Subsequent Residence in Strasburg . . . Early Suits at Law . . . His
Probable Marriage . . . Is Sued by Claus Dritzehen . . . The Judge’s
Statement . . . Testimony of the Witnesses . . . Gutenberg the Chief
of an Association . . . Engaged in a Secret Art . . . Notices of a
Press and of a Mysterious Tool of Four Pieces . . . Notices of Forms
that were Melted, and of Printing . . . Decision of the Judge . . .
Gutenberg’s Reputation for Knowledge of Curious Arts . . . Polishing
Stones . . . Making Mirrors . . . The Secret Art was Printing with
Founded Types . . . Secret was not in the Press . . . Illustration
of Old Screw Press . . . Testimony of the Earlier Authors . . . Tool
of Four Pieces was a Type-Mould . . . Fac-simile of Garamond’s Mould
. . . Fac-simile of an Early Donatus . . . Gutenberg’s Financial
Embarrassments and Failure.
* * * * *
But whoever were the inventers of this Art, or, (as some Authors
will have it,) Science, nay, Science of Sciences (say they), certain
it is, that in all its Branches it can be deemed little less than
a Science. . . for my part, I weighed it well in my thoughts, and
I find . . . that a Typographer ought to be a man of Science. By a
Typographer, I do not mean a Printer . . . I mean such a one, who
by his own Judgment from solid reasoning with himself, can either
perform, or direct others to perform, from the beginning to the end,
all the Handy-works and all the Physical Operations relating to
Typographie. Such a Scientifick man was doubtless he who was the first
Inventer of Typographie.
_Joseph Moxon, 1683._
* * * * *
Moxon did not overrate the rank of typography among the arts. It is a
science, and, like all sciences, is the fruit of the knowledge which
comes only by study. Like all sciences, it came in the fullness of
time, when the world had been prepared for it, but it came only to him
who had qualified himself for its handiworks from beginning to end.
In the description of the work of John Gutenberg about to be related,
imperfect as it must be by reason of our ignorance of his thoughts and
plans, we shall clearly see that the invention of typography was not,
as Junius would have us believe, the result of a happy thought or of
a flash of inspiration. It [p376] was not born in a day. To use the
sound language of an old chronicler, it was thought out and wrought out.
The work of Gutenberg will require a treatment different from that
given to the work of Coster. It is not necessary to introduce the
subject by a description of his books, by proof of his existence from
writings made a century after his death, and, by a train of fine
speculative reasoning, to show that he should have been the printer of
the books ascribed to him by conjecture. Our knowledge of Gutenberg
is incomplete, but it is positive as far as it goes. He did not put
his name on any book, but he certainly printed many books; it does not
appear that he ever boasted that he was the inventor of typography, but
this honor was conceded to him by many printers soon after his death.
His antagonists in courts of law, as well as the friends who put up
tablets to his memory, have told us, as plainly as could be desired,
that he was a master of many curious arts, and that he had made a broad
and unmistakable mark on his time.
There is no record of the birth of Gutenberg,[224] but it is the belief
of his German biographers that he was born at Mentz about 1398 or 1399.
His parents were, Frielo Gensfleisch and Else Gutenberg. Their two[225]
children were, John Gutenberg,[226] named after his mother, and Frielo
Gensfleisch. Frielo junior was always called Gensfleisch, but John,
whose relation to the Gensfleisch family must have been well known, was
sometimes described as John Gensfleisch, junior. A legal document of
[p377] the city of Strasburg names him John, called Gensfleisch, alias
Gutenberg, of Mentz.[227]
The infancy and youth of Gutenberg were passed amid scenes of strife.
In Mentz, as in many other cities of Germany, the burghers made
persistent encroachments on the privileges of the noblemen, and met
with as persistent resistance. The municipal disorder which followed
their frequent collisions was seriously aggravated by the disputes
of the rival archbishops who held office under rival popes. The
burghers, as the larger body, claimed the larger share of the city
offices, and the right to take the lead on occasions of ceremony and
in the administration of affairs. In the year 1420, the burghers of
Mentz made preparation for the entertainment of the Emperor, on the
occasion of his visit to the city. Circumvented by the action of the
noblemen, who greeted the Emperor first, the burghers retaliated by the
destruction of the houses and goods of the more obnoxious nobles. In
their rage, they demanded of them humiliating guarantees, and put them
under restrictions so galling, that Frielo Gensfleisch and many others
preferred to go in exile.[228] [p378]
It is not known where the Gensfleisch family took refuge. It is
supposed that Strasburg was the city selected, for this is the city in
which we find the earliest notice of Gutenberg.
