Chapter III: Invention of Typography (1)

The Discovery of Desroches. -- The Stamping of Lodewyc Van Vaelbeke.
-- Early “Prenters” of Antwerp and Bruges Not Typographers. --
Cologne Chronicle. -- Donatuses Printed in Holland. -- Gutemberg’s
Birth and Family -- Progress of his Invention -- His Law-Suit with
the Drytzehns at Strasburg -- His Return to Mentz, and Partnership
with Faust -- Partnership Dissolved. -- Possibility of Printing with
Wooden Types Examined. -- Supposed Early Productions of Gutemberg
and Faust’s Press. -- Proofs of Gutemberg Having a Press of his Own.
-- The Vocabulary Printed at Elfeld. -- Gutemberg’s Death and
Epitaphs. -- Invention of Printing Claimed for Lawrence Coster. --
The Account Given by Junius -- Contradicted, Altered, and Amended at
Will by Meerman, Koning, and Others. -- Works Pretended to be
Printed with Coster’s Types. -- The Horarium Discovered by
Enschedius.

Before proceeding to trace the progress of wood engraving in connexion with typography, it appears necessary to give some account of the invention of the latter art. In the following brief narrative of Gutemberg’s life, I shall adhere to positive facts; and until evidence equally good shall be produced in support of another’s claim to the invention, I shall consider him as the father of typography. I shall also give Hadrian Junius’s account of the invention of wood engraving, block-printing, and typography by Lawrence Coster, with a few remarks on its credibility. Some of the conjectures and assertions of Meerman, Koning, and other advocates of Coster, will be briefly noticed, and their inconsistency pointed out. To attempt to refute at length the gratuitous assumptions of Coster’s advocates, and to enter into a detail of all their groundless arguments, would be like proving a medal to be a forgery by a long dissertation, when the modern fabricator has plainly put his name in the legend. The best proof of the fallacy of Coster’s claims to the honour of having discovered the art of printing with moveable types is to be found in the arguments of those by whom they have been supported.

Meerman, with all his research, has not been able to produce a single fact to prove that Lawrence Coster, or Lawrence Janszoon as he calls him, ever printed a single book; and it is by no means certain that his hero is the identical Lawrence Coster mentioned by Junius. In order to suit his own theory he has questioned the accuracy of the statements of Junius, and has thus weakened the very foundation of Coster’s claims. The title of the custos of St. Bavon’s to the honour of being the inventor of typography must rest upon the authenticity of the account given by Junius; and how far this corresponds with established facts in the history of wood engraving and typography I leave others to decide for themselves.

Among the many fancied discoveries of the real inventor of the art of printing, that of Monsieur Desroches, a member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and Belles Lettres at Brussels, seems to require an especial notice. In a paper printed in the transactions of that society,[III-1] he endeavoured to prove, that the art of printing books was practised in Flanders about the beginning of the fourteenth century; and one of the principal grounds of his opinion was contained in an old chronicle of Brabant, written, as is supposed, by one Nicholas le Clerk, [Clericus,] secretary to the city of Antwerp. The chronicler, after having described several remarkable events which happened during the government of John II. Duke of Brabant, who died in 1312, adds the following lines:

In dieser tyt sterf menschelyc
Die goede vedelare Lodewyc;
Die de beste was die voor dien
In de werelt ye was ghesien
Van makene ende metter hant;
Van Vaelbeke in Brabant
Alsoe was hy ghenant.
Hy was d’erste die vant
Van Stampien die manieren
Diemen noch hoert antieren.

[Footnote III-1: Nouvelles Recherches sur l’origine de
l’Imprimerie, dans lesquelles on fait voir que la première idée
est due aux Brabançons. Par M. Desroches. Lu à la séance du 8
Janvier, 1777.--Mémoires de l’Academie Impériale des Sciences et
Belles Lettres, tom. i. pp. 523-547. Edit 1780.]

This curious record, which Monsieur Desroches considered as so plain a proof of “die goede vedelare Lodewyc” being the inventor of printing, may be translated in English as follows:

This year the way of all flesh went
Ludwig, the fidler most excellent;
For handy-work a man of name;
From Vaelbeke in Brabant he came.
He was the first who did find out
The art of beating time, no doubt,
(Displaying thus his meikle skill,)
And fidlers all practise it still.[III-2]

[Footnote III-2: The following is the French translation of
Monsieur Desroches: “En ces temps mourut de la mort commune à tous
les hommes, Louis _cet excellent faiseur d’instrumens de musique_,
le meilleur artist qu’on eut vû jusques-là dans l’univers, en fait
d’ouvrages mechaniques. Il étoit de Vaelbeke en Brabant, et il en
porta le nom. Il fut le premier qui inventa la manière d’imprimer,
qui est presentement en usage.” The reason of Monsieur Desroches
for his periphrasis of the simple word “vedelare”--fidler--is as
follows: “J’ai rendu _Vedelare_ par ‘faiseur d’instrumens de
musique.’ Le mot radical _est vedel_, violin: par consequent,
_Vedelare_ doit signifier celui qui en joue, ou qui en fait. Je me
suis determiné pour le dernier à cause des vers suivans, où il
n’est point question de jouer mais de faire. Si l’on préfère le
premier, je ne m’y opposerai pas; rien empêche que ce habile homme
n’ait été musicien.”--Mem. de l’Acad. de Brux. tom. i. p. 536.]

The laughable mistake of Monsieur Desroches in supposing that fidler Ludwig’s invention, of beating time by stamping with the foot, related to the discovery of printing by means of the press, was pointed out in 1779 by Monsieur Ghesquiere in a letter printed in the Esprit des Journaux.[III-3] In this letter Monsieur Ghesquiere shows that the Flemish word “Stampien,” used by the chronicler in his account of the invention of the “good fidler Ludwig,” had not a meaning similar to that of the word “stampus” explained by Ducange, but that it properly signified “met de voet kleppen,”--to stamp or beat with the feet.

