The Invention of Printing/Chapter 20

by Theodore De Vinne

XX

John Gutenberg at Strasburg.

Gutenberg's Place as an Inventor … His Birth at Mentz … Subsequent Residence in Strasburg. Early Suits at Law … His Probable Marriage … Is Sued by Claus Dritzehen … The Judge's Statement … Testimony of the Witnesses … Gutenberg the Chief of an Association … Engaged in a Secret Art … Notices of a Press and of a Mysterious Tool of Four Pieces … Notices of Forms that were Melted, and of Printing … Decision of the Judge … Gutenberg's Reputation for Knowledge of Curious Arts … Polishing Stones … Making Mirrors … The Secret Art was Printing with Founded Types … Secret was not in the Press … Illustration of Old Screw Press … Testimony of the Earlier Authors … Tool of Four Pieces was a Type-Mould … Fac-simile of Garamond's Mould … Fac-simile of an Early Donatus …. Gutenberg's Financial Embarrassments and Failure.

---

But whoever were the inventers of this Art, or, (as some Authors will have it,) Science, nay, Science of Sciences (say they), certain it is, that in all its Branches it can be deemed little less than a Science … For my part, I weighed it well in my thoughts, and I find … that a Typographers ought to be a man of Science. By a Typographer, I do not mean a Printer … I mean such a one, who by his own Judgment from solid reasoning with himself, can either perform, or direct others to perform, from the beginning to the end, all the Handy-works and all the Physical Operations relating to Typographie. Such a Scientifick man was doubtless he who was the first Inventer of Typographie.

Joseph Moxon, 1683.

---

Moxon did not overrate the rank of typography among the arts. It is a science, and, like all sciences, is the fruit of the knowledge which comes only by study. Like all sciences, it came in the fullness of time, when the world had been prepared for it, but it came only to him who had qualified himself for its handiworks from beginning to end. In the description of the work of John Gutenberg about to be related, imperfect as it must be by reason of our ignorance of his thoughts and plans, we shall clearly see that the invention of typography was not, as Junius would have us believe, the result of a happy thought or of a flash of inspiration. It was not born in a day. To use the sound language of an old chronicler, it was thought out and wrought out.

The work of Gutenberg will require a treatment different from that given to the work of Coster. It is not necessary to introduce the subject by a description of his books, by proof of his existence from writings made a century after his death, and, by a train of fine speculative reasoning, to show that he should have been the printer of the books ascribed to him by conjecture. Our knowledge of Gutenberg is incomplete, but it is positive as far as it goes. He did not put his name on any book, but he certainly printed many books; it does not appear that he ever boasted that he was the inventor of typography, but this honor was conceded to him by many printers soon after his death. His antagonists in courts of law, as well as the friends who put up tablets to his memory, have told us, as plainly as could be desired, that he was a master of many curious arts, and that he had made a broad and unmistakable mark on his time.

There is no record of the birth of Gutenberg,^[1] but it is the belief of his German biographers that he was born at Mentz about 1398 or 1399. His parents were, Frielo Gensfleisch and Else Gutenberg. Their two^[2] children were, John Gutenberg,^[3] named after his mother, and Frielo Gensfleisch. Frielo junior was always called Gensfleisch, but John, whose relation to the Gensfleisch family must have been well known, was sometimes described as John Gensfleisch, junior. A legal document of the city of Strasburg names him John, called Gensfleisch, alias Gutenberg, of Mentz.^[4]

The infancy and youth of Gutenberg were passed amid scenes of strife. In Mentz, as in many other cities of Germany, the burghers made persistent encroachments on the privileges of the noblemen, and met with as persistent resistance. The municipal disorder which followed their frequent collisions was seriously aggravated by the disputes of the rival archbishops who held office under rival popes. The burghers, as the larger body, claimed the larger share of the city offices, and the right to take the lead on occasions of ceremony and in the administration of affairs. In the year 1420, the burghers of Mentz made preparation for the entertainment of the Emperor, on the occasion of his visit to the city. Circumvented by the action of the noblemen, who greeted the Emperor first, the burghers retaliated by the destruction of the houses and goods of the more obnoxious nobles. In their rage, they demanded of them humiliating guarantees, and put them under restrictions so galling, that Frielo Gensfleisch and many others preferred to go in exile.^[5]

It is not known where the Gensfleisch family took refuge. It is supposed that Strasburg was the city selected, for this is the city in which we find the earliest notice of Gutenberg.

