One more evidence which, like that of Junius, falls into the third class remains to be cited. In 1499 Koelhoff published the Cologne Chronicle in which he speaks of the invention of printing, using as his authority Ulrich Zell, a printer of the Mainz school, who settled in Cologne. He says that Zell told him that “the art of printing was first found at Mainz, but in the manner as it was then (1499) practiced; the first prefiguration, however, the beginning of that at Mainz, was found in Holland from the Donatuses which had been printed in that country before.” Certainly this is not an attribution of the invention of printing either to Mainz or to Gutenberg. It is a distinct confession that it is only the sort of work then being done which was invented at Mainz and that it was suggested by work brought from Holland. It entirely agrees with the Junius account above quoted.
In the Haarlem Town Library there is a pedigree of the Coster family. In its present form it dates from 1559, but the earlier part was evidently copied from an old document. This pedigree says that Lourens Janssoen Coster invented printing in 1446.
While we have not here an exact agreement of dates we have one near enough for all practical purposes. The Costeriana run back for a period which may be conservatively stated at thirty years from 1474, that is to say, to 1444 or thereabouts. Zell says that printed Donatuses came from Holland, but that the art of printing as practiced in 1499 was invented at Mainz, and this invention, as we shall presently show, is fixed as subsequently to 1450. Junius, writing in 1568, says that Coster discovered printing 128 years previously, that is to say, 1440.
If we now turn to the examination of the evidence in support of the claim for Gutenberg, we find that it is lacking in material of the first or even of the second class. It is not absolutely certain that we have any book printed by Gutenberg. If, however, for the sake of the argument we admit that he printed nearly or quite all of the works that are attributed to him we find that they are all much better in workmanship and appearance than the Haarlem books. None of them are printed on one side of the page only, excepting, of course, small matters which would not cover more than one page, and there are no signs whatever of transition from any previous type of printing to typography. Those who have accepted the theory of Gutenberg’s invention have marveled at the perfection of his work, as well they might.
There are only two pieces of evidence of the first class. One is the Helmasperger document, a notary’s document concerning the law suit which Fust brought against Gutenberg in 1455. A close examination of this document would appear to show that it tells rather against than in favor of Gutenberg. It appears to show conclusively that Gutenberg had not done any printing before 1450, and had not at that time even made the tools with which to print. In this document Fust speaks of “the work” and “our common work.” Gutenberg speaks of “tools” in preparation. Clearly he is borrowing money in order to make tools. He speaks further of “servants’ wages, house rent, vellum, paper, ink, etc.” and of “the work of the books.” The judges speak of “the work to the profit of both of them,” “their common use,” and the like. There is not a word which speaks distinctly of an invention. It is true that the argument from silence is always dangerous and that those who believe that Gutenberg invented printing could easily read between the lines of this document references to the invention. To one who approaches the subject with an open mind, however, the language is rather that of one who enters into partnership for the carrying on of a business enterprise which is understood by both parties and from which both expect to receive profit rather than that of the man who undertakes to finance an inventor for a share in the invention.
The other piece of evidence of the first class is the letters patent by which Adolph II appointed Gutenberg one of the officers of his court. The document states that the appointment is made for “agreeable and voluntary service rendered to us and our bishopric.” It has been argued that as Gutenberg was not a soldier this agreeable and voluntary service must have been the invention of printing. Surely this is a violent assumption. If we believe that Gutenberg invented printing, we may perhaps see in these words a reference to the invention, although we then marvel why so epoch-making an accomplishment was not specifically mentioned. It is difficult, however, to see why an unconvinced person should be expected to see in such a statement as this any evidence that Gutenberg had invented printing. Certainly there are many other kinds of service which might well have been rendered by one of whom we know so little as we do of Gutenberg.
Zell’s testimony, already referred to, is of the second class. Zell’s testimony also counts against Gutenberg. He distinctly does not claim that Gutenberg invented any more than the method of printing in use in 1499, admitting that he got his suggestion from the Donatuses brought out of Holland. It has been argued that these Donatuses were block books and that it was from them that Gutenberg got the idea of typography. This argument, however, breaks down at once when we remember that many block books were printed in Germany. There is no earthly reason why the suggestion of typography should have come from a Dutch block book when everybody was familiar with the German ones and had been so familiar for many years.
A careful examination of the documentary evidence which will be found set forth in chronological order in the article on Typography in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica shows several interesting things. While the earlier mentions of printing generally attribute the beginnings of the art to Mainz, few of them speak distinctly of its being invented there. They speak of its being practiced there and being given to Germany and the world from there, claims as we shall presently see quite consistent with the theory of invention elsewhere. Nearly, if not quite, all of the early statements that printing was invented by Gutenberg are traceable either directly to Gutenberg himself, to his family, or to people who would be quoting him or his family. It is not until a comparatively late period that we find any agreement among writers in attributing the invention to Gutenberg.
We are now perhaps in position to form a pretty clear idea of just what happened and to award discriminating credit where it belongs. The present writer believes that it may be considered as settled that Coster invented printing in Haarlem about 1446. Coster did not, however, found a school of printing. He ceased to print not far from 1481, as about that time we find some of his material used elsewhere. The later years of the century see a few printers in Holland. How far they derived their inspiration from Coster is doubtful. It is certain that Haarlem was not a center from which spread to the rest of Europe and ultimately to the whole world the art preservative of all arts.
The honor of being this center clearly belongs to Mainz. How did the art get there? Probably not through the treachery of a dishonest apprentice. That is one of the legendary features of the Junius story, explained by the fact that in his time everybody knew that the center from which printing spread was Mainz and that the first two printers were John Gutenberg and John Fust. We may at this point accept Zell’s account as the true one. Some of Coster’s work found its way to Mainz, together, probably, with some general, unscientific statements as to how it was produced. Acting on this hint and with these models before him, Gutenberg reinvented the art, that is, he worked out from the finished product and a general idea of how it was made what was to all intents and purposes an original process superior to the one by which the work in his possession had been produced.