Chapter XIII: Part 13

Hans Schultheiss testified that Lorentz Beildick came one day to his house with Claus Dritzehen, where this witness had conducted him. It was at or about the time of the death of Andrew Dritzehen; Lorentz Beildick said, “Your late brother, Andrew Dritzehen, has _four pieces lying down in_ [or underneath] _a press_, and Gutenberg begs that you will take them out and separate them, so that no one will be able to see what _it_ is.” Claus Dritzehen searched for the pieces, but could not find them. This witness heard, a long time ago, from Andrew Dritzehen that the work had cost him more than 300 guilders.

It is obvious that these four pieces were not a part of the press. Properly put together, they constituted one tool. Another witness repeats the story, describing this tool as _it_.

Conrad Sahspach testified that Andrew Heilmann came to him one day when he was in the market square and said: “Dear Conrad, Andrew Dritzehen is dead, and as you are the man who made the press, and know all about the matter, go there, and _take the pieces out of the press, and separate them_, so that nobody can know what _it_ is.” But when this witness went to look after the press (it was on St. Stephen’s day last) the thing [it] had disappeared. This witness said that Andrew Dritzehen had once borrowed money from him, which he used for the work. He knew that he had mortgaged his property.

It does not appear that there was any secret about the construction of the press. Sahspach, who was not one of the partners, was authorized, not to disjoint the press, but to remove and disconnect the form of four pieces in the press, which seems to have been the key to the secret.

The poverty and the subsequent despondency of Andrew Dritzehen are described by Hans Sidenneger, who testified that Andrew had mortgaged all his property. His honesty is acknowledged by Werner Smalriem, who testified that he had lent him money and had been repaid. His anxiety about his debts, and his death, which seems to have been the result of overwork, are briefly related by Mydehart Stocker.

Mydehart Stocker deposed that the late Andrew Dritzehen fell sick on St. John’s Day, or about Christmas time. When he fell sick, he was laid upon a bed in the room of this witness. And this witness went to him and said, “Andrew, how are you?” And he answered, “I believe that I am on my death-bed. [p385] If I am about to die, I wish that I had never been connected with the association.” Witness said, “Why so?” He responded, “Because I know very well that my brothers will never agree with Gutenberg.” Witness said, “Is not your partnership governed by a written agreement? Are there not evidences of the nature of your obligations?” Andrew said, “Yes. Everything has been done properly by writing.” Witness then asked how the association had been formed. Dritzehen then told him how Andrew Heilmann, Hans Riffe, Gutenberg and himself, had formed a partnership, to which Andrew Heilmann and himself had brought 80 guilders, at least, so far as he recollected. When the partnership had been made, Andrew Heilmann and himself went one day to the house of Gutenberg at Saint Arbogastus. When there, _they discovered that Gutenberg had concealed many secrets which he had not obligated himself to teach to them_. This did not please them. Thereupon they dissolved the old partnership, and formed a new one. [Here follows a repetition, substantially, of the statement made by Gutenberg, concerning the indebtedness of each partner.]

The insolvency of Andrew Dritzehen is set forth in the testimony of the priest who attended him before his death.

Herr Peter Eckhart, curate of St. Martin, said [as a priest, he was not sworn], that the late Andrew Dritzehen sent for him during Christmas week that he might have his confession. When he came to his home, he found him ready to confess. He [the priest] asked him if there was debt due by him to any person, or if any person owed him, or if he had given or done anything which it was necessary that he should reveal. Then Andrew Dritzehen told him that he was in partnership with many persons, with Andrew Heilmann and others, and that he had incurred an obligation in an enterprise to the amount of 200 or 300 guilders, and that, at that time, he was not worth a stiver.

Gutenberg’s need of money, and Dritzehen’s liability for money lent to the association, are proved by another witness.

Thomas Steinbach deposed that Hesse, the broker, once came to him, asking him if he knew where he could place some money, with little risk of loss. Witness had recommended him to John Gutenberg, Andrew Dritzehen and Anthony Heilmann, who needed money. Witness took up for them 14 lutzelbergers, but he really lost 12-1/2 guilders by the transaction. Fritz von Seckingen was their surety, and his name was inscribed [as endorser] on the books of the house of commerce [probably some kind of banking-house].

The most explicit evidence concerning this form of four pieces is given by Lorentz Beildick, the servant of Gutenberg.

Lorentz Beildick testified that John Gutenberg, on a certain day, sent him to the house of Claus Dritzehen, after the death of Andrew, his brother, with this message—that he should not show to any person the press in his care. Witness did so. Gutenberg had instructed him minutely, and told him that Claus should go to the press and should _turn two buttons, so that the pieces would be detached one from the other_; that these pieces should be afterward placed in the press or on the press; that when this had been done, _no one could comprehend its purpose_. Gutenberg also requested Claus Dritzehen, if he should leave his house, that he should at once repair to his house [John Gutenberg’s], who had [p386] some things to tell to him in person. This witness remembers perfectly that John Gutenberg was not indebted to the late Andrew, but that, on the contrary, Andrew was indebted to John Gutenberg. Witness also testified that he had never been present at any of their meetings since Christmas last. Witness had often seen Andrew Dritzehen dining at the house of John Gutenberg, but he had never seen him give to Gutenberg as much as a stiver.

