Beforeproceeding 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.119Meerman, 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.1he 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 menschelycDie goede vedelare Lodewyc;Die de beste was die voor dienIn de werelt ye was ghesienVan makene ende metter hant;Van Vaelbeke in BrabantAlsoe was hy ghenant.Hy was d’erste die vantVan Stampien die manierenDiemen noch hoert antieren.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 wentLudwig, the fidler most excellent;For handy-work a man of name;From Vaelbeke in Brabant he came.120He was the first who did find outThe art of beating time, no doubt,(Displaying thus his meikleskill,)And fidlers all practise it still.III.2The 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.3In 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.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 līboſtmp̄toī 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 ſtm̄p̄to, 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,”—121“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 beenprinted, if I may here use the term, by means of friction. Although there is no mention of apresswhich 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.4Whether 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 beingPrinters, 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 and122images 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.5In 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.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.6however, has most clearly shown, from the same chronicle, that the actual testimony of Ulric Zell is directly in opposition123to 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.7named 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 certainfanciful peoplewho say that books were printed before; butthis is not true;forin no country are books to be found printed before that time.”III.8That “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.9printed from wood-blocks. In the petition of Conrad Sweinheim and Arnold Pannartz, two Germans, who first established124a 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, “Donatipro puerulis, undeIMPRIMENDI INITIUMsumpsimus;” 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.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.10It 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.11When Gutemberg called himself der Junge, or junior, it was doubtless to distinguish himself from Gænsfleischder 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 of125St. 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.12Anthony à Wood, in his History of the University of Oxford, calls him Tossanus; and Chevillier, in his Origine de l’Imprimerie de Paris, Toussaints. SeizIII.13is 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.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.14In 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.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.15for 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.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 depositions126of 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.16To 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 one127hundred 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.17From 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. FournierIII.18thinks 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 “fourpieces” 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.Hans Schultheis, a dealer in wood, and Ann his wife, depose to the following effect: After the death of Andrew Drytzehn, Gutemberg’s128servant, 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.19Conrad 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, andas you made the pressand know all about it, go and take thepiecesIII.20out 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 DayIII.21he found that the work was removed.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.22The same witness also states that he was well aware of many people being wishful129to see the press, and that Gutemberg had desired that they should send some person to prevent its being seen.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.23As 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 apressand ofprinting, 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 ofleadbeing 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 distinction130between 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.24who 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.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.25It is, however, to be remarked that the passages cited by Schœpflin, and referred to by Oberlin,131by 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.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 theCatholicon, from letters cut on blocks of wood.132These 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 themmatrices, 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 thirdquaternion[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.26As 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 ipsimatricesnominabant, 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.271. That the “subtiliora,”—more subtle contrivances, mentionedbeforethe invention of casting moveable letters, may relate to the cutting133of 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.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.28sought 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.