The Invention of Printing/Chapter 16
XVI
The Period in which the Speculum was Printed.
The Paper-Marks of the Speculum, with Fac-simiies … Not Evidence of Age … The Earliest Dated Annotation … Earliest Known Manuscript copy in Dutch … Indications that the Book was Printed at Utrecht … Probably Printed in the Last Half of the Fifteenth Century … Review of the Evidences … The Cambray Record … Printers of the Fraternity of St John at Bruges … Testimony of Zell in the Cologne Chronicle … All Unsatisfactory … Discordant Opinions … Dutch Printing probably Xylographic … No Evidence of an Early Use of Types in Holland … Early Printing in Haarlem … Jacob Bellaert …Fac-simile of his Types … His Successors … Brito of Bruges, with Fac-simile of his Types … Was not an Inventor … Netherlandish Knowledge of Printing came from Cologne … Map of the Netherlands … Not probable that Types were Used there before 1463.
The paper-marks[1] of the Speculum and of other works of the unknown printer have been repeatedly examined in the belief that they would reveal the place where and the time when the paper was manufactured. A Dutch author has said that these marks enable us to determine when the books in which they are to be seen were printed. An English author, who devoted the larger part of a folio volume to a review of the paper-marks of the block-books, undertook to prove from them that the Speculum must have been printed before 1440.
All known copies of the Speculum contain a variety of dissimilar paper-marks. Among them are the hand, the dolphin, the lily, the unicorn, bulls' heads, the letter P, the letter Y, the letters M A, the spurred wheel, and the papal keys. Many of these marks are found in the paper of the Canticles and the Bible of the Poor. It is evident that papers bearing so great a variety of paper-marks were not made at one mill, and probably not in the same district. They were not made in Holland, at least not during the first half of the fifteenth century, for there were then no paper-mills in that country. 
The early records of the treasury of the city of Haarlem, which are written on papers containing paper-marks like those of the Speculum, show that the paper was bought at Antwerp. Koning thinks that the Speculum, and the block-books which are printed on the same paper, must have been printed between 1420 and 1440; that the paper of the books was made in Brabant; and that many of the paper-marks are the initials or arms of the house of Burgundy. According to Koning, the letter P stands for Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, who reigned from 1419 to 1467; the letter Y stands for Ysabella of Portugal, who married Philip in 1430; MA stand for Margaret, who was countess of Holland before that state was ceded to Philip in 1433. These are very confident assumptions; they require a careful examination.
A closer investigation has elicited these facts: the letter P has been found in the accounts of the Count of Holland at the Hague for the year 1387; paper bearing the same P was used by many printers of the Netherlands, by one printer in Paris, and by several printers in Germany in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. It is found in paper made before and 
after the reign of Philip, and in cities over which Philip never ruled. Paper containing the letter Y was used in 1395, before Ysabella was born; it was in use for many years after she was dead; paper with the letters M A joined to the arms of Bavaria must have been made before her daughter Jacqueline was married, or, in other words, before 1422, an earlier date than can be claimed for any typographic book.
The rude paper-mark of the bull's head was in frequent use between the years 1370 and 1523 in the Netherlands and in Germany; it is found in the great Bible of Gutenberg. It is, therefore, of no value in an inquiry concerning the date of any book in which it has been found. The paper-mark of the lily was used even in the fourteenth century; in the fifteenth it was as common as the bull's head. It is found in books that were printed in Cologne and in Paris, in Utrecht, Gouda, Delft, Louvain and Deventer.
Paper marked with the unicorn was frequently used by the later Netherlandish printers. It did not go out of use until 1620. It is found in so many shapes that it is impossible to determine by it the date, or the printer, of any book on which it was used.
