TYPOGRAPHIC TECHNICAL SERIES FOR APPRENTICES—PART VIII, No. 50
THE INVENTION OF TYPOGRAPHY
A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE INVENTION OF PRINTING AND HOW IT CAME ABOUT
BY
FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, LL.D.
EDUCATION DIRECTOR
UNITED TYPOTHETAE OF AMERICA
[Illustration]
PUBLISHED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
UNITED TYPOTHETAE OF AMERICA
1918
Copyright, 1918
United Typothetae of America
Chicago, Ill.
Composition and electrotypes contributed by
Evans-Winter-Hebb, Inc.
Detroit
PREFACE
The writer of this book makes no claim to original investigation. The
materials for such investigation do not exist to any considerable extent
in this country. The results of such an investigation would form a book
not suited to this series.
The writer has attempted to set forth briefly the conditions which
brought about the invention of printing and to present the main lines of
discussion concerning the inventor. He has consulted with some care a
considerable number of authorities and has endeavored to present the
results in comprehensive shape.
The writer believes that the history of any particular event is a part
of the general history of the time in which it occurred. He has,
therefore, endeavored throughout the historical portion of this series
to indicate the general historic background of all particular historical
events sufficiently to set these particular events in their relations to
what was going on at the time in the world generally.
In addition to the supplementary reading indicated in the several
volumes which follow, the writer ventures to hope that the students will
familiarize themselves with some good general text book on modern
history.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 7
CHAPTER I
CONDITIONS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 11
CHAPTER II
STEPS TOWARD TYPOGRAPHY 17
CHAPTER III
CLAIMS TO THE INVENTION 26
CHAPTER IV
THE INVENTION 32
CHAPTER V
MATERIALS AND METHODS OF THE FIRST PRINTERS 47
SUPPLEMENTARY READING 52
REVIEW QUESTIONS 53
THE INVENTION OF PRINTING
INTRODUCTION
Many persons and many places have claimed the honor of the invention of
typographic printing. That these conflicting claims should be made is
the most natural thing in the world. Almost all epoch-making inventions
and discoveries are of more or less doubtful origin. The reason for this
is that such discoveries grow out of conditions and needs. At the time
appointed they appear as inevitably as the blossom on the plant. Very
likely they appear in several places at once. Often, also like the
blossoms on a plant, only one produces what the gardener calls a “set,”
that is, a fruit which ripens and matures seed for reproduction. The
state of human knowledge or the pressure of human need may be such that
many students are at work at the same time upon problems which seem to
demand solution. In this way the theory of evolution, whose adoption,
revolutionizing as it did the entire system of human thinking, was the
most important event of the nineteenth century, was independently
discovered by Darwin and Wallace, who were working at the same time
along independent lines of investigation.
The advance in surgery and a keen appreciation of the suffering under
operation which made many operations impossible led to the simultaneous
discovery of anesthesia by at least two investigators, William T. G.
Morton and Dr. Charles T. Jackson. Investigation of the uses of
electricity led to the independent invention of the telephone by Bell
and Dolbear. It is certain that occasional European sailors found their
way to the western hemisphere through several centuries before Columbus
made his famous voyage. These are only a few of the most notable
instances of such disputed or independent discoveries.
In some cases the judgment of the world has probably awarded the glory
incorrectly. In other cases the glory has gone, perhaps justly, to that
one of two or more discoverers who succeeded in making his invention
practically or commercially useful. For instance, while Morton was
probably not the original discoverer of anesthesia, it was he who made
it practically useful in surgical operations, and while there appears to
be no question that Dolbear antedated Bell in the discovery of the
telephone, Dolbear’s interest was purely scientific while Bell gave the
telephone to commerce.
The same conditions of doubt and obscurity surround the invention of
printing. As we shall later see, more at length, the invention of
printing was a development of existing processes called for by the needs
of the time and arising out of the conditions of the time. It was
inevitable that typographic printing should be discovered by somebody in
the middle of the fifteenth century. So far as the evidence at our
command shows, the art was not invented in several places at the same
time, but was developed by one man out of familiar processes. For some
reason which is not now clear, the work of this man, though considerable
in extent, appears to have been without immediate direct results of much
importance. At a very early stage the invention was seized upon by
another who, with his associates, established a center from which the
art steadily grew and developed. So important in its practical results
was the work of this man and his associates that he has been for
centuries hailed as the inventor of printing. It is needless to say that
this man was John Gutenberg.
In the judgment of the present writer, however, the claim that Gutenberg
invented typographic printing cannot be maintained. The discussion has
been long and sometimes bitter. The arguments, or at least many of them,
are of a highly technical nature and many minor points yet remain to be
cleared up. In a book of this sort it would be obviously out of place to
go at length into the details of the argument. The writer, moreover,
lays no claim to original investigation. An attempt will be made in the
following pages to show the conditions out of which the discovery arose,
to tell the story of the invention, to place the credit both of actual
invention and practical application where it belongs, and to bring out
certain points which may be interesting about the work of the very
earliest printers.
In taking the position which he does with regard to the invention the
writer regrets that he is obliged to dissent from the conclusions of De
Vinne. In his Invention of Printing, De Vinne ably maintains the claims
of Gutenberg. No one can be more ready than the present writer to pay
homage to the greatness of De Vinne and to acknowledge the immense debt
which the printers of America owe to him. His series of historical and
critical essays on the practice of typography are still unapproachable.
In spite of the changes which have taken place in the years since they
were written, their substance is not affected excepting in some minor
and unimportant details. They are still supreme authority in their
field. De Vinne’s historical work was also of great importance and for
the most part may still be accepted without question. Under these
circumstances it is only natural that the conclusions of De Vinne should
carry great weight and that the great body of American printers should
have accepted the Gutenberg attribution without question upon De Vinne’s
authority.
It must be remembered, however, that De Vinne’s work was written nearly
forty years ago. Just before he wrote, Dr. Van der Linde had published a
voluminous work in which the theory of the Gutenberg invention was
supported at great length and with great show of scholarship. This was
later followed by other volumes of similar purport. For a considerable
time Van der Linde’s books were considered as settling the question. De
Vinne, as may clearly be seen from his preface, wrote under the spell of
Van der Linde’s influence. Later investigations, however, have shown
that Van der Linde’s scholarship was largely show, that he was not only
uncritical but unskillful in his use of authorities, and that his
voluminous works are written with the sole purpose of bolstering up a
preconceived theory. Most of this investigation had not been conducted
when De Vinne wrote. The discussion cannot be said to have swung the
balance of probability to the other side until after De Vinne’s literary
activities ceased. The knowledge we now possess, however, has forced the
present writer to abandon the De Vinne position and to base the
historical part of this series of text-books on acceptance of the belief
that typographic printing was discovered by Coster, of Haarlem, in
Holland.
CHAPTER I
CONDITIONS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
As was briefly indicated in the preceding volume in this series, the
conditions existing in the world of letters at the middle of the
fifteenth century were such as to demand imperatively some new method of
making books. The slow march of civilization had gone on with many
setbacks and interruptions through the centuries, but was now proceeding
with a swiftness hitherto unknown. The demands of the human mind were
pressing hard against the physical boundaries to progress created by the
methods of book-making then in use. It must be remembered that men were
still making books just as they had done for nearly two thousand years.
A vast store of knowledge had been accumulated and additions were being
made with tremendous rapidity, but there was no adequate means of
getting this knowledge before the people. At the same time there were
more people intensely eager for knowledge than ever before.
It is worth while to stop for a moment to consider the conditions of the
period. The Hundred Years’ War between France and England, which had
paralyzed the energies of a divided France and had exhausted the powers
of England in useless attempts at an impossible conquest, had at last
come to an end. The English had withdrawn to their own island. They had
given up the dreams of a continental empire which had danced before
their eyes ever since William of Normandy, in 1066, had added England to
his possessions. In reading English history we are liable to forget that
during a great part, if not the whole, of the four hundred years
succeeding the Conquest, the English kings had considered their
continental possessions the more important, regarding the little island
which they shared with the Scotch, then an independent nation, as a sort
of colonial possession. It is true that they maintained their capitals
there and took their titles thence, because in England they were kings,
whereas they governed their broad possessions on the continent as dukes
or counts only. From the time of Henry V they had claimed to be kings of
France. Now these continental ambitions were definitely given up and
England was free to develop her own nationality, and a much more
vigorous national life immediately began.