In 1430, the Elector Conrad III granted a full amnesty to many of the
exiled citizens of Mentz, and summoned them to return. Johan Gutenberg
was specifically named in the proclamation, but he continued to dwell
abroad. During this year, his mother Else, then a widow, negotiated,
through her son, for her pension of fourteen guilders which had been
allowed to her by the magistrates of Mentz. In 1432, he visited Mentz,
probably on business relating to this pension. These are the only known
records of his early manhood.
Nothing is known about his education. Some writers have represented him
as an engraver on wood or a printer of cards or of block-books at an
early age. It is possible that he may have received instruction in the
arts of block-printing and engraving, and that he may have traveled far
and wide in quest of greater knowledge,[229] as was and is customary
with German artisans; but we have no evidence on this point. It must be
confessed that the first thirty years of his life are virtually blank.
The most important actions of his after life would have been obscured
quite as thoroughly, if it had not been his fate to appear many times,
either as complainant or defendant, before the courts of his country.
It is from the records of these courts that we glean the story of his
life. He first appears as complainant in a suit at law which shows
his high [p379] spirit and audacity. The magistrates of Mentz had
neglected or refused to pay to Gutenberg the sum of money which he
claimed as his due. Gutenberg, waiting for his opportunity, caused to
be arrested the clerk or recorder of the city of Mentz, who happened
to be in Strasburg. This sudden arrest seems to have been a great
annoyance to the magistrates of Strasburg, who feared that it would
endanger the friendly relations of the two cities. At their request he
consented to relax his hold on the unfortunate clerk.[230] This is the
first plain proof we have of his residence in Strasburg in 1434.
In the same year he formally authorized his mother to act for him in
the adjustment of some business between him and his brother Frielo.
This authorization, which is recorded in the city books of Mentz and of
Frankfort, would imply that he was, or intended to be, absent.
In 1436 he appeared as defendant before the tribunal of Strasburg.
Anne, called Zur Isernen Thur (Anne of the Iron Gate), sued Gutenberg
for a breach of promise of marriage. The judgment of the court is not
given. Most writers on the subject believe that the suit was withdrawn,
and that the case was closed by marriage. After this suit, the name
of Ennel Gutenberg, who, according to Schoepflin, is none other than
this Anne, appears on the tax-roll of the city of Strasburg. It does
not appear that Anne had any noticeable influence [p380] over his
subsequent life; she did not follow him to Mentz; it is not certain
that she was living in 1444.
In the year 1439, John Gutenberg again comes before the court, and
again as defendant. The testimony brought out on this trial reveals
Gutenberg to us as an experimenter and inventor. The official
record[231] is long, and full of matter that seems irrelevant, but it
presents a curious picture of the time, which deserves study. This is
the judge’s statement of the case, as delivered by him on the 12th day
of December, 1439:
We,[232] Cune Nope, master and counselor at Strasburg, hereby make
known to all who shall see this writing, or shall hear the reading
thereof, that George Dritzehen, our fellow-citizen, has appeared
before us in proper person, and with a full power of attorney for his
brother Claus Dritzehen, and has cited John Gensfleisch, of Mentz,
called Gutenberg, our fellow-resident, and has deposed that the late
Andrew Dritzehen, his brother, had inherited from his deceased father
valuable effects, which he had used as security, and from which he
had realized a considerable sum of money; that he had entered into
copartnership with John Gutenberg and others, and [with them] had
formed a company or association, and that he had paid over his money
to Gutenberg [the chief] of this association; and that for a certain
period of time they had carried on and practised together their
business, from which _they had reaped a good profit_; but that, in
consequence of the speculations of the association, Andrew Dritzehen
had made himself personally liable, in one way and another, for the
_lead_ and other materials which he had purchased, and which were
necessary in this art, or trade, and which he [George] would also have
been responsible [p381] for and would have paid; but inasmuch as in
this interval Andrew had died, he [George] and his brother Claus had
requested with importunity of John Gutenberg that he should receive
them in the association in the place of their late brother, or else,
that he should account to them for the money that he [Andrew] had put
in the association; but that he [Gutenberg] was unwilling to comply
with their request, alleging, as an excuse, that Andrew Dritzehen
had not, as yet, paid his proper quota into the association. Now he,
George Dritzehen, believed that he was abundantly able to prove that
this agreement was just as he had represented: he had pleaded that
Gutenberg should take him and his brother Claus in the association,
in place of their late brother, for they were his lawful heirs, or
that Gutenberg should return the money which their late brother had
invested, or that he should at least give the reason why he would not
accede to their demand.