When we find that these marks were used in manuscripts before the fifteenth century, and in printed books at the end of the fifteenth century, we have to conclude that they are almost worthless as evidence[2] in an inquiry concerning the printer of the Speculum. Instead of proving that the Speculum must have been printed between 1420 and 1440, they really show, so far as paper is connected with the question, that the various editions of the book could have been printed in the third, and perhaps in the fourth, quarter of the century. We have a clearer indication of the period of the unknown printer in the fragments of his work that have been discovered in the cover linings of manuscript and printed books bound in the latter part of the fifteenth century. It is obvious that the fragments are older than the bindings, but it is not probable that they are much older, for no fragment has been found in any book made before the year 1467. The larger portion came from bindings made after 1470.
A copy of William of Saliceto on the Health of the Body contains a written memorandum or annotation to this effect: "This book was bought by Lord Conrad, abbot of this place, XXXIIII [?], who died in the year 1474." Conrad du Moulin was abbot between the years 1471 and 1474 only. Another inscription in the same book states that it once belonged to the Convent of St. James at Lille.[3] These inscriptions have been cited to show that the unknown printer preceded every other typographic printer in the Netherlands; but the precedence claimed is unimportant, for we know that Ketelaer and De Leempt printed books at Utrecht in 1473.
In a public library at Haarlem is a manuscript copy of a version of the Speculum in the Dutch language—an admirably illustrated book of 290 leaves of vellum—which contains these inscriptions: "This book was finished in the year of our Lord 1464, on the 16th day of July. … An Ave Maria to God for the writer. … This book belongs to Cayman Janszoen of Zierikzee, living with the Carthusians near Utrecht."[4] Van der Linde says that the text of the two editions in Dutch described on a previous page, is really an abridgment of the text of this Utrecht manuscript of 1464.
This fact established, the claim that the Dutch editions of the book were printed before this date becomes untenable. Nor is there positive evidence that the book was printed anywhere out of Utrecht. Utrecht was the residence of David, a prince of Burgundy and a notable patron of literature; it was also the residence of the bishop of the diocese; it had a gymnasium (as the high school of the time was then designated) of some reputation; it was a favorable location for an early printer; it was in Utrecht that the mutilated blocks of the Speculum were printed by John Veldener in 1483.
The book containing the Eulogy on Pope Pius ii, which must have been printed after the year 1459, and the Abecedarium, with its evenly spaced lines and its arrangement in octavo, are specimens of the typography, not of the second, but of the third, quarter of the fifteenth century. The Latin editions of the Speculum were, no doubt, printed before the Dutch editions; but when we consider the activity of nearly all the early printers, and their frequent publication of popular books, it is hazardous to concede to the Latin editions a priority of more than five years. But Dutch bibliographers claim that the earlier editions of the book were printed at least thirty-three, perhaps fifty, years before the arrival of German printers in the Netherlands. To support this claim, they refer to passages or annotations in old manuscript books, which seem to show that printed books were common in the Netherlands during the middle of the century. These passages and annotations demand critical examination.
There is an entry in an old diary which, on its first reading, produces the impression that printed books were sold in Bruges as ordinary merchandise in the first half of the fifteenth century. This entry was made by one Jean le Robert, abbot of St. Aubert in Cambray, then a city of Burgundy.
Item, For a doctrinal getté en molle, which I sent to Bruges for in the month of January, 1445, from Marquart, the first copyist at Valenciennes, for Jacquart, twenty sous, currency of Tours. Little Alexander had a similar copy for which the church paid.
Item. Procured at Arras a doctrinal for the instruction of the Lord Gerard, which had been bought at Valenciennes, and which was jettez en molle, and which cost twenty-four groots. He [Lord Gerard] returned to me this doctrinal on All Saints' Day, in the year '51, saying that he set no value on it, and that it was altogether faulty. He had bought another copy in paper for ten patards.[5]
The importance of this document depends entirely upon the construction of these words, getté en molle. Bernard says that they have always been regarded in France as the equivalent of printing, or of printed letters.[6] The literal meaning of the words is, cast in mould. So construed, no words could more clearly define founded types. This construction of the phrase would prove the existence of a typographic printer in Bruges at least as early as 1445. The dry, matter-of-fact way in which the words were used would show that books of this description were not novelties; that they were sold in Arras and in Bruges; that book-buyers were critical about their workmanship, and knew how they were made.