The bold manner in which Beildick denied the payment of money by Andrew Dritzehen, seems to have greatly exasperated George Dritzehen, who threatened him with a prosecution for false evidence, or perjury. There was a scene in the court. George Dritzehen cried out, sarcastically, “Witness, tell the truth, even if it takes us both to the gallows.” Beildick complained to the judge of this intimidation, but it does not appear that the affair had further consequences.

Reimboldt, of Ehenheim, testified that he was at the house of Andrew before Christmas, and asked him _what he intended to do with the nice things with which he was busy_. Andrew told him that _they had already cost him more than 500 guilders_, but that he hoped, when the work was perfected, to make a great deal of money, with which he would pay witness, and would also receive a proper reward for his labor. Witness lent him 8 guilders, for he was then very needy. Witness’s wife had also lent money to Andrew. Andrew once came to her with a ring, which he valued at 30 guilders, and which he had pawned to the Jews at Ehenheim for 5 guilders. Witness further said that he knew very well that Dritzehen had prepared two large barrels of sweet wine, of which he gave one-half omen to Gutenberg, and one-half omen to Mydehart. He had also given Gutenberg some pears. On a certain occasion Andrew had requested witness to buy for him two half-barrels of wine, and Dritzehen and Heilmann, jointly, had given one of these half-barrels to Gutenberg.

That the work on which Dritzehen was engaged was of a novel nature may be inferred from the fact that his visitors could not give names to his tools or his workmanship. They speak of _it_, _that thing_, _the nice things_, _the form of four pieces_, etc. Madame Zabern is surprised at the cost of that thing; Reimboldt wonders what he intends to do with these nice things. It is obvious that this mysterious work is not that of polishing stones or gems, nor the making of mirrors, for it cannot be supposed that these witnesses, and one of them a woman, would be ignorant of the purpose of a mirror, or would grossly underrate the value of gems, or polished stones. But there is one witness who testifies that Dritzehen said his enterprise was that of making mirrors. [p387]

Hans Niger von Bischoviszheim testified that Andrew Dritzehen came to him and told him that he was in great need of money, for he was deep in an enterprise which taxed his resources to the utmost. Witness asked him what he was doing. Dritzehen then informed him that _he was making mirrors_. When witness threshed his grain, he took it to market at Molsheim and Ehenheim, and sold it, and gave Dritzehen the money. This witness also corroborated the testimony of Reimboldt as to the giving of wine to John Gutenberg. He took the wine in his own cart to Gutenberg, who was then at Saint Arbogastus.

It may be inferred from this testimony that Dritzehen was still deriving some profit from the old work of making mirrors.

Fritz von Seckingen testified that Gutenberg had borrowed money of him, and that Anthony Heilmann was on his bond. Andrew Dritzehen, who should have done so, evaded this obligation, and never signed the bond at all. Gutenberg paid up the entire sum at the time of the last fair during Mid-Lent.

Gutenberg’s partner gives some curious details about the partnership, and intimates that the _forms_ were of metal.

Anthony Heilmann testified that, when he learned that Gutenberg wished to take Andrew Dritzehen as a third [partner] in the company formed for the sale of mirrors at the fair of Aix-la-Chapelle, _he begged him with importunity to take also his brother Andrew_, if he wished to do a great favor to him, Anthony. But Gutenberg told him that he feared that the friends of Andrew would pretend that this business [or secret] was that of sorcery, an imputation he wished to avoid. Heilmann persisted in his request, and finally obtained a document, which he was obliged to show to the two future partners, and about which they found it necessary to have a consultation. Gutenberg took the document to them, and they decided that they would comply with its terms, and in this way the affair [of partnership] was settled. In the midst of these negotiations, Andrew Dritzehen begged this witness [Anthony Heilmann] to lend him some money, and he then said that he would willingly oblige him, if he would give good security. And he lent Dritzehen 90 pounds, which Dritzehen took to Gutenberg, at Saint Arbogastus. . . . . The witness asked him, “What do you wish to do with so much money? You do not need more than 80 guilders.” Dritzehen replied that he had need for more money; that it was but two or three days before the [vigil of] Annunciation (March 25), on which day he was bound to give 80 guilders to Gutenberg. [Here follows an elaborate explanation of the financial standing and the rights of each partner.] After that, Gutenberg said to this witness that it was necessary that he should draw his attention to an essential point [in the agreement], which was, that all the partners were on a footing of equality, and that there should be a mutual understanding that each should conceal nothing from the others; and that this arrangement would be for the common benefit. The witness was content with this proposition, and communicated it with praises to the other two. Some time after this, Gutenberg repeated his words, and the witness responded with the same protestations as before, and said that he intended to be worthy of the trust. After this, Gutenberg drew up an agreement as the expression of this proposition, and said to this witness: “Consult well among yourselves, and see that you are agreed on this matter.” They did so consult, and they discussed for a long time on this point, and even sought the advice of Gutenberg, who, on one occasion, said: “_There are here now_ [p388] _many things ready for use, and there are many more in progress; the goods you acquire are almost equal to your investment in money. In addition to all this, you get the knowledge of the secret art_.” So they soon came to an agreement, and it was decided that the heirs of the deceased partner should have for that partner’s investment, for the _forms_, and for all the materials, 100 guilders; but they should have it only after the five years. Gutenberg said that this provision would be of great advantage to them, for, if he chanced to die, he would abandon to them everything to which he was entitled, as his share of the property; and yet they would be obliged to give to his heirs only the 100 guilders, as they proposed to do with each other. It was also decided that in case of the death of any one of the partners, the others should not in any wise be obliged to teach, to show, or to reveal the secret to his heirs. It was a provision as favorable to one as to another. . . . This witness also testified that Gutenberg, a little while before Christmas, sent his servant to the two Andrews, to fetch _all the forms_. These forms _were melted_ before his eyes, which he regretted on account of _several forms_. When Andrew Dritzehen died, there were people who would have willingly examined the _press_. He told Gutenberg to send and prevent it from being examined. Gutenberg, in effect, did send his servant to put _it_ in disorder, and to tell the witness that, when he had the time, he wished to talk with him.