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.29From 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’s134neglecting 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.30In 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.31It 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.32The 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 on1356th November, 1455.III.33It would appear that Gutemberg not being able to repay the money was obliged to relinquish the printing materials to Faust.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,” andvice 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.34Whatever 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.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 ofVincentii Bellovacensis Speculum Historialein 1473, were printed with moveable types of wood. It is, however, doubtful if ever a single book was printed in this manner.136Willett 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.35Lambinet 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.36who 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.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, by137printing 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: “DatumErffurdiesub anno Domini m cccc liiij, die veroquinta decimamensisnovembris.” 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 inLuneborchanno Domini m cccc lquinto, die verovicesima sextamensisJanuarii.” 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 wordquintowritten 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 printed138with 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.37Two words,UNIVERSISandPAULINUS, 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.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.38Fischer 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.39139It 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.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 MazarineIII.40is 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.The copy produced by Maugerard is printed on paper, and is now in the Royal Library at Paris. It is bound in two volumes; and every complete page consists of two columns, each containing forty-two lines. At the conclusion of the first volume the person by whom it was rubricatedIII.41and bound has written the following memorandum: “Et sic est finis prime partis biblie. Scr. Veteris testamenti. Illuminata seu rubricata et illuminata p’ henricum Albeh alius Cremer anno dn’i m.cccc.lvi festo Bartholomei apli—Deo gratias—alleluja.” At the end of the second140volume the same person has written the date in words at length: “Iste liber illuminatus, ligatus & completus est p’ henricum Cremer vicariū ecclesiecollegaturSancti Stephani maguntini sub anno D’ni millesimo quadringentesimo quinquagesimo sexto festo assumptionis gloriose virginis Marie. Deo gracias alleluja.”III.42FischerIII.43says that this last memorandum assigns “einenspäterntag”—a later day—to the end of the rubricator’s work. In this he is mistaken; for the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, when thesecondvolume was finished, is on the 15th of August: while the feast of St. Bartholomew, the day on which he finished thefirst, falls on August 24th. Lambinet,III.44who doubts the genuineness of those inscriptions, makes the circumstance of the second volume being finished nine days before the first, a ground of objection. This seeming inconsistency however can by no means be admitted as a proof of the inscriptions being spurious. It is indeed more likely that the rubricator might actually finish the second volume before the first, than that a modern forger, intent to deceive, should not have been aware of the objection.The genuineness of the inscriptions is, however, confirmed by other evidence which no mere conjecture can invalidate. On the last leaf of this Bible there is a memorandum written by Berthold de Steyna, vicar of the parochial church of “Ville-Ostein,”III.45to the sacrist of which the Bible belonged. The sum of this memorandum is that on St. George’s day [23d April] 1457 there was chaunted, for the first time by the said Berthold, the mass of the holy sacrament. In the Carthusian monastery without the walls of Mentz, SchwartzIII.46says that he saw a copy of this edition, the last leaves of which were torn out; but that in an old catalogue he perceived an entry stating that this Bible was presented to the monastery by Gutemberg and Faust. If the memorandum in the catalogue could be relied on as genuine, it would appear that this Bible had been completed before the dissolution of Gutemberg and Faust’s partnership in November 1455.Although not a single work has been discovered with Gutemberg’s imprint, yet there cannot be a doubt of his having established a press of his own, and printed books at Mentz after the partnership between him and Faust had been dissolved. In the chronicle printed by Philip de Lignamine at Rome in 1474, it is expressly stated, under the year 1458,141that there were then two printers at Mentz skilful in printing on parchment with metal types. The name of one wasCutemberg, and the other Faust; and it was known that each of them could print three hundred sheets in a day.III.47On St. Margaret’s day, 20th July, 1459, Gutemberg, in conjunction with his brother Friele and his cousins John, Friele, and Pederman, executed a deed in favour of the convent of St. Clara at Mentz, in which his sister Hebele was a nun. In this document, which is preserved among the archives of the university of Mentz, there occurs a passage, “which makes it as clear,” says Fischer, who gives the deed entire, “as the finest May-day noon, that Gutemberg had not only printed books at that time, but that he intended to print more.” The passage alluded to is to the following effect: “And with respect to the books which I, the above-named John, have given the library of the said convent, they shall remain for ever in the said library; and I, the above-named John, will furthermore give to the library of the said convent all such