INVENTION OF TYPOGRAPHY.
The Discovery of Desroches. -- The Stamping of Lodewyc Van Vaelbeke.
-- Early “Prenters” of Antwerp and Bruges Not Typographers. --
Cologne Chronicle. -- Donatuses Printed in Holland. -- Gutemberg’s
Birth and Family -- Progress of his Invention -- His Law-Suit with
the Drytzehns at Strasburg -- His Return to Mentz, and Partnership
with Faust -- Partnership Dissolved. -- Possibility of Printing with
Wooden Types Examined. -- Supposed Early Productions of Gutemberg
and Faust’s Press. -- Proofs of Gutemberg Having a Press of his Own.
-- The Vocabulary Printed at Elfeld. -- Gutemberg’s Death and
Epitaphs. -- Invention of Printing Claimed for Lawrence Coster. --
The Account Given by Junius -- Contradicted, Altered, and Amended at
Will by Meerman, Koning, and Others. -- Works Pretended to be
Printed with Coster’s Types. -- The Horarium Discovered by
Enschedius.
Before proceeding to trace the progress of wood engraving in connexion
with typography, it appears necessary to give some account of the
invention of the latter art. In the following brief narrative of
Gutemberg’s life, I shall adhere to positive facts; and until evidence
equally good shall be produced in support of another’s claim to the
invention, I shall consider him as the father of typography. I shall
also give Hadrian Junius’s account of the invention of wood engraving,
block-printing, and typography by Lawrence Coster, with a few remarks on
its credibility. Some of the conjectures and assertions of Meerman,
Koning, and other advocates of Coster, will be briefly noticed, and
their inconsistency pointed out. To attempt to refute at length the
gratuitous assumptions of Coster’s advocates, and to enter into a detail
of all their groundless arguments, would be like proving a medal to be a
forgery by a long dissertation, when the modern fabricator has plainly
put his name in the legend. The best proof of the fallacy of Coster’s
claims to the honour of having discovered the art of printing with
moveable types is to be found in the arguments of those by whom they
have been supported.
Meerman, with all his research, has not been able to produce a single
fact to prove that Lawrence Coster, or Lawrence Janszoon as he calls
him, ever printed a single book; and it is by no means certain that his
hero is the identical Lawrence Coster mentioned by Junius. In order to
suit his own theory he has questioned the accuracy of the statements of
Junius, and has thus weakened the very foundation of Coster’s claims.
The title of the custos of St. Bavon’s to the honour of being the
inventor of typography must rest upon the authenticity of the account
given by Junius; and how far this corresponds with established facts in
the history of wood engraving and typography I leave others to decide
for themselves.
Among the many fancied discoveries of the real inventor of the art of
printing, that of Monsieur Desroches, a member of the Imperial Academy
of Sciences and Belles Lettres at Brussels, seems to require an especial
notice. In a paper printed in the transactions of that society,[III-1]
he endeavoured to prove, that the art of printing books was practised in
Flanders about the beginning of the fourteenth century; and one of the
principal grounds of his opinion was contained in an old chronicle of
Brabant, written, as is supposed, by one Nicholas le Clerk, [Clericus,]
secretary to the city of Antwerp. The chronicler, after having described
several remarkable events which happened during the government of John
II. Duke of Brabant, who died in 1312, adds the following lines:
In dieser tyt sterf menschelyc
Die goede vedelare Lodewyc;
Die de beste was die voor dien
In de werelt ye was ghesien
Van makene ende metter hant;
Van Vaelbeke in Brabant
Alsoe was hy ghenant.
Hy was d’erste die vant
Van Stampien die manieren
Diemen noch hoert antieren.
[Footnote III-1: Nouvelles Recherches sur l’origine de
l’Imprimerie, dans lesquelles on fait voir que la première idée
est due aux Brabançons. Par M. Desroches. Lu à la séance du 8
Janvier, 1777.--Mémoires de l’Academie Impériale des Sciences et
Belles Lettres, tom. i. pp. 523-547. Edit 1780.]
This curious record, which Monsieur Desroches considered as so plain a
proof of “die goede vedelare Lodewyc” being the inventor of printing,
may be translated in English as follows:
This year the way of all flesh went
Ludwig, the fidler most excellent;
For handy-work a man of name;
From Vaelbeke in Brabant he came.
He was the first who did find out
The art of beating time, no doubt,
(Displaying thus his meikle skill,)
And fidlers all practise it still.[III-2]
[Footnote III-2: The following is the French translation of
Monsieur Desroches: “En ces temps mourut de la mort commune à tous
les hommes, Louis _cet excellent faiseur d’instrumens de musique_,
le meilleur artist qu’on eut vû jusques-là dans l’univers, en fait
d’ouvrages mechaniques. Il étoit de Vaelbeke en Brabant, et il en
porta le nom. Il fut le premier qui inventa la manière d’imprimer,
qui est presentement en usage.” The reason of Monsieur Desroches
for his periphrasis of the simple word “vedelare”--fidler--is as
follows: “J’ai rendu _Vedelare_ par ‘faiseur d’instrumens de
musique.’ Le mot radical _est vedel_, violin: par consequent,
_Vedelare_ doit signifier celui qui en joue, ou qui en fait. Je me
suis determiné pour le dernier à cause des vers suivans, où il
n’est point question de jouer mais de faire. Si l’on préfère le
premier, je ne m’y opposerai pas; rien empêche que ce habile homme
n’ait été musicien.”--Mem. de l’Acad. de Brux. tom. i. p. 536.]
The laughable mistake of Monsieur Desroches in supposing that fidler
Ludwig’s invention, of beating time by stamping with the foot, related
to the discovery of printing by means of the press, was pointed out in
1779 by Monsieur Ghesquiere in a letter printed in the Esprit des
Journaux.[III-3] In this letter Monsieur Ghesquiere shows that the
Flemish word “Stampien,” used by the chronicler in his account of the
invention of the “good fidler Ludwig,” had not a meaning similar to that
of the word “stampus” explained by Ducange, but that it properly
signified “met de voet kleppen,”--to stamp or beat with the feet.
[Footnote III-3: Lettre de M. J. G[hesquiere] à M. l’Abbé
Turberville Needham, directeur de l’Academie Impériale et Royale
de Bruxelles.--Printed in l’Esprit des Journaux for June 1779, pp.
232-260.]
In support of his opinion of the antiquity of printing, Monsieur
Desroches refers to a manuscript in his possession, consisting of lives
of the saints and a chronicle written in the fourteenth century. At the
end of this manuscript was a catalogue of the books belonging to the
monastery of Wiblingen, the writing of which was much abbreviated, and
which appeared to him to be of the following century. Among other
entries in the catalogue was this: “(It.) dōicali īpv̄o līb^o ſtmp̄^to
ī bappiro nō s͞crpō.” On supplying the letters wanting Monsieur
Desroches says that we shall have the following words: “Item.
Dominicalia in parvo libro stampato in bappiro [papyro,] non scripto;”
that is, “Item. Dominicals [a form of prayer or portion of church
service] in a small book printed [or stamped] on paper, not written.” In
the abbreviated word ſtm̄p̄^to, he says that the letter m could not very
well be distinguished; but the doubt which might thus arise he considers
to be completely resolved by the words “_non scripto_,” and by the
following memorandum which occurs, in the same hand-writing, at the foot
of the page: “Anno Dñi 1340 viguit q̄ fēt stāpā Dñatos,”-- “In 1340 he
flourished who caused Donatuses to be printed.” If the catalogue were
really of the period supposed by Monsieur Desroches, the preceding
extracts would certainly prove that the art of printing or stamping
books, though not from moveable types, was practised in the fourteenth
century; but, as the date has not been ascertained, its contents cannot
be admitted as evidence on the point in dispute. Monsieur Ghesquiere is
inclined to think that the catalogue was not written before 1470; and,
as the compiler was evidently an ignorant person, he thinks that in the
note, “Anno Domini 1340 viguit qui fecit stampare Donatos,” he might
have written 1340 instead of 1440.