[Footnote III-3: Lettre de M. J. G[hesquiere] à M. l’Abbé
Turberville Needham, directeur de l’Academie Impériale et Royale
de Bruxelles.--Printed in l’Esprit des Journaux for June 1779, pp.
232-260.]

In support of his opinion of the antiquity of printing, Monsieur Desroches refers to a manuscript in his possession, consisting of lives of the saints and a chronicle written in the fourteenth century. At the end of this manuscript was a catalogue of the books belonging to the monastery of Wiblingen, the writing of which was much abbreviated, and which appeared to him to be of the following century. Among other entries in the catalogue was this: “(It.) dōicali īpv̄o līb^o ſtmp̄^to ī bappiro nō s͞crpō.” On supplying the letters wanting Monsieur Desroches says that we shall have the following words: “Item. Dominicalia in parvo libro stampato in bappiro [papyro,] non scripto;” that is, “Item. Dominicals [a form of prayer or portion of church service] in a small book printed [or stamped] on paper, not written.” In the abbreviated word ſtm̄p̄^to, he says that the letter m could not very well be distinguished; but the doubt which might thus arise he considers to be completely resolved by the words “_non scripto_,” and by the following memorandum which occurs, in the same hand-writing, at the foot of the page: “Anno Dñi 1340 viguit q̄ fēt stāpā Dñatos,”-- “In 1340 he flourished who caused Donatuses to be printed.” If the catalogue were really of the period supposed by Monsieur Desroches, the preceding extracts would certainly prove that the art of printing or stamping books, though not from moveable types, was practised in the fourteenth century; but, as the date has not been ascertained, its contents cannot be admitted as evidence on the point in dispute. Monsieur Ghesquiere is inclined to think that the catalogue was not written before 1470; and, as the compiler was evidently an ignorant person, he thinks that in the note, “Anno Domini 1340 viguit qui fecit stampare Donatos,” he might have written 1340 instead of 1440.

Although it has been asserted that the wood-cut of St. Christopher with the date 1423, and the wood-cut of the Annunciation--probably of the same period--were printed by means of a press, yet I consider it exceedingly doubtful if the press were employed to take impressions from wood-blocks before Gutemberg used it in his earliest recorded attempts to print with moveable types. I believe that in every one of the early block-books, where opportunity has been afforded of examining the back of each cut, unquestionable evidence has been discovered of their having been _printed_, if I may here use the term, by means of friction. Although there is no mention of a _press_ which might be used to take impressions before the process between Gutemberg and the heirs of one of his partners, in 1439, yet “Prenters” were certainly known in Antwerp before his invention of printing with moveable types was brought to perfection. Desroches in his Essay on the Invention of Printing gives an extract from an order of the magistracy of Antwerp, in the year 1442, in favour of the fellowship or guild of St. Luke, called also the Company of Painters, which consisted of Painters, Statuaries, Stone-cutters, Glass-makers, Illuminators, and “_Prenters_”. This fellowship was doubtless similar to that of Venice, in whose favour a decree was made by the magistracy of that city in 1441, and of which some account has been given, at page 43, in the preceding chapter. There is evidence of a similar fellowship existing at Bruges in 1454; and John Mentelin, who afterwards established himself at Strasburg as a typographer or printer proper, was admitted a member of the Painters’ Company of that city as a “Chrysographus” or illuminator in 1447.[III-4]

[Footnote III-4: Lichtenberger, Initia Typographica, § De
Prenteris ante inventam Typographiam, p. 140.--Lambinet,
Recherches sur l’Origine de l’Imprimerie, p. 115.]

Whether the “Prenters” of Antwerp in 1442 were acquainted with the use of the press, or not, is uncertain; but there can be little doubt of their not being _Printers_, as the word is now generally understood; that is, persons who printed books with moveable types. They were most likely block-printers, and such as engraved and printed cards and images of saints; and it would seem that typographers were not admitted members of the society; for of all the early typographers of Antwerp the name of one only, Mathias Van der Goes, appears in the books of the fellowship of St. Luke; and he perhaps may have been admitted as a wood-engraver, on account of the cuts in an herbal printed with his types, without date, but probably between 1485 and 1490.

Ghesquiere, who successfully refuted the opinion of Desroches that typography was known at Antwerp in 1442, was himself induced to suppose that it was practised at Bruges in 1445, and that printed books were then neither very scarce nor very dear in that city.[III-5] In an old manuscript journal or memorandum book of Jean-le-Robèrt, abbot of St. Aubert in the diocese of Cambray, he observed an entry stating that the said abbot had purchased at Bruges, in January 1446, a “_Doctrinale gette en mole_” for the use of his nephew. The words “gette en mole” he conceives to mean, “printed in type;” and he thinks that the Doctrinale mentioned was the work which was subsequently printed at Geneva, in 1478, under the title of Le Doctrinal de Sapience, and at Westminster by Caxton, in 1489, under the title of The Doctrinal of Sapyence. The Abbé Mercier de St. Leger, who wrote a reply to the observations of Ghesquiere, with greater probability supposes that the book was printed from engraved wood-blocks, and that it was the “Doctrinale Alexandri Galli,” a short grammatical treatise in monkish rhyme, which at that period was almost as popular as the “Donatus,” and of which odd leaves, printed on both sides, are still to be seen in libraries which are rich in early specimens of printing.

[Footnote III-5: Reflexions sur deux pièces relatives à l’Hist. de
l’Imprimerie. Nivelles, 1780.--Lambinet, Recherches, p. 394.]

Although there is every reason to believe that the early Printers of Antwerp and Bruges were not acquainted with the use of moveable types, yet the mention of such persons at so early a period, and the notice of the makers “of cards and printed figures” at Venice in 1441, sufficiently declare that, though wood engraving might be first established as a profession in Suabia, it was known, and practised to a considerable extent, in other countries previous to 1450.