books required for pious uses and the service of God,—whether for reading or singing, or for use according to the rules of the order,—as I, the above-named John, have printed or shall hereafter print.”III.48That Gutemberg had a press of his own is further confirmed by a bond or deed of obligation executed by Dr. Conrad Homery on the Friday after St. Matthias’ day, 1468, wherein he acknowledges having received “certain forms, letters, utensils, materials, and other things belonging to printing,” left by John Gutemberg deceased; and he binds himself to the archbishop Adolphus not to use them beyond the territory of Mentz, and in the event of his selling them to give a preference to a person belonging to that city.The words translated “certain forms, letters, utensils, materials, and other things belonging to printing,” in the preceding paragraph, are in the original enumerated as: “etliche formen,buchstaben,instrument,gezuge und anders zu truckwerck gehoerende.” As there is a distinction made between “formen” and “buchstaben,”—literally, “forms” and “letters,”—Schwartz is inclined to think that by “formen” engraved wood-blocks might be meant, and he adduces in favour of his opinion the word “formen-schneider,” the old German name for a wood-engraver. One or more pages of type when wedged into a rectangular iron frame called a “chase,” and ready for the press, is termed a “form” both by English and German printers; but Schwartz thinks that such were not the “forms”142mentioned in the document. As there appears to be a distinction also between “instrument” and “gezuge,”—translated utensils and materials,—he supposes that the latter word may be used to signify the metal of which the types were formed. He observes that German printers call their old worn-out types “der Zeug”—literally, “stuff,” and that the mixed metal of which types are composed is also known as “der Zeug, oder Metall.”III.49It is to be remembered that the earliest printers were also their own letter-founders.The work called the Catholicon, compiled by Johannes de Balbis, Januensis, a Dominican, which appeared in 1460 without the printer’s name, has been ascribed to Gutemberg’s press by some of the most eminent German bibliographers. It is a Latin dictionary and introduction to grammar, and consists of three hundred and seventy-three leaves of large folio size. Fischer and others are of opinion that a Vocabulary, printed at Elfeld,—in Latin, Altavilla,—near Mentz, on 6th November, 1467, was executed with the same types. At the end of this work, which is a quarto of one hundred and sixty-five leaves, it is stated to have been begun by Henry Bechtermuntze, and finished by his brother Nicholas, and Wigand Spyess de Orthenberg.III.50A second edition of the same work, printed by Nicholas Bechtermuntze, appeared in 1469. The following extract from a letter written by Fischer to Professor Zapf in 1803, contains an account of his researches respecting the Catholicon and Vocabulary: “The frankness with which you retracted your former opinions respecting the printer of the Catholicon of 1460, and agreed with me in assigning it to Gutemberg, demands the respect of every unbiassed inquirer. I beg now merely to mention to you a discovery that I have made which no longer leaves it difficult to conceive how the Catholicon types should have come into the hands of Bechtermuntze. From a monument which stands before the high altar of the church of Elfeld it is evident that the family of Sorgenloch, of which that of Gutemberg or Gænsfleisch was a branch, was connected with the family of Bechtermuntze by marriage. The types used by Bechtermuntze were not only similar to those formerly belonging to Gutemberg, but were the very same, as I always maintained, appealing to the principles of the type-founder’s art. They had come into the possession of Bechtermuntze by inheritance, on the death of Gutemberg, and hence Dr. Homery’s reclamation.”III.51143Zapf, to whom Fischer’s letter is addressed, had previously communicated to Oberlin his opinion that the types of the Catholicon were the same as those of anAugustinus de Vita Christiana, 4to, without date or printer’s name, but having at the end the arms of Faust and Scheffer. In his account, printed at Nuremberg, 1803, of an early edition of “Joannis de Turre-cremata explanatio in Psalterium,” he acknowledged that he was mistaken; thus agreeing with Schwartz, Meerman, Panzer, and Fischer, that no book known to be printed by Faust and Scheffer is printed with the same types as the Catholicon and the Vocabulary.Although there can be little doubt of the Catholicon and the Elfeld Vocabulary being printed with the same types, and of the former being printed by Gutemberg, yet it is far from certain that Bechtermuntze inherited Gutemberg’s printing materials, even though he might be a relation. It is as likely that Gutemberg might sell to the brothers a portion of his materials and still retain enough for himself. If they came into their possession by inheritance, which is not likely, Gutemberg must have died some months previous to 4th November, 1467, the day on which Nicholas Bechtermuntze and Wygand Spyess finished the printing of the Vocabulary. If the materials had been purchased by Bechtermuntze in Gutemberg’s lifetime, which seems to be the most reasonable supposition, Conrad Homery could have no claim upon them on account of money advanced to Gutemberg, and consequently the types and printing materials which after his death came into Homery’s possession, could not be those employed by the brothers Bechtermuntze in their establishment at Elfeld.III.52By letters patent, dated at Elfeld on St. Anthony’s day, 1465, Adolphus, archbishop and elector of Mentz, appointed Gutemberg one of his courtiers, with the same allowance of clothing as the rest of the nobles attending his court, with other privileges and exemptions. From this period Fischer thinks that Gutemberg no longer occupied himself with business as a printer, and that he transferred his printing materials to Henry Bechtermuntze. “If Wimpheling’s account be true,” says Fischer, “that Gutemberg became blind in his old age, we need no longer be surprised that during his lifetime his types and utensils should come into144the possession of Bechtermuntze.” The exact period of Gutemberg’s decease has not been ascertained, but in the bond or deed of obligation executed by Doctor Conrad Homery the Friday after St. Matthias’s day,III.531468, he is mentioned as being then dead. He was interred at Mentz in the church of the Recollets, and the following epitaph was composed by his relation, Adam Gelthaus:III.54“D. O. M. S.