Although it has been asserted that the wood-cut of St. Christopher with
the date 1423, and the wood-cut of the Annunciation--probably of the
same period--were printed by means of a press, yet I consider it
exceedingly doubtful if the press were employed to take impressions from
wood-blocks before Gutemberg used it in his earliest recorded attempts
to print with moveable types. I believe that in every one of the early
block-books, where opportunity has been afforded of examining the back
of each cut, unquestionable evidence has been discovered of their having
been _printed_, if I may here use the term, by means of friction.
Although there is no mention of a _press_ which might be used to take
impressions before the process between Gutemberg and the heirs of one of
his partners, in 1439, yet “Prenters” were certainly known in Antwerp
before his invention of printing with moveable types was brought to
perfection. Desroches in his Essay on the Invention of Printing gives an
extract from an order of the magistracy of Antwerp, in the year 1442, in
favour of the fellowship or guild of St. Luke, called also the Company
of Painters, which consisted of Painters, Statuaries, Stone-cutters,
Glass-makers, Illuminators, and “_Prenters_”. This fellowship was
doubtless similar to that of Venice, in whose favour a decree was made
by the magistracy of that city in 1441, and of which some account has
been given, at page 43, in the preceding chapter. There is evidence of a
similar fellowship existing at Bruges in 1454; and John Mentelin, who
afterwards established himself at Strasburg as a typographer or printer
proper, was admitted a member of the Painters’ Company of that city as a
“Chrysographus” or illuminator in 1447.[III-4]
[Footnote III-4: Lichtenberger, Initia Typographica, § De
Prenteris ante inventam Typographiam, p. 140.--Lambinet,
Recherches sur l’Origine de l’Imprimerie, p. 115.]
Whether the “Prenters” of Antwerp in 1442 were acquainted with the use
of the press, or not, is uncertain; but there can be little doubt of
their not being _Printers_, as the word is now generally understood;
that is, persons who printed books with moveable types. They were most
likely block-printers, and such as engraved and printed cards and images
of saints; and it would seem that typographers were not admitted members
of the society; for of all the early typographers of Antwerp the name of
one only, Mathias Van der Goes, appears in the books of the fellowship
of St. Luke; and he perhaps may have been admitted as a wood-engraver,
on account of the cuts in an herbal printed with his types, without
date, but probably between 1485 and 1490.
Ghesquiere, who successfully refuted the opinion of Desroches that
typography was known at Antwerp in 1442, was himself induced to suppose
that it was practised at Bruges in 1445, and that printed books were
then neither very scarce nor very dear in that city.[III-5] In an old
manuscript journal or memorandum book of Jean-le-Robèrt, abbot of St.
Aubert in the diocese of Cambray, he observed an entry stating that the
said abbot had purchased at Bruges, in January 1446, a “_Doctrinale
gette en mole_” for the use of his nephew. The words “gette en mole” he
conceives to mean, “printed in type;” and he thinks that the Doctrinale
mentioned was the work which was subsequently printed at Geneva, in
1478, under the title of Le Doctrinal de Sapience, and at Westminster by
Caxton, in 1489, under the title of The Doctrinal of Sapyence. The Abbé
Mercier de St. Leger, who wrote a reply to the observations of
Ghesquiere, with greater probability supposes that the book was printed
from engraved wood-blocks, and that it was the “Doctrinale Alexandri
Galli,” a short grammatical treatise in monkish rhyme, which at that
period was almost as popular as the “Donatus,” and of which odd leaves,
printed on both sides, are still to be seen in libraries which are rich
in early specimens of printing.
[Footnote III-5: Reflexions sur deux pièces relatives à l’Hist. de
l’Imprimerie. Nivelles, 1780.--Lambinet, Recherches, p. 394.]
Although there is every reason to believe that the early Printers of
Antwerp and Bruges were not acquainted with the use of moveable types,
yet the mention of such persons at so early a period, and the notice of
the makers “of cards and printed figures” at Venice in 1441,
sufficiently declare that, though wood engraving might be first
established as a profession in Suabia, it was known, and practised to a
considerable extent, in other countries previous to 1450.
The Cologne Chronicle, which was printed in 1499, has been most unfairly
quoted by the advocates of Coster in support of their assertions; and
the passage which appeared most to favour their argument they have
ascribed to Ulric Zell, the first person who established a press at
Cologne. A shrewd German,[III-6] however, has most clearly shown, from
the same chronicle, that the actual testimony of Ulric Zell is directly
in opposition to the claims advanced by the advocates of Coster. The
passage on which they rely is to the following effect: “Item: although
the art [of printing] as it is now commonly practised, was discovered at
Mentz, yet the first conception of it was discovered in Holland from the
Donatuses, which before that time were printed there.” This we are given
to understand by Meerman and Koning is the statement of Ulric Zell.
A little further on, however, the Chronicler, who in the above passage
appears to have been speaking in his own person from popular report,
thus proceeds: “But the first inventor of printing was a citizen of
Mentz, though born at Strasburg,[III-7] named John Gutemberg: Item: from
Mentz the above-named art first came to Cologne, afterwards to
Strasburg, and then to Venice. This account of the commencement and
progress of the said art was communicated to me by word of mouth by that
worthy person Master Ulric Zell of Hanau, at the present time [1499]
a printer in Cologne, through whom the said art was brought to Cologne.”
At this point the advocates of Coster stop, as the very next sentence
deprives them of any advantage which they might hope to gain from the
“impartial testimony of the Cologne Chronicle,” the compiler of which
proceeds as follows: “Item: there are certain _fanciful people_ who say
that books were printed before; but _this is not true_; for in no
country are books to be found printed before that time.”[III-8]
[Footnote III-6: Friedrich Lehne, Einige Bemerkungen über das
Unternehmen der gelehrten Gesellschaft zu Harlem, ihrer Stadt die
Ehre der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst zu ertrotzen, S. 24-26.
Zweite Ausgabe, Mainz. 1825.]
[Footnote III-7: This is a mistake into which the compiler of the
chronicle printed at Rome, 1474, by Philippus de Lignamine, has
also fallen. Gutemberg was not a native of Strasburg, but of
Mentz.]
[Footnote III-8: Mallinkrot appears to have been the first who
gave a translation of the entire passage in the Cologne Chronicle
which relates to the invention of printing. His version of the
last sentence is as follows: “Reperiuntur Scioli aliquot qui
dicant, dudum ante hæc tempora typorum ope libros excusos esse,
qui tamen et se et alios decipiunt; nullibi enim terrarum libri eo
tempore impressi reperiuntur.”--De Ortu et Progressu Artis
Typographicæ, p. 38. Colon. Agrippinæ, 1640.]