The same events mark an era in the development of France. Free from the
horrors of war and the dread of another conquest, a new opportunity was
given for the development of the arts of peace.
Italy was still divided into a great number of independent states whose
quarrels and changing alliances make the Italian history of the period
extremely difficult to study on its political side. There had, however,
developed in Italy a group of strong rulers who governed states of
respectable size and kept them for considerable periods in comparative
stability. The Italian states had rallied more quickly from the
barbarian invasions which overthrew the Roman Empire than the rest of
Europe and their progress in civilization had been very remarkable when
one considers the civil wars and wars between small states which had
been almost continuous.
For the most part Germany had lagged far behind the rest of Europe in
the development of civilization. The greater part of it, however, was
now in a fairly stable political condition and many of the German states
had become important centers of learning. This was especially true of
western and southern Germany, where the influence of Rome had been
strongest and where the influence of France and Italy had been most
felt.
Much of Spain was still in the hands of the Moors, who were in many
respects more civilized than their Christian neighbors. Portugal was
enlightened and advanced.
The great schism known as the Babylonish Captivity which had rent the
Catholic Church in twain, with rival popes ruling at Rome and Avignon,
had come to an end, and for the time being the unity of Christendom was
undisturbed.
The political conditions of Europe were thus more favorable than they
had been for a long time for the development of the intellectual life.
They were still far from ideal and there were many dark days in store,
but the bad old times were never fully to come back.
This political condition, however, was only a background for the revival
of intellectual activity known as the Renaissance which distinguishes
this remarkable period.
This movement may perhaps be said to have begun with Petrarch, the
Italian poet, philosopher, and student, who died in 1374. By the middle
of the fifteenth century, however, many men had appeared in the world of
letters whose names are famous for all time. These great thinkers and
writers revived the study of the ancient languages, recast the study of
philosophy, and even ventured to discuss the fundamentals of religion.
In so doing they not only revived the ancient learning, but started a
new one.
New universities sprang up, among them Erfurt in 1392, Leipsic in 1409,
St. Andrews, in Edinburgh, in 1411, Louvain in 1426. The revival of the
study of great literature in Italy may be said to have begun about 1400.
About 1450, there were many eminent Greek scholars and their enthusiasm
for Greek literature had led to the revival of the philosophy of Plato.
The revival of interest in the art of the ancients, classic literature,
and the philosophy of Plato brought about the great advance of modern
art which marked the second half of the century, Perugino, the teacher
of Raphael, being born in 1446.
All this intellectual activity stirred a new spirit of adventure. Just
as the men whose intellectual energies had been absorbed in the petty
quarrels of church and state now devoted themselves to constructive
thinking, so those whose physical energies had been devoted to the
constant succession of small wars of which we have spoken now gave
themselves to exploration. By the middle of the century important
discoveries had been made by the exploring expeditions sent out by the
Portuguese prince, Henry the Navigator. The known world was to be
doubled in size by the voyage of Columbus before the end of the century.
It is easy to see that all this meant the creation of many books.
Learning without books is a manifest impossibility. There was a renewed
interest in the old books and a great call for copies of them. All this
new learning and discovery required books for record and for
dissemination. It is true there were many more books than there had been
formerly and many more were being made, but the possibility of supply
was hopelessly behind the demand. Great libraries were being formed and
many individuals had remarkable collections of books. Some of these
libraries still exist, the best known probably being the library of the
Vatican, at Rome, which was started in 1447. The trade of book-making
had long since outgrown the monastery. As we saw in the preceding
volume, practically all of the book-making of the so-called Dark Ages
was in the monasteries and much was still done there, but there was now
in existence a regularly organized trade of copyists. No really good
book of this period was complete without its ornamental capitals,
pictures, and other embellishments. These adornments, or illuminations,
as they were called, extended in some cases to every page of a book.
They were not generally made by the men who did the copying or writing
of the text, but by a class of specially trained men who were called
illuminators.
Clearly the shortcomings of the manuscript books are very evident. First
and foremost must be placed the absolute impossibility of making by the
laborious process of writing out by hand anything like the number of
books required to meet the demand. Either some new method of making
books must be devised or the new learning and the new civilization were
to be strangled at birth. Moreover, the manuscript books were
necessarily very costly and they were also very inaccurate. Any one who
has had any experience in the hand-copying of large amounts of
manuscript will see how impossible it is to avoid errors, even with the
most careful checking over. It is not probable that any two copies of
any manuscript book were ever exactly alike. It is true that the
invention of printing did not automatically remove errors. Indeed errors
and inaccuracies, very common in the early books, are far from unknown
at present, but at any rate all the copies of one edition are alike and
errors may be corrected either in subsequent editions or by the
insertion of errata in the printed book.
Not only was the time ripe for the invention of a new method of
book-making, but the materials were ready with the vital exception of
type, and that was within a step of discovery. The materials are paper,
ink, presses, and type. Paper is supposed to have been invented by the
Chinese about the end of the first century A. D., and to have been more
or less known in the East for a long time before the knowledge of it was
brought to Europe. The Arabs conquered Samarkand in 751, and from this
conquest it is supposed that the knowledge of paper and paper-making
came to Europe by way of Spain, the greater part of which was then in
the hands of the Moors, who were themselves Arabs. As early as the
eleventh century there were paper mills at Valencia, Xativa, and other
Moorish towns in Spain. From Spain the art of paper-making spread to
Italy where we know that there was a paper mill at Fabriano before 1340,
and to France where there was a mill at Troyes about the same time. Not
long after we find paper-making at Nuremberg. By the middle of the
century paper was familiar throughout Europe, but the use of it was not
extensive. The paper of that time did not lend itself readily to writing
and the makers of the manuscripts preferred the use of parchment.
Obviously, printing can not be done with writing ink. Very different
qualities are necessary for the two arts, but as early as the beginning
of the century special inks were being made for printing from blocks.
Those inks were not exactly like those soon to be used for printing from
type, but they were near enough in their general character to indicate
the improvements which were needed to produce a true printer’s ink. Who
invented these inks is not known, but it is generally supposed that they
were invented by artists who were accustomed to the handling of color
and pigments. The invention has been attributed by some to an unknown
Italian painter, by others to Hubert Van Eyck, a great Dutch painter of
the period. It is not probable, however, that the invention, if it can
be said to be the invention of an individual, can ever be traced to its
author.
The press needed was only an adaptation of a very simple machine in
common use for many different purposes. The use of the press in
squeezing grapes for wine, in molding cheese and squeezing out the whey,
and for a great number of other purposes was so common that the problem
of the exertion of pressure was already solved. Everything was ready but
the type, and when one sees how far men had gone toward the use of type
one wonders that the invention was not made long before it really
occurred. Probably it was only waiting for the imperious demand of
necessity to spur some one to the making of the necessary experiments.
CHAPTER II
STEPS TOWARD TYPOGRAPHY
Typographic printing, briefly defined, is printing from movable types.
That is to say, it is the impression of words upon paper or other
material by the use of movable types which have first been covered with
ink, the inked face of the type transferring the characters to paper and
producing the printed page. This includes any printing from a type form
in which movable cuts may be locked up with the type, or in some cases
may be used alone on the press as in printing full-page illustrations.
It was this process which was invented in the middle of the fifteenth
century.
The practice of making impressions upon various substances by the use of
various devices prepared for that purpose goes back to the dawn of
civilization. The earliest device of this sort appears to have been a
seal used for impressing a device which might stand for a personal
signature or indicate the official authentication of a document or other
public act. These seals are found in great numbers among the most
ancient remains. Two early ones from the island of Crete are shown
herewith.
[Illustration: Ancient Seals from Crete]
There are also in existence many ancient Babylonian seals. These seals
were of various sorts. Sometimes the design was cut in the flat surface,
leaving a raised impression when stamped upon wax, clay, or some other
yielding substance. Such seals are said to be made in intaglio.
Sometimes the surface is cut away leaving the designs standing out, thus
making a depressed mark in the soft surface. These seals are said to be
cut in relief. Sometimes the surface of the seal, instead of being flat,
was a cylinder rolling on a pivot so that the impression of whichever
sort it might be was made by rolling the seal with pressure over the
soft substance. It is said that the Romans came very near the discovery
of typographic printing. The Roman potters stamped their names letter by
letter in the soft clay of their ware before it was fired. The use of
dies for stamping coins and metal seals is also very ancient.