The testimony of the last witness is the shortest, and it is remarkable as the only testimony which defines the work.

Hans Dünne, the goldsmith, testified to this effect: within the past two or three years he had received from John Gutenberg about 100 guilders, which sum had been paid to him exclusively _for work connected with printing_.

The testimony of eighteen other witnesses was taken,[233] but, according to Schoepflin, Dünne’s is the last testimony on the official record. The judge gave the following decision:

We, master and counselor, after having heard the complaint and answer of the parties, the depositions and the testimony . . . and after having examined the contract and the agreement. . . Considering that there is a contract which fully establishes the manner in which these arrangements were projected and carried out: We do command that Hans Riffe, Andrew Heilmann and Hans Gutenberg shall make an oath before God that the matters that have transpired are warranted by the contract that has been cited; and that this contract had but one supplementary agreement, under seal, which would have been [p389] agreed to by Andrew Dritzehen if now living; and that Hans Gutenberg shall also take oath that the 85 guilders have not been paid to him by Andrew Dritzehen; and from this time this amount of 85 guilders shall be deducted from the sum of 100 guilders, about which there has been controversy; and he [Gutenberg] shall pay to George and Claus Dritzehen 15 guilders; and, in this manner, the 100 guilders will be paid in conformity to the contract that has been cited.

The oath, according to this form, has been taken before us by Hans Riffe, Andrew Heilmann and Hans Gutenberg, with this qualification on the part of Hans Riffe, that he was not present at the first meeting [of the partners]; but that, as soon as he did meet with them, he had approved of their action or agreement.

The taking of this oath, and the payment of the fifteen guilders by John Gutenberg, terminated the suit in his favor.

The record is enough to give us a clear idea of the character and position, if not of the process, of John Gutenberg. At this time, December, 1439, and for some time previous, Gutenberg was neither in poverty nor in obscurity. He had already acquired a local reputation for scientific knowledge. He did not seek for partners or pupils; they came to him. Among the number we find Hans Riffe, the mayor of Lichtenau, whose confidence in Gutenberg, after three years of partnership, is implied in his testimony. Anthony Heilmann, the lender of money, seems to have been equally satisfied with his brother partner. The action of the judge, in accepting Gutenberg’s oath as conclusive, proves that he was a man of established character. The deference paid to him by all the witnesses shows that he was not merely a mechanic or an inventor, but a man of activity and energy, a born leader, with a presence and a power of persuasion that enabled him to secure ready assistance in the execution of his plans. His reputation had been made by success. George Dritzehen said that his brother had received a good profit from his connection with Gutenberg. The eagerness and the faith of Andrew, the pertinacity with which his brothers pressed their claim to be admitted as partners, the solicitation of Heilmann on behalf of his brother, are indications that the men were sanguine as [p390] to the success of Gutenberg’s new invention. The expected profit was attractive, but it was not the only advantage.

In that century it was not an easy matter to learn an art or a trade of value: no one could enter the ranks of mechanics even as a pupil, without the payment of a premium in money; no one could practise any trade unless he had served a long period of apprenticeship. These exactions hopelessly shut out many who wished to learn; but men who had complied with all the conditions were often unwilling to teach, or to allow others to practise. Many trades were monopolies. In some cases they were protected by legislative enactments, like that accorded to the Venetian makers of playing cards. So far as it could be done, every detail of mechanics was kept secret, as may be inferred from the old phrase “art and mystery,” still retained in indentures of apprenticeship in all countries. One of the consequences of this exclusiveness was that many mechanical arts were invested with unusual dignity.[234] The sharply defined line which, in our day, separates art from trade and mechanics did not then exist.

The testimony shows that Gutenberg had a knowledge of three distinct arts. The one earliest practised, from which Dritzehen derived a good profit, was the polishing of stones or gems. The second, was that of making mirrors. Gutenberg was not the inventor of this art, but he was one of the [p391] first to practise it.[235] The early German mirrors were small, but they had broad frames, and were richly gilt and adorned with carved or moulded work in high relief. Ottley thinks that the press was used for pressing mouldings for the frames of mirrors, and that the lead was used for the metallic face.