That “Donatuses” and other small elementary books for the use of schools
were printed from wood-blocks previous to the invention of typography
there can be little doubt; and it is by no means unlikely that they
might be first printed in Holland or in Flanders. At any rate an opinion
seems to have been prevalent at an early period that the idea of
printing with moveable types was first derived from a “Donatus,”[III-9]
printed from wood-blocks. In the petition of Conrad Sweinheim and Arnold
Pannartz, two Germans, who first established a press at Rome, addressed
to Pope Sixtus IV. in 1472, stating the expense which they had incurred
in printing books, and praying for assistance, they mention amongst
other works printed by them, “DONATI pro puerulis, unde IMPRIMENDI
INITIUM sumpsimus;” that is: “Donatuses for boys, whence we have taken
the beginning of printing.” If this passage is to be understood as
referring to the origin of typography, and not to the first proofs of
their own press, it is the earliest and the best evidence on the point
which has been adduced; for it is very likely that both these printers
had acquired a knowledge of their art at Mentz in the very office where
it was first brought to perfection.
[Footnote III-9: Angelus Rocca mentions having seen a “Donatus” on
parchment, at the commencement of which was written in the hand of
Mariangelus Accursius, who flourished about 1530: “Impressus est
autem hic _Donatus_ et _Confessionalia_ primùm omnium anno MCCCCL.
Admonitus certè fuit ex _Donato_ Hollandiæ, prius impresso in
tabula incisa.”--Bibliotheca Vaticana commentario illustrata,
1591, cited by Prosper Marchand in his Hist. de l’Imprimerie, 2nde
Partie, p. 35. It is likely that Accursius derived his information
about a Donatus being printed in Holland from the Cologne
Chronicle.]
About the year 1400, Henne, or John Gænsfleisch de Sulgeloch, called
also John Gutemberg zum Jungen, appears to have been born at Mentz. He
had two brothers; Conrad who died in 1424, and Friele who was living in
1459. He had also two sisters, Bertha and Hebele, who were both nuns of
St. Claire at Mentz. Gutemberg had an uncle by his father’s side, named
Friele, who had three sons, named John, Friele, and Pederman, who were
all living in 1459.
Gutemberg was descended of an honourable family, and he himself is said
to have been by birth a knight.[III-10] It would appear that the family
had been possessed of considerable property. They had one house in Mentz
called zum Gænsfleisch, and another called zum Gudenberg, or Gutenberg,
which Wimpheling translates, “Domum boni montis.” The local name of
Sulgeloch, or Sorgenloch, was derived from the name of a village where
the family of Gænsfleisch had resided previous to their removing to
Mentz. It seems probable that the house zum Jungen at Mentz came into
the Gutembergs’ possession by inheritance. It was in this house,
according to the account of Trithemius, that the printing business was
carried on during his partnership with Faust.[III-11]
[Footnote III-10: Schwartz observes that in the instrument drawn
up by the notary Ulric Helmasperger, Gutemberg is styled
“_Juncker_,” an honourable addition which was at that period
expressive of nobility.--Primaria quædam Documenta de Origine
Typographiæ, p. 20, 4to. Altorfii, 1740.]
[Footnote III-11: “Morabatur autem prædictus Joannes Gutenberg
Moguntiæ in domo _zum Jungen_, quæ domus usque in præsentem diem
[1513] illius novæ Artis nomine noscitur insignita.”--Trithemii
Chronicum Spanhemiense, ad annum 1450.]
When Gutemberg called himself der Junge, or junior, it was doubtless to
distinguish himself from Gænsfleisch _der Elter_, or senior, a name
which frequently occurs in the documents printed by Koehler. Meerman has
fixed upon the latter name for the purpose of giving to Gutemberg a
brother of the same christian name, and of making him the thief who
stole Coster’s types. He also avails himself of an error committed by
Wimpheling and others, who had supposed John Gutemberg and John
Gænsfleisch to be two different persons. In two deeds of sale, however,
of the date 1441 and 1442, entered in the Salic book of the church of
St. Thomas at Strasburg, he is thus expressly named: “_Joannes dictus
Gensfleisch alias nuncupatus Gutenberg de Moguncia, Argentinæ
commorans_;” that is, “John Gænsfleisch, otherwise named Gutemberg, of
Mentz, residing at Strasburg.”[III-12] Anthony à Wood, in his History of
the University of Oxford, calls him Tossanus; and Chevillier, in his
Origine de l’Imprimerie de Paris, Toussaints. Seiz[III-13] is within an
ace of making him a knight of the Golden Fleece. That he was a man of
property is proved by various documents; and those writers who have
described him as a person of mean origin, or as so poor as to be obliged
to labour as a common workman, are certainly wrong.
[Footnote III-12: In the release which he grants to the town-clerk
of Mentz, in 1434, he describes himself as, “Johann Gensefleisch
der Junge, genant Gutemberg.”]
[Footnote III-13: In “Het derde Jubeljaer der uitgevondene
Boekdrukkonst door Laurens Jansz Koster,” p. 71. Harlem,
1740.--Oberlin, Essai d’Annales.]
From a letter written by Gutemberg in 1424 to his sister Bertha it
appears that he was then residing at Strasburg; and it is also certain
that in 1430 he was not living at Mentz; for in an act of accommodation
between the nobility and burghers of that city, passed in that year with
the authority of the archbishop Conrad III., Gutemberg is mentioned
among the nobles “_die ytzund nit inlendig sint_”--“who are not at
present in the country.” In 1434 there is positive evidence of his
residing at Strasburg; for in that year he caused the town-clerk of
Mentz to be arrested for a sum of three hundred florins due to him from
the latter city, and he agreed to his release at the instance of the
magistrates of Strasburg within whose jurisdiction the arrest took
place.[III-14] In 1436 he entered into partnership with Andrew Drytzehn
and others; and there is every reason to believe that at this period he
was engaged in making experiments on the practicability of printing with
moveable types, and that the chief object of his engaging with those
persons was to obtain funds to enable him to perfect his invention.
[Footnote III-14: The release is given in Schœpflin’s Vindiciæ
Typographicæ, Documentum I.]
From 1436 to 1444 the name of Gutemberg appears among the
“_Constaflers_” or civic nobility of Strasburg. In 1437 he was summoned
before the ecclesiastical judge of that city at the suit of Anne of
Iron-Door,[III-15] for breach of promise of marriage. It would seem that
he afterwards fulfilled his promise, for in a tax-book of the city of
Strasburg, Anne Gutemberg is mentioned, after Gutemberg had returned to
Mentz, as paying the toll levied on wine.
[Footnote III-15: “_Ennelin zu der Iserin Thure._” She was then
living at Strasburg, and was of an honourable family, originally
of Alsace.--Schœpflin. Vind. Typ. p. 17.]
Andrew Drytzehn, one of Gutemberg’s partners, having died in 1438, his
brothers George and Nicholas instituted a process against Gutemberg to
compel him either to refund the money advanced by their brother, or to
admit them to take his place in the partnership. From the depositions of
the witnesses in this cause, which, together with the decision of the
judges, are given at length by Schœpflin, there can be little doubt that
one of the inventions which Gutemberg agreed to communicate to his
partners was an improvement in the art of printing, such as it was at
that period.