In answer, John Gutenberg had replied that the complaint of George
Dritzehen seemed to him very unjust, inasmuch as he could sufficiently
establish through many notes and writings (the nature of which George
and his brother Claus could have learned after the death of Andrew
Dritzehen), under what rules the association was formed. In truth,
Andrew Dritzehen came to him many years ago, and _had asked him to
communicate and to teach to the said Andrew many secrets_: it was for
this reason, and to comply with his request, that _he had taught him
how to polish stones, from which art Andrew Dritzehen had derived a
good profit_. Afterward, after a long interval of time, he [Gutenberg]
had made agreement with Hans Riffe, mayor of Litchtenau, to _work up
a secret_ for the fair at Aix-la-Chapelle, and they were associated
together after this fashion: Gutenberg was to have two shares of
the business, and Hans Riffe one share. This agreement came to the
knowledge of Andrew Dritzehen, who begged Gutenberg to communicate
and teach him this secret also, for which Andrew Dritzehen promised
to be his debtor, on Gutenberg’s own terms. In the meantime, the
elder _Anthony Heilmann had made the same request_ in favor of his
brother Andrew Heilmann; whereupon he [Gutenberg] had considered
these two applications, and he had promised, at their solicitation,
to make known to them the secret, and also to give and grant to them
the half of the profits, in this wise: that they two should have
one share, Hans Riffe one share and he [Gutenberg] one share; but
that, as a consideration, the two should give to him [Gutenberg]
160 guilders for the trouble that he would have in teaching them,
and _for the communication of the secret_, and that they should,
afterward, each give him 80 guilders additional. At the time when
they were determining their agreement it was [p382] understood
that the fair would be held that same year, but when they were all
ready, and prepared to work out the secret [_i. e._ to manufacture
the merchandise intended for the fair] the fair was postponed to the
following year. Thereupon, they [Anthony and Andrew] _had made request
that Gutenberg would hide nothing from them which he knew or would
discover of secrets and inventions_, and they at once proposed to him
to name his terms; and it was then agreed that they should add to the
sum first named 250 guilders, making in all 410 guilders; and that
they should at once pay 100 guilders in cash—of which sum, at that
time, Andrew Heilmann paid 50, and Andrew Dritzehen paid 40—so that
Andrew Dritzehen remained a debtor to the amount of 10 guilders. It
was also understood that the two partners should pay the 75 guilders
due and unpaid, at three different dates which were stipulated; but
before the expiration of these dates Andrew Dritzehen had died, still
in debt to Gutenberg. At the time when the agreement was made, it had
been decided that the accomplishment of their secret [the duration of
copartnership] should occupy five entire years: in the event of the
death of any one of the four partners, during this five years, _all
the implements pertaining to the secret_, and all the merchandise that
had been manufactured, should be vested in the remaining partners,
and that the heirs of the partner who had died should receive, at
the end of five years, 100 guilders. Consequently, and because the
contract, which is expressed in these very terms, and which contract
was found at the house of Andrew Dritzehen, fully set forth all these
stipulations, and those that preceded it, as he John Gutenberg hopes
to prove by good witnesses, he demands that George Dritzehen and his
brother Claus should deduct the 85 guilders which were still due to
him from their late brother, from the 100 guilders, and then he would
consent to return to them the 15 guilders, although he was still
fairly entitled, according to the terms of the contract, to several
years, before this money should be payable. As to the declaration made
by George Dritzehen that the late Andrew Dritzehen, his brother, had
taken much money by the pledge of his goods and of his inheritance
from his father, he did not think it worth consideration, for he
[Gutenberg] had not received from the goods or inheritance anything
more than he had before first stated, except a half-omen of wine, a
basket of pears, and a half-fuder of wine, which Andrew Dritzehen and
Andrew Heilmann had given to him; that, moreover, the two men had
consumed the equivalent of this and more besides at his house, for
which they had never been asked to pay anything. Moreover, when he,
George Dritzehen, demanded to be admitted in the partnership as an
heir, he knew very well that this claim was no better founded than
any other; [p383] and that Andrew Dritzehen had never been security
for him, neither for lead, nor for any other matter, except on one
occasion before Fritz von Seckingen; but he had, after his death,
satisfied this obligation; and it is for the purpose of establishing
the truth of these assertions that he demands that the depositions
should be heard.