The third art is imperfectly described. If Dünne’s testimony had been lost, it would not appear that this art was printing, for there is no mention of books, paper, ink, types, or wood-cuts. The lead, the press, and the goldsmith’s work on things relating to printing, could be regarded as materials required in the art of mirror-making. But “the thing,” and “the nice things,” which provoked exclamations of surprise at their great cost, could not have been looking-glasses.

Dünne said, very plainly, that this art was printing; but Dünne’s testimony could be set aside, and Gutenberg’s connection with typography at the period of this trial could be inferred from other evidence. The thoroughness of the workmanship in the books printed by Gutenberg after 1450 is a thoroughness which could have been acquired only by practice. Before he began this practice he must have devoted much time to experiment and to the making of the tools he needed. No inventor, no printer can believe that the skill [p392] he subsequently showed as a printer could have been attained by the labor of a few months or years. If it is also considered that Gutenberg was poor, and that he collected the money he needed with great delay and difficulty, the doubt may assume the form of denial. It is a marvel that he was so well prepared at the end of the ten years which Zell says were given up to investigation.

It would be gratifying to know the form in which the idea of typography first presented itself to Gutenberg; but there is in this case, no story like that of Franklin and the kite, or of Newton and the apple. Zell, in the _Cologne Chronicle_, says that the first prefiguration of Gutenberg’s method was found in the _Donatuses_ published in Holland before 1440. That the xylographic _Donatus_, the only block-book without cuts, was the forerunner of all typographic books, may not be denied. That some stray copy of a now lost edition of the book may have suggested to Gutenberg the superior utility of typography is possible, but the suggestion was that of the feasibility of a grander result by an entirely different process. For, although typography took its beginnings in an earlier practice of xylography, it was not the outgrowth[236] of that practice. It took up the art of printing at a point [p393] where xylography had failed, and developed it by new ideas and new methods. Typography was an invention pure and simple. In the theory and practice of block-printing, there was nothing that could have been improved until it reached the discovery of the only proper method of making types.

It may have been from his experience in the melting and pouring of lead, in the engraving of designs for the frames of his mirrors, in the use of a press for the moulding of the designs for these frames, that Gutenberg derived his first practical ideas of the true method of making types. Whatever the external impulse which led Gutenberg to printing, it was so strong that it compelled him to abandon the practice of all other arts. After this trial we hear no more of him as a maker of mirrors, or a polisher of gems.

The record of the trial before Cune Nope is not the only evidence we have that Gutenberg’s unknown art was that of typography. Wimpheling, one of the most learned men of his age, and nearly contemporary with Gutenberg, gives the following testimony concerning early printing in Strasburg:[237]

In the year of our Lord 1440, under the reign of Frederic III, Emperor of the Romans, John Gutenberg, of Strasburg, discovered a new method of writing, which is a great good, and almost a divine benefit to the world. He was the first in the city of Strasburg who invented that art of impressing which the Latin peoples call printing. He afterward went to Mentz, and happily perfected his invention.

In another book, in which Wimpheling pays compliment to the intelligence of the people of Strasburg, he writes:

Your city is acknowledged to excel most other cities by its origination of the art of printing, which was afterward perfected in Mentz.

The _Chronicle of Cologne_[238] is as explicit as to date, but not as to place. It specifies 1440 as the date of the discovery of printing “in the manner that is now generally used.” [p394]

The evidence of the witnesses on the trial agrees with the testimony afforded by the chronicles: it is plain that Gutenberg had not perfected his invention in 1439. From his lonely room in the ruined monastery of Saint Arbogastus, to which he retreated for the sake of secrecy, Gutenberg gave work to Dünne, the goldsmith, to Saspach, the joiner, and to Dritzehen, his old workman. It would seem that they were not producing work for sale, but were making tools which required a great deal of labor. Dritzehen worked night and day, Madame Schultheiss helping him. At the death of Dritzehen, the work expended on the art had cost a great deal of money, but it was still incomplete. The testimony shows that it had been intended that the salable work to be produced by the partnership should be exposed for sale at the great fair of Aix-la-Chapelle in the summer of 1439. The postponement of this fair[239] to the year 1440 was a grave disappointment. If the object of the partnership was the making of popular books of devotion, we can understand the reasonableness of the hopes of great profit when the books should be laid before the pious pilgrims. The sudden death of Andrew Dritzehen was the occasion of more delay. Gutenberg, fearing that the public, or George Dritzehen, would get possession of the secret, melted the forms and suspended the work. Then followed a litigation which lasted nearly one year, during which period it seems no work was done.

[From Duverger.]]

There are many conflicting opinions about the character of the printing so obscurely mentioned in the testimony of the witnesses. Schoepflin says it was block-printing. In the four pieces lying in the press, he sees four pages of engraved [p395] blocks; in the two buttons, which Dr. Van der Linde says are improperly translated by him as two screws, he finds a screw chase that held the four pages together. This conjecture is in every way improbable. All the processes of block-printing should have been as well known at that time in Strasburg as they were in Venice, Augsburg and Nuremberg. Something more novel than this form of printing would have been required to secure the coöperation of shrewd men like Riffe and Heilmann. The enthusiasm of Dritzehen, and the eagerness of all parties to learn the new art, and to have a share in its profits, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the conjecture that this art was simple block-printing.[240] [p396] Gutenberg may have begun his experiments in typography by the use of engraved types or punches of wood;[241] but he must have soon discovered the defects and limitations of xylography and have reached the unalterable conclusion that useful types could be made of metal only.