The following particulars concerning the partnership of Gutemberg with
Andrew Drytzehn and others are derived from the recital of the case
contained in the decision of the judges. Some years before his death,
Andrew Drytzehn expressed a desire to learn one of Gutemberg’s arts, for
he appears to have been fond of trying new experiments, and the latter
acceding to his request taught him a method of polishing stones, by
which he gained considerable profit. Some time afterwards, Gutemberg, in
company with a person named John Riff, began to exercise a certain art
whose productions were in demand at the fair of Aix-la-Chapelle. Andrew
Drytzehn, hearing of this, begged that the new art might be explained to
him, promising at the same time to give whatever premium should be
required. Anthony Heilman also made a similar request for his brother
Andrew Heilman.[III-16] To both these applications Gutemberg assented,
agreeing to teach them the art; it being stipulated that the two new
partners were to receive a fourth part of the profits between them; that
Riff was to have another fourth; and that the remaining half should be
received by the inventor. It was also agreed that Gutemberg should
receive from each of the new partners the sum of eighty florins of gold
payable by a certain day, as a premium for communicating to them his
art. The great fair of Aix-la-Chapelle being deferred to another year,
Gutemberg’s two new partners requested that he would communicate to them
without reserve all his wonderful and rare inventions; to which he
assented on condition that to the former sum of one hundred and sixty
florins they should jointly advance two hundred and fifty more, of which
one hundred were to be paid immediately, and the then remaining
seventy-five florins due by each were to be paid at three instalments.
Of the hundred florins stipulated to be paid in ready money, Andrew
Heilman paid fifty, according to his engagement, while Andrew Drytzehn
only paid forty, leaving ten due. The term of the partnership for
carrying on the “wonderful art” was fixed at five years; and it was also
agreed that if any of the partners should die within that period, his
interest in the utensils and stock should become vested in the surviving
partners, who at the completion of the term were to pay to the heirs of
the deceased the sum of one hundred florins. Andrew Drytzehn having died
within the period, and when there remained a sum of eighty-five florins
unpaid by him, Gutemberg met the claim of his brothers by referring to
the articles of partnership, and insisted that from the sum of one
hundred florins which the surviving partners were bound to pay, the
eighty-five remaining unpaid by the deceased should be deducted. The
balance of fifteen florins thus remaining due from the partnership he
expressed his willingness to pay, although according to the terms of the
agreement it was not payable until the five years were expired, and
would thus not be strictly due for some years to come. The claim of
George Drytzehn to be admitted a partner, as the heir of his brother, he
opposed, on the ground of his being unacquainted with the obligations of
the partnership; and he also denied that Andrew Drytzehn had ever become
security for the payment of any sum for lead or other things purchased
on account of the business, except to Fridelin von Seckingen, and that
this sum (which was owing for lead) Gutemberg himself paid. The judges
having heard the allegations of both parties, and having examined the
agreement between Gutemberg and Andrew Drytzehn, decided that the
eighty-five florins which remained unpaid by the latter should be
deducted from the hundred which were to be repaid in the event of any
one of the partners dying; and that Gutemberg should pay the balance of
fifteen florins to George and Nicholas Drytzehn, and that when this sum
should be paid they should have no further claim on the
partnership.[III-17]
[Footnote III-16: When Andrew Heilman was proposed as a partner,
Gutemberg observed that his friends would perhaps treat the
business into which he was about to embark as mere jugglery
[göckel werck], and object to his having anything to do with
it.--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ. Document. p. 10.]
[Footnote III-17: This decision is dated “On the Eve of St. Lucia
and St. Otilia, [12th December,] 1439.”]
From the depositions of some of the witnesses in this process, there can
scarcely be a doubt that the “wonderful art” which Gutemberg was
attempting to perfect was typography or printing with moveable types.
Fournier[III-18] thinks that Gutemberg’s attempts at printing, as may be
gathered from the evidence in this cause, were confined to printing from
wood-blocks; but such expressions of the witnesses as appear to relate
to printing do not favour this opinion. As Gutemberg lived near the
monastery of St. Arbogast, which was without the walls of the city, it
appears that the attempts to perfect his invention were carried on in
the house of his partner Andrew Drytzehn. Upon the death of the latter,
Gutemberg appears to have been particularly anxious that “four _pieces_”
which were in a “press” should be “distributed,”--making use of the very
word which is yet used in Germany to express the distribution or
separation of a form of types---so that no person should know what they
were.
[Footnote III-18: Traité de l’origine et des productions de
l’Imprimerie primitive en taille de bois, Paris, 1758; et
Remarques sur un Ouvrage, &c. pour servir de suite au Traité,
Paris, 1762.]
Hans Schultheis, a dealer in wood, and Ann his wife, depose to the
following effect: After the death of Andrew Drytzehn, Gutemberg’s
servant, Lawrence Beildeck, came to their house, and thus addressed
their relation Nicholas Drytzehn: “Your deceased brother Andrew had four
“pieces” placed under a press, and John Gutemberg requests that you will
take them out and lay them separately [or apart from each other] upon
the press so that no one may see what it is.”[III-19]
[Footnote III-19: “Andres Dritzehn uwer bruder selige hat iiij
stücke undenan inn einer _pressen_ ligen, da hat uch Hanns
Gutemberg gebetten das ir die darusz nement ünd uff die presse
legent von einander so kan man nit gesehen was das
ist.”--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ. Document. p. 6.]
Conrad Saspach states that one day Andrew Heilman, a partner of
Gutemberg’s, came to him in the Merchants’ Walk and said to him,
“Conrad, as Andrew Drytzehn is dead, and _as you made the press_ and
know all about it, go and take the _pieces_[III-20] out of the press and
separate [zerlege] them so that no person may know what they are.” This
witness intended to do as he was requested, but on making inquiry the
day after St. Stephen’s Day[III-21] he found that the work was removed.
[Footnote III-20: “Nym die stücke usz der _pressen_ und _zerlege_
sü von einander so weis nyemand was es ist:” literally: “Take the
pieces out of the press and distribute [or separate] them, so that
no man may know what it is.”--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ. Document.
p. 6. “The word _zerlegen_,” says Lichtenberger, Initia Typograph.
p. 11, “is used at the present day by printers to denote the
distribution of the types which the compositor has set up.” The
original word “stücke”--pieces--is always translated
“paginæ”--pages--by Schelhorn. Dr. Dibdin calls them “_forms_ kept
together by _two screws_ or press-_spindles_.”--Life of Caxton, in
his edition of Ames’s and Herbert’s Typ. Antiq. p. lxxxvii. note.]
[Footnote III-21: St. Stephen’s Day is on 26th December. Andrew
Drytzehn, being very ill, confessed himself to Peter Eckhart on
Christmas-day, 1438, and it would seem that he died on the 27th.]
Lawrence Beildeck, Gutemberg’s servant, deposes that after Andrew
Drytzehn’s death he was sent by his master to Nicholas Drytzehn to tell
him not to show the press which he had in his house to any person.
Beildeck also adds that he was desired by Gutemberg to go to the
presses, and to open [or undo] the press which was fastened with two
screws, so that the “pieces” [which were in it] should fall asunder. The
said “pieces” he was then to place in or upon the press, so that no
person might see or understand them.
Anthony Heilman, the brother of one of Gutemberg’s partners, states that
he knew of Gutemberg having sent his servant shortly before Christmas
both to Andrew Heilman and Andrew Drytzehn to bring away all the “forms”
[formen] that they might be separated in his presence, as he found
several things in them of which he disapproved.[III-22] The same witness
also states that he was well aware of many people being wishful to see
the press, and that Gutemberg had desired that they should send some
person to prevent its being seen.
[Footnote III-22: “Dirre gezuge hat ouch geseit das er wol wisse
das Gutenberg unlange vor Wihnahten sinen kneht sante zu den beden
Andresen, alle _formen_ zu holen, und würdent zur lossen das er
ess sehe, un jn joch ettliche formen ruwete.”--Schœpflin, Vind.
