FOOTNOTES
[1] The earliest testimony in favour of Koster is contained in a German volume published at Cologne in 1499, known as the Chronicle of Cologne, which was printed by Ulrich Zell, originally of Mayence, and a well-known follower of Gutenberg and his system. Under the heading “Of the art of printing books, when and where, and by whom, was invented the inexpressibly useful art of printing books,” the author says, “Although the art, as now practised, was discovered at Mayence, nevertheless the first idea came from Holland, and the Donati, which had been previously printed there. Those books are therefore the origin of the art.”—See Humphreys, ch. iii. and iv.
We cite further the following well-known account:—
“About one hundred and twenty-eight years ago, Laurens Zanssen Coster inhabited a decent and fashionable house in the city of Haarlem, situated on the market-place, opposite the royal palace. The name of Coster was assumed, and inherited from his ancestors, who had long enjoyed the honourable and lucrative office of coster or sexton to the church. This man deserves to be restored to the honour of being the first inventor of printing, of which he has been unjustly deprived by others, who have enjoyed the praises due to him alone. As he was walking in the wood contiguous to the city, which was the general custom of the richer citizens and men of leisure, in the afternoon and on holidays, he began to cut letters on the bark of the beech; with these letters he enstamped marks upon paper in a contrary direction, in the manner of a seal, until at length he formed a few lines for his own amusement and for the use of the children of his brother-in-law. This succeeding so well, he attempted greater things; and, being a man of genius and reflection, he invented, with the aid of his brother- or son-in-law, Thomas Pietrison, a thicker and more adhesive ink, as the common ink was too thin and made blotted marks. With this ink he was able to print blocks and figures, to which he added letters. I have seen specimens of his printing in this manner. In the beginning he printed on one side only. This was a Dutch book, entitled Spiegal enser Behoudenisse. That it was one of the first books printed after the invention of the art, appears from the leaves, which are pasted together, that the naked sides might not be offensive to the eyes; and none at first were printed in a more perfect manner. As this new species of traffic attracted numerous customers, thus did the profits arising from it increase his love for the art and his diligence in the exercise of it.
“He engaged workmen, which was the source of the mischief. Among these workmen was one Jan ⸺: whether his surname be that of Faust, or any other, is of no great importance to me, as I will not disturb the dead, whose consciences must have smote them sufficiently while living. This Jan, who assisted at the printing press under oath, after he had learned the art of casting the types, setting them, and other articles belonging to the art, and thought himself sufficiently instructed, having watched the opportunity, as he could not find a better, he packed up the types and the other articles on Christmas eve, while the family was engaged in celebrating the festival, and stole away with them. He first fled to Amsterdam, thence to Cologne, until he could establish himself at Mentz, as a secure place, where he might open shop and reap the fruits of his knavery. It is a known fact that within the twelve months (that is, in the year 1440) he published the Alexandri Galli Doctrinale, (a grammar at that time in high repute,) with Petri Hispani Tractatibus Logicis, with the same letters which Laurens had used. These were undoubtedly the first products of his press. These are the principal circumstances that I have collected from creditable persons far advanced in years, which they have transmitted like a flaming torch from hand to hand: I have also met with others who have confirmed the same.”—Hadrianus Junius, 1568.
[2] The first copies of the Bible are not dated, and do not contain the printer’s name. Only a few impressions have been preserved to the present time; indeed, they were entirely lost to the world until the latter half of the last century, when a copy was discovered in the library of Cardinal Mazarin in Paris; hence, the few existing copies are generally spoken of as Mazarin Bibles. Some of these were printed on vellum, but the earliest copies were on paper. There are only six copies now extant; two of which are in the United States, one belonging to the collection of the late Mr. George Brinley of Connecticut, and the other owned by the late Mr. James Lenox of New York. These two copies are on paper. The Brinley copy is said to have a leaf or two in fac-simile, while the Lenox copy is perfect in every respect. This copy, together with his unequalled collection of rare Bibles, now enriches the magnificent Lenox Library, founded in New York, in 1870, by this excellent and wisely beneficent man. The four remaining copies are in Europe, two of which were sold in London at auction; one on vellum selling for $20,000, and the other, on paper, bringing $14,000.
[3] “The names of Koster and Gutenberg will ever remain associated with its positive invention; and to Koster, if we are to be guided by a vast mass of unanswerable evidence in his favour, must be assigned the glory of achieving the first actual steps in that art, of which Gutenberg was soon destined, not only to extend and solidify the basis, but to raise at once upon that basis a most noble superstructure.”—Humphreys, p. 50.
[4] For detailed and conflicting accounts, see Humphreys’s History of the Art of Printing, (London,) and De Vinne’s Invention of Printing, (New York.)
Humphreys dispassionately goes over the ground, and while giving due credit to Gutenberg, awards to Koster the honour of the invention of the art of printing. A perusal of De Vinne, on the other hand, leaves the impression of an effort to prove a preconceived opinion, every probability in favour of Koster being curtly set aside, and every perchance on the side of Gutenberg being regarded as incontrovertible fact. De Vinne derides the idea that types were at first cut, and not cast or founded; and this in the face of the fact that in the earliest printed books, there are not two letters of one kind that are precisely alike in a page; that is, every letter a varies somewhat from all other a’s, and so with b and all other letters. This could not be the case if the types were cast or founded. To support his view, De Vinne copies from De la Borde a wood engraving representing letters cut and sawn apart; and from the imperfection of this experiment argues that the first types could not have been cut. This proves nothing except the incapacity of the experimenter. A dozen years ago an ingenious man in Philadelphia produced copper-headed types in a mass on type-metal bodies, which had to be cut apart singly. The specimen of these types here given proves conclusively that the thing can be done far better than was done by Koster on wood or metal, though his types were ten times larger than these:—