This construction of the phrase has been keenly disputed. Van der Linde says that the books were printed, but not from types—from blocks that had been getté en molle, or put into form, or put into readable shape, by the art of engraving. He cites authorities showing that the word molle or mould had been applied to forms of manuscript.[7]
Dr. Van Meurs proposes a new construction—that getté en molle has nothing to do either with types or blocks. "Who does not perceive, while reading the Cambray document, that in 1451, the term getté en molle is used in contradistinction to in paper? Do not these terms make us rather think of books in loose sheets as opposed to sheets, that are bound? What can molle mean but form? What is a book getté en molle but a book brought together in a form, or in a binding, in opposition to another book in paper, or in a paper cover?" This conjecture is reasonable. No one knows of an early edition of this book from engraved blocks. As the seller of one copy was a copyist we may conclude that both copies were written.
Equally unsatisfactory to an unprejudiced reader is the misconstruction of the word printer in the list of the different arts or trades embraced by the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist, at Bruges. It has been inferred that the printers here noticed were printers of types, and that typographic printing was done in 1454, when the following list was written:[8]
Librariers en boeckverkopers, or booksellers.
Vinghettemakers, or painters in miniature.
Scrivers en boucscrivers, or scriveners and copyists of books.
Scoolemeesters, or schoolmasters.
Prentervercoopers, or image sellers.
Verlichters, or illuminators.
Prenters, or printers.
Boucbinders, or bookbinders.
Riemmakers, or curriers who prepare skins for parchment-makers.
Perkementmakers en fransynmakers, or makers of parchment.
Guispelsniders, or makers of decorations for bound books.
Scoolevrowen, or schoolmistresses.
Lettersnyders, or engravers of letters.
Scilders, or painters.
Drochscherrers, or shearers of cloth.
Beeldemakers, or makers of images.[9]
We have here a careful and, probably, a complete specification of all trades contributing to the manufacture of books, but there is no mention of type-makers nor of typographers.
In 1442 there was an organized society of book-makers in the city of Antwerp, known as the Fraternity of Saint Luke. Like the association of Bruges, it comprised every trade that contributed to the making of books. The trade of printer is in their list, as it is in that of the Confraternity of Saint John of Bruges; but in this list there is no mention of the makers or printers of types. The printers of the fraternities were, no doubt, the printers of playing cards, images and block-books.[10]
The earliest notice of book-printing in the Netherlands is that of the Cologne Chronicle of 1499, which is to this effect:
This highly valuable art was discovered first of all in Germany, at Mentz on the Rhine. And it is a great honor to the German nation that such ingenious men are found among them. And it took place about the year of our Lord 1440, and from this time until the year 1450, the art, and what is connected with it, was being investigated. And in the year of our Lord 1450 it was a golden year [jubilee], and they began to print, and the first book they printed was the Bible in Latin; it was printed in a large letter, resembling the letter with which at present missals are printed. Although the art [as has been said] was discovered at Mentz, in the manner as it is now generally used, yet the first prefiguration [die erste vurbyldung] was found in Holland [the Netherlands], in the Donatuses, which were printed there before that time. And from these Donatuses the beginning of the said art was taken, and it was invented in a manner much more masterly and subtile than this, and became more and more ingenious. One named Omnibonus, wrote in a preface to the book called Quinctilianus, and in some other books too, that a Walloon from France, named Nicol. Jenson, discovered first of all this masterly art; but that is untrue, for there are those still alive who testify that books were printed at Venice before Nicol. Jenson came there and began to cut and make letters. But the first inventor of printing was a citizen of Mentz, born at Strasburg, and named Junker Johan Gutenberg. From Mentz the art was introduced first of all into Cologne, then into Strasburg, and afterward into Venice. The origin and progress of the art was told me verbally by the honorable master Ulrich Zell, of Hanau, still printer at Cologne, anno 1499, and by whom the said art came to Cologne.[11]
Ulrich Zell is a candid and a competent witness, yet he narrates not what he had seen, but what he had heard He was but a mere child, possibly unborn, when Gutenberg began to experiment with types at Strasburg about the year 1436, or sixty-three years before this chronicle was printed.