[Illustration: Assyrian Clay Tablet]
The Assyrians not only inscribed their records upon cylinders of soft
clay by pressing a sharp stick into them to make the curious
wedge-shaped characters of their alphabet, but it is evident that they
carved rather long inscriptions on plates, probably of wood, and
transferred these to bricks by pressure. The illustration shows an
Assyrian stamped brick of this sort. Wherever we touch the history of
civilized man we find some form of printing by the use of a seal, a
stamp, or even a single letter. Some manuscripts long before the middle
of the fifteenth century seem to have had the initial letters put in by
means of stamps which were applied either by heavy hand pressure or by
the blow of a mallet. These initial letters certainly show the use of
color in making the impression. It is probable that such use of color
was early thought of as a means of making the impression of the seal
more distinct and dispensing with the pressure necessary to force the
seal into the substance of the parchment, papyrus, or paper which was
being used. Thus through the ages we slowly grow toward a more varied
and extensive use of these primitive methods of printing.
If we turn to Asia we find that the Chinese and their neighbors, the
Japanese and the Coreans, anticipated Europe by many centuries in
printing, as well as in other arts. The Chinese appear to have hit upon
the device of multiplying books by cutting all the characters needed for
a page on a block of wood and then applying the inked block to the paper
as early as the sixth century, A. D. Books printed by this process,
generally known as block books, were common among the Chinese as early
as the tenth century. The Japanese were using blocks for printing before
the year 800, A. D. The British Museum contains a Corean book apparently
printed from movable types which is supposed to date as far back as
1338.
All this is very interesting, but there is not the slightest evidence
that it had any effect whatever on the development of printing in
Europe. Chinese and Japanese typography is not a development from their
own block books, but is a recent importation from Europe. The Chinese
characters, which are also used by the Japanese, are not letters but
ideograms. Instead of having a few characters representing the
fundamental sounds, by the combination of which words are expressed,
they have a vast number of characters, many thousands of them. These
characters represent to the mind an idea as a whole. They may be
vocalized as a word or a syllable, but not as a single sound out of a
combination of which syllables and words may be built up. It was quite
practicable to carve the characters representing a page on a block and
print from that, but it was clearly not practicable to make movable
types representing all these almost innumerable characters. Typographic
printing is possible only through the selection for common use of a
small number of the most essential characters and using them as the
basis of a working vocabulary. The introduction of typography represents
probably a step toward the reduction of this great number of characters
to a comparatively small number representing the sounds or syllables
most in use. A font of Chinese type is a fearful and wonderful thing,
and learning the case for Chinese composition is a task which very few
western people would care to undertake.
[Illustration: Modern Chinese Type Case]
The accompanying illustration shows a Chinese compositor at his case in
the Lakeside Press, Chicago. The “frame” contains one complete font of
approximately seven thousand characters. It is about sixteen feet long
by five feet high, and is made up of a number of smaller “cases”
approximately twelve by fifteen inches over all, each holding about two
hundred and forty characters. This font is approximately ten-point body
according to United States standards. It required an entire month to
“lay the cases.” It requires about ten thousand characters to print a
Chinese book, but some of them are made by combinations of primary
characters, so that the seven thousand in the case will do the work.
During the centuries previous to the invention of printing the number of
persons who could read was very small. The common people, farmers,
soldiers, workmen, and the like, received but little instruction outside
the immediate necessities of their lives. That little was largely by
word of mouth reinforced by symbol and picture or statue. In those days
the churches were the poor man’s schools and libraries. The Bible
stories were told him by the priests and nuns and by the old men and
women. The churches were elaborately ornamented with statues, stained
glass windows, brasses, paintings, and carvings. Many of these painted
or sculptured representations were conventionalized. If one saw a figure
with a great key in his hand, no matter what the costume of the figure
or the design of the face, he knew it was St. Peter. If he saw another
figure with a book and a sword, he knew that it was St. Paul, and so on.
He saw the sacrifice of Isaac, the Massacre of the Innocents, the
Crucifixion, the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, and all the other Bible
stories visibly expressed. He saw the statues of kings and bishops and
was told the meaning of the scenes in which these and other characters
were represented in picture or sculpture. He thus read and reread the
statues, stained glass windows, and sculptures of his church as we read
and reread our Bibles and our histories. Many carvings and pictures were
put into the churches which we should today consider entirely out of
place. Caricature began here as well as religious and historical
instruction. We find represented scenes which recall the current fables
of the time and sometimes pictures of scenes ridiculous or even
indecent, according to modern ideas, which satirized the vices and
faults of men and women while they warned against them.
By and by the desire came to bring this instruction into the homes of
the people who were too poor to have paintings and carvings of their
own. This desire was met by the production of what is known as image
prints. The picture of some saint was carved on a piece of wood and from
this block, or more properly plate, because the pictures were carved on
the side and not the end of a flat piece of wood, an inked impression
was made on parchment or paper. This process seems to have come in use
some time in the fourteenth century. By the beginning of the fifteenth
it was fairly common. The earliest dated woodcut of this sort, bearing
the date 1423, is shown herewith. It is interesting not only as being
the oldest dated work of this sort, but as being typical of the way in
which these pictures were conceived and executed. It represents St.
Christopher. The saint is shown fording the river with the Child Jesus
on his shoulder and represents the entire legend of St. Christopher, the
Christ Bearer.
[Illustration: Reduced Facsimile of Early Wood-cut]
At first these images appeared upon single sheets bearing only the
picture. Later, words were carved upon the block in addition to the
picture, giving us on one page the combination of picture and text. Very
probably the owner could not read the inscription, but he could be told
what it meant and the very form of it would recall to his mind the words
which he had learned.
From this single picture there were two lines of development. One was
the binding up of several pages of such pictures and texts into a book.
Each page was printed from a single block and the result was a block
book. Of these there were two especially famous and often printed, The
Biblia Pauperum, or Poor Man’s Bible, and the Speculum Humani
Salvationis, or Mirror of Human Salvation. The Poor Man’s Bible, of
course, was a collection of prints recalling the biblical stories. The
Mirror went further afield and showed pictures representing moral
teaching. Great numbers of these books were printed and circulated,
especially in Holland and Germany.
The other development was the printing of whole pages of text. Certain
books were in great demand. The advantage of being able to reproduce
them quickly and cheaply was obvious. The two best known are alphabet
books for beginners called Abecederia, or Abecederium in the singular,
and the elementary Latin grammars abstracted from the works of an old
Latin grammarian named Donatus. These grammars were commonly called
Donatuses. These books, especially the school books, were printed mostly
on vellum, partly because of its greater durability and partly because
the use of paper was not yet common.
We have here the lines of development which led directly to the
invention of typography. We have already mentioned books printed from
plates with pictures without text, pictures with text, and text without
pictures. What would be more natural than to cut off the part of the
block containing the text and use the picture alone, or to combine the
text with text cut from another block or with another picture from which
the text had been removed? If we could do this why could we not cut out
a single word or a single letter and why not make a considerable number
of these single letters and combine them into words? If parts of two or
more blocks were to be used for the same picture, they must be fastened
together in some way, or as we should say today the form must be locked
up. Why could not separate letters be fastened together in the same way
so that we could print anything we wanted by the simple process of
putting together the necessary letters in the proper relation? As we
shall see presently, this is exactly what happened, and the invention of
printing thus considered is the most natural thing in the world.
Before passing to the next phase of the discovery, a word should be said
about playing cards. Until recently playing cards were considered as
having a place in this development which they probably never occupied.
Playing cards, like many other things good and bad, were invented in the
East. They made their appearance in Europe somewhere about 1375 A. D.
and by 1400 they had become popular. The first cards were hand painted
which, of course, made them expensive and confined their use to the
wealthy. A little later, however, they were painted by the use of
stencils so that they could be produced cheaply and plentifully. Later
still they were printed from blocks like the image prints and colored by
hand. Color being essential to playing cards, the development thus
outlined was the most natural. It has been supposed that the
comparatively small playing card was first made and that the image print
was derived from the playing card. There now seems no question that the
process was the other way about, as there are no printed playing cards
known as early as the St. Christopher above referred to. The
block-printed playing card seems to have been clearly an imitation of
the image print, and not the image print an evolution from the playing
card.
