Part 34

In this colophon, Schœffer claims superior skill as a letter-cutter. This pretension must be tested by his works. His first types, on English body, appeared in 1459, at least four years after Gutenberg’s expulsion from the partnership; his next types, on Great-primer body, appeared in 1462; his last types, a very bold-faced Round Gothic on English body, were first shown in 1462, and this new face is but a font of small letters fitted to the capitals of the English of 1459.[323] These are the only types made by Schœffer. If we compare them with the types of Gutenberg, it will be perceived that they are fewer in number and of inferior design and execution. It is absurd for Schœffer to claim even equal merit with Gutenberg either as letter-cutter or type-founder. Schœffer’s real merit is to be found in his eminence as a man of business. He was, no doubt, chosen as Gutenberg’s successor, for his presumed ability as a manager and a sharp financier. This presumption was warrantable. His subsequent management of the printing office shows that he was a thorough man of business—a born trader. He has not shown that he was a mechanic or an inventor. Like John Fust, he practised printing, not because he loved it for its own sake, but because he loved its excitement and its promised rewards. [p471]

Schœffer established agencies for the sale of his books in Lubec[324] and Frankfort,[325] and probably in other cities. He sold not only his own books, but those of other printers.[326] We have many evidences that he was unwearied in the prosecution of his business, which seems to have been attended with much risk of loss.[327] His prosperity was at its highest point in 1476, in which year he printed four large books. After 1480, his interest in the printing office began to decline. Between 1490 and 1502, but six books were issued from his office. It is worthy of note that his last book was the fourth edition of the _Psalter_, the book with which he began his typographical career.

During his later years, Schœffer was made a judge. His official duties prevented him from giving close attention to his printing office; but printing was neglected by him because it had almost ceased to be profitable. He had competitors, not only in Rome, Paris and Venice, but in all the larger cities of Germany, and even in Mentz and Strasburg—competitors who were more skillful as printers and more shrewd as publishers. They had perceived that the art of printing would be of little advantage to them, and of little service to the world, if its practice was confined to the servile imitation of manuscript books, or if it expected to derive a generous support exclusively from the rich, or from men of taste and men of letters. The younger printers saw that it was necessary that books [p472] should be made more cheaply, and in more convenient forms. With this end in view, they introduced the cheaper size of octavo, which was much handier than the unwieldy folio or quarto. The rubricated letters and lines were supplanted by initials and borders engraved on wood and printed with the types in black ink. The fashion of surrounding a text with notes, and of making notes and text in measures of different width and length on every page, was abandoned: the text was put at the top and the notes at the bottom. Signatures, catch-words, paging-figures, blank spaces between chapters, and the division of matter in paragraphs, were introduced. But the greatest innovation was in the letters themselves. When Nicholas Jenson introduced Roman types, and proved the superior legibility of light and simple lines, the popularity of the sombre Gothic in Southern Europe came to an end. The new fashions were adopted by many printers in Germany, but they were not approved by Schœffer, who resisted them till his death. In his judgment, the only model for a printed book was the Gothic manuscript copy, and he copied it as closely as he could, with all its imperfections.[328]

This curt review of the works and workmanship of Peter Schœffer should be enough to show that his reputation as the father of letter-founders, and the inventor of matrices and the type-mould, is entirely undeserved. His types show that he had no skill as a letter-cutter or mechanic. It is not possible that a man who has shown such feeble evidences of mechanical ability could have been the first inventor of the matrices and the type-mould. While Gutenberg and Fust were living, Schœffer never made the claim that he was the inventor, or even a co-inventor, of printing. But when they were buried, he claimed that he was superior to both, and that he was really the first to enter the sanctuary of the art. In 1468, he [p473] falsely said that although Gutenberg was the first inventor, he was the man who perfected the art. It seems that he must have told his friends many things about his pretended services which he was unwilling to print. In 1503, John Schœffer said in his first book that he was a descendant of the inventor of the almost divine art of printing. In 1509, he says in another book that his grandfather was the first inventor of printing. In 1515,[329] he printed this extraordinary statement:

The printing of this chronicle was completed in the year of our Lord 1515, in the vigil of the Virgin Margaret, in the noble and famous city of Mentz, where the art of printing was first developed, by John Schœffer, descendant of the honest man, John Fust, citizen of Mentz, and inventor of the before-mentioned art. It was in the year 1450, in the 13th indiction, under the reign of the very illustrious Roman Emperor Frederic III, the very reverend father in Christ, Lord Theodoric, grand cup-bearer of Erpach, prince elector, occupying the archiepiscopal chair in Mentz, that this John Fust began to devise, and finally invented, solely through his own genius, the art of printing. Aided by divine favor, in the year 1452, he had so far improved and developed his art, that he was able to print; in which work, however, he was indebted for many improvements to the ingenuity of Peter Schœffer of Gernszheim, his workman and his adopted son, to whom, in acknowledgment of his many services and his skill, he gave the hand of his daughter, Christina Fust. These two men, John Fust and Peter Schœffer, carefully retained to their own advantage the secrets of the art; and for this purpose, they demanded from their workmen and servants an oath that they should not in any way divulge the process. Notwithstanding this precaution, in the year 1462 the knowledge of the art was carried by their workmen to distant countries, and printing thereby secured a wide development. [p474]