Zell's statement is the earliest acknowledgment of the priority of book-printing in Holland, but it is an incomplete and unsatisfactory acknowledgment. He names Gutenberg, but he does not name the printer of the Donatus. He specifies the period between 1440 and 1450 as the time, and Mentz as the place, and the great Latin Bible as the first product, of the German invention; but he does not specify the year nor the city in which the Donatus was first printed. The only specifications are—in Holland,[12] before Gutenberg, and by an inferior method. It is apparent that Zell did not have exact knowledge of the details of early Dutch printing, and that he could not describe its origin nor its peculiarities with accuracy.
We cannot supplement Zell's imperfect description of early Dutch printing with knowledge or with inferences that might be derived from a critical examination of the Dutch Donatuses. These books, described by him as the prefiguration of typography, have been destroyed. There is no known copy of the Donatus, neither typographic nor xylographic, which can be attributed to a period before that of Gutenberg's first experiments in Strasburg. The early typographic copies have the full-spaced lines, which were not in use before 1460 in any book; the xylographic copies are about as old, and, for the most part, are imitations of the typographic editions. Guided by these facts we have to conclude that it is not probable that the Donatuses of Zell were printed from types.
The frequent repetition of the statement that the art was invented in Germany shows there was no confusion in the mind of the writer concerning the relative importance of the German and the Dutch method of printing. He clearly perceived, although he obscurely described, two distinct methods of book-printing: the first, the method used for printing the Donatus, which method was imperfect and but a prefiguration; the second, the method that was more masterly and subtile, the method that now is used. The second method was, without doubt, the making of accurate types in metal moulds, and the printing of great books. It was not the second invention, but the invention, inasmuch as it was the only invention that had a practical value. The Donatus was printed, but it was not printed by the art. It was the art as it is now used, the only practical art of making types and books, of which Gutenberg was the first inventor.
According to German historians, the first method was xylography. They say that it was the sight of some lost or now unknown copy of an engraved Donatus, which gave to Gutenberg the suggestion of the more subtile invention of movable types; that this Donatus was not taken as a model for imitation—it served only as the suggestion of an entirely new method. Dutch historians say that it is unreasonable to assume that this Donatus was engraved on wood. There is force in the argument that it is not probable that Ulrich Zell, the printer, who furnished the writer of the chronicle with his facts, and who, as a German, was proud that typography was a German invention, would have ascribed the first rude practice of printing to Holland, if this practice had been nothing but xylography. It cannot be supposed that Gutenberg was so ignorant of the productions of German formschneiders that he believed xylographic printing was done only in Holland. They say that the suggestive Donatus which was made in Holland should have been a typographic book, printed as the Speculum was printed, from types founded by an inferior method—a method that was never imitated.
It will be seen that the statement of the Cologne chronicler is so ambiguous that it can be wrested to the benefit of either side of the question. It can be used to support the hypothesis that there were two inventions of typography—one Dutch, one German—one of little and the other of great merit—both alike in theory, but unlike in process and in result. But it is not worth while to consider the probability of a very early invention of typography in Holland until we can find the evidences which will compensate for the deficiencies of Zell.
