suppression of the name and services of Gutenberg. It is also evident
that the writer could not, or dared not, point out the improvements
which he alleges were made by Schœffer. This deficiency was soon
supplied by a more credulous writer. About 1514, Trithemius,[330]
one of the most learned men of that century, wrote the following
description of the invention, which he says he had from Peter Schœffer
himself:
It was at this period (1450) in Mentz, a city of Germany on the Rhine,
and not in Italy, as some people have falsely asserted, that this
admirable, and till then unheard-of, art of printing books by the
aid of types was planned and invented by John Gutenberg, a citizen
of Mentz. When he had spent all his property in his search after
this art, and was almost overwhelmed with difficulties, unable to
find relief from any quarter, and meditating the abandonment of his
project, Gutenberg was enabled by the counsel and by the money of John
Fust, also a citizen of Mentz, to finish the work which he had begun.
They first printed, with engravings of letters on blocks of wood,
arranged in proper order in the manner of ordinary manuscripts,
the vocabulary then called the _Catholicon_; but with the letters
on these blocks they were not able to print anything else, for the
letters were not movable, but fixed and unalterable upon the blocks,
as has been stated. To this invention succeeded another much more
ingenious. They discovered a method of founding the forms of all
the letters of the Latin alphabet, which they called matrices, from
which [matrices] they again founded types, either in tin or in brass,
strong enough for any pressure, which [types?] before this had been
cut by hand. In right earnest, I was told, nearly thirty years ago,
by Peter Schœffer of Gernszheim, citizen of Mentz, the son-in-law of
the first inventor, that this art of printing had encountered, in its
first essays, great difficulties. For, when they were printing the
_Bible_, they were obliged to expend more than 4,000 florins before
they had printed three sections [sixty pages]. But the Peter Schœffer
already mentioned, at that time a workman, but afterward son-in-law,
as has been said, of the first inventor, John Fust, a man skillful
and ingenious, devised a more easy method of founding types, and thus
gave the art its present perfection. And the three men kept secret
among themselves, for a while, this method of printing, up to the time
when their workmen were deprived of the work, without which they were
unable to practise their trade, by whom it was divulged, first in
Strasburg, and afterward in other cities. [p475]
There are many inaccuracies in this statement. Gutenberg and Fust are
represented as foolishly squandering money in vain efforts to invent
xylography, a method of printing then in common use in many cities of
Germany, Italy and Holland. The _Catholicon_, which is mentioned as
one of the productions of block-printing, was printed from metal types
in 1460. In the beginning, Gutenberg is acknowledged as the inventor
of printing, yet, a few lines further, we are told that Fust was the
first inventor. And it seems that Gutenberg could do nothing with his
invention until helped by the advice, as well as the money, of John
Fust. After the improved invention,[331] Gutenberg and Fust fell in
hopeless difficulties, having spent four thousand florins before they
had completed sixty pages of the _Bible_. From these difficulties they
were extricated by Peter Schœffer, “son-in-law of the first inventor,”
who invented a more easy method of making types, and who gave the art
its present perfection, and without whose aid the earlier inventions
would have been of little value. The intention of the writer is plain:
Gutenberg, Fust and Schœffer may be regarded as co-inventors, but
Schœffer did the most effective service.
It is a curious fact that this paper, which has been so often
quoted as evidence in favor of Schœffer’s invention of matrices,
[p476] positively says that matrices had already been used by Fust
and Gutenberg. Before Schœffer’s name is mentioned, it is said that
“they” [Fust and Gutenberg] discovered a method of making matrices.
Trithemius says that Schœffer’s contribution to the invention was
“a more easy method of founding types, by which he gave the art its
present perfection.” He does not explain this easy method. We do not
know whether his claimed improvement was in the mould or matrix, in
its construction or in its manipulation; but it was not origination
or invention, it was improvement only. The passage which seems to say
that the first types were cut by hand does not require much comment.
Trithemius may have misunderstood, and incorrectly reported, what he
heard, or Schœffer may have misrepresented the facts. It is evident
that Trithemius is in error; for cut types, cut either as to body or as
to face, never were, never could have been used. The most trustworthy
evidences tell us that the earliest types were cast in a mould.[332]
If the word _formen_, which is found in the record of the trial of
Strasburg, be construed as the same word must be construed in the
colophon to the _Catholicon of 1460_, in the acknowledgment of Dr.
