[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:—

We have repeated the experiment in our own foundry with Long Primer type, and with a similar result. These experiments are sufficient to show the ungroundedness of Mr. De Vinne’s argument. He further states that in some of the specimens given by him, the letters have been so worn that they have run into one another; but the fact is, such letters were logotypes, and cut on the same block. Any accurate type-founder can verify this fact almost at a glance. In a lecture by Mr. Josiah Marples, an accurate English printer, before the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical Society on Type-founders and Type-founding, the speaker alluded to Caxton and his types, and to Mr. Vincent Figgins’s reproduction of the “Game of Chesse,” whose nephew had enabled him to exhibit a copy of the same to the meeting. “Mr. Vincent Figgins, whose skill as a practical type-founder,” it was remarked, “entitled his opinion to great weight, believed that the book was not printed from types such as were cast by Schoeffer, but from types which were cast with solid faces, upon which were cut with the graver each letter separately. To this Mr. Figgins attributed the fact that in the original book no pure style of letters was used, but a mixture between the old black and that called Secretary; that no two letters were exactly alike, and that frequent use was made of logotypes.”

Mr. De Vinne finds some difficulty in demolishing the Koster “legend” (as he and Van der Linde call it) in the fact that the existence of numerous volumes and fragments of ancient printing have to be somehow accounted for; and he thereupon adopts the hypothesis of an unknown printer, to whom he attributes these early productions. The admittedly ancient water-marks in the paper he rules out, simply because such water-marks were used long afterward. He gives fac-simile specimens of the types used in these books; but, in violation of all the laws of probability, he gives the inferior specimens last. The necessities of his theory compelled him to this course, the natural order being the reverse of the one adopted by him. The inferior specimens show clearly the first attempts of an inventor, an inventor too who had before been a block printer. The succeeding books show as clearly the successive stages of improvement, the last stage of which was equal or even superior to any thing executed by Gutenberg before the appearance of the great Bible. This “unknown printer” was doubtless Koster.

It is by no means a wild question whether the credit of even the first Bible belongs to Gutenberg or to Peter Schoeffer; for, after the dissolution of the partnership between Gutenberg and Fust, the former produced nothing worthy of note, while Schoeffer printed the Bible again, as well as other works, notably the Psalter, a most wonderful specimen of ancient typography. Schoeffer appears to be as undoubtedly the inventor of type-founding as Koster was of printing,—Gutenberg was neither, though we must award him high credit for his skill in availing himself of the knowledge derived from Koster, and his perseverance through a series of years. But the almost impenetrable cloud of mystery that surrounds the discovery of printing should induce a spirit of hesitancy that is not at all characteristic of Van der Linde and others. Neither ifs, buts, nor perhapses, nor strained inferences, prove anything except the weakness of the argument that rests upon them.

We are satisfied that the types used by the first printers were not cast or founded in a mode at all approximating to the modern method. The question is, not who was the first type-founder in the modern style, but who was the first printer with movable types, no matter whether of wood, pewter, or tin; and we agree with the judicious Isaiah Thomas in the opinion that Koster was that man.

See Haarlem the Birthplace of Printing, not Mentz, by J. H. Hessels, Cambridge, England, 1887: an emphatic confutation of the Gutenberg legend.

[5] Two copies of Bradford’s Almanac are known to be in existence. We give the Address of

THE PRINTER TO THE READERS.

Hereby understand that after great charge & Trouble, I have brought that great Art & Mystery of Printing into this part of America; believing it may be of great service to you in several respects; hoping to find encouragement, not only in this Almanack, but what else I shall enter upon for the use & service of the Inhabitants of these Parts. Some irregularities there be in this Diary, which I desire you to pass by this year; for being lately come hither, my materials were misplaced & out of order, whereupon I was forced to use Figures & Letters of various Sizes: but understanding the want of something of this nature, & being importuned thereto, I ventured to make public this; desiring you to accept thereof; & by the next (as I find encouragement) shall endeavour to have things compleat. And for the ease of Clarks, Scriveniers, &c., I propose to print blank Bills, Bonds, Letters of Attorney, Indentures, Warrants, etc., & what else presents itself, wherein I shall be ready to serve you; and remain your friend.

W. BRADFORD.

Philadelphia, the
10th month, 1685.

[6] Mr. Horatio Gates Jones, of Philadelphia, in his introduction to Frame’s Short Description of Pennsilvania, gives further interesting particulars. See, also, Munsell’s Chronology, &c. of Paper and Paper Making, Albany, N. Y., 1876.