Typ. Document. p. 12. The separate letters, which are now called
“types,” were frequently called “formæ” by the early printers and
writers of the fifteenth century. They are thus named by Joh. and
Vindelin de Spire in 1469; by Franciscus Philelphus in 1470; by
Ludovicus Carbo in 1471; and by Phil. de Lignamine in
1474.--Lichtenberger, Init. Typ. p. 11.]
Hans Dünne, a goldsmith, deposed that about three years before, he had
done work for Gutemberg on account of printing alone to the amount of a
hundred florins.[III-23]
[Footnote III-23: “Hanns Dünne der goltsmyt hat gesait, das er vor
dryen jaren oder daby Gutemberg by den hundert guldin verdienet
habe, alleine das zu dem _trucken_ gehöret”--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ.
Document. p. 13.]
As Gutemberg evidently had kept his art as secret as possible, it is not
surprising that the notice of it by the preceding witnesses should not
be more explicit. Though it may be a matter of doubt whether his
invention was merely an improvement on block-printing, or an attempt to
print with moveable types, yet, bearing in mind that express mention is
made of a _press_ and of _printing_, and taking into consideration his
subsequent partnership with Faust, it is morally certain that
Gutemberg’s attention had been occupied with some new discovery relative
to printing at least three years previous to December 1439.
If Gutemberg’s attempts when in partnership with Andrew Drytzehn and
others did not extend beyond block-printing, and if the four “pieces”
which were in the press are assumed to have been four engraved blocks,
it is evident that the mere unscrewing them from the “_chase_” or frame
in which they might be enclosed, would not in the least prevent persons
from knowing what they were; and it is difficult to conceive how the
undoing of the two screws would cause “the pieces” to fall asunder. If,
however, we suppose the four “pieces” to have been so many pages of
moveable types screwed together in a frame, it is easy to conceive the
effect of undoing the two screws which held it together. On this
hypothesis, Gutemberg’s instructions to his servant, and Anthony
Heilman’s request to Conrad Saspach, the maker of the press, that he
would take out the “pieces” and distribute them, are at once
intelligible. If Gutemberg’s attempts were confined to block-printing,
he could certainly have no claim to the discovery of a new art, unless
indeed we are to suppose that his invention consisted in the
introduction of the press for the purpose of taking impressions; but it
is apparent that his anxiety was not so much to prevent people seeing
the press as to keep them ignorant of the purpose for which it was
employed, and to conceal what was in it.
The evidence of Hans Dünne the goldsmith, though very brief, is in
favour of the opinion that Gutemberg’s essays in printing were made with
moveable types of metal; and it also is corroborated by the fact of
_lead_ being one of the articles purchased on account of the
partnership. It is certain that goldsmiths were accustomed to engrave
letters and figures upon silver and other metals long before the art of
copper-plate printing was introduced; and Fournier not attending to the
distinction between simple engraving on metal and engraving on a plate
for the purpose of taking impressions on paper, has made a futile
objection to the argument of Bär,[III-24] who very naturally supposes
that the hundred florins which Hans Dünne received from Gutemberg for
work done on account of printing alone, might be on account of his
having cut the types, the formation of which by means of punches and
matrices was a subsequent improvement of Peter Scheffer. It is indeed
difficult to conceive in what manner a goldsmith could earn a hundred
florins for work done on account of printing, except in his capacity as
an engraver; and as I can see no reason to suppose that Hans Dünne was
an engraver on wood, I am inclined to think that he was employed by
Gutemberg to cut the letters on separate pieces of metal.
[Footnote III-24: The words of Bär, who was almoner of the Swedish
chapel at Paris in 1761, are these: “Tout le monde sait que dans
ce temps les orfèvres exerçoient aussi l’art de la gravûre; et
nous concluons de-là que Guttemberg a commencé par des caractères
de bois, que de-là il a passé aux caractères de plomb.” On this
passage Fournier makes the following observations: “Tout le monde
sait au contraire que dans ce temps il n’y avoit pas un seul
graveur dans le genre dont vous parlez, et cela par une raison
bien simple: c’est que cet art de la gravûre n’a été inventé que
vingt-trois ans après ce que vous citez, c’est-à-dire en 1460, par
_Masso Piniguera_.”--Remarques, &c. p. 20. Bär mentioned no
particular kind of engraving; and the name of the Italian
goldsmith who is supposed to have been the first who discovered
the art of taking impressions from a plate on paper, was
Finiguerra, not Piniguera, as Fournier, with his usual inaccuracy,
spells it.]
There is no evidence to show that Gutemberg succeeded in printing any
books at Strasburg with moveable types: and the most likely conclusion
seems to be that he did not. As the process between him and the
Drytzehns must have given a certain degree of publicity to his
invention, it might be expected that some notice would have been taken
of its first-fruits had he succeeded in making it available in
Strasburg. On the contrary, all the early writers in the least entitled
to credit, who have spoken of the invention of printing with moveable
types, agree in ascribing the honour to Mentz, after Gutemberg had
returned to that city and entered into partnership with Faust. Two
writers, however, whose learning and research are entitled to the
highest respect, are of a different opinion. “It has been doubted,” says
Professor Oberlin, “that Gutemberg ever printed books at Strasburg. It
is, nevertheless, probable that he did; for he had a press there in
1439, and continued to reside in that city for five years afterwards. He
might print several of those small tracts without date, in which the
inequality of the letters and rudeness of the workmanship indicate the
infancy of the art. Schœpflin thinks that he can identify some of them;
and the passages cited by him clearly show that printing had been
carried on there.”[III-25] It is, however, to be remarked that the
passages cited by Schœpflin, and referred to by Oberlin, by no means
show that the art of printing had been practised at Strasburg by
Gutemberg; nor do they clearly prove that it had been continuously
carried on there by his partners or others to the time of Mentelin, who
probably established himself there as a printer in 1466.
[Footnote III-25: Essai d’Annales de la Vie de Jean Gutenberg, par
Jer. J. Oberlin. 8vo. Strasbourg, An ix. [1802.]]
It has been stated that Gutemberg’s first essays in typography were made
with wooden types; and Daniel Specklin, an architect of Strasburg, who
died in 1589, professed to have seen some of them. According to his
account there was a hole pierced in each letter, and they were arranged
in lines by a string being passed through them. The lines thus formed
like a string of beads were afterwards collected into pages, and
submitted to the press. Particles and syllables of frequent occurrence
were not formed of separate letters, but were cut on single pieces of
wood. We are left to conjecture the size of those letters; but if they
were sufficiently large to allow of a hole being bored through them, and
to afterwards sustain the action of the press, they could not well be
less than the missal types with which Faust and Scheffer’s Psalter is
printed. It is however likely that Specklin had been mistaken; and that
he had supposed some old initial letters, large enough to admit of a
hole being bored through them without injury, to have been such as were
generally used in the infancy of the art.