This evidence is wanting. The statement attributed to Ulrich Zell is the only acknowledgment made by any writer, Dutch or German, during the fifteenth century. In view of the pretensions subsequently made, the silence of the earliest Dutch writers and printers seems unaccountable. Many of the printers were learned and patriotic men, proud of their art and of their country, but in none of their books do we find any claim for Holland as the birthplace of typography. Nor was this claim made by any of the great men of Holland. Erasmus, the scholar, the guest and corrector of the press for John Froben, the friend and correspondent of Thierry Martens, first scholarly printer in the Netherlands, should have known something of the introduction of typography in his native country; but the only mention that he made of the origin of the art was to attribute its invention to Germany. Before the year 1480, three chronicles of the events of the century had been printed in Holland, but in none of them is any notice made of early printing in Holland. The printers of Holland who followed their business in other cities never claimed Haarlem as the birthplace of typography. Before the year 1500, there were Dutch printers who put on record, in imprints attached to their books,[13] their belief in the statement that printing had been invented in Germany. It does not appear that there was then any knowledge of the legend of Haarlem.
At this point it may be proper to record what is exactly known about the old printing offices of this town. The first Haarlem book with a printed date is of the year 1483. 
Fac-simile of the types of Jacob Bellaert.
[From Holtrop.]It is a little religious book that contains thirty-two wood-cuts and a peculiar face of type that had been used before by one Gerard Leeu of Gouda. The printer's name is not given, but a colophon at the end of the book distinctly says that it was printed at "haerlem in hollant." From the same press, by the same printer, and with the same types, seven other books were printed before the year 1486. In one of these books, dated 1484, is printed the name of the printer, Jacob Bellaert of Zierikzee. There is no evidence that he had been taught typography in Haarlem, nor that he succeeded to any old printing office in that town. Bellaert was from Zierikzee; his types and his wood-cuts had been procured from Gerard Leeu of Gouda. The types are of a condensed form, superior to those of the Speculum, fairly lined, obviously cast in moulds of metal, entirely unlike those of the unknown printer. The engravings have many peculiarities of design and cut which are not to be found in any known block-book.
Jan Andrieszoon was the second printer of Haarlem. In 1485 he opened a printing office with a stock of old and worn types, printed seven books, four with and three without a date. There is no evidence whatever that connects him or his works with the unknown printer. The competition of two rival printers in a small town produced the usual result. As no book can be found with the imprint of either printer after 1486, we have to infer that the printers closed their offices and abandoned typography.
The imprint of Haarlem does not again appear on any book before 1507. The name of the third printer is supposed to be Hasback, who, in 1506, had an office in Amsterdam, which he removed to Haarlem. His enterprise was unsuccessful, for no book of a later date can be attributed to him.
There is neither record nor tradition of any typographic printer in Haarlem between the years 1507 and 1561. The account books of the treasury of the town contain entries which show that its typographic work was done at Leyden. Coornhert and Van Zuren, "sworn book-printers at Haarlem," were also unsuccessful, for we have no evidences of their work after the year 1562.
In 1581, Anthonis Ketel was in possession of a printing office in Haarlem, but typography cannot be considered as securely established in that town before 1587, in which year one Gillis Rooman began to print. He continued to work as printer until 1611, when he was succeeded by Adrien Rooman.
There is nothing in this list of unsuccessful printers which assures us that typography had been invented or cherished in Haarlem. Nor is there even any recorded evidence of an early printing of block-books. There was, at an early date, in Haarlem a guild composed of painters, goldsmiths, sculptors, and of other artisans; but we can find no engraver on wood, no prenter or figuersnyder among the members. "The harvest of history," writes Dr. Van der Linde, concerning Haarlem, "on the field of typography may be scanty; on the field of xylography it does not yield anything."
This recital of the names and the fortunes of the earlier printers of Haarlem is not altogether irrelevant; it furnishes a proper introduction to the legend of Haarlem. The first printer in Haarlem, Jacob Bellaert, whose art must have been a wonder to simple people, closed his office after two or three years of unsuccessful labor, and probably went to some other place. The printers who followed him at long intervals were equally unsuccessful. Van der Linde thinks that it is around the first printing office of Haarlem that the vague traditions have clustered.