There is no plausibility in the theory of Fischer, that the thing of four pieces was a form of four pages or columns of types of wood. Nor is there any evidence that Gutenberg had then done any practical work. The practice of printing in Dritzehen’s house cannot be inferred from the presence of a press, for there is no notice of paper, printed sheets or books. It does not seem that there was a mystery about the press. It was not the press, but what was in it, concerning which the people were curious. It was the imperfectly described implement of four pieces which gave the partners anxiety. [p397]

Nor was the tool of four pieces the only object of value. Gutenberg assured the partners that the things had cost him nearly as much as he asked of them for their shares in the enterprise, but more were to be made. In the event of the death of a partner, his heirs were to be paid their claim on the _forms_ and tools. When Dritzehen died, Gutenberg sent for _all the forms_, which were melted before his eyes,[242] which act he subsequently regretted on account of the _forms_. It was a rash act, but Gutenberg’s fears were aroused, and he preferred to destroy the tools rather than allow George Dritzehen to get a knowledge of his secret.

In the practice of printing, the word form means a collection of composed types, arranged in readable order, secured together as one piece, in an iron band or chase, and prepared to receive impression.[243] In all printing offices it has this meaning. That the forms so frequently mentioned in this record of the trial were of metal is clearly implied in the statement [p398] that Gutenberg melted them. These forms, or formens, were, without doubt, implements connected with typography; but whether they were types, or matrices, or moulds, or a collection of types, is not so clear. If they were types, it will seem strange that they were not accurately described as letters of metal by some of the witnesses who saw them. If we regard them as matrices, they may have been “the nice things” alluded to by Reimbolt, the use of which he did not understand.[244] It is possible that Dritzehen was making matrices and fitting them to the mould. If the _forms_ were matrices, they and the punches could have cost five hundred guilders.

If the “nice things” were matrices, there must have been a type-mould, and it was this mould which was the key to the invention. The mould was the only implement connected with typography which would at once lay open to an intelligent observer the secret of making types. Of all his tools, this was the one that had received the greatest amount of care and labor, and it should have been the one that Gutenberg would be anxious to conceal. It may be supposed that the thing of four pieces that was opened by two buttons was the mould.[245] Why it should have been kept in or under the press cannot be explained. But if Dritzehen was fitting up matrices, it was proper that he should have the mould at hand. The conjecture that the thing of four pieces was a type-mould, is not free from difficulties, but it seems the only one that makes intelligible the action of the witnesses. [p399]

_a._ The place where the body of the type was cast. _b. c._ The mouth-piece in which the fluid metal was poured. _d._ The type as cast, with the metal formed in the mouth-piece adhering to it.

[From Duverger.]]

The gravest difficulty in the way of this conjecture is, that the type-mould of modern type-founders has, including the matrix, but three detachable pieces. As this mould is substantially of the same form as that known to have been used by Claude Garamond, the eminent type-founder of Paris, in 1540, it has been supposed, and properly, that this mould of three pieces must have been used before Garamond, by all the early printers. But it was not the only form of mould. At the beginning of this century every type-founder found it expedient to use at times, a type-mould somewhat different in its construction—a mould which, with the matrix, consisted of four detachable pieces. The merit of this mould was its adaptability, within limits, to any size of body. Its disadvantages were its difficulty of nice adjustment and its liability to inaccuracy—faults which have obliged all American type-founders of this day to discontinue its use entirely. It is, without doubt, a very old form of mould, but it was never a popular one, having been used chiefly for casting bodies of irregular size.[246] Mr. Bruce has showed me one of these early moulds—a mould long out of use, preserved only as one of the earlier relics of his old type-foundry. Its construction is [p400] too complex for description by words, or even by engraving; but it may be sufficient to say that, with the matrix, it consisted of four pieces, and was so constructed as to allow of an enlargement and nice adjustment in either direction of the space provided for casting the body of the type. The pieces were held together by stiff springs, but buttons could have been used for the same purpose. When these pieces were connected it would be plain to any mechanic that it was a mould; disconnected, its purpose would be a riddle. This peculiarity, coupled with the well known fact that Gutenberg subsequently made at Mentz, three fonts of types on bodies of different size, but closely approximating each other, lead me to the belief that this tool of four pieces should have been some kind of an adjustable type-mould.

The only book which can be offered with plausibility as the work of Gutenberg in Strasburg is a _Donatus_, of which four leaves are now preserved in the National Library at Paris. This _Donatus_ is a small quarto, containing twenty-seven lines to the page. The similarity of the types of this book, both in face and body, to those of the _Bible of 42 lines_, suggests the thought that both books were the work of the same printer; but the cut of the letters, the founding of the types and the printing of the book are vastly inferior.

