The beginning and progress of the before-mentioned art was told me, by word of mouth, by the worthy man, Master Ulrich Tzell of Hanault, printer at Cologne, in the present year MCCCCXCIX-by whom the forementioned art is come to Cologne."

Schoepflin asserts, that Peter de Olpe, not U. Zell, was the first Cologne printer: Mr. Dibdin satisfactorily answers him, and proves that Zell printed there in 1466, four years prior to Olpe. " Upon the whole," observes Mr. D. "the evidence of Ulric Zell appears to be as honest as it is curious."

Scriverius informs us, that he had collected fragments of a work upon this subject, written at Haerlem, between 1549 and 1561, by Jan Van Zuyren, Burgomaster of that city: Scriverius laments its loss, observing, that had this been handed down to posterity, there would now be no occasion for a reference to the testimonies of Junius and others, in order to prove that Haerlem is entitled to the merit of the discovery. He says, that he preserved the Latin title, and some part of the preface, but the name of Coster does not appear. He admits that the honour of perfecting the art, and of making it known throughout Europe, is justly due to Mentz.

Theo. Volchart Coornhert, in his translation of Cicero's Offices, which is dedicated to the Burgomasters, Judges, and Senators of Haerlem, 1561, observes, like Junius, that he writes upon the authority of

"Aged persons of the highest respectability and credit, who had repeatedly informed him, not only of the family of the inventor, and of his name and surname, but also concerning the rude manner of printing which he at first practised, and the place of his residence, which they had often pointed out to him with their fingers."

Mr. Ottley remarks, that if the better informed classes of Haerlem imagined this tradition an old woman's tale, the author would not have presumed to address it to the dignataries of the city.

Ludovico Guicciardini, by birth an Italian, in his Descrizione di tutti i Paesi Bassi, written 1565, and printed at Antwerp, 1567, gives the following, in support of the claims of Haerlem :

"According to the common tradition of the inhabitants, and the assertion of other natives of Holland, as well as the testimony of certain authors and other records, it ap pears that the art of printing and stamping letters and characters on paper, in the manner now used, was first invented in this place: but the author of the invention happening to die before the art was brought to perfection, and had acquired repute, his servant, they say, went to reside at Mentz; where, giving proofs of his knowledge in that science, he was joyfully received; and where, having applied himself to the business with unremitting diligence, it became at length generally known, and was brought to entire perfection: in consequence of which, the fame afterwards spread abroad and became general, that the art and science of printing originated in that city. What is really the truth, I am not able, nor will I take upon me to decide; it sufficing me to have said these few words, that I might not be guilty of injustice towards this town and this country."

Mr. Ottley reminds his reader, that the evidence of Guicciardini does not depend merely upon the authority of oral tradition, as he mentions, generally, the testimony of certain writers on the subject, and other records then in existence; but specifies no particular clue by which the reader might ascertain the truth of such assertions. With respect to the robbery he acts like a cautious man, and softens it down by observing, that the workman did not go to Mentz till after his master's death. Mr. O. is of opinion, that all deficiency in his testimony is amply made up, by this single circumstance, that he is the only author who has attempted to palliate the theft. He also considers, from his not being a native of Holland, that his statement should be generally received as that of an impartial observer, who wished to adhere strictly to the truth.

M. Lambinet, a recent French author of considerable note, commences a furious attack against Junius and his partisans, by observing, that they suffered inore than a century to elapse, from the period of the discovery, before they thought of asserting their claim to to the honour of the invention. The following will convince the reader of this writer's opinion:

"Fournier the younger, Kahler, Schaflin, Fischer, and a great many other writers, have amused themselves by refuting the statement of Junius seriously. Naude asks Junius and his partisans, how John Faust, or any other John, could have carried on his back the presses, the type, the cases, the tables of stone? &c. But this story of the robbery is very aukwardly introduced in the romance of Junius; since, if we suppose Faust to have been Coster's workman, he must have been, of con sequence, instructed in the mechanism of the art, and it must have been very unnecessary and very incon venient for him to have carried off his apparatus."

"Now, I ask" continues Lambinet, "which is the authentic monument of the invention of Laurence Coster? Where is it to be found? Meerman, it is true, laboured five years to complete his Origines Typographicæ, and Karnebeck has engraved plates of the pretended cha racters of Coster, with the greatest care. It is impossible to find greater research or more profound erudition, than what is contained in this work," &c. &c. &c.—“But he never was able to prove that the fragments of prayers' preceded by the letters of the alphabet,' found pasted into the cover of an old book by Enschedius, and printed on both sides, were the work of Laurence Coster, any more than the Donatuses, the Speculum Salutis, &c. which he attributes to him gratuiously.