In 1441 and 1442, Gutemberg, who appears to have been always in want of
money, executed deeds of sale to the dean and chapter of the collegiate
church of St. Thomas at Strasburg, whereby he assigned to them certain
rents and profits in Mentz which he inherited from his uncle John
Leheymer, who had been a judge in that city. In 1443 and 1444
Gutemberg’s name still appears in the rate or tax book of Strasburg; but
after the latter year it is no longer to be found. About 1445, it is
probable that he returned to Mentz, his native city, having apparently
been unsuccessful in his speculations at Strasburg. From this period to
1450 it is likely that he continued to employ himself in attempts to
perfect his invention of typography. In 1450 he entered into partnership
with John Faust, a goldsmith and native of Mentz, and it is from this
year that Trithemius dates the invention. In his Annales Hirsaugienses,
under the year 1450, he gives the following account of the first
establishment and early progress of the art. “About this time [1450], in
the city of Mentz upon the Rhine, in Germany, and not in Italy as some
have falsely stated, this wonderful and hitherto unheard of art of
printing was conceived and invented by John Gutemberg, a citizen of
Mentz. He had expended nearly all his substance on the invention; and
being greatly pressed for want of means, was about to abandon it in
despair, when, through the advice and with the money furnished by John
Faust, also a citizen of Mentz, he completed his undertaking. At first
they printed the vocabulary called the _Catholicon_, from letters cut on
blocks of wood. These letters however could not be used to print
anything else, as they were not separately moveable, but were cut on the
blocks as above stated. To this invention succeeded others more subtle,
and they afterwards invented a method of casting the shapes, named by
them _matrices_, of all the letters of the Roman alphabet, from which
they again cast letters of copper or tin, sufficient to bear any
pressure to which they might be subjected, and which they had formerly
cut by hand. As I have heard, nearly thirty years ago, from Peter
Scheffer, of Gernsheim, citizen of Mentz, who was son-in-law of the
first inventor, great difficulties attended the first establishment of
this art; for when they had commenced printing a Bible they found that
upwards of four thousand florins had been expended before they had
finished the third _quaternion_ [or quire of four sheets]. Peter
Scheffer, an ingenious and prudent man, at first the servant, and
afterwards, as has been already said, the son-in-law of John Faust, the
first inventor, discovered the more ready mode of casting the types, and
perfected the art as it is at present exercised. These three for some
time kept their method of printing a secret, till at length it was
divulged by some workmen whose assistance they could not do without. It
first passed to Strasburg, and gradually to other nations.”[III-26]
[Footnote III-26: Trithemii Annales Hirsaugienses, tom. ii. ad
annum 1450. The original passage is printed in Prosper Marchand’s
Histoire de l’Imprimerie, 2nde Partie, p. 7.]
As Trithemius finished the work which contains the preceding account in
1514, Marchand concludes that he must have received his information from
Scheffer about 1484, which would be within thirty-five years of
Gutemberg’s entering into a partnership with Faust. Although Trithemius
had his information from so excellent an authority, yet the account
which he has thus left is far from satisfactory. Schœpflin, amongst
other objections to its accuracy, remarks that Trithemius is wrong in
stating that the invention of moveable types was subsequent to
Gutemberg’s connexion with Faust, seeing that the former had previously
employed them at Strasburg; and he also observes that in the learned
abbot’s account there is no distinct mention made of moveable letters
cut by hand, but that we are led to infer that the improvement of
casting types from matrices immediately followed the printing of the
Catholicon from wood-blocks. The words of Trithemius on this point are
as follows: “Post hæc, inventis successerunt subtiliora, inveneruntque
modum fundendi formas omnium Latini alphabeti litterarum, quas ipsi
_matrices_ nominabant, ex quibus rursum æneos sive stanneos characteres
fundebant ad omnem pressuram sufficientes quos prius manibus
sculpebant.” From this passage it might be objected in opposition to the
opinion of Schœpflin:[III-27] 1. That the “subtiliora,”--more subtle
contrivances, mentioned _before_ the invention of casting moveable
letters, may relate to the cutting of such letters by hand. 2. That the
word “quos” is to be referred to the antecedent “æneos sive stanneos
characteres,”--letters of copper or tin,--and not to the “characteres in
tabulis ligneis scripti,”--letters engraved on wood-blocks,--which are
mentioned in a preceding sentence. The inconsistency of Trithemius in
ascribing the origin of the art to Gutemberg, and twice immediately
afterwards calling Scheffer the son-in-law of “the first inventor,”
Faust, is noticed by Schœpflin, and has been pointed out by several
other writers.
[Footnote III-27: Vindiciæ Typographicæ, pp. 77, 78.]
In 1455 the partnership between Gutemberg and Faust was dissolved at the
instance of the latter, who preferred a suit against his partner for the
recovery, with interest, of certain sums of money which he had advanced.
There is no mention of the time when the partnership commenced in the
sentence or award of the judge; but Schwartz infers, from the sum
claimed on account of interest, that it must have been in August 1449.
It is probable that his conclusion is very near the truth; for most of
the early writers who have mentioned the invention of printing at Mentz
by Gutemberg and Faust, agree in assigning the year 1450 as that in
which they began to practise the new art. It is conjectured by Santander
that Faust, who seems to have been a selfish character,[III-28] sought
an opportunity of quarrelling with Gutemberg as soon as Scheffer had
communicated to him his great improvement of forming the letters by
means of punches and matrices.
[Footnote III-28: In the first work which issued from Faust and
Scheffer’s press, with a date and the printer’s names,--the
Psalter of 1457,--and in several others, Scheffer appears on an
equal footing with Faust. In the colophon of an edition of Cicero
de Officiis, 1465, Faust has inserted the following degrading
words: “Presens opus Joh. Fust Moguntinus civis . . . . arte
quadam perpulcra Petri manu _pueri mei_ feliciter effeci.” His
partner, to whose ingenuity he is chiefly indebted for his fame,
is here represented in the character of a menial. Peter Scheffer,
of Gernsheim, clerk, who perfected the art of printing, is now
degraded to “Peter, my _boy_” by whose hand--not by his
ingenuity--John Faust exercises a certain beautiful art.]
The document containing the decision of the judges was drawn up by Ulric
Helmasperger, a notary, on 6th November, 1455, in the presence of Peter
Gernsheim [Scheffer], James Faust, the brother of John, Henry Keffer,
and others.[III-29] From the statement of Faust, as recited in this
instrument, it appears that he had first advanced to Gutemberg eight
hundred florins at the annual interest of six per cent., and afterwards
eight hundred florins more. Gutemberg having neglected to pay the
interest, there was owing by him a sum of two hundred and fifty florins
on account of the first eight hundred; and a further sum of one hundred
and forty on account of the second. In consequence of Gutemberg’s
neglecting to pay the interest, Faust states that he had incurred a
further expense of thirty-six florins from having to borrow money both
of Christians and Jews. For the capital advanced by him, and arrears of
interest, he claimed on the whole two thousand and twenty
florins.[III-30]
[Footnote III-29: Henry Keffer was employed in Gutemberg and
Faust’s printing-office. He afterwards went to Nuremberg, where
his name appears as a printer, in 1473, in conjunction with John
Sensenschmid.--Primaria quædam Documenta de origine Typographiæ,
edente C. G. Schwartzio. 8vo. Altorfii, 1740.]
[Footnote III-30: “Er [Johan Fust] denselben solt fürter under
Christen und Iudden hab müssen ussnemen, und davor sess und
dreyssig Gulden ungevärlich zu guter Rechnung zu Gesuch geben, das
sich also zusamen mit dem Hauptgeld ungevärlich trifft an
zvvytusend und zvvanzig Gulden.” Schwartz in an observation upon
this passage conceives the sum of 2,020 florins to be thus made
up: capital advanced, in two sums of 800 each, 1,600 florins:
interest 390; on account of compound interest, incurred by Faust,
36; making in all 2,026. He thinks that 2,020 florins only were
claimed as a round sum; and that the second sum of 800 florins was
advanced in October 1452.--Primaria quædam Documenta, pp. 9-14.]