CHAPTER III
CLAIMS TO THE INVENTION
De Vinne mentions fifteen cities or towns as having been specified by as
many different authors as the true birthplace of typography. The names
of these are Augsburg, Basle, Bologna, Dordrecht, Feltre, Florence,
Haarlem, Lubeck, Mainz, Nuremberg, Rome, Russemburg, Strasburg,
Schelestadt, and Venice. The various authors assign to these towns the
names of the following alleged inventors: Castoldi, Coster, Fust,
Gensfleisch, Gresmund, Gutenberg, Hahn, Mentel, Jenson, Regiomontanus,
Schoeffer, Pannartz and Sweynheym, and Louis de Vaelbaeske.
Of these claims there are only three which deserve any consideration
whatever. The first of these claims, the alleged discovery at Avignon,
is by far the most recent and may be quickly disposed of. In 1890 the
Abbé Requin discovered five curious documents in the notarial records of
Avignon, in southern France. These papers deal with the business
dealings of the silversmith Procopius Waldfoghel with certain other
persons regarding the art of writing artistically, instruction therein,
and certain tools therefor. There are mentioned in these papers two
steel alphabets in Latin, one iron alphabet in Hebrew, two iron frames,
one steel screw, forty-eight forms of tin, and divers other forms
belonging to the art of writing. There is also mention of instruments or
tools of iron, steel, copper, latten, lead, tin, and wood for writing
artistically. These documents date from 1444 and 1446, before Gutenberg
had produced any results. On the evidence of these documents attempts
have been made to show that printing was being done at Avignon several
years before the earliest date that can be assigned to the 42-line
Bible, the Letters of Indulgence, or even the somewhat doubtful Latin
Grammar.
A careful study of the documents, however, hardly bears out this claim.
It is said that the writing was to be done on “stuffs” (cloth), but
nothing is said of paper, ink, or other materials needed for printing,
and it is a stretch of the imagination to see punches and matrices in
the iron and steel alphabets and the forty-eight forms.
The probability is that Waldfoghel cut letters of ornamental and
artistic forms on dies to be used as initials and the like on
manuscripts or on cloth and other materials and devised or borrowed a
method of printing from them by the application of power through some
sort of screw press. This is in harmony with much that we know to have
been done at that time, but is quite apart from anything like typography
as we are considering it.
The second is the so-called Coster legend. This story in its legendary
form says that Lourens Janssoen Coster invented printing from the chance
trifling of an idle hour. He is said to have been strolling in the woods
near Haarlem one day and to have cut some pieces of birch bark in the
form of letters. With some of these letters dipped in ink he made marks
on parchment or paper and found that he could combine them and recombine
them so as to make words and sentences. He then began experimenting in
earnest. His first letters were carved out of wood, then he made them
out of lead, and at last out of tin. Finding the ink used by the
copyists unsatisfactory he invented an ink of more viscous kind better
suited to the work in hand. The story runs that his new invention
attracted much attention and that he made many books which he sold at
good profit. The work grew beyond his personal capacity to do it and he
took servants or apprentices. Among them was a young fellow named John.
John had more brains than honesty, and one day while the family were at
church John packed up the type and the matrices and left Haarlem. From
Haarlem, the story goes on to say, he went to Mainz where he set up in
business for himself and prospered exceedingly. It is from this act,
says the story, that all the Mainz printing proceeded. In this form the
story is obviously legendary. We shall examine it later in another
connection when we shall see this point more clearly, some of the
details being evidently introduced to fill the gaps in what may be
regarded as history.
The third claim is the commonly accepted Gutenberg legend. Concerning
Gutenberg himself we know very little, although somewhat more than we
know about Coster. What we do know of him rests almost entirely upon
public registers and the records of law suits. No authentic record of
his birth exists, but it is supposed to have taken place at Mainz about
1399. Mainz, like many other cities of the time, was a prey to internal
disputes and as a result of some such political overturn Gutenberg’s
family went to Strasburg some time before 1430. In a legal document in
existence at Strasburg we find mention of John Gensfleisch, otherwise
known as Gutenberg, of Mainz. His name occurs in a proclamation issued
in 1430 granting political amnesty to the Mainz exiles. In the same year
he negotiated with the authorities of Mainz for a pension for his mother
and in 1432 he was in Mainz. He next appears in the Strasburg court
records in 1439, when he was defendant in a suit brought against him by
his business partners. In these records are obscure references which
have been interpreted as referring to printing. In the light of the
clearer reference of later law suits it is not probable that this
interpretation is correct.
Gutenberg was then, as for all his life, in financial difficulty.
Whatever the outcome of the 1439 suit, he borrowed a hundred pounds in
1441 and in 1442 sold an annual income of four pounds for eighty pounds
cash. The Strasburg tax books show that he was in arrears for taxes
between 1436 and 1440. By some writers these financial difficulties are
supposed to have arisen out of Gutenberg’s devotion to his experiments
in typography. It is more probable, however, that they were owing to
lack of business ability and possibly to lack of business integrity. The
shifts to which he had recourse in his financial difficulties run at
times perilously near the line of dishonesty.
In 1448 Gutenberg was back in Mainz and again borrowing money. What
happened next can best be read back from what is known as the
Helmasperger document, a notarial instrument relating to a law suit
which John Fust brought against Gutenberg in 1455. From this document it
appears that about 1450, or slightly before, Gutenberg became acquainted
with John Fust, who was a prosperous business man in Mainz. The two
entered into a contract of partnership for five years. Fust was to
advance 800 guilders to Gutenberg at six per cent interest for use in
procuring tools and materials, said tools to remain mortgaged to Fust
until the loan was paid. In addition Fust was to advance to Gutenberg
300 guilders every year to provide for servant’s wages, house rent,
vellum, paper, ink, etc. In return Fust was to receive one half of the
profits, but was to be responsible for no debts and was to take no
personal part in the business.
It is reasonably clear from this contract that while Gutenberg had hopes
in 1450, and we shall probably see later upon what they were founded, he
had not even made the necessary tools for printing, much less printed
anything. Things did not, however, go smoothly under the new
partnership. Instead of Fust paying the eight hundred guilders at once,
he spread the payments over two years. Gutenberg, on his part, did not
find the three hundred guilders a year sufficient. Fust, therefore,
proposed that instead of paying the three hundred guilders a year for
the remaining three years of the partnership, he should pay eight
hundred guilders down, and remit the interest on the first eight hundred
guilders as an offset for the one hundred guilders which Gutenberg would
lose under this modification of the original contract.
These arrangements seem to have been carried out but in 1455 the results
were so unsatisfactory that Fust brought suit to recover the money
advanced. The court decided at least in part in favor of Fust. Gutenberg
was unable to return the money which the court awarded to Fust, and in
consequence Fust took possession of the business and equipment.
Gutenberg appears to have saved something out of the wreck and found a
new financial backer in the person of Conrad Humery, a physician and
town clerk of Mainz. To this new office are attributed a number of books
and pamphlets, the most important one being a Catholicon, 1460, nearly
eight hundred pages large folio. In 1462 the city of Mainz was besieged
and sacked and the printing industry therein was broken up. In 1466,
however, we find printing done in Eltville, a suburb of Mainz, with type
which is supposed to have been Gutenberg’s. As this was the birthplace
of Gutenberg’s mother and there was a family estate there it is quite
probable that the Gutenberg-Humery office was set up in that place. In
1465 we find Gutenberg appointed one of the officers of the court of
Adolph II, the militant prince-bishop who had captured and looted Mainz
three years before. The patent states that this appointment is made on
account of “agreeable and voluntary service rendered to us and our
bishopric.” This is the last we hear of Gutenberg except the record of
his death in February, 1468.
In brief, this legend tells us that Gutenberg was for years a patient
but disappointed seeker after an invention which he had dreamed of but
could not make practical, that he finally succeeded only to be robbed of
the fruits of his success by an unscrupulous money lender, that in his
old age he began again with undaunted courage, struggling always against
financial difficulties and always failing to make a wordly success of
his great invention, reaping his only reward in the tardy favor of the
prince-bishop. That Fust and his son-in-law, Schoeffer, did make a
financial success of printing, and that further success was made by
Bechtermüntz, who is said to have been a relative of Gutenberg and to
have inherited type and material from his second shop, and that from
Mainz as a center the art of printing spread over the civilized world
are beyond question. These are the legends of the invention. Now let us
see if we can find out what really happened.