“Joanni Genszfleisch, artis impressoriæ repertori, de omni natione et lingua optime merito, in nominis sui memoriam immortalem Adam Gelthaus posuit. Ossa ejus in ecclesia D. Francisci Moguntina feliciter cubant.”From the last sentence it is probable that this epitaph was not placed in the church wherein Gutemberg was interred. The following inscription was composed by Ivo Wittich, professor of law and member of the imperial chamber at Mentz:“Jo. Guttenbergensi, Moguntino, qui primus omnium literas ære imprimendas invenit, hac arte de orbe toto bene merenti Ivo Witigisis hoc saxum pro monimento posuitM.D.VII.”This inscription, according to Serarius, who professes to have seen it, and who died in 1609, was placed in front of the school of law at Mentz. This house had formerly belonged to Gutemberg, and was supposed to be the same in which he first commenced printing at Mentz in conjunction with Faust.III.55From the documentary evidence cited in the preceding account of the life of Gutemberg, it will be perceived that the art of printing with moveable types was not perfected as soon as conceived, but that it was a work of time. It is highly probable that Gutemberg was occupied with his invention in 1436; and from the obscure manner in which his “admirable discovery” is alluded to in the process between him and the Drytzehns in 1439, it does not seem likely that he had then proceeded beyond making experiments. In 1449 or 1450, when the sum of 800 florins was advanced by Faust, it appears not unreasonable to suppose that he had so far improved his invention, as to render it practically available without reference to Scheffer’s great improvement in casting the types from matrices formed by punches, which was most likely discovered between 1452 and 1455.III.56About fourteen years must have145elapsed before Gutemberg was enabled to bring his invention into practice. The difficulties which must have attended the first establishment of typography could only have been surmounted by great ingenuity and mechanical knowledge combined with unwearied perseverance. After the mind had conceived the idea of using moveable types, those types, whatever might be the material employed, were yet to be formed, and when completed they were to be arranged in pages, divided by proper spaces, and bound together in some manner which the ingenuity of the inventor was to devise. Nor was his invention complete until he had contrived aPress, by means of which numerous impressions from his types might be perfectly and rapidly obtained.Mr. Ottley, at page 285 of the first volume of his Researches, informs us that “almost all great discoveries have been made by accident;” and at page 196 of the same volume, when speaking of printing as the invention of Lawrence Coster, he mentions it as an “art which had been at first taken up as the amusement of a leisure hour, became improved, and was practised by him as a profitable trade.” Let any unbiassed person enter a printing-office; let him look at the single letters, let him observe them formed into pages, and the pages wedged up in forms; let him see a sheet printed from one of those forms by means of the press; and when he has seen and considered all this, let him ask himself if ever, since the world began, the amusement of an old man practised in his hours of leisure was attended with such a result? “Very few great discoveries,” says Lord Brougham, “have been made by chance and by ignorant persons, much fewer than is generally supposed.—They are generally made by persons of competent knowledge, and who are in search of them.”III.57Having now given some account of the grounds on which Gutemberg’s claims to the invention of typography are founded, it appears necessary to give a brief summary, from the earliest authorities, of the pretensions of Lawrence Coster not only to the same honour, but to something more; for if the earliest account which we have of him be true, he was not only the inventor of typography, but of block-printing also.The first mention of Holland in connexion with the invention of typography occurs in the Cologne Chronicle, printed by John Kœlhoff in 1499, wherein it is said that the first idea of the art was suggested by the Donatuses printed in Holland; it being however expressly stated in146the same work that the art of printing as then practised was invented at Mentz. In a memorandum, which has been referred to at page 123, written by Mariangelus Accursius, who flourished about 1530, the invention of printing with metal types is erroneously ascribed to Faust; and it is further added, that he derived the idea from a Donatus printed in Holland from a wood-block. That a Donatus might be printed there from a wood-block previous to the invention of typography is neither impossible nor improbable; although I esteem the testimony of Accursius of very little value. He was born and resided in Italy, and it is not unlikely, as has been previously observed, that he might derive his information from the Cologne Chronicle.