It is possible that Gutenberg may have printed some books at Strasburg, but we do not know anything about them. There were many difficulties connected with the proper development of typography, and he may have labored over them many years without any satisfactory result.[247] His earlier experience could not have been materially different from that of other inventors: he may have been kept for years on the threshold of success, vainly trying to remove some obstruction which blocked up his way. If we suppose that Gutenberg [p401] began, as a novice would probably begin, by founding types of soft lead in moulds of sand, the printer will understand why he would condemn the types made by this method. If he afterward made a mould of hard metal, and founded types in matrices of brass, we can understand that, in the beginning, he had abundant reason to reject his first types for inaccuracies of body and irregularities of height and lining. To him as to all true inventors, there could be no patching up of defects in plan or in construction. It was necessary to throw away all the defective work and to begin anew. Experiments like these consume a great deal of time and quite as much of money. The testimony shows that the money contributed by some of the partners in the association had been collected with difficulty. We may suppose that when this had been spent to no purpose, they were unable or unwilling to contribute any more.

[From Bernard.]]

It may be that the failure of the Strasburg associates was due solely to the audacity of Gutenberg, whose plans were always beyond his pecuniary ability. Even then he may have purposed the printing of the great _Bible of 36 lines_ in three volumes, which he afterward completed in an admirable manner. In trying to accomplish much, he may have failed to do anything of [p402] value. Whatever the reason, it is certain that his partners abandoned Gutenberg and his invention. We read no more of Riffe and Heilmann in connection with typography.

There is evidence that Gutenberg was financially embarrassed after the trial. On the second day of January, 1441, Gutenberg and the knight Luthold von Ramstein gave security for the annual payment of five pounds to the Chapter of St. Thomas at Strasburg, in consideration of the present sum of one hundred pounds paid by the chapter to Gutenberg. On the fifteenth day of December, 1442, John Gutenberg and Martin Brether sold to the same corporation for the present sum of eighty pounds, an annual income of four pounds, from the revenues of the town of Mentz. Gutenberg had inherited this income from his uncle, Johan Lehheimer, secular judge of that city. The tax-book of the city shows that he was in arrear for taxes between the years 1436 and 1440. In the tax-book for 1443, it is plainly recorded that Gutenberg’s tax was paid by the Ennel Gutenbergen who is supposed to have been his wife. Gutenberg had reason to be disheartened. He had spent all his money; had alienated his partners; had apparently wasted a great deal of time in fruitless experiments; had damaged his reputation as a man of business, and seemed further from success than when he revealed his plans to his partners.

It is the common belief that Gutenberg went direct from Strasburg to Mentz. Winaricky, on the contrary, says that he forsook Strasburg for the University of Prague, at which institution he took the degree of bachelor of arts in 1445, and in which city he resided, until it was besieged, and he was obliged to leave, in 1448. There is no trustworthy authority for either statement. The period in his life between 1442 and 1448 is blank, but it is not probable that he was idle.

[p403]

XXI

Gutenberg and his Earlier Work at Mentz.

Gutenberg appears in Mentz as a Borrower of Money . . . Was then Ready to Begin as a Printer . . . Donatus of 1451 . . . Letters of Indulgence of 1454 and 1455 . . . Made from Founded Types . . . Circumstances attending their sale . . . Fac-simile of Holbein’s Satire . . . Fac-simile of the Letter dated 1454, with a Translation . . . Almanac of 1455 . . . Gutenberg’s two Bibles . . . Dates of Publication Uncertain . . . Bible of 36 lines, with Fac-simile . . . Evidences of its probable Priority . . . Apparently an Unsuccessful Book . . . John Fust, with Portrait . . . Fust’s Contract with Gutenberg in 1450 . . . Probable Beginning of the Bible of 42 lines . . . Description of Book, with Fac-simile . . . Colophon of the Illuminator . . . Must have been Printed before 1456 . . . Fust brings Suit against Gutenberg . . . Official Record of the Trial . . . Gutenberg’s Inability to pay his debt . . . Suit was a Surprise . . . Portrait of Gutenberg . . . Fust deposes Gutenberg and installs Schœffer at the head of the Office.

* * * * *

There is material in this event for an affecting drama: a genial inventor, indefatigably occupied in realizing an idea, an usurious and crafty money-lender, abusing the financial carelessness of a genius, to get him more and more into his power; a clever servant courting the daughter of the usurer, and conspiring with him against the great master; the inventor robbed of all the fruit of his exertions during many years, at the moment that it was ripe to be gathered.

_Van der Linde._

* * * * *

Gutenberg’s last act upon record in Strasburg was the selling out of the last remnant of his inheritance. The first evidence we have of his return to Mentz is an entry, on the sixth day of October, 1448, in a record of legal contracts, in which he appears as a borrower of money. It seems that Gutenberg had persuaded his kinsman, Arnold Gelthus, to borrow from Rynhard Brömser and John Rodenstein, the sum of 150 guilders, for the use of which Gutenberg promised to pay the yearly interest of 8-1/2 guilders. Gutenberg had no securities to offer; Gelthus had to pledge the rents of some houses for this purpose. How this money was to be used is not stated, but it may be presumed that Gutenberg needed it for the development of his grand invention. His plans, [p404] whatever they were, met with the approbation of his uncle John Gensfleisch, by whose permission he occupied the leased house[248] _Zum Jungen_, which he used not only for a dwelling, but as a printing office.

