The Invention of Printing.: A Collection of Facts and Opinions, Descriptive of Early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-Books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Lourens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem, and the Work of John Gutenberg and His AssociatesDe Vinne, Theodore Low
History
The Invention of Printing.: A Collection of Facts and Opinions, Descriptive of Early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-Books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Lourens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem, and the Work of John Gutenberg and His Associates
De Vinne, Theodore Low
Incunabula -- Bibliography; Printing -- History -- Origin and antecedents
The speculations of Koning were destroyed by the keen criticisms of
the authors who followed him. Dr. Abraham De Vries[211] set aside
impatiently nearly all the ingenious theories devised by former
commentators. He repudiated the statement that Coster had been a
sexton or sacristan, or that he invented engraving on wood. Warned
by the failures of his predecessors, he advanced no new theory about
the peculiarities of Coster’s typographic process; he professed to
be satisfied with the bald statement of Junius, and dogmatically
maintained that Coster “was the inventor of typography, of the proper
art of printing, the first who invented and practised [p358] the art
of printing with movable and cast letters, and so gave the example to
Mentz. . . . In the beginning, the art was secretly practised as a
trade in manuscripts, not only during the lifetime of the inventor, but
by his successors after his death.” De Vries placed the invention about
1423.
It is not necessary to protract this review of the different versions
of the legend, nor yet to point out the fatal disagreements and
inaccuracies of these versions. It is plain that all the authors who
have maintained the claims of Coster have taken their leading facts
from Junius. It is equally plain that they have been dissatisfied with
his statements and have tried to fill up the gaps in the evidence with
conjectures. But they have not made the legend any more credible. The
exact nature and date of the invention, the name of the inventor, his
method of making types, the books he printed, the thief who stole his
process, the fate of his printing office, the total disappearance of
the knowledge of the new art—these and other features of the positive
statement first made by Junius are enveloped in as complete a mystery
as they were when _Batavia_ was written.
With all its inconsistencies and improbabilities, the legend has
been accepted as essentially truthful by many eminent bibliographers
in France and England. Of late years it has encountered but feeble
opposition from German writers. In many modern books on printing,
Coster has been recognized either as the inventor or as one of the
co-inventors of the art. There has been a general belief that, however
absurd the legend might be in some minor matters of detail, it had
a nucleus of truth. Coster’s place in typographical history, at the
middle of the present century, seemed almost as firmly fixed as that of
Gutenberg.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account