Chapter X: Part IV: GUTENBERG v. COSTER

Coster of Haarlem the inventor of Printing? ’Tis a mere figment born of national vanity. There is not an atom of real evidence to prove that a man named _Coster_ ever existed as a printer. “Stat nominis Umbra,” and very shady is the whole story, being nothing more than empty theory, supported by phrases such as “in all probability”--“irresistible deduction”--“must have been,” and similar empty words, which sound big to the ear, but which added all together = 0. Applying the usual laws of evidence to the arguments of Costerians, there is simply “no case.” The evidence of the _Cologne Chronicle_ is twisted and strained to support the claims of Holland. The writer of that work had no idea that his words would in future ages become a battlefield for nations, or he would have taken good care to have made himself better acquainted with the early chronology of the art. Costerians admit that he is wrong in his account of the towns to which the art was first taken; why then do they insist so strongly on his verbal accuracy just where it tells in their favour?

It is now admitted that on each side various documents have been forged or falsified. More’s the pity, for they have confused and mystified the question greatly. Mr. Hessels says that “in the case of Gutenberg far more forgeries have been perpetrated than in that of the Haarlem inventor.” But supposing this absurd dictum to be true (which it is not) the character of such forgeries is very different in the two cases. On the one side they are unimportant as regards the invention--on the other, vital. The false documents concocted by Bodmann, the Archeviste of Strasbourg, and others, in the Gutenberg interest, concern points of family history only, with scarcely the remotest interest typographically. They would add materials, if true, to his biography, but would not add an iota to his claim to be the first printer with types. On the other hand, the Coster typography rests entirely on a padded legend, cooked up for the national palate by Junius--on the Costerian pedigree concocted by Gerrit Thomaszoon and the bare-faced falsifications of Meerman, De Vries, and others. Compare such an impostor with _Gutenberg_! a real man of flesh and blood about whose existence there is no doubt; and whose abilities as a printer even Mr. Hessels does not deny, although he dates them later than his opponents. He uses some clever arguments to show that the early books hitherto attributed to Gutenberg were printed at Bamberg by Pfister; but here he is evidently conscious that his argument proves too much, for, carried out consistently, it would prove that Gutenberg never printed at all. This would be such a flying in the face of universally received evidence, that he wisely if illogically stops in his destructive career. It would indeed be a difficult task to explain the spread of Gutenberg’s fame, not only as a printer, but as the first printer, if we eliminate from his history the Donatuses in the Bible type, the Indulgences, and the first Bible. But as an historical fact, we find his name and his fame spread through Germany, Italy, France, England (see Caxton’s _Chronicle_), and we may say all Europe, a century before any one ever heard of Coster. Mr. Hessels pretends that Gutenberg himself spread the rumours about himself; but the argument is very weak and untenable, for surely if Gutenberg had wished at all to uphold his fame, a simple claim at the end of his great Bible would have been much more efficacious than a roundabout plan of getting his friends Ivo Wittig, A. Gelthus, and others, to proclaim him the inventor of printing. Two words, “Gutenberg fecit,” at the end of any of his works would have served the purpose. His omission to do this was probably owing to his pride, which persuaded him not to boast of what all the world knew, and for which all the world at that very time gave him credit. Mr. Hessels’ whole argument is here weak--weak in the extreme--especially in supposing that debt would make him reticent.

Here, too, we must note the difference of tone in the earliest notices of the invention. The _Cologne Chronicle_ mentions Holland, but not a word of Coster--Gutenberg is the hero. For a century and a half no record mentions Coster, but after Junius wrote his _Batavia_ the legendary figure fills Dutch literature. On the other hand, there is no doubt as to Gutenberg’s first appearance. A good deal of his biography unconnected with printing is known, and when as a printer he is first spoken of, we find his name and fame the common property of the nation.