The Cologne Chronicle, which was printed in 1499, has been most unfairly quoted by the advocates of Coster in support of their assertions; and the passage which appeared most to favour their argument they have ascribed to Ulric Zell, the first person who established a press at Cologne. A shrewd German,[III-6] however, has most clearly shown, from the same chronicle, that the actual testimony of Ulric Zell is directly in opposition to the claims advanced by the advocates of Coster. The passage on which they rely is to the following effect: “Item: although the art [of printing] as it is now commonly practised, was discovered at Mentz, yet the first conception of it was discovered in Holland from the Donatuses, which before that time were printed there.” This we are given to understand by Meerman and Koning is the statement of Ulric Zell. A little further on, however, the Chronicler, who in the above passage appears to have been speaking in his own person from popular report, thus proceeds: “But the first inventor of printing was a citizen of Mentz, though born at Strasburg,[III-7] named John Gutemberg: Item: from Mentz the above-named art first came to Cologne, afterwards to Strasburg, and then to Venice. This account of the commencement and progress of the said art was communicated to me by word of mouth by that worthy person Master Ulric Zell of Hanau, at the present time [1499] a printer in Cologne, through whom the said art was brought to Cologne.” At this point the advocates of Coster stop, as the very next sentence deprives them of any advantage which they might hope to gain from the “impartial testimony of the Cologne Chronicle,” the compiler of which proceeds as follows: “Item: there are certain _fanciful people_ who say that books were printed before; but _this is not true_; for in no country are books to be found printed before that time.”[III-8]

[Footnote III-6: Friedrich Lehne, Einige Bemerkungen über das
Unternehmen der gelehrten Gesellschaft zu Harlem, ihrer Stadt die
Ehre der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst zu ertrotzen, S. 24-26.
Zweite Ausgabe, Mainz. 1825.]

[Footnote III-7: This is a mistake into which the compiler of the
chronicle printed at Rome, 1474, by Philippus de Lignamine, has
also fallen. Gutemberg was not a native of Strasburg, but of
Mentz.]

[Footnote III-8: Mallinkrot appears to have been the first who
gave a translation of the entire passage in the Cologne Chronicle
which relates to the invention of printing. His version of the
last sentence is as follows: “Reperiuntur Scioli aliquot qui
dicant, dudum ante hæc tempora typorum ope libros excusos esse,
qui tamen et se et alios decipiunt; nullibi enim terrarum libri eo
tempore impressi reperiuntur.”--De Ortu et Progressu Artis
Typographicæ, p. 38. Colon. Agrippinæ, 1640.]

That “Donatuses” and other small elementary books for the use of schools were printed from wood-blocks previous to the invention of typography there can be little doubt; and it is by no means unlikely that they might be first printed in Holland or in Flanders. At any rate an opinion seems to have been prevalent at an early period that the idea of printing with moveable types was first derived from a “Donatus,”[III-9] printed from wood-blocks. In the petition of Conrad Sweinheim and Arnold Pannartz, two Germans, who first established a press at Rome, addressed to Pope Sixtus IV. in 1472, stating the expense which they had incurred in printing books, and praying for assistance, they mention amongst other works printed by them, “DONATI pro puerulis, unde IMPRIMENDI INITIUM sumpsimus;” that is: “Donatuses for boys, whence we have taken the beginning of printing.” If this passage is to be understood as referring to the origin of typography, and not to the first proofs of their own press, it is the earliest and the best evidence on the point which has been adduced; for it is very likely that both these printers had acquired a knowledge of their art at Mentz in the very office where it was first brought to perfection.

[Footnote III-9: Angelus Rocca mentions having seen a “Donatus” on
parchment, at the commencement of which was written in the hand of
Mariangelus Accursius, who flourished about 1530: “Impressus est
autem hic _Donatus_ et _Confessionalia_ primùm omnium anno MCCCCL.
Admonitus certè fuit ex _Donato_ Hollandiæ, prius impresso in
tabula incisa.”--Bibliotheca Vaticana commentario illustrata,
1591, cited by Prosper Marchand in his Hist. de l’Imprimerie, 2nde
Partie, p. 35. It is likely that Accursius derived his information
about a Donatus being printed in Holland from the Cologne
Chronicle.]

About the year 1400, Henne, or John Gænsfleisch de Sulgeloch, called also John Gutemberg zum Jungen, appears to have been born at Mentz. He had two brothers; Conrad who died in 1424, and Friele who was living in 1459. He had also two sisters, Bertha and Hebele, who were both nuns of St. Claire at Mentz. Gutemberg had an uncle by his father’s side, named Friele, who had three sons, named John, Friele, and Pederman, who were all living in 1459.

Gutemberg was descended of an honourable family, and he himself is said to have been by birth a knight.[III-10] It would appear that the family had been possessed of considerable property. They had one house in Mentz called zum Gænsfleisch, and another called zum Gudenberg, or Gutenberg, which Wimpheling translates, “Domum boni montis.” The local name of Sulgeloch, or Sorgenloch, was derived from the name of a village where the family of Gænsfleisch had resided previous to their removing to Mentz. It seems probable that the house zum Jungen at Mentz came into the Gutembergs’ possession by inheritance. It was in this house, according to the account of Trithemius, that the printing business was carried on during his partnership with Faust.[III-11]

[Footnote III-10: Schwartz observes that in the instrument drawn
up by the notary Ulric Helmasperger, Gutemberg is styled
“_Juncker_,” an honourable addition which was at that period
expressive of nobility.--Primaria quædam Documenta de Origine
Typographiæ, p. 20, 4to. Altorfii, 1740.]

[Footnote III-11: “Morabatur autem prædictus Joannes Gutenberg
Moguntiæ in domo _zum Jungen_, quæ domus usque in præsentem diem
[1513] illius novæ Artis nomine noscitur insignita.”--Trithemii
Chronicum Spanhemiense, ad annum 1450.]