In 1430, the Elector Conrad iii granted a full amnesty to many of the exiled citizens of Mentz, and summoned them to return. Johan Gutenberg was specifically named in the proclamation, but he continued to dwell abroad. During this year, his mother Else, then a widow, negotiated, through her son, for her pension of fourteen guilders which had been allowed to her by the magistrates of Mentz. In 1432, he visited Mentz, probably on business relating to this pension. These are the only known records of his early manhood.

Nothing is known about his education. Some writers have represented him as an engraver on wood or a printer of cards or of block-books at an early age. It is possible that he may have received instruction in the arts of block-printing and engraving, and that he may have traveled far and wide in quest of greater knowledge,^[6] as was and is customary with German artisans; but we have no evidence on this point. It must be confessed that the first thirty years of his life are virtually blank.

The most important actions of his after life would have been obscured quite as thoroughly, if it had not been his fate to appear many times, either as complainant or defendant, before the courts of his country. It is from the records of these courts that we glean the story of his life. He first appears as complainant in a suit at law which shows his high spirit and audacity. The magistrates of Mentz had neglected or refused to pay to Gutenberg the sum of money which he claimed as his due. Gutenberg, waiting for his opportunity, caused to be arrested the clerk or recorder of the city of Mentz, who happened to be in Strasburg. This sudden arrest seems to have been a great annoyance to the magistrates of Strasburg, who feared that it would endanger the friendly relations of the two cities. At their request he consented to relax his hold on the unfortunate clerk.^[7] This is the first plain proof we have of his residence in Strasburg in 1434.

In the same year he formally authorized his mother to act for him in the adjustment of some business between him and his brother Frielo. This authorization, which is recorded in the city books of Mentz and of Frankfort, would imply that he was, or intended to be, absent.

In 1436 he appeared as defendant before the tribunal of Strasburg. Anne, called Zur Isernen Thur (Anne of the Iron Gate), sued Gutenberg for a breach of promise of marriage. The judgment of the court is not given. Most writers on the subject believe that the suit was withdrawn, and that the case was closed by marriage. After this suit, the name of Ennel Gutenberg, who, according to Schoepflin, is none other than this Anne, appears on the tax-roll of the city of Strasburg. It does not appear that Anne had any noticeable influence over his subsequent life; she did not follow him to Mentz; it is not certain that she was living in 1444.

In the year 1439, John Gutenberg again comes before the court, and again as defendant. The testimony brought out on this trial reveals Gutenberg to us as an experimenter and inventor. The official record^[8] is long, and full of matter that seems irrelevant, but it presents a curious picture of the time, which deserves study. This is the judged statement of the case, as delivered by him on the 12th day of December, 1439:

We,^[9] Cune Nope, master and counselor at Strasburg, hereby make known to all who shall see this writing, or shall hear the reading thereof, that George Dritzehen, our fellow-citizen, has appeared before us in proper person, and with a full power of attorney for his brother Claus Dritzehen, and has cited John Gensfleisch, of Mentz, called Gutenberg, our fellow-resident, and has deposed that the late Andrew Dritzehen, his brother, had inherited from his deceased father valuable effects, which he had used as security, and from which he had realized a considerable sum of money; that he had entered into copartnership with John Gutenberg and others, and [with them] had formed a company or association, and that he had paid over his money to Gutenberg [the chief] of this association; and that for a certain period of time they had carried on. and practised together their business, from which they had reaped a good profit; but that, in consequence of the speculations of the association, Andrew Dritzehen had made himself personally liable, in one way and another, for the lead and other materials which he had purchased, and which were necessary in this art, or trade, and which he [George] would also have been responsible for and would have paid; but inasmuch as in this interval Andrew had died, he [George] and his brother Claus had requested with importunity of John Gutenberg that he should receive them in the association in the place of their late brother, or else, that he should account to them for the money that he [Andrew] had put in the association; but that he [Gutenberg] was unwilling to comply with their request, alleging, as an excuse, that Andrew Dritzehen had not, as yet, paid his proper quota into the association. Now he, George Dritzehen, believed that he was abundantly able to prove that this agreement was just as he had represented: he had pleaded that Gutenberg should take him and his brother Claus in the association, in place of their late brother, for they were his lawful heirs, or that Gutenberg should return the money which their late brother had invested, or that he should at least give the reason why he would not accede to their demand. In answer, John Gutenberg had replied that the complaint of George Dritzehen seemed to him very unjust, inasmuch as he could sufficiently establish through many notes and writings (the nature of which George and his brother Claus could have learned after the death of Andrew Dritzehen), under what rules the association was formed. In truth, Andrew Dritzehen came to him many years ago, and had asked him to communicate and to teach to the said Andrew many secrets: it was for this reason, and to comply with his request, that he had taught him how to polish stones, from which art Andrew Dritzehen had derived a good profit. Afterward, after a long interval of time, he [Gutenberg] had made agreement with Hans Riffe, mayor of Litchtenau, to work up a secret for the fair at Aix-la-Chapelle, and they were associated together after this fashion: Gutenberg was to have two shares of the business, and Hans Riffe one share. This agreement came to the knowledge of Andrew Dritzehen, who begged Gutenberg to communicate and teach him this secret also, for which Andrew Dritzehen promised to be his debtor, on Gutenberg's own terms. In the meantime, the elder Anthony Heilmann had made the same request in favor of his brother Andrew Heilmann; whereupon he [Gutenberg] had considered these two applications, and he had promised, at their solicitation, to make known to them the secret, and also to give and grant to them the half of the profits, in this wise: that they two should have one share, Hans Riffe one share and he [Gutenberg] one share; but that, as a consideration, the two should give to him [Gutenberg] 160 guilders for the trouble that he would have in teaching them, and for the communication of the secret, and that they should, afterward, each give him 80 guilders additional. At the time when they were determining their agreement it was understood that the fair would be held that same year, but 'when they were all ready, and prepared to work out the secret [i. e. to manufacture the merchandise intended for the fair] the fair was postponed to the following year. Thereupon, they [Anthony and Andrew] had made request that Gutenberg would hide nothing from them which he knew or would discover of secrets and inventions, and they at once proposed to him to name his terms; and it was then agreed that they should add to the sum first named 250 guilders, making in all 410 guilders; and that they should at once pay 100 guilders in cash—of which sum, at that time, Andrew Heilmann paid 50, and Andrew Dritzehen paid 40—so that Andrew Dritzehen remained a debtor to the amount of 10 guilders. It was also understood that the two partners should pay the 75 guilders due and unpaid, at three different dates which were stipulated; but before the expiration of these dates Andrew Dritzehen had died, still in debt to Gutenberg. At the time when the agreement was made, it had been decided that the accomplishment of their secret [the duration of copartnership] should occupy five entire years: in the event of the death of any one of the four partners, during this five years, all the implements pertaining to the secret, and all the merchandise that had been manufactured, should be vested in the remaining partners, and that the heirs of the partner who had died should receive, at the end of five years, 100 guilders. Consequently, and because the contract, which is expressed in these very terms, and which contract was found at the house of Andrew Dritzehen, fully set forth all these stipulations, and those that preceded it, as he John Gutenberg hopes to prove by good witnesses, he demands that George Dritzehen and his brother Claus should deduct the 85 guilders which were still due to him from their late brother, from the 100 guilders, and then he would consent to return to them the 15 guilders, although he was still fairly entitled, according to the terms of the contract, to several years, before this money should be payable. As to the declaration made by George Dritzehen that the late Andrew Dritzehen, his brother, had taken much money by the pledge of his goods and of his inheritance from his father, he did not think it worth consideration, for he [Gutenberg] had not received from the goods or inheritance anything more than he had before first stated, except a half-omen of wine, a basket of pears, and a half-ruder of wine, which Andrew Dritzehen and Andrew Heilmann had given to him; that, moreover, the two men had consumed the equivalent of this and more besides at his house, for which they had never been asked to pay anything. Moreover, when he, George Dritzehen, demanded to be admitted in the partnership as an heir, he knew very well that this claim was no better founded than any other; and that Andrew Dritzehen had never been security for him, neither for lead, nor for any other matter, except on one occasion before Fritz von Seckingen; but he had, after his death, satisfied this obligation; and it is for the purpose of establishing the truth of these assertions that he demands that the depositions should be heard.

The depositions contain the most curious portions of the pleadings, for it will be noticed that Gutenberg and Dritzehen have not described the secret. Gutenberg did not wish to divulge it, and Dritzehen probably hoped to discover it in the evidence, which begins mysteriously and dramatically.

