lot of unimportant plates to distinguish it from his former work Gutenberg. We need, therefore, notice it no further than to express a strong opinion that the only person in connection with this work to receive praise should be the printer. One of the author’s outcries against Costerians was, that they issued “works of luxury, the mere appearance of which imposed upon the unlearned.” This puts one in mind of the old proverb “Curses often come home to roost.” These “Livres de luxe” of Van der Linde had not been out long before Mr. Hessels began in the Academy a series of letters on the Invention of Printing, with especial reference to the position held by the “Costeriana.” They were continued through the months of April, May, and June of the present year, and deal severely and efficiently with the blunders and erroneous readings of Van der Linde, who, professing to have studied the originals, did no such thing, but depended upon other writers for his quotations. Mr. Hessels enters minutely into the early manufacture of MSS., block-books, and type-books, showing how certain signs prove an earlier or later date. The early works ascribed to Gutenberg are then examined, and most of them attributed to Pfister. He disproves the dates 1471-74 as the period when the “Costeriana” were printed, and shows how very out of place, typographically speaking, these “Costeriana” would be at so late a period, and urging with a great show of likelihood that 1446-74 would be a period much more in consonance with their typographical aspect. Several reasons are adduced for attributing to Haarlem the earliest attempts at types.⁠[13]⁠

Turning now from the heated controversy of opposing authors, let us honestly and seriously consider the facts, so far as we can get at them, which are adduced by each side, and weigh their evidence.

Omitting all reference to documents connected with Gutenberg which bear only upon his personal history, and have nothing to do with typography, the first we find is a lawsuit, in 1439, between Geo. Dritzehen and Gutenberg. The authenticity of this document is doubtful. Schœpflin, who forged two or three other documents, was the first to publish this, and it was partly seen by De Laborde. Dr. Dibdin, who, about 1820, saw one of the three volumes which contained them, doubted their genuineness, and all chance of verifying them is now gone, for in the siege of Strasbourg two of the volumes were burnt, one having been already destroyed in 1793 during the French Revolution. The suit was to define the rights of partnership in a certain business: polished stones are mentioned; secret arts known to Gutenberg; implements; four pieces laying down in a press; while one witness speaks of work connected with “printing,” and another of polishing mirrors. This seems to point to trials at some kind of printing, though the evidence of a witness that the partnership had been profitable points strongly the other way. Printing from blocks was, of course, known before 1443; but our question is as to printing with movable types, about which the document says nothing. Again, in 1455, we find Fust, who had lent money to Gutenberg, bringing an action to recover wages, rent, vellum, paper, and ink. He gained the action, and Gutenberg had to yield up all his material. There is little doubt that this is genuine, and that the work in hand was type printing. These two seem the only documents that can be produced as to Gutenberg’s connection with the new Art.

The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing, Gutenberg’s name was known in Paris so early as 1472. This interesting fact will be found in the admirable work of M. Jules Philippe on the Origin of Printing in Paris, published in 1886. Examining carefully all the known copies of Gasparini Pergamensis Orthographia, printed at Paris about 1472, M. Philippe tells us that, in the copy preserved in the Heylin Collection at Basle, there is a unique Prologue by Guil. Fichet, printed with the same Sorbonne types that were used for the rest of the volume. This was originally discovered by Dr. Sieber of Basle. The portion which interests us reads thus: “I imagine that the friends of literature will receive great benefit from the Art invented by the new sort of Printers, who in these our days have (like the warriors from the Trojan Horse) issued from the womb of Germany and scattered themselves abroad. In this country (France) the story is, that a certain John Gutenberg, not far from Mayence, was the first inventor of the Printing Art, by means of which books are made, not with a reed as of old, nor with a pen as in our days, but with metal letters, and that rapidly, evenly, and elegantly.” This is a plain testimony, but proves nothing more than we knew before, viz., that Gutenberg invented a more perfect method of printing than he had found to his hand in Holland. Fichet, indeed, distinctly mentions Gutenberg as celebrated for inventing “a new kind of printing.” This Association will remember an interesting Paper read on this subject by Mr. Pullen, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, at our Dublin meeting. Numerous other writers and chroniclers bear the same witness, just as in all our biographical dictionaries Watt is spoken of as the inventor of the steam engine, which we know he only greatly improved.

