printers at Utrecht, until he used them cut up into, halves and already considerable worn out. It is also known that ten years at least before he employed them, the cuts had been used intact as illustrations in a book which could not be ascribed to him. In such cases bibliography is bound to inquire where they could have been so used before ascribing them to the place where they are used in 1481. The statements of the Cologne Chronicle (1499) and of Junius (1568) when examined together with the types and workmanship of the Costeriana give satisfactory answers on this point. The fact that fragments of a French translation of Donatus, printed in Speculum type 3, and of a treatise of Ludov. Pontanus on Canonical Law in the Pontanus type, were discovered at Utrecht, cannot be set against the finding of many more fragments of Donatuses, &c. at Haarlem.
Bradshaw lived to see some result of his system in Campbell's Annales, published in 1874, where all the Costeriana are ascribed to a Prototypographie neerlandaise à Utrecht, and he regretted it. Unhappily, his untimely death prevented him from testing his system more closely; those who adopted it were unable, or considered it unnecessary, to repeat his explanations and reservations, so that the Costeriana are now, in almost every catalogue, placed at Utrecht,[1] without any sign of doubt or hesitation, though all the particulars connected with them prove that they could not have originated there.
To ascertain the probable date of the Haarlem invention, we have at our disposal: (A) some historic statements and documents, namely (a) two entries of 1446 and 1451 Haarlem in the Diary of Jean Le Robert (Abbat of Cambray); (b) the Helmasperger Instrument of 1455; (c) Ulrich Zell’s account of the invention of printing in the Date of Haalem Invention. Cologne Chronicle of 1499; (d) the Coster pedigree; and (e) Junius’s narrative of the Haarlem tradition; (B) a collection of nearly, if not more than, fifty incunabula, known as Costeriana, the printing of which must have involved the manufacture of seven types, four of which (the Abecedarium, and three Speculum types) cannot be placed later than 1471, the other three (the Valla, Pontanus and Saliceto types) not later than 1472. With these types were printed five folio editions of the Speculum, twenty-three of Donatus, eight of the Doctrinale, besides several other important books.
A. Historic Statements.—Junius, saying that Coster invented printing in 1440, and that Johan, who stole his types, printed with them at Mainz in 1442, probably knew, or had heard, nothing more definite about a date than that Coster’s types were used at Mainz within a year after the theft. The year 1440 as that of the invention was first mentioned, it seems, in 1483, in testimony xvii.; a second time by the Cologne Chronicle in 1499 (but only as the year in which the art began to be “investigated,” whatever that may mean), and again in 1505 and later (testimonies xxix., xxxix.). Junius, therefore, may have derived 1440 not from the Haarlem tradition, nor from the Coster pedigree (which gives 1446, and may imply a still earlier date), but from other sources, and hence fixed the commencement of printing at Mainz in 1442 (first mentioned, it seems, in 1499 by Polyd. Vergil, testimony xxiii.). Be this as it may, the Helmasperger instrument of 1455, if it is genuine, shows that Gutenberg Mainz date, 1450. could not have begun printing before the end of 1450, if so early, as in that year, about the middle of August, he borrowed money for “making his tools,” and was then, moreover, destitute of everything necessary for printing, as parchment, paper, even ink. This year 1450 agrees with the date (1451) written in the Paris Donatus, which, on insufficient grounds is considered to be a forgery. It also agrees with Ulr. Zell’s statement in the Cologne Chronicle that printing and all that belonged to it were “investigated” from 1440 to 1450, and that in the latter year they began to print. And it likewise agrees with the testimonies xxviii., xxx., xxxi., xxxiii., xxxviii. and xl. quoted above, which all come from persons who may be supposed to have known something about the date of early Mainz printing, namely, Johan Schoeffer, the son of Peter Schoeffer, Joh. Trithemius (who was personally acquainted with both Peter and Johan Schoeffer), Joh. Thurmayer Aventinus (who lived from 1474 to 1534), Mariangelo Accorso (who wrote c. 1533), while No. xl. is that of Joh. Bergellanus, the first author, so far as we know, who mentioned the lawsuit of 1455, in his Encomium, printed and published in the very St Victor Stift of which Gutenberg had been for some years a lay brother till his death, so that this testimony points to Gutenberg’s own version of the “beginning” of Mainz printing.
Therefore the Mainz date 1450, derived from documents and testimonies which cannot be lightly set aside, is much later than the latest date (1446) of the Haarlem claims, and those who accept the Haarlem tradition, as we do, may reasonably conclude that Fust was induced to advance money to Gutenberg about August 1450, not by seeing anything printed by the latter, but by having some of Coster’s types and tools, and a type-printed Donatus, shown and explained to him.
We are, however, now asked to disregard this date 1450 and all documents that indicate, and have hitherto always been relied on as fixing, the beginning of printing at Mainz in that year, and to believe that the Astronomical Kalendar, said to be for 1448, was printed at Mainz in 1447. If this year could be accepted for the printing of this Kalendar, its value would of course be greater than any written or printed statement. It is, however, far from certain, and its assumed date, though not interfering with the Haarlem dates, as it falls after 1446 of the Coster pedigree, is incompatible with the Helmasperger instrument, which shows that so late as August 1450 Gutenberg had not printed anything, and had not even made his apparatus for printing. There remains the Poem on the “Weltgericht,” also ascribed to Gutenberg and said to be printed in the same type as the Donatus of 1451, with the exception of certain letters the form of which represents, it is thought, a still earlier stage. Hence the Poem is dated back, apparently for no tangible reason, to 1443–1444, and the Donatus placed between it and the Kalendar, the type of which is said to be a “development” of the Donatus type. This date, which is even more speculative than that assigned to the Kalendar, militates entirely against the Helmasperger instrument; it can hardly be said to go against the Coster pedigree, while it does not interfere With, but rather favours, Junius’ dates.
Among the historic statements also come the two entries of the Abbot of Cambray, on folio 161a of his Diary, preserved in the Archives at Lille, in which he records having bought in January (1445, o.s. =) 1446 and in 1451, at Bruges and Valenciennes, printed[2] Doctrinalia (on vellum[3] and on paper). Even if printing could be said to have begun at Mainz in 1450 or earlier, no Doctrinalia printed there have ever come to light, unless we accept the Haarlem tradition, that those printed with Coster’s types were printed there. Hence these entries can only be applied to the Doctrinalia printed in Holland in the same types as the Speculum (on which Junius based the tradition of the Haarlem invention) and the Donatuses which fit into Zell’s historic statement (in the Cologne Chronicle of 1499), that the Donatuses printed in Holland were the models for the Mainz printing. Therefore there is no certainty as to any Mainz printing having been done before 1450, and, if the Helmasperger instrument has any value, it is certain that it could not have begun there before that year; Ulrich Zell unreservedly places the printing done in Holland before that of Mainz; Jean Le Robert’s statements make it certain that printing was exercised before January 1446; the Coster pedigree fixes no later date than 1446 for the invention at Haarlem; Junius’ years (1440–1442) are, perhaps, his own guess. Anyhow, if historic statements and documents have any value, the invention must have been accomplished within the six years from 1440 to 1446 (also indicated by Zell).
B. The Costeriana.—It has been pointed out above that we have nearly 50 Costeriana, for which seven types have been employed, four of which cannot be placed later than 1471, the remaining three not later than 1472; and that with these types five folio editions of the Speculum were printed, 23 of Donatus, 8 of the Doctrinale, besides several other important books. With such an abundance of material, for the greatest part of which we have the year 1471–1472 as an undoubted terminus ad quem, we need not inquire too anxiously whether Junius placed the invention in 1440, or whether the Haarlem Coster pedigree fixes it at 1446 or earlier. For, by placing intervals either between the seven types or between the several editions of the Speculum, Donatus, Doctrinale, &c., we can easily reach any terminus a quo which may be found to agree with the historic statements explained above. Such intervals, however natural and necessary they may be to arrange the Costeriana in some chronological order, must always be more or less arbitrary, as it is impossible to say whether the editions followed each other within two months or within two or more years, or whether the types became used up within six months or within six, seven or more years. Therefore, only such intervals need be suggested as may show that the Costeriana, or some of them, may reasonably be placed before Mainz dates which are certain (that is c. 1450, derived from the Helmasperger instrument, and 1454, the date of the Indulgences), or speculative (as 1443–1444 for the “Weltgericht,” and 1447 for the Astronomical Kalendar). The first products of the art of printing were intended to be faithful imitations of the manuscripts, and no material deviations from the general plan become observable till about 1473–1477. Nowhere are the features of the MSS. of the 15th century so faithfully imitated as in the productions of the three earliest printing-offices
of Coster, Gutenberg (?) and Schoeffer. They are all without- ↑ It is pleasant to be able to record some exceptions. Voulliéme and Günther in their Catalogues still mention Haarlem.
- ↑ The abbot speaks of Doctrinalia “gette” or “jettez en molle,” and the phrase is, as Bernard (Origine, i. 97 seq.) shows by eight examples from 1474 (the year when printing is first officially spoken of in France) to 1593, and down to the present day, applied to typographically printed books only; see also Fred. Godefroy, Dictionaire, in voce mole (which he interprets as caractère d'imprimerie, where he gives six quotations showing the same meaning.
- ↑ The abbot does not mention the word vellum, but states that the Doctrinale which he had bought at Valenciennes was full of mistakes wherefore he had bought one on paper.