Barbel von Zabern, the mercer, testified that on a certain night she had talked with Andrew Dritzehen about various matters, and that she had said to him "But will you not stop work, so that you can get some sleep?" He replied to her, "It is necessary that I first finish this work." Then the witness said, "But, God help me, what a great sum of money you are spending! That has, at least, cost you 10 guilders." He answered, "You are a goose; you think this cost but 10 guilders. Look here! if you had the money which this has cost over and above 300 guilders, you would have enough for all your life; this has cost me at least 500 guilders. It is but a trifle to what I will have to expend. It is for this that I have mortgaged my goods and my inheritance." "But," continued the witness, "if this does not succeed, what will you do then?" He answered, " It is not possible that we can fail; before another year is over, we shall have recovered our capital, and shall be prosperous: that is, providing God does not intend to afflict us."

This dialogue puts two of the partners in a clear light: the domination of Gutenberg and the faith of Dritzehen are perfect. Unmoved by the cold distrust of shrewd Madame Zabern, Dritzehen persists in his work, trusting confidently in the genius of Gutenberg and the success of the process. "It is not possible that we can fail." In the testimony of the next witness we find the first clue to the secret.

Dame Ennel Dritzehen, the wife of Hans Schultheiss, dealer in wood, testified that Lorentz Beildeck [personal servant to Gutenberg] came on a certain day to her house, where Claus Dritzehen, her cousin, happened to be, and said to the latter, "Dear Claus Dritzehen, the late Andrew Dritzehen had four pieces lying in a press, and Gutenberg begs that you will take them away from the press, and that you will separate them, so that no one can see what it [the tool or implement made of four pieces] is, for he does not wish that anyone should see it." This witness also testified that when she was with Andrew Dritzehen, her cousin, she had assisted him night and day when he was on this work. She also said that she knew very well that Andrew Dritzehen, her cousin, had, during this period, mortgaged his capital; but as to how much of it he had devoted to this work, she knew nothing.

The nature or the purpose of this tool of four pieces lying in the press is not explained by any of the witnesses. It seems that Gutenberg feared that it would, when fitted together, be readily understood, and would reveal the secret. His inquietude about it is also set forth by Hans Schultheiss.

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. 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 12½ 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 bis house [John Gutenberg's], who had 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 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 than 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.

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 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 Dunne, 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,^[10] but, according to Schoepflin, Dünne's is the last testimony oh 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 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 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.^[11] 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 first to practise it.^[12] 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 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^[13] of that practice. It took up the art of printing at a point 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:^[14]

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^[15] 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."

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^[16] 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.

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 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.
A Medieval Press.
[From Duverger.] 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 he 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.^[17] Gutenberg may have begun his experiments in typography by the use of engraved types or punches of wood;^[18] 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.

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,^[19] 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.^[20] 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. 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.^[21] 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.^[22] 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.

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

Fac-simile of the Type-mould of Claude Garamond.
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 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.^[23] 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 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.^[24] 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 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.

Fac-simile of the Types of a Donatus attributed to Gutenberg at Strasburg.
[From Bernard.]

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.

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 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.

1. There is no known authentic autograph of Gutenberg. In his day the name was written by other persons, Guttemburg, Gudenburch, Goodenberger, Guthembergius, Gudenbergh, Kuttenberg, and in many other ways. The form of spelling used in this book is the one that is preferred by the German bibliographers, Gensfleisch, in German, is goose-flesh; Gutenberg is good hill.
2. Bodmann, a librarian at Mentz, said that he had discovered two old documents which set forth that Gutenberg had a brother, Conrad, and two sisters, Hebele and Bertha, Helbig says that these documents, as reprinted by Fischer, are spurious.
3. It seems that Else Gutenberg was the last surviving member of her family. According to a German custom prevailing at that time, a son was, under certain circumstances, permitted to take the name of his mother when it was feared that her family name might become extinct.
4. The name of the brother of Frielo Gensfleisch, senior, was John Gensfleisch, senior. He is the man improperly described by Meerman as the elder brother of John Gutenberg. The identity of his baptismal name with that of the inventor of printing has been the occasion of many mistakes. The uncle has been confounded with the nephew. The family was wealthy: it had, in or near Mentz, three houses or estates, known as Zum Gudenberg, Zum Jungen and Zum Gensfleisch. The members of the family were sometimes called Sulgeloch or Sorgenloch, from a property on which they resided outside of Mentz.
5. This is the version of chroniclers in the interest of the nobles. The childish dispute about precedence seems an insufficient cause for the quarrel. It was, probably, the occasion, but not the cause. It was the spark which set on fire the stifled resentment of the burghers against a long course of neglect and of misgovernment. The Gensfleisch families seem to have been always prominent in the civil disturbances of Mentz. Gutenberg's great-great grandfather took sides with one of the rival archbishops, and, in 1332, aided him in burning some convents, for which he was put under ban by the Emperor Louis. In the same year, he and other noblemen made themselves so offensive to the burghers that they were obliged to flee for their lives.
6. Charles Winaricky, a learned Bohemian, wrote a dissertation on the birthplace of Gutenberg—Jean Guttenbergy né en 1412 a Kuttenberg en Bohème, 12mo. Brussels, 1847—in which he tried to prove: that Gutenberg was born in the year 1412, in the town of Kuttenberg in Bohemia, from which town he derived his name ; that he was a graduate of the university of Prague; that he acquired his knowledge of metallurgy from the metal workers of that old mining town; and that his proficiency in many curious arts was the result of his Bohemian education. Winaricky's book abounds with curious information, but his reasoning is largely based on conjecture. It cannot be used to dis credit the positive dates and facts of many German records.
7. This is the form of complaint:

   "I, Johan Gensfleisch, the younger, also called Gutenberg, declare by this letter, that the worshipful sage burgomaster and the council of the town of Mentz owe me every year a certain interest, according to the contents of letters which contain, among other things, that, if they do not pay me, I am at liberty to seize and imprison them. As I have now to claim much rent in arrears from the said town, which they were hitherto not able to pay me, I caused M. Nicolaus, secretary of Mentz, to be seized, whereupon he promised me and swore to give me 310 valid Rguilders, to be paid at Oppenheim, before the following Whitsuntide. I acknowledge, by this letter, that the burgomaster and council of Strasburg have induced me to relieve of my own free will, in honor and love of them, the said M. Nicolaus from his imprisonment, and from the payment of the 310 guilders. Given on Sunday (12th of March), 1434."

   The ease with which Gutenberg relinquishes his monetary claim, and which at once shows him to be a better knight than financier, exhibits a trait of character which explains much in his later fate. Van der Linde, Haarlem Legend, p. 13.

8. For more than three hundred years this important document, with other records of the courts of Strasburg, rested unknown and undisturbed in the old tower Pfennigthurm, in which place it was discovered by Wenkler, the keeper of the records. He communicated this fact to Schoepflin, who, perceiving its value, made it the great feature of the Vindiciæ Typographicæ. The record is imperfect, for it does not contain all the testimony of all the witnesses. Whether this deficiency is due to the neglect of the recorder, or to the decay or mutilation of the record, has not been fully explained. Schoepflin, who says it is written in an almost obsolete German dialect hard to be understood, reprinted it in full, accompanied with a translation in Latin, which has been censured as inaccurate. Dr. Dibdin, and a few carping bibliographers, who looked with disfavor on all newly discovered documents which obliged them to revise their own theories, have tried to throw discredit on this record, but its authenticity is now recognized as beyond controversy, The records were placed in the Library of Strasburg for safety, but they were destroyed by the Prussians during the siege of that city in 1870.
9. Conventionally used for I.
10. The eighteen witnesses were Master Hirtz, Jacob Imerle, Midhart Honöwe, Heinrich Bisinger, Wilhelm von Schutter, the wife of Lorentz Beildick, M. Jerge Saltzmutter, Stösser Nese von Ehenheim, Martin Verwef, Henrich Seidenneger, M. Gosse Sturm, of Saint Arbogastus, Hans Ross, the goldsmith, and his wife, Andrew Heilmann, Claus Heilmann, Heinrich Olse, Hans Riffe and Johan Dritzehen. Their testimony is not on the record. It is unfortunate that we have lost the testimony of M. Gosse Sturm, of Saint Arbogastus, and Ross, the goldsmith. It is probable that these men, who had intimate relations with Gutenberg, could have described this secret art with greater clearness.
11. After the development of the towns, all members of the nobility did not seek their occupation exclusively in deeds of knighthood. Industry, art, and the refinement of town life gradually superseded the warlike spirit of the nobility, to whom the town offered distinguished dignities and situations, while enterprises of commerce and industry gave them distinction and riches. The privilege of coining money, especially, was often farmed out to an association of ancient families. At Mentz this association consisted of twelve families (Münzer-Hausgenossen), among whom was also the family of Gensfleisch. They possessed, moreover, the privileges of the valuation of coin, of the assize of weights and measures, or offices for the exchange of money and of the sale of gold and silver staves to the mint. Such employment brought them chiefly in connection with the goldsmiths, whose work consisted, at that time, of one of the most considerable trades, which comprised mechanics and chemistry, nay, the whole dominion of plastic and graphic art, in its application to metals, whether separate or in conjunction with diamonds and other precious materials. They were mostly patricians who established powder-mills, paper-mills and similar new manufactories. Van der Linde, Haarlem Legend, p. 17.
12. Glass mirrors, almost unknown in the fourteenth century, were regarded as novelties in the fifteenth. It seems that they were first made in Germany. Winaricky lays great stress on the fact that the Bohemians were the earliest and the most skillful workers in glass, and that they also excelled as lapidaries and metallurgists. He says, but without proof, that the art of polishing stones and making mirrors was acquired by Gutenberg in Bohemia. The learned Beckmann says that