The thorough dishonesty of this statement is abundantly proved by its suppression of the name and services of Gutenberg. It is also evident that the writer could not, or dared not, point out the improvements which he alleges were made by Schœffer. This deficiency was soon supplied by a more credulous writer. About 1514, Trithemius,[330] one of the most learned men of that century, wrote the following description of the invention, which he says he had from Peter Schœffer himself:

It was at this period (1450) in Mentz, a city of Germany on the Rhine, and not in Italy, as some people have falsely asserted, that this admirable, and till then unheard-of, art of printing books by the aid of types was planned and invented by John Gutenberg, a citizen of Mentz. When he had spent all his property in his search after this art, and was almost overwhelmed with difficulties, unable to find relief from any quarter, and meditating the abandonment of his project, Gutenberg was enabled by the counsel and by the money of John Fust, also a citizen of Mentz, to finish the work which he had begun.

They first printed, with engravings of letters on blocks of wood, arranged in proper order in the manner of ordinary manuscripts, the vocabulary then called the _Catholicon_; but with the letters on these blocks they were not able to print anything else, for the letters were not movable, but fixed and unalterable upon the blocks, as has been stated. To this invention succeeded another much more ingenious. They discovered a method of founding the forms of all the letters of the Latin alphabet, which they called matrices, from which [matrices] they again founded types, either in tin or in brass, strong enough for any pressure, which [types?] before this had been cut by hand. In right earnest, I was told, nearly thirty years ago, by Peter Schœffer of Gernszheim, citizen of Mentz, the son-in-law of the first inventor, that this art of printing had encountered, in its first essays, great difficulties. For, when they were printing the _Bible_, they were obliged to expend more than 4,000 florins before they had printed three sections [sixty pages]. But the Peter Schœffer already mentioned, at that time a workman, but afterward son-in-law, as has been said, of the first inventor, John Fust, a man skillful and ingenious, devised a more easy method of founding types, and thus gave the art its present perfection. And the three men kept secret among themselves, for a while, this method of printing, up to the time when their workmen were deprived of the work, without which they were unable to practise their trade, by whom it was divulged, first in Strasburg, and afterward in other cities. [p475]

There are many inaccuracies in this statement. Gutenberg and Fust are represented as foolishly squandering money in vain efforts to invent xylography, a method of printing then in common use in many cities of Germany, Italy and Holland. The _Catholicon_, which is mentioned as one of the productions of block-printing, was printed from metal types in 1460. In the beginning, Gutenberg is acknowledged as the inventor of printing, yet, a few lines further, we are told that Fust was the first inventor. And it seems that Gutenberg could do nothing with his invention until helped by the advice, as well as the money, of John Fust. After the improved invention,[331] Gutenberg and Fust fell in hopeless difficulties, having spent four thousand florins before they had completed sixty pages of the _Bible_. From these difficulties they were extricated by Peter Schœffer, “son-in-law of the first inventor,” who invented a more easy method of making types, and who gave the art its present perfection, and without whose aid the earlier inventions would have been of little value. The intention of the writer is plain: Gutenberg, Fust and Schœffer may be regarded as co-inventors, but Schœffer did the most effective service.

It is a curious fact that this paper, which has been so often quoted as evidence in favor of Schœffer’s invention of matrices, [p476] positively says that matrices had already been used by Fust and Gutenberg. Before Schœffer’s name is mentioned, it is said that “they” [Fust and Gutenberg] discovered a method of making matrices. Trithemius says that Schœffer’s contribution to the invention was “a more easy method of founding types, by which he gave the art its present perfection.” He does not explain this easy method. We do not know whether his claimed improvement was in the mould or matrix, in its construction or in its manipulation; but it was not origination or invention, it was improvement only. The passage which seems to say that the first types were cut by hand does not require much comment. Trithemius may have misunderstood, and incorrectly reported, what he heard, or Schœffer may have misrepresented the facts. It is evident that Trithemius is in error; for cut types, cut either as to body or as to face, never were, never could have been used. The most trustworthy evidences tell us that the earliest types were cast in a mould.[332]

If the word _formen_, which is found in the record of the trial of Strasburg, be construed as the same word must be construed in the colophon to the _Catholicon of 1460_, in the acknowledgment of Dr. Humery in 1468, and in the order of the King of France in 1458, then we have the most complete evidence that the matrices and the accompanying type-mould were used by Gutenberg long before he knew Schœffer.