[7] The remainder of this article was mostly furnished by the late Mr. George Bruce, of New York.

[8] After the retirement of Binny & Ronaldson, Richard Ronaldson carried on the business of this foundry until 1833, when he in turn was succeeded by Lawrence Johnson and George F. Smith. Mr. Johnson, a man of great energy and enterprise, had (contemporaneously with Jedediah Howe) introduced stereotyping into Philadelphia, and now both callings were incorporated. Ten years afterward, Mr. Smith retired; and in the year 1845 Mr. Johnson associated with him Thomas MacKellar, John F. Smith and Richard Smith, who had, as it were, grown up with the business. The foundry now quickly grew in importance, and won a wide reputation. Mr. Johnson died April 26, 1860, and was succeeded by his three partners, who, with Peter A. Jordan, constituted the firm known as MacKellar, Smiths & Jordan, under whose management the establishment was brought to rank equal with and excel most of the type foundries in the world. Mr. Jordan died March 25, 1884. In 1885 Wm. B. MacKellar, G. Fredk Jordan and C. F. Huch were associated with the remaining partners, and a corporation was formed under the name of The MacKellar, Smiths & Jordan Company. Their “Typographic Advertiser” (begun in 1855) and Specimen Books are regarded as unique mechanical and literary productions. The height and body of the Pica of this Company have been universally adopted in the United States as the standard of size for the American Point System of type.

[9] Chambers’s EncyclopÆdia.

[10] Wilson’s Treatise on English Punctuation is a full and explicit work on this subject, and should be studied by every printer and author. It is worthy of adoption as the standard authority.

[11] Wilson, in his Treatise on English Punctuation, says, very judiciously,—

The hyphen is employed in words in such a manner as is best calculated to show their origin, composition, or import, and to exhibit the syllables in their neatest form. Agreeably to this rule,—

1. Compound and derivative words are resolved into their primitives; as, school-master, hand-writing, pen-knife, snuff-box, looking-glass; arch-angel, geo-logy, theo-cracy, ortho-graphy.

2. Prefixes, affixes, and grammatical terminations are separated; as, dis-continue, en-able, trans-port; shear-er, load-ed, print-ing; king-dom, false-hood, differ-ence, command-ment.

3. One consonant between two vowels is to be joined to the latter syllable; as, ta-lent, fa-tal; me-lon, le-ver; spi-rit, si-lence; cy-nic, ty-ro; le-ga-cy, mo-no-po-ly. Except x, and single consonants when they belong to the former portion of a derivative word; as, ex-ile, ex-ist, ex-amine; up-on, dis-ease, circum-ambient.

4. Two or more consonants belong to the latter syllable, when they are capable of beginning a word; as, ta-ble, sti-fle, lu-cre, o-gle, mau-gre, stro-phe, de-stroy.

5. But when the consonants cannot begin a word, or when the vowel preceding them is short, the first should be separated; as, ab-bey, ac-cent, vel-lum, ab-ject, gar-den, laun-dry, pam-phlet; blas-pheme, dis-tress, min-strel.

It is desirable that compound and derivative words should, at the end of lines, be divided in such a manner as to indicate their principal parts. Thus, school-master is preferable to schoolmas-ter, dis-approve to disap-prove, resent-ment to re-sentment, ortho-doxy to or-thodoxy; though, as regards the analysis of words into syllables, the latter mode is unobjectionable. From the narrowness of the printed line, however, in some books, the principle recommended cannot always be adhered to.

The terminations tion, sion, cial, tial, and many others, formerly pronounced as two syllables, but now only as one, must not be divided either in spelling or at the end of a line.

A syllable consisting of only one letter, as the a in cre-ation, should not commence a line. This word would be better divided crea-tion; and so all others of a similar kind.

A line of print must not end with the first syllable of a word when it consists of a single letter; as, a-bide, e-normous; nor begin with the last syllable when it is formed of only two letters; as, nation-al, teach-er, similar-ly. For regard should be had to the principles of taste and beauty as well as to the laws of syllabication.

[12] The Hebrew alphabet is almost identical with the Phoenician.

[13] Chambers’s EncyclopÆdia, published by J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia.

[14] Bell’s Greek Grammar.

[15] See pages 318-332.

