In the early part of the nineteenth century a scientific society of Holland offered a prize for the best treatise on the subject of the invention and in 1816 Jacob Koning was given the award for his essay, “The Origin, Invention and Development of Printing.” Koning was the first writer on the subject to make researches in the Haarlem archives and in his book he claimed to have carefully collected from the registers, account books, and other official data all the entries that could throw light on the subject, and to have got together all the documentary evidence to be found.
The investigations of Koning, as reported by himself, corroborated some of the details of the stories of those who preceded him, and he found that Louwerijs Janszoon lived at Haarlem from 1370 to 1439, when he died.
For many years the discussion stood as Koning had left it and Coster was universally given equal honors with Gutenberg as the inventor of typography; but for several years previous to 1869 rumors of errors and defects in the Haarlem claim were in circulation in Holland.
Dr. Anton Van der Linde took up the task of investigating these rumors and the results of his labors were given in a series of articles in the Dutch Spectator during 1870. These articles were revised and issued in book form under the title, “The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of Printing.”
Van der Linde showed how Coster’s cause had been bolstered by Koning and others with misrepresentations, evasions and even forgeries, and Holland practically surrendered its claims and altered its school books to meet the new conditions.
The town records revealed no mention of printing in connection with Louwerijs Janszoon, the sheriff, who died in 1439, or with Laurens Janszoon Coster.
Van der Linde went to Germany as librarian of the royal library at Wiesbaden, became Von der Linde and in 1878 published an enlarged edition of his former book under the title “Gutenberg,” in which he argued that Gutenberg was the inventor of typography.
In 1879 J. H. Hessels, who had translated into English Van der Linde’s first book, was asked to write a review of the new book, “Gutenberg,” and in doing this he became so interested in the subject that he began a careful investigation into the question. He afterward declared in the preface of his book, “Gutenberg” (1882). “Had I myself been able to realize beforehand the time, the trouble, and the expense that this Gutenberg study would cost me, I should have abandoned the subject at the outset.” But the work was so infatuating that in 1887 he published another book: “Haarlem, the Birthplace of Printing; not Mentz.”
To demonstrate the fickle workings of the human mind it may be interesting to note that in his book of 1882 Mr. Hessels wrote, “I have never made any thoro examination of the Haarlem question, but such inquiries as I have made have led me to believe that the Haarlem claim cannot be maintained.” Contrast this with the title of his book of 1887: “Haarlem, not Mentz,” and notice his change of base.
While Mr. Hessels had come to believe in Haarlem, Van der Linde’s faith in the cause of Gutenberg was so strong he forsook his native land, and in America Theodore L. De Vinne in his book “The Invention of Printing” (1876) had reasoned out the tangle in a way to satisfy himself and many others that Gutenberg, and not Coster, was the inventor of typography.