The earliest positive notice connecting Gutenberg by name with typography appears in an interesting Latin preface to a special copy of _Gasparinus_, printed by Gering, at Paris, in 1472. It was written by Prof. Fichet, of Sorbonne,--he who with Jean Heynlin started the first printing-press on French soil. He there speaks at great length of the immense importance to mankind of the newly invented art which had been discovered in Germany. The important part is thus translated: “People say[16] in these parts (_i.e._ Paris) that a man named Gutenberg,[17] not far from Mayence, was formerly the first inventor of the Printing Art, by means of which, with rapidity, precision, and elegance, books are made by means of metal letters, and no longer by means of a reed-pen as of old, nor with a quill as in our days.... Gutenberg has discovered the way of engraving letters by means of which all that can be said or thought is at once reproduced, so that it descends to posterity.” When these words were printed, the Sorbonne printers, Gering, Friburger, and Crantz, had been at work about two years. They were pupils from the German school of typography, and we can hardly resist the conviction that they gave Fichet his information, and that they had personal knowledge of its accuracy.

The expression, “people here say,” which has been taken to prove hearsay only, does not mean that the writer had any doubt of the truth of his information--it was simply a colloquial phrase for “the general belief.” This discovery, therefore, of Fichet’s evidence is of great interest and importance in the history of the invention. Mr. Bullen plainly showed this in the interesting paper read by him on the subject at a meeting of the Association of Librarians.

After Fichet in 1472, the next notice of Gutenberg is found in the _Chronicon_ of Lignamine dated 1474. He mentions Gutenberg as a printer, and from that time onward there is an unbroken testimony in every age and in every country to the same effect.

Examining critically the earliest remains of the German press, we get into great confusion if we dethrone Gutenberg. Who could have printed the early Indulgences, one of which bears the year 1454, if Gutenberg did not? His efforts there and upon the large type Donatuses, of which several fragments have been preserved, would be a fitting and useful prelude to such grand works as the Bible and Psalter, and they afford a complete reply to those who say that these magnificent specimens could never have been the first efforts of any infant press. Depend upon it, if time, as Costerians say, is to prove so much in favour of their theory, it is still more likely to unfold new Donatuses and unknown editions of the _Speculum_ in the types of Gutenberg, and possibly with his name or some note of their origin. It is a weak cause that takes unknown discoveries for evidence.

No! Gutenberg is king. Mr. Hessels may spin out his fine-drawn and prolix arguments--may arrange his regiments of “must-have-beens” and probabilities; but “an ounce of fact is worth a ton of probabilities,” and fact and history and general belief down to the present day are all against him. His shady Costeriana will never be supported by a real date, and in spite of him and them Gutenberg will reign through all ages as the great inventor of Typography.

* * * * *

And now, as the writer of the foregoing articles, I feel that, having stated the arguments on each side with as much fairness as I can, a personal opinion may be expected from me, and without hesitation I will give it.

The evidence on each side may be enlarged in the course of years, but so far as it goes at present it is strongly in favour of a first rude invention of movable types in Holland by some one whose name may have been Coster. The claim of Gutenberg upon the respect of posterity rests on his great improvements--so great as to entitle him in a sense to be deemed the inventor--foremost in excellence if not first in time.

EARLY GREEK TYPES OF THE ROYAL PRINTING OFFICE, PARIS, AND THE
CHANCELLOR OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.

Francis I. was perhaps the most literary monarch of which the French nation can boast. It was he who, in 1540, promoted the printing of Classic and Hebrew Authors, by appointing special printers for each language, and bestowing upon them personal protection and numerous privileges. Thus the celebrated Robert Estienne was appointed by Letters Patent “Greek Printer to the King.” The better to carry into effect the King’s wishes, he determined, with assistance from the royal purse, to cut entirely new founts of various sizes. For this purpose he engaged the services of Claude Garamond, who was the most skilful engraver in France, to cut the punches, the designs being contributed by a young Cretan in the King’s employment, celebrated for his beautiful Greek handwriting. The result was a great success; and, ever since, these types have been known as “the Royal Greek.” They derived their fame from the picturesque beauty of their outline, and their curious varieties of ligatures, each fount having a minimum of 536 matrices.