    "Early German mirrors were made by pouring melted lead or tin over a glass plate while yet hot as it came from the furnace. In and around Nuremberg, convex mirrors were made by blowing with the pipe in the glass bubble while it was still hot a metallic mixture with a little salts of tartar When the bubble had been covered and cooled, it was cut in small round mirrors. These small convex mirrors were called ochsen-augen, or ox-eyes. They were set in a round board, and had a very broad border or margin. One of them in my possession is two and a half inches in diameter. … This art is an old German invention, for it is described by Porta and Ganzoni, who both lived in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and who both expressly say that the art was then common in Germany. Curious foreigners often attempted to learn it, and imagined that Germans kept it a secret."

13. The most common prejudice is the supposition, à priori, legitimated strictly scientifically by nothing, that printing with movable types was only an improvement on that with wooden blocks on which the letters were cut; that it was a development of it, an extension, a fortunate application, the highest step of the ladder, consisting of playing cards, images of saints, pictures with super, sub and other scriptions, texts without pictures. In short, xylography, in a technical, logical and reformatorical sense, would be the mother of typography. But it is such only in the sense of an external impulse, of an external push to meditating on quite another means than wood or metal engraving, or another mode of obtaining books. Zell finds that push in the block-Donatuses, but the inspiration of genius, the first invention of a quite independent art, of a totally new principle, which has nothing in common with wood and metal engraving, he ascribes … to Gutenberg. In Gutenberg's mind, the grand idea arose that all words, all writing, all language, all human thoughts, could be expressed by a small number, a score of different letters, arranged according to the requirements; that, with a large quantity of those different letters, united as one whole, a whole page of text could be printed at once, and, repeating this process continually, large manuscripts could be swiftly multiplied. … This thought, this idea, begot the invention of typography. … Every other explanation is at once unhistorical and unpsychological. Haarlem Legend, p. 11.
14. Wolf, Monumenta Typographica, vol. i, p. 586.
15. See page 315 of this book. The chronicler is in error in specifying Mentz as the place where the art was discovered, but the specification of the period between 1440 and 1450 as that in which "the art was being investigated" by John Gutenberg is sustained by other testimonies.
16. The pilgrimage to ancient Aix-la-Chapelle took place every seventh year, and, commencing on the 10th of July, lasted fourteen days, during which time the ordinary service in the church did not take place, but a free market was held. The concourse of people was uncommonly great on that occasion, so that, for instance in the year 1496, 142,000 pilgrims were counted in the town, and 80,000 guilders in the offering boxes on one day. Aix-la-Chapelle possessed relics of the first rank, as the swaddling-clothes of Christ, his body-cloth at the Crucifixion, the dress worn by Mary at his birth, and the cloth on which St. John the Baptist was beheaded. Van der Linde, Haarlem Legend, p. 18.
17. There is no evidence that Gutenberg had been taught xylography, or any of the many branches of book-making. He was not, for that reason, incompetent to invent an entirely new branch. The history of great inventions shows that many inventors never received a thorough technical instruction in the arts or trades which they undertook to reconstruct. Jacquard, inventor of the automatic loom, was, in his boyhood, a bookbinder and a type-founder. Arkwright, inventor of the spinning jenny, was a barber until he was thirty years of age. Stephenson, inventor of the locomotive, tended a steam boiler, but had not served time as a machinist nor as a carriage-builder. Fulton, inventor of the steamboat, was not a sailor, machinist nor ship-builder. Morse, inventor of the electric telegraph, was an artist, not a mechanician, nor even a man of science. Koning, inventor of the cylinder printing machine, was not a printer. The greatest inventions have been made by men not within, but without, the arts they improved. It would seem that a thorough technical education in any art or trade cramps the inventive faculties, disqualifying the expert from making any attempt at radical changes, permitting him to attempt improvement in the details only.
