The Invention of Printing.: A Collection of Facts and Opinions, Descriptive of Early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-Books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Lourens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem, and the Work of John Gutenberg and His AssociatesDe Vinne, Theodore Low
History
The Invention of Printing.: A Collection of Facts and Opinions, Descriptive of Early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-Books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Lourens Janszoon Coster, of Haarlem, and the Work of John Gutenberg and His Associates
De Vinne, Theodore Low
Incunabula -- Bibliography; Printing -- History -- Origin and antecedents
The evidence of the witnesses on the trial agrees with the testimony
afforded by the chronicles: it is plain that Gutenberg had not
perfected his invention in 1439. From his lonely room in the ruined
monastery of Saint Arbogastus, to which he retreated for the sake of
secrecy, Gutenberg gave work to Dünne, the goldsmith, to Saspach,
the joiner, and to Dritzehen, his old workman. It would seem that
they were not producing work for sale, but were making tools which
required a great deal of labor. Dritzehen worked night and day, Madame
Schultheiss helping him. At the death of Dritzehen, the work expended
on the art had cost a great deal of money, but it was still incomplete.
The testimony shows that it had been intended that the salable work
to be produced by the partnership should be exposed for sale at the
great fair of Aix-la-Chapelle in the summer of 1439. The postponement
of this fair[239] to the year 1440 was a grave disappointment. If the
object of the partnership was the making of popular books of devotion,
we can understand the reasonableness of the hopes of great profit
when the books should be laid before the pious pilgrims. The sudden
death of Andrew Dritzehen was the occasion of more delay. Gutenberg,
fearing that the public, or George Dritzehen, would get possession of
the secret, melted the forms and suspended the work. Then followed a
litigation which lasted nearly one year, during which period it seems
no work was done.
[Illustration: A Medieval Press.
[From Duverger.]]
There are many conflicting opinions about the character of the printing
so obscurely mentioned in the testimony of the witnesses. Schoepflin
says it was block-printing. In the four pieces lying in the press,
he sees four pages of engraved [p395] blocks; in the two buttons,
which Dr. Van der Linde says are improperly translated by him as two
screws, he finds a screw chase that held the four pages together.
This conjecture is in every way improbable. All the processes of
block-printing should have been as well known at that time in Strasburg
as they were in Venice, Augsburg and Nuremberg. Something more novel
than this form of printing would have been required to secure the
coöperation of shrewd men like Riffe and Heilmann. The enthusiasm of
Dritzehen, and the eagerness of all parties to learn the new art, and
to have a share in its profits, cannot be satisfactorily explained by
the conjecture that this art was simple block-printing.[240] [p396]
Gutenberg may have begun his experiments in typography by the use
of engraved types or punches of wood;[241] but he must have soon
discovered the defects and limitations of xylography and have reached
the unalterable conclusion that useful types could be made of metal
only.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account