Coster of Haarlem the inventor of Printing? ’Tis a mere figment born of national vanity. There is not an atom of real evidence to prove that a man named Coster ever existed as a printer. “Stat nominis Umbra,” and very shady is the whole story, being nothing more than empty theory, supported by phrases such as “in all probability”—“irresistible deduction”—“must have been,” and similar empty words, which sound big to the ear, but which added all together = 0. Applying the usual laws of evidence to the arguments of Costerians, there is simply “no case.” The evidence of the Cologne Chronicle is twisted and strained to support the claims of Holland. The writer of that work had no idea that his words would in future ages become a battlefield for nations, or he would have taken good care to have made himself better acquainted with the early chronology of the art. Costerians admit that he is wrong in his account of the towns to which the art was first taken; why then do they insist so strongly on his verbal accuracy just where it tells in their favour?

It is now admitted that on each side various documents have been forged or falsified. More’s the pity, for they have confused and mystified the question greatly. Mr. Hessels says that “in the case of Gutenberg far more forgeries have been perpetrated than in that of the Haarlem inventor.” But supposing this absurd dictum to be true (which it is not) the character of such forgeries is very different in the two cases. On the one side they are unimportant as regards the invention—on the other, vital. The false documents concocted by Bodmann, the Archeviste of Strasbourg, and others, in the Gutenberg interest, concern points of family history only, with scarcely the remotest interest typographically. They would add materials, if true, to his biography, but would not add an iota to his claim to be the first printer with types. On the other hand, the Coster typography rests entirely on a padded legend, cooked up for the national palate by Junius—on the Costerian pedigree concocted by Gerrit Thomaszoon and the bare-faced falsifications of Meerman, De Vries, and others. Compare such an impostor with Gutenberg! a real man of flesh and blood about whose existence there is no doubt; and whose abilities as a printer even Mr. Hessels does not deny, although he dates them later than his opponents. He uses some clever arguments to show that the early books hitherto attributed to Gutenberg were printed at Bamberg by Pfister; but here he is evidently conscious that his argument proves too much, for, carried out consistently, it would prove that Gutenberg never printed at all. This would be such a flying in the face of universally received evidence, that he wisely if illogically stops in his destructive career. It would indeed be a difficult task to explain the spread of Gutenberg’s fame, not only as a printer, but as the first printer, if we eliminate from his history the Donatuses in the Bible type, the Indulgences, and the first Bible. But as an historical fact, we find his name and his fame spread through Germany, Italy, France, England (see Caxton’s Chronicle), and we may say all Europe, a century before any one ever heard of Coster. Mr. Hessels pretends that Gutenberg himself spread the rumours about himself; but the argument is very weak and untenable, for surely if Gutenberg had wished at all to uphold his fame, a simple claim at the end of his great Bible would have been much more efficacious than a roundabout plan of getting his friends Ivo Wittig, A. Gelthus, and others, to proclaim him the inventor of printing. Two words, “Gutenberg fecit,” at the end of any of his works would have served the purpose. His omission to do this was probably owing to his pride, which persuaded him not to boast of what all the world knew, and for which all the world at that very time gave him credit. Mr. Hessels’ whole argument is here weak—weak in the extreme—especially in supposing that debt would make him reticent.

Here, too, we must note the difference of tone in the earliest notices of the invention. The Cologne Chronicle mentions Holland, but not a word of Coster—Gutenberg is the hero. For a century and a half no record mentions Coster, but after Junius wrote his Batavia the legendary figure fills Dutch literature. On the other hand, there is no doubt as to Gutenberg’s first appearance. A good deal of his biography unconnected with printing is known, and when as a printer he is first spoken of, we find his name and fame the common property of the nation.

The earliest positive notice connecting Gutenberg by name with typography appears in an interesting Latin preface to a special copy of Gasparinus, printed by Gering, at Paris, in 1472. It was written by Prof. Fichet, of Sorbonne,—he who with Jean Heynlin started the first printing-press on French soil. He there speaks at great length of the immense importance to mankind of the newly invented art which had been discovered in Germany. The important part is thus translated: “People say⁠[16] in these parts (i.e. Paris) that a man named Gutenberg,⁠[17] not far from Mayence, was formerly the first inventor of the Printing Art, by means of which, with rapidity, precision, and elegance, books are made by means of metal letters, and no longer by means of a reed-pen as of old, nor with a quill as in our days.... Gutenberg has discovered the way of engraving letters by means of which all that can be said or thought is at once reproduced, so that it descends to posterity.” When these words were printed, the Sorbonne printers, Gering, Friburger, and Crantz, had been at work about two years. They were pupils from the German school of typography, and we can hardly resist the conviction that they gave Fichet his information, and that they had personal knowledge of its accuracy.

The expression, “people here say,” which has been taken to prove hearsay only, does not mean that the writer had any doubt of the truth of his information—it was simply a colloquial phrase for “the general belief.” This discovery, therefore, of Fichet’s evidence is of great interest and importance in the history of the invention. Mr. Bullen plainly showed this in the interesting paper read by him on the subject at a meeting of the Association of Librarians.

After Fichet in 1472, the next notice of Gutenberg is found in the Chronicon of Lignamine dated 1474. He mentions Gutenberg as a printer, and from that time onward there is an unbroken testimony in every age and in every country to the same effect.

Examining critically the earliest remains of the German press, we get into great confusion if we dethrone Gutenberg. Who could have printed the early Indulgences, one of which bears the year 1454, if Gutenberg did not? His efforts there and upon the large type Donatuses, of which several fragments have been preserved, would be a fitting and useful prelude to such grand works as the Bible and Psalter, and they afford a complete reply to those who say that these magnificent specimens could never have been the first efforts of any infant press. Depend upon it, if time, as Costerians say, is to prove so much in favour of their theory, it is still more likely to unfold new Donatuses and unknown editions of the Speculum in the types of Gutenberg, and possibly with his name or some note of their origin. It is a weak cause that takes unknown discoveries for evidence.

No! Gutenberg is king. Mr. Hessels may spin out his fine-drawn and prolix arguments—may arrange his regiments of “must-have-beens” and probabilities; but “an ounce of fact is worth a ton of probabilities,” and fact and history and general belief down to the present day are all against him. His shady Costeriana will never be supported by a real date, and in spite of him and them Gutenberg will reign through all ages as the great inventor of Typography.

---

And now, as the writer of the foregoing articles, I feel that, having stated the arguments on each side with as much fairness as I can, a personal opinion may be expected from me, and without hesitation I will give it.

The evidence on each side may be enlarged in the course of years, but so far as it goes at present it is strongly in favour of a first rude invention of movable types in Holland by some one whose name may have been Coster. The claim of Gutenberg upon the respect of posterity rests on his great improvements—so great as to entitle him in a sense to be deemed the inventor—foremost in excellence if not first in time.