PRINTING, a term susceptible of several slight shades of meaning, is used in this article as denoting the art of making impressions of figures, characters, letters, with ink, upon paper, vellum, or any similar substance ; or, in other words, as expressing that mechanical process by which any piece of literary composition, written in any language or dialect, is converted into a book by means of types, ink, paper, This art, though unknown in Europe till towards the middle of the fifteenth century, was practised in China at an extremely remote period. The Chinese mode of print ing, however, as explained below,* was considerably dif ferent from that used by Europeans. It was indeed characterized by almost insuperable disadvantages. Yet that country, while Europe was involved in the ignorance and barbarism by which the middle ages were distinguish ed, had the honour of exercising an art, which presupposes no mean degree of refinement, and which, more than any other circumstance, has the effect of promoting the pro gress of literature and liberal knowledge. At what period printing was invented in China, it is impossible to ascertain. This invention has been ascribed by some writers to an age prior to the time of our Saviour; others have referred it to an era somewhat less remote ; but, amid the diversity of opinion, it seems to be denied by none, that it was fully established early in the tenth century—five hundred years ere it had, in the slightest degree, been contemplated in Europe.
But printing, though thus early known in China, was not introduced thence into Europe. The Europeans had the honour of inventing this art for themselves, ere the passage to the East by the Cape of Good Hope was dis covered, and of course ere they had any knowledge even of the existence of that distant country. This fact none has ventured to call in question; but the circumstances connected with the origin of printing in Europe cannot be so satisfactorily explained. Three cities, Harlaem, Mentz, and Strasburg, have severally laid claim to this distinction. Each of them can produce a greater or less body of evi dence; but which of them is supported in the most con clusive manner, it has not hitherto been found very easy to determine. Our opinion is decidedly in favour of Harlaem ; yet it must not be denied that the cause of the other two cities respectively have been warmly espoused by various distinguished writers, and that one of them, (Mentz,) if not entitled to the honour of the invention, contributed not a little to the progress and perfection of the art. In the present article, we shall state impartially
the prominent facts in support of the different places, with out bringing forward all the minute and frivolous state ments and objections with which this investigation has been needlessly encumbered.
The claims of Harlaem deserve to be first considered. That Laurentius Coster of that city (so called from his father's holding the office of Custos of the cathedral) was the inventor of the art of printing, is supported by evi dence that no candid inquirer can resist. The first cele brated writer who (in 1588) espoused the cause of Lau rentius, was Hadrian Junius, an author of authenticity, whose narrative is given on the authority of two respecta ble persons, Nicolaus Gallus, and Quirinus Talesius. Talesius, amanuensis of the great Erasmus, and a very eminent citizen of Harlacm, had every opportunity of acquiring an exact knowledge of the art in question, as he was acquainted with the descendants of Laurentius, and as he must have known many of the contemporaries and friends of that celebrated individual. Gallus, who was the teacher of Junius, substantiates his account by the testi mony of Cornelius, formerly servant to Laurentius, and afterwards bookbinder to the cathedral. The work of Junius, satisfactory as it is, is not however unsupported by other writers. Mr. Meerman of Rotterdam, in particular, who has followed him in the same line of investigation, has fully corroborated his opinion ; and from the many im portant facts Mr. Meerman has elicited, and from the specimens he has given of the rude typography of Lauren tius, his Origines Typographicae cannot fail to interest the curious reader. Nor do these writers stand alone. The claims of Laurentius had been acquiesced in and enforced, even before the time of Junius, by various writers—by Zurenus, Coornhertius, Pantaleon, Guicciar dini, Ulrig Zell. The testimony of Zell is peculiarly valuable; for though, being a German, he must have felt inclined to ascribe, if possible, the honour of this invention to Mentz, he yet had the candour to give his opinion in favour of Harlaem. From the foregoing statements, and various others as satisfactory might be adduced, it is ex tremely probable, if not absolutely certain, that Laurentius of Harlaem had the honour of being the inventor of that art, the history of which we are endeavouring to trace, and which has been productive of incalculable advantages to mankind.