PRINTING 



and the earliest letterpress print*. Equally base- 

 lean is the belief that tin- first metal t\|- were 

 cut in-icad of being cast. The evidence on these 

 tun potnta is too minute anil technical to be 

 adduced here. 



Tin- controversy a to the invention of printing 

 ha> lasted nearly four centnrieK, anil it has un- 

 )i;i|i|iily l>een carrie<l on with a vehemence and 

 bitterness which i-cihap- no other cotitroveray, not 

 a religious one, has ever rxriuil. t'p to 1499 it 

 was universally U-lieved that topography was in- 

 vented at Strksliurg by QvtanMrg (<|.v.), who 

 afterwards set up a press at Main/, from which 

 emanatetl the magnificent Latin Bible, for many 

 years called the Mazarin Bible, owiny to a copy 

 Mvin( been discovered by Id- Mine in Cardinal 

 Ma/arin's library at Paris. Gutenberg's name 

 does not appear in a single production of his press, 

 and none of his associates mention bis name as the 

 inventor of printing. In 1499 there was published 

 at Cologne the Croniea van tier hilligrr Stnt van 

 Coellen, since known as the Cologne Chronicle, in 

 which one chapter in devoted to the origin of print- 

 ing. The chronicler declares that the art was 

 discovered first of all in Germany, at Main/, on the 

 Hbine ; that it took place alxmt 1440, but that, 

 although it was discovered at Mainz, the first ' pre- 

 liirmat ion ' was in Holland, in the form of the 

 ffiinntiixf.t which were printed before that time ; 

 that the circumstances of the origin had been com- 

 municated to the chronicler by I'lric Zell, a con- 

 temporary printer at Cologne. To these state- 

 ments may be attributed t lie commencement of the 

 controversy ever since carried on. In 1.">S8 Adriaen 

 de Jonghe ( ' Hadriaims .Iiinius'), in his liatama, 

 printed in the I'lantin office at Antwerp, gave the 

 first circumstantial account of the alleged Dutch 

 invention, which, he said, lie had heard from old 

 and trustworthy people. This was, it will be 

 noticed, alxiut a century and a half after the inven- 

 tion, .lunius .stated that iii 144H ' Lourens Jans- 

 zoon,' siiriianied Coster (q.v.). liveil at Haarlem; 

 that he one day took a walk in the Hunt, and 

 cut letters on the bark of a beech tree; that he 

 printed these letters on pai>er fur the aiiinsenieiitof 

 children; that he Invented a suitable printing ink, 



and afterwards l>egan to print whole >l t>, with 



pictures; sulwequently he used leaden letters, and 

 then tin ones. Among his workmen was one 

 Johannes the surname was not given by Jnnius 

 who in 1441 stole the t\-|>es and fled to Main/, 

 where he opened a workshop, ami in I 11'.' published, 

 with Coster's types, the DocMlUlft of A. (lallus 

 and the Trurtnl/i.i of I'. Hispanus. l-'mm this 

 date, as already stated, the c|iiestioii whether 

 printing was 'invented ' in Midland or in Germany 

 has been fiercely debated, and scores of books have 

 been written upon it. The litlcs ,,f these are 

 (riven in Higmore and Wvman's Bibliography of 

 rrintiH<j(:\\\*. F^ond. 18SO-86). The controversy 

 was rein-wed with much vigour, and unfortunately 

 with much acrimonv, in 1S70; and it IIUM since In-cn 

 niainlaine.l, the Iwiiance of evidence, or rather of 

 probability for of evidence there is an extraordi- 

 nary lack oscillating from time to time to one side 

 and then to the other. In IH70 the 'Costerians ' 

 included nearly all the leading bibliographers and 

 typographical historians. An eminent Mulch in 

 vestigaior, Mr van der Linde, published a series 

 of HI tide*, -ince translated into English ( l,und. 