Humery in 1468, and in the order of the King of France in 1458, then we
have the most complete evidence that the matrices and the accompanying
type-mould were used by Gutenberg long before he knew Schœffer.
It was not necessary that Trithemius should have told us that he
derived this curious information from Peter Schœffer. In these
perversions of truth we may see the vanity of the man who had already
boasted that he was the first to enter the sanctuary of the art. The
unreasonableness of his claim [p477] to the invention of matrices, or
to the perfection of printing, may be inferred from the fact that,
although he was a judge, a man of distinction, and a successful
publisher for more than forty years, during the period when the value
of printing was fully appreciated, he was never noticed in any way
as a great benefactor. Neither the emperor nor elector gave him any
distinction as the founder of a great art; no one put up a stone to
his memory, honoring him as an inventor; no printer of that century
regarded him as aught more than a thrifty publisher. His reputation
has been created entirely by his own boasts and those of his family;
and it is a most damaging circumstance that these boasts were not made
until Gutenberg and Fust were dead, and that the statement written by
Trithemius was not published until all the witnesses to the invention
were dead, and there could be no contradiction.
There are many facts which show the falsity of Schœffer’s claim.
Setting aside the evidences in favor of the probable priority of the
types of the _Bible of 36 lines_, the record of the lawsuit between
Gutenberg and Fust virtually tells us that the types of the _Bible of
42 lines_ had been made, perhaps in 1452, but not later than 1453. That
these types were founded in matrices, were of neater cut, more exact
as to body, and better founded than any afterward made by Schœffer, is
apparent at a glance. They prove that the true method of type-making
had already been found. If Schœffer invented the matrices from which
these types were made, he should have perfected this invention in 1451.
But Schœffer was a copyist at Paris in 1449, and it is not certain that
he was with Gutenberg before 1453. Here we encounter an impossibility.
It cannot be supposed that a young collegian, fresh from books, without
experience in mechanics, could invent, off-hand, a complicated method
of type-making, upon which Gutenberg had been working for many years.
There is still another version of this invention of matrices by
Schœffer, the version of Jo. Frid. Faustus, which has been often
paraded as conclusive testimony in Schœffer’s favor. [p478]
John Fust, of Mentz, was the first to perceive the losses suffered
by scholars through the scarcity of books. He labored diligently to
invent some new method of multiplying them, so that they could be
furnished to readers at reduced and reasonable prices. High Heaven,
kindly favoring his sincere prayers and his most laudable intention,
revealed to this excellent man the most approved form and mainstay of
his invention. In the beginning, he cut the letters of the alphabet
for children, on a block of wood, in high relief. With much loss of
time and labor, he waited for the invention of a more suitable ink;
for writing ink blotted and made the printed letters unintelligible.
He experimented with soot from a candle, with which he was able to
print, but the impression would not adhere to the paper. At last he
invented an ink which was black, adhesive and permanent. Then he began
to print on a press and to publish little books for children, which
everybody bought, for the price was trivial, and buyers praised the
printer. Fust was stimulated to attempt larger work, and he thereupon
printed the _Donatus_ in exactly the same manner. But the engraved
pages of this book, cut out of the solid block, displayed many
imperfect letters, and many copies were worthless. It then occurred
to the inventor, at the right time, that he might print books with
separate types, and that it was not at all necessary that the letters
should always be cut on solid blocks. Whereupon he cut up the wood
blocks, and saving all the types that had escaped injury, he made new
combinations with them. This is the true origin of the composition
of movable types. This new method of making types called for a great
expenditure of time and labor; it delayed the work, hindered the
development of the new art, and made many miserable difficulties for
the inventor.
Fust had many workmen, who assisted him in making ink and types, and
in other work. Among them was Peter Schœffer of Gernszheim, who, when
he perceived the difficulties and delays of his master, was seized
with an ardent desire to accomplish the success of the new art.