CHAPTER IV
THE INVENTION
The study of the question of the invention of printing, like that of any
other historical question, must deal with the examination of three
classes of evidence or so many of them as may be available. These three
classes of evidence, in order of their importance, are first, remains,
second, contemporary documents, and third, documents or evidence of a
later period. For example, there may be tradition widely current and
running backward in literary form to within a hundred years of the death
of the person referred to, that a certain king ruled in a certain
country and did certain things. That is evidence of the third class.
There may be extant contemporary works of travelers, histories of other
countries, or even the published recollections of old men, which said
that at a certain period that king lived and did certain things. That is
evidence of the second class. There may be coins, official inscriptions,
public documents, emanating directly from this king or even bearing his
signature. This is evidence of the first class. This class of evidence
is conclusive. The second class is strong, but not conclusive, the third
class is very uncertain.
Now it happens that with regard to the invention of printing we have
evidence of all three classes. All of it is conflicting, but the
conflicts, it is to be noted, are mainly in the evidence of the third
class. The evidence of the second class exists mainly in Mainz, but is
not nearly as conclusive as has been supposed. Evidence of the first
class comes entirely from Haarlem, and is there supported by one or two
important pieces of evidence of the second class. With this brief
introduction perhaps it will be easier to understand the argument which
follows.
Of course, the material of the first class, namely, remains, would be
the earliest known pieces of printing. If these pieces of printing were
dated as books are today, they could not be questioned, but as they are
not so dated, but must be placed by other evidence, they have been
questioned. There exist, in whole or in part, forty-seven distinct
pieces of printing each bearing evidence of being among the first pieces
of printing produced. These forty-seven works in their present condition
run all the way from an entire book to a fragment of a single page. A
group of three or four of them may be identified by reference to
officials whose official dates were known as being either in 1474 or
immediately preceding it. This, however, does not date the whole group.
These few specimens are much more advanced in their appearance and
workmanship than the rest of the forty-seven. Several other editions of
some at least of these better books appear in this interesting lot of
remains. The other editions are of a much more primitive appearance,
showing that the period covered by the forty-seven works ended not later
than 1474.
Of these forty-seven works, forty-five are in Latin, which, as we know,
was the language of schools, courts, and churches at this period in all
nations. One, an edition of a book of which there are several editions
in Latin, was in Dutch. One was in French. That these forty-seven books
all came from Haarlem is pretty clearly shown by certain internal
evidence. One of them is clearly placed in Holland by the fact that it
was printed in Dutch. Nobody at the very outset of printing would print
books in Dutch except a Dutchman. All the rest of the forty-seven are
closely related to these, as is shown by the similarity but not identity
of their types.
The earliest printers were imitators of the copyists. They made their
pages look as much like a manuscript page as they could, not perhaps
with intent to deceive, but because nothing else occurred to them. You
will find that all the earliest types are modeled upon the handwriting
current among the copyists of the place where the printing was done.
Certainly these books did not come from Mainz. Nobody has ever claimed
that they did. Almost equally certainly they did come from Holland and
from Haarlem. The handwriting is the handwriting of the Haarlem copyists
of the period. An attempt was made at one time to assign these books to
Utrecht, but it is not only true that each country had its prevailing
copyist’s hand, but that each important center had its own system
variously developed in the local schools in which copying was taught.
The Utrecht hand is not the Haarlem hand. The books resemble the Haarlem
hand and not the Utrecht.
While the forty-seven books show a considerable number of varieties of
type, the editions being identified by these type differences, all the
type faces show a strong family resemblance. They are designed from a
common model, but not at the same time, and consequently they show
marked resemblances and marked differences. The question may be asked
why the same printer should use eight or nine different fonts of type
for only forty-seven books. The answer is found in the fact that
type-making was as yet in an experimental stage and that durable
material had not yet been found for that purpose. When we come to the
discussion of evidence of another class we shall find confirmation of
this. There is no evidence of the second or third class connecting early
printing with any Dutch town except Haarlem. There is, however,
important evidence of the other classes which does connect printing with
Haarlem. There are not, however, forty-seven different works. Twenty of
the forty-seven books are different editions of the Donatus, that is to
say they are Donatuses showing such typographic differences as to show
that no two of them could have been printed from the same type form.
Four of them are editions of the Speculum and eight are different
editions of the Doctrinale. The Doctrinale was a brief compend to
Christian doctrine approved by the church and widely circulated among
the faithful.
Nearly all of the fragments of these forty-seven books have been found
in Haarlem or in the neighborhood. It is evident that the publications
of this press, whatever its date, were locally sold and that neither its
fame nor its product went far from the place of production.
Having thus shown the reasons for believing that these forty-seven
pieces of early printing came from Haarlem, let us see what they have to
say for themselves as to the time of their production. It has already
been pointed out that a small group of the best of them dated themselves
no later than 1474, as is shown by their contents. So far as the
contents themselves are concerned we have nothing to date the others.
There are certain things about the books themselves, however, which show
that their production must have begun long before 1474.
For one thing, there are twenty editions of the Donatus. We have no way
of knowing how near together the editions were, but when we compare them
with the editions of the Donatus later published we shall see that it is
not unreasonable to suppose that they run back some thirty years. There
were also four editions of the Speculum and eight editions of the
Doctrinale. In each case the evidence of other printers shows that even
one of the small editions usually published at that time lasted for a
considerable period. The appearance of the books themselves bears out
this conclusion. Good as the later ones are, they are inferior to Mainz
workmanship of their period and the earlier ones are far inferior to
Mainz workmanship of any period. They are not only without signatures,
initial directors, hyphens, and catch words, all of which had come into
use before 1474, but they show certain other remarkable peculiarities.
Many of these editions were printed on vellum, which is not in itself
remarkable, as vellum continued to be used for a good many years for
some books and for special copies of certain editions. Some of them show
a further peculiarity of having vellum and paper combined together, some
of the pages being printed on sheets of vellum and some being printed on
sheets of paper. A considerable number of these books are printed only
on one side of the page. None of the early Mainz books show this
peculiarity. Some of these books not only show the curious combination
of paper and vellum just noted, but curious combinations of the use of
block and type. In some cases the upper part of the page shows a picture
printed from a block while the lower part is printed from type.
The blocks thus used are the old familiar blocks of the Speculum but
with no text carved on the block. Some of the books show the peculiarity
of certain pages of text printed from blocks and other pages of text
printed from type.
The accompanying illustrations show a reproduction of a page of a
Donatus printed from blocks, and a reproduction of a Donatus printed
from type by Coster. They are taken from Holtrop’s Monuments
Typographiques des Pays-Bas. Two pages, not consecutive, of the printed
Donatus, were found in the binding of a book published in Delft in 1484.
The leaves are of vellum, printed on one side only. The ink is pale and
is soluble in water. There is no punctuation and there are no hyphens at
the ends of lines where words are divided, showing that the font
contained only letters. The lines are fairly regular in length and end
with either a complete word or a syllable. The form is well locked up
and the presswork is fair. The letters are of slightly varying size and
are not in perfect alignment. Apparently each letter was cut
independently on the end of the type body and the cutter was not
sufficiently skillful to center them perfectly.
Compare this page with the reproductions of the Mazarin, or forty-two
line Bible, shown on pages 48 and 49. We know that the Mazarin Bible was
printed not later than 1456. By some it has been attributed to
Gutenberg, or at least to his types, but it is now considered the work
of Schoeffer. The Mazarin Bible is one of the most perfect and splendid
pieces of typography that has ever been produced. Other work attributed
to Gutenberg shows a high degree of excellence. It has always been one
of the wonders of invention that so difficult and complicated an art as
typography should have sprung into being fully perfected, without trace
of imperfect experiment. In the rough page of Coster’s Donatus we
clearly see the imperfect beginning—the missing link.