In none of the notices of early Netherlandish printing do we find any mention of Coster of Haarlem, or any description of printing by types. There is extant, however, an allusion, which cannot be passed by unnoticed, to the printed work of one Brito of Bruges, who, about 1481, printed a little book entitled The Book of Doctrine for the Instruction of Christians. The first page of this book says that it is a copy of two great tablets in the Church of Our Lady of Terouanne; the last page has this inscription in six lines of faulty Latin rhyme:
Fac-simile of the Types of John Brito.[14]
[From Holtrop.]
Brito was a member of the Fraternity of Saint John the Baptist, between the years 1454 and 1494, but he was not industrious as a printer, for Campbell can attribute but four books to him. Van Praet[15] says that he was engaged by the bishop of the church to paint or to affix this Book of Doctrine on the great tablets, which he did by the wonderful art of stenciling, with the very astonishing instruments of perforated letters, nobody having instructed him. Proud of his work, he attached this inscription. When he printed the composition in the form of a book he repeated the inscription. It is not possible that Brito intended to convey the notion that he had invented typography. So far from inventing types, Brito did not even make the types that he used in this book. They are the types of Veldener of Utrecht.[16]
From the early records we can glean nothing which will demonstrate that typography was practised in any part of the Netherlands before 1472. The workmanship of all known Netherlandish printers after this date is of every degree of merit and of demerit, but in all their books it shows the impressions of types founded in, moulds of hard metal, and properly printed on a press, on both sides of the paper, and in black ink. As it is a style of workmanship entirely unlike that of the unknown printer, it is a proper inference that typography came into the Netherlands, as it did into all other countries, through the pupils and by the method of Gutenberg.
The table annexed will show how late was the beginning of typography in the Netherlands. It also shows that printing "by the art that is now used," was introduced almost simultaneously in three different towns of the Netherlands. In the year 1473, John of Westphalia was first printer at Alost; 
| Utrecht | Nicholas Ketelaer, | 1473–1474 |
| Gerard de Leempt, | ||
| William Hees | 1475. | |
| John Veldener | 1478–1481. | |
| Alost | John of Westphalia | 1473–1474. |
| Thierry Martens | 1474–1490. | |
| Louvain | John Veldener | 1473–1477. |
| John of Westphalia | 1474–1496. | |
| Conrad Braem | 1475–1481. | |
| Conrad of Westphalia | 1476. | |
| Hermann of Nassau, | 1483. | |
| Rud. Loeffs, | ||
| Egidius van der Heerstraten | 1485–1488. | |
| Louis de Ravescot | 1488. | |
| Thierry Martens | 1498–1500. | |
| Brussels | Brotherhood of the | 1476–1487 |
| Life-in-Common, | ||
| Gouda | Gerard Leeu | 1477–1484. |
| Godfrey de Os | 1486. | |
| Godfrey de Ghemen | ||
| Unnamed Printer | 1486. | |
| Bruges | Colard Mansion | 1475–1484. |
| John Brito | ||
| Deventer | Richard Paffroed | 1477–1500. |
| Jacques de Breda | 1485–1500. | |
| Delft | Jacob Jacobzoon | 1477–1479. |
| J. Van der Meer | 1480–1487. | |
| Unnamed Printer | 1488–1494. | |
| St. Maartensdyk | Werrecoren | 1478. |
| Nimeguen | Gerard Leempt | 1479. |
| Zwoll | Unknown Printer | 1479. |
| Peter von Os | 1480–1500. | |
| Audenarde | Arn. l'Empereur | 1480–1482. |
| Hasselt | Pereg. Bermentlo | 1480–1481. |
| Antwerp | Matt. Van der Goes | 1482–1491. |
| Gerard Leeu | 1484–1493. | |
| Thierry Martens | 1493–1497. | |
| Leyden | Henry Henry | 1483–1484. |
| Gand | Arnold l'Empereur | 1483–1489. |
| Culenburg | John Veldener | 1483–1484. |
| Bois-le-Duc | Gerard Leempt | 1484–1487. |
| Schoonhoven | Brotherhood | 1495–1500. |
| Schiedam | Unnamed Printer | 1498–1500. |
| Haarlem | Jacob Bellaert | 1483–1486. |