Through the special inspiration of God, he discovered the secret by
which types of the matrix, as they are called, could be cut, and types
could be founded from them, which, for this purpose, could be composed
in frequent combinations, and not be singly cut as they had been
before. Schœffer secretly cut matrices of the alphabet, and showed
types cast therefrom to his master, John Fust, who was so greatly
pleased with them, and rejoiced so greatly, that he immediately
promised to him his only daughter, and soon after he gave her to
him in marriage. But even with this kind of type, great difficulty
was experienced. The metal was soft and did not withstand pressure,
until they invented an alloy which gave it proper strength. [p479]
As they had happily succeeded in this undertaking, Fust and Schœffer
bound their workmen by oath to conceal the process with the greatest
secrecy; but they showed to friends, whenever it pleased them, the
first experimental types of wood, which they tied up with a string and
preserved. My uncle, Doctor John Fust, testified that he had seen,
with the manuscripts which were bequeathed by the inventor, these
experimental types of wood, and that he had held in his hands the
first part of his edition of the _Donatus_.[333]
The unknown author further says that John Gutenberg was one of
the friends to whom Fust and Schœffer showed the wood types; that
Gutenberg, professing to admire their ingenuity, took a great interest
in their enterprise, and lent Fust and Schœffer money, thereby
entangling them in an agreement, from which they could not extricate
themselves until Gutenberg had acquired a right to use the invention,
by which use he wrongfully enjoys the honor of first inventor. Here
we may stop. It would be a waste of time to expose, one by one, the
falsehoods of a statement so flatly contradicted by many unimpeachable
evidences. It is very clear that the writer had no new facts to tell
us about the invention. He has told us not how it was made, but how he
wished it had been made that it might redound to the honor of the Fusts.
What later writers have said about the value of Schœffer’s services
need not be considered, for they also have produced no new facts: they
have based their opinions entirely on the incorrect information of
Faustus, Trithemius and Schœffer. We may pass, without further delay,
to the examination of the claims made for other alleged inventors of
printing.
[p480]
XXIV
Alleged Inventors of Printing.
Discovery of the Book of Four Stories, with Imprint of Albert Pfister
. . . Its Types the same as those of the Bible of 36 lines . . .
Pfister regarded as an Inventor of Printing . . . Description of
Book of Four Stories . . . Its Colophon . . . Book of Fables . . .
Colophon and Fac-simile . . . Other Books by Pfister . . . Pfister
not a Type-founder . . . Probably an Engraver on Wood . . . Could not
have Printed the Bible of 36 lines . . . Pfister probably got his
Knowledge of Printing from Gutenberg . . . Paul of Prague’s Notice of
Printing at Bamberg . . . Sebastian Pfister . . . Pamphilo Castaldi
. . . Absurdity of the Legend . . . John Mentel and his Epitaph . . .
Gebwiler’s Statement . . . Fac-simile of the Arms of the Typothetæ
. . . Specklin’s Statement . . . Plain Falsifications of History . . .
Known Facts about Mentel and his partner Henry Eggestein.
* * * * *
It is, perhaps, possible to show of all inventions that somewhere
somebody must have been very near to it. To assert of any invention
whatever, that it could or should have been invented long ago, is
nothing but chicane: we are to prove, incontrovertibly, that it was
really invented, or else be silent.
_Lessing._
* * * * *
Schelhorn’s opinion that the _Bible of 36 lines_ was the Bible
described by Zell—the book printed by Gutenberg in 1450—did not meet
with the approval of those who had copies of the _Bible of 42 lines_.
Men who had paid very large prices for the copies of an edition
supposed to be the first, were loth to have it degraded to the inferior
place of a second edition. The testimony of Zell was unceremoniously
set aside; the written date of 1460 in one copy of the _Bible of 36
lines_ was regarded as indicating the date of printing, and the book
was declared the work of Gutenberg between 1455 and 1460. Another
hypothesis was soon presented. In 1792, Steiner, a clergyman at
Augsburg, announced the discovery of the _Book of Four Stories_ with
the imprint of Albert [p481] Pfister, Bamberg, 1462. Soon after, Camus
read before the National Institute at Paris, a critical description
of the book, in which he proved the identity of its types with those
of the _Bible of 36 lines_. Thereupon, incautious readers rushed to
the hasty inference that, as Pfister had made use of the types of the
_Bible of 36 lines_, the Bible must have been printed by Pfister.