At this time Gutenberg was, no doubt, nearly perfect in his knowledge of the correct theory of type-founding, and had also acquired fair practice as a printer. Helbig thinks that he had ready the types of the _Bible of 36 lines_. Madden says that he was then, or very soon after, engaged in printing a small edition of this book. There is evidence that these types were in use at least as early as 1451. Two leaves of an early typographic edition of the _Donatus_, 27 lines to the page, printed on vellum from the types of the _Bible of 36 lines_, have been discovered near Mentz, in the original binding of an old account book of 1451.[249] In one word the letter i is reversed, a positive proof that it was printed from types, and not from blocks. The ink is still very black, but Fischer says that it will not resist water.[250] As this fragment shows the large types of the _Bible of 36 lines_ in their most primitive form, it authorizes the belief that it should have been printed by Gutenberg soon after his return to Mentz.

During the interval between 1440 and 1451, about which history records so little, Gutenberg may have printed many trifles. He could not have been always unsuccessful: he could not have borrowed money for more than ten years, without [p405] a demonstration of his ability to print and to sell printed work. It is probable that he had to postpone his grand plans, and that his necessities compelled him to begin the practice of his new art with the printing of trivial work. There is evidence that the branch of typography which is now known as job printing is as old as, if not older than, book printing. This evidence is furnished in the _Letters of Indulgence_, which have distinction as the first works with type-printed dates.

[From Fischer.]]

Three distinct editions of the _Letters of Indulgence_ are known. The copies are dated 1454 or 1455, but are more clearly defined by the number of the lines in each edition, as _Letters_ of _30_, or _31_, or _32 lines_. Each _Letter_ is printed from movable types, in black ink, upon one side of a stout piece of parchment, about nine inches high and thirteen inches wide. The form of words is substantially the same in all editions, and all copies present the same general typographical features, as if they were the work of the same printing office. In all copies, the presswork is good; they seem to have been printed by a properly constructed press on damp vellum with ink mixed in oil. The types [p406] of the three editions have a general resemblance,[251] yet they differ seriously as to face and body. They were certainly cast from different matrices and adjustments of the mould,[252] and were composed by different compositors. In the edition of _30 lines_, the types of the text are on a body smaller than English, and those of the large lines are on Paragon body; in the edition of _31 lines_ the types of the text are on English body, and those of the large lines approximate Double-pica body.

]

The types on Double-pica body are those of the _Donatus_ of 1451 and the _Bible of 36 lines_; the types on Paragon body are those of the _Bible of 42 lines_. The appearance of these types in the _Bibles_ is presumptive evidence that the printer of the _Bibles_ was the printer of the _Letters_. The small types are unique; they were never used, so far as we know, for any other work. The large initials may have been engraved on wood, but the text and the display lines were founded [p407] types. The illustration on the previous page shows that although the matrices were fitted with closeness, each type was founded on a square body.

The circumstances connected with the publication of the _Letters_ require more than a passing notice, for they present the first specific indication of a demand for printing. These circumstances give us a glimmer of the corruption of some of the men who sold the indulgences—a corruption which, in the next century, brought down upon the sellers and the system the scorn of Holbein and the wrath of Luther.

[From Woltmann.]

The canon at the right absolves the kneeling young man, but points significantly to the huge money-chest into which the widow puts her mite. Three Dominicans, seated at the table, are preparing and selling indulgences: one of them, holding back the letter, greedily counts the money as it is paid down; another pauses in his writing, to repulse the penitent but penniless cripple; another is leering at the woman whose letter he delays. The pope, enthroned in the nave, and surrounded by cardinals, is giving a commission for the sale of the letters.]

On the twelfth day of April, 1451, a plenary indulgence of three years was accorded by Pope Nicholas V to all who, from May 1, 1452, to May 1, 1455, should properly contribute with money to the aid of the alarmed king of Cyprus, then threatened by the Turks. Paul Zappe, an ambassador of the king of Cyprus, selected John de Castro as chief commissioner for the sale of the indulgences in Germany. Theodoric, archbishop of Mentz, gave him full permission to sell them, but [p408] held the commissioner accountable for the moneys collected. The precaution was justified. When the dreaded news of the capture of Constantinople (May 29, 1453) was received, John de Castro, thinking that Cyprus had also been taken, squandered the money he had collected. De Castro was arrested, convicted and sent to prison, but the scandal that had been created by the embezzlement greatly injured the sale of the indulgences. As the permission to sell indulgences expired by limitation on May 1, 1455, Zappe, the chief commissioner, made renewed and more vigorous efforts to promote the sale. It was found that, in the limited time allowed for sale, the customary process of copying was entirely too slow. There was, also, the liability that a hurried copyist would produce inexact copies; that an unscrupulous copyist or seller would issue spurious copies. These seem to have been the reasons that led Zappe to have the documents printed, which was accordingly done, with blank spaces for the insertion of the name of the buyer and the signature of the seller.

The typography of this _Letter of 31 lines_ is much better than that of the _Donatus_, but it has many blemishes. The text is deformed with abbreviations; the lines are not evenly spaced out; the capital letters of the text are rudely drawn and carelessly cut. The white space below the sixteenth line, and the space and the crookedness in the three lines at the foot, are evidences that the types were not securely fastened in the chase. These faults provoke notice, but it must be admitted that the types were fairly fitted and stand in decent line. They were obviously cast in moulds of metal; it would be impracticable to make types so small in moulds of sand.

