The burning question as to which country--Germany or Holland--the invention of printing by movable types is due, was one which always interested Blades, and in 1876 he published at his own cost a translation of Dr. Van der Linde’s _Haarlem Legend_ by Mr. Hessels. In the previous year, before Dr. Van der Linde’s essay appeared in an English version, Mr. Blades set forth his view of the question in an article in Berjeau’s _Book-worm_, which is printed in this volume. He here suggested the possibility of an independent invention in the two countries, and remarked that if Coster never lived yet Costeriana certainly exist. He further showed that the Caxton printing pedigree must be traced to a Dutch rather than to a German source.

In 1887 he returned to the subject in a paper read before the Meeting of the Library Association at Birmingham, and in 1888 he contributed to the _Book-worm_ a clear statement of the very complicated question under the title of _De Ortu Typographiæ_, which was placed before readers in its two aspects of Coster _v._ Gutenberg and Gutenberg _v._ Coster. Between the dates 1871 and 1887 a great change had occurred in the field of the controversy. When Mr. Hessels translated Dr. Van der Linde’s _Haarlem Legend_ he was at one with the author, but when he came in 1879 to criticise Van der Linde’s _Gutenberg_ he found strong reasons for doubting that author’s conclusions, and his doubts were expressed in a remarkable book published in 1882 and entitled _Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_ Mr. Hessels continued his destructive criticism on Van der Linde’s great work on the Invention of Printing in the _Academy_, and his articles were reprinted in December 1887 under the uncompromising title of _Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz_. Unfortunately this controversy has been carried on with considerable heat on both sides, and Mr. Blades endeavoured in his articles to place the matter before his readers in a clear and practical way, and he succeeded in giving a satisfactory statement of the present condition of the controversy. He again returned to this matter in his posthumous work entitled _The Pentateuch of Printing_, and here he gives his judgment as follows: “Thus we float along the stream of gradual development, until we reach movable types properly termed Typography. This was never an invention pure and simple which suddenly enlightened the mind of Gutenberg (as stated by Van der Linde and echoed by Theo. de Vinne), but an end successfully accomplished after numerous efforts and gradual advances.”