When Gutemberg called himself der Junge, or junior, it was doubtless to distinguish himself from Gænsfleisch _der Elter_, or senior, a name which frequently occurs in the documents printed by Koehler. Meerman has fixed upon the latter name for the purpose of giving to Gutemberg a brother of the same christian name, and of making him the thief who stole Coster’s types. He also avails himself of an error committed by Wimpheling and others, who had supposed John Gutemberg and John Gænsfleisch to be two different persons. In two deeds of sale, however, of the date 1441 and 1442, entered in the Salic book of the church of St. Thomas at Strasburg, he is thus expressly named: “_Joannes dictus Gensfleisch alias nuncupatus Gutenberg de Moguncia, Argentinæ commorans_;” that is, “John Gænsfleisch, otherwise named Gutemberg, of Mentz, residing at Strasburg.”[III-12] Anthony à Wood, in his History of the University of Oxford, calls him Tossanus; and Chevillier, in his Origine de l’Imprimerie de Paris, Toussaints. Seiz[III-13] is within an ace of making him a knight of the Golden Fleece. That he was a man of property is proved by various documents; and those writers who have described him as a person of mean origin, or as so poor as to be obliged to labour as a common workman, are certainly wrong.

[Footnote III-12: In the release which he grants to the town-clerk
of Mentz, in 1434, he describes himself as, “Johann Gensefleisch
der Junge, genant Gutemberg.”]

[Footnote III-13: In “Het derde Jubeljaer der uitgevondene
Boekdrukkonst door Laurens Jansz Koster,” p. 71. Harlem,
1740.--Oberlin, Essai d’Annales.]

From a letter written by Gutemberg in 1424 to his sister Bertha it appears that he was then residing at Strasburg; and it is also certain that in 1430 he was not living at Mentz; for in an act of accommodation between the nobility and burghers of that city, passed in that year with the authority of the archbishop Conrad III., Gutemberg is mentioned among the nobles “_die ytzund nit inlendig sint_”--“who are not at present in the country.” In 1434 there is positive evidence of his residing at Strasburg; for in that year he caused the town-clerk of Mentz to be arrested for a sum of three hundred florins due to him from the latter city, and he agreed to his release at the instance of the magistrates of Strasburg within whose jurisdiction the arrest took place.[III-14] In 1436 he entered into partnership with Andrew Drytzehn and others; and there is every reason to believe that at this period he was engaged in making experiments on the practicability of printing with moveable types, and that the chief object of his engaging with those persons was to obtain funds to enable him to perfect his invention.

[Footnote III-14: The release is given in Schœpflin’s Vindiciæ
Typographicæ, Documentum I.]

From 1436 to 1444 the name of Gutemberg appears among the “_Constaflers_” or civic nobility of Strasburg. In 1437 he was summoned before the ecclesiastical judge of that city at the suit of Anne of Iron-Door,[III-15] for breach of promise of marriage. It would seem that he afterwards fulfilled his promise, for in a tax-book of the city of Strasburg, Anne Gutemberg is mentioned, after Gutemberg had returned to Mentz, as paying the toll levied on wine.

[Footnote III-15: “_Ennelin zu der Iserin Thure._” She was then
living at Strasburg, and was of an honourable family, originally
of Alsace.--Schœpflin. Vind. Typ. p. 17.]

Andrew Drytzehn, one of Gutemberg’s partners, having died in 1438, his brothers George and Nicholas instituted a process against Gutemberg to compel him either to refund the money advanced by their brother, or to admit them to take his place in the partnership. From the depositions of the witnesses in this cause, which, together with the decision of the judges, are given at length by Schœpflin, there can be little doubt that one of the inventions which Gutemberg agreed to communicate to his partners was an improvement in the art of printing, such as it was at that period.

The following particulars concerning the partnership of Gutemberg with Andrew Drytzehn and others are derived from the recital of the case contained in the decision of the judges. Some years before his death, Andrew Drytzehn expressed a desire to learn one of Gutemberg’s arts, for he appears to have been fond of trying new experiments, and the latter acceding to his request taught him a method of polishing stones, by which he gained considerable profit. Some time afterwards, Gutemberg, in company with a person named John Riff, began to exercise a certain art whose productions were in demand at the fair of Aix-la-Chapelle. Andrew Drytzehn, hearing of this, begged that the new art might be explained to him, promising at the same time to give whatever premium should be required. Anthony Heilman also made a similar request for his brother Andrew Heilman.[III-16] To both these applications Gutemberg assented, agreeing to teach them the art; it being stipulated that the two new partners were to receive a fourth part of the profits between them; that Riff was to have another fourth; and that the remaining half should be received by the inventor. It was also agreed that Gutemberg should receive from each of the new partners the sum of eighty florins of gold payable by a certain day, as a premium for communicating to them his art. The great fair of Aix-la-Chapelle being deferred to another year, Gutemberg’s two new partners requested that he would communicate to them without reserve all his wonderful and rare inventions; to which he assented on condition that to the former sum of one hundred and sixty florins they should jointly advance two hundred and fifty more, of which one hundred were to be paid immediately, and the then remaining seventy-five florins due by each were to be paid at three instalments. Of the hundred florins stipulated to be paid in ready money, Andrew Heilman paid fifty, according to his engagement, while Andrew Drytzehn only paid forty, leaving ten due. The term of the partnership for carrying on the “wonderful art” was fixed at five years; and it was also agreed that if any of the partners should die within that period, his interest in the utensils and stock should become vested in the surviving partners, who at the completion of the term were to pay to the heirs of the deceased the sum of one hundred florins. Andrew Drytzehn having died within the period, and when there remained a sum of eighty-five florins unpaid by him, Gutemberg met the claim of his brothers by referring to the articles of partnership, and insisted that from the sum of one hundred florins which the surviving partners were bound to pay, the eighty-five remaining unpaid by the deceased should be deducted. The balance of fifteen florins thus remaining due from the partnership he expressed his willingness to pay, although according to the terms of the agreement it was not payable until the five years were expired, and would thus not be strictly due for some years to come. The claim of George Drytzehn to be admitted a partner, as the heir of his brother, he opposed, on the ground of his being unacquainted with the obligations of the partnership; and he also denied that Andrew Drytzehn had ever become security for the payment of any sum for lead or other things purchased on account of the business, except to Fridelin von Seckingen, and that this sum (which was owing for lead) Gutemberg himself paid. The judges having heard the allegations of both parties, and having examined the agreement between Gutemberg and Andrew Drytzehn, decided that the eighty-five florins which remained unpaid by the latter should be deducted from the hundred which were to be repaid in the event of any one of the partners dying; and that Gutemberg should pay the balance of fifteen florins to George and Nicholas Drytzehn, and that when this sum should be paid they should have no further claim on the partnership.[III-17]

[Footnote III-16: When Andrew Heilman was proposed as a partner,
Gutemberg observed that his friends would perhaps treat the
business into which he was about to embark as mere jugglery
[göckel werck], and object to his having anything to do with
it.--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ. Document. p. 10.]