These peculiarities are exactly what we should expect to find in the
missing links between the printing of block books and the printing of
books from type. The printer is experimenting. He cuts the lettering off
his blocks and combines them with type. He uses type and blocks for the
same edition. He experiments with paper. He is very primitive in his
methods. A block book could be printed only on one side. He is not yet
sure that the type-set book can be printed on both sides. Not improbably
he began by using for his type page the same method of printing that he
used with his wooden block. It seems pretty clear that in this mass of
material, known collectively as the Costeriana, we have the records of
the course of experimentation which led from the printing of the image
print, with its legend cut on the same block, by placing a sheet of
paper or vellum on the inked surface of the block and pressing it down
with a frotten, to the production of the book from type-set pages
impressed upon both sides of the paper by means of a press.
We have thus gone through the evidence of the first class which exists
for the invention of printing. We have seen that there exists
indisputable evidence that forty-seven editions were printed at Haarlem
before 1474 by an experimenter who seems to have gone over the road from
the block book to the type-set book.
[Illustration: Reduced Facsimile of Type Page by Coster.]
[Illustration: Reduced Facsimile of Block Printing]
We have a few bits of evidence of the second and third class which bear
upon this subject and confirm our conclusions. Jean Le Robert, Abbot of
Cambray, says in his diary that he bought in 1446 and 1451 copies of the
Doctrinale of Alexander Gallus printed from type. Certainly no
Doctrinales were printed from type in Mainz as early as 1446, although
we know that the Costeriana include Doctrinales in eight editions which
may well have gone back to 1451. The opponents of the Haarlem theory
claim that the Abbot refers to Doctrinales printed from blocks but we
have no knowledge of the existence of any Doctrinales so made, and the
term by which he describes them is a term which from the beginning has
been specifically applied to the making of type and could not be applied
to the making of blocks. Presumably the Abbot knew what he was talking
about and told the truth.
Hadrianus Junius, in 1568, tells the story of Coster and the birch bark
letters as we have previously told it. It is not necessary to repeat the
story, but it is interesting to note certain features of it. Junius says
that Coster printed his leaves on one side, pasting two together to
avoid the recurrence of alternate blank pages. He further says that he
saw one or two of Coster’s books thus made. He claims that he got the
story in his youth from his tutor, Nicholas Gaal, a very aged man, but
of good memory, who said that in his boyhood he had heard a certain
Cornelis, a book binder, then eighty years old, tell the story of
Coster’s invention and his struggles to perfect it, including the use of
one side of the paper and of several different materials for type. The
Burgomaster of Haarlem, Quirinius Talesius, admitted to Junius that in
his youth Cornelis had told him the same story, and it is interesting to
note in this connection that some of the Costeriana fragments are found
in bindings made by this same Cornelis.
One more evidence which, like that of Junius, falls into the third class
remains to be cited. In 1499 Koelhoff published the Cologne Chronicle in
which he speaks of the invention of printing, using as his authority
Ulrich Zell, a printer of the Mainz school, who settled in Cologne. He
says that Zell told him that “the art of printing was first found at
Mainz, but in the manner as it was then (1499) practiced; the first
prefiguration, however, the beginning of that at Mainz, was found in
Holland from the Donatuses which had been printed in that country
before.” Certainly this is not an attribution of the invention of
printing either to Mainz or to Gutenberg. It is a distinct confession
that it is only the sort of work then being done which was invented at
Mainz and that it was suggested by work brought from Holland. It
entirely agrees with the Junius account above quoted.
In the Haarlem Town Library there is a pedigree of the Coster family. In
its present form it dates from 1559, but the earlier part was evidently
copied from an old document. This pedigree says that Lourens Janssoen
Coster invented printing in 1446.
While we have not here an exact agreement of dates we have one near
enough for all practical purposes. The Costeriana run back for a period
which may be conservatively stated at thirty years from 1474, that is to
say, to 1444 or thereabouts. Zell says that printed Donatuses came from
Holland, but that the art of printing as practiced in 1499 was invented
at Mainz, and this invention, as we shall presently show, is fixed as
subsequently to 1450. Junius, writing in 1568, says that Coster
discovered printing 128 years previously, that is to say, 1440.
If we now turn to the examination of the evidence in support of the
claim for Gutenberg, we find that it is lacking in material of the first
or even of the second class. It is not absolutely certain that we have
any book printed by Gutenberg. If, however, for the sake of the argument
we admit that he printed nearly or quite all of the works that are
attributed to him we find that they are all much better in workmanship
and appearance than the Haarlem books. None of them are printed on one
side of the page only, excepting, of course, small matters which would
not cover more than one page, and there are no signs whatever of
transition from any previous type of printing to typography. Those who
have accepted the theory of Gutenberg’s invention have marveled at the
perfection of his work, as well they might.
There are only two pieces of evidence of the first class. One is the
Helmasperger document, a notary’s document concerning the law suit which
Fust brought against Gutenberg in 1455. A close examination of this
document would appear to show that it tells rather against than in favor
of Gutenberg. It appears to show conclusively that Gutenberg had not
done any printing before 1450, and had not at that time even made the
tools with which to print. In this document Fust speaks of “the work”
and “our common work.” Gutenberg speaks of “tools” in preparation.
Clearly he is borrowing money in order to make tools. He speaks further
of “servants’ wages, house rent, vellum, paper, ink, etc.” and of “the
work of the books.” The judges speak of “the work to the profit of both
of them,” “their common use,” and the like. There is not a word which
speaks distinctly of an invention. It is true that the argument from
silence is always dangerous and that those who believe that Gutenberg
invented printing could easily read between the lines of this document
references to the invention. To one who approaches the subject with an
open mind, however, the language is rather that of one who enters into
partnership for the carrying on of a business enterprise which is
understood by both parties and from which both expect to receive profit
rather than that of the man who undertakes to finance an inventor for a
share in the invention.
The other piece of evidence of the first class is the letters patent by
which Adolph II appointed Gutenberg one of the officers of his court.
The document states that the appointment is made for “agreeable and
voluntary service rendered to us and our bishopric.” It has been argued
that as Gutenberg was not a soldier this agreeable and voluntary service
must have been the invention of printing. Surely this is a violent
assumption. If we believe that Gutenberg invented printing, we may
perhaps see in these words a reference to the invention, although we
then marvel why so epoch-making an accomplishment was not specifically
mentioned. It is difficult, however, to see why an unconvinced person
should be expected to see in such a statement as this any evidence that
Gutenberg had invented printing. Certainly there are many other kinds of
service which might well have been rendered by one of whom we know so
little as we do of Gutenberg.
Zell’s testimony, already referred to, is of the second class. Zell’s
testimony also counts against Gutenberg. He distinctly does not claim
that Gutenberg invented any more than the method of printing in use in
1499, admitting that he got his suggestion from the Donatuses brought
out of Holland. It has been argued that these Donatuses were block books
and that it was from them that Gutenberg got the idea of typography.
This argument, however, breaks down at once when we remember that many
block books were printed in Germany. There is no earthly reason why the
suggestion of typography should have come from a Dutch block book when
everybody was familiar with the German ones and had been so familiar for
many years.
A careful examination of the documentary evidence which will be found
set forth in chronological order in the article on Typography in the
eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica shows several
interesting things. While the earlier mentions of printing generally
attribute the beginnings of the art to Mainz, few of them speak
distinctly of its being invented there. They speak of its being
practiced there and being given to Germany and the world from there,
claims as we shall presently see quite consistent with the theory of
invention elsewhere. Nearly, if not quite, all of the early statements
that printing was invented by Gutenberg are traceable either directly to
Gutenberg himself, to his family, or to people who would be quoting him
or his family. It is not until a comparatively late period that we find
any agreement among writers in attributing the invention to Gutenberg.
We are now perhaps in position to form a pretty clear idea of just what
happened and to award discriminating credit where it belongs. The
present writer believes that it may be considered as settled that Coster
invented printing in Haarlem about 1446. Coster did not, however, found
a school of printing. He ceased to print not far from 1481, as about
that time we find some of his material used elsewhere. The later years
of the century see a few printers in Holland. How far they derived their
inspiration from Coster is doubtful. It is certain that Haarlem was not
a center from which spread to the rest of Europe and ultimately to the
whole world the art preservative of all arts.
The honor of being this center clearly belongs to Mainz. How did the art
get there? Probably not through the treachery of a dishonest apprentice.