Beforeproceeding 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.1he 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 menschelycDie goede vedelare Lodewyc;Die de beste was die voor dienIn de werelt ye was ghesienVan makene ende metter hant;Van Vaelbeke in BrabantAlsoe was hy ghenant.Hy was d’erste die vantVan Stampien die manierenDiemen noch hoert antieren.
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.
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 wentLudwig, the fidler most excellent;For handy-work a man of name;From Vaelbeke in Brabant he came.120He was the first who did find outThe art of beating time, no doubt,(Displaying thus his meikleskill,)And fidlers all practise it still.III.2
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 meikleskill,)
And fidlers all practise it still.III.2
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.3In 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.
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 līboſtmp̄toī 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 ſtm̄p̄to, 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,”—121“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 beenprinted, if I may here use the term, by means of friction. Although there is no mention of apresswhich 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
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 beingPrinters, 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 and122images 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.5In 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.
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.6however, has most clearly shown, from the same chronicle, that the actual testimony of Ulric Zell is directly in opposition123to 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.7named 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 certainfanciful peoplewho say that books were printed before; butthis is not true;forin no country are books to be found printed before that time.”III.8
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.9printed from wood-blocks. In the petition of Conrad Sweinheim and Arnold Pannartz, two Germans, who first established124a 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, “Donatipro puerulis, undeIMPRIMENDI INITIUMsumpsimus;” 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.
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.10It 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
When Gutemberg called himself der Junge, or junior, it was doubtless to distinguish himself from Gænsfleischder 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 of125St. 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.12Anthony à Wood, in his History of the University of Oxford, calls him Tossanus; and Chevillier, in his Origine de l’Imprimerie de Paris, Toussaints. SeizIII.13is 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.
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.14In 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.
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.15for 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.
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 depositions126of 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.16To 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 one127hundred 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
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. FournierIII.18thinks 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 “fourpieces” 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.
Hans Schultheis, a dealer in wood, and Ann his wife, depose to the following effect: After the death of Andrew Drytzehn, Gutemberg’s128servant, 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
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, andas you made the pressand know all about it, go and take thepiecesIII.20out 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 DayIII.21he found that the work was removed.
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.22The same witness also states that he was well aware of many people being wishful129to see the press, and that Gutemberg had desired that they should send some person to prevent its being seen.
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
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 apressand ofprinting, 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 ofleadbeing 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 distinction130between 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.24who 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.
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.25It is, however, to be remarked that the passages cited by Schœpflin, and referred to by Oberlin,131by 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.
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 theCatholicon, from letters cut on blocks of wood.132These 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 themmatrices, 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 thirdquaternion[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
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 ipsimatricesnominabant, 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.271. That the “subtiliora,”—more subtle contrivances, mentionedbeforethe invention of casting moveable letters, may relate to the cutting133of 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.
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.28sought 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.
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.29From 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’s134neglecting 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
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.31It 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
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 on1356th November, 1455.III.33It would appear that Gutemberg not being able to repay the money was obliged to relinquish the printing materials to Faust.
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,” andvice 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.34Whatever 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.
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 ofVincentii Bellovacensis Speculum Historialein 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.35Lambinet 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.36who 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.
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, by137printing 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: “DatumErffurdiesub anno Domini m cccc liiij, die veroquinta decimamensisnovembris.” 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 inLuneborchanno Domini m cccc lquinto, die verovicesima sextamensisJanuarii.” 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 wordquintowritten 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 printed138with 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.37Two words,UNIVERSISandPAULINUS, 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.
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
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.39139It 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.
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 MazarineIII.40is 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.