18. Some authors will not admit that Gutenberg derived any benefit from xylography. Bernard treats block-printing as an art so paltry, that he refused to describe the block-books, or to admit that xylography had any noticeable influence, direct or indirect, on the invention of types. Van der Linde says that history knows nothing of Gutenberg as a xylographer—that there is no documentary evidence that he ever cut or printed a block. These disclaimers—obviously provoked by the absurd statements of other authors that Gutenberg invented xylography, that he printed with types of wood, that typography is the natural outgrowth of xylography—cannot be accepted without qualification. The fact remains that Gutenberg, his associates and pupils, were benefited by the highest technical skill of that time in all the processes of engraving in relief, in the compounding of inks, in the construction and use of presses, and in the manipulation of paper. Compared with the invention of the type-mould, these may seem trivial matters, but the success of Gutenberg's new ideas about printing depended upon his attention to every process that promised aid. It is not probable that the man who hired joiners and goldsmiths could have neglected to avail himself of whatever skill the block-printers possessed. The experience in printing acquired by the block-printers was far from contemptible, but the educating influences they had exerted over the book-buying public were of great importance. It was Gutenberg's discernment of the fact that the block-printers had created a demand for printed work which could never be satisfied by the method of xylography, which gave him the impulse to seek for a more scientific method. Block-printing, although in no sense the mother of typography, was its forerunner, and for that reason alone demands respectful consideration.
19. This passage has been translated by Ottley: Gutenberg sent "to fetch all the forms that they might be loosened, and that he might see it [done], and that the joinings of some of the four pieces might be renewed." This translation makes the action of Gutenberg unintelligible. Bernard's translation is: "Gutenberg sent to get the forms, so that he could be sure that they had been separated; these forms had given him a great deal of solicitude." This is obviously a very free and evasive translation. Wetter, who interprets the passage as descriptive of block-printing, says that "the words are too obscure for us to infer anything definite from them. We are in no case to understand by the word formen separate letters, but whole blocks." This is an unwarrantable assumption, and in contradiction to the statement that the forms were melted. Van der Linde says that "the words are plain. Translators have stopped at the words zurlossen and ruwete. Zurlossen, or zerlassen, means melting, and ruwete is dialect for reuete, repented."
20. The commonest meaning of the word form, in most European languages, is a shape or figure prepared by carving; but it has also been applied, colloquially, to the mould made from this carved shape, and also to the article made from the mould. A type-founder's punch is the form of a letter; the mould in which the type is cast is the form or former of the letter; the types prepared for printing are also known as the form. On a future page it will be shown that the word formen as used in the trial, was also used at a later date to describe the most important tools in Gutenberg's printing office at Eltvill.
21. Here we may recall the surprise of Madame Zabern at the cost of the work. She would not have hazarded the low estimate of ten guilders, if Dritzehen had been surrounded by many types or printed sheets. The only tools appertaining to typography, which have a value out of all proportion to their apparent cost, are the punches, matrices and moulds, The modern inexpert would underrate the value of a similar collection as grossly as did Madame Zabern.
22. It could not have been four pages of metal types, for types disconnected and put in disorder, in or under the press, would have betrayed the secret almost as plainly as if they had been in order. Nor could it have been any attachment to a press like the frisket or tympan. It is impossible to name any jointed or buttoned tool of four pieces, connected with composition or presswork, which would suggest to an inexpert the secret of typography.
23. Bernard gives this form of type-mould a passing notice. He says:

    M. de Berny showed me one of these primitive mechanisms in his own foundry. This mould, which is still [1853] in use, is constructed with two kinds of knees [or squares] enabling the type-maker to adjust it in various ways so as to cast any body desired. De l'origine, etc. vol. i, p. 44, note.

24. The inability to produce any book printed by Gutenberg at Strasburg was the occasion of the following pithy answer: Koch had asserted before the Institute, that Strasburg was the cradle of printing. Schaab interrupted him, "Yes, but it is a cradle without a baby."