In answer to these allegations Gutemberg replied: that the first eight
hundred florins which he received of Faust were advanced in order to
purchase utensils for printing, which were assigned to Faust as a
security for his money. It was agreed between them that Faust should
contribute three hundred florins annually for workmen’s wages and
house-rent, and for the purchase of parchment, paper, ink, and other
things.[III-31] It was also stipulated that in the event of any
disagreement arising between them, the printing materials assigned to
Faust as a security should become the property of Gutemberg on his
repaying the sum of eight hundred florins. This sum, however, which was
advanced for the completion of the work, Gutemberg did not think himself
bound to expend on book-work alone; and although it was expressed in
their agreement that he should pay six florins in the hundred for an
annual interest, yet Faust assured him that he would not accept of it,
as the eight hundred florins were not paid down at once, as by their
agreement they ought to have been. For the second sum of eight hundred
florins he was ready to render Faust an account. For interest or usury
he considered that he was not liable.[III-32]
[Footnote III-31: “. . . . und das JOHANNES [FUST] ym ierlichen
300 Gulden vor Kosten geben, und auch Gesinde Lone, Huss Zinss,
Vermet, Papier, Tinte, &c. verlegen solte.” Primaria qæedam Doc.
p. 10.]
[Footnote III-32: “. . . . von den ubrigen 800 Gulden vvegen
begert er ym ein rechnung zu thun, so gestett er auch ym keins
Soldes noch Wuchers, und hofft ym im rechten darum nit pflichtigk
sin.” Primaria quædam Doc. p. 11.]
The judges, having heard the statements of both parties, decided that
Gutemberg should repay Faust so much of the capital as had not been
expended in the business; and that on Faust’s producing witnesses, or
swearing that he had borrowed upon interest the sums advanced, Gutemberg
should pay him interest also, according to their agreement. Faust having
made oath that he had borrowed 1550 florins, which he paid over to
Gutemberg, to be employed by him for their common benefit, and that he
had paid yearly interest, and was still liable on account of the same,
the notary, Ulric Helmasperger, signed his attestation of the award on
6th November, 1455.[III-33] It would appear that Gutemberg not being
able to repay the money was obliged to relinquish the printing materials
to Faust.
[Footnote III-33: Mercier, who is frequently referred to as an
authority on subjects connected with Bibliography, has, in his
supplement to Prosper Marchand’s Histoire de l’Imprimerie,
confounded this document with that containing an account of the
process between the Drytzehns and Gutemberg at Strasburg in 1439;
and Heineken, at p. 255 of his Idée Générale, has committed the
same mistake.]
Salmuth, who alludes to the above document in his annotations upon
Pancirollus, has most singularly perverted its meaning, by representing
Gutemberg as the person who advanced the money, and Faust as the
ingenious inventor who was sued by his rich partner. “From this it
evidently appears,” says he, after making Gutemberg and Faust exchange
characters, “that Gutemberg was not the first who invented and practised
typography; but that some years after its invention he was admitted a
partner by John Faust, to whom he advanced money.” If for “Gutemberg” we
read “Faust,” and _vice versâ_, the account is correct.
Whether Faust, who might be an engraver as well as a goldsmith, assisted
Gutemberg or not by engraving the types, does not appear. It is stated
that Gutemberg’s earliest productions at Mentz were an alphabet cut on
wood, and a Donatus executed in the same manner. Trithemius mentions a
“_Catholicon_” engraved on blocks of wood as one of the first books
printed by Gutemberg and Faust, and this Heineken thinks was the same as
the Donatus.[III-34] Whatever may have been the book which Trithemius
describes as a “Catholicon,” it certainly was not the “_Catholicon
Joannis Januensis_,” a large folio which appeared in 1460 without the
name or residence of the printer, but which is supposed to have been
printed by Gutemberg after the dissolution of his partnership with
Faust.
[Footnote III-34: “Je crois, que ces tables [deux planches de bois
autrefois chez le Duc de la Valliere] sont du livre que le
Chroniqueur de Cologne appelle un _Donat_ et que _Trithem_ nomme
un _Catholicon_, (livre universel,) ce qu’on a confondu ensuite
avec le grand ouvrage intitulé _Catholicon Januensis_.”--Idée
Générale, p. 258.]
It has been stated that previous to the introduction of metal types
Gutemberg and Faust used moveable types of wood; and Schœpflin speaks
confidently of such being used at Strasburg by Mentelin long after
Scheffer had introduced the improved method of forming metal types by
means of punches and matrices. On this subject, however, Schœpflin’s
opinion is of very little weight, for on whatever relates to the
practice of typography or wood engraving he was very slightly informed.
He fancies that all the books printed at Strasburg previous to the
appearance of _Vincentii Bellovacensis Speculum Historiale_ in 1473,
were printed with moveable types of wood. It is, however, doubtful if
ever a single book was printed in this manner.
Willett in his Essay on Printing, published in the eleventh volume of
the Archæologia, not only says that no entire book was ever printed with
wooden types, but adds, “I venture to pronounce it impossible.” He has
pronounced rashly. Although it certainly would be a work of considerable
labour to cut a set of moveable letters of the size of what is called
Donatus type, and sufficient to print such a book, yet it is by no means
impossible. That such books as “_Eyn Manung der Cristenheit widder die
durken_,” of which a fac-simile is given by Aretin, and the first and
second Donatuses, of which specimens are given by Fischer, might be
printed from wooden types I am perfectly satisfied, though I am
decidedly of opinion that they were not. Marchand has doubted the
possibility of printing with wooden types, which he observes would be
apt to warp when wet for the purpose of cleaning; but it is to be
observed that they would not require to be cleaned before they were
used.
Fournier, who was a letter-founder, and who occasionally practised wood
engraving, speaks positively of the Psalter first printed by Faust and
Scheffer in 1457, and again in 1459, being printed with wooden types;
and he expresses his conviction of the practicability of cutting and
printing with such types, provided that they were not of a smaller size
than Great Primer Roman. Meerman shows the possibility of using such
types; and Camus caused two lines of the Bible, supposed to have been
printed by Gutemberg, to be cut in separate letters on wood, and which
sustained the action of the press.[III-35] Lambinet says, it is certain
that Gutemberg cut moveable letters of wood, but he gives no authority
for the assertion; and I am of opinion that no unexceptionable testimony
on this point can be produced. The statements of Serarius and Paulus
Pater,[III-36] who profess to have seen such ancient wooden types at
Mentz, are entitled to as little credit as Daniel Specklin, who asserted
that he had seen such at Strasburg. They may have seen large initial
letters of wood with holes bored through, but scarcely any lower-case
letters which were ever used in printing any book.
[Footnote III-35: Oberlin, Essai d’Annales de la Vie de
Gutenberg.]
[Footnote III-36: “. . . . ligneos typos, ex buxi frutice,
perforatos in medio, ut zona colligari una jungique commode
possint, ex Fausti officina reliquos, Moguntiæ aliquando me
conspexisse memini.”--Paulus Pater, in Dissertatione de Typis
Literarum, &c. p, 10. 4to. Lipsiæ, 1710. Heineken, at p. 254 of
his Idée Gén., declares himself to be convinced that Gutemberg had
cut separate letters on wood, but he thinks that no person would
be able to cut a quantity sufficient to print whole sheets, and,
still less, large volumes as many pretend.]