The copy produced by Maugerard is printed on paper, and is now in the Royal Library at Paris. It is bound in two volumes; and every complete page consists of two columns, each containing forty-two lines. At the conclusion of the first volume the person by whom it was rubricatedIII.41and bound has written the following memorandum: “Et sic est finis prime partis biblie. Scr. Veteris testamenti. Illuminata seu rubricata et illuminata p’ henricum Albeh alius Cremer anno dn’i m.cccc.lvi festo Bartholomei apli—Deo gratias—alleluja.” At the end of the second140volume the same person has written the date in words at length: “Iste liber illuminatus, ligatus & completus est p’ henricum Cremer vicariū ecclesiecollegaturSancti Stephani maguntini sub anno D’ni millesimo quadringentesimo quinquagesimo sexto festo assumptionis gloriose virginis Marie. Deo gracias alleluja.”III.42FischerIII.43says that this last memorandum assigns “einenspäterntag”—a later day—to the end of the rubricator’s work. In this he is mistaken; for the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, when thesecondvolume was finished, is on the 15th of August: while the feast of St. Bartholomew, the day on which he finished thefirst, falls on August 24th. Lambinet,III.44who doubts the genuineness of those inscriptions, makes the circumstance of the second volume being finished nine days before the first, a ground of objection. This seeming inconsistency however can by no means be admitted as a proof of the inscriptions being spurious. It is indeed more likely that the rubricator might actually finish the second volume before the first, than that a modern forger, intent to deceive, should not have been aware of the objection.
The genuineness of the inscriptions is, however, confirmed by other evidence which no mere conjecture can invalidate. On the last leaf of this Bible there is a memorandum written by Berthold de Steyna, vicar of the parochial church of “Ville-Ostein,”III.45to the sacrist of which the Bible belonged. The sum of this memorandum is that on St. George’s day [23d April] 1457 there was chaunted, for the first time by the said Berthold, the mass of the holy sacrament. In the Carthusian monastery without the walls of Mentz, SchwartzIII.46says that he saw a copy of this edition, the last leaves of which were torn out; but that in an old catalogue he perceived an entry stating that this Bible was presented to the monastery by Gutemberg and Faust. If the memorandum in the catalogue could be relied on as genuine, it would appear that this Bible had been completed before the dissolution of Gutemberg and Faust’s partnership in November 1455.
Although not a single work has been discovered with Gutemberg’s imprint, yet there cannot be a doubt of his having established a press of his own, and printed books at Mentz after the partnership between him and Faust had been dissolved. In the chronicle printed by Philip de Lignamine at Rome in 1474, it is expressly stated, under the year 1458,141that there were then two printers at Mentz skilful in printing on parchment with metal types. The name of one wasCutemberg, and the other Faust; and it was known that each of them could print three hundred sheets in a day.III.47On St. Margaret’s day, 20th July, 1459, Gutemberg, in conjunction with his brother Friele and his cousins John, Friele, and Pederman, executed a deed in favour of the convent of St. Clara at Mentz, in which his sister Hebele was a nun. In this document, which is preserved among the archives of the university of Mentz, there occurs a passage, “which makes it as clear,” says Fischer, who gives the deed entire, “as the finest May-day noon, that Gutemberg had not only printed books at that time, but that he intended to print more.” The passage alluded to is to the following effect: “And with respect to the books which I, the above-named John, have given the library of the said convent, they shall remain for ever in the said library; and I, the above-named John, will furthermore give to the library of the said convent all such books required for pious uses and the service of God,—whether for reading or singing, or for use according to the rules of the order,—as I, the above-named John, have printed or shall hereafter print.”III.48
That Gutemberg had a press of his own is further confirmed by a bond or deed of obligation executed by Dr. Conrad Homery on the Friday after St. Matthias’ day, 1468, wherein he acknowledges having received “certain forms, letters, utensils, materials, and other things belonging to printing,” left by John Gutemberg deceased; and he binds himself to the archbishop Adolphus not to use them beyond the territory of Mentz, and in the event of his selling them to give a preference to a person belonging to that city.
The words translated “certain forms, letters, utensils, materials, and other things belonging to printing,” in the preceding paragraph, are in the original enumerated as: “etliche formen,buchstaben,instrument,gezuge und anders zu truckwerck gehoerende.” As there is a distinction made between “formen” and “buchstaben,”—literally, “forms” and “letters,”—Schwartz is inclined to think that by “formen” engraved wood-blocks might be meant, and he adduces in favour of his opinion the word “formen-schneider,” the old German name for a wood-engraver. One or more pages of type when wedged into a rectangular iron frame called a “chase,” and ready for the press, is termed a “form” both by English and German printers; but Schwartz thinks that such were not the “forms”142mentioned in the document. As there appears to be a distinction also between “instrument” and “gezuge,”—translated utensils and materials,—he supposes that the latter word may be used to signify the metal of which the types were formed. He observes that German printers call their old worn-out types “der Zeug”—literally, “stuff,” and that the mixed metal of which types are composed is also known as “der Zeug, oder Metall.”III.49It is to be remembered that the earliest printers were also their own letter-founders.