In the year 1700, the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge opened negotiations with the Court of France concerning the terms on which a complete set of these matrices might be obtained; engaging on his part, not only to pay all expenses, but to acknowledge in the Prefaces of the first works for which they might be used the favour conferred. The arrangements made satisfactory progress on both sides until the matter came before the Warden of the King’s Library, who had the custody of the punches, when he stipulated for a new and stringent condition, as follows: “The Chancellor of Cambridge shall engage to place the following notice in the Title-page of every work for which the type is used: _Caracteribus græcis e typographio regio Parisiensi_.” All French printers who used these types were compelled to conform to this condition; it was too much, however, for our English “amour propre,” and so the negotiations were broken off and never after renewed. These interesting punches formed part of the earliest material of the French Imperial Printing Office, but at the present day they are not to be found, nor does any record remain of their fate.

THE FIRST PRINTING-PRESS IN ENGLAND, AS PICTORIALLY PRESENTED.

There have been, I believe, only three attempts to treat in a pictorial manner that interesting subject, the introduction of the Art of Printing to England; of these, two may be dismissed with a brief notice, while the third, as issuing from the brain, and illustrated by the genius of, a very popular artist, will be discussed more at length.

I.--A Painting in oil, by JAMES E. DOYLE, 1848. Engraved by W.
WALKER: entitled, “Caxton submitting his Proof-sheet to John
Esteney, Abbot of Westminster, in 1477.”

In this the aim of the artist has not been high; there are in all but four figures, viz.: _Caxton_, who stands leaning upon an old wooden press; _Abbot Esteney_, who is sitting upon a stool examining the fresh-pulled proof of a half-sheet of quarto (4 pp. on one side of the sheet); _Earl Rivers_, one of Caxton’s patrons; and, in the background, _Wynken de Worde_, Caxton’s successor. A Gothic door and window, and part of some stone groining in the roof, are intended to represent a portion of Westminster Abbey. All accessories are omitted, the artist depending upon his figures only for effect, feeling probably that, as very little of the subject was accurately known, the details might be left to imagination. With this idea the types, inking apparatus, and a large portion of the press, are either entirely hidden from view, or placed very indefinitely in the dark. The figure of Caxton is drawn too young by some ten or fifteen years; as, if born in 1412, he was at least sixty-five years of age when he began printing at Westminster.

II.--A Painting in oil, by E. H. WEHNERT. Engraved by
F. BACON: entitled, “William Caxton examining the First
Proof-sheet from his Printing-press in Westminster Abbey, 1474.”

This is much bolder in design than the former. We can see Caxton as the central figure, wearing the conventional cap and streamers invented for him about the year 1750 by Bagford, who was the first to draw his likeness. He is seated before an old-fashioned wooden press, Wynken de Worde looking over his shoulder at the printed sheet which has just been pulled and placed in the hands of his master. Three workmen--Machlinia, Pynson, and Lettou--are eagerly looking on, while others are variously employed. The stone-pointed roof of a long Gothic aisle denotes the scene to be placed in the Abbey. The artist has evidently paid attention to the technical details of early printing--the press is well designed, only the bar-handle should be a fixture, and not made to take in and out like a binder’s press. The types are placed as they should be: not in an iron chase, but in an oblong wooden coffin, only one page at a time being put to press. The compositor’s case, too, is correct, the boxes in Caxton’s time being all of one size. All these minutiæ are good, and show careful research.

III.--A Painting in oil, by D. MACLISE, R.A. Engraved by
FRED. BROMLEY: entitled, “Caxton showing the First Specimen
of his Printing to King Edward the Fourth, at the Almonry,
Westminster.”

This large and grand picture was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1851, where it attracted daily crowds of admirers. The critics were unanimous in praising its poetical composition, its accurate anatomy, and its wonderful colouring. The artist, however, has aimed at perfection, not in these qualities alone; but by the extraordinary care he has taken to present in detail all the mechanical operations and every tool in use by the workmen, he has challenged the criticism of the artisan as well as the connoisseur. This, indeed, is almost stated in the Exhibition Catalogue (1851, No. 67), where the following remarks are appended: “The designer, the illuminator, the wood-engraver, and the bookbinder, all worked at their several trades in the office of the First English Printer; combining with the Compositors and Pressmen to achieve the first complete book published in England”; and with reference to it the _Art Journal_ critic pronounced the drawing of the tools to be “fastidiously careful” and “exquisitely rendered,” ending by the declaration that “the subject never could be treated in a manner more masterly.”