[Footnote III-17: This decision is dated “On the Eve of St. Lucia
and St. Otilia, [12th December,] 1439.”]

From the depositions of some of the witnesses in this process, there can scarcely be a doubt that the “wonderful art” which Gutemberg was attempting to perfect was typography or printing with moveable types. Fournier[III-18] thinks that Gutemberg’s attempts at printing, as may be gathered from the evidence in this cause, were confined to printing from wood-blocks; but such expressions of the witnesses as appear to relate to printing do not favour this opinion. As Gutemberg lived near the monastery of St. Arbogast, which was without the walls of the city, it appears that the attempts to perfect his invention were carried on in the house of his partner Andrew Drytzehn. Upon the death of the latter, Gutemberg appears to have been particularly anxious that “four _pieces_” which were in a “press” should be “distributed,”--making use of the very word which is yet used in Germany to express the distribution or separation of a form of types---so that no person should know what they were.

[Footnote III-18: Traité de l’origine et des productions de
l’Imprimerie primitive en taille de bois, Paris, 1758; et
Remarques sur un Ouvrage, &c. pour servir de suite au Traité,
Paris, 1762.]

Hans Schultheis, a dealer in wood, and Ann his wife, depose to the following effect: After the death of Andrew Drytzehn, Gutemberg’s servant, Lawrence Beildeck, came to their house, and thus addressed their relation Nicholas Drytzehn: “Your deceased brother Andrew had four “pieces” placed under a press, and John Gutemberg requests that you will take them out and lay them separately [or apart from each other] upon the press so that no one may see what it is.”[III-19]

[Footnote III-19: “Andres Dritzehn uwer bruder selige hat iiij
stücke undenan inn einer _pressen_ ligen, da hat uch Hanns
Gutemberg gebetten das ir die darusz nement ünd uff die presse
legent von einander so kan man nit gesehen was das
ist.”--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ. Document. p. 6.]

Conrad Saspach states that one day Andrew Heilman, a partner of Gutemberg’s, came to him in the Merchants’ Walk and said to him, “Conrad, as Andrew Drytzehn is dead, and _as you made the press_ and know all about it, go and take the _pieces_[III-20] out of the press and separate [zerlege] them so that no person may know what they are.” This witness intended to do as he was requested, but on making inquiry the day after St. Stephen’s Day[III-21] he found that the work was removed.

[Footnote III-20: “Nym die stücke usz der _pressen_ und _zerlege_
sü von einander so weis nyemand was es ist:” literally: “Take the
pieces out of the press and distribute [or separate] them, so that
no man may know what it is.”--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ. Document.
p. 6. “The word _zerlegen_,” says Lichtenberger, Initia Typograph.
p. 11, “is used at the present day by printers to denote the
distribution of the types which the compositor has set up.” The
original word “stücke”--pieces--is always translated
“paginæ”--pages--by Schelhorn. Dr. Dibdin calls them “_forms_ kept
together by _two screws_ or press-_spindles_.”--Life of Caxton, in
his edition of Ames’s and Herbert’s Typ. Antiq. p. lxxxvii. note.]

[Footnote III-21: St. Stephen’s Day is on 26th December. Andrew
Drytzehn, being very ill, confessed himself to Peter Eckhart on
Christmas-day, 1438, and it would seem that he died on the 27th.]

Lawrence Beildeck, Gutemberg’s servant, deposes that after Andrew Drytzehn’s death he was sent by his master to Nicholas Drytzehn to tell him not to show the press which he had in his house to any person. Beildeck also adds that he was desired by Gutemberg to go to the presses, and to open [or undo] the press which was fastened with two screws, so that the “pieces” [which were in it] should fall asunder. The said “pieces” he was then to place in or upon the press, so that no person might see or understand them.

Anthony Heilman, the brother of one of Gutemberg’s partners, states that he knew of Gutemberg having sent his servant shortly before Christmas both to Andrew Heilman and Andrew Drytzehn to bring away all the “forms” [formen] that they might be separated in his presence, as he found several things in them of which he disapproved.[III-22] The same witness also states that he was well aware of many people being wishful to see the press, and that Gutemberg had desired that they should send some person to prevent its being seen.

[Footnote III-22: “Dirre gezuge hat ouch geseit das er wol wisse
das Gutenberg unlange vor Wihnahten sinen kneht sante zu den beden
Andresen, alle _formen_ zu holen, und würdent zur lossen das er
ess sehe, un jn joch ettliche formen ruwete.”--Schœpflin, Vind.
Typ. Document. p. 12. The separate letters, which are now called
“types,” were frequently called “formæ” by the early printers and
writers of the fifteenth century. They are thus named by Joh. and
Vindelin de Spire in 1469; by Franciscus Philelphus in 1470; by
Ludovicus Carbo in 1471; and by Phil. de Lignamine in
1474.--Lichtenberger, Init. Typ. p. 11.]

Hans Dünne, a goldsmith, deposed that about three years before, he had done work for Gutemberg on account of printing alone to the amount of a hundred florins.[III-23]

[Footnote III-23: “Hanns Dünne der goltsmyt hat gesait, das er vor
dryen jaren oder daby Gutemberg by den hundert guldin verdienet
habe, alleine das zu dem _trucken_ gehöret”--Schœpflin, Vind. Typ.
Document. p. 13.]