The depositions contain the most curious portions of the pleadings, for
it will be noticed that Gutenberg and Dritzehen have not described the
secret. Gutenberg did not wish to divulge it, and Dritzehen probably
hoped to discover it in the evidence, which begins mysteriously and
dramatically.
Barbel von Zabern, the mercer, testified that on a certain night she
had talked with Andrew Dritzehen about various matters, and that she
had said to him: “But will you not stop work, so that you can get some
sleep?” He replied to her, “It is necessary that I first finish this
work.” Then the witness said, “But, God help me, what a great sum of
money you are spending! That has, at least, cost you 10 guilders.”
He answered, “You are a goose; you think this cost but 10 guilders.
Look here! if you had the money which this has cost over and above 300
guilders, you would have enough for all your life; this has cost me at
least 500 guilders. It is but a trifle to what I will have to expend.
It is for this that I have mortgaged my goods and my inheritance.”
“But,” continued the witness, “if this does not succeed, what will you
do then?” He answered, “It is not possible that we can fail; before
another year is over, we shall have recovered our capital, and shall
be prosperous: that is, providing God does not intend to afflict us.”
This dialogue puts two of the partners in a clear light: the domination
of Gutenberg and the faith of Dritzehen are perfect. Unmoved by the
cold distrust of shrewd Madame Zabern, Dritzehen persists in his work,
trusting confidently in the genius of Gutenberg and the success of the
process. “It is not possible that we can fail.” In the testimony of the
next witness we find the first clue to the secret.
Dame Ennel Dritzehen, the wife of Hans Schultheiss, dealer in wood,
testified that Lorentz Beildeck [personal servant to Gutenberg] came
on a certain day to her house, where Claus Dritzehen, her cousin,
happened to be, and said to the latter, “Dear Claus Dritzehen,
the late Andrew Dritzehen had _four pieces lying in a press_, and
Gutenberg begs that you will take them away _from the press_, and
that you will _separate them_, so that no one can see what it [the
tool or implement made of four pieces] is, for he does not wish that
anyone should see _it_.” This witness also testified that when she was
with Andrew Dritzehen, her cousin, she had assisted him night and day
when he was on this work. She also said that she knew very well that
Andrew Dritzehen, her cousin, had, during this period, mortgaged his
capital; but as to how much of it he had devoted to this work, she
knew nothing. [p384]
The nature or the purpose of this tool of four pieces lying in the
press is not explained by any of the witnesses. It seems that Gutenberg
feared that it would, when fitted together, be readily understood, and
would reveal the secret. His inquietude about it is also set forth by
Hans Schultheiss.
Hans Schultheiss testified that Lorentz Beildick came one day to his
house with Claus Dritzehen, where this witness had conducted him. It
was at or about the time of the death of Andrew Dritzehen; Lorentz
Beildick said, “Your late brother, Andrew Dritzehen, has _four pieces
lying down in_ [or underneath] _a press_, and Gutenberg begs that you
will take them out and separate them, so that no one will be able
to see what _it_ is.” Claus Dritzehen searched for the pieces, but
could not find them. This witness heard, a long time ago, from Andrew
Dritzehen that the work had cost him more than 300 guilders.