Accepting, therefore, the challenge, not at all as an art critic, but simply as an artisan who has paid some attention to the antiquities of his craft, I beg to submit the following remarks:--

“This scene, so memorable in the history of English literature, took place in the Almonry at Westminster,” says the Catalogue. No doubt the fancy of a royal visit adds great life and interest to the subject, but the fact is purely imaginary, without the slightest historical basis. The Almonry, too, I take to have been a place outside the consecrated walls but inside the abbey precincts, where almshouses and other tenements were. In one of these houses, the “Red Pale,” Caxton was placed, as he himself states in the handbill upon the side of the press. Permission to carry on a trade, and that often a very dirty trade, within the walls of any consecrated building, would never have been asked of, nor granted by, the Abbot.

Upon approaching the painting, the first thing that attracts the eye is the great wooden press, which occupies a large portion of the canvas, thus striking at once the key-note to the whole subject. On the further side of the press are grouped the principal characters, an arrangement admirably adapted to show their features and action. Caxton has just raised the tympan, upon which is a sheet of paper bearing the impression of two folio pages, which the title to the engraving informs us is “The _first_ specimen of his Printing.” The King and Queen with three young princes are looking at it with interest. Behind them is the Earl of Clarence, to whom Caxton, when abroad, had dedicated the First Edition of his Chess-book, and by their side in full armour is Earl Rivers, a constant patron of Caxton, who has brought in his hand a roll of paper, upon which is revealed part of a title-page, displaying in a bold 19th-century hand the word “Dictes.” This is plainly “copy” which, with an eye to business, the Earl has brought with him, and which Caxton actually put to press the next year, viz., 1477. Two fly-boys (or Printers’ Devils) are waiting by the tympan to hand up and take off the sheets--they are beautifully painted with delicately clean hands and faces, and with snow-white linen shirt-sleeves, their hair carefully brushed and parted, and with spotless lay-down collars. To the right are four compositors--one, an old man, is puzzling, spectacles on nose, over a crabbed piece of copy; one is composing; one correcting; and the fourth moving a galley. To the left is a table, at which a multiplicity of operations are going on: one man has a paint-brush, and is taking colour from a pretty white enamelled tray of saucers, keeping his hand in as future “rubrissher” to the forthcoming sheets; another is binding a book; while a third and fourth are engraving “illustrations on wood-blocks.” Tools of all kinds are placed here and there. The Abbot, fat and stolid (the conventional stage monk), stands with crossed hands near the wall, his shadow hiding and darkening a copy of the Bible, which, with a block-book or two, he has had chained to a shelf for the use of the workmen. Six soldiers keep guard at the door. In a niche behind is an image of the Virgin and Child, before which a lamp is burning.

Such is the best account I can give of this clever and ambitious composition. Where much that is excellent exists the task of fault-finding is not agreeable; yet, looking at it from a common-sense point of view, I confess that the painting not only disappointed but pained me. Every artist should feel that his mission is to instruct the mind as well as gratify the eye; and that, above all things, truth--not truth of colour and drawing only, but truth historical and mechanical--truth in small as well as great things must be sought for. With a feeling, apparently, that he possesses intuitive knowledge, and with a lofty disregard of possibilities, Mr. Maclise paints anachronisms and mechanical untruths, which must always prevent any one who has the least practical acquaintance with the subject enjoying the work. In more than one instance it puts me in mind of the Dutch painter, who depicted Isaac bound upon the altar, and Abraham, in baggy Dutch costume, firing a blunderbuss to kill his son, a catastrophe prevented only by a naked angel, who, in a very natural way, is wetting the powder in the touch-hole. As some of the most evident untruths and anachronisms take the following:--First, as to the tools, etc. The compositor to the right is using a brand-new _steel_ composing-stick, with latest improvements. The oldest “sticks” we know of are of wood, intended to hold one line only. Such may still be found in the rural towns of both Germany and France. Then the compositor is placing his types _face downwards_ in the stick![18] Another workman is correcting a page of loose matter upon a galley, and the galley is laid flat upon the stone!--alas, for the pie! it is unavoidable.