"I conclude, therefore," observes the above writer, "with Chevillier, Founier, Heineken, Fischer, and the great majority of those bibliographers who are well informed and free from prejudice, that there exists no proof that Laurent, surnamed Coster, was either an engraver, a sculptor, or a printer."

Junius has an able advocate in Mr. Ottley, who boldly defends the cause of Coster and Haerlem with much sound argument; although, we confess, we do not approve of all his ideas, as we shall notice hereafter.

The Histories Chryver Jan Wagenaar, published 1787, contains the answer of Meerman to that author, on a request for his opinion concerning the history of Coster, he frankly informs him that he does not believe it. Lambinet takes advantage of this, as Meerman afterwards became the strenuous advocate of Coster.

That Laurentius carried the art no further than separate wooden types, appears from a Dutch poem, intituled Hertspiegal, published in the sixteenth century, by Henry Spiechal, who exclaims:

"Thou first, Laurentius, to supply the defect of wooden tablets, adaptedst wooden types, and afterwards didst connect them with a thread, to imitate writing. A treacherous servant surreptitiously obtained the honour of the discovery: but truth itself, though destitute of common and and wide-spread fame; truth, I say, still remains."

There is no mention in this poem of metal types; had he been robbed of these, as well as of wooden ones, such a circumstance could not have been passed over in silence.

That the rough specimens with which Laurentius amused himself should be discovered, at the distance of three centuries, appears almost improbable: yet John Enschedius, a printer, discovered an old parchment Horarium, printed on both sides, in eight pages, containing The Alphabet, The Lord's Prayer, The Apostles' Creed, and three short prayers, which he imagines to be the first productions of Laurentius. Mr. Meerman submitted this to artists, (competent judges,) who gave as their opinion that it exactly agreed with the description of Junius: it also corresponds with the first edition of the Dutch Speculum Salvationis, and the fragment of the Holland Donatus, which are said to have been the productions of Laurentius, and are specimens of his piety and iugenuity, in this essay of his newly invented art. Mr. Meerman has given an exact engraving of this singular curiosity.

Having touched upon the principal arguments in favour of Haerlem, we shall now proceed to give those which refer to Mentz:

It is generally affirmed, that John Geinsfleisch, sen. came to Mentz in 1441, and it is conjectured that he brought with him some of the wooden printing types, the property of Laurentius Coster of Haerlem, where it is stated that he had been employed, and there learned the art and mystery of printing. In the following year, 1442, we are informed that he gave strong proof of his industry, by the production of two small works, intituled, Alexandri Galli Doctrinale, and Petri Hispani Tractatus:-these being books much used in schools, he had every reason to expect that they would meet a profitable sale, together with a future prospect of success in his new enterprize.

In 1443, he engaged the house Zum Jungen. when he was joined by Faust:* soon after, J. Meidenbachius and others were admitted partners; but their names are not transmitted to our times. In 1444,

* John Fust, or Faust, a goldsmith of Mentz, was one of the three artists considered as the inventors of printing; it is not certain that he did more than supply the money for carrying on the concern. In 1462, Faust carried a number of Bibles to Paris, which he and his partner Schoeffer had printed, and disposed of them as manuscripts; at this time the discovery of the art was not known in France. At first he sold them at the high price of 500 or 600 crowns, the sums usually obtained by the scribes: he afterwards lowered his price to sixty, which created universal astonishment: but when he produced them according to the demand, and even reduced the price to thirty, all Paris became agitated. The uniformity of the copies increased their wonder, the Parisians considering it a task beyond human invention; informations were given to the police against him as a magician; his lodgings were searched, a great number of Bibles were found, and seized: the red ink with which they were embellished was said to be his blood; it was seriously adjudged that he was in league with the devil; whereupon he was cast into prison, and would most probably have shared the fate of such, whom ignorant and superstitious judges condemned in those days for witchcraft. He now found it necessary, in order to gain his liberty, to make known the discovery of the art. This circumstance gave rise to the tradition of 'The Devil and Doctor Faustus," which is handed down to the present time. It is uncertain when Faust died, he was at Paris in 1466, and it is strongly conjectured, that he fell a victim to the plague, which then raged in that capital.