As Gutemberg evidently had kept his art as secret as possible, it is not surprising that the notice of it by the preceding witnesses should not be more explicit. Though it may be a matter of doubt whether his invention was merely an improvement on block-printing, or an attempt to print with moveable types, yet, bearing in mind that express mention is made of a _press_ and of _printing_, and taking into consideration his subsequent partnership with Faust, it is morally certain that Gutemberg’s attention had been occupied with some new discovery relative to printing at least three years previous to December 1439.

If Gutemberg’s attempts when in partnership with Andrew Drytzehn and others did not extend beyond block-printing, and if the four “pieces” which were in the press are assumed to have been four engraved blocks, it is evident that the mere unscrewing them from the “_chase_” or frame in which they might be enclosed, would not in the least prevent persons from knowing what they were; and it is difficult to conceive how the undoing of the two screws would cause “the pieces” to fall asunder. If, however, we suppose the four “pieces” to have been so many pages of moveable types screwed together in a frame, it is easy to conceive the effect of undoing the two screws which held it together. On this hypothesis, Gutemberg’s instructions to his servant, and Anthony Heilman’s request to Conrad Saspach, the maker of the press, that he would take out the “pieces” and distribute them, are at once intelligible. If Gutemberg’s attempts were confined to block-printing, he could certainly have no claim to the discovery of a new art, unless indeed we are to suppose that his invention consisted in the introduction of the press for the purpose of taking impressions; but it is apparent that his anxiety was not so much to prevent people seeing the press as to keep them ignorant of the purpose for which it was employed, and to conceal what was in it.

The evidence of Hans Dünne the goldsmith, though very brief, is in favour of the opinion that Gutemberg’s essays in printing were made with moveable types of metal; and it also is corroborated by the fact of _lead_ being one of the articles purchased on account of the partnership. It is certain that goldsmiths were accustomed to engrave letters and figures upon silver and other metals long before the art of copper-plate printing was introduced; and Fournier not attending to the distinction between simple engraving on metal and engraving on a plate for the purpose of taking impressions on paper, has made a futile objection to the argument of Bär,[III-24] who very naturally supposes that the hundred florins which Hans Dünne received from Gutemberg for work done on account of printing alone, might be on account of his having cut the types, the formation of which by means of punches and matrices was a subsequent improvement of Peter Scheffer. It is indeed difficult to conceive in what manner a goldsmith could earn a hundred florins for work done on account of printing, except in his capacity as an engraver; and as I can see no reason to suppose that Hans Dünne was an engraver on wood, I am inclined to think that he was employed by Gutemberg to cut the letters on separate pieces of metal.

[Footnote III-24: The words of Bär, who was almoner of the Swedish
chapel at Paris in 1761, are these: “Tout le monde sait que dans
ce temps les orfèvres exerçoient aussi l’art de la gravûre; et
nous concluons de-là que Guttemberg a commencé par des caractères
de bois, que de-là il a passé aux caractères de plomb.” On this
passage Fournier makes the following observations: “Tout le monde
sait au contraire que dans ce temps il n’y avoit pas un seul
graveur dans le genre dont vous parlez, et cela par une raison
bien simple: c’est que cet art de la gravûre n’a été inventé que
vingt-trois ans après ce que vous citez, c’est-à-dire en 1460, par
_Masso Piniguera_.”--Remarques, &c. p. 20. Bär mentioned no
particular kind of engraving; and the name of the Italian
goldsmith who is supposed to have been the first who discovered
the art of taking impressions from a plate on paper, was
Finiguerra, not Piniguera, as Fournier, with his usual inaccuracy,
spells it.]

There is no evidence to show that Gutemberg succeeded in printing any books at Strasburg with moveable types: and the most likely conclusion seems to be that he did not. As the process between him and the Drytzehns must have given a certain degree of publicity to his invention, it might be expected that some notice would have been taken of its first-fruits had he succeeded in making it available in Strasburg. On the contrary, all the early writers in the least entitled to credit, who have spoken of the invention of printing with moveable types, agree in ascribing the honour to Mentz, after Gutemberg had returned to that city and entered into partnership with Faust. Two writers, however, whose learning and research are entitled to the highest respect, are of a different opinion. “It has been doubted,” says Professor Oberlin, “that Gutemberg ever printed books at Strasburg. It is, nevertheless, probable that he did; for he had a press there in 1439, and continued to reside in that city for five years afterwards. He might print several of those small tracts without date, in which the inequality of the letters and rudeness of the workmanship indicate the infancy of the art. Schœpflin thinks that he can identify some of them; and the passages cited by him clearly show that printing had been carried on there.”[III-25] It is, however, to be remarked that the passages cited by Schœpflin, and referred to by Oberlin, by no means show that the art of printing had been practised at Strasburg by Gutemberg; nor do they clearly prove that it had been continuously carried on there by his partners or others to the time of Mentelin, who probably established himself there as a printer in 1466.

[Footnote III-25: Essai d’Annales de la Vie de Jean Gutenberg, par
Jer. J. Oberlin. 8vo. Strasbourg, An ix. [1802.]]

It has been stated that Gutemberg’s first essays in typography were made with wooden types; and Daniel Specklin, an architect of Strasburg, who died in 1589, professed to have seen some of them. According to his account there was a hole pierced in each letter, and they were arranged in lines by a string being passed through them. The lines thus formed like a string of beads were afterwards collected into pages, and submitted to the press. Particles and syllables of frequent occurrence were not formed of separate letters, but were cut on single pieces of wood. We are left to conjecture the size of those letters; but if they were sufficiently large to allow of a hole being bored through them, and to afterwards sustain the action of the press, they could not well be less than the missal types with which Faust and Scheffer’s Psalter is printed. It is however likely that Specklin had been mistaken; and that he had supposed some old initial letters, large enough to admit of a hole being bored through them without injury, to have been such as were generally used in the infancy of the art.