The earliest representation of a Printing-press is that of Ascensius, 1508. Several writers have given fac-simile copies of it, and it is the nearest approach we have to presses of the 15th century. Mr. Maclise makes Caxton use the press with _iron_ screw instead of wood, with the platen “slung,” and not fixed,--in fact, the press, as improved in the middle of last century by Blaew, which, after superseding the old wooden press, was in its turn superseded by the iron Stanhope. But what can we say of the “forme” upon the press? the _first_ “forme” worked by the _first_ English printer? Chronology and the laws of mechanics are equally violated. The chase is iron,--and _cast_ iron too,--the first invention and introduction of which are in the memory of many still living. The painting of this chase is so good, that the peculiar grain of cast iron is easily recognised, if the fixed cross and strengthened corners did not unmistakably betray the fact. It is, in fact, an admirable copy from a cast-iron folio chase as seen in any modern printing-office. With such a chase the quoins, of course, would be at each side and foot; but our artist, probably copying blindly from an octavo form with double cross, has put quoins at the head and foot too, making the pages lock up all round the chase--truly a mechanical puzzle. After this, minor untruths seem hardly worth remark--though there is no lack of them. The foot-block of the pressman is on the wrong side, and quite useless unless fastened down in its proper position. The little fat bottles with _ground-glass_ stoppers, used in modern times for holding coloured inks in powder, were as unknown to Caxton as the electric light.

Leaving the mechanical aspect of the painting, let us now look for a minute at the literary--or rather the bibliographical--information offered for public acceptance. The sheet just pulled is, as the Catalogue says, “a proof of that famous production, _The Game of Chesse_.” A fine copy of this First Edition is openly shown in the British Museum, where any one who cares can examine it. Why, then, does Mr. Maclise give us the Second Edition? The printed sheet on the tympan shows a wood-cut of a man in a state chair, with the chess-board before him: this is the third folio of the edition of 1480, the first edition being entirely without wood-cuts. How absurd to see the King and Queen, their children and courtiers, looking with admiration at a book which did not exist till the majority of them were in their graves! Looking further, so many similar anachronisms occur, that I begin to think they must be intentional, and meant to convey an abstruse, hidden meaning, not to be understood by matter-of-fact men. I will, therefore, without remark, note a few others. The well-known handbill about the sale of “pyes of Salisbury use,” printed in 1480-81, is pasted on the cheek of the press. Numerous specimens of _future_ works are hung upon a rope, stretched from one pillar of the Abbey to another, while upon the pillar itself is seen a sheet bearing the device of Wynken de Worde, who succeeded Caxton in 1491-92. No artist can be expected to know the peculiarities of every trade; but, if not too self-contained to ask, he can always obtain the opinion of a sensible workman, who would certainly have pointed out most of the above blunders. Some of the anachronisms last mentioned may, perhaps, be justified by the conventional rules of Art; but surely truth is of more value than any amount of sentimental painting.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Memoir by Talbot B. Reed prefixed to _The Pentateuch of Printing_, by William Blades, 1891, p. xv. _The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers_, 1477, was the first book printed in England. _The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, 1471, although the first printed English book, was really printed at Bruges, where also was printed _The Game and Playe of the Chesse_, 1474.

[2] Vol. iii., pp. 13-17.

[3] March 16, 30; May 18.

[4] Students of old MSS. may often come across the bold autograph “_cest a moy Homfrey_.”

[5] Macray, p. 7.

[6] _Illustrium Hollandiæ et Westfrisiæ Ordinum Alma Academia Leidensis Icones._ Lugduni Bavatorum, 1614. 4to. B. M. (Acad.), 731, g. 16.

[7] Built for the purpose in 1693, when the chained books numbered 100. (_Notes and Queries_, Ser. VI., Vol. IV., p. 304.)