[16] The following epitaph was no doubt written by a printer after performing the most disagreeable task attendant on his profession:—

[17] We are indebted to a friend for the following sketch of the origin, progress, and present condition of the world-famous house of R. Hoe & Co.

Robert Hoe, the founder of the present house of R. Hoe & Co. of New York, was born at Hose, in Leicestershire, England, in 1784. His father was a well-to-do farmer in that pleasant, sequestered district; but, as the family was large, Robert was apprenticed to a carpenter in a neighbouring town. His attention was early attracted and his mind impressed by the prosperity of the people of the United States; and, being a republican at heart, and conscious that the institutions of his own country presented almost insurmountable obstacles to the advancement of the working classes, he purchased his indentures from his employer, and in 1803 emigrated to New York.

On his arrival he made the acquaintance of Grant Thorburn, who, becoming interested in him, received him into his family, and with great kindness nursed him with his own hands through an attack of the yellow fever, which was then raging in the city. He soon established himself in his trade, and, by his industry, integrity, and enterprise, became advantageously known to the public. At the age of twenty he married the daughter of Matthew Smith, of Westchester Co., New York, by whom he had three sons and six daughters. For a time he was in partnership with his brother-in-law, Matthew Smith, Jr., a carpenter and printers’ joiner, who, on their separation, associated with himself his brother, Peter Smith, who was educated at Yale College, and was the inventor of the well-known hand-press bearing his name.

On the decease of these two brothers, Robert Hoe, in 1823, succeeded to the business, which was then in its infancy, giving employment to only a handful of men, and being conducted in the middle of the block bounded by Maiden Lane, Pine, William, and Pearl Streets, in some old buildings to which access was gained by an alley running from Maiden Lane to Pine Street. Here the business, under the style of Robert Hoe & Co., grew rapidly; but the extension of Cedar Street made necessary its removal to the present location in Gold Street. About this time, the flat-bed cylinder press, for newspaper printing, was introduced into England; and Mr. Hoe sent an intelligent mechanic there to examine it, and it was soon brought into use here, with valuable improvements. In 1832, Mr. Hoe’s failing health obliged him to relinquish the business to his eldest son, Richard M. Hoe, and Matthew Smith, son of his first partner. In the following year he died. Shortly after his decease, the firm erected extensive buildings in Broome Street, in the eastern part of the city, where the greater part of their manufacturing has since been carried on. They also commenced making cast-steel saws, which had previously been exclusively imported from England; and this branch has steadily increased in importance.

Matthew Smith, a man of uncommon ability and business talents, died in 1842. The business was then continued by Richard M. Hoe, with his two brothers, Robert Hoe and Peter Smith Hoe,—the eldest, as before, taking charge of the mechanical department, in which his industry and fertility of invention are attested by the number and value of his patents. In 1837, he patented here and in England his method of grinding circular saws, by which the thickness of any part of a saw can be regulated with accuracy. In 1846, he brought out the so-called “Lightning Press,” or Type-Revolving Printing Machine, described in the text,—the greatest innovation on the routine of the printing craft since the days of Gutenberg. This press entirely superseded all others for fast printing, and was introduced into the principal offices, not only in this country, but in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia.

In 1858, the firm purchased of Isaac Adams, of Boston, Massachusetts, his entire patent-rights, together with his establishment for the manufacture of his bed-and-platen book printing presses, and various machines for binders’ use, which they continue to conduct there, though with increased facilities and many improvements. Their works in different places now cover thirty-five city lots, or about two acres, and give employment to nearly six hundred hands. The office and warerooms of the house in England are at 13 Salisbury Square, Fleet Street, London, one of the partners, being a resident in that city, attending to the business there.

[18] While publisher of a paper in Catskill, he produced within a week, aided by some village mechanics, a press for his own use. With the exception of a stone bed, the principal parts were made entirely of wood. It was a flat-bed press, having a series of impression cylinders connected by an endless chain, by means of which they passed over and around the bed continually. He called it the Chain-running Press. It was employed by Frank Leslie to print an edition of his Illustrated Newspaper.

[19] R. Hoe & Co.’s Catalogue.

[20] Adapted from Savage.

[21] Adapted from Savage.

[22] Mostly from the Paper and Printing Trades Journal, London.

[23] For other words beginning with im, in, ir, or un negative, look for the simple word.

[24] Incapable of suffering.

[25] Capable of suffering.

[26] Published by E. C. Markley & Son, Philadelphia. An excellent book.