It is obvious that these four pieces were not a part of the press.
Properly put together, they constituted one tool. Another witness
repeats the story, describing this tool as _it_.
Conrad Sahspach testified that Andrew Heilmann came to him one day
when he was in the market square and said: “Dear Conrad, Andrew
Dritzehen is dead, and as you are the man who made the press, and know
all about the matter, go there, and _take the pieces out of the press,
and separate them_, so that nobody can know what _it_ is.” But when
this witness went to look after the press (it was on St. Stephen’s day
last) the thing [it] had disappeared. This witness said that Andrew
Dritzehen had once borrowed money from him, which he used for the
work. He knew that he had mortgaged his property.
It does not appear that there was any secret about the construction of
the press. Sahspach, who was not one of the partners, was authorized,
not to disjoint the press, but to remove and disconnect the form of
four pieces in the press, which seems to have been the key to the
secret.
The poverty and the subsequent despondency of Andrew Dritzehen are
described by Hans Sidenneger, who testified that Andrew had mortgaged
all his property. His honesty is acknowledged by Werner Smalriem, who
testified that he had lent him money and had been repaid. His anxiety
about his debts, and his death, which seems to have been the result of
overwork, are briefly related by Mydehart Stocker.
Mydehart Stocker deposed that the late Andrew Dritzehen fell sick on
St. John’s Day, or about Christmas time. When he fell sick, he was
laid upon a bed in the room of this witness. And this witness went to
him and said, “Andrew, how are you?” And he answered, “I believe that
I am on my death-bed. [p385] If I am about to die, I wish that I had
never been connected with the association.” Witness said, “Why so?”
He responded, “Because I know very well that my brothers will never
agree with Gutenberg.” Witness said, “Is not your partnership governed
by a written agreement? Are there not evidences of the nature of your
obligations?” Andrew said, “Yes. Everything has been done properly
by writing.” Witness then asked how the association had been formed.
Dritzehen then told him how Andrew Heilmann, Hans Riffe, Gutenberg
and himself, had formed a partnership, to which Andrew Heilmann and
himself had brought 80 guilders, at least, so far as he recollected.
When the partnership had been made, Andrew Heilmann and himself went
one day to the house of Gutenberg at Saint Arbogastus. When there,
_they discovered that Gutenberg had concealed many secrets which he
had not obligated himself to teach to them_. This did not please them.
Thereupon they dissolved the old partnership, and formed a new one.
[Here follows a repetition, substantially, of the statement made by
Gutenberg, concerning the indebtedness of each partner.]
The insolvency of Andrew Dritzehen is set forth in the testimony of the
priest who attended him before his death.
Herr Peter Eckhart, curate of St. Martin, said [as a priest, he
was not sworn], that the late Andrew Dritzehen sent for him during
Christmas week that he might have his confession. When he came to his
home, he found him ready to confess. He [the priest] asked him if
there was debt due by him to any person, or if any person owed him, or
if he had given or done anything which it was necessary that he should
reveal. Then Andrew Dritzehen told him that he was in partnership
with many persons, with Andrew Heilmann and others, and that he had
incurred an obligation in an enterprise to the amount of 200 or 300
guilders, and that, at that time, he was not worth a stiver.
Gutenberg’s need of money, and Dritzehen’s liability for money lent to
the association, are proved by another witness.
Thomas Steinbach deposed that Hesse, the broker, once came to him,
asking him if he knew where he could place some money, with little
risk of loss. Witness had recommended him to John Gutenberg, Andrew
Dritzehen and Anthony Heilmann, who needed money. Witness took up
for them 14 lutzelbergers, but he really lost 12-1/2 guilders by
the transaction. Fritz von Seckingen was their surety, and his name
was inscribed [as endorser] on the books of the house of commerce
[probably some kind of banking-house].
The most explicit evidence concerning this form of four pieces is given
by Lorentz Beildick, the servant of Gutenberg.