[8] “Je n’ai vu les signatures dans aucun ancien manuscrit, et plusieurs personnes bien plus familiarisées que moi avec les manuscrits, m’ont assuré la même chose.”

[9] This is found as a signature in one of the early Block-books.

[10] In Vol. I. of _The Life and Typography of William Caxton_, I have given the evidences of Caxton’s connection with the Bruges Press. It is a great mistake to suppose that Caxton printed his first book, _The Recuyell of the Histories of Troye_, in 1471; that is merely the date of translation. It was not till about 1474 that Caxton learnt the art, Colard Mansion being his instructor.

[11] Italy should also be included.

[12] A Paper read at the meeting of the Library Association of the United Kingdom, at Birmingham, September 20-23, 1887.

[13] These _Academy_ letters were revised with additions, and published by Elliot Stock in 1887 under the title of _Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz_.

[14] This is used as an argument for the antiquity of the two or three Donatuses printed with the types of Pfister or Gutenberg, and therefore is equally good when applied to Dutch Donatuses.

[15] Without the humble Donatuses of Haarlem we should never have had the wonderful Bible of thirty-six lines; and without the persevering and fruitful efforts of Gutenberg during the ten years from 1440 to 1450, mankind would never have been blessed with that art which his creative genius has raised to a perfection which leaves far behind the first and necessarily imperfect attempts of Coster. In a word: Coster gave us Gutenberg, and Gutenberg has given us Typography.

[16] The Latin is “ferunt enim illic,” which M. Philippe translates “on rapporte dans cette contrée.”

[17] The Latin is “Bonemontanus.”

[18] The engraver appears to have noticed this, and as far as possible rectified it in the print, by a masterly indistinctness just at that point.

INDEX.

Abingdon, chained books in St. Helen’s Church, 29.

All Hallows’ Church, Lombard Street, chained books in, 59.

Appleby Church, chained books in, 30.

Arreton Church, chained books in, 31.

Barber-Surgeons’ Hall, chained books at, 31.

Barcheston Church, chained books in, 34.

Bercula (Who was)? xxviii.

Berthelet (Thomas), supposed to be Bercula, xxviii.

_Bibliographical Miscellanies_, xxxv, 1-122.

Bibliography, scientific method in, 85.

Binding expenses at Eton, 20.

Bingley Church, chained books in, 34.

Blades (William), his busy life, ix;
his earliest work, x;
his Life of Caxton, x;
his contributions to bibliography considered under four headings:
(i) _Work on Caxton_, xii-xvi;
Caxton Exhibition, xiv;
proposed Caxton Publication Society, xv;
(ii) _Invention of Printing_, xvi-xix;
(iii) _Types_, xix-xxvii;
Plantin Museum, xxii;
Type specimen books, xxiv;
(iv) _Miscellaneous_, xxvii-xxxviii;
Who was Bercula? xxviii;
pictorial representations of the first Printing-Press in
England, xxviii, 209;
Nicholson the inventor of the steam press, xxix;
_Numismata Typographica_, xxxi;
Shakspere and typography, xxxiii;
_Enemies of Books_, xxxiii;
German morality-play, xxxiii;
Watermarks, xxxiv;
_Bibliographical Miscellanies_, xxxv, 1-122;
_Pentateuch of Printing_, xxxvi;
at the Library Association Meetings, xxxvii.

Bolton-in-the-Moors Grammar School, chained books in, 35.

Books in Chains, 1-81.

Borden Church, chained books in, 36.

Bowness Church, chained books in, 37.

Bridlington Church, chained books in, 37.

Bristol, Redcliffe Church, lectern with chain, 38.

Bromsgrove Church, chained book, 38.

Cambridge, application of the University for Greek types of the Royal
Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.

---- chains for books in the College libraries, 4.

Canterbury Cathedral, chained Bible there formerly, 38.

Cartmel Church, chained books in, 39.

Caslon (William), specimens of his types, xxv.

Caxton (William), _Life and Typography_ of, x.

Caxton (William), Blades’s researches on the history of his press,
xiv.

---- signatures in his books, 94.

Caxton Exhibition, xiii.