That experiments might be made by Gutemberg with wooden types I can
believe, though I have not been able to find any sufficient authority
for the fact. Of the possibility of cutting moveable types of a certain
size in wood, and of printing a book with them, I am convinced from
experiment; and could convince others, were it worth the expense, by
printing a fac-simile, from wooden types, of any page of any book which
is of an earlier date than 1462. But, though convinced of the
possibility of printing small works in letters of a certain size, with
wooden types, I have never seen any early specimens of typography which
contained positive and indisputable indications of having been printed
in that manner. It was, until of late, confidently asserted by persons
who pretended to have a competent knowledge of the subject, that the
text of the celebrated Adventures of Theurdank, printed in 1517, had
been engraved on wood-blocks, and their statement was generally
believed. There cannot, however, now be a doubt in the mind of any
person who examines the book, and who has the slightest knowledge of
wood engraving and printing, of the text being printed with metal types.
During the partnership of Gutemberg and Faust it is likely that they
printed some works, though there is scarcely one which can be assigned
to them with any degree of certainty. One of the supposed earliest
productions of typography is a letter of indulgence conceded on the 12th
of August, 1451, by Pope Nicholas V, to Paulin Zappe, counsellor and
ambassador of John, King of Cyprus. It was to be in force for three
years from the 1st of May, 1452, and it granted indulgence to all
persons who within that period should contribute towards the defence of
Cyprus against the Turks. Four copies of this indulgence are known,
printed on vellum in the manner of a patent or brief. The characters are
of a larger size than those of the “Durandi Rationale,” 1459, or of the
Latin Bible printed by Faust and Scheffer in 1462. The following date
appears at the conclusion of one of the copies: “Datum _Erffurdie_ sub
anno Domini m cccc liiij, die vero _quinta decima_ mensis _novembris_.”
The words which are here printed in Italic, are in the original written
with a pen. A copy of the same indulgence discovered by Professor
Gebhardi is more complete. It has at the end, a “_Forma plenissimæ
absolutionis et remissionis in vita et in mortis articulo_,”--a form of
plenary absolution and remission in life and at the point of death. At
the conclusion is the following date, the words in Italics being
inserted with a pen: “Datum in _Luneborch_ anno Domini m cccc l
_quinto_, die vero _vicesima sexta_ mensis _Januarii_.” Heineken, who
saw this copy in the possession of Breitkopf, has observed that in the
original date, m cccc liiij, the last four characters had been effaced
and the word _quinto_ written with a pen; but yet in such a manner that
the numerals iiij might still be perceived. In two copies of this
indulgence in the possession of Earl Spencer, described by Dr. Dibdin in
the Bibliotheca Spenceriana, vol. i. p. 44, the final units (iiij) have
not had the word “quinto” overwritten, but have been formed with a pen
into the numeral V. In the catalogue of Dr. Kloss’s library, No. 1287,
it is stated that a fragment of a “Donatus” there described, consisting
of two leaves of parchment, is printed with the same type as the
Mazarine Bible; and it is added, on the authority of George Appleyard,
Esq., Earl Spencer’s librarian, that the “Littera Indulgentiæ” of Pope
Nicholas V, in his lordship’s possession, contains two lines printed
with the same type. Breitkopf had some doubts respecting this
instrument; but a writer in the Jena Literary Gazette is certainly wrong
in supposing that it had been ante-dated ten years. It was only to be in
force for three years; and Pope Nicholas V, by whom it was granted, died
on the 24th March, 1455.[III-37] Two words, UNIVERSIS and PAULINUS,
which are printed in capitals in the first two lines, are said to be of
the same type as those of a Bible of which Schelhorn has given a
specimen in his “Dissertation on an early Edition of the Bible,” Ulm,
1760.
[Footnote III-37: Oberlin, Essai d’Annales de la Vie de
Gutenberg.]
The next earliest specimen of typography with a date is the tract
entitled “_Eyn Manung der Cristenkeit widder die durken_,”--An Appeal to
Christendom against the Turks,--which has been alluded to at page 136.
A lithographic fac-simile of the whole of this tract, which consists of
nine printed pages of a quarto size, is given by Aretin at the end of
his “Essay on the earliest historical results of the invention of
Printing,” published at Munich in 1808. This “Appeal” is in German
rhyme, and it consists of exhortations, arranged under every month in
the manner of a calendar, addressed to the pope, the emperor, to kings,
princes, bishops, and free states, encouraging them to take up arms and
resist the Turks. The exhortation for January is addressed to Pope
Nicholas V, who died, as has been observed, in March 1455. Towards the
conclusion of the prologue is the date “_Als man zelet noch din’ geburt
offenbar m.cccc.lv. iar sieben wochen und iiii do by von nativitatis bis
esto michi_.” At the conclusion of the exhortation for December are the
following words: “Eyn gut selig nuwe Jar:” A happy new year! From these
circumstances Aretin is of opinion that the tract was printed towards
the end of 1454. M. Bernhart, however, one of the superintendents of the
Royal Library at Munich, of which Aretin was the principal director, has
questioned the accuracy of this date; and from certain allusions in the
exhortation for December, has endeavoured to show that the correct date
ought to be 1472.[III-38]
[Footnote III-38: Dr. Dibdin, Bibliog. Tour, vol iii. p. 135,
second edition.]
Fischer in looking over some old papers discovered a calendar of a folio
size, and printed on one side only, for 1457. The letters, according to
his description, resemble those of a Donatus, of which he has given
a specimen in the third part of his Typographic Rarities, and he
supposes that both the Donatus and the Calendar were printed by
Gutemberg.[III-39] It is, however, certain that the Donatus which
he ascribed to Gutemberg was printed by Peter Scheffer, and in all
probability after Faust’s death; and from the similarity of the type it
is likely that the Calendar was printed at the same office. Fischer,
having observed that the large ornamental capitals of this Donatus were
the same as those in the Psalter printed by Faust and Scheffer in 1457,
was led most erroneously to conclude that the large ornamental letters
of the Psalter, which were most likely of wood, had been cut by
Gutemberg. The discovery of a Donatus with Peter Scheffer’s imprint has
completely destroyed his conjectures, and invalidated the arguments
advanced by him in favour of the Mazarine Bible being printed by
Gutemberg alone.
[Footnote III-39: Gotthelf Fischer, Notice du premier livre
imprimé avec date. 4to. Mayence, An xi. Typographisch. Seltenheit.
6te. Lieferung, S. 25. 8vo. Nürnberg, 1804. When Fischer published
his account of the Calendar, Aretin had not discovered the tract
entitled “_Eyn Manung der Cristenheit widder die durken_.”]
As Trithemius and the compiler of the Cologne Chronicle have mentioned a
Bible as one of the first books printed by Gutemberg and Faust, it has
been a fertile subject of discussion among bibliographers to ascertain
the identical edition to which the honour was to be awarded. It seems,
however, to be now generally admitted that the edition called the
Mazarine[III-40] is the best entitled to that distinction. In 1789
Maugerard produced a copy of this edition to the Academy of Metz,
containing memoranda which seem clearly to prove that it was printed at
least as early as August 1456. As the partnership between Gutemberg and
Faust was only dissolved in November 1455, it is almost impossible that
such could have been printed by either of them separately in the space
of eight months; and as there seems no reason to believe that any other
typographical establishment existed at that period, it is most likely
that this was the identical edition alluded to by Trithemius as having
cost 4,000 florins before the partners, Gutemberg and Faust, had
finished the third quaternion, or quire of four sheets.
[Footnote III-40: It is called the Mazarine Bible in consequence
of the first known copy being discovered in the library formed by
Cardinal Mazarine. Dr. Dibdin, in his Bibliographical Tour, vol.
ii. p. 191, mentions having seen not fewer than ten or twelve
copies of this edition, which he says must not be designated as
“of the very first degree of rarity.” An edition of the Bible,
supposed to have been printed at Bamberg by Albert Pfister about
1461, is much more scarce.]