It was not necessary that Trithemius should have told us that he derived this curious information from Peter Schœffer. In these perversions of truth we may see the vanity of the man who had already boasted that he was the first to enter the sanctuary of the art. The unreasonableness of his claim [p477] to the invention of matrices, or to the perfection of printing, may be inferred from the fact that, although he was a judge, a man of distinction, and a successful publisher for more than forty years, during the period when the value of printing was fully appreciated, he was never noticed in any way as a great benefactor. Neither the emperor nor elector gave him any distinction as the founder of a great art; no one put up a stone to his memory, honoring him as an inventor; no printer of that century regarded him as aught more than a thrifty publisher. His reputation has been created entirely by his own boasts and those of his family; and it is a most damaging circumstance that these boasts were not made until Gutenberg and Fust were dead, and that the statement written by Trithemius was not published until all the witnesses to the invention were dead, and there could be no contradiction.

There are many facts which show the falsity of Schœffer’s claim. Setting aside the evidences in favor of the probable priority of the types of the _Bible of 36 lines_, the record of the lawsuit between Gutenberg and Fust virtually tells us that the types of the _Bible of 42 lines_ had been made, perhaps in 1452, but not later than 1453. That these types were founded in matrices, were of neater cut, more exact as to body, and better founded than any afterward made by Schœffer, is apparent at a glance. They prove that the true method of type-making had already been found. If Schœffer invented the matrices from which these types were made, he should have perfected this invention in 1451. But Schœffer was a copyist at Paris in 1449, and it is not certain that he was with Gutenberg before 1453. Here we encounter an impossibility. It cannot be supposed that a young collegian, fresh from books, without experience in mechanics, could invent, off-hand, a complicated method of type-making, upon which Gutenberg had been working for many years.

There is still another version of this invention of matrices by Schœffer, the version of Jo. Frid. Faustus, which has been often paraded as conclusive testimony in Schœffer’s favor. [p478]

John Fust, of Mentz, was the first to perceive the losses suffered by scholars through the scarcity of books. He labored diligently to invent some new method of multiplying them, so that they could be furnished to readers at reduced and reasonable prices. High Heaven, kindly favoring his sincere prayers and his most laudable intention, revealed to this excellent man the most approved form and mainstay of his invention. In the beginning, he cut the letters of the alphabet for children, on a block of wood, in high relief. With much loss of time and labor, he waited for the invention of a more suitable ink; for writing ink blotted and made the printed letters unintelligible. He experimented with soot from a candle, with which he was able to print, but the impression would not adhere to the paper. At last he invented an ink which was black, adhesive and permanent. Then he began to print on a press and to publish little books for children, which everybody bought, for the price was trivial, and buyers praised the printer. Fust was stimulated to attempt larger work, and he thereupon printed the _Donatus_ in exactly the same manner. But the engraved pages of this book, cut out of the solid block, displayed many imperfect letters, and many copies were worthless. It then occurred to the inventor, at the right time, that he might print books with separate types, and that it was not at all necessary that the letters should always be cut on solid blocks. Whereupon he cut up the wood blocks, and saving all the types that had escaped injury, he made new combinations with them. This is the true origin of the composition of movable types. This new method of making types called for a great expenditure of time and labor; it delayed the work, hindered the development of the new art, and made many miserable difficulties for the inventor.

Fust had many workmen, who assisted him in making ink and types, and in other work. Among them was Peter Schœffer of Gernszheim, who, when he perceived the difficulties and delays of his master, was seized with an ardent desire to accomplish the success of the new art. Through the special inspiration of God, he discovered the secret by which types of the matrix, as they are called, could be cut, and types could be founded from them, which, for this purpose, could be composed in frequent combinations, and not be singly cut as they had been before. Schœffer secretly cut matrices of the alphabet, and showed types cast therefrom to his master, John Fust, who was so greatly pleased with them, and rejoiced so greatly, that he immediately promised to him his only daughter, and soon after he gave her to him in marriage. But even with this kind of type, great difficulty was experienced. The metal was soft and did not withstand pressure, until they invented an alloy which gave it proper strength. [p479] As they had happily succeeded in this undertaking, Fust and Schœffer bound their workmen by oath to conceal the process with the greatest secrecy; but they showed to friends, whenever it pleased them, the first experimental types of wood, which they tied up with a string and preserved. My uncle, Doctor John Fust, testified that he had seen, with the manuscripts which were bequeathed by the inventor, these experimental types of wood, and that he had held in his hands the first part of his edition of the _Donatus_.[333]

The unknown author further says that John Gutenberg was one of the friends to whom Fust and Schœffer showed the wood types; that Gutenberg, professing to admire their ingenuity, took a great interest in their enterprise, and lent Fust and Schœffer money, thereby entangling them in an agreement, from which they could not extricate themselves until Gutenberg had acquired a right to use the invention, by which use he wrongfully enjoys the honor of first inventor. Here we may stop. It would be a waste of time to expose, one by one, the falsehoods of a statement so flatly contradicted by many unimpeachable evidences. It is very clear that the writer had no new facts to tell us about the invention. He has told us not how it was made, but how he wished it had been made that it might redound to the honor of the Fusts.

