Chapter XIV: Part 14

Gutenberg’s fame as a great printer is more justly based on his two editions in folio of the _Holy Bible_ in Latin. The breadth of his mind, and his faith in the comprehensiveness of his invention, are more fully set forth by his selection of a book of so formidable a nature. There was an admirable propriety in his determination that his new art should be fairly introduced to the reading world by the book known [p411] throughout Christendom as _The Book_. These two editions of the _Bible_ are most clearly defined by the specification of the number of lines to the page in the columns of each book: one is the _Bible of 42 lines_,[254] in types of Paragon body, usually bound in two volumes; the other is the _Bible of 36 lines_,[255] in types of Double-pica body, usually bound in three volumes.

It is not certainly known which was printed first. Each edition was published without printed date, and, like all other works by Gutenberg, without name or place of printer. They were not accurately described by any contemporary author. In the sixteenth century they were obsolete, and the tradition that they had been printed by Gutenberg was entirely lost. When a copy of the _Bible of 42_ lines was discovered in the library of Cardinal Mazarin, and was identified as the work of John Gutenberg, it was not known that there was another edition. The _Bible of 42 lines_ was consequently regarded as the first—as the book described by Zell, which, he says, was printed in 1450. This belief was strengthened by the subsequent discovery, in another copy of this edition, of the certificate of an illuminator that, in the year 1456, he had finished his task of illumination in the book. More than twenty copies of this edition (seven of which are on vellum) have been found, and they have generally been sold and bought as copies of the first edition.

The _Bible of 36 lines_ was definitely described for the first time by the bibliographer Schwartz, who, in 1728, discovered a copy in the library of a monastery near Mentz. In the old manuscript catalogue of this library was a note, stating that this book had been given to the monastery by John [p412] Gutenberg and his associates. Schwartz said that this must have been the first edition. A still more exact description of this edition was published by Schelhorn in 1760, under the title of _The Oldest Edition of the Latin Bible_. He said that this must have been the edition described by Zell.

The _Bible of 36 lines_ is a large demy folio of 1764 pages, made up, for the most part, in sections of ten leaves, and usually bound in three volumes. Each page has two columns of 36 lines each. In some sections, a leaf torn out, possibly on account of some error, has been replaced by the insertion of a single leaf or a half sheet. The workmanship of the first section is inferior: the indentation of paper by too hard pressure is very strongly marked; the pages are sadly out of register; on one page the margins and white space between the columns show the marks of a wooden chase and bearers, which were used to equalize impressions and prevent undue wear of types. This section has the appearance of experimental or unpractised workmanship. It is apparent, almost at a glance, that the printer did not use a proper chase and bearers, nor a frisket, nor points for making register.[256] All other sections were printed with the proper appliances, with uncommon neatness of presswork, in black ink, with exact register, and with a nicely graduated impression, which shows the sharp edges of the types with clearness.

[Photographed from a Fragment of the Original in the Collection of Mr. David Wolfe Bruce.]]

The types of this book closely resemble, in face and body, many letters being identically the same, the types of the display line in the _Letter of Indulgence of 31 lines_, and of the _Donatus of 1451_. In some features they resemble the types of the _Bible of 42 lines_. It is possible that the types of each edition were designed and made by the same letter cutter, and that they were made for and used by the same printer. This opinion is strengthened after an inspection of the mannerisms of the composition, which are those of the _Bible of 42 lines_. The colon, period, and hyphen are the only marks of punctuation. The lines of the text are always full: the hyphen [p414] is frequently seen projecting beyond the letters. A blank space was left for every large initial which, it was expected, would be inserted by the calligrapher. Red ink was not used by the printer; the rubricated letters were dabbed over with a stroke from the brush of the illuminator.

[From Duverger.]]

One copy of the book contains a written annotation dated 1461. An account book of the Abbey of Saint Michael of Bamberg, which begins with the date March 21, 1460, has in its original binding some of the waste leaves of this Bible. These, the earliest evidences of date, prove that this edition could not have been printed later than 1459. That it was done in 1450, as asserted by Madden, has not been decisively proved, but the evidence favoring this conclusion deserves consideration. Ulric Zell’s testimony that the first _Bible_ was printed in 1450 from missal-like types,[257] points with directness to the _Bible of 36 lines_, for there is no other printed Bible to which Zell’s description can be applied. Its close imitation of the large and generous style in which the choicer manuscripts of that period are written marks the period of transition between the old and the new style of book-making. The prodigality in the use of paper seems the work of a man who had not counted the cost, or who thought that he was obliged to disregard the expense. As not more than half a dozen copies are known, it is probable that the number printed was small. Nearly all the copies and leaves of this edition were found in the neighborhood of Bamberg. This curious circumstance may be explained by the supposition that the entire edition, probably small, had been printed at the order of, or [p415] had been mortgaged to, one of the many ecclesiastical bodies of that town. There is evidence that Gutenberg frequently borrowed money from wealthy monasteries. The imperfect workmanship of the first section is, apparently, the work of a printer in the beginning of his practice, when he had not discovered all the tools and implements which he afterward used with so much success.[258]

The _Bible of 36 lines_ should have been in press a long time, for it cannot be supposed that Gutenberg had the means to do this work with regularity. His office was destitute of composing sticks and rules, iron chases, galleys, and imposing stones. Deprived of these and other labor-saving tools, without the expertness acquired by practice, frequently delayed by the corrections of the reader, the failures of the type-founder and the errors of pressmen, it is not probable that the compositor perfected more than one page a day. He may have done less. Even if, as Madden supposes, two or more compositors were engaged on this, as they were upon other early work, the _Bible of 36 lines_ should have been in press about three years.[259]

The newness of the types seems to favor the opinion that this must be the earlier edition. The same types, or types cast from the same matrices, were frequently used in little books printed between the years 1451 and 1462, but they always appear with worn and blunted faces, as if they had [p416] been rounded under the long-continued pressure of a press, or had been founded in old and clogged matrices.

Gutenberg deceived himself as much as he did his Strasburg partners, in his over-sanguine estimate of the profits of printing and the difficulties connected with its practice. His printed work did not meet with the rapid sale he had anticipated, or the cost of doing the work was very much in excess of the price he received. The great success which Andrew Dritzehen hoped to have within one year, or in 1440, had not been attained in 1450. During this year Gutenberg comes before us again as the borrower of money. If he had been only an ordinary dreamer about great inventions, he would have abandoned an enterprise so hedged in with mechanical and financial difficulties. But he was an inventor in the full sense of the word, an inventor of means as well as of ends, as resolute in bending indifferent men as he was in fashioning obdurate metal. After spending, ineffectually, all the money he had acquired from his industry, from his partners, from his inheritance, from his friends,—still unable to forego his great project,—he went, as a last resort, to one of the professional money-lenders of Mentz. “Heaven or hell,” says Lacroix, “sent him the partner John Fust.”[260]

The character and services of John Fust have been put [p417] before us in strange lights. By some of the earlier writers he was most untruly represented as the inventor of typography, as the instructor, as well as the partner, of Gutenberg. By another class of authors he has been regarded as the patron and benefactor of Gutenberg, a man of public spirit, who had the wit to see the great value of Gutenberg’s new art, and the courage to unite his fortunes with those of the needy inventor. This latter view has been popular: to this day, Fust is thoroughly identified with all the honors of the invention. The unreasonableness of this pretension has sent other writers to the opposite extreme. During the present century, Fust has been frequently painted as a greedy and crafty speculator, who took a mean advantage of the needs of Gutenberg, and basely robbed him of the fruits of his invention.[261]

[From Maittaire.]]

It is possible that Gutenberg knew John Fust, the money-lender, through business relations with Fust’s brother, James, the goldsmith; for we have seen that, during his experiments in Strasburg, Gutenberg had work done by two goldsmiths. What projects Gutenberg unfolded to John Fust, and what allurements he set forth, are not known; but the wary money-lender would not have hazarded a guilder on Gutenberg’s invention, if he had not been convinced of its value and of Gutenberg’s ability. John Fust knew that there was some risk in the enterprise, for it is probable that he had heard of [p418] the losses of Dritzehen, Riffe and Heilmann. In making an alliance with the inventor, Fust neglected none of the precautions of a money-lender. He really added to them, insisting on terms through which he expected to receive all the advantages of a partnership without its liabilities.[262]

The terms were hard. But Gutenberg had the firmest faith in the success of his invention: in his view it was not only to be successful, but so enormously profitable that he could well afford to pay all the exactions of the money-lender. The object of the partnership is not explicitly stated, but it was, without doubt, the business of printing and publishing text books, and, more especially, the production of a grand edition of the _Bible_, the price of a fair manuscript copy of which, at that time, was five hundred guilders. The expense that would be made in printing a large edition of this work seemed trivial in comparison with the sum which Gutenberg dreamed would be readily paid for the new books. But the expected profit was not the only allurement. Gutenberg was, no doubt, completely dominated by the idea that necessity was laid on him—that he must demonstrate the utility and grandeur of his invention,—and this must be done whether the demonstration beggared or enriched him. After sixteen years of labor, almost if not entirely fruitless, he snatched at the partnership with Fust as the only means by which he could realize the great purpose of his life. The overruling power of the money-lender was shown in the [p419] begining of the partnership. Gutenberg had ready the types of the _Bible of 36 lines_, and had, perhaps, printed a few copies of the work—too few to supply the demand. Another edition could have been printed without delay, but it was decided that this new edition should be in a smaller type and in two volumes. It was intended that the cost of the new edition should be about one-third less than that of the _Bible of 36 lines_. Gutenberg was, consequently, obliged to cut a new face and found a new font of types, which, by the terms of the agreement, were to be mortgaged to Fust.

Fust did not assist Gutenberg as he should have done. Instead of paying the 800 guilders at once, as was implied in the agreement, he allowed two years to pass before this amount was fully paid. The equipment of the printing office with new types was sadly delayed. At the end of the two years, when Gutenberg was ready to print, he needed for the next year’s expenses, and for the paper and vellum for the entire edition, more than the 300 guilders allowed to him by the agreement of 1450. Fust, perceiving the need of Gutenberg, saw also his opportunity for a stroke in finance, which would assist him in the designs which he seems to have entertained from the beginning. He proposed a modification of the contract—to commute the annual payment of 300 guilders for the three successive years by the immediate payment of 800 guilders. As an offset to the loss Gutenberg would sustain by this departure from the contract, Fust proposed to remit his claim to interest on the 800 guilders that had been paid. Gutenberg, eager for the money, and credulous, assented to these modifications.

The delays and difficulties which Gutenberg encountered in the printing of this edition were great, but no part of the work was done hastily or unadvisedly. He may not have received practical education as a book-maker, but he had the rare good sense to accept instruction from those who had. The _Bible of 42 lines_ was obviously planned by an adept in all the book-making skill of his time. It was laid out in 66 [p420] sections, for the most part of 10 leaves each. To facilitate the division of the book in parts (so that it could be bound, if necessary for the convenience of the reader, in ten thin volumes), some of the sections have but 4, some 11, and some 12 leaves. The book proper, without the summary of contents, consists of 1282 printed pages, 2 columns to the page, and, for the most part, with 42 lines to the column.[263]

A wide margin was allowed for the ornamental borders, without which no book of that time was complete, and large spaces were also left in the text for the great initial letters. It was expected that the purchaser of the book would have the margins and spaces covered with the fanciful designs and bright colors of the illuminator. In some copies, this work of illumination was admirably done; in others it was badly done or entirely neglected. The rubrics were roughly made by dabbing a brush filled with red ink over a letter printed in black. On the pages of 40 lines, the summaries of chapters were printed in red ink; on other pages the summaries were written, sometimes in red and sometimes in black ink. [p421] It would seem that it was Gutenberg’s original intention to print all the summaries in red ink, and that he was obliged, for some unknown reason, to have them written in.

The general effect of the typography is that of excessive blackness,—an effect which seems to have been made of set purpose, for the designer of the types made but sparing use of hair lines. It may be that the avoidance of hair lines was caused by difficulties of type-founding. The type-founding was properly done: the types have solid faces and stand in line. The letters are not only black but condensed, and are so closely connected that they seem to have been spread by pressure. Double letters and abbreviations were freely used. Judged by modern standards, the types are ungraceful; the text letters are too dense and black, and the capitals are of rude form, obscure, and too small for the text. The presswork is unequal: on some vellum copies, the types are clearly and sharply printed; on other copies, they show muddily from excess of ink. On the paper copies, the ink is usually of a full black, but there are pages on paper and on vellum, in which, for lack of ink and impression,[264] the color is of a grimy gray-black. Van der Linde and others say that the ink will not resist water, but the ink on the fragments of vellum belonging to Mr. Bruce stood a severe test by water, without any weakening of color. The register on the paper copies is very good; on the vellum copies it is offensively irregular, a plain proof that the vellum had been dampened, and had shrunk or twisted before the second side was printed.

It has been said that this _Bible of 42 lines_ was printed with intent to cheat purchasers, so that it might be sold as a manuscript. There is a legend that Fust did attempt the cheat at Paris, but there is no good authority for the libel, which scarcely deserves examination. There were, no doubt, during the fifteenth century, many who could not perceive [p422] the dissimilarities between manuscript and printed books, but these men were not book-buyers. To the intelligent book-buyer, the features of dissimilarity were conspicuous.[265] It is not at all probable that Gutenberg entertained any thought of deception: he imitated his manuscript copy only because it was in an approved style of book-making.

Although the types of this _Bible_ are obsolete, there is something pleasing in their boldness and solidity to a reader who is wearied with the small trim letters, light lines and apparently paler ink of modern books. The effect of rugged strength is relieved by the flowing lines, vivid colors and complex ornamentation of the odd borders and initials which have been added by designer and illuminator. How much of the pleasure derived from an inspection of the work is due to the skill of the printer, and how much to the art of the illuminator, has not always been judicially weighed by those who represent the book as a specimen of perfect printing. It cannot be denied that the most attractive features of the book are those made, not by printing, but by illumination, but it is plain that the designs and ornamentation are not of a character appropriate to the text. They would not be allowed in any modern edition of the book.

[Photographed from a Fragment of the Original in the Collection of Mr. David Wolfe Bruce.]]

The workmanship of the printer in his own proper field is wonderful when we regard the circumstances under which it was done, but it would not satisfy the requirements of a modern publisher or book-buyer. It is of its own time, with the faults of that time, in manner and matter. The promise of legibility, which seems warranted by the bold and black types, is delusive. The ordinary Latin scholar cannot read the book, nor refer to any passage in it, with satisfaction. It is without title and paging figures. The blank spaces which indicate changes of subject, and give relief to the eye, were seized by the illuminator. Verse follows verse, and chapter follows chapter, and one line chases another with a [p424] grudging of white space and of true relief which is not atoned for by the dabs of red in the rubrics, nor by the profuse wealth of ornamentation in the centre column and margins. The composition is noticeably irregular: the lines are not always of uniform length. When a word was divided, the hyphen was allowed to project and give to the right side of the column a ragged appearance. When there were too many letters for the line, words were abbreviated. The measure was narrow, and it was only through the liberal use of abbreviations that the spacing of words could be regulated. The period, colon and hyphen were the only points of punctuation.

The manuscript taken for copy was not strictly accurate, and the errors of the scribe were repeated by the compositor. The liberties taken by scribe and compositor in the making of abbreviations, and in the spelling out of abbreviations, were a prolific source of error. It was quite as much on account of the frequency of these errors, as the obsoleteness of the types, that this famous edition was so soon laid aside and was so quickly forgotten. It was supplanted by the editions of the more scholarly printers of the sixteenth century, who collated a great many manuscript and printed copies before they prepared a new copy for the printer.

It is unfortunate that Gutenberg did not, as was customary with the book-makers of that time, put his name and the date of printing on the book. The omission was partially supplied by an illuminator who suffixed the following colophons or subscriptions to his copy of the book:

_First Volume._ Here endeth the First Part of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, which was illuminated, rubricated and bound by Henry Albech, or Cremer, on Saint Bartholomew’s Day (August 24), in the year of our Lord 1456. Thanks be to God. Hallelujah.

_Second Volume._ This Book was illuminated, bound and perfected by Henry Cremer, vicar of the Collegiate Church of Saint Stephen in Mentz, on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (August 15), in the year of our Lord 1456. Thanks be to God. Hallelujah.

As the second volume was illuminated nine days before the first volume, it may be supposed that, on this copy, the [p425] work of illumination was started on the sheets, as soon as they had been printed and before they were bound. It is possible that the last sheet was printed in 1456, but it is a more general belief that the work was completed in 1455.

There is no tradition about the number printed. At the close of the century, three hundred copies were regarded by printers of Italy as a proper number for an edition in folio. It is not probable that Gutenberg printed so large a number. Unbound copies were sold at different times and places, not long after publication, for various sums ranging from twelve guilders to sixty crowns.[266] It does not appear that the books provoked any enthusiasm: no chronicler of that time thought it worth while to give them even a passing mention. We have to suppose that they attracted no more attention than the books of a copyist. It appears, also, that the _Bible of 42 lines_, from a mercantile point of view, was a very unsuccessful enterprise. This is the evidence.

On the sixth day of November, 1455, Fust brought a suit for the recovery of the money advanced to Gutenberg. As Gutenberg was unable to pay the demand, we may suppose that the _Bible_ had not been completed, or, had not met with a ready sale. The suit of John Fust has been the occasion of discordant criticism. Dibdin fully justifies his action, and intimates that Gutenberg was really a trickster, who would have defrauded Fust if he had not resorted to summary proceedings. The defenders of Fust, who are few, have to admit that he here appears as a keen man of business, destitute of sentiment, and of ungenerous disposition. Sympathizers with Gutenberg denounce Fust as a cunning schemer, who had made the terms of the partnership rigorous with the secret determination to get possession of the invention through Gutenberg’s inability to keep his contract.

This is the record of the proceedings before the court: [p426]

INSTRUMENT of a certain day, when Fust produced an account and confirmed it by an oath. In the name of God. Amen. Be it known to all who shall see this public document or hear it read, that, in the year of our Lord 1455, on Thursday, the 6th of November, between eleven and twelve at noon, at Mentz, in the large dining-hall _(refectorium)_ of the convent of bare-footed friars, appeared before me, notary, and the witnesses to be mentioned hereafter, the honorable and prudent man Jacob Fust, citizen of Mentz, and has, in behalf of Johan Fust his brother, also present, shewn, said and exposed, that to the said Johan Fust on the one side and Johan Gutenberg on the other, should be administered the oath, according to judgment passed on both the parties, and for which this day and this hour had been fixed and the hall of the convent assigned. In order that the friars of the said convent, who were still assembled in the hall, should not be disturbed, the said Jacob Fust did ask through his messenger, whether Johan Gutenberg, or any one for him, were present in the convent, in order to finish the matter. At this message came into the said refectorium the reverend Heinrich Gunther, pastor of St. Christopher’s at Mentz, Heinrich Keffer, and Bertolf von Hanau, a servant of Johan Gutenberg, and when they had been asked by Johan Fust whether they had been authorized by Johan Gutenberg, they answered that they had been sent by Junker Johan Gutenberg to hear and see what should happen in this case. Thereupon Johan Fust begged leave to conform to the stipulations of the verdict, after he had waited for Johan Gutenberg till twelve o’clock, and was still waiting for him. He reads the sentence passed on the first article of his claim, from word to word, with its pretension and response, which runs as follows: First, that he, according to the written agreement, should lend Johan Gutenberg about 800 florins in gold, _with which he was to finish the work, and whether it would cost more or less was no matter to Fust_; and that Johan Gutenberg was to pay six per cent. interest for this money. He had indeed lent him these 800 guilders on a bond, but Gutenberg was not satisfied, but complained that he had not yet received the 800 guilders. For that reason, Fust, being desirous of doing him some service, lent him 800 guilders more than he was bound by his contract to do, for which 800 guilders Fust had to pay forty guilders as interest. And, although Gutenberg had bound himself by contract to pay six per cent. interest on the first 800 guilders, yet he had not done so for a single year, but Fust had to pay this interest himself to the amount of 250 guilders. For, at present, Gutenberg having never paid interest, and Fust having been obliged to borrow this interest from Christians and Jews, for which he had paid about thirty-six florins, his payments, together with the capital, [p427] amount to about 2,020 guilders, of which he demands reimbursement. Thereupon, Johan Gutenberg answered that Johan Fust had agreed to lend him 800 guilders, _with which money he was to arrange and make his tools_, and that these _tools_ should remain as security for Fust. But Fust had moreover agreed to give him every year 300 guilders for _expenses_, and to advance also _wages_, _house-rent_, VELLUM, PAPER, INK, etc. If, afterward, they did not agree, Gutenberg should then pay the 800 guilders back, and the tools should be free from mortgage; it should be understood, that with the 800 guilders he had to make the _machine_, which was to be a pledge. He hopes not [that any one shall pretend] that he was obliged to spend these 800 guilders _on the work of the books_ [_i. e._, on vellum, paper, etc.] And, although it is said in the contract that Gutenberg was to pay six per cent. interest, Fust had told him that he had no intention of accepting this interest from him. Moreover, he had not received the 800 guilders in full and at once according to agreement, as Fust had pretended in the first article of his claim; and as for the second 800 guilders, he is ready to give an account of them, but declines to give him interest or usury for them, and hopes that he is not bound by law to pay them. We pass, therefore, sentence according to pretension and response: When Johan Gutenberg has submitted an account of all receipts and disbursements spent _on the work to their common profit_ [_i. e._, printing], this work shall be added to the 800 guilders; if he has spent more than the 800 guilders, which did not belong to their common profit, he should pay it back; if Fust is able to prove, on oath or by witnesses, that he has borrowed the money on interest, and did not lend it out of his own resources, then Gutenberg is bound by contract to pay it.

Now, after this sentence had been read in presence of the aforesaid witnesses, Johan Fust has, with raised fingers, in the hands of me, public notary, taken the oath by all the saints, that everything was comprised according to truth and sentence, in an act which he placed in my hands. He confirmed it on oath, as truly as God and the saints may help him; and the contents of this document were as follows:

I, Johan Fust, have borrowed 1,550 guilders, which have been received by Johan Gutenberg, and spent on our common work, for which I have paid an annual interest, and still owe a part of it. Therefore, I count for every hundred guilders which I have borrowed in this way, six guilders per annum; and for the money spent on our common work, I demand the interest according to judgment passed.

The said Johan Fust demands from me, public notary, one or more public acts of this matter, as many and as often as he should want them; and all these matters recorded here, happened in the year, indiction, day, hour, papacy, month, and town aforesaid, in the [p428] presence of the honest men, Peter Grauss, Johan Kist, Johan Knoff, Johan Yseneck, Jacob Fust, citizens of Mentz; Peter Gernsheim and Johan Bone, clerks of the city and diocese of Mentz, asked and summoned as witnesses. And I, Ulrich Helmasperger, clerk of the diocese of Bamberg, by imperial authority, public clerk of the Holy See at Mentz, sworn notary, have been present at all the aforesaid transactions and articles with the witnesses mentioned. Therefore, being requested to do so, I have signed with my hand, and sealed with my common seal, this public act, written by another, as testimony and true record of all the aforesaid matters.[267]

ULRICUS HELMASPERGER, _Notary_.

The suit brought by Fust was, apparently, a surprise, for it cannot be supposed that Gutenberg would have been so completely unprepared to meet his obligation if he had not been led to believe that Fust would postpone the collection of his claim. The enforcement of this claim before the book was published, or at least before money had been derived from its sale—taken in connection with the facts that the delay in the publication of the book, and Gutenberg’s inability to pay his debt, were largely due to the delay of Fust in furnishing the money as he had promised—seems to warrant the charge that Fust meditated the despoilment of Gutenberg at the formation of the partnership. Gutenberg’s defense before the court was very feeble: it is that of a man who knew he had no hope of success. He did not appear in person, but trusted his case to his workmen. Fust was more adroit; he was voluble and positive, and his relative, Jacob Fust, was one of the judges. But the fates were against Gutenberg: the hard terms of the contract he had signed compelled an adverse decision.

[From Lacroix.]]

That Fust did Gutenberg a grievous wrong is very plain; that Gutenberg had managed the business of the partnership with economy and intelligence is not so clear. At no period of his life did the great inventor show any talent for financial administration. He was certainly deficient in many qualities that should be possessed by a man of business, and Fust may have thought that he was fully justified in placing his money [p429] interests in the hands of a more careful manager. This, a copy of the oldest engraving known of Gutenberg, presents him to us as a man of decided character, not to be cajoled or managed by a partner in business. The thin curving lip and pointed nose, the strongly marked lines on the forehead, the bold eyes and arrogant bearing of the head reveal to us a man of genius [p430] and of force, a man born to rule, impatient of restraint, and of inflexible resolution. We have but to look at the portrait of Fust to see that he, also, was accustomed to having his own way, and that he and Gutenberg were not at all adapted to each other as partners.

But Fust would not have broken with Gutenberg if he had not been prepared to put a competent successor in his place. In Peter Schœffer, a young man twenty-six years old, who had been employed in the printing office, Fust discerned an intelligent workman who gave promise of ability as a manager. Schœffer, who then hoped to win the hand of Fust’s daughter Christina, was, no doubt, more complaisant than the irascible Gutenberg. As he was afterward married to her, it may be thought that she approved his suit in its beginning, and that her influence with her father was used to its utmost in favor of the removal of Gutenberg and the advancement of Schœffer. It was fully understood by the three conspirators that Gutenberg could make no proper defense; it was determined that he should be expelled from his place in the partnership and that Schœffer should succeed him in the management of the printing office. When every thing had been arranged, Gutenberg was summoned to appear before the court.

The plot was successful in all points. Fust won the suit almost without a struggle: under the forms of law, he took possession of all the materials made by Gutenberg for the common profit, and removed them to his own house. With the types, presses and books went also many of the skilled workmen, and Peter Schœffer was at their head. From an equitable point of view, Fust was amply recompensed, He got the printing office that he coveted, and, with it, the right to use the newly discovered art of Gutenberg. It appears that he was content. There is no evidence that he afterward made any attempt to collect the claim which was, legally, unsatisfied even after the surrender of Gutenberg’s printing materials and the printed books.

[p431]

XXII

The Later Work of Gutenberg.

Establishes a New Printing Office . . . Calendar of 1457 . . . Not probable that the Bible of 36 lines was printed at this time . . . Gutenberg Embarrassed by Debts . . . Letter of Indulgence of 1461, with Fac-simile . . . Catholicon of 1460, with Fac-simile and Colophon . . . Indifference of Gutenberg to Fame . . . Pamphlets attributed to Gutenberg . . . Celebration of the Mass, with Fac-simile . . . Mirror of the Clergy, with Fac-simile . . . The War between the Rival Archbishops . . . The Siege and Sack of Mentz . . . Gutenberg’s Office removed to Eltvill . . . Gutenberg made a Gentleman of Adolph’s Court . . . End of Gutenberg’s Labors . . . His Death in 1468 . . . Disposition of his Types . . . His Services not fully Appreciated . . . True Nature of his Invention . . . His Merit acknowledged by Writers of his Time . . . Tablets of Gelthus and Wittig . . . Permanency of Gutenberg’s Invention.

* * * * *

Why should we talk about monuments of bronze or marble to commemorate the services of Gutenberg? His is a monument which, more frail than any other, will survive them all: it is the Book.

_Madden._

* * * * *

Gutenberg had been legally deprived of his printing office and of the exclusive right to his great invention, but he was not left friendless and utterly impoverished. Nor was his spirit broken by this great calamity. The reflection that Fust was owner of the materials made for printing the _Bible of 42 lines_, and was about to enjoy all the emoluments of the new art, aroused Gutenberg to rivalry. He was nearly sixty years of age, but he was vigorous in mind, if not in body, and evidently retained all his old power of persuasion. When he determined to found a new printing office, he found helpers: Conrad Humery, a physician, and also clerk of the town of Mentz, provided him with the means, and some of his old workmen came over to join his fortunes.

Gutenberg had some materials toward the equipment of a new office. Fust’s mortgage covered only the materials [p432] made with Fust’s money for the common profit; it did not cover the large types on Double-pica body, which were used upon the _Bible of 36 lines_, and other materials which might have been made in Strasburg. As these types were subsequently used in several little books which may be attributed to Gutenberg, we may conclude that he retained the punches and matrices in his own possession.

We have indirect evidence that the new printing office of Gutenberg was in operation at the close of the year 1456. With the types of Double-pica body he printed on one side of the paper, obviously made to be pasted on a wall, a broad-side, now known as the _Calendar of 1457_. Of this curious document, only the half of a copy has been found—a fragment which contains the festivals and notable days for six months. It is fairly printed in black ink on coarse paper.

It is the belief of several historians that Gutenberg, hot with anger at the bad faith of Fust, in wresting from him the honor of printing the first _Bible_, immediately undertook in his new office to publish a rival edition of the same book, or the edition herein described as the _Bible of 36 lines_. The annotation in one copy of the book of the year 1459, which is supposed to be the date of publication, accords with the conjecture that the book begun in 1456 could have been finished in three years. But there is no evidence that it was begun in 1456, while there are many indications that it was done or should have been done in 1450. Gutenberg had earned fame as a printer[268] in 1458, but no writer of that time has said that he was then at work on the _Bible of 36 lines_. [p433]

We have evidence, also, that he was embarrassed by his debts. After the year 1457 he was unable to pay the four pounds annually to the chapter of St. Thomas at Strasburg, as he had agreed to do in 1442. The chapter summoned him to appear before a court at Rottweil in Suabia, in 1461, but to no purpose, for he was unable to satisfy this debt. His printing materials were owned by Conrad Humery, and not liable to seizure. It is by no means clearly established that he was, even then, carrying on business in his own name. Helbig thinks it was the fear of legal proceedings, if he had made himself very conspicuous, that prevented him from putting his name on his books. This omission has made it difficult to specify the books and pamphlets which are supposed to have been printed by him about this time.

[From Bernard.]]

One of these works is _The Letter of Indulgence of 1461_, an indulgence granted by Pope Pius II to all who should contribute to the restoration of a church at Neuhausen. It is printed in a new face of type, which should have been made before 1460. The types of this indulgence resemble those of the _Letters of Indulgence_ of _30 lines_ and of _31 lines_, but they were cast from different matrices and in a different [p434] mould. They seem to be the production of an incompetent punch-cutter; the letters were rudely cut, the matrices were not properly fitted up, and the types do not line. The presswork, upon new types, is good.

In the same face of type, but upon a body a little larger, Gutenberg printed the _Catholicon[269] of 1460_, a great folio of 748 pages of double columns, with 66 lines to each column. In some copies of the _Catholicon_, the summary of contents is printed in red ink, and ornamented with an engraving which fills one side of the first page. The composition is as rude as that of the _Bibles_; the right side of each column is always ragged from careless spacing. The colophon annexed states that the book was printed at Mentz in 1460, but it does not give the name[270] of the printer. The silence of Gutenberg concerning his services is remarkable, all the more so, when this silence is contrasted with the silly chatterings of several printers during the last quarter of the fifteenth century,—of whom Peter Schœffer may be considered as the first, and Trechsel of Lyons the last,—each insisting that he, whatever others might have done before him, was the true perfecter of printing. There is no other instance in modern history, excepting possibly that of Shakespere, of a man who did so much and who said so little about it. This colophon is the only passage in this book, and, indeed, in any of his works, which can be attributed to Gutenberg: [p435]

By the assistance of the most High, at whose will the tongues of children become eloquent, and who often reveals to babes what He hides from the wise, this renowned book, the _Catholicon_, was printed and perfected in the year of Incarnation 1460, in the beloved city of Mentz (which belongs to the illustrious German nation, and which God has consented to prefer and to raise with such an exalted light of the mind and of free grace, above the other nations of the earth), not by means of pen, or pencil, or stencil plate, but by the admirable proportion, harmony and connection of the punches and matrices.[271] Wherefore to thee, Divine Father, Son and Holy Ghost, triune and only God, let praise and honor be given, and let those who never forget to praise [the Virgin] Mary, join also through this book in the universal anthem of the Church. God be praised. [p436]

[From Bernard.]]

The dignified and reverential language of this colophon, so unlike the vainglorious imprints of Fust and Schœffer and the commonplace subscriptions of Pfister, is almost enough of itself to show that the printer of the _Catholicon_ was John Gutenberg. That he should attribute the invention to the assistance and favor of the Almighty, might be expected from a man thoroughly imbued with religious sentiment, but why Gutenberg should, in this and in all other books, neglect to mention himself as the man through whom the invention was accomplished is an irregularity which cannot be explained. This neglect is strange, for Fust and Schœffer had boasted, in an imprint to the _Psalter of 1457_, of their skill as printers.

Five little pamphlets with texts in a new face of Round Gothic on English body, and with chapter headings in types resembling the text types of the _Bible of 42 lines_, have been attributed to Gutenberg. They are: _A Treatise on the Celebration of the Mass_,[272] a book of 30 leaves; _A Calendar_, or _An Almanac_ for 1460, in Latin, a quarto of 6 leaves; _The Mirror of the Clergy_, by Hermann of Saldis, “happily perfected and printed at Mentz,” a quarto of 16 leaves; _A Treatise on the Necessity of Councils_, etc., a quarto of 24 leaves; _A Dialogue between Cato, Hugo and Oliver about Ecclesiastical Liberty_, [p437] a quarto of 20 leaves.[273] It is possible, but not certain, that Gutenberg printed these books. _A Treatise on Reason and Conscience_,[274] by Matthew of Cracow, a small quarto of 22 leaves, and _A Summary of the Articles of Faith_, by Thomas Aquinas, a quarto of 12 leaves, printed in the types of the _Catholicon_, may be confidently accepted as the work of Gutenberg. But one copy or fragment of some of these works is known. Gutenberg may have printed many other works which have been destroyed and forgotten.[275]

[From Fischer.]]

The existing copies or fragments of pamphlets and books printed before 1462 are enough to prove that printing met [p438] with a qualified degree of appreciation. Gutenberg and Fust must have given employment to many presses and workmen: there was a demand for printed work of all kinds from almanacs to dictionaries, and the printers had reason to believe that they would be amply rewarded for their labor. Their hopes were destroyed by the sack of Mentz in 1462.

[From Bernard.]]

The city of Mentz then held the first place in the league of the free cities of the Rhine, but her prosperity[276] was declining. Unceasing civil strifes had driven away the more feeble part of her population. In 1461, it was the wreck of its earlier greatness: it had but 50,000 inhabitants and was burdened with debt. Diether, Count of Isenburg, was then archbishop and elector of the city, by the consent of the majority of the inhabitants; but the rival archbishop, Adolph II, Count of Nassau, supported by Pope Pius II, claimed the archbishopric, and made war upon Diether. The consequences of the war, which nearly ruined the city, are forcibly stated by Schaab. [p439]

This enmity between two archbishops was the cause of one of the most terrible days to the town of Mentz. It was the 28th of October, 1462, the day on which Christianity celebrated the anniversary of the apostles Simon and Judas. Mentz had remained faithful to the archbishop Diether. Adolph therefore tried to conquer it by stratagem and treason. Traitors were gained over in the town, who entailed upon a half thousand of their fellow-citizens death, and endless misery on many more. By the treachery of some wicked persons the town was assaulted during the night between the 27th and 28th of October, 1462, by the followers of Adolph; its noblest citizens were murdered, the most of them robbed of their possessions, and driven from the town. All kinds of mischief were committed toward those who remained behind. Neither age, rank, nor sex was exempted. The booty was sold publicly in the cattle-market, and the money divided between the soldiers.[277] Of the expelled citizens only a few gradually returned in secret to their relations. But the town, so populous before, remained empty, and all industry was destroyed. The elector Adolph II found it necessary, on the Saturday after St. Thomas’s day of the same year, to issue a proclamation whereby he promised to all who wished to trade or to exercise a profession in Mentz, protection for their persons and possessions, to induce a few to return. A town, a short time before flourishing with commerce and industry, had been robbed in a few days of its privileges and utterly destroyed.[278]

In the general sack of the city, the house of Fust was burned, and his printing materials were destroyed. During the three years that followed no books of value were printed in Mentz. We do not know how Gutenberg was affected: we find no authoritative statement that his printing office was destroyed; it is not even certain that his office was then in the city of Mentz. In the year 1466, the printing office which contained his types was in active operation at Eltvill, a village not far from the city. As this was the place where Gutenberg’s mother was born, and where she had an estate, it is probable that Gutenberg found some advantage in making it his residence, soon after his separation from Fust. Eltvill was also [p440] the place which Adolph II had selected for his residence before he made his attack on Diether. It may be presumed that Eltvill was the place where Adolph first knew of Gutenberg and his works.

In 1465, Adolph II made Gutenberg one of the gentlemen of his court for “agreeable and voluntary service rendered to us and our bishopric.” The nature of the service is not defined. Gutenberg was certainly not a soldier. His German biographers do not believe that, as diplomatist or politician, he had favored the cause of the destroyer of the liberties of his native city. Helbig thinks the words used are purely conventional, and that this distinction was conferred on Gutenberg because he was connected with the old nobility of the city. It is a more common and a more reasonable belief that Adolph recognized, to some extent, the utility of Gutenberg’s invention, and took this method to honor the inventor.

WE, Adolph, elected and confirmed archbishop of Mentz, acknowledge that we have considered the agreeable and voluntary service which our dear and faithful Johan Gutenberg has rendered to us and our bishopric, and have appointed and accepted him as our servant and courtier. Nor shall we remove him from our service as long as he lives; and in order that he may enjoy it the more, we will clothe him every year, when we clothe our ordinary suite (_unsern gemeinen hoffgesind_), always like our noblemen, and give him our court dress; also every year twenty mout of corn and two voer of wine for the use of his house, free of duty, as long as he lives, but on condition that he shall not sell it or give it away. Which has been promised us in good faith by Johan Gutenberg. Eltvill, Thursday after St. Antony, 1465.[279] [p441]

The man who had invented an art which promised to renew the literature of the world, who had printed two great _Bibles_, a _Latin Dictionary_, and many minor works relating to religion, had surely rendered service to the first ecclesiastical dignitary of Germany.

Here Gutenberg’s work ends. If not disqualified by the infirmities of age from the management of his printing office, his position as courtier must have compelled his attendance at the court of the archbishop. Possibly, the rules of the court required Gutenberg to withdraw from business. Whatever the reason, we see that the printing office at Eltvill passed into the hands of his relatives by marriage, the brothers Henry and Nicholas Bechtermüntz. It does not appear that these men had been formally instructed as printers in Mentz. As they acquired no rights of proprietorship in this office, as they were men of middle age, rich, of noble birth and of high civic position, it may be supposed that they took charge of the office to oblige Gutenberg and the archbishop, and, perhaps, from a pure love of the new art.

In the year 1467, this printing office at Eltvill produced a book now known as the _Vocabularium ex quo_, called so because these first words of the work serve to distinguish it from other vocabularies. It is an abbreviation of the _Catholicon_, and for that reason is described in the colophon as an _opusculum_, or a little work; but it is a heavy quarto of 330 pages. It is printed with the types of the _Catholicon_, and shows the same peculiarities of composition. The colophon says that “this little book was made, not by reed, nor pen, nor stencil plate, but by a certain new and subtile invention . . . by Henry Bechtermüntz, of blessed memory.[280] . . . Nicholas Bechtermüntz, and Wygand Spyess of Orthenburg.”[281]

Gutenberg could not have abandoned his printing office with much regret. He had abundantly demonstrated the [p442] utility of his invention and his own ability as a printer by the publication of two great books and many pamphlets. His art had been adopted in five German cities: it was then making its entry in Rome; it was eagerly sought for by the king of France. A future of unbounded popularity and usefulness was before it. The young men to whom Gutenberg had taught the practice of printing had so improved that they were his equals and superiors, and the old man of quite seventy years could not cope with these competitors. His ambition for pre-eminence in his own art, or for the wealth that should have been derived from its practice, if he ever had such aspirations, had to be given up. It was time that he should quit the stage.

Gutenberg did not long enjoy the leisure or the honors of a courtier. In February, 1468, he was dead. Nothing is known of the cause or the circumstances of his death, nor is there any mention of a surviving family. We have to conclude that John Gutenberg, the inventor of the greatest of modern arts, died, weighed down by debts, and unattended by wife or child. The disposition of his printing office is stated in the following document:[282]