Critics of authority did not hesitate to say that Albert Pfister, a
printer unknown for three centuries, and of whom there is no tradition,
might have been an inventor of printing, the rival, and perhaps the
predecessor and teacher, of John Gutenberg. As we know Pfister only
through his books, it will be proper to examine their workmanship
before this hypothesis can be considered. They are not numerous:
sixteen books and pamphlets have been attributed to him, but his claim
to eight has been disproved.[334]
The _Book of Four Stories_, a thin folio of 60 leaves—a version made
for childish readers of the biblical descriptions of Joseph, Daniel,
Esther and Judith—may be offered as the most characteristic specimen
of Pfister’s style. The types of this book are those of the _Bible
of 36 lines_, but they are much worn. If they were not the identical
characters, they were cast in the mould and matrices that had been used
for the types of the _Bible_, for the types of both books agree in
face and in body. The _Book of Four Stories_ has fifty-five engravings
on wood, six of which are repeated, each occupying the space of about
eleven lines, or 2-3/4 inches, of the text. The engravings are coarse;
they have no artistic merit, and are in every way inferior to those
of the _Bible of the Poor_ or the _Speculum Salutis_; they abound
in puerile absurdities, and seem to be the work of a maker of cards
or images. The text of the book is in German rhyme, but the lines
follow each other, without break, as in a text of prose. A capital
[p482] letter indicates the beginning of each line of poetry, and a
lozenge-shaped period denotes its ending. The presswork is decidedly
inferior: the deeply indented paper shows that the printer could not
regulate the pressure on the types; the muddiness of the letters comes
from the use of a thin ink, and the faulty register from a shackly
press. The colophon or subscription of this book, a translation of
which is submitted, specifies the date, the place of printing and the
printer:
Every man, in his heart, desires to be learned and well read. Without
books and without teacher, this cannot be. If it were otherwise, all
of us would know Latin. These reflections have engaged me for a long
time. To good purpose have I sought out and gathered the four stories
of Joseph, Daniel, Judith, and also of Esther. God granted protection
to these four personages, as He always does to the good. This little
book, which is intended to teach us how to amend our lives, was
completed in Bamberg, in which city Albert Pfister printed it, in the
year which is numbered one thousand four hundred and sixty-two,—which
is the truth,—soon after the day of Saint Walpurgis, who is able to
obtain for us grace abundant, peace, and everlasting life. May God
give them to all of us. Amen.
The _Book of Fables_, a folio of 88 leaves, printed with the types of
the _Bible of 36 lines_, is another work which fairly exhibits the
style of Pfister. It contains eighty-five fables, each illustrated with
a coarse engraving on wood, in which monkeys represent men. The text is
in rhyme, but the lines follow each other without break. The colophon
says:
At Bamberg this little book was finished, after the Nativity of Jesus
Christ, as one counts, one thousand four hundred years and sixty and
one,—such is the truth,—on the day of Saint Valentine. God save us
from His sufferings.
[Illustration: Fac-simile of an Illustration in the Book of Fables by
Albert Pfister.
[From Heineken.]]
Another book attributed to Pfister is known as _Belial_, or the
_Consolation of the Sinner_. It is a folio of 95 leaves, which exhibits
on the last leaf the words _Albrecht Pfister su Bamberg_. Pfister
also printed two editions of the _Bible of the Poor_, one in Latin
and one in German, each containing eighteen engravings. His treatment
of the old block-book is that of a mechanic and not of an artist: the
designing, [p483] engraving and printing are of the lowest order.
He also printed the _Complaint against Death_, and the _Judgment of
Man after Death_. All were printed with the types of the _Bible of 36
lines_, and they were, apparently, his only types. [p484]
That Pfister was not a type-founder seems clearly enough established
through the fact that he did all his typographic work with only one
size and face of type. In all his books, the letters of the Latin
alphabet appear old and worn, but the _w_, _k_, and _z_, characters of
the German alphabet, are new and sharp. The types had evidently been
used before for books in Latin, but not by Pfister, for the _Bible of
the Poor_ seems to have been the only book he printed in that language.
