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
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]
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