The work called the Catholicon, compiled by Johannes de Balbis, Januensis, a Dominican, which appeared in 1460 without the printer’s name, has been ascribed to Gutemberg’s press by some of the most eminent German bibliographers. It is a Latin dictionary and introduction to grammar, and consists of three hundred and seventy-three leaves of large folio size. Fischer and others are of opinion that a Vocabulary, printed at Elfeld,—in Latin, Altavilla,—near Mentz, on 6th November, 1467, was executed with the same types. At the end of this work, which is a quarto of one hundred and sixty-five leaves, it is stated to have been begun by Henry Bechtermuntze, and finished by his brother Nicholas, and Wigand Spyess de Orthenberg.III.50A second edition of the same work, printed by Nicholas Bechtermuntze, appeared in 1469. The following extract from a letter written by Fischer to Professor Zapf in 1803, contains an account of his researches respecting the Catholicon and Vocabulary: “The frankness with which you retracted your former opinions respecting the printer of the Catholicon of 1460, and agreed with me in assigning it to Gutemberg, demands the respect of every unbiassed inquirer. I beg now merely to mention to you a discovery that I have made which no longer leaves it difficult to conceive how the Catholicon types should have come into the hands of Bechtermuntze. From a monument which stands before the high altar of the church of Elfeld it is evident that the family of Sorgenloch, of which that of Gutemberg or Gænsfleisch was a branch, was connected with the family of Bechtermuntze by marriage. The types used by Bechtermuntze were not only similar to those formerly belonging to Gutemberg, but were the very same, as I always maintained, appealing to the principles of the type-founder’s art. They had come into the possession of Bechtermuntze by inheritance, on the death of Gutemberg, and hence Dr. Homery’s reclamation.”III.51
Zapf, to whom Fischer’s letter is addressed, had previously communicated to Oberlin his opinion that the types of the Catholicon were the same as those of anAugustinus de Vita Christiana, 4to, without date or printer’s name, but having at the end the arms of Faust and Scheffer. In his account, printed at Nuremberg, 1803, of an early edition of “Joannis de Turre-cremata explanatio in Psalterium,” he acknowledged that he was mistaken; thus agreeing with Schwartz, Meerman, Panzer, and Fischer, that no book known to be printed by Faust and Scheffer is printed with the same types as the Catholicon and the Vocabulary.
Although there can be little doubt of the Catholicon and the Elfeld Vocabulary being printed with the same types, and of the former being printed by Gutemberg, yet it is far from certain that Bechtermuntze inherited Gutemberg’s printing materials, even though he might be a relation. It is as likely that Gutemberg might sell to the brothers a portion of his materials and still retain enough for himself. If they came into their possession by inheritance, which is not likely, Gutemberg must have died some months previous to 4th November, 1467, the day on which Nicholas Bechtermuntze and Wygand Spyess finished the printing of the Vocabulary. If the materials had been purchased by Bechtermuntze in Gutemberg’s lifetime, which seems to be the most reasonable supposition, Conrad Homery could have no claim upon them on account of money advanced to Gutemberg, and consequently the types and printing materials which after his death came into Homery’s possession, could not be those employed by the brothers Bechtermuntze in their establishment at Elfeld.III.52
By letters patent, dated at Elfeld on St. Anthony’s day, 1465, Adolphus, archbishop and elector of Mentz, appointed Gutemberg one of his courtiers, with the same allowance of clothing as the rest of the nobles attending his court, with other privileges and exemptions. From this period Fischer thinks that Gutemberg no longer occupied himself with business as a printer, and that he transferred his printing materials to Henry Bechtermuntze. “If Wimpheling’s account be true,” says Fischer, “that Gutemberg became blind in his old age, we need no longer be surprised that during his lifetime his types and utensils should come into144the possession of Bechtermuntze.” The exact period of Gutemberg’s decease has not been ascertained, but in the bond or deed of obligation executed by Doctor Conrad Homery the Friday after St. Matthias’s day,III.531468, he is mentioned as being then dead. He was interred at Mentz in the church of the Recollets, and the following epitaph was composed by his relation, Adam Gelthaus:III.54
“D. O. M. S.
“Joanni Genszfleisch, artis impressoriæ repertori, de omni natione et lingua optime merito, in nominis sui memoriam immortalem Adam Gelthaus posuit. Ossa ejus in ecclesia D. Francisci Moguntina feliciter cubant.”
From the last sentence it is probable that this epitaph was not placed in the church wherein Gutemberg was interred. The following inscription was composed by Ivo Wittich, professor of law and member of the imperial chamber at Mentz:
“Jo. Guttenbergensi, Moguntino, qui primus omnium literas ære imprimendas invenit, hac arte de orbe toto bene merenti Ivo Witigisis hoc saxum pro monimento posuitM.D.VII.”
This inscription, according to Serarius, who professes to have seen it, and who died in 1609, was placed in front of the school of law at Mentz. This house had formerly belonged to Gutemberg, and was supposed to be the same in which he first commenced printing at Mentz in conjunction with Faust.III.55
From the documentary evidence cited in the preceding account of the life of Gutemberg, it will be perceived that the art of printing with moveable types was not perfected as soon as conceived, but that it was a work of time. It is highly probable that Gutemberg was occupied with his invention in 1436; and from the obscure manner in which his “admirable discovery” is alluded to in the process between him and the Drytzehns in 1439, it does not seem likely that he had then proceeded beyond making experiments. In 1449 or 1450, when the sum of 800 florins was advanced by Faust, it appears not unreasonable to suppose that he had so far improved his invention, as to render it practically available without reference to Scheffer’s great improvement in casting the types from matrices formed by punches, which was most likely discovered between 1452 and 1455.III.56About fourteen years must have145elapsed before Gutemberg was enabled to bring his invention into practice. The difficulties which must have attended the first establishment of typography could only have been surmounted by great ingenuity and mechanical knowledge combined with unwearied perseverance. After the mind had conceived the idea of using moveable types, those types, whatever might be the material employed, were yet to be formed, and when completed they were to be arranged in pages, divided by proper spaces, and bound together in some manner which the ingenuity of the inventor was to devise. Nor was his invention complete until he had contrived aPress, by means of which numerous impressions from his types might be perfectly and rapidly obtained.
Mr. Ottley, at page 285 of the first volume of his Researches, informs us that “almost all great discoveries have been made by accident;” and at page 196 of the same volume, when speaking of printing as the invention of Lawrence Coster, he mentions it as an “art which had been at first taken up as the amusement of a leisure hour, became improved, and was practised by him as a profitable trade.” Let any unbiassed person enter a printing-office; let him look at the single letters, let him observe them formed into pages, and the pages wedged up in forms; let him see a sheet printed from one of those forms by means of the press; and when he has seen and considered all this, let him ask himself if ever, since the world began, the amusement of an old man practised in his hours of leisure was attended with such a result? “Very few great discoveries,” says Lord Brougham, “have been made by chance and by ignorant persons, much fewer than is generally supposed.—They are generally made by persons of competent knowledge, and who are in search of them.”III.57
Having now given some account of the grounds on which Gutemberg’s claims to the invention of typography are founded, it appears necessary to give a brief summary, from the earliest authorities, of the pretensions of Lawrence Coster not only to the same honour, but to something more; for if the earliest account which we have of him be true, he was not only the inventor of typography, but of block-printing also.
The first mention of Holland in connexion with the invention of typography occurs in the Cologne Chronicle, printed by John Kœlhoff in 1499, wherein it is said that the first idea of the art was suggested by the Donatuses printed in Holland; it being however expressly stated in146the same work that the art of printing as then practised was invented at Mentz. In a memorandum, which has been referred to at page 123, written by Mariangelus Accursius, who flourished about 1530, the invention of printing with metal types is erroneously ascribed to Faust; and it is further added, that he derived the idea from a Donatus printed in Holland from a wood-block. That a Donatus might be printed there from a wood-block previous to the invention of typography is neither impossible nor improbable; although I esteem the testimony of Accursius of very little value. He was born and resided in Italy, and it is not unlikely, as has been previously observed, that he might derive his information from the Cologne Chronicle.