Still another and very important witness is the writer of the Cologne Chronicle, who in 1499, while praising Gutenberg and attributing the discovery to him, adds, “Although the art was discovered at Mentz in the manner as it is now generally used, yet the first idea (vurbyldung = voorbeelding) was found in Holland in the Donatuses, which were printed there before that time. And from these Donatuses the beginning of the said art (as used by Gutenberg) was taken. And it was invented in a manner much more masterly and subtle than this, and became more and more ingenious.”

This evidence, which it should be remembered was taken direct from the mouth of Ulric Zell, the first printer at Cologne and disciple of Gutenberg, is very strongly in favour of Holland, and can hardly be explained away by saying that the writer meant the Netherlands or Flanders, or meant by “Donatuses” engraved blocks of wood, as maintained by Van der Linde and his followers. A reference to block-books would be contrary to the whole tenor of the remarks. The writer is speaking of movable types as used by Gutenberg, and states, if words mean anything, that the very badly type-printed Donatuses of Holland excited in him the desire to print in the same way, only more masterly: this he certainly did.

But then comes the natural question, Are there such Donatuses known? I need only refer you to the list in your hands of the Costeriana, as catalogued by Mr. Hessels. While Donatuses printed in Holland in a rude manner were almost unnoticed by bibliographers, there were some grounds for throwing doubt on the meaning of Zell. Now that at least twenty editions of early Dutch-printed Donatuses, as well as many similar works, are known, the reference of the Cologne Chronicler has much greater weight.

We must note, too, that Gutenberg’s name does not appear on a single production of his press, nor does any one of his associates or patrons, not even the Archbishop or his money-lender, Doctor Homeyr, connect him with the original invention.

To what then does the evidence so far point? This—that Gutenberg was a famous printer, who was the first to bring his art to that perfection which we trace in the Mazarin Bible and in the beautiful Mayence Psalter printed by his associates and successors, Fust and Schœffer.

Turn we now to the Costerian view of the subject; and here, to start with, we must rid our minds of the cobwebs and falsifications imported into the question by partisan writers.

There is no need to tear one’s hair, as Dr. V. der Linde does, over the misdeeds of the Haarlem archivists and antiquarians: he is silent enough over the German falsifications. Let us take the Dutch evidence as we know it now, since the investigations of Holtrop, Campbell, Hessels, and others.

Junius was a learned man of high character, and respected throughout all Europe. As his account is very distasteful to Dr. Van der Linde, a foolish attempt is made to discredit both the good name and talents of Junius. In 1588 he gave an account in his Batavia of the Invention of Printing at Haarlem by Coster. This account, which must have been written about 1568, he had heard as a tradition handed down to his time, and it is corroborated in part by documents, the existence of which was unknown to him. He gives the name of the inventor as Laur. Janszoon Coster, and Coster’s name is found just at the right date in the Haarlem Registers. He mentions an old man—Cornelis, and sure enough modern writers have turned up the name as a bookbinder in the town archives. We certainly are not bound to take the whole of the narrative as true,—Junius gives it as a tradition,—but wherever unexpected confirmation turns up it gives a stronger support to the whole. Mr. Hessels, indeed, believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for more evidence.

There is no doubt that the back-bone of the Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and which give support to, at the same time that they receive support from, the Cologne Chronicler. As you will see by your list, these now amount to forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to continually now that the attention of librarians has been strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr. Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books were not printed long after Gutenberg’s press was at work? The first printed date which appears in any German document is on an indulgence dated 1454, and if the opinion of Dr. Van der Linde is right, all these “Costeriana” rank naturally at least twenty years later. The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any printer’s name or place or date. To this the reply is, that these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all times “sine ullâ notâ,” and certain to be destroyed when done with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly in various towns of Holland. One indeed—a Donatus—was extracted from the binding of an account book of 1474, belonging to the Cathedral of Haarlem, an entry in which shows that the book was bound by Cornelis, the very man mentioned by Junius as having been the servant of Coster. Another was found in an account book of 1476, belonging to the same Cathedral, and bound also by Cornelis. Several other fragments of these Costerian Donatuses have been used by this same Cornelis in strengthening his bindings for the Cathedral. All these are now duly preserved at Haarlem. This points at any rate to Costeriana “waste” being in Haarlem when the books were bound.

Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different books as “Costeriana,” which include four editions of the Speculum, nineteen of Donatus, and seven of Doctrinale. The Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated books of 1473 onwards, printed in Holland, they have nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS. and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent.

Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography. That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible and Psalter could be the legitimate predecessors of the Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious. Side by side, the weakest gave place and the fittest survived, and soon, as in all survivals, the existence of the former became traditionary.

It is impossible in the short space of a lecture to adduce more than a portion of the evidence which could be brought forward—evidence which each year grows more and more strong. The onus of further research lies with the Germans. They have done very little as yet in this field, although they have many old libraries, the contents of which have never been examined with an eye to the ancient bindings where the evidence for or against is most likely to turn up. Other countries also have treasure-houses of old 15th-century books. To mention one only, Sweden: who has thoroughly examined the numerous incunabula in the great libraries at Lund, Upsala, and Stockholm? The more these are examined the longer will be the list of “Costeriana,” and it is quite probable that somewhere will be discovered a date or a fact which will turn the probability, that Holland was the birth-place of printing, into an acknowledged historical fact.

In conclusion, we must admit that, however strong the circumstantial evidence in favour of Holland may be, the verdict cannot be given positively to either party, although I have little doubt as to which side all future evidence will tend.

A LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED UPON THE SUBJECT SINCE 1868.

Holtrop, J. W. Monuments Typographiques des Pays-Bas au quinzième Siècle. Collection de Fac-simile d’après les originaux conservés à la Bibliothèque Royale de la Haye et ailleurs. xiii pp. + 126 pp. + 12 pp. of Table + 180 fac. Plates + 1 Map. Folio. La Haye, 1868.

This is the most important book ever published for the study of Dutch incunabula, as the fac-similes are most excellent and represent many of the very books and fragments of books upon which Costerians rely.

Linde, Dr. A. Van der. De Haarlemsche Costerlegende wetenschappelijk onderzocht. Tweede, omgewerkte Uitgaaf. 8 + 352 pp. and 1 plate. 8vo. ’sGravenhage, 1870.

The first edition appeared in the Nederlandschen Spectator, Dec., 1869, to May, 1870.

Meurs, Dr. P. Van. De Keulsche Kroniek en de Costerlegende van Dr. Van der Linde. 8 + 65 pp. 8vo. Haarlem, 1870.

A criticism upon Van der Linde’s treatment of the Cologne Chronicle.

Linde, Dr. A. Van der. The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of Printing, by Lourens Janszoon Coster, critically examined. From the Dutch, by J. H. Hessels, with an introduction and a classified list of the Costerian Incunabula. xxvi + 170 pp. 8vo. London, 1871.

Vinne, Theo. L., De. The Invention of Printing. A collection of facts and opinions descriptive of early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Laurens Janszoon Coster of Haarlem, and the work of John Gutenberg and his associates. Illustrated with fac-similes of early types and wood-cuts. Frontispiece and 556 pp. 8vo. New York, 1876.

Madden, J. P. A. Lettres d’un Bibliographe. 6th series. 8vo. Paris, 1868-78. Atlas separate.

Contains many interesting articles on Gutenberg and his school, and adopts entirely the conclusions of Van der Linde.

Linde, Dr. A. v. d. Gutenberg. Geschichte und Erdichtung aus den Quellen nachgewiesen. x + 583 + xcviii pp. 8vo. Stuttgart, 1878.

Hessels, J. H. Gutenberg: Was he the Inventor of Printing? An historical investigation. xxviii + 201 pp. 8vo. London, 1882.

Conway, William Martin. The Wood-cutters of the Netherlands in the Fifteenth Century. In three parts:—I. History of the Wood-cutters. II. Catalogue of the Woodcuts. III. List of the Books containing Woodcuts. xx + 359 pp. 8vo. Cambridge, 1884.

Philippe, Jules. Origine de l’Imprimerie à Paris, d’après des documents inédits. viii + 256 pp. + 19 facs. 8vo. Paris, 1885.

Contains the earliest known notice of Gutenberg as a Printer.

Linde, A. von der. Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst. 3 Vols. 1020 pp. Large 4to. Berlin, 1886.

Reed, Talbot Baines. A History of the Old English Letter Foundries, with Notes, historical and bibliographical, on the rise and progress of English Typography, xiv + 379 pp., and 17 plates. 4to. London, 1887.

Has an introductory chapter on “The Types and Type-founding of the First Printers.”

Hessels, J. H. The History of the Invention of Printing. A series of articles in The Academy, April to June, 1887.

Hessels, J. H. Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz. Title + 78 pp. 8vo. London, 1887. (Elliot Stock.)