We have no evidences that the unknown printer acquired his poor knowledge of typography through any other channel. His unequal workmanship is an indication that his instruction was imperfect; the neat presswork of his wood-cuts is that of an expert printer of block-books, who, no doubt, had abundant practice in this field before he undertook to print with types; the rudeness of his typographic work is that of one who had never received regular instruction in typography. It is possible that he received only a verbal explanation of the processes of the art,[18] and that he tried, unaided, to graft the new into the old method. His workmanship seems to be that of an imitator, a curious mixture of skill and of ignorance, but its inferiority to the workmanship of other printers of his time is not proof of its greater age or of his originality; it proves only his imperfect instruction or greater incapacity. So far from showing the first steps in an immature invention, his books truly show the degradation of a perfect method. They show the ignorance of a badly taught typographic printer, and the prejudices of an old block-printer who had adopted the newer method with reluctance. We have seen that Walther's edition of the Bible of the Poor is every way inferior to the first edition, and have drawn from it the conclusion that there was a wonderful degradation of the art of engraving on wood. When we establish a comparison between the great Bible of Gutenberg and the Speculum of the unknown printer we have similar premises, and have to form the similar conclusion, that the arts do not always improve with age, and that the pupil or the imitator is often inferior to the master.
The evidences in favor of the priority of the unknown printer are very slight. It may be conceded that he was the first printer of the Netherlands, but it has not been proved, nor is it probable, that he printed with types earlier than the year 1463. Still more improbable is the assumption that he was an independent inventor of printing. We have to judge of the merits of this pretended invention as we do of every other—by its fruits. It had no fruit. The facts that this unknown printer made no mark on his age—that he left no work worthy of his alleged invention—that neither he nor his printed work was noticed by any of the chroniclers of his day—that he had no pupils, no successors, no imitators—should be sufficient to prove that he was not an inventor but an imitator.
By many authors the question of his possible priority has been decided, not from an examination of known and proved facts, but from the assertions of prejudiced and untrustworthy witnesses. The frequent presentation of the statement of the Cologne Chronicle, and of the legends that find their support in it, has not been without effect. There is a general belief in the tradition that types were first made in Haarlem by Coster, and that the German method was the outgrowth of the Dutch method. This proposition has been repeated so frequently and so confidently that it becomes necessary to give a critical examination to the legend of printing in Haarlem.
- ↑ A paper-mark is an opaque design on the web of the paper, placed there to enable the buyer to identify a particular manufacture. It is made by bending the wires on which the moist pulp is couched in some peculiar shape which leaves its impression on the paper when it is perfected. Certain sizes of paper are even now known by the names of marks that are no longer used. Foolscap once bore the mark of a fool's head with cap and bells; Post once had the mark of a post-boy's horn. Paper-marks are now made chiefly for the finer qualities of writing papers. The illustrations of old paper-marks, on the following pages, were taken from Koning, and are about one-eighth of the original size.
- ↑ Water-marks have much less weight in bibliography than some writers have attributed to them. In very few instances can a prime limit be fixed for their use; and, as the marks might be repeated, and the paper itself kept for any length of time, and imported to any place, they cannot be used as evidence either of the date when, or place where, they passed through the press. Blades, William Caxton, vol. ii, p. xviii.—The results of the examination of the paper-marks are, for the present, mostly negative, Van der Linde, Haarlem Legend, p. 86.
- ↑ Hessels, Haarlem Legend, p. xvii.
- ↑ Haarlem Legend, p. 35.
- ↑ Bernard, De l'origine et des débuts de l'imprimerie, vol. i, pp. 97 and 98.
- ↑ Bernard, De l'origine et des débuts de l'imprimerie, vol. i. p. 98.