The _Book of Fables_ bearing the date of 1461 seems the earliest of
Pfister’s books, but it was published without any explanation stating
that it was made by a new art. It may therefore be presumed that he
began to print with types before 1461. The profusion of wood-cuts in
his books is an indication that he was an engraver on wood—probably a
maker of playing cards, images, and block-books, who had profited by an
early opportunity to perceive the advantages of types. As a seller and
maker of chap-books, he would prefer the types because they explained
his pictures more cheaply than the slower process of engraving letter
by letter; but his persistent use of types which other printers would
have condemned as worn out, shows that he did not make and could not
renew them. It is not probable that a man who seems to have rated his
wretched wood-cuts as the most meritorious feature of his books could
have invented types. It is possible, however, that an image printer
of low aims and slender ability could have perceived the economical
advantages of types, and may have purchased a discarded font for the
sole purpose of printing explanations to his engravings. And this seems
the only conjecture that will explain Pfister’s ownership of the types
of the _Bible of 36 lines_.
The conjecture that Pfister printed the _Bible of 36 lines_ will not
bear a critical examination. It is not enough to show that our first
positive knowledge of the types and the copies of this book begins
with Pfister and Bamberg. It still remains to be proved that Pfister
made the types and printed the copies. The proof is wanting and the
probabilities are [p485] strongly adverse. The _Bible of 36 lines_ is
unlike any book of Pfister’s in size, character, and workmanship. It
is not possible that the man who began his career as a printer with
an admirable edition of the Latin Bible in three volumes folio, could
have ended it with the publication of shabby little books in German,
intended for children. A declension like this is without a parallel in
typographical history.
It has been supposed that Pfister got his types and his imperfect
knowledge of typography from Gutenberg after the dissolution of
the partnership between Fust and Gutenberg, but Pfister could have
gotten them before. There is a blank in Gutenberg’s history between
the years 1442 and 1448, about which we know nothing. That he was
then at work on his problem; that he must have communicated more or
less of his secrets to the many unknown workmen and associates who
succeeded Dritzehen, Saspach, Heilmann and Dünne; that he may have been
induced to try his fortunes at Bamberg before he went to Mentz; that
Albert Pfister may have been one of his workmen who followed him to
Mentz and acquired some skill in the art,—these are conjectures that
deserve consideration. But they are conjectures only: we have no exact
knowledge concerning the introduction of typography in Bamberg. It is
plain, however, that the appearance at Bamberg, in 1461,—a year before
the sack of Mentz, the date usually fixed on as that of the dispersion
of the printers, and the general divulgement of the secret,—of a
book printed in the worn types of the _Bible of 36 lines_, and the
subsequent discovery near this city of many copies of this book, which
could not have been printed by Pfister, are indications that Gutenberg
must have had business relations with Bamberg which are of importance
in the history of printing.
The only documentary evidence which seems to favor the hypothesis that
Pfister might have printed the _Bible of 36 lines_ is the following
curious notice of early printing, which was written about 1463, by Paul
of Prague, for a contemplated but unfinished encyclopedia of arts and
sciences: [p486]
The _libripagus_[335] is an artisan who skillfully engraves on plates
of copper, iron, hard wood, or other substances, images, writing, or
anything he fancies, and afterward quickly prints them on paper, or
on a wall, or on a smooth board. He cuts whatever he pleases, and is
a man who can apply his art to pictures. When I was at Bamberg, a man
engraved the whole Bible upon plates, and in four weeks skillfully
preserved this engraving of the whole Bible on thin parchment.
Pfister’s name is not mentioned, but he was, probably, the _libripagus_
here noticed. The story is not credible. The whole _Bible_ was not
printed in four weeks, neither at Bamberg nor elsewhere; nor was it
ever engraved upon plates. The only book of Pfister’s to which this
statement could be applied, is his edition of the _Bible of the Poor_.
We do not know when Pfister died; his last dated work is of the year
1462. Sebastian Pfister, who is supposed to be Albert’s son, was at the
head of a printing office at Bamberg in the year 1470, and then printed
a little book which seems to have been his first and last venture in
printing.