stoutly contended for by many cities, all deeming it an especial honor to have given to the world so illustrious a personage. So with the Art of Printing. Harlem, Strasbourg, and Mentz, claim to have been the nursery from which sprung an art which has exercised such a mighty power and influence on civilization, and contributed in so eminent a manner to the cultivation of the human intellect. Other places have interposed their claims, but there seems to be no proof to sustain them. The best writers upon this subject, indeed it seems to be almost universally admitted, agree that to one of the three cities above named, belongs the honor in question.
It will not be expected that I shall go at length into the discussion as to the place, or to whom, belongs the honor of the invention of Printing in its true sense. To do so would occupy too much space, and would, after all, be an unprofitable discussion.
Harlem interposes a claim for one of its citizens, Laurence Koster, or Laurent Janszoon Koster (or Custos.) The support of this claim rests mainly upon the narrative in the Bataviae of Hadrinus Junius, written in 1575, and published in 1588. But little credit is given to the truth of this narrative— some calling in question, (and among that number Santander), the very existence of such a man as Koster! There are others, who being unable to decide between the conflicting claims, are willing to divide the honor, and while they are disposed to concede to others the credit of the discovery of Printing with moveable types, claim for Koster the merit of inventing printing from blocks.
From the best reading I have been able to give the subject, although as I have said before, there are conflicting claims, and backed as some of them are by ingenious and plausible arguments, still I am decidedly of the opinion that to John Gutenberg, a native of Mentz, belongs the discovery of the Art of Printing. The proof in favor of this proposition, to my mind, is full and satisfactory. The story of his having stolen the types of Koster, is too ridiculous to need even an attempt at refutation.
The first printed edition of the Bible, from cut metal types, was issued by Gutenberg, in 1450, the completion of which is said to have taken seven years—so that the work must have been commenced in 1443. John Fust (commonly called Faust,) and Peter Schoeffer, formerly partners of Gutenberg, but into whose hands the establishment had fallen on the failure of Gutenberg, used the same type in their edition of the Psalter printed in 1457 and 1459. The edition issued in 1457, is the first book ever printed bearing the name of the place where printed, those of its printers, and the date of the year when printed!
Gutenberg, after his failure, started the business anew, and as it appears, with complete success, for in 1465, he abandoned the business, and "entered into the service of Elector Adolphus of Nassau, as one of his band of gentlemen pensioners, with a handsome salary, as appears from the letters patent, dated the 17th of January, 1465." He died on the 24th of February, 1468.
Fust and Schoeffer were neither of them original Printers. The former was a wealthy goldsmith, and the latter, a scribe. They were probably induced to enter the business with Gutenberg, simply as a matter of money-making.—There is no doubt, however, but they contributed very greatly to the perfection of the art in that day. To Schoeffer is the world indebted for the first suggestion of casting type in matrices. These men continued the business, and in addition to the Psalter issued in 1457 and 1459, they also published it in 1490 and 1502, and what is a little remarkable, it was always printed on the same type. In 1460, they published the Constitutiones Clementis V., and in 1462, the celebrated Latin Bible. Fust lived but a few years to enjoy this triumph of his art, for he was carried off by the plague, in Paris, about the year 1466. Schoeffer survived him many years, and is supposed to have died in 1502.
A controversy has existed in England as to when, and by whom, Printing was introduced into that country. In my judgment, however, no serious difficulty exists in this matter. To William Caxton no doubt belongs the honor of first introducing the art into England. This has been denied, and the chaplet sought to be placed upon the brow of Frederick Corsellis—but the attempt has utterly failed. It has been supposed, also, that the first printing was done at Oxford, but this falls to the ground with the attempt to rob Caxton of the honor due his name, for the first printing done in England, was a book issued by him, from his press established at Westminster, probably in one of the chapels attached to the Abbey, entitled the "Game of Chess." The completion of this work took place on the last day of March, 1474, and from this must be dated the dawn of the Art of Printing in Old England. Caxton died in 1494, aged 82 years.
Printing may be said to have been introduced into the Colonies of America, in January, 1639, for in that year a Press and Types arrived, having been shipped from England by the Rev. Jesse Glover, who, however, died on the passage.—The Printer engaged to accompany the Press from England, Stephen Daye, on arriving at Cambridge, Mass, set up the business, and the first work that emanated from this attempt to introduce Printing into the Colonies, was the "Freeman's Oath," which was followed by an Almanac. To show the favorable light in which this undertaking was viewed, at that early day, the following may be taken as evidence. It is from the records of the General Court of Massachusetts:
"Att a General Court held att Boston, on the eighth Day of the eighth moneth, 1641, Steeven Daye being the first that sett upon Printing, is graunted 300 acres of land, where it may be convenient without prejudice to any town."
Printers at that early day, like those of the Craft in more modern times, were by no means exempted from the ills of life—for in 1642, it appears from the Records, that Daye was under the necessity of pledging one of his lots in Cambridge, to secure the payment "for a cow, calf, and heifer"—that in 1643, for some dereliction of duty, the particulars of which are not stated, the "Court ordered that Steeven Daye, shall be released, giving £100 bond for his appearance." In 1649, he becoming embarrassed with debts, was succeeded by Samuel Green. In 1668, Daye died.