Caxton Publication Society, proposed, xv.

Chained books, 1-81.

Cheddar Church, chained book formerly there, 39.

Chelsea Old Church, chained books in, 40.

Chesterton Church, chained book formerly there, 40.

Chetham (Humphrey), chained books left by him to the Parish Church of
Bolton-in-the-Moors, 35;
to Gorton Chapel, 46;
to Jesus Chapel, 65;
to Turton Chapel, 73;
to Walmsley Chapel, 75.

Chetham Library, Manchester, books formerly chained, 65.

Chew Magna Church, chained book in, 40.

Chirbury Parish School-room, chained books in, 41.

Cirencester Church, chained books formerly there, 41.

Colard Mansion at Bruges, 127.

Conway (W. M.) on the wood-cutters of the Netherlands, 144.

Cornelis, assistant to Coster, 154, 188.

Corsellis, supposed Oxford printer, 87.

Coster’s claims to be the inventor of printing, 126, 134.

Coster _v._ Gutenberg, 171-191.

Costeriana, 157, 180.

Cumnor Church, chained Bible in, 42.

Denchworth Church, chained books in the vicar’s library, 42.

De Vinne (Theodore) on the invention of printing, 139.

Donatuses in Holland, 151, 177, 180.

Doyle’s (J. E.) painting of the printing-press, 209.

East Winch Church, chained Bible at, 44.

Easton-in-Gordano Church, chained book formerly in, 43.

Ecclesfield Church, chained books formerly there, 44.

Enschedé Type Foundry, xxvi.

_Enemies of Books_, xxxiii.

Florence, chained books in the Laurentian Library, 26.

Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_ common among chained books, 19.

Frampton Cotterell Church, chained book in, 45.

Fuhrmann (G. L.), specimens of his types, xxvi.

Gloucester (Humphrey, Duke of), honoured by book-lovers, 19.

Gorton Church schools, chained books, 47.

Grantham Church, chained books in, 48.

Great Durnford Church, chained book in, 48.

Greek Types of the Royal Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.

Gutenberg, his name does not appear in any production of his press,
153.

---- _v._ Coster, 192-200.

Hales Owen Church, chained books formerly there, 49.

Hanmer Church, chained books burnt in 1889, 49.

Hereford, All Saints’ Church, chained library in, 50.

---- Cathedral, chained books in, 5, 52.

Hessels (J. H.), translated Van der Linde’s _Haarlem Legend_, xvi.

---- _Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_ xviii.

---- _Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz_, xviii, 179.

Hull, Holy Trinity Church, Foxe’s _Martyrs_ formerly there, 54.

Impington Church, chained books in, 54.

Jewel’s (Bishop) works common among chained books, 19.

Junius on the Dutch invention of printing, 185.

Kettering Church, chained books formerly there, 55.

Kidderminster Church, chained book in, 55.

King’s Lynn, St. Mary’s Church, chained Bible in, 55.

Kinver Church, chained books in, 56.

Koenig (F.), introducer of the steam press, xxix.

Lessingham Church, chained book in, 57.

Leyden, chained books in the University Library, 25.

Leyland Church, chained books in, 57.

Library Association Meetings, xxxvii.

Lincoln Cathedral, chained books formerly in the Chapter Library, 58.

Linde (Van der), _Haarlem Legend_, xvi, 168.

Llanbadarn Church, chained books formerly there, 59.

Luton Church, chained books in, 63.

Maclise’s (D.) painting of the printing-press, 212.

Madden (J. P. A.) on Gutenberg, 140;
on Coster, 190.

Malvern Abbey, chained books in, 63.

Mancetter Church, chained books in, 64.

Manchester, Jesus Chapel Collegiate Church, chained books formerly
there, 65.

Manuscripts with written signatures at the foot of the page, 89, 96.

Margate Church, chained books in, 66.

Medals connected with printing, xxxi.

Meurs (P. Van), his answer to Dr. Van der Linde, 138.

Minster Church, chained Bible from Margate, 66.

Montgomery Castle, chained library formerly there, 67.

Morality-play (German), xxxiii.