- ↑ The phrase could be applied to the forms of the letters in the books, without regard to the quality or any peculiarity of the printing or the binding. Two forms of writing were then in use: one, a black angular, and somewhat condensed form of Gothic character, which is defined in Fournier's Manuel typographique as lettres de forme, or letters of precision; the other, a round, light-faced, more careless and more popular form of letters, named by him as lettres de somme. To this day, carefully written but disconnected letters, whether upright or inclined, are colloquially known as print letters. The doctrinal which was put in form may have been written in lettres de forme. The phrase gette en molle could have been fairly applied to these precise letters, in contradistinction to the more careless shapes of the lettres de somme.
- ↑ Leon de Bubure, in a paper published in the Bulletins de l'académie royale de Belgique, 2d series, vol. viii, No. ii, shows that printing that was practised at Antwerp as early as 1417. He submits an extract from the records of the city in which it appears that one Jan the printer publicly acknowledged, August 5th, 1417, that he was indebted to William Tserneels, manufacturer of parchment, in the sum of 2 pounds 12 shillings 4 pence, for which he bound himself and his chattels. It seems that this Jan the printer received a very liberal credit, for there are other acknowledgments of obligations for larger amounts, all incurred in 1417. After this date his name does not again appear on the record.
- ↑ Van der Meersch, Imprimeurs Belges et Neèrlandais, vol. i, p. 92.
- ↑ Some of the evidences that have been adduced to prove the priority of typographic printing in the Netherlands are really ludicrous. In 1777, Desroches, a member of the Academy of Brussels, published a pamphlet, in which he undertook to prove that the art of printing books was practised in Flanders in the beginning of the fourteenth century. His authority was an old rhymed chronicle of Brabant, written by Nicholas, clerk of the city of Antwerp. In that part of the chronicle which narrated events before 1313, it is stated of one Ludwig, that "He was one of the first who discovered the method of Stamping which is in use to this day." Desroches construed the word Stampien as printing. But the context shows that this Ludwig was a fiddler, and that he had invented nothing more than a method of beating time by stamping with the foot. In other examples which might be adduced, it is plain that the word translated as printing does not mean printing with ink. This word has been made to serve in notices of embossing, stamping, stenciling and moulding.
- ↑ Hessel's translation, as given in The Haarlem Legend of Van der Linde, p. 8.
- ↑ Van der Linde takes exception to this part of the chronicle. He says that Zell's knowledge of geography was confused, and that he wrote Holland where he should have written the Netherlands. His reasons for suggesting this correction are, that the manufacture of block-books and the prints of images, and the cultivation of literature and of literary arts, during the first half of the fifteenth century, were in their most flourishing condition in the cities of Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels and Louvain, all of the Southern Netherlands, while they were comparatively neglected in Haarlem, Leyden, Delft and Utrecht, of the Northern Netherlands. At that period Holland had not taken its place as the foremost state of Europe, in its championship of liberty and civilization.
- ↑ Van der Linde, Haarlem Legend, p. 66.
- ↑ Behold what favor is due to the writing! Compare work with work and examine copy with copy [i. e. notice the uniformity of the letters]. Consider how clearly, how neatly, how handsomely, John Brito, a citizen of Bruges, prints these works, having discovered a very wonderful art, nobody having instructed him, and the very astonishing implements also, not less praiseworthy.
- ↑ Van Praet says that the word imprimit, or printed, was frequently used by the scribes and copyists of that period as the equivalent of scripsit, or wrote. It was also used to describe painting by stencils, Notice sur Colard Mansion, p. ii.
- ↑ The same face of types was used by Machlinia of London. It would seem that Veldener was not only working as a printer, but that, even at this date, he was doing business, to some extent, as a manufacturer of types for the trade.
- ↑ The date usually assigned for the introduction of printing in Cologne is 1466, but some authors suppose, and Hessels and Madden say it is probable, that Ulric Zell began to print there, as early as 1462.
- ↑ We have in this country two remarkable illustrations of attempts to make types by men who had no experience in type-founding. Benjamin Franklin's experiment is mentioned in the note on page 303. In 1794, Wing and White of Hartford, men entirely ignorant of type-founding, undertook to make type, never having seen a type-mould.