In 1441 and 1442, Gutemberg, who appears to have been always in want of money, executed deeds of sale to the dean and chapter of the collegiate church of St. Thomas at Strasburg, whereby he assigned to them certain rents and profits in Mentz which he inherited from his uncle John Leheymer, who had been a judge in that city. In 1443 and 1444 Gutemberg’s name still appears in the rate or tax book of Strasburg; but after the latter year it is no longer to be found. About 1445, it is probable that he returned to Mentz, his native city, having apparently been unsuccessful in his speculations at Strasburg. From this period to 1450 it is likely that he continued to employ himself in attempts to perfect his invention of typography. In 1450 he entered into partnership with John Faust, a goldsmith and native of Mentz, and it is from this year that Trithemius dates the invention. In his Annales Hirsaugienses, under the year 1450, he gives the following account of the first establishment and early progress of the art. “About this time [1450], in the city of Mentz upon the Rhine, in Germany, and not in Italy as some have falsely stated, this wonderful and hitherto unheard of art of printing was conceived and invented by John Gutemberg, a citizen of Mentz. He had expended nearly all his substance on the invention; and being greatly pressed for want of means, was about to abandon it in despair, when, through the advice and with the money furnished by John Faust, also a citizen of Mentz, he completed his undertaking. At first they printed the vocabulary called the _Catholicon_, from letters cut on blocks of wood. These letters however could not be used to print anything else, as they were not separately moveable, but were cut on the blocks as above stated. To this invention succeeded others more subtle, and they afterwards invented a method of casting the shapes, named by them _matrices_, of all the letters of the Roman alphabet, from which they again cast letters of copper or tin, sufficient to bear any pressure to which they might be subjected, and which they had formerly cut by hand. As I have heard, nearly thirty years ago, from Peter Scheffer, of Gernsheim, citizen of Mentz, who was son-in-law of the first inventor, great difficulties attended the first establishment of this art; for when they had commenced printing a Bible they found that upwards of four thousand florins had been expended before they had finished the third _quaternion_ [or quire of four sheets]. Peter Scheffer, an ingenious and prudent man, at first the servant, and afterwards, as has been already said, the son-in-law of John Faust, the first inventor, discovered the more ready mode of casting the types, and perfected the art as it is at present exercised. These three for some time kept their method of printing a secret, till at length it was divulged by some workmen whose assistance they could not do without. It first passed to Strasburg, and gradually to other nations.”[III-26]

[Footnote III-26: Trithemii Annales Hirsaugienses, tom. ii. ad
annum 1450. The original passage is printed in Prosper Marchand’s
Histoire de l’Imprimerie, 2nde Partie, p. 7.]

As Trithemius finished the work which contains the preceding account in 1514, Marchand concludes that he must have received his information from Scheffer about 1484, which would be within thirty-five years of Gutemberg’s entering into a partnership with Faust. Although Trithemius had his information from so excellent an authority, yet the account which he has thus left is far from satisfactory. Schœpflin, amongst other objections to its accuracy, remarks that Trithemius is wrong in stating that the invention of moveable types was subsequent to Gutemberg’s connexion with Faust, seeing that the former had previously employed them at Strasburg; and he also observes that in the learned abbot’s account there is no distinct mention made of moveable letters cut by hand, but that we are led to infer that the improvement of casting types from matrices immediately followed the printing of the Catholicon from wood-blocks. The words of Trithemius on this point are as follows: “Post hæc, inventis successerunt subtiliora, inveneruntque modum fundendi formas omnium Latini alphabeti litterarum, quas ipsi _matrices_ nominabant, ex quibus rursum æneos sive stanneos characteres fundebant ad omnem pressuram sufficientes quos prius manibus sculpebant.” From this passage it might be objected in opposition to the opinion of Schœpflin:[III-27] 1. That the “subtiliora,”--more subtle contrivances, mentioned _before_ the invention of casting moveable letters, may relate to the cutting of such letters by hand. 2. That the word “quos” is to be referred to the antecedent “æneos sive stanneos characteres,”--letters of copper or tin,--and not to the “characteres in tabulis ligneis scripti,”--letters engraved on wood-blocks,--which are mentioned in a preceding sentence. The inconsistency of Trithemius in ascribing the origin of the art to Gutemberg, and twice immediately afterwards calling Scheffer the son-in-law of “the first inventor,” Faust, is noticed by Schœpflin, and has been pointed out by several other writers.

[Footnote III-27: Vindiciæ Typographicæ, pp. 77, 78.]

In 1455 the partnership between Gutemberg and Faust was dissolved at the instance of the latter, who preferred a suit against his partner for the recovery, with interest, of certain sums of money which he had advanced. There is no mention of the time when the partnership commenced in the sentence or award of the judge; but Schwartz infers, from the sum claimed on account of interest, that it must have been in August 1449. It is probable that his conclusion is very near the truth; for most of the early writers who have mentioned the invention of printing at Mentz by Gutemberg and Faust, agree in assigning the year 1450 as that in which they began to practise the new art. It is conjectured by Santander that Faust, who seems to have been a selfish character,[III-28] sought an opportunity of quarrelling with Gutemberg as soon as Scheffer had communicated to him his great improvement of forming the letters by means of punches and matrices.

[Footnote III-28: In the first work which issued from Faust and
Scheffer’s press, with a date and the printer’s names,--the
Psalter of 1457,--and in several others, Scheffer appears on an
equal footing with Faust. In the colophon of an edition of Cicero
de Officiis, 1465, Faust has inserted the following degrading
words: “Presens opus Joh. Fust Moguntinus civis . . . . arte
quadam perpulcra Petri manu _pueri mei_ feliciter effeci.” His
partner, to whose ingenuity he is chiefly indebted for his fame,
is here represented in the character of a menial. Peter Scheffer,
of Gernsheim, clerk, who perfected the art of printing, is now
degraded to “Peter, my _boy_” by whose hand--not by his
ingenuity--John Faust exercises a certain beautiful art.]