[From De la Borde.]

_Translation_.

To all the faithful followers of Christ who may read this letter, Paul Zappe, counselor, ambassador, and administrator-general of his gracious majesty, the king of Cyprus, sends greeting:

Whereas the Most Holy Father in Christ, our Lord, Nicholas V, by divine grace, pope, mercifully compassionating the afflictions of the kingdom of Cyprus from those most treacherous enemies of the Cross of Christ, the Turks and Saracens, in an earnest exhortation, by the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, freely granted to all those faithful followers of Christ, wheresoever established, who, within three years from the first day of May, in the year of our Lord 1452, should piously contribute, according to their ability, more or less, as it should seem good to their own consciences, to the procurators, or their deputies, for the defense of the Catholic religion and the aforementioned kingdom,—that confessors, secular and regular, chosen by themselves, having heard their confessions for excesses, crimes, and faults, however great, even for those hitherto reserved exclusively for the apostolic see to remit, should be licensed to pronounce due absolution upon them, and enjoin salutary penance; and, also, that they might absolve those persons, if they should humbly beseech it, who, perchance might be suffering excommunication, suspension, and other sentences, censures, and ecclesiastical punishments, instituted by canon law, or promulgated by man,—salutary penance being required, or other satisfaction which might be enjoined by canon law, varying according to the nature of the offence; and, also, that they might be empowered by apostolic authority to grant to those who were truly penitent, and confessed their guilt, or if perchance, on account of the loss of speech, they could not confess, those who gave outward demonstrations of contrition—the fullest indulgence of all their sins, and a full remission, as well during life as in the hour of death—reparation being made by them if they should survive, or by their heirs if they should then die: And the penance required after the granting of the indulgence is this—that they should fast throughout a whole year on every Friday, or some other day of the week, the lawful hindrances to performance being prescribed by the regular usage of the Church, a vow or any other thing not standing in the way of it; and as for those prevented from so doing in the stated year, or any part of it, they should fast in the following year, or in any year they can; and if they should not be able conveniently to fulfill the required fast in any of the years, or any part of them, the confessor, for that purpose shall be at liberty to commute it for other acts of charity, which they should be equally bound to do: And all this, so that they presume not, which God forbid, to sin from the assurance of remission of this kind, for otherwise, that which is called concession, whereby they are admitted to full remission in the hour of death, and remission, which, as it is promised, leads them to sin with assurance, would be of no weight and validity: And whereas the devout _Judocus Ott von Apspach_, in order to obtain the promised indulgence, according to his ability hath piously contributed to the above-named laudable purpose, he is entitled to enjoy the benefit of indulgence, of this nature. In witness of the truth of the above concession, the seal ordained for this purpose is affixed. Given at _Mentz_ in the year of our Lord 1454, on the _last day of December_.

THE FULLEST FORM OF ABSOLUTION AND REMISSION DURING LIFE: May our Lord Jesus Christ bestow on thee his most holy and gracious mercy; may he absolve thee, both by his own authority and that of the blessed Peter and Paul, His apostles; and by the authority apostolic committed unto me, and conceded on thy behalf, I absolve thee from all thy sins repented for with contrition, confessed and forgotten, as also from all carnal sins, excesses, crimes and delinquencies ever so grievous, and whose cognizance is reserved to the Holy See, as well as from any ecclesiastical judgment, censure, and punishment, promulgated either by law or by man, if thou hast incurred any,—giving thee plenary indulgence and remission of all thy sins, inasmuch as in this matter the keys of the Holy Mother Church do avail. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

THE PLENARY FORM OF REMISSION AT THE POINT OF DEATH: May our Lord [as above]. I absolve thee from all thy sins, with contrition repented for, confessed and forgotten, restoring thee to the unity of the faithful, and the partaking of the sacraments of the Church, releasing thee from the torments of purgatory, which thou hast incurred, by giving thee plenary remission of all thy sins, inasmuch as in this matter the keys of the Mother Church do avail. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

_Joseph, abbot of the Monastery of Saint Burckard, Duly qualified to make this engagement._]

Eighteen copies of these _Letters of Indulgence_ are known, all bearing the printed date of 1454 or of 1455. The places where they were sold having been written on the document by the seller, we discover that they must have been sold over a large territory, for one was issued at Copenhagen, another at Nuremberg, and another at Cologne. The large number of copies preserved is evidence that many copies must have [p410] been printed. It is probable that Gutenberg was required to compose and print the form at three different times; but we do not know why he found it necessary to make a new face of text type for the second and third editions,[253] for it is very plain that the types of the first edition were not worn out.

_The Appeal of Christianity against the Turks_, sometimes called the _Almanac of 1455_, is another small work attributed to Gutenberg. It is a little quarto of six printed leaves, in German verse, in the large type of the _Bible of 36 lines_. As it contains a calendar for the year 1455, it is supposed that it was printed at the close of 1454. Its typographical appearance is curious: the type was large, the page was narrow, and the compositor run the lines together as in prose, marking the beginning of every verse with a capital, and its ending by a fanciful arrangement ·:· of four full points. It is the first typographic work in German, and the first work in that language which can be attributed to Gutenberg. But one copy of this book is known.