 1H7I) under the title of The Coster Legend. The 

 iiiiipnit of the IhMik was that the documents 

 lirought forward to support the claims of Coster 

 were false, anil that the argument* in his favour 

 were devoid of any historical or bibliographical 

 support. Van dcr Lindc showed further that 

 several of the documents on which the Costerians 

 relied were actually frauds and forgeries. This 



exposure for a time completely routed the snp- 



poiters of the Dutch claims. In 1S7S the same 

 aiithoi products! a companion volume. Hiilenberg 

 Getcflirntf Hilt/ EnlirlttlllliJ mix llfll (Jnrllrn tincli- 



getoieten, but there was little new in it. Mr 

 : Cambridge, a native of Haarlem, next 

 took up the subject on original lines, and issued 

 the work Gtttenlierg: ]l'n.i In tin Inn iitnr iifl'rinl- 

 - I.ond. 1882). He maintained that Van der 

 I, hide was untnist worthy, and that his book pie 

 senteil a more complete chaos of error on the 

 subject than its predecessors. Mr Heasels s|>ent 

 several years in examining in Germany all the 

 documents extant connected with the history of 

 Gutenlx-rg, and cxiNiscd a numlM'r of falsifications 

 ami forgeries which had passed current. Space 

 will not here sullice to recapitulate his discoveries ; 

 his iMHik is indispensable to any one desiring an 

 accurate knowledge of the subject. The result of 

 his researches was more negative than positive. 

 He said that he had not found anything which 

 enabled him to answer in tin' affirmative or in the 

 negative the question, \Va.s Gutenberg the inventor 

 of printing? Of the three principal docutn< 

 relied upon by hi* supporters one is lost entircU, 

 and the other two are only transcripts. Even if 

 we accept these transcripts, he says, they point to 

 Gutenberg only as a printer, but not as the inventor 

 of printing. In 1SSU Mr van der Linde wrote from 

 the German side another book, Geschichte der 

 Erfindiinti if/ r lliirhilritrkrrknnst. It was pro- 

 duced in magnificent style at the cost of t In- 

 German government, but it added to our know- 

 ledge of the contention nothing of importance. 

 Mr Hessels has since continued liis investigations. 

 and the result is indicated in the title of his book, 

 issued in 1H>S7. llniirlnii tin liirth)>lnrf of Printing, 

 net Main:. This important work virtually takes- 

 us back to 1499, when the I'n/ni/in- rln-nnii-li- de- 

 clared that the first idea of printing was found in 

 Holland. The case now stands thus: very crude 

 and clumsy specimens of minting- some of which 

 have IM'CH ipiite recently discovered are generally 

 allowed to be ' Costeriana. ' On the other hand, 

 there is the magnificent Bible and Psalter un- 

 deniably printed by Gutenberg and bis associates. 

 It is diflicult to belie\ e that the masterpiece pre- 

 ceded the rude essays. It is more reasonable to 

 conclude that, anterior to Gutenberg's press, there 

 was a rude school of typography in existence. Im- 

 portant discoveries may at any i ime take place. The 

 contents of many old continental libraries have even 

 up to the present not IM-CII adequately examined. 

 Possibly within some ancient bindings there exist 

 at the present moment prints that would settle fin- 

 al I futurity the controversy which ha* raged for 

 four centuries as to the ' origines typographic!.' 



It has l>een mentioned at ( Ji i I.M'.I .!;<; that after 

 Fust had obtained possession by action at law of 

 GutenlMTg's office, and while he was carrying it on 

 as a priming concern, Gutenberg, by the assistance 



of another capitalist, set up a second oflice. With 



two rival establishments in existence, it w:is jm 

 i>0"ihlc to keep secret the processes of printing. 

 In 1402 the city of Main/, was sacked, and the 

 catastrophe dissolved engagements between cm 

 ployers and employed, and caused many of ihe 

 latter to migrate to other countries, taking \\iih 

 them, of course, their knowledge of the art. Print 

 in;; spread with marvellous rapidity, considering 

 the means of transport and of communication then 

 in existence. For instance, before 1500 there 

 were 16 master printers at Straslmrg, 22 at 

 Cologne, 17 at Nuremberg, 20 at Augsburg. I'.y 

 the end of the 15th century the business was 

 carried on in about 60 places in central and 

 northern Europe, 21 in the Netherlands, 32 in 

 Italy, 31 in France, 22 in Spain and Portugal 