What later writers have said about the value of Schœffer’s services need not be considered, for they also have produced no new facts: they have based their opinions entirely on the incorrect information of Faustus, Trithemius and Schœffer. We may pass, without further delay, to the examination of the claims made for other alleged inventors of printing.

[p480]

XXIV

Alleged Inventors of Printing.

Discovery of the Book of Four Stories, with Imprint of Albert Pfister . . . Its Types the same as those of the Bible of 36 lines . . . Pfister regarded as an Inventor of Printing . . . Description of Book of Four Stories . . . Its Colophon . . . Book of Fables . . . Colophon and Fac-simile . . . Other Books by Pfister . . . Pfister not a Type-founder . . . Probably an Engraver on Wood . . . Could not have Printed the Bible of 36 lines . . . Pfister probably got his Knowledge of Printing from Gutenberg . . . Paul of Prague’s Notice of Printing at Bamberg . . . Sebastian Pfister . . . Pamphilo Castaldi . . . Absurdity of the Legend . . . John Mentel and his Epitaph . . . Gebwiler’s Statement . . . Fac-simile of the Arms of the Typothetæ . . . Specklin’s Statement . . . Plain Falsifications of History . . . Known Facts about Mentel and his partner Henry Eggestein.

* * * * *

It is, perhaps, possible to show of all inventions that somewhere somebody must have been very near to it. To assert of any invention whatever, that it could or should have been invented long ago, is nothing but chicane: we are to prove, incontrovertibly, that it was really invented, or else be silent.

_Lessing._

* * * * *

Schelhorn’s opinion that the _Bible of 36 lines_ was the Bible described by Zell—the book printed by Gutenberg in 1450—did not meet with the approval of those who had copies of the _Bible of 42 lines_. Men who had paid very large prices for the copies of an edition supposed to be the first, were loth to have it degraded to the inferior place of a second edition. The testimony of Zell was unceremoniously set aside; the written date of 1460 in one copy of the _Bible of 36 lines_ was regarded as indicating the date of printing, and the book was declared the work of Gutenberg between 1455 and 1460. Another hypothesis was soon presented. In 1792, Steiner, a clergyman at Augsburg, announced the discovery of the _Book of Four Stories_ with the imprint of Albert [p481] Pfister, Bamberg, 1462. Soon after, Camus read before the National Institute at Paris, a critical description of the book, in which he proved the identity of its types with those of the _Bible of 36 lines_. Thereupon, incautious readers rushed to the hasty inference that, as Pfister had made use of the types of the _Bible of 36 lines_, the Bible must have been printed by Pfister. Critics of authority did not hesitate to say that Albert Pfister, a printer unknown for three centuries, and of whom there is no tradition, might have been an inventor of printing, the rival, and perhaps the predecessor and teacher, of John Gutenberg. As we know Pfister only through his books, it will be proper to examine their workmanship before this hypothesis can be considered. They are not numerous: sixteen books and pamphlets have been attributed to him, but his claim to eight has been disproved.[334]

The _Book of Four Stories_, a thin folio of 60 leaves—a version made for childish readers of the biblical descriptions of Joseph, Daniel, Esther and Judith—may be offered as the most characteristic specimen of Pfister’s style. The types of this book are those of the _Bible of 36 lines_, but they are much worn. If they were not the identical characters, they were cast in the mould and matrices that had been used for the types of the _Bible_, for the types of both books agree in face and in body. The _Book of Four Stories_ has fifty-five engravings on wood, six of which are repeated, each occupying the space of about eleven lines, or 2-3/4 inches, of the text. The engravings are coarse; they have no artistic merit, and are in every way inferior to those of the _Bible of the Poor_ or the _Speculum Salutis_; they abound in puerile absurdities, and seem to be the work of a maker of cards or images. The text of the book is in German rhyme, but the lines follow each other, without break, as in a text of prose. A capital [p482] letter indicates the beginning of each line of poetry, and a lozenge-shaped period denotes its ending. The presswork is decidedly inferior: the deeply indented paper shows that the printer could not regulate the pressure on the types; the muddiness of the letters comes from the use of a thin ink, and the faulty register from a shackly press. The colophon or subscription of this book, a translation of which is submitted, specifies the date, the place of printing and the printer: