Part 22

This mask was substantially the same contrivance which modern printers call the frisket. It shielded the white sheet from contact with ink where ink was not required, but could not shield it from impression. It really strengthened and deepened the impression, producing the embossed letters in the short lines and the marks of wood in the margins. On [p307] some pages the slipping or displacement of this paper mask caused the false letters to be printed in black; on one other page the mask slipped so trivially that one-half of the false types was printed in black, while the other half was embossed in white; on another page the mask slipped over the text type, and obscured the end of the line. These were exceptional errors; the general execution of this part of the work shows that the printer was a man of some intelligence, and that with imperfect materials he performed a very difficult task.

[p308]

XVI

The Period in which the Speculum was Printed.

The Paper-Marks of the Speculum, with Fac-similes . . . 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 utility and charm of historical researches do not depend upon the exactness of their results. Inasmuch as error is misfortune, so examination is profitable, even that which does no more than declare as evident the opinion which had been regarded as plausible.

_Daunou._

* * * * *

The paper-marks[165] 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, [p309] 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; M A 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 [p310] 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[166] 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. [p311] 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.[167] 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.”[168] 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 [p312] 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.[169] [p313]

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.[170] 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.[171]

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 [p314] 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:[172]

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.[173]

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. [p315]

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.[174]

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 [p316] 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.[175]

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,[176] 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 [p317] 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, [p318] 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 [p319] 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,[177] 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.