Moxon (Joseph), Proves of Letters cast by him, xxv.

Newport Pagnell Church, chained books in, 67.

Nicholson (John), the inventor of the steam press, xxix.

Northwold Church, chained Bible formerly there, 67.

_Numismata Typographica_, xxxii.

Oldfield (Humphrey), 69.

Ortu (De) Typographiæ, 163-200.

Oxford, first printing-press at, xix.

---- St. Mary’s Church, chained books formerly there, 68.

Paper, use of, for books, 117.

_Pentateuch of Printing_, xxxvi.

Plantin Museum, Blades’s account of, xxi.

Prestwich Church, chained book formerly there, 68.

Printing, Blades’s researches on the history of the invention of, xvi.

---- common typographical errors, xxxii.

---- De Ortu Typographiæ, 163-200.

---- Early Greek Types of the Royal Printing Office, Paris, 201-205.

---- Early Schools of Typography, 123-130.

---- invention of the steam press, xxix.

---- List of Books on the Invention of Printing published since
1868, 159.

---- medals connected with, xxxi.

---- proposed Bibliotheca Typographica, xxxii.

---- Type specimen books, xxiv.

---- Who was the Inventor of, present aspect of the question,
131-162.

Printing-Press, the first in England, as pictorially presented,
209-221.

Quatt Church, 68.

Reed (Talbot B.), his Memoir of Blades, xiii (_note_).

Richmond (Margaret, Countess of), patron of Caxton, 6.

Rochester, St. Nicholas Church, chained book in, 69.

St. Albans, Typography of, in the fifteenth century, xx.

St. Andrew Undershaft Church, chained books in, 61.

St. Clement’s, Eastcheap Church, chained books in, 62.

Salford Free Library, chained books, 69.

Salisbury Cathedral, chained books in, 69.

Selden’s books in the Bodleian, 25.

_Shakspere and Typography_, xxxiii.

Signatures in Books, Use and Development of, 83-122.

---- idea of books without, a bibliographical delusion, 96.

---- (written) in manuscripts, 90, 96.

---- in early printed books, 92, 100.

---- (manuscript and printed) in the same book, 106.

---- stamped in with separate types, 108.

---- not stamped in but printed at the same time as the text, 112.

---- (normal) printed in the line just beneath the text, 115.

Sittingbourne Church, 70.

Southampton, St. Michael’s Church, chained books in, 70.

Standon Church, chained book in, 71.

Stevens (Henry), his answer to the question “Who was Bercula?” xxviii.

Stratford-on-Avon Church, chained Bible in, 71.

Suckley Church, 72.

Survival of the fittest in the study of bibliography, 85.

Tavistock Church, chained book in, 72.

Turton Church, chained books in, 73.

Type specimen books, xxiv.

Types, Blades’s researches on the history of, xix.

Typography, Early Schools of, 123-130 (see also Printing).

Walmsley Church, 75.

Wantage Church, chained books formerly there, 76.

Watermarks, Blades’s researches on, xxxiv.

Wehnert’s (E. H.) painting of the printing-press, 211.

Wells Cathedral, chained books in, 76,

Whissonsett Church, 76.

Whitchurch, Little Stanmore, 77.

Wiggenhall Church, chained books in, 77.

Wigtoft Church, 78.

Wimborne Minster, chained library, 1-16, 78.

Windsor, St. George’s Chapel, chained Bible formerly there, 78.

Wisbeach, chained books at, 79.

Wolverley Church, chained book in, 79.

Wootton Wawen Church, chained books in, 80.

Worcester, All Saints’ Church, chained Bible in, 80.

Wrington Church, chained books in, 81.

York, St. Crux Church, chained book, 81.

Zutphen, chained books in the Church of St. Wallberg, 27.

Transcriber’s Notes.

Italic text is indicated with _underscores_, black-letter text with =equals=. Small/mixed capitals have been replaced with ALL CAPITALS.

Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected silently. Inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has been normalised.

Half-titles and reiterations of chapter titles have been discarded.

End of page footnotes have been sequentially numbered and placed at the end of the text.

Cover art created for this eBook is granted to the public domain.