The document containing the decision of the judges was drawn up by Ulric Helmasperger, a notary, on 6th November, 1455, in the presence of Peter Gernsheim [Scheffer], James Faust, the brother of John, Henry Keffer, and others.[III-29] From the statement of Faust, as recited in this instrument, it appears that he had first advanced to Gutemberg eight hundred florins at the annual interest of six per cent., and afterwards eight hundred florins more. Gutemberg having neglected to pay the interest, there was owing by him a sum of two hundred and fifty florins on account of the first eight hundred; and a further sum of one hundred and forty on account of the second. In consequence of Gutemberg’s neglecting to pay the interest, Faust states that he had incurred a further expense of thirty-six florins from having to borrow money both of Christians and Jews. For the capital advanced by him, and arrears of interest, he claimed on the whole two thousand and twenty florins.[III-30]

[Footnote III-29: Henry Keffer was employed in Gutemberg and
Faust’s printing-office. He afterwards went to Nuremberg, where
his name appears as a printer, in 1473, in conjunction with John
Sensenschmid.--Primaria quædam Documenta de origine Typographiæ,
edente C. G. Schwartzio. 8vo. Altorfii, 1740.]

[Footnote III-30: “Er [Johan Fust] denselben solt fürter under
Christen und Iudden hab müssen ussnemen, und davor sess und
dreyssig Gulden ungevärlich zu guter Rechnung zu Gesuch geben, das
sich also zusamen mit dem Hauptgeld ungevärlich trifft an
zvvytusend und zvvanzig Gulden.” Schwartz in an observation upon
this passage conceives the sum of 2,020 florins to be thus made
up: capital advanced, in two sums of 800 each, 1,600 florins:
interest 390; on account of compound interest, incurred by Faust,
36; making in all 2,026. He thinks that 2,020 florins only were
claimed as a round sum; and that the second sum of 800 florins was
advanced in October 1452.--Primaria quædam Documenta, pp. 9-14.]

In answer to these allegations Gutemberg replied: that the first eight hundred florins which he received of Faust were advanced in order to purchase utensils for printing, which were assigned to Faust as a security for his money. It was agreed between them that Faust should contribute three hundred florins annually for workmen’s wages and house-rent, and for the purchase of parchment, paper, ink, and other things.[III-31] It was also stipulated that in the event of any disagreement arising between them, the printing materials assigned to Faust as a security should become the property of Gutemberg on his repaying the sum of eight hundred florins. This sum, however, which was advanced for the completion of the work, Gutemberg did not think himself bound to expend on book-work alone; and although it was expressed in their agreement that he should pay six florins in the hundred for an annual interest, yet Faust assured him that he would not accept of it, as the eight hundred florins were not paid down at once, as by their agreement they ought to have been. For the second sum of eight hundred florins he was ready to render Faust an account. For interest or usury he considered that he was not liable.[III-32]

[Footnote III-31: “. . . . und das JOHANNES [FUST] ym ierlichen
300 Gulden vor Kosten geben, und auch Gesinde Lone, Huss Zinss,
Vermet, Papier, Tinte, &c. verlegen solte.” Primaria qæedam Doc.
p. 10.]

[Footnote III-32: “. . . . von den ubrigen 800 Gulden vvegen
begert er ym ein rechnung zu thun, so gestett er auch ym keins
Soldes noch Wuchers, und hofft ym im rechten darum nit pflichtigk
sin.” Primaria quædam Doc. p. 11.]

The judges, having heard the statements of both parties, decided that Gutemberg should repay Faust so much of the capital as had not been expended in the business; and that on Faust’s producing witnesses, or swearing that he had borrowed upon interest the sums advanced, Gutemberg should pay him interest also, according to their agreement. Faust having made oath that he had borrowed 1550 florins, which he paid over to Gutemberg, to be employed by him for their common benefit, and that he had paid yearly interest, and was still liable on account of the same, the notary, Ulric Helmasperger, signed his attestation of the award on 6th November, 1455.[III-33] It would appear that Gutemberg not being able to repay the money was obliged to relinquish the printing materials to Faust.

[Footnote III-33: Mercier, who is frequently referred to as an
authority on subjects connected with Bibliography, has, in his
supplement to Prosper Marchand’s Histoire de l’Imprimerie,
confounded this document with that containing an account of the
process between the Drytzehns and Gutemberg at Strasburg in 1439;
and Heineken, at p. 255 of his Idée Générale, has committed the
same mistake.]

Salmuth, who alludes to the above document in his annotations upon Pancirollus, has most singularly perverted its meaning, by representing Gutemberg as the person who advanced the money, and Faust as the ingenious inventor who was sued by his rich partner. “From this it evidently appears,” says he, after making Gutemberg and Faust exchange characters, “that Gutemberg was not the first who invented and practised typography; but that some years after its invention he was admitted a partner by John Faust, to whom he advanced money.” If for “Gutemberg” we read “Faust,” and _vice versâ_, the account is correct.

Whether Faust, who might be an engraver as well as a goldsmith, assisted Gutemberg or not by engraving the types, does not appear. It is stated that Gutemberg’s earliest productions at Mentz were an alphabet cut on wood, and a Donatus executed in the same manner. Trithemius mentions a “_Catholicon_” engraved on blocks of wood as one of the first books printed by Gutemberg and Faust, and this Heineken thinks was the same as the Donatus.[III-34] Whatever may have been the book which Trithemius describes as a “Catholicon,” it certainly was not the “_Catholicon Joannis Januensis_,” a large folio which appeared in 1460 without the name or residence of the printer, but which is supposed to have been printed by Gutemberg after the dissolution of his partnership with Faust.

[Footnote III-34: “Je crois, que ces tables [deux planches de bois
autrefois chez le Duc de la Valliere] sont du livre que le
Chroniqueur de Cologne appelle un _Donat_ et que _Trithem_ nomme
un _Catholicon_, (livre universel,) ce qu’on a confondu ensuite
avec le grand ouvrage intitulé _Catholicon Januensis_.”--Idée
Générale, p. 258.]