That is one of the legendary features of the Junius story, explained by
the fact that in his time everybody knew that the center from which
printing spread was Mainz and that the first two printers were John
Gutenberg and John Fust. We may at this point accept Zell’s account as
the true one. Some of Coster’s work found its way to Mainz, together,
probably, with some general, unscientific statements as to how it was
produced. Acting on this hint and with these models before him,
Gutenberg reinvented the art, that is, he worked out from the finished
product and a general idea of how it was made what was to all intents
and purposes an original process superior to the one by which the work
in his possession had been produced.
His association with Fust, the business man, and Schoeffer, the
craftsman, was the means whereby the invention became profitable to the
world, though not to Gutenberg. There is no reason to suppose that Fust
was an unprincipled schemer who stole Gutenberg’s invention and profited
by it. He was a business man who made a contract with another man for
the carrying on of a certain manufacturing process, setting his capital
against the other man’s labor for an equal share in the profit. There
was not only no profit, but the working partner did not live up to his
side of the contract. Fust sued, obtained a judgment, and under this
judgment took over a great part at least of the equipment which his
money had paid for. While the criminal procedure of this age was of a
very harsh and primitive sort the judgments of the German courts in
civil cases appear generally to have been fairly just. When we consider
Gutenberg’s record of financial slipperiness there seems no reason to
doubt that it was just in this case. On obtaining the business Fust
associated with himself the young journeyman, Peter Schoeffer, who had
learned the business in the Gutenberg and Fust establishment and had
married Fust’s daughter. He was an excellent workman and his skill,
backed by Fust’s capital, set the new invention on a practical basis and
insured its future.
In deciding against the claims of Gutenberg to the invention we by no
means deprive him of all share in the glory. The reinvention with
improvements was nearly if not quite as creditable a task as the
invention, especially when we remember how simple a step the actual
inventor took in going from his block book to his type-set book. The
invention of Coster was sterile. The reinvention of Gutenberg was
fruitful. It was Mainz and not Haarlem which actually gave printing to
the world.
In view of all this the early testimonies are not so conflicting as they
seem. We have seen that the testimonies of Junius and of Zell supplement
each other. We can see that the early authorities were right in their
claim that printing was given to Germany and the world by Mainz, and at
the same time that the claim is not, as has been hastily supposed, a
claim that it was invented there. We can see that the reinvention of
printing might well seem so important to Gutenberg himself and to his
family that they should claim that he invented it. The statement in the
letters patent may well refer to the service which Gutenberg rendered to
the court and bishopric of Adolph II by the introduction of typography
because he unquestionably did thus render them great service, and we are
no longer surprised at the omission of a distinct statement that
Gutenberg was rewarded for inventing typography. In a word, the
Gutenberg monuments need not come down, but the inscriptions on them
should be changed.
CHAPTER V
MATERIALS AND METHODS OF THE FIRST PRINTERS
Our knowledge of Coster is much less complete than our knowledge of
Gutenberg. Much, however, that could be said of one would undoubtedly be
true of the other. It is reported that Coster began with wooden type.
This would naturally be the first step forward from the block book,
which was invariably printed from wood. Finding that wooden type was
unsatisfactory in the press, he experimented with lead and with tin, we
are told. Obviously he would not get satisfactory results with either of
these metals unalloyed. The use of unsatisfactory material probably
accounts for the number of fonts of type which he employed in his
comparatively small output.
[Illustration: Showing Principle of a Type Mold]
Gutenberg and his associates invented a more satisfactory type metal and
an improved method for the making of type. The first types appear to
have been carved individually by hand. This was a great task, but not as
great as might appear. The early printers printed their books page by
page. When one page was printed in sufficient numbers for the edition
the type was distributed and another page set up, and so on. In this way
a comparatively small amount of type would suffice for the equipment of
a small shop. It was not long, however, before the superiority of
casting was perceived.
The first mold was probably two notched blocks of brass or copper, like
those shown in the accompanying illustration, a method being provided of
accurately positioning the matrix under the opening in the mold and also
of holding the two blocks firmly together. From the illustration it will
be noted that when the blocks are forced together a square opening
remains. Still keeping the blocks together, but sliding down the one at
the right, one dimension of the opening does not change, but the other
can be varied. This mold has been improved in detail, but not greatly
altered in principle down to this day. A fairly satisfactory form of
matrix very similar to the one in use today was soon devised. This was
made by cutting the letter in relief on the end of a soft steel or iron
punch which was then hardened and driven into a block of soft brass or
copper, which became the matrix.
[Illustration: Type of the Mazarin Bible (exact size)]
The type, as has been said, was cut to resemble the handwriting of the
scribes in the locality where the book was printed. This would be the
obvious method because it must be remembered that the rapid reproduction
of manuscripts was the sole end which the first printers had in view.
They did not think of developing a conventional book type different from
handwriting or script. They simply imitated the script which was
current, and consequently most legible, in their neighborhood. The
school boys of that day did not have to learn two alphabets, one the
script letter and the other the printed letter, as we do today. The
device of spacing was immediately adopted. The letters were cast,
however, upon bodies with wide shoulders at top and bottom and used
without leads.
[Illustration: Page from the Mazarin Bible (reduced)]
The types of the period were both handsome and legible. Perhaps they may
not be easy for us to read, but that is because we are not familiar with
the forms of the letters used and especially with the contractions and
abbreviations which were common. The beauty of some of these early types
will be seen from the little specimen of the type of the Mazarin Bible
which is herewith reproduced in full size.
With the example of the illuminators before them the early printers paid
much attention to the ornamenting of their pages. They introduced some
ornaments of their own and they occasionally left space for the hand
illuminator to use in supplementing their work. A full page of the
Mazarin Bible greatly reduced is shown herewith. By comparing that with
the specimen of full size type and imagining the whole page thrown up to
natural size one can see what a really beautiful book this famous Bible
was.
[Illustration: An Early Printing Press]
The press in use was of the most simple form imaginable, as shown by the
accompanying illustration. It was an adaptation of a familiar mechanical
device, with no originality about it. It was made of wood and was
operated by a screw turning through a nut, the moving of the screw
bringing the platen and bed into contact. The form was released by the
reverse movement of the screw. After a while the sliding bed and frisket
shown in the accompanying illustration were introduced and there the
mechanism stopped for a long time.
[Illustration: Bed of Hand Press Showing Tympan and Frisket]
The first twenty-five years or so of printing have been described as a
period of stagnation. They have also been described as the period of the
workman. Apparently the vast possibilities of the new art were slow in
obtaining recognition. The earliest printers were only mechanics. They
had not yet got the vision of combining scholarship with their art and
so unlocking the treasuries of the world to mankind generally, still
less that of adding to the sum total of human knowledge. They had found
out an art by which manuscripts could be rapidly produced and money made
by their sale, and that was all.
They contented themselves with a slavish imitation of manuscripts, with
apparently no thought of their being anything more than manuscript
imitators. This condition of things, however, could not last long. It
was inevitable that the scholars of the world should become interested
in this new process and should begin to see its advantages. After twenty
or twenty-five years of printing this took place. The period of sluggish
and practically dormant infancy passed and the development of the art
began, as we shall see in the next volume of this series, No. 51, A
Short History of Printing, Part I.
SUPPLEMENTARY READING
THE STORY OF BOOKS. By Gertrude Burford Rawlings. McClure, Phillips &
Co., New York.
THE INVENTION OF PRINTING. By Thedore L. De Vinne. Oswald Publishing
Co., New York.
HAARLEM, NOT MAINZ. By J. H. Hesels.
EARLY PRINTED BOOKS. By E. Gordon Duff.
BOOKS AND THEIR MAKERS IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Vol. I. by George Haven
Putnam. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. Eleventh Edition. Article on Typography.
Pupils who have access to large libraries should consult J.W. Holtrop’s
Monuments Typographiques des Pays-Bas and Samuel Sotheby’s Principia,
both of which contain many excellent reproductions of very early
printing. Sotheby’s book is commonly referred to as above, but is
published under several different names in editions which vary but
little. Perhaps the best is entitled Typography of the Fifteenth
Century.
SUGGESTIONS TO STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS
The following questions, based on the contents of this volume, are
intended to serve (1) as a guide to the study of the text, (2) as an aid
to the student in putting the information contained into definite
statements without actually memorizing the text, (3) as a means of
securing from the student a reproduction of the information in his own
words.
A careful following of the questions by the reader will insure full
acquaintance with every part of the text, avoiding the accidental
omission of what might be of value. These primers are so condensed that
nothing should be omitted.
In teaching from these books it is very important that these questions
and such others as may occur to the teacher should be made the basis of
frequent written work, and of final examinations.
The importance of written work cannot be overstated. It not only assures
knowledge of material but the power to express that knowledge correctly
and in good form.
If this written work can be submitted to the teacher in printed form it
will be doubly useful.
QUESTIONS
1. What interesting fact is noted about most great inventions and
what is the reason for it?
2. Give some well known instances.
3. How does this condition apply to the invention of printing?
4. Why may we question De Vinne’s decision?
5. Why was the discovery of typography inevitable about 1450?
6. What was the condition of England and France at this time?
7. What was the condition of Italy?
8. What was the condition of Germany, Spain, and Portugal?
9. What was the condition of the church?
10. What important movement was made possible by these political
conditions?
11. Name some important events in the movement.
12. What had all this to do with book-making?
13. What were the shortcomings of manuscript books?
14. What materials were already invented and ready for the printer?
15. Tell what you can about each.
16. What is typography?
17. What were the earliest predecessors of typography?
18. Tell of some later methods of making impressions.
19. What early attempts at printing were made by the Chinese and
their neighbors?
20. Did these attempts develop into typography, and why?
21. What devices took the place of books among the poor before the
invention of printing?
22. What were image prints, and how made?
23. What were the two lines of development from the image prints?
24. How did these developments suggest typography?
25. How were early playing cards made, and what was their relation
to block printing?
26. Name some of the places where and persons by whom typography is
said to have been invented.
27. Tell the story of Waldfoghel, and what we conclude about it.
28. Tell the Coster legend.
29. What do we know about Gutenberg before 1450?
30. What was his contract of that year with Fust?
31. How did it work out?
32. What do we know of Gutenberg after 1455?
33. Give the main points of the Gutenberg legend.
34. What are the clear facts about early Mainz printing?
35. What are the three classes of historical evidence?
36. What can you say, with this distinction in mind, about the
evidence concerning the invention of typography?
37. What evidence of the first class is there coming from Haarlem?
38. Why do we claim that this evidence comes from Haarlem?
39. Why did the printer use so many fonts of type for so few books?
40. What internal evidence is there for the date of these books?
41. What are the peculiarities of these books?
42. What do these peculiarities show?
43. What piece of evidence of the second class have we which bears
on these books?
44. What pieces of evidence of the third class have we which bear
on these books?
45. What does all this evidence seem to show as to who invented
typography, where, and when?
46. What do the printed pieces attributed to Gutenberg show?
47. What does the Helmasperger document show?
48. What does the patent of Adolph II show?
49. What does Zell’s statement show?
50. What can you say of the early statements that Gutenberg
invented typography?
51. Compare the results of the work of Coster and of Gutenberg.
52. How did the Haarlem invention get to Mainz?
53. What did Gutenberg really do?
54. What was the outcome of his work?
55. How does this theory explain the doubtful or conflicting
evidence?
56. What can you say about Coster’s type?
57. How were the first types made?
58. What two important inventions in type-making do we owe to
Gutenberg and his associates?
59. What can you tell about the first type faces?
60. Why are the early books so beautiful?
61. Describe Gutenberg’s press and the first improvements upon it.
62. What has the first period of about twenty-five years of
typography been called, and why?
TYPOGRAPHIC TECHNICAL SERIES FOR APPRENTICES
The following list of publications, comprising the TYPOGRAPHIC TECHNICAL
SERIES FOR APPRENTICES, has been prepared under the supervision of the
Committee on Education of the United Typothetae of America for use in
trade classes, in course of printing instruction, and by individuals.
Each publication has been compiled by a competent author or group of
authors, and carefully edited, the purpose being to provide the printers
of the United States—employers, journeymen, and apprentices—with a
comprehensive series of handy and inexpensive compendiums of reliable,
up-to-date information upon the various branches and specialties of the
printing craft, all arranged in orderly fashion for progressive study.
The publications of the series are of uniform size, 5×8 inches. Their
general make-up, in typography, illustrations, etc., has been, as far as
practicable, kept in harmony throughout. A brief synopsis of the
particular contents and other chief features of each volume will be
found under each title in the following list.
Each topic is treated in a concise manner, the aim being to embody in
each publication as completely as possible all the rudimentary
information and essential facts necessary to an understanding of the
subject. Care has been taken to make all statements accurate and clear,
with the purpose of bringing essential information within the
understanding of beginners in the different fields of study. Wherever
practicable, simple and well-defined drawings and illustrations have
been used to assist in giving additional clearness to the text.
In order that the pamphlets may be of the greatest possible help for use
in trade-school classes and for self-instruction, each title is
accompanied by a list of Review Questions covering essential items of
the subject matter. A short Glossary of technical terms belonging to the
subject or department treated is also added to many of the books.
These are the Official Text-books of the United Typothetae of America.
Address all orders and inquiries to COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, UNITED
TYPOTHETAE OF AMERICA, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U. S. A.
PART I—_Types, Tools, Machines, and Materials_
=1. Type: a Primer of Information= By A. A. Stewart
Relating to the mechanical features of printing types; their sizes,
font schemes, etc., with a brief description of their manufacture.
44 pp.; illustrated; 74 review questions; glossary.
=2. Compositors’ Tools and Materials= By A. A. Stewart
A primer of information about composing sticks, galleys, leads,
brass rules, cutting and mitering machines, etc. 47 pp.;
illustrated; 50 review questions; glossary.
=3. Type Cases, Composing Room Furniture= By A. A. Stewart
A primer of information about type cases, work stands, cabinets,
case racks, galley racks, standing galleys, etc. 43 pp.;
illustrated; 33 review questions; glossary.
=4. Imposing Tables and Lock-up Appliances= By A. A. Stewart
Describing the tools and materials used in locking up forms for the
press, including some modern utilities for special purposes. 59 pp.;
illustrated; 70 review questions; glossary.
=5. Proof Presses= By A. A. Stewart
A primer of information about the customary methods and machines for
taking printers’ proofs. 40pp.; illustrated; 41 review questions;
glossary.
=6. Platen Printing Presses= By Daniel Baker
A primer of information regarding the history and mechanical
construction of platen printing presses, from the original hand
press to the modern job press, to which is added a chapter on
automatic presses of small size. 51 pp.; illustrated; 49 review
questions; glossary.
=7. Cylinder Printing Presses= By Herbert L. Baker
Being a study of the mechanism and operation of the principal types
of cylinder printing machines. 64 pp.; illustrated; 47 review
questions; glossary.
=8. Mechanical Feeders and Folders= By William E. Spurrier
The history and operation of modern feeding and folding machines;
with hints on their care and adjustments. Illustrated; review
questions; glossary.
=9. Power for Machinery in Printing Houses= By Carl F. Scott
A treatise on the methods of applying power to printing presses and
allied machinery with particular reference to electric drive. 53
pp.; illustrated; 69 review questions; glossary.
=10. Paper Cutting Machines= By Niel Gray, Jr.
A primer of information about paper and card trimmers, hand-lever
cutters, power cutters, and other automatic machines for cutting
paper, 70 pp.; illustrated; 115 review questions; glossary.
=11. Printers’ Rollers= By A. A. Stewart
A primer of information about the composition, manufacture, and care
of inking rollers. 46 pp.; illustrated; 61 review questions;
glossary.
=12. Printing Inks= By Philip Ruxton
Their composition, properties and manufacture (reprinted by
permission from Circular No. 53, United States Bureau of Standards);
together with some helpful suggestions about the everyday use of
printing inks by Philip Ruxton. 80 pp.; 100 review questions;
glossary.
=13. How Paper is Made= By William Bond Wheelwright
A primer of information about the materials and processes of
manufacturing paper for printing and writing. 68 pp.; illustrated;
62 review questions; glossary.
=14. Relief Engravings= By Joseph P. Donovan
Brief history and non-technical description of modern methods of
engraving; woodcut, zinc plate, halftone; kind of copy for
reproduction; things to remember when ordering engravings.
Illustrated; review questions; glossary.
=15. Electrotyping and Stereotyping= By Harris B. Hatch and A. A.
Stewart
A primer of information about the processes of electrotyping and
stereotyping. 94 pp.